like most reasonable people I believe that tenants should be allowed to keep pets. Much like the NSW government, sensible changes should’ve been made long ago. Here’s a link to the survey:
https://www.haveyoursay.nsw.gov.au/pets-in-rental-homes
It closes December 2.
Well I think the government should have to give me a pet dog and they should also introduce peticare since I am disabled and can’t responsibly afford a dog.
But am I joking or serious?
Commo? No way mate they are Socialist Marxist righty-lefties!
Considering how they've worded that survey, they're going ahead with the change regardless and just want a piece of paper to say "80% of the community support the change!"
You've got to be a pretty angry landlord to put that you disagree with "Pets are important for companionship and good mental health."
You've got to be a pretty angry landlord to put that you disagree with
Problem is "Landlords" are investors and investors look after their investment because that is/could_be their livelihood.
and investors look after their investment
I've seen some rentals that are basically dilapidated and they're still asking for 600+ pw
I've seen some rentals that are basically dilapidated and they're still asking for 600+ pw
It is an investment so the investor will chose to offer a pristine dwelling or a dump.
Only the investor could decide if NOT renting it out (ridiculously high amount) will be more cost effective.
Or perhaps the investor knows they will pay regardless.
Remember: the price of anything is the highest amount people will pay for it.
@LFO: Some would say being a slum-lord is morally bankrupt regardless of what market forces have to say about it.
@Subada: If people still rent from them then there must be a very good reason as in why.
Takes two to tango.
@LFO: Abject poverty and exploitation is a likely reason but it's not a "good" one.
All comes down to what kind of society you want to live in.
exploitation
Who is at fault: the tyrant or the victim?
Agree with your general idea for a far better society but don't expect help if you don't help yourself (improving)
Offering "free" rent, free accommodation, doesn't seem to solve anything.
As an extreme, homeless individuals have "free" living but they usually are going down the hill faster and faster and faster. Not paying rent doesn't seem to help at all.
Difficult topic this one.
Damn, guess the investors will just need to move on to better investments than houses then. Best outcome for all of us.
Investments have elements of risks, and can go up and down, shouldn't expect to be only up.
Investors are just greedy things that make housing unafforable for the proletariat. They ought to be socked with an annual wealth tax on all their assets.
Investors are just greedy things that make housing unafforable for the proletariat.
All investors are greedy.
Those with banks, mining, anything. They invest to increa$e their investment.
Housing is not different. The big nasty problem is that in places like Australia that brings pain and suffering.
The solution is for the government to massively built and rent out (at normal rates) properties of all kinds and sizes.
THEN investors will very quickly assess that buying sovereign bonds from Timbuktu or something else is more profitable.
They are neither stupid nor nasty. They just want a return for their investment. Like any other investor.
Landlords are only charging what someone will pay, and in most cases the rent amount is set by real estate agents. Landlords buy a property, hand responsibility of fixing the toilet and checking the grass gets mowed over to the REA, who takes about a third of the rent so the owner doesn't have to think about it. If two people came to look at a car you were selling, and one offered you $500 more, you'd be a moron to sell it to the other guy.
When I was a kid "Landlord" was a profession, not an investment scheme.
"Landlords" are investors and investors look after their investment
Lol, wishful thinking. Maybe in countries where the rental market is properly regulated and they're penalised when they refuse to 'look after their investment'.
You've not met my landlord. I rent a house from my dad. I'm not allowed pets. He doesn't view things from a reasonable perspective. He's not overtly angry but definitely has some undiagnosed mental health stuff going on.
Sure, I pay a lower $ amount but I pay in additional trauma from encountering his messed up view and the poor condition of the house. He's going to be deeply confused and mean when I am in a financial position to move out of the property.
I miss having the companionship of a cat or dog.
Can't have a pet at your own place at the moment?
Too bad should have saved more and done better
Epic advice
And your landlord has not met some tenants. Sure, the majority of tenants can be trusted to look after their pets and not allow them to destroy the property (and sometimes the neighbourhood). But the problem is that there are a quite large minority who will not.
Old ladies who can't bear to let go of any of the 6 cats they can no longer look after, working couples who go off and leave a kelpie locked in the apartment alone all day and don't care that it is so bored it destroys the apartment, people who buy a pit bull to look tough, those who do not have a clue about how to toilet train the animal, etc. There are lots of people who just do not understand the time and financial commitment needed for a pet - and these people are differentially more likely to be renters ecause they're younger and poorer.
Pets are important for companionship and good mental health. Let's break it down.
