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.
@EBC: I think you grossly underestimate the damage pets do to properties and vastly overestimate the amount of damage that bonds cover.
You can smell whether a property has a dog or cat inside the second you walk into a property, the smell gets into the carpet and is basically impossible to remove. That is the best case scenario with the best pet owning tenants, more commonly there will be scratched floorboards, excessively worn carpet, pee smell and stains or worse.
If a current bond is for non pet tenants, the pet tenants should pay a much larger bond and not expect much of it back.
@dave999: I could be, but you may be overestimating the condition that renters generally receive rentals in in the first place. I have lived in places that have had pets immediately before me and places that have not, and the condition of the rentals was largely the same. Maybe the wear happens more quickly with a pet but it's not like landlords are making sure new tenants are receiving the place in perfect condition with no smells, scratches, or stains. You could consider allowing landlords to depreciate items over a shorter timespan when the tenant has a pet as a way of subsidising this plan for landlords.
Or create a new type of compulsory insurance for people with pets with a minimum $10k liability. Let the insurance companies manage whether the pet owner is responsible through premiums and discounts for those that never need to claim. Then none of the cost has to be passed on to non-pet owners.
Like I said, if the laws were well designed and thought through, there wouldn't have to be many problems.
This is part of the risk you run when running a business.
Fortunately there is a departmet that gets to decide what is and is not a business, not just your uninformed opinion.
If you spent a few minutes reading what the ATO has to say you would find that the great majority of people who own investment properties are not 'in business' as you claim.
Therefore the rest of your argument about business risk is shown to not have any bearing on the topic.
A specific example for you from a Quantity Surveyors' site that explains it quite clearly.
https://www.bmtqs.com.au/maverick/mav-50-the-business-of-own…
@brendanm: All investments have risks. If you want a guaranteed return put your money in a savings account.
@brendanm: Way up the top of this chain you were complaining about a landlord potentially having to claim on their insurance and their costs going up from increased premiums.
My point is that is a risk of the investment and if you don't like it, then maybe the investment isn't for you.
It's like someone complaining about having to put more into a margin account to avoid a margin call.
@samyall: Again, read again. I didn't "complain" about that at all. Risks of property damage are higher with pets allowed, people should have the right to mitigate risk if they wish, in this case by restricting whether pets are allowed or not.
@Switchblade88: Sounds like you need to lookup what time and also what income is to see the difference.
Where did you get that lost income was mentioned?
turds in the carpet are a normal part of raising children free range and its general wear and tear on the property, don't see why pets are any different.
Like most reasonable people I believe that landlords should have the right to say yea or nay to pets.
Why? My cat makes less mess and damage than any toddler. Do they have any say when people breed humans after moving in?
Why? My cat makes less mess and damage than any toddler.
Because some people choose not to have animals in their property.
Probs 'cause people aren't cats.
My cat makes less mess
Stepping in your cat's feces in someones yard is more likely than stepping on a toddler's dirty nappies.
Also cats "mark" everything when on heat.
Less mess but far far far from clean.
My cat has a litter box and doesn't leave the apartment. He is also desexed so the 'marking' glands are removed.
Not hard to ask for proof that the animal is registered also.
Humans also make mess in general. If landlords didn't want to deal with human factors they should've just put their money in the stock market.
It always comes down to if you have a responsible tenant. Responsible tenants won’t let a child damage a house, and they won’t let a pet damage a house but I’m getting so sick of hearing “my pet causes less damage than a child.”
Bullshit.
In your mind that's true. Not for the next tenant (like me) who can't stop sneezing, eyes watering and itching, skin itching… because of your "clean" cat. Even after having the carpet high pressure cleaned. No landlord should be forced to accept pets into HIS multi-hundred-thousand dollar property. And tenants are humans, as are babies. It's illogical to say you can have adults but not babies. Mind you, landlords CAN select who they rent to - an old childless single/couple, or a family. He just can't kick someone out because they get pregnant six months later.
The vast majority of people must be unreasonable then, it's a very popular move
There's an easy solution for landlords (to the pet question): Vet the Pet, not just the Applicant.
I've been doing it for years, I just say no pets. If they ask, I get them to detail what type of pet, and if I like the applicant, will consider the pet.
This way one agrees to a particular, individual pet. No other. If it dies, they have to get a pet you agree to, or the lease is breached.
