who would you choose?

[woozie]

First time landlord, after a couple weeks on the market, agent has put forward 2 applicants.

Property is a small unit, fairly new/well appointed and in a good area with high rent. has floorboards/tiles only but small backyard.

One applicant is an early 30's professional, married, no kids with a highly paid job and very highly educated, also a landlord himself in another state. RE checked employment history, all excellent and rental history is good but is only from a friend he's staying with temporarily as he just moved from interstate.
Sounds almost perfect but... has a small dog...claims to be well trained and will keep it outdoors/in garage...appear to be very keen/honest. willing to pay extra bond/accept pet clause.

Second applicant is a younger couple with decent jobs but both are first time moving out of home, so no rental history.

Been thinking about it, still can't decide if i should risk the dog...

 

[Nemo30]

Definitely the man with the dog.

 

[The Fence]

What looks good or bad on paper is not always what turns out to be.

I'd be having further discussions with the newbies to renting. Gotta start somewhere...didnt you?

The 1st applicant has no rental history other than from a "friend"...yeah right...

Id be wondering when he is going to snatch it and get back into a PPOR and never rent again.

The others will reveal their true plans I feel.

But, that's just me.

 

[Peter_Tersteeg]

People with pets have a hard time getting houses for all of the reasons you're thinking of. They're also more inclined to take good care of the property as they don't want to risk a problem with the landlord and they'll probably stay longer as well. The fact that this person also owns property is likely to be a bonus.

 

[baby blue eyes]

Single man with pet

 

[Kinnon Bell]

Pets are often better behaved than humans.

 

[jim1964]

Second applicant is a younger couple with decent jobs but both are first time moving out of home, so no rental history.

I would be choosing this one,just a gut feel on your post.

 

[woozie]

LOL, this is not making the decision any easier...

I agree that pet owners can be good IF they're responsible, but a dog is still a dog, I have to assume it will come inside regularly and accidents happen, minor scratches to doors/fixtures are easily fixed, but scratches/pee stains to timber floor is will probably take a large chunk of the bond to fix. plus no insurance will cover pets. and of course there's the smell, not sure how bad will it be but it could affect future rentals.

The RE agent actually preferred this guy/pet over the other couple, I think he just came across as a genuine/honest person, well presented and came around to both opens and is willing to meet me personally to discuss the dog.

The young couple I'm still waiting on more details after the RE processes the application, other than no rental history they don't sound too bad after a brief chat with the RE, both have respectable jobs and even if there are problems, at least insurance will cover it.

 

[The Fence]

Only way to make this decision is to meet the applicants yourself, otherwise you have to live with the agents decision.

You are obviously concerned about having pets so it's a no brainer, go with the first timers and give them some rental history.

 

[dreamgirl]

I adore my little pooch, but for my IPs I'd much rather not have pets.

 

[donkey]

I guarantee that the guys fury friend will spend every night inside with him when he gets home from work. Ask what breed it is. Insist that the dogs claws are clipped back 6 monthly.

I would still go for the older professional guy and Ive had a lot of tenants in the past

 

[DaveM]

Before you approve anything, check that the strata bylaws allow pets. That may make the decision for you.

 

[D.T.]

Before you approve anything, check that the strata bylaws allow pets. That may make the decision for you.

Im curious what would happen if they were accepted and moved in, then one of the others in the strata complex complained about the pet being against the by laws.

Can they blame the landlord for allowing it? Does the tenant get to break their lease without cost? Or is it the tenants responsibility to have the pet babysat for the remainder of the lease?

 

[jenni_nextplace]

Yeah man and his dog.

 

[DaveM]

Im curious what would happen if they were accepted and moved in, then one of the others in the strata complex complained about the pet being against the by laws.

Can they blame the landlord for allowing it? Does the tenant get to break their lease without cost? Or is it the tenants responsibility to have the pet babysat for the remainder of the lease?

Not sure about other states, but in NSW it is the owners responsibility to ensure they understand and comply with bylaws and that tenants also abide by them. So in the event of a pet applicant, the owner needs to seek approval on behalf of the applicant prior to approving the tenancy.

If the the owner does not seek approval and the owners corporation enacts breach of bylaw proceedings, it is the owner who will receive the fine. If the CTTT enforces the breach and requires removal of the animal, then I believe they can set aside the lease.

 

[kathryn d]

I wouldn't take the man...because he is willing (supposedly) to keep the dog outside all the time.

Take the young couple.

 

[wobblysquare]

Choices !!

Sounds like both tenants can pay ok. I'd tend to go for the young couple - on the basis that they are likely to stay longer - just an opinon. Of course they may add a third (very young human tenant) to the lease who would be far more damaging to the property than a dog.

Reducing tenant turn over will also help your longer term cash flow. The single professonal sounds much more mobile/transient than the young couple looking to make there first home. Although you may want to ask how they are going saving for a deposit on their first home. To get a feel as to when they may try and purchase there own.

I am a landlord and a dog lover ( i have two). I let my tenants have pets (snake/goldfish/dog and hamster so far). But they must bug spray at end of lease. My properties however do not have wooden floors (tiles + carpets only)

My questions are
1) Can they afford to pay
2) who will stay longer (provided they pay and maintain well)

I agree with previous post - the dog will not stay outside. It will come inside and scrabble all over the wooden floors. Scratch at the doors etc. Who would own a dog and not allow it inside when you are home.

For my properties in the USA i can charge a pet bond. This helps eliminate some of the cost exposure. I think the most you can charge in Aust is 4 weeks, no matter what you call it.

In my opinion the young couple will do less damage and stay longer - party animals aside, and hence would be my pick.

 

[jatt]

I would go with the young couple as long as you do a thorough check. I myself gave an opportunity to a young couple, however the property was self managed so I knew it would be okay. The man with the dog seems like he would be okay aswell.

You should also think about the future, who is most likely to stay longer. I would think its the young couple!

 

[woozie]

thanks for the replies, opinion on dogs seems to be evenly divided.

RE forwarded me the details of the younger couple (well not that young really, 28/30). Both hold stable good jobs for the past 4-5 years. both with parents living not too far away, first time moving out of home, I thought the worst they could do is make a mess and break a few things, bond/insurance will easily cover professional cleaning/repairs. and no pets to deal with, so end up choosing them.

 

[DaveM]

Good to hear you got your decision made. Personally the couple would have been my choice too.