Vet Pleads For Landlords To Welcome Pets

[Blonde_Phoenix]

Brisbane vet Michael O'Donoghue has seen too many people have to give up, or put down, their pets because they could not find a rental property that welcomed animals.

"It's very heart-breaking, people euthanising their beloved pet because they can't find accommodation," he said.

The People and Pets veterinarian is pushing for more pet-friendly rental properties to be made available to encourage more families to adopt animals and stop the displacement of loved family members.

Advertisement: Story continues below According to the RSPCA, 30 per cent of pets surrendered to the organisation are from owners who cannot find adequate accommodation.

Mr O'Donoghue's effort to publicise the need for more pet-friendly rentals, and his ideas for homes to be built to be more welcoming to cats and dogs, have been praised by the celebrity vet Katrina Warren as part of a competition calling for ways to create a pet-friendly world.

His perspective is also shared by Tenants Union of Queensland coordinator Penny Carr, who said renters struggled to find properties that allowed pets and often had to settle for homes which were unsuitable in the short term while finding a new home.

"It's really difficult and I think it is really unfair especially for kids who are denied having a pet as a child because of these unreasonable restrictions," she said.

The Residential Tenancies Authority states a tenant can only keep pets on a premises if their tenancy agreement states pets are allowed.

It does not allow landlords to make pet owners pay a larger bond.

Property Owners Association of Queensland president Bruce McBryde said, apart from body corporates and real estate agents warning against landlords allowing pets, owners were also wary of the cost of damage to their properties and the difficulties in recouping those costs.

He said it was difficult to get tenants to take responsibility for damage caused by pets to rental properties since the RTA allowed for no extra protection for landlords.

"Ideally if you really want to make landlords more pet friendly you need to change the regulations to allow them to take a bigger bond," Mr McBryde said.

"At least then the landlord would have more incentive."

Mr McBryde also suggested routine treatment for carpeted homes.

"Perhaps in the legislation it could be mandated that if you have carpet you would need to have a flea treatment before you leave the property, similar to how tenants have the carpets shampooed," he said.

Mr O'Donoghue was supportive of the idea of mandating flea treatments when a pet owner leaves a carpeted property.

But he did not believe dogs and cats were more destructive than children or teenagers.

"Generally a normal bond should cover any sort of damage a pet could possibly do, it is only going to be a scratch on the wall or replace a bit of carpet," he said.

"But I find in my own personal experience that young children are more destructive to houses than pets are."

Ms Carr agreed.

"Tenants already have an obligation to restore the property to the same condition as it was when they got it except for fair wear and tear," she said.

"If tenants don't restore their property there can be a claim against their bond and sometimes there are orders over and above the bond for tenants to compensate."

Ms Carr said she would love to run a test case on whether pet owners had a right to house pets on their rental property.

"I think there is an argument in saying that not allowing pets is a breach of the right to 'quiet enjoyment of the property'," she said.

"You have a contract which says this is your home and you can't do anything illegal in that home, but other than that you have a right to peace and comfort and privacy in using that property."

RSPCA spokesman Michael Beatty said the organisation urged landlords to be a lot more sympathetic to people who want to have pets.

"If you look at it logically someone who is going to take good care of their animal is going to take good care of their property," he said.

Mr Beatty said the Companion Animal Council provided contracts for landlords and tenants to sign when entering an agreement to allow pets on to a property.

Vet pleads for landlords to welcome pets

[toy*dog]

hmm yeah i know of alot of people who just give up finding somewhere for their pet and just hide the dog in the new property. so really they are causing people to be dishonest anyway, much better to have a bond of some sort you have to pay incase the dog does some damage.

but sometimes kids can be more destructive than a dog! some landlords won't rent to people with kids!

[Caesars mum]

It funny when I was renting with kids and dogs, I got knocked back for several properties because I had children and lost at least 2 bonds from damage by the kids and never got knocked back for having pets or lost any bond due to them.

And I have raise 2 large breed puppies in rental propeties.

I dont think landlords should have the right to say who or what you have in the home as long as its legal.

Edited January 12, 2012 by Caesars mum

[**Super_Dogs**]

It funny when I was renting with kids and dogs, I got knocked back for several properties because I had children and lost at least 2 bonds from damage by the kids and never got knocked back for having pets or lost any bond due to them.