Important? This is a meaningless word unless taken in the more severe sense, suggesting necessary. E.g. it's important to drive safely, lest you receive a fine or hurt someone.
So, is it necessary to have a pet for companionship?
Well, if you define companionship as having a pet, sure, it's necessary to have a pet to have a pet. If you define companionship as more than something that hangs around you because you give it food, and something that challenges your faculties….nnmm..fido ain't it.
Is it necessary to have a pet to have good mental health. Unequivocally no, lots of people happy and sound of mind don't have pets.
To look at the whole statement, is it necessary in order to have companionship AND (not or) good mental health, only those who speak and agree without thinking, would agree.
Well, if you define companionship as having a pet, sure, it's necessary to have a pet to have a pet. If you define companionship as more than something that hangs around you because you give it food, and something that challenges your faculties….nnmm..fido ain't it.
Not a pet owner I take it?
Absolutely not.
Having a cat/cats inside is disgusting…it walks through its litter box, through the kitchen and jumps onto the dining room table… Lovely.
Having a cat outside terrible for the native wildlife.
Having a single dog…just sad to leave it at home alone 10 hours or so a day, getting a second dog to keep it company and they start to become a nuisance for the neighbours.
If you live on a rural property this is absolutely not the case, but you shouldn't live in the city and think it's reasonable to keep a pet. There are always exceptions, like those people who spend 16 hours a day training their dog and have monetized it on tiktok… But they're a very small minority.
@Assburg: Forget the table… both dogs and cats lick faeces from their butthole, then people let them lick their hand/face. ;-D
What does that have to do with it? He's making valid points, after all…
And I was a pet owner (and will be again, once I get over the loss of my dogs, and the fear of losing the next ones). I just don't feel landlords should be forced to accept pets if they don't want pets on their property. People view things differently. What's important to one person may not be important to another.
@jatyap: Yeah.. Point in case, you sound like a responsible person who probably values having trained/well-behaved animals..
But as for people who just want a dog for the sake of having a dog, who never walk it, that barks at every person who walks past and digs up the yard, there's no shortage of them.
@jatyap: Why should they be forced to accept kids either? Plenty of people don't want them. Kids are far more destructive and if it wasn't illegal to do so landlords would absolutely charge extra for families.
The fact is there's a minimum level of legal protection required to ensure renters can live decent lives. Why shouldn't those protections be extended to those with pets?
@Subada: Some landlords do (implicitly, for the most part, and explicitly, in some cases) exclude kids.
For example, a single bedroom in a share house, or most studio housing may not explicitly state it, but do not offer the facility or support for having kids around.
However, most human dwellings are designed with the possibility of future procreation or current existence of human offspring. While some houses are also designed to be pet-friendly from the ground up, most are not. Moreover, those houses originally designed to be pet-friendly, will most likely approve of pets, once they go on the rental market.
One more thing, while it might be true that kids can be more destructive than pets, that is not always the case. For the most part, kids are unable to do much damage their first few years of life. Pets (especially young cats and dogs) are particularly hard on some furniture and can be hard on certain types of flooring. Humans also tend to watch their young ones more closely, as opposed to keeping an eye on a pet 24/7. This means that it is less likely (although not impossible) that urine or faeces is left uncleaned, or left out on lawns or public spaces. Human babies usually shed less hair/feathers/skin than most pets, and fewer people are allergic to human hair than to animal dander.
Pet owners who do watch out for these vigilantly do exist, but they are vastly outnumbered by those who don't, or those who sometimes lapse in watching after their pets. Pet owners are also more likely to compromise for the sake of their pets (e.g. allowing pets on the couch, or in certain areas of the house). Granted, the same is true of parents and their offspring, but that brings us back to the discussion regarding human dwellings making allowances for human offspring.
These, and more, are some of the factors as to why landlords tend to err on the side of caution, and why I think they are justified in doing so.
Why should they be forced to accept kids either?
Kids are far more destructive
Complete nonsense. ADULTS are more destructive to properties than kids. Maybe they should stop renting to… everyone. Tenants are humans.. the landlord has to allow humans to lease their property to receive rent… a child is another human… just like if a tenant got married to another human… a dog isn't.
Why shouldn't those protections be extended to those with pets?
@Subada: Kids are much more important to the future of society than pets - Comparing pets to kids is comparing apples to oranges.
You should be comparing banning tenants having pets with banning smoking tenants. Both generally cause damage and possibly issues for neighbours.
This overlooks one thing - some pets may not be appropriate for some circumstances.
