How To Find A Dog-friendly Rental In Melbourne ?

[IggyLover]

Im not judging you as a pet owner, Im saying if I was a landlord I would not allow rodents to be bred in my shed, and they are obviously not pets.

No no, they are not pets. I breed them as food supply for my reptiles.

[jaybeece]

You fail to see the positives from this and only dwell on the negative. Have you ever thought that when the agents come and inspect my property and see an immaculately clean and tidy property that also has well maintained gardens etc WITH PETS and think to themselves, oh, pets don't necessarily mean faeces on the floor and bad smells and dirty carpets. Their views on pet ownership in rentals is positive after inspecting my house.

That's not because you haven't told the real estate agent and landlord, it's because you're a good tenant. Correlation does not equal causation.

Upon inspections I have NEVER had issues with an agent. They are always intrigued by the reptiles, besotted with my dogs and pleasantly surprised at the cleanliness of the house. I have never been asked to leave, I have never paid rent late, I have never had any issues with and agent.

That's great, I'm genuinely pleased that so far you've had no dramas. Thing is that it won't necessarily always be that way and then what? You're given a month's notice to move out, the landlord thinks people who have animals are dishonest scumbags and you're at risk of having to rehome them all if you can't find somewhere to live in a hurry. Simply because you weren't up front about owning them.

I'm not attempting to have a go at you, just highlighting the clear flaw in your logic there.

So please, remind me how I make it difficult for others???

See above.

I always tell RE agents about my pets and I've never been turned down because of them. I also know I'm not going to worry about inspections or the landlord seeing a cat in the front window if they drive past. It's a much nicer way to live and I get the satisfaction of leaving the place in great condition despite owning pets that the landlord is fully aware of so in the future they're more likely to consider pet owners.

Edited March 18, 2013 by jaybeece

[megan_]

A landlord isn't allowed to kick you out because you have a pet. The tenants union in Vic has bought a number of cases to court and won. Of course they can just give you notice and say it is for some other reason though

[jaybeece]

Well, true, but they can try. It also wouldn't be a whole lot of fun having to fight it, the landlord could also choose not to renew the lease when it's up. You end up having to move one way or another if the landlord isn't happy with the pets. Far better for everyone to be happy with the arrangement from the start.

[LabsRock61a]

Success ! In fact, double success !

I wrote a letter explaining my story, and how I care for Clancy. I also included a number of photographs, pulled from my facebook page, that I thought showed what a good boy he is (from inside various stores like Apple, Prada, coffee shop and a fancy hotel we stayed at in LA). I also put in some photos of him at my home, which showed that it was clean and tidy and well looked after. This seemed to do the trick for the property in Kensington that I saw on Saturday, and I got the call this morning that I had been accepted !

I also saw another house in Ascot Vale last night, which although less cute than the Kensington house, was much better in terms of layout and noise. Plus, it's around the corner from huge playing fields that allow offleash dogs So I applied right away and included the letter with photos. And was accepted this afternoon

I've chosen the second one - it's only a few minutes longer to work, and I can move in right away.

Clancy will be released from quarantine on Good Friday; I am busting to see him and bring him home !

Thanks everyone !

[Sue & Waldo]

Success ! In fact, double success !

I wrote a letter explaining my story, and how I care for Clancy. I also included a number of photographs, pulled from my facebook page, that I thought showed what a good boy he is (from inside various stores like Apple, Prada, coffee shop and a fancy hotel we stayed at in LA). I also put in some photos of him at my home, which showed that it was clean and tidy and well looked after. This seemed to do the trick for the property in Kensington that I saw on Saturday, and I got the call this morning that I had been accepted !

I also saw another house in Ascot Vale last night, which although less cute than the Kensington house, was much better in terms of layout and noise. Plus, it's around the corner from huge playing fields that allow offleash dogs So I applied right away and included the letter with photos. And was accepted this afternoon

I've chosen the second one - it's only a few minutes longer to work, and I can move in right away.

Clancy will be released from quarantine on Good Friday; I am busting to see him and bring him home !

Thanks everyone !

Party time! Well done!

[The Spotted Devil]

Fantastic! Best. Easter. Ever :D

[mymatejack]

If pet owners want to have easy access to rental accomodation they need to lobby the govt to change the laws so that landlords have some chance at recovering the cost of damage done to their property. As it stands now, the bias is massively in favour of the tenant and landlords don't stand a chance in recovering what should be paid for by the tenant - pet or no pet.