The law could easily be written in a way to support this. One of the options in the form is
"landlord can go to tribunal to deny specific pet but can't implement a blanket ban"
Another is "renters can go to tribunal if landlord denies their specific pet".
You can still support reasonable renters being able to enjoy the property with their full family including pets without supporting a full "all pets allowed" law.
@Subada: Yes indeed pets are child's play, if they'd care to regulate properly.
I do appreciate the point, though feel resorting to tribunal is a very blunt hammer- pretty sure that everyone needs to avoid that since the cost of it is simply too high for parties and state.
After all, let's not forget how much simple complexities can be the enemy of what so often passes for 'government' in Oz.
Far bigger troubles exist around preventing tenants letting their kids move in (at least, practically, as "No you were never living here, were you Son?), or to do things like having the place for the weekend to throw a few parties, before they move out. Let's see our elected boffins fix that old chestnut, but oh… no they weren't going to 'have a go' there. Not looking forward to their idea of ehanced regulation at all.
Tenants should treat the property they’re renting with care and respect. I do not understand people who live in absolute filth, and I’ve seen first hand how disgusting some people can be. Even (profanity) gym bros doing things like twisting taps too tightly (no doubt to act like they’re “super strong” or something petty like that) and wreck the o-ring resulting in leaky taps.
There are too many shitty human beings out there, and they ruin everything for the good ones.
Given how many of us in Australia now have to rent with no hope of ever having our own house, it's time that renting is seen the way it is in Europe - it's a person's home, not a hotel room. And people should be able to live their lives how they want within reason, so long as the property is left the way it is found at the end. To that end, pet ownership should be a person's decision, not a landlords.
it's a person's home
In Straya the house is the landlords home, not the tenants. This is how it is, and how it always will be.
absolutely, tenants need to remember thats someone's investment they are trying to ruin. no wonder real estate agents and property managers are so stressed, they deal with renters all day long.
In Straya we live in a democracy, so if the majority of people are renters then they'll vote for pro-renter laws, not much else to it
Why wouldn't a renter vote in their own interests? Crappy control-freak landlords selling up helps everyone
landlords selling up helps everyone
Not really, the fewer places available for rent means prices increase and landlords can be pickier about who they accept, meaning people with pets may be more likely to miss out, regardless of what the laws say.
If a rental property is sold and it is bought by a family to live in, who were previously renting, that makes no difference to the rental supply (1 fewer supply but also 1 fewer demand), but it may also be sold to someone who uses it for holiday accommodation, whether just for their own use or on Air BnB or similar. That makes 1 fewer supply and no fewer demand.
@Quantumcat: To add to this, the people renting may not be in a position to be able to buy, or may not want to buy. Just because a house that was an investment is sold, doesn't mean someone who is currently renting will buy it.
@brendanm: If someone who already owns a house buys it to live in, then they still have to sell their current house, and so on and so forth. It's just musical chairs, the number of houses and renters stays constant here
If a rental property is sold and it is bought by a family to live in, who were previously renting, that makes no difference to the rental supply (1 fewer supply but also 1 fewer demand), but it may also be sold to someone who uses it for holiday accommodation, whether just for their own use or on Air BnB or similar. That makes 1 fewer supply and no fewer demand.
I don't think this is too relevant considering landlords outside of a lease period can have a change of investment strategy and kick the tenant out to turn the property into holiday accommodation anyway.
@Quantumcat: Nothing stopping the current landlord from doing that already though, is there? I don't understand what your point is here, an investor selling to another investor doesn't really change anything
@Jolakot: That's true, but if they are currently renting it out then they are likely to continue, since they had the idea to do it in the first place.
When a property is sold it will usually be either neutral or a loss to the rental pool though.
Glad to hear there is some measure in the new budget to increase affordable housing stocks. Even if it will take a very long time until any of them are ready for people to move into
so if the majority of people are renters then they'll vote for pro-renter laws, not much else to it
According to the ABS currently 67% of Australians own (with or without a mortgage) their own home so you may be waiting a while before renters are the majority.
@Grunntt: Which is why I said if not when. More to say that these things can absolutely change if the circumstances eventually get bad enough
In Straya the house is the landlords home, not the tenants.
home
hōm
noun
- A place where one lives; a residence.
- The physical structure within which one lives, such as a house or apartment.
- A dwelling place together with the family or social unit that occupies it; a household.
