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.
Is smell damage?
Please PM me your address. I need to pee on your car seats.
Regardless if a pet urinates inside animals still have oils on their skin that reeks houses out. I doubt pet owner wash their animals twice a day. Smell is damage!
@when2buy: LOL. I thought you were being sarcastic - saying a smell isn't really damage. So it's oil on their skin? I didn't know that. I just know the disgusting smell of a property that's had tenants with pets - even outside only pets.
Depending on the residence, yes.
But also pets can cause a lot of damage to the house (I have 2 cats), as long the owner is aware and the tenant is willing to cover any damages etc.
The 'fair wear and tear' caused by humans is very different from that caused by animals.
Good luck getting the tenant to pay for resurfacing your parkay flooring after their dog has spent the last year running through the house for example.
The government introduced negative gearing as there was a serious lack of rentals and social housing. The government then failed to build social housing because negative gearing was working so well. After years of failing to build social housing they've been slowly eroding the rights of landlords to address social housing needs. Businesses are typically able to set terms eg hotel and owning a rental property is a business and not social housing. Ive never owned a rental but have known enough people who have had their properties destroyed by renters who were extremely difficult to evict. One friend had to rip up floor boards and carpet as cat piss had soaked in all over the house.
Had to change carpets out of pocket after tenants with a slobbery dog left them smelling like wet dog- I don't understand how people with dogs live in a house like that. They paid for carpet cleaning and it did nothing. Couldn't claim bond which was only 2k anyway - I paid for the second round of carpet cleaning also nothing. 5k out of pocket.
Pointless. Having pets in your rental with or without permission is older than negative gearing well located rat nests.
I'm about to leave my fifth rental that I've been in with my inside dog as I've just bought a house. We got excellent references from all of them and always get 100% of my bond back. I haven't really struggled to find a rental in 3 different states that didn't have any requirement for landlords to approve pets. One of the biggest contributing factors was probably that I rent in cheap areas, so landlords are less concerned, but also once we had good references it probably helped. Also I don't rent places with carpet. The tenants before us where I am now were the kind you probably don't want where they left scratch marks on walls/doors and a backyard full of dog shit. I can see both sides, but shit tenants are going to be shit tenants with or without pets, there were also various other things like poorly patched holes in the walls and broken blinds that show a lack of concern for the property.
I'd be happy for my tenants to have a medium to large dog provided there was no damage, but it is an oddity being a house with a proper backyard sized so I could also fit a kelpie sized dog if I wanted to live there. It's not a little box where the animal is shut inside all day with inadequate ventilation to keep the place fresh. (I find medium and up dogs make for less smell in general)
I won't single out cat owners, so much as "owners of cat sized pets living in apartments" so it includes the tiny little handbag dogs that are shut up inside all day But I encounter so many that have a tendency to not notice the smell their pets create - it's like smokers that can't smell the smoke on themselves and their surroundings. Yes yes, little trixxybelle licks her paws and is ever so clean… except trixxybelle is shitting/pissing inside a box/tray inside the house with no outside ventilation (except when she doesn't). When friends come over I'm sure they try not to be impolite and wrinkle up their nose, so nobody says anything and it continues unchecked I don't think they intend to cause problems, but they just don't notice the smell and it gets into everything porous. (insert "not all owners, not all pets disclaimer")
Probably get downvoted to hell for this but I've never been a pet person and have one apartment as investment property.
Personally I wouldn't want pets in the property - can immediately tell when I enter a friend's place and they have a cat or dog - there's just a certain smell lingering in the air and I'm sure even if they emptied out the house that smell would still be there. Those living there are so used to it they don't notice any difference.
The percentage of pet ownership is very high in Aust. I think a landlord who has saved and worked hard to purchase a property, has the right to reduce their chance of renting their property out with reasonable restrictions to limit risks.
I haven't had a dog for some years, but you can definitely tell if a dog lives in a house just from the smell.
Fumigation COSTS to restore to original smell upon leave … Should be a cool $2k to $3k to tenant, for the privilege… EVEN IF ITS POSSIBLE TO DO SO
Needs to include all new carpeting probably too.
Sure….add pet… Add $100/wk rent.
As a landlord I'm in two minds about this.
Of course I want long term tenants paying a fair rent to enjoy their home as their home but also I don't want the extra wear and tear of dogs inside the house.
Previously had tenants who had a dog, I approved knowing very well, I would move in there in a few years and renovate so I wasn't too concerned about dog smells, carpet etc.
When they moved out, I did get some claim some money to get new back door and flyscreens where the dogs clawed the door to try and get in. It also clawed the door sill but no huge deal for me.