E.g. Large dogs in an area that gets Koalas, and "cats" … pretty much anywhere that gets some wildlife (e.g. native birds, lizards etc) - some people think they can just roam free on a killing spree.
Also consider severe cat allergy sufferers. Some people are renting out their beloved house they intend to return to after working away for a couple of years etc. It can be heartbreaking the condition some people leave your house in - I've seen it happen to a few people.
A severe pet fur / cat allergy sufferer would need to have the place soo extensively cleaned, the carpets may need to be replaced. Then there'd be an increase in arguments over who pays for that.
The landlord should be able to freely choose reasonable conditions suitable to their circumstance (i.e. provided they have good justification). It's an agreement people don't have to agree to - someone else will come along who is fine to agree - So it doesn't change the housing availability overall at all, unless we saw empty houses all over the place because all the available renters have pets so no one can move into the houses that don't allow them…
each renter has to go somewhere.
If anything people rich enough to choose (who don't want pets there) if forced to take pets, may instead not rent out their house for a couple of years (e.g. whilst they have a 2 year contract working away with allowances paid), and instead be slightly less housing supply. Not the most common scenario, but more compulsory requirements on landlords definitely isn't going to increase housing supply!
It doesn't overlook it because the laws in states outside NSW still allow for a ban on pets in specific circumstances. We're talking a fraction of a percent of places that have a specific reason that they don't allow pets (people who are planning on returning that have a pet allergy isn't exactly a national crisis), the real problem is blanket rules to reduce even the potential risk of any damage to a property that isn't recoverable.
Right now landlords write blanket rules because it simply reduces risk for them. Any time they're allowed to do that they absolutely do, if landlord were allowed to ban music being played, ban putting one hook in a wall to hang a painting, have inspections on a weekly basis to ensure nothing is being damaged they absolutely would. Instead the rules support the idea that renters are allowed to peacefully enjoy their property and if there needs to be an exception then the landlord can get that.
people who are planning on returning that have a pet allergy isn't exactly a national crisis
It may be after this rule change lol
If someone "needs" a pet to maintain their mental health… then they "need" to be in an institution for everyone else's safety.
Well a reasonable ROI is also important for good mental health.
I'd like to see another question added to the survey.
Q. Are all pet owners responsible and can they all be trusted not to allow their pets to ruin the property they are living in?
Quite blatant isn't it, it might lose the incumbent government tenant votes if they don't follow the other states so are looking for an easy justification.
I'd say people should be allowed to have pets with the caveats that:
1) tenants pay for any property damage caused by the pet (which probably is already the case)
2) tenants for apartments could be denied pets if they could create a lot of noise (i.e. dogs)
That seems fair, but difficult to police
When I signed a lease that was always in there.
Whilst those clauses are always in there, they’re very difficult to enforce.
Which is the issue I have.
As a landlord, I have no issue with tenants wanting to keep pets, if they are willing to mitigate that risk of doing so. Either through making it easier for landlords to claim damages/repairs, or through larger bonds.
The reality is tho, the above won’t happen. The landlords will wear the additional risk. Some landlords will decide to sell up, resulting in fewer available rental properties. This will result in increased market demand, pushing up the price of renting for all.
Thats us. We are slowly selling up a couple of rental properties that we own as tenant damage is becoming too high a risk for us. This has included pet damage.
We have some great tenants atm and will sell when they choose to leave.
Its all heading towards rights for tenants - which is good, but theres no corresponding effective ways to balance that with tenants responsibilities.
We have been left with repairs of thousands, along with lost rent from bad tenants. Bonds are not sufficient and insurance is a joke.
Its a shame for the many decent folk that need, or choose to rent but without adequate support for managing problem people it is too much of a risk.
Im sure we are not the only ones 'voting with their feet'.
Sell up to whom? If it is to a prior renter, then that is a one in, one out situation not affecting the supply/demand equation at all. If it is to another landlord, again, no change in supply. The only way a change in supply happens is if it is sold to an investor who leaves it empty but that is another discussion entirely.
@EBC: You forgot the population keeps growing. And if less people want to be landlords, less house will be built. Not all new migrants or people who just out of school want/can afford buying house right away.
@duluxe2000: The vast majority of landlords aren't creating stock to rent out. I'm all for incentives for new builds, but I don't think pet rules will factor into that equation in any major way.
If it makes fewer investors interested in trading and renting out existing stock, that's another win in my view.