The landlord does not live in the house, therefore it cannot be the landlord's home. It is their house, yes, but it is the tenant's home.
like most reasonable people I believe that tenants should be allowed to keep pets
Then you should find a landlord who agrees with you…
It's the Landlord's property, so they should be the ones to decide whether pets are allowed or not…
Provided they are taking the health of the pet into account. Not for instance keeping a border collie in a small apartment. Though I guess that's not just renters.
When renting (for 20 years) I knew if a had a pet I would find it more difficult to get the rental I wanted so I didn't own one. It was the trade off I was willing to make. If I really wanted a pet I would have gotten one and taken the risk of it being harder to find a rental. Live comes down to choices. They can bring in this legislation and people will always find a way around it.
Yup, landlords, especially the ones who can afford it, will stop making their investment properties available for long-term lease, and either keep them as holiday homes or AirBNBs.
That would not be optimal, given the current rental crunch.
The Landlord should have the final say whether pets are allowed, it it their property, they decide what is allowable.
If the tenant requires a pet, then they are free to look for another property.
Are they allowed to stop me from using Ozbargain in my home too? Or what about eating baked beans? That one leaves a smell that'll linger for a while.
In Australia tenants have a right to quiet enjoyment within their home. Landlords can't come around and complain about people wearing their shoes in the house, they can complain about carpet and floor damage. They can't complain about furniture leaving marks, they can complain if the floors aren't clean and suffering from anything more than general wear and tear.
Likewise, they shouldn't be allowed to complain about pets but absolutely demand the tenant clean up and repair and damage that the pets do, just like literally everything else in a lease. If having a pet is part of someone's quiet enjoyment of the property then who cares what the landlord decides? They can not lease the place out if they don't like what tenants freely do in it.
As long as the landlord / REA states clearly in the contract that there are to be no pets, then there should be no pets where the tenant agrees.
Again the tenant is no worse off, they can go elsewhere.
I have stated no pets on my property and it eliminated some potential tenants which I was OK with.
Most landlords don't want their tenants having pets.
25% of the population that rent (and an ever increasing amount that will never own a home) should not be prevented from owning a pet
because landlords believe their property is more important than the rights of a tenant to own a pet.
It's quite simple, if you don't like this and deem the risk too high then choose a different investment path such as shares or commercial real estate.
Now the rebuttal will no doubt be if tenants don't like it then they should purchase a home. The difference is they are trying to enter a market that they are at a significant disadvantage due to the government having fiscal policy that that encourages investment in housing by providing generous tax incentives which continues the perpetual growth in house prices because investors use the increased equity from the rising house prices to borrow against and outbid first home buyers.
25% of the population that rent (and an ever increasing amount that will never own a home) should not be prevented from owning a pet
They aren't prevented from owning a pet though. No landlord has ever said you are not allowed to own a pet.
I want you to own a pet if you want to own a pet, just not at my property.
It's quite simple,
Yes it is yet you still don't get it.
if you don't like this and deem the risk too high then choose a different investment path such as shares or commercial real estate.
Just because I don't want pets does not mean I need to throw out the whole investment vehicle. What type of logic is this?
The difference is they are trying to enter a market that they are at a significant disadvantage due to the government having fiscal policy that that encourages investment in housing by providing generous tax incentives which continues the perpetual growth in house prices because investors use the increased equity from the rising house prices to borrow against and outbid first home buyers.
Really?
Isn't this true also of the First HOme Owners Grant? Stamp Duty concessions? First Home Guarantee scheme? Home Builder Grant (Federal)?
This is on top of the National Rental Affordability Scheme (NRAS) and Rent Assistance handouts.
Not to mention the eviction moratorium which enabled renters to hide behind covid to not pay and not leave.
Renters have it good in Australia.
They aren't prevented from owning a pet though. No landlord has ever said you are not allowed to own a pet.
I want you to own a pet if you want to own a pet, just not at my property.
And when 20% of the landlords think the same thing you have 20% of the population left with no option but to not have a pet, that is the issue, that is why this discussion is taking place as we have hit a point where landlords hold too much of the housing stock.
Just because I don't want pets does not mean I need to throw out the whole investment vehicle. What type of logic is this?
It's so simple I'm not sure how you don't understand. If you don't like the risk or wear and tear that a pet in your rental causes then change investment path, you shouldn't get to hinder the liberty of others to have what should be a right to own a pet in a rental.
Isn't this true also of the First HOme Owners Grant? Stamp Duty concessions? First Home Guarantee scheme? Home Builder Grant (Federal)?