[Sheridan]

If pet owners want to have easy access to rental accomodation they need to lobby the govt to change the laws so that landlords have some chance at recovering the cost of damage done to their property. As it stands now, the bias is massively in favour of the tenant and landlords don't stand a chance in recovering what should be paid for by the tenant - pet or no pet.

Why wouldn't damage to property already be covered in civil courts?

[Panto]

Success ! In fact, double success !

I wrote a letter explaining my story, and how I care for Clancy. I also included a number of photographs, pulled from my facebook page, that I thought showed what a good boy he is (from inside various stores like Apple, Prada, coffee shop and a fancy hotel we stayed at in LA). I also put in some photos of him at my home, which showed that it was clean and tidy and well looked after. This seemed to do the trick for the property in Kensington that I saw on Saturday, and I got the call this morning that I had been accepted !

I also saw another house in Ascot Vale last night, which although less cute than the Kensington house, was much better in terms of layout and noise. Plus, it's around the corner from huge playing fields that allow offleash dogs So I applied right away and included the letter with photos. And was accepted this afternoon

I've chosen the second one - it's only a few minutes longer to work, and I can move in right away.

Clancy will be released from quarantine on Good Friday; I am busting to see him and bring him home !

Thanks everyone !

Party time! Well done!

well done! perserverence and determination together with a smart and responsible approach... will be thinking of you come good friday, have a fantastic easter!!

[stari]

That is a fantastic outcome, and proof that you can get a good rental property without resorting to dishonesty. Well done

[Mudlark]

Hooray, that is excellent!

Having rented in the past with dogs I can sympathise about the extra effort required. Like many people here I used detailed pet CVs which I think really made the difference as I never had to look for very long. Sounds like you put together a great package of information about your dog and it has paid off - well done!

I hope that you and your lovely doggie really enjoy all that Melbourne has to offer :)

[mymatejack]

If pet owners want to have easy access to rental accomodation they need to lobby the govt to change the laws so that landlords have some chance at recovering the cost of damage done to their property. As it stands now, the bias is massively in favour of the tenant and landlords don't stand a chance in recovering what should be paid for by the tenant - pet or no pet.

Why wouldn't damage to property already be covered in civil courts?

To start with it costs the landlord the VCAT(or other state equivalent) fee which as I understand it is not recoverable from the tenant.

As an example, you own a property that had new carpet put in 10 years ago, a tenants dog has urinated all over it and cleaning it didn't get rid of the smell. You pay the $250(or whatever it is) to take the tenant to VCAT. VCAT will look at the carpet as having close to zero value due to depreciation and you'll be lucky to get your $250 back, let alone what it will cost to replace the carpet.

[Alyra]

Great news that you've found a place :) :)

[Aetherglow]

If pet owners want to have easy access to rental accomodation they need to lobby the govt to change the laws so that landlords have some chance at recovering the cost of damage done to their property. As it stands now, the bias is massively in favour of the tenant and landlords don't stand a chance in recovering what should be paid for by the tenant - pet or no pet.

Why wouldn't damage to property already be covered in civil courts?

To start with it costs the landlord the VCAT(or other state equivalent) fee which as I understand it is not recoverable from the tenant.

As an example, you own a property that had new carpet put in 10 years ago, a tenants dog has urinated all over it and cleaning it didn't get rid of the smell. You pay the $250(or whatever it is) to take the tenant to VCAT. VCAT will look at the carpet as having close to zero value due to depreciation and you'll be lucky to get your $250 back, let alone what it will cost to replace the carpet.

If you're that concerned about having someone else pay replacement costs for ten year old carpet I wouldn't want you as a landlord. Ten year old carpet is going to have any manner of stains and wear and likely be close to needing replacement, even if a dog hadn't peed on it, and that'd be your responsibility as the owner to replace in order to provide decent fittings. If you somehow managed to get a tenant to pay for the entire replacement cost that'd be a bonus to you, not a fair and reasonable outcome. I'm by no means saying a tenant shouldn't be responsible for rectifying any damage caused by their pets, in the same way as they ought to be responsible for any other damage, but there's fair and reasonable responsibility and there's over the top. Surely you have a more reasonable example than that?

Edited for spelling.

Edited March 21, 2013 by LappieHappy

[Aetherglow]

Congratulations on finding a place Labsrock - the timing is great, you'll be all nicely settled in when your dog is ready to come home!

[mymatejack]

If pet owners want to have easy access to rental accomodation they need to lobby the govt to change the laws so that landlords have some chance at recovering the cost of damage done to their property. As it stands now, the bias is massively in favour of the tenant and landlords don't stand a chance in recovering what should be paid for by the tenant - pet or no pet.

Why wouldn't damage to property already be covered in civil courts?