@duluxe2000: Time for the government to step up and build houses. But the type of houses people want to live in, not tiny apartments with no storage in vertical slums overrun by crime. Build mini CBDs at the edges of existing cities, with employment, amenities and shopping in their centre, and several rings of suburbs surround them. Springfield is an example of how to do this.
@Thaal Sinestro: When has government becoming involved in property ever produced a positive result? If government built houses they would take 5x as long to be completed, have multiple defects, and cost 5x times more thus dragging the price of every other house in the same suburb up by 5x too. End result? Government would then need to widen every road because everyone would be living in their car.
(And that would take 5x as long to be completed, have multiple defects, and cost 5x times more thus requiring 5x more tax be stolen… and around it goes.)
@idonotknowwhy: If landlords are afraid of tenant damage why would they do airbnbs? I'd rather one tenant for a year than 30-50 randoms per year having buck's nights and parties.
@Subada: Because they also clean, or employ, cleaners… at least weekly… so any defects are learned about immediately before they become major problems. And most property damage is done by long term tenants, not overnighters. e.g. Someone who cuts their sandwiches on the same place on the kitchen bench, instead of using a cutting board. One cut sandwich, by one overnighter, isn't going to be seen. 50 sandwiches by a long term tenant is. There's also no furniture being moved in/out, lawns are taken of by the landlord, etc.
@EBC: As idonotknowwhy mentioned - airbnb or short term rentals are replacing a percentage of these properties.
On top of this, another result is that there is no desire to keep a property in good condition. If I had a property and my wooden floors are damaged and my skirting is swollen with piss and my doors are chewed and all of this might happen again if I repair it? Not a chance, tenants can just live with it. While a number of landlords are like this (and might be regardless) - this is yet another reason to logically have that attitude.
If anything we should be enforcing higher standards on maintenance for rentals (heaps of shitboxes) and in return giving higher confidence that it won't be damaged again by also enforcing tenant responsibilities.
Some landlords will decide to sell up, resulting in fewer available rental properties. This will result in increased market demand, pushing up the price of renting for all.
That means more properties available to buy, increasing the market supply and lowering the cost to enter the property ownership market for those people who could have only afforded to rent before.
A relatives place (owner occupied) charges $800 bond by their strata manager which can be legally enforced and added to their quarterly strata fees. They have been given notice of direction or something of this sort for keeping a pet temporarily while their child is travelling.
As someone who had to fight my strata management company for 7 months to get my dog, even though the landlord had approved it, you have to be careful to be clear.
So for example, you say they could be denied if the pet creates a lot of noise.
How do you know prior to the commencement of the tenancy that the animal creates a lot of noise?
You don't - strata regulations are quite clear on this, that except for registered dangerous breeds, you can only make decisions about the suitability of the pet after it's approved into the scheme.
Yet our strata manager still fought us on these sorts of issues for months.
And I wanted a greyhound, a breed well known for not barking, not shedding, and generally good behaviour.
Greyhounds are great but they do shed
Very, very little compared to other breeds.
@MyOtherOtter: I can see the accumulation on hard floors by the end of the week if we don't vacuum. I think woolly breeds like poodles don't shed.
Anyway, they're great pets. Aside from the points you mention, they also sleep for much of the day and only need short walks. Ours gets a 10-15 minute stroll once or twice daily. Not very good on stairs though.
I think most strata schemes require the pet application to be approved by an Ordinary motion. EGMs are held only every 6months or more I think unless there's a pressing issue. EGMs are usually costly for the Owners Corporation (depends on the strata manager I think).
So I think a 7month timeline would make sense?
That wasn't it - the strata management company asked the secretary, they said no. It was never put to the strata committee as a whole, and the strata manager was pushing the line that the new laws didn't apply to them because they didn't have a blanket ban on pets - we could have any pet under 7kgs.
It wasn't until I took them to mediation that we got the approval.
In Vic we sought consent from our landlord to get a dog as required. They sent us some form to sign stating that we would pay for any damages that the pet did to the property, which I believe is largely unnecessary because those are the conditions of a lease anyway.
We got a cavoodle almost a year ago and so far she has done precisely $0 of damage to the property. Proportional wear and tear might be ever so slightly higher because there are now 8 feet walking around instead of 4, but those feet also only have 5kg above them so are really doing stuff all.
1) Tenants never pay for any damages and carpet marks or wall damage from their pets. Its never enforced and Real State agent cannot force the tenant to pay. They see that as a risk to have pets, wear and tear, and its up to you the landlord if you want to take that risk. When the Rental Market wasn't great Landlords couldn't choose, but now the market is great definately not a first preference
2) Pets should not be allowed in apartments at all, pet owners should look for villas, townhouses etc there's not enough space in apartments and you will get a lot of complaints from neighbour on noise.