This is laughable, all measures that increase your equity by driving house prices up further than actually tackling the issue head on and stop providing tax incentives for investors in housing. Also home builder grant was for anyone, nothing stopped home owners from building new home to get the grant and rent their old home.
Negative gearing, CGT discount, appliance and building depreciation… property investors have it very good, I mean you wouldn't be doing it wasn't the case.
Not to mention the eviction moratorium which enabled renters to hide behind covid to not pay and not leave.
Yeah what a lovely way to tip the balance in renters favor for what 6 months? While the rest of the time landlords have no cause evictions (admittedly some states are finally cracking down on).
Landlords have it amazing in Australia
And when 20% of the landlords think the same thing you have 20% of the population left with no option but to not have a pet, that is the issue, that is why this discussion is taking place as we have hit a point where landlords hold too much of the housing stock.
By your own admission 80% of landlords allow it, isn't that good enough? Let the landlords that limit their tenant market suffer in their jocks right?
It's so simple I'm not sure how you don't understand. If you don't like the risk or wear and tear that a pet in your rental causes then change investment path.
But I can easily mitigate that risk of pet wear and tear by that one stipulation AND keep residential property as a valid investment vehicle. Is there something wrong with wanting to minimise wear and tear?
you shouldn't get to hinder the liberty of others to have what should be a right to own a pet in a rental.
Awww…..you and your little liberties. Again these 'liberties' aren't taken away, you can have thjose liberties elsewhere.
This is laughable, all measures that increase your equity by driving house prices up further than actually tackling the issue head on
So you don't want these assistance packages for the aspiring home owner? Then don't bitch about the prices being out of reach, sheesh, my tax dollars go towards helping them and they think the assistance is invalid because there is a side effect on prices.
Also home builder grant was for anyone, nothing stopped home owners from building new home to get the grant and rent their old home.
And? I never said it was for renters only just that it was there to help renters get a leg up.
Negative gearing,
You have to spend $1 to claim back 47c, I don't want to lose 53c. I positively gear.
CGT discount
This replaced the horrible indexing method and tables that I had to carry around during my taxation units. This makes CGT discount calculation easier.
appliance and building depreciation
Can you please point to another income generating vehicle that includes capital expenditure where depreciation is not allowed?
Yeah what a lovely way to tip the balance in renters favor for what 6 months?
Its easy to say when its not your property being lived in.
While the rest of the time landlords have no cause evictions (admittedly some states are finally cracking down on).
Just issue the tenants a notice to vacate upon a new lease.
By your own admission 80% of landlords allow it, isn't that good enough? Let the landlords that limit their tenant market suffer in their jocks right?
No what I meant was out of the 27% of privately rented properties 20% of those don't allow dogs (aka 74%). I have know idea what the real figure is btw other than most landlords don't allow pets. If it were 80% then their absolutely wouldn't be an issue but is it stands there is and thats when governments need to regulate.
But I can easily mitigate that risk of pet wear and tear by that one stipulation AND keep residential property as a valid investment vehicle. Is there something wrong with wanting to minimise wear and tear?
And? I never said it was for renters only just that it was there to help renters get a leg up.
See previous point, not only does it help investors too it also drives up prices.
So you don't want these assistance packages for the aspiring home owner? Then don't bitch about the prices being out of reach, sheesh, my tax dollars go towards helping them and they think the assistance is invalid because there is a side effect on prices.
No! Have you not being paying attention to any of the reports on these polices you would know that they drive up house prices https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-05-25/homebuilder-first-hom…
What people are calling out for is policies that reduce or stagnate house prices, not increase borrowing capacity while simultaneously increasing every landlords equity allowing them to build a larger portfolio of property. So instead of these ridiculous polices that increase prices it's long overdue to end negative gearing.
There is nothing wrong with that as such but surely you can see from a society point of view that when most landlords are also making that same decision then it becomes an issue that the government needs to step in. It's not really an issue when the rental market is manly young students or school leavers but the rental market has grown to include more families and elderly than ever before and I find it unreasonable that they are deprived the right to a pet by an issue that many successive governments have helped create.
Awww…..you and your little liberties. Again these 'liberties' aren't taken away, you can have thjose liberties elsewhere.
Your sense of entitlement is staggering, go and landlord in Europe and then you'll see what tenants rights actually are.