I always have wondered why if they don't allow dogs why they would allow children.

[pie]

WA now has a Pet lease that is signed, and you are required to pay a $260 pet bond. It's still hard to find pet friendly rentals here though.

http://www.rspcawa.asn.au/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1441

A new pet lease agreement has been launched to address the lack of pet-friendly rental accommodation in Western Australia.

The Real Estate Institute of Western Australia has joined forces with the RSPCA in a bid to help those with pets who may be seeking rental accommodation.

REIWA Property Manager’s Network, Michelle Aslander, said more people are keeping pets for companionship or security and this includes those people who rent.

“REIWA property managers are keen for their landowners to consider people with pets, and our new pet lease agreement should help with that outcome,” Ms Aslander said.

RSPCA WA spokesman Tim Mayne said the lack of pet friendly accommodation was the second biggest reason people surrendered their animals to the RSPCA.

“If we can find ways to give more reassurance to landowners so they are comfortable and confident about taking on pets, then we can greatly reduce the number of pets that are surrendered to the RSPCA, or abandoned to the streets,” Mr Mayne said.

Ms Aslander said that landowners were understandably concerned about possible damage, but can now require a $260 pet bond from tenants with pets and any further expenses caused by a pet must also be paid by the tenant.

“Once landowners understand that pet owners are totally responsible for their animals, they tend to will be more willing to accept people with pets. If damage occurs they won’t be out of pocket, especially if the tenant has signed this pet lease agreement.”

RSPCA spokesman Tim Mayne said that most pet owners were responsible guardians and greatly appreciated landlords who were understanding and supportive.

“This pet lease agreement is a great step forward and helps spell out the responsibilities for pet owners and will hopefully provide many more opportunities in the rental market for those people who really do take care of their animals,” he said.

If I had a rental property I wouldn't mind renting do someone with dogs, they have to repair any damage at the end anyway, no different to kids and you can't legally decline an application just because the people have kids.

[Maxiewolf]

"But I find in my own personal experience that young children are more destructive to houses than pets are."

Exactly, heck Its not like a landlord can even make a stipulation that teenagers or kids be kept outside in the backyard either >_> I really think that refusing tenants to have an animal should be viewed with the same type of discrimination that would be called out if you where to say "No Kids", there are many people who rent who either no longer have children, cant have children and their pets are what fills that void in their life, why should they be punished?

I don't think even in my childhood home where I lived for 18 years did ANY of our pets (dogs, cats, rabbits, birds, parrots etc. etc.) ever damage our house, yet I had one ex-boyfriend break a window, bend a shower-head AND put a hole in the ceiling all in one week.... :rolleyes:

And what about the amount of damage that drunken people do? Do they say no drinking in houses as well? Seen many a hole in a wall there, or no people with nasty tempers? Really why are PETS vilified so much with rentals anyway?

[Teebs]

What shuts me is the idiots who get dogs after thru move in knowing they can't have them

A few years ago people in my units got a husky puppy. Barked all night, they never bothered training it and they got kicked out. Dog ended at the pound.

2 days ago I heard barking allll night. Checked it out and another lot of people have s lab puppy, only a matter of time till they get kicked out

Feel so sorry for the dogs. And am terrified someone is going to think it is my dogs barking

[Boronia]

I was a landlord once, we had a big Queenslander we had restored, we rented it. The new tenants asked if they could have a dog, ok, we said, but just a small/medium one. They bought an adult GSD and within 3 months all the beautiful red cedar French doors that led onto the veranda were gouged out at the bottom from her scraping to get in, she even scraped marks on a glass door.

The skirting boards were chewed and scrapes on the polished floors.

These were nice clean people but had no respect for anyone else's property.

If I were ever to become a landlord again, yes I would rent to a tenant with a dog or two, but it would be a bomb-proof house and a very large dog-bond would be charged.

Edited January 12, 2012 by Boronia

[sandgrubber]

WA now has a Pet lease that is signed, and you are required to pay a $260 pet bond. It's still hard to find pet friendly rentals here though.

http://www.rspcawa.a...article&id=1441

If I had a rental property I wouldn't mind renting do someone with dogs, they have to repair any damage at the end anyway, no different to kids and you can't legally decline an application just because the people have kids.