3) Not all Pet owners are responsible or give a crap about the property they are renting. And always think the landlord is rich to pay for damages, marks, dirt etc And believe its part of the deal once they are allowed to come thru the door.
If pet-owning tenants abided by these rules, I'm sure there would be less drama from the landlords.
I am certain, though, that a large number of tenants have tried to renege on this or, at the very least, try to shirk some responsibility (e.g. not having carpets cleaned hygienically, trying to hide damage if they can, etc)
It's impossible to clean carpets enough anyway. Practically at least. i.e. A quick drag over with a high pressure steam cleaning head does not get rid of the dirt and smell driven into the carpet over months/years. Just as dipping a shirt that stinks from body odour into a bucket of water for a few seconds, then drying it, won't remove the stink. It's only ever a partial result, which is why they also "deodorise" afterwards. They can only reduce it. At the same time they can't "wash" carpet like we do clothes, because it would not dry in time, so would rot and/or get mold. Therefore it would take several cleans over days. No-one is going to be able to enforce that, let alone bother due to the cost. So the next tenant has to put up with whatever result a superficial clean provides.
I moved into a house, the carpet had just been pressure cleaned, and it still STANK. It had polished boards underneath so I asked if I could rip the carpet up. They agreed and it removed all the stink from the house. If I were a landlord, the only way I would rent out a property to tenants would be if every room was hard floors - tiled or floorboards. (Prefer tiled because boards can be damaged too.) The tenants can buy their own rugs.
I think the discussion, and the law, should be a little more nuanced than "yes" or "no".
I'd say:
Yes to 1 or 2 cats, 1 medium dog or 2 small dogs.
No to 3 big dogs with a barking problem.
Yes to a turtle, some fish, or a miniature pig.
No to someone who wants to breed snakes or put in a chook pen with 20 chooks.
Just for example.
you're going to deny me my support rhinoceros ?!?!?
If it was just the one rhino then no support from me. Now if it was two or more I would say yes because they wouldn’t be lonely.
I think the discussion, and the law, should be a little more nuanced than "yes" or "no".
I agree it needs to be more nuanced but none of what you wrote after that first statement seems to approach 'nuance' in any way.
Other than not having fur and cute little puppy dog eyes, what is the specific issue with someone owning snakes?
The don't bark or destroy property.
The same with "some fish" - what is your range of unwelcome animals?
Yes to 1 or 2 cats, 1 medium dog or 2 small dogs.
No to 3 big dogs with a barking problem.
So 2 big dogs with a barking problem is ok?
Or is 1 small dog with anger issues and a barking problem is still ok?
Here is some more nuance:
I'd say yes to a white bunny rabbit, but no to a giraffe.
Although a free range house bunny will likely chew walls and door frames
@Quantumcat: a free range house giraffe will likely chew downlights, cornices and ceiling insulation
I'd say yes to a white bunny rabbit, but no to a giraffe.
You have something against bunnies of colour?
What's wrong with snakes, they are quiet and don't tear up the house…I'd think they are one of the safer pets to have in your investment property
As long as they're native snakes, 1 or 2 should be ok.
It's illegal to keep non-native snakes. In Florida, people importing and keeping non-native snakes as pets has resulted in a massive infestation of giant pythons into the ecosystem, which threatens native species.
I guess this applies to all non-native pets, including dogs and cats. You should only keep a non-native pet if you can ensure it won't run away into the wild. But things always go wrong, which is why we currently have a feral cat epidemic wiping out millions of small marsupials, birds and reptiles every day.
If you're keeping a native pet, especially a snake, I think you need a license, and hopefully they will be kept in conditions similar to their native habitat, or at least in comfort, with space and activities to keep them occupied. Sitting in a small cage all day probably isn't fun.
People do understand dogs smell though right? I've walked through tenancies after the tenant has moved out and the place stinks.
I agree with what you say though. Cannot deny a cat but honestly it's up to the owner if they allow dogs or not as that can involved a repaint or carpet change to get the next place up to scratch again.
Dogs should be outdoor pets in my opinion. They're smelly and dirty.
On the other hand, my mum has had 1 or 2 small dogs mostly inside for the past 20 years, and her house is always spotless inside and doesn't smell. So I guess it depends on your dog and how you take care of it.
cats are ok, until one wees in your carpet..
Just saying…
The law should respect who owns the property. (And I'm a renter.)