Would I allow a tenant to keep a dogs again? Probably not due to wear and tear that you can't claim the bond on.. e.g. carpet is 7yo and in great condition. tenants move out 3 years later and the carpet is trashed, because the carpet is now 10yo, you can't claim the damage because the useful life of carpet is 10 years.
Before you think I'm a horrible landlord. A couple of my tenants are single mothers who I've been willing to give a go. One has been ok, the other hasn't been looking after the place very well. Both have been late at times but no big deal.
The only issue I have with renting to low income earners is the ability to increase rents. I know they aren't very well off and doing it tougher than I am so I haven't raised the rent. Unfortunately at some stage I will have to (pass on the costs) as my expenses my increased 50% compared to the start of the year.
This is yet another phoney baloney opt-in poll.
I don't know what public opinion is on this matter. Frankly, I don't care.
But opt-in polls are overwhelmingly only responded to by people who are motivated to do so. Because they want to change the existing situation. Or because they have a grievance. People who are happy with the present situation are not motivated to take the trouble to respond. So these sorts of polls wildly exaggerate or distort what public opinion is.
Let me give you an example. Say you offered people the opportunity to respond as to whether they had been sexually assaulted or harassed in their workplace. The people who have been are motivated to take the trouble to respond to say they have been. The people who haven't been don't bother to respond because it hasn't happened to them. So you'll get responses that overwhelmingly say they have been. Even if most people haven't been.
And its the same with this opt-in poll. The people who are unhappy they can't have a pet respond. The people who are happy with the present situation where they can't don't respond, because they don't want to.
Opt-in polls are how you lie with polling. They do not shed any light on what public opinion is on the matter. They just tell us some small number of people are unhappy or have a grievance, and don't tell us whether they are the majority or a tiny minority.
There is a reason why landlords have a "pet" price and a "no pet" price. By removing the Landlords ability to choose, everyone ends up paying the "pet" price.
This has happened recently in Canberra and rent prices just keep going up. When you take away the control of the Landlord, there is more risk and rent will reflect it.
The increase of price won't happen overnight, but two years down the track, it will be felt
Should see some of the rentals in SA ATM, barely have a kitchen.
Investors should be forced to have some fork of upkeep, provide a safe home.
These units are falling apart, gross and asking $350-$400 a week here.
Just have an extra Pet Bond, most pet owners would be okay with that.
Outside of registered assistance dogs this should be the landlords decision.
I could agree to something like 'the landlord shouldn't unreasonably withhold permission to keep a pet at the property' though. I don't see any problem with caged animals - birds, fish, rodents, reptiles, etc. Just wouldn't want an animal wandering around free inside my house.
I'm a renter and a landlord.
Like most reasonable people? Then I guess I'm unreasonable. I don't own any rental properties but if I did I don't want to have no choice but to let people keep pets.
By this logic, if i rent a car from Hertz, I can smoke in it right. Well im a paying customer, i can do whatever i want. It is not my problem if there is a lingering smell in the car. Right right?
Since the ratio of a few landlords compared to renters who are usually multiple people, they're going to get mostly pro-pet people responding. Well at least my submission will go against the tide.
I think people who "need" to own a pet have some (mild perhaps, but definite) mental problem. i.e. There's something slightly psychopathic about needing to gaol another living creature, to dictate when and what it eats, when it goes outside (if ever), to go from one extreme to the other by going to work all day leaving it home fretting then sitting on the lounge petting it in front of the TV like they "care" about it so much.
I'm a renter and I absolutely DETEST the fact I'M THE ONE who suffers when a previous tenant had pets. Even when they are told, "Sure, as long as no pets inside, ever…" they STILL take advantage and allow them in. The very few who don't still have their dog sitting outside, peering in through the screen door, producing a filthy brown sticky film around the back door area from pacing up and down, slobbering their mucus, pressing their wet nose against everything, and then there's their s__t and urine that drips from their genitals, so people walking in/out track that filth inside and onto carpets. And argh - the fleas which never hatch until AFTER they move out!
Pet owners think they're "clean" people, that their mopping of the floor, vacuuming, and a steam clean at the end of their tenancy makes the place "clean and fresh" - but they don't smell or experience the skin-crawl because they're used to it. Just as smokers can't smell the stink that soaks into everything in their home including their freshly-washed clothes, even when they only ever smoke outside.
EVERY house I have rented, even after the landlord has had carpets cleaned, has STUNK, made me itch, eyes water, nose run, and just a general all-round uncomfortable feeling of "this place is dirty" that makes my skin crawl. I'll look at the REA and say, "What kind of dog/cat did they have?" And I get a bewildered look: "How did you know… the place has been steam cleaned!?" (Most REAs are pet owners too… so of course they can't smell "feral" like non-pet owners can.)