A badly managed pet can do much more than $260 damage . . . could come to thousands. As a landlord who has regularly leased to pet owners, I'd say, unfortunately, there are many scum bag renters with pets out there. It's sad that this comes down hard on the responsible renters.

[pie]

I agree SG but you can also take the damage costs out of the rest of their full bond, and if that isn't enough, take them to court.

I think I'd be more willing to rent to someone who already has a dog, than someone who doesn't and then gets a puppy, at least you know the first person will have a good idea of dog behaviour etc

[Silvawilow]

I dont think landlords should have the right to say who or what you have in the home as long as its legal.

After working 3 jobs at once to save to afford my investment property I think I have every right to say what potential tennants have in MY home.

Personally I really like the idea of a pet bond but think it should be more in the vacinity of $1000-$2000 to cover potenital damages.

We had a tenant who fell behind in her rent by the time she was evicted (so that used up the bond)and discovered she had 2 large dogs (which being nice - never again) which we said were fine to stay so long as she repaired any damaged done by them. When she moved out the dogs had done almost $2500 worth of damage

I think if landlords are forced to accept tenants with animals then perhaps there may be a few less rental properties available.

[Blonde_Phoenix]

Having been both a tenant and a landlord in recent years I can tell you it really comes down to the tenants, you get crappy tenants with/without pets, children etc. As landlords we have always allowed pets and have had no issues specifically related to the animals just crap tenants who happend to have pets. Some tenant simple have no respect for the property they live in. I don’t know maybe they convince themselves that all landlords are incredibly wealthy and it doesn’t matter if they don’t pay rent, damage the property, leave with no notice and/or leave the house filthy. Maybe they should consider that perhaps their landlord is not sleeping on piles of money, rather they are working their butts off intrastate to establish their careers while paying a mortgage and overpriced rent (not a specific example I just mentioned it for arguments sake ;)).

It was interesting my partner and I were discussing this topic last night and he mentioned how in China it’s a negotiation process, you want to keep pets you pay more. While I don’t think that is the perfect answer at least as a pet owner you have options, in Queensland it has to be black and white the property allows pets or it doesn’t and as a landlord you can’t take extra bond. We did have a giggle about how much regulation we need to be free in this country.

Edited January 13, 2012 by Blonde_Phoenix

[sandgrubber]

I agree SG but you can also take the damage costs out of the rest of their full bond, and if that isn't enough, take them to court.

I think I'd be more willing to rent to someone who already has a dog, than someone who doesn't and then gets a puppy, at least you know the first person will have a good idea of dog behaviour etc

My tenant from hell was well behind in rent when she moved out. Between her and the dogs, the repair costs were in excess of $4k.. . .with $2k+ in back rent owed. Fortunately, she was a no-show in small claims court so I won by default . . . but getting her to pay up after the settlement was painful. I'd never been in court before and found the process unpleasant-to-traumatic. This was a kennel zone property, and the person owned 12 dogs. She fell for the wrong sort of boyfriend, and changed from reasonably responsible to totally out-of-control.

My other tenant from hell burned the house down. He was literally nuts, and ended up in Greylands as criminally insane. He locked his dog in when he set fire to the house and the dog was killed in the fire. The neighbour got third degree burns trying to rescue the dog. This tenant was chosen by a property manager.

I have also had several wonderful tenants who have dogs. But I'd say the population of people who are willing to take on a dog without owning their house has a disproportionate number of flakes. Tenant screening is not easy, as you are not allowed to ask many questions. I think the only decent solution is to ask questions that aren't allowed and demand references on the dog(s). Most property managers won't do this, so it means you need to take on property management yourself. Which means that if things go wrong, you're going to have to deal with courts or pay lawyer fees to have someone stand in or you.

For related reasons, as a breeder, I will not sell to renters unless they have landlord permission in writing and a record of stability.

It's sad it's this way. People who are on the edge often benefit greatly from having a dog. But if you have $300k or so vested in a house, it's a big risk to rent to marginal people with dogs.

[pie]

Wow, that's terrible!