To start with it costs the landlord the VCAT(or other state equivalent) fee which as I understand it is not recoverable from the tenant.

As an example, you own a property that had new carpet put in 10 years ago, a tenants dog has urinated all over it and cleaning it didn't get rid of the smell. You pay the $250(or whatever it is) to take the tenant to VCAT. VCAT will look at the carpet as having close to zero value due to depreciation and you'll be lucky to get your $250 back, let alone what it will cost to replace the carpet.

If you're that concerned about having someone else pay replacement costs for ten year old carpet I wouldn't want you as a landlord. Ten year old carpet is going to have any manner of stains and wear and likely be close to needing replacement, even if a dog hadn't peed on it, and that'd be your responsibility as the owner to replace in order to provide decent fittings. If you somehow managed to get a tenant to pay for the entire replacement cost that'd be a bonus to you, not a fair and reasonable outcome. I'm by no means saying a tenant shouldn't be responsible for rectifying any damage caused by their pets, in the same way as they ought to be responsible for any other damage, but there's fair and reasonable responsibility and there's over the top. Surely you have a more reasonable example than that?

Edited for spelling.

Firstly, carpet will last significantly longer than 10 years if looked after. If you think that carpet should be allowed to be stained by tenants then i wouldn't want you as a tenant! Stains should be fixed by tenants along the way. Maybe you should buy a property and rent it out and see how you feel when you're left with a great mess and thousands of dollars damage that you can't recover. It's attitudes like yours that will mean that is always going to be difficult to find a rental property that will accept pets.

I had a kitchen bench top burnt through the tenants negligence. I was lucky and bluffed them into paying for a new one. I was advised by my property manager that if I had to go to VCAT I stood no chance of recovering anything. This was a perfectly serviceable benchtop with no prior need for replacement, IMO they should be paying replacement cost for whatever they damage, unless there is already pre-existing damage or excessive wear and tear. In the same conversation I was told how another client of hers had taken a tenant to VCAT to recover the cost of holes in the walls. They received next to nothing because VCAT said the depreciated value of the walls was negligable. Do you think all walls should be replaced every 10 years also?

[Aetherglow]

If pet owners want to have easy access to rental accomodation they need to lobby the govt to change the laws so that landlords have some chance at recovering the cost of damage done to their property. As it stands now, the bias is massively in favour of the tenant and landlords don't stand a chance in recovering what should be paid for by the tenant - pet or no pet.

Why wouldn't damage to property already be covered in civil courts?

To start with it costs the landlord the VCAT(or other state equivalent) fee which as I understand it is not recoverable from the tenant.

As an example, you own a property that had new carpet put in 10 years ago, a tenants dog has urinated all over it and cleaning it didn't get rid of the smell. You pay the $250(or whatever it is) to take the tenant to VCAT. VCAT will look at the carpet as having close to zero value due to depreciation and you'll be lucky to get your $250 back, let alone what it will cost to replace the carpet.

If you're that concerned about having someone else pay replacement costs for ten year old carpet I wouldn't want you as a landlord. Ten year old carpet is going to have any manner of stains and wear and likely be close to needing replacement, even if a dog hadn't peed on it, and that'd be your responsibility as the owner to replace in order to provide decent fittings. If you somehow managed to get a tenant to pay for the entire replacement cost that'd be a bonus to you, not a fair and reasonable outcome. I'm by no means saying a tenant shouldn't be responsible for rectifying any damage caused by their pets, in the same way as they ought to be responsible for any other damage, but there's fair and reasonable responsibility and there's over the top. Surely you have a more reasonable example than that?

Edited for spelling.

Firstly, carpet will last significantly longer than 10 years if looked after. If you think that carpet should be allowed to be stained by tenants then i wouldn't want you as a tenant! Stains should be fixed by tenants along the way. Maybe you should buy a property and rent it out and see how you feel when you're left with a great mess and thousands of dollars damage that you can't recover. It's attitudes like yours that will mean that is always going to be difficult to find a rental property that will accept pets.

I had a kitchen bench top burnt through the tenants negligence. I was lucky and bluffed them into paying for a new one. I was advised by my property manager that if I had to go to VCAT I stood no chance of recovering anything. This was a perfectly serviceable benchtop with no prior need for replacement, IMO they should be paying replacement cost for whatever they damage, unless there is already pre-existing damage or excessive wear and tear. In the same conversation I was told how another client of hers had taken a tenant to VCAT to recover the cost of holes in the walls. They received next to nothing because VCAT said the depreciated value of the walls was negligable. Do you think all walls should be replaced every 10 years also?