The law changed a while ago to allow some pets in apartments in the landlord allowed them.
One problem is that some tenants will not cleanup the mess the pets leave when they vacate and assume it's normal wear and tear as the landlord allowed them to have pets. Been in this situation once and never again as it took months to get the fleas out of the house and the garden/lawn back to looking like it was before the tenants moved in.
I thought this was what the bond and landlord insurance was for though? And I'd think any bond in the current climate would be well enough to cover the insurance excess.
Tenants are responsible to leave the property in the same condition as the beginning - irrespective of the cause of any damages. Dog poo in the carpet is no different to human poo in the carpet, the tenant is responsible to rectify.
So what about the time it takes?
Are you referring to lost income whilst the property gets fixed?
That's covered under many landlord policies as standard. Suncorp offers 10% of the property value for up to a year.
@Switchblade88: I'm sure it's a painless experience to get them to pay up, and I'm sure the insurance renewal price won't go up next year.
@Switchblade88: It's not about being able to afford it. It's that the costs would be increased through no fault of your own, because someone else decided to be a deadshit.
I'm not sure losing money hand over fist makes something a good investment.
@brendanm: Yeah, but as a tenant my costs have increased through no fault of my own, because someone else decided to be greedy.
I don't think making profits off essential accommodation makes something a good (ethical) investment…
Yeah, but as a tenant my costs have increased through no fault of my own, because someone else decided to be greedy.
What on earth does that have to do with having pets, which is what we are talking about?
I don't think making profits off essential accommodation makes something a good (ethical) investment…
Lots of people aren't making profit, look at all the people crying about negative gearing. If you don't agree with it, buy some houses and rent them out for $50.
What on earth does that have to do with having pets?
It is NOT the pets that damaged your property. It was bad TENANTS that are responsible. I was simply requoting your misguided statements from the point of view of a tenant; you can't cry wolf on increased costs but also be part of the problem.
You knew bad tenants was a risk when you rented out your property. The risks do not change with the presence or absence of animals, nor your excesses. You have solutions that do not leave you any worse off than when you started the tenancy with pets.
You knew bad tenants was a risk when you rented out your property. The risks do not change with the presence or absence of animals, nor your excesses
The risks do increase, quite obviously. Even "good" tenants may let pets inside, as most pet owners seem to think they don't leave any lasting smell etc. Sadly this is incorrect, and even if they think they are doing the "right" thing, the carpet now stinks forever. Same goes with lawn, animals running up and back tears up the grass, turning it to slop. Animals scratch at doors etc.
@Switchblade88: I agree with you in principle.
However why should the landlord bare the cost of increase insurance, rates and taxes through no fault of their own just because company and government decides to be greedy?
Making profit of essential services shouldn’t be allowed but hey we allow electricity generation company, gas company and water company to charge massive increase due to whatever reason they can come up with. Those are the real essential services people need and there are no alternatives.
For the record I have not increase my rent for 5 years, it will have to rise next year as it’s below market rate and my cost have gone up.
@spc12go: From my view, the reason the landlord should bear the costs is because they agreed to bear the costs of whatever the law of the day is, knowing that these are subject to change when they chose to become a landlord. All businesses are affected by rates, taxes, and ever-changing laws. This is part of the risk you run when running a business.
@EBC: That really is all just nonsense. In the long run the landlords never bear the costs, they are passed on to the tenants through higher rents. The real question is, is it fair for tenants without pets to subsidise the damage caused by tenants with pets.
@dave999: Why should Apple need to change the design of their phone because the EU changed the law? Because they want to run a business in the EU and therefore are subject to the ever-changing laws. That's how business works, it's never without these sorts of risks.
Business owners should try to protect their interests and renters should try to protect theirs. If the winds shift to more renter-friendly laws, that is just part of the risk that was taken when someone became a landlord.
In terms of who ends up bearing the costs, you may be right but I would be interested to see if there has been any definitive proof that rents increased as a result of law reform in other states. I have sure never seen it and I am sure it would be used in this debate if it existed.
@EBC: My point was just pets do cause more damage to properties, by forcing the landlord to allow pets means that tenants without pets would be subsidising those costs incurred by pet owning tenants.
I think a much more fairer situation would be pet owners have to put down an extra bond to cover the increased chance of higher damage to the property compared to a non pet owning tenant. If that was the case I'm sure most landlords would be happy to allow pets, and non-pet owning tenants would be happy not subsidising pet owning tenants.
payless69 on 25/10/2022 - 15:41 Comment score below threshold.