Yes you're right PMs are limited in what they can ask because of discrimination rules, I've seen many a gleaming perfect-on-paper tenant turn into the tenant from hell, even with every check possible!

[raz]

I dont think landlords should have the right to say who or what you have in the home as long as its legal.

That's hilarious. The person paying the mortgage has every right to be given applications by the property manager and say No, No, No, No...this one looks good - young professional non smoking skippy couple with no children and no animals. Accept it.

The more demands that are placed on investment owners, the faster they'll ditch their investment properties and sink their money into something else. Then tenants will really have something to complain about.

Edited January 13, 2012 by raz

[WreckitWhippet]

I dont think landlords should have the right to say who or what you have in the home as long as its legal.

That's hilarious. The person paying the mortgage has every right to be given applications by the property manager and say No, No, No, No...this one looks good - young professional non smoking skippy couple with no children and no animals. Accept it.

The more demands that are placed on investment owners, the faster they'll ditch their investment properties and sink their money into something else. Then tenants will really have something to complain about.

It's just a tad rich isn;t it Rzzzle .

The whingers could always save their own money, purchase a home of their own and do what they like with it.

It's hard to decide if we should rent our place out at any stage or just put it on the market and be done with it, there's plenty of other areas to invest in, that come with far less problems than being a landlord with rental property.

[raz]

It's just a tad rich isn;t it Rzzzle .

Sure is, Pav. Even richer is tenants who wreck a property that belongs to someone else. A friend of mine had to spend thousands, THOUSANDS, repainting and recarpeting an entire house after a nice family moved out after only 12 months. She now will only ever rent to young professionals with no kids or pets. Her house, her right. As you said, if someone wants to whinge about it they can save up and buy their own bricks and mortar.

Edited January 13, 2012 by raz

[coogie]

I think part of the problem is if you have a bad experience as a landlord you quickly discover taking tenants from hell to court to recover costs just ends up costing you more,both financially and emotionally. Bonds are a joke, if the tenant decides to have a little rental holiday at the end of their lease by the time you can do anything the bond is owed in rent and there is nothing left to cover damage/cleaning/fumigation. There is very little help for landlords and the perception seems to be you have the money for an investment property so you can afford to suffer the bad tenants and the bills they leave behind.We have worked so hard to hang on to our investment that it makes my blood boil when I see comments like "just take them to court". It really isn't that simple.

I agree that kids can be just as destructive as dogs but usually kids don't crap all over the carpets and speaking from personal experience I would rather fix holes in the walls and doors than attempt to clean up rooms full of poo.

Property managers appear to be reluctant to list people on the register that exists for bad tenants, when I have pushed for this and questioned their reluctance I have been told "if you do that and they can't find another property you will have a terrible time getting your property back" So the problem is passed to the next person,the one time I insisted it be done the property manager said I had a lot to learn and took things too personally. She suggested I was too emotionally attached to the property and needed to learn to step back! She was not the one who subsequently spent thousands of dollars and three solid weeks of back breaking work to sort the property out. (She is also no longer the manager of the property).

It would be great to see a register of really good tenants along side the really bad ones, it could list whether they had pets,how they left the property etc - unfortunately no doubt privacy laws would prevent this.We try hard not to exclude anyone based on stereotypes - when my dad left my mum she was a single mum with four kids and dogs. We struggled a great deal financially but we always paid the rent on time and usually left the properties in better condition than when we arrived, it has been a massive shock to the system to be on the other side of the fence and see what happens when you are unlucky enough to get a bad tenant.

I have posted of our worst experience in the renting with dogs thread so won't bore everyone with it again, we still allow pets but I go over each application with a fine tooth comb and ask that the new property manager sees the animals the tenants list on the lease beforehand. Our current tenants seem lovely - so my faith is slowly being restored.

[Esky the husky]

Hey you guys that are landlords, does a pet resume sway you at all, from people who actually do stuff with their dogs?

[coogie]

Don't know about anyone else but I love seeing pet resumes,once had one "signed" by the dog by way of a pawprint. They had gone to a lot of trouble which did make me think they would make an effort with the property. They took a property a bit nearer the city in the end, but I would have been happy to rent them ours. They did agility mostly.