*sigh* no matter how hard you try to emphasise the bit about "fair and reasonable" it gets ignored. Of course I think people should pay for damage as it is caused.

As for a burnt benchtop, I think it *is* fair and reasonable to be able to get the tenant to pay for it as there's no other way to fix it and benchtops are not as subject to wear and tear as carpets. Same for walls - absolutely the walls should have been paid for by the tenant, although an entire wall doesn't need replacing to fix a hole in most cases, the whole wall will need painting so that would be reasonable to expect too. Basing costs on depreciation is silly in such a case because it is reasonable to expect the walls to last as long as the building. That is what I meant about a more reasonable, or perhaps I should say less ambiguous, example - clearly walls should not get holes in them and benches should not get burnt, and no matter whether they got there accidentally or deliberately the person who caused them should fix them. But carpets are subject to wear and tear in their normal usage, and it seems to me eminently unreasonable to claim entire replacement cost for an old carpet for only one of those items of wear and tear. A two year old carpet? Fine. A ten year old carpet? Nuh-uh, that should be at most a partial payment. And yes, I consider a ten year old carpet to be old and potentially due for replacement; even the best cared for ten year old carpet would have some wear and damage, possibly a lot, just from day-to-day use.

I've never done it myself, but my sister has been in this position when she moved to Sydney and rented out her Melbourne house which was significantly damaged by the tenants, and I know it isn't fun for the owner to deal with. I know there are horrible tenants out there, but the specific example you gave put you into the category, in my opinion, of an unreasonable landlord, and yes there are such things as those as well. You may not in fact be as unreasonable as that particular example sounded, in which case all you needed was a better example. The walls and bench are better examples, but neither of them are something that a pet is likely to cause (I have heard of dogs that eat walls, but it's not very common). Someone on the forums once gave the example of a solid wood door which was completely trashed by a dog scratching at it - that is a good example of something which the tenant/pet owner should pay for 100%, as the door was *only* in need of replacement due to damage caused by the dog, and would not otherwise be expected to suffer particularly from wear and tear.

Just as well I am not your tenant and you are not my landlord, hey? :D I have been a tenant, and I believe I was a good tenant, even with pets. In fact, the rental house I lived in I left in *better* shape than when I rented it, with steam-cleaned carpets that had *not* been done before I moved in (and a couple of cat accidents on the old carpet cleaned along the way), curtains on what had been bare windows in the lounge and master bedroom, the kitchen appliances and floor cleaner than they had been in years, a new fusebox to replace the ancient one which still had ceramic-and-wire fuses and no safety switch and fused out whenever I used my washing machine until I replaced it, new locks on the doors to replace the old worn out ones, the garden significantly cleared and tidied and a "garden bed" full of weeds and builder's rubble turned into a productive vegetable plot, and the garage cleared of the junk that had been left in it when I rented it. A friend of mine and I spent several days scrubbing the place from floor to ceiling so that it was in the best shape possible when I handed it back to the owner, who was, after all, the owner. To me, that seems to be quite reasonable on my part and even a bit more than the bare minimum expected. However, the carpet was old and manky, and just because my cat had vomited on it I do not believe it would have been reasonable to expect me to bear full replacement costs, even if my cleaning job had been inadequate, which it was not. There was lots of other stains, an iron burn, wear and so forth which pre-dated my tenancy and which I noted on the condition report specifically so that the owner wouldn't do exactly what you appear to think is reasonable and blame it all on me. He also complained when I changed the front door lock on the basis that was still "ok", and failed to understand that "ok" is not having to stand there for 10 minutes in the dark or rain jiggling the key to try to get it exactly right just to get into the house - which is why I didn't bother trying to claim costs for the fusebox when I had that done - it needed to be done for safety's sake and it wasn't worth the hassle of trying to get him or the rental agent to do it.

Anyway, I don't feel any need to continue the discussion as the topic has been done to death and it's off the topic that the OP started. We are probably both in furious agreement that there needs to be an easier way for legitimate damage and reasonable costs to be claimed, and that both tenants and landlords should be reasonable people. I suspect we disagree on our definition of "reasonable". I think it reasonable that landlords should have to have good reason to *dis*allow pets, and that the legal default should be pets allowed in rentals within reason as just a part of normal living conditions. I think it's reasonable for the tenant to take responsibility for those pets, in the same way they should clean up after themselves or their children, and if they don't it should be easy for landlords to get reasonable reimbursement. What I don't think is reasonable is for the landlord to be able to claim full replacement costs for an old item which would be expected to suffer wear and tear and require replacement in the normal course of use just because one part of the wear and tear is caused by a pet.