I like to sit on carpets (those not laid in the 1970s or earlier). But often I can't because of being closer to the STINK of dog which no brief drag of a carpet steam cleaning head can eliminate. And I can't realistically expect landlords to replace carpet every time some feral pet owner leaves a property. So in the past I've gotten permission to rip up carpet which was cleaned in the last two weeks… upon which the landlord commented: "Yeah, you were right… it did stink and it does feel cleaner. I can only tell now it's gone." (Thank goodness it had polished floorboards underneath.)
Government should keep their nose out of private landlord's properties. It's not THEIR investment that cost at least a few hundred thousand dollars. So the decision should be theirs. There is no reason for anyone to own a pet anyway. Not even this nonsense about "companion animals." The ONLY exception should be the blind. At least then tenants have SOME hope of finding a place that doesn't make them feel like they're living in the bottom of a budgie cage.
If I were a landlord I'd find ways to banter with applicants, to get the discussion onto pets, then discard the applications of any animal gaolers. They might get one later anyway. But at least I did what I could to try and protect my investment and keep the place clean for future hygienic/house-proud tenants.
Oh and forgot to say… the ignorance of people on Gumtree, Facebook groups, etc who post ads like this amaze me:
"Landlord sold the place we rent, have applied for many properties but there are so many applicants. We both have full time jobs and great kids who take care of others property. Have good rent references. Please help us. We're desperate to find a place we can call home in the next 2 weeks for our family that accepts our fur baby…" (Or some variation thereof.)
Yeah, sure… You can't be too "desperate" if you put a pet above securing a roof over the head of your own kids. They suspect or know it's what is preventing them being accepted or they wouldn't mention it. Yet here they are, about to become homeless, submitting applications for months, all over a dumb dog/cat. Even if I owned and cherished a pair of every species on earth, I wouldn't rent to people who put their pet above the comfort and safety of their own kids! If they can't prioritize their own children, they're certainly not going to prioritize taking reasonable care of someone else's property.
My place, my rules
Don't like it then don't apply.
I'm not forcing you to take my place
I had to deny an applicant recently and they sent me photos of the pet with a sob story to get me to change my mind.
I would have replied: "It should be easy to find that cutie a new owner if you're still interested in the property."
We bought a home. It seems it had a dog in it before through tenancy or ownership (not sure). It took us 2 years + replacement of all window blinds in the common area to get the smell out.
I still have to cleanup behind my neighbour's cat who seems to think the side of my home is it's toilet. I can only get angry and speak with the neighbour but that's about it.
Ugh I hate that. Lots of ways to solve it, heh, heh…
Again, speaking to neighbours isn't the answer though. It only marks you as their main suspect every time something goes wrong.
They obviously don't care and don't really want their pet. So help them dispose of it. e.g. Look up DIY possum/cat traps on youtube. There will probably be some ads at the top for premade ones too. I saw some on ebay for $50/$60 too. Or just leave the back door open with some cheap cat food, ignore the cat until it comes over with a full belly to rub against your legs, pick it up, into a cardboard box, and off to council/pound/RSPCA. They'll either get tired of paying fines to get it back and so keep it inside where it belongs, or they'll abandon it. My money is on the latter.
I recently built a trap from some wire mesh a neighbour left on the footpath, and some wire I cut from an old bed mattress with pliers. Scrap wood is commonly found on the side of the road and is even easier. e.g. Bed slats, anything flat like old computer desks, chip board shelves/cupboards, etc. Just need a few nails, doors at each end that fall, a trigger and some string that pulls nails out of the doors at each end when it steps on the trigger to reach some cat food, and puss-puss go bye-bye.
Nah man. I am not going to hurt the cat. It serves a purpose for me too. Keeps them pigeons and other airborne pests away. We apparently have alot of the around. These birds had a toilet party on my deck during the rains when the cat wasn't coming out.
Old CDs (silver type, not CD-Rs) hanging from fishing line. They spin in the slightest breeze making bright sparkles bouncing off each other in every direction. Birds are always moving their heads looking for threats from above. With all the sparkling going on they can't get comfortable and nick off.
I live in an apartment and my neighbor has a cat. If my door is open, the cat comes inside and once it happened when I was sleeping. But the neighbors still refuse to control their cat.
They pretty much can't do anything when it comes to cats. The cat is the master the the human is the pet… 😋
Humans are the only animals I allow in the house. Why should landlords be forced to allow tenants to have pets in the house? Most of them can't even manage to keep a tray under pot plants.
Survey completed. In how did you hear about it, I selected other—> Ozbargain 🙂
Market forces makes all these control attempts moot
As a landlord I'm just going to choose the best offer presented to me. Whether that's someone with a pet or not, the best overall offer wins. E.g. same money, but one tenant has no pets while the other does = no pets tenant wins. Or pet guy can offer more idc. Overall best offer wins.