You have to spend $1 to claim back 47c, I don't want to lose 53c. I positively gear.
Then surely you won't mind negative gearing ending.
Can you please point to another income generating vehicle that includes capital expenditure where depreciation is not allowed?
Can you please point to another income generating vehicle that provides tax offsets that make it more difficult for others to purchase a home? It is not unusual to have different tax rules within different income generating vehicles eg miners and farmers don't have to pay the fuel excise while every other business doesn't receive the rebate.
Its easy to say when its not your property being lived in.
Oh poor landlords, having a small period where you couldn't evict tenants who had lost their income through no fault of their own. Landlords also received tax relief for this, most banks offered loan deferrals.
Again if this is all too high of risk for you then choose a different investment vehicle, but we both know that RE is too lucrative of an investment that you'd rather lobby against tenant rights than choose an investment more catered to your risk management.
If it were 80% then their absolutely wouldn't be an issue but is it stands there is and thats when governments need to regulate.
You hate government intervention on the demand side of the equation but want something so insignificant like pets to be mandated.
That seems silly.
See previous point, not only does it help investors too it also drives up prices.
Its not just investors, other aspirational owners are willing to climb over each other to own property. Going back to early 2000's there were many causes of prices sky rocketing, investors is only one of them. Banks for example loosened their lending standards, dual income became the norm leaving single income families a little behind.
What people are calling out for is policies that reduce or stagnate house prices, not increase borrowing capacity while simultaneously increasing every landlords equity allowing them to build a larger portfolio of property.
It's already happened. Investors pay a higher interest rate and cannot go interest only.
So instead of these ridiculous polices that increase prices it's long overdue to end negative gearing.
This was tried a long time ago. It was repealed within a year it was so horrible.
Labor tried to re-introduce scaling back negative gearing, they got smashed so bad that those Socialists even promised not to propose it again. Thats how bad that policy is.
I find it unreasonable that they are deprived the right to a pet by an issue that many successive governments have helped create.
Again, they aren't deprived of anything. They are no worse off. Stop using emotive language.
Your sense of entitlement is staggering,
You are trying to dictate to the owners what they should allow on their property. Who has the sense of entitlement?
Can you please point to another income generating vehicle that provides tax offsets that make it more difficult for others to purchase a home?
So you can't find an example of where expenses cannot be used to offset income but just decide to add in irrelevant points like making it harder for others.
Oh poor landlords, having a small period where you couldn't evict tenants who had lost their income through no fault of their own. Landlords also received tax relief for this, most banks offered loan deferrals.
I wasn't impacted in any way. I don't look at it through a lens of fault.
The #1 understanding of renting a place is if you don't pay rent you will get evicted.
Again if this is all too high of risk for you then choose a different investment vehicle, but we both know that RE is too lucrative of an investment that you'd rather lobby against tenant rights than choose an investment more catered to your risk management.
I'm lobbying against those 'rights' because they are wrong not because of risk.
You hate government intervention on the demand side of the equation but want something so insignificant like pets to be mandated. That seems silly.
Ahh 1 is a fiscal policy and the other is a social policy…. is laughable that you even try and compare the too as somewhat comparable.
Its not just investors, other aspirational owners are willing to climb over each other to own property. Going back to early 2000's there were many causes of prices sky rocketing, investors is only one of them. Banks for example loosened their lending standards, dual income became the norm leaving single income families a little behind.
This was tried a long time ago. It was repealed within a year it was so horrible.
Still going with that old conservative talking point are we. Just to layout some facts for you when negative gearing was removed rents only went up in 2 cities (Perth & Sydney), they fell in Brisbane, Hobart, Adelaide and Melb stayed stagnant. Perth & Sydney had a rise in rents because they had the highest occupancy rates in the country at the time. So don't spill that BS that it drove up rents.
Labor tried to re-introduce scaling back negative gearing, they got smashed so bad that those Socialists even promised not to propose it again. Thats how bad that policy is.
Labor got smashed because they took on too much policy reform for an incoming government, you can't say what affect negative gearing had on it. It was a common sense solution anyway, applying to new homes only gives investors more incentive to increase supply. I love you capitalists who are all about socialized losses and privatized profits and then complain about social policy.
It's already happened. Investors pay a higher interest rate and cannot go interest only.
Investors pay higher rates because they are higher risk not because of government policy. Housing affordability aside interest only loans shouldn't have been permitted for property, the risk of a housing bubble that would be thrown into a free dive with these loans was too much after the 08 GFC.