I was just looking at Facebook/Gumtree rentals in different NSW areas and saw another feral pet-owning tenant like I described earlier…
So she expects to go to work, leave two dogs in someone else's care, on their (minimum) of several hundred thousand dollar property, which will probably spend those several hours each day either tied up barking and whining, or roaming free chewing, digging, p___ing and s___ing everywhere, killing wildlife, chasing livestock, attacking other people's pets, passers-by, or the owners grandkids…
A glance at her Facebook page sinks any hope landlords had left of giving her a chance, with mentally immature pictures from one of those "add animal ears and nose" phone apps 10 year old girls use (she seems to be in her late 60s), the usual nonsense "artwork" with the typical "dogs are better than people" tripe, several family photos (strangely all of whom are content for her to live in a car with two dogs). That last point alone is such a "glowing endorsement" for her, her dogs (or both).
SHE and people like her are the time wasters! Living in her car, with two dogs, in her 60s, family uninterested in her living with them (why?), insults other people by putting up arrogant announcements she prefers dogs to people, but then begs PEOPLE to help, and expects property owners to not say, "Nah… it's much easier to rent to someone lower risk without all the warning signs. She'll just call her dogs her 'naughty children' as they tear my property apart."
So many people saying purely anecdotal crap like "tenants don't properly clean up after themselves".
Here's my anecdotal crap - in 30 years of renting, I've always left a place better than I found it, and the REA has almost always tried to screw me out of bond anyway.
Landlords have it easy in this country. Renters live as permanent second class citizens, at the whim of the owner's investment decisions. We don't get homes, we get temporary accomodation at best.
YOU left your properties in good condition. So do I. Excellent condition. I did repairs myself, painted heavily marked walls, mowed yards regularly and pulled weeds out until they looked like manicured golf clubs, etc. In one case I fitted a window rattler air conditioner into a fibro wall. On leaving I paid a tradesmen to panel both sides of the hole, then peeled off some paint to be scanned and tinted at Bunnings, and painted inside and out so well the landlord completely forgot there was ever an aircon there, so didn't check the repair.
And I've NEVER had a landlord even think about cheating me out of bond. Every one has walked in, gone quiet, walked out saying, "I've never seen a vacated rental look this good", and released bond the same day. All but one were old 1950-70s dumps too. (So it wasn't like they were modern units which are nearly impossible to make look bad.)
But most tenants don't. That's just fact. I've helped people clean when they moved out, and they walk past me and say, "Meh, don't bother doing that…" and the stuff they clean is like they haven't cleaned. Then they whine, "@#$% landlord took my bond - it was spotless!" So the generalization isn't "crap." Plenty of people are just GRUBS.
Yeah, but both of us have just posted purely anecdotal statements, and there's absolutely no way to verify it one way or the other.
Even if we had the data on % of bonds returned with deductions, that only tells us that the someone has decided that the tenants caused damage, irrespective of whether they did or the landlord/REA is just trying it on.
In my experience, they're trying it on. YMMV.
You said everything! 👏
The only time the owner dared trying to take part of my bond even the REA was on my side and said it was completely unreasonable.
Being a tenant in Australia is pretty shit, we can't really feel at home. I've talked about that in previous posts so won't keep repeating myself.
Although pets can cause property damage, children (and irresponsible adults) can cause even more damage. For example, children can pee on the carpet, or wood floor, or people can drop liquid (let's say red wine) on the floor or carpet. Children can decide it's a good idea to write or draw on the wall.
Tenants should have more freedom, and landlords are already able to charge for damages if required.
The rental market in Australia is extremely painful to the tenant searching for a nice place to live. A tenant can rarely feel at home, and not being able to have pets is only one part of the problem.
I do agree that owners should be able to charge more than the bond if the bond doesn't cover the repair of the damages. However, this should be the case independently of if the damage was caused by a pet or a person.
Also, with all due respect, if owners make stupid decisions such as floors that can't be stepped on because they are too delicate, that's their fault.
An intelligent individual can't paint a floor using white paint and expect that the floor won't have marks after months or years. If owners buy a place to rent, they should think about possible damages and adapt the place so it's less vulnerable to people or pets. That's part of being a smart investor.
One of my previous landlords in VIC wrote on the contract that "women should remove high heels at all times before entering the premises". That's pathetic! Interestingly, he accepted my dog (it was before the changes in pet law). Got bond back in full after 12 months, when I moved to a different neighbourhood.
I would only allow them if I never intended to live in the property myself. The first house I bought to live in was rented out and the tenants let their dog pee on the carpet in the main bedroom. No matter how much cleaning I did including professional carpet shampooing the smell would just come back again. In the end I needed to have the carpet ripped out.