You are trying to dictate to the owners what they should allow on their property. Who has the sense of entitlement?
The moment landlords stop receiving tax subsidies for their property is the moment they shouldn't be dictated to, but right now the entitled brats want the tax offsets and also want deprive tenants of liberties they afford themselves. Stop being such leachers on the tax system.
So you can't find an example of where expenses cannot be used to offset income but just decide to add in irrelevant points like making it harder for others.
So you cant find examples of other investment vehicles that makes it more difficult for others to afford a home?
I'm lobbying against those 'rights' because they are wrong not because of risk.
They aren't wrong just because it increases wear and tear on your precious investment portfolio. What's wrong is home owner ship at it's lowest levels while investors enjoy generous tax offsets that help drive up prices and reep renters unable to afford their own home. I hope it passes and I hope your tenants take up their right to have a pet.
Ahh 1 is a fiscal policy and the other is a social policy…. is laughable that you even try and compare the too as somewhat comparable.
But you want the government to be hands off, only where it suits you it seems.
So don't spill that BS that it drove up rents.
I made no mention of rising rents just that it was bad policy and even the government saw it.
I love you capitalists who are all about socialized losses and privatized profits and then complain about social policy.
Not sure how landlords are making the community pay for their losses. Landlord cop their own losses. If they lose money then they can offset those costs against income, like any other income generating concern.
So you cant find examples of other investment vehicles that makes it more difficult for others to afford a home?
I don't need to because it is irrelevant in this discussion, we were talking about depreciation as a deduction.
What's wrong is home owner ship at it's lowest levels while investors enjoy generous tax offsets
Again tax offsets that are normal expenses against income.
I hope it passes and I hope your tenants take up their right to have a pet.
I will either up the rent to reflect the increased risk or simply don't renew the lease at its completion.
But you want the government to be hands off, only where it suits you it seems.
Nice red herring. Not wanting governments to implement policy that has results contrary to the objective of that policy doesn't mean I want government to have their hands off, rather I want them to use different levers to achieve that result.
I made no mention of rising rents just that it was bad policy and even the government saw it.
So if it didn't cause rents to rise (as conservatives always try and run fear campaigns on) then why was it bad policy?
Not sure how landlords are making the community pay for their losses. Landlord cop their own losses. If they lose money then they can offset those costs against income, like any other income generating concern.
Because the many landlords that negative gear are lowering their taxable income (that's less government revenue to pay for services) because they are taking a paper loss, but the stupidity of it is they under most circumstances aren't really losing, their equity has actually increased above and beyond the losses that they are claiming. Sure you can do this with other income generating investments but I can't think of any other income generating investment that competes with people trying to put a roof over their head. You don't hear people complaining and calling for reform of those that negative gear shares, because it doesn't stuff with the lives of others by making it more difficult for them to enter the property market.
we were talking about depreciation as a deduction.
What other asset can you claim depreciation on that actually increases in value over the same period you have supposedly lost value on?
Again tax offsets that are normal expenses against income.
You keep going back this, you fail to comprehend that other investments don't make it more difficult for others to purchase their own home where they aren't tied to uptight landlords that refuse pets, that kick them out without any reason once the lease is up etc etc. There are reasons property investors attract such criticism, they aren't hard done by.
I will either up the rent to reflect the increased risk or simply don't renew the lease at its completion.
That's fair enough
Renters have it good in Australia.
And pigs are well fed and are ready to fly away …
let me guess you have 3 investment properties and renters fund your lifestyle, but you want to deny them having one themselves that includes a pet that may improve their mental and other health
i always love to hear from better off entitled people
let me guess you have 3 investment properties and renters fund your lifestyle,
No I work a normal job.
but you want to deny them having one themselves that includes a pet that may improve their mental and other health
They are no worse off mate. If 'mental health' is paramount in their consideration then they can skip the awful landlords and find an understanding one.
@[Deactivated]: Guess again.
I am a renter, don't own any investment properties and love dogs (used to own a couple but they have passed away now - a Lab and a Doxie).
And I am still in favour of allowing people who worked hard for THEIR OWN property to decide what they will and will not allow on THEIR property.
Laptops and baked beans don't chew and scratch the paint off doors to get in/out, or vomit and s__t on the beige carpet. ;-p
I wish landlords had the same attitude when building high density housing and my taxes subsidizing crappy fibro houses that should have been torn down decades ago. If a large apartment building knocks off 100k and drives down rent, there would whinging NIMBYs wanting to make housing illegal so they have the monopoly over their pricing. Legalise housing.
As a left field thought … perhaps tenants should be required to hold "compulsory third party" insurance with conditions (and premiums) the either allow for pets or don't (amongst other things)?
That's called a rental bond
Unfortunately rental bonds are often ludicrously inadequate from a financial perspective when damage is done to a property via sustained apathy, neglect, or willful intent (as opposed to genuine accident).
Or alternatively, and to bring it back to this matter specifically, should bonds be higher for those wishing to house pets?
Unfortunately rental bonds are often ludicrously inadequate from a financial perspective when damage is done to a property via sustained apathy, neglect, or willful intent (as opposed to genuine accident)
When an agent is claiming a bond, they will always claim any unpaid rent first as they get commission on that rent. So if a tenant decides not to pay their final month of rent, the entire bond will be put towards rent leaving nothing remaining to cover any other damage from pets or otherwise.
This happens fairly frequently unfortunately. There needs to be a separate pet bond to ensure that this can't happen.
It is sadly the reality and its funny how the internet folks (i think they are trolls) look past this point. Once the damage is done, tenant loses their bond, but the repair costs can be much more than that and landlord has to foot the bill or go through their insurances. Meanwhile the tenant is already at a new rental property enjoying the company of their pets while the landlord is going through hell to sort things out.
When I was renting few years ago (in vic) the contract for my unit stated no pets in bold letters. While tenants from some of the other units in the apartment complex had pets as theirs allowed it. Landlord must have final decision whether they allow pets or not.
If you cant afford a home or a premium on a rental that allows them you cant afford a pet. Too many dogs are kept in tiny town house yards by tenants more interested in their own emotional needs than the well-being of the animal. These adult children are also the WORST neighbours & their bad decisions end up inflicted on everyone living nearby.
The animal ends up causing problems due to endless barking/behavioural issues because they are kept in a cupboard of a rental.
Want a pet? Get stable financially. Cant? you aren't competent enough to maintain a pet.
I agree. Too many people look at what they want or need without thinking what the pet needs.
+1
Agreed
If the laws change, I think the landlord should be at least able to stipulate that pets are kept outside of the house. Pets inside the house can cause a lot more damage.
Do you have pets?
Pets kept outside in freezing winters, sheeting rain and burning summers? Really? RSPCA will come knocking.
PETS (not equals to) Damage
The equation is more complex, but that's where it starts.
I think a fair assessment is if tenants are allowed to have pets, then the bond must be lot of higher for them or the pet insurance must be able to cover all the damages done to property (maybe it does, i just don't know)
What's the point of having a pet if it can only stay outside??? Unless you're living on a farm and they are working animals.
If the laws change, I think the landlord should be at least able to stipulate that pets are kept outside of the house
Which the majority of tenants ignore. I've known people who agree to that who let the dog wander in/out out will. And others who open the back screen door, dogs barrels inside, all the way into the loungeroom carpet and back, all happy, panting, tail wagging, "Out, out I said, OUUUUTTTT!" This will happen 20 times during the visit. Then there's the rare few who actually bother to train their dog, and the dog actually obeys… but people then walk in/out over the mucus and dirt the dog creates at the back step, walks it onto the carpet inside. They may as well just let the dog in. Once that filth gets into the carpet (and they ALL say there is no filth and they're ALL wrong - they just don't smell it because they're used to it) no amount of steam cleaning gets rid of it. It only masks it.
i don't understand why people keep referring to pets causing damage, isn't that why tenants pay a bond? to cover damages.. :/
If your carpets for example are left stinking of dog or urine the most you going to get out of the tenant will be the costs of a professional cleaning.
This won't solve the problem though, and it will be left to the landlord to pay for the new carpets and lose rent while this work is done.
The bond isn't big enough in most cases. We were shit tennants when I was a kid and never really thought about how much damage the family dog was doing to the carpets, it was disgusting looking back but day to day you're just used to it. When I've looked at places to rent as an adult I could tell when there'd been a pet inside the home even if it looked clean and I wouldn't put an application in.
I think a fair trade would be having to put down a bigger bond for a pet - the equivalent to cost of recarpeting/ reflooring at minimum.
Exactly. And ripping the carpet up is the only way. If this nonsense passes, there's going to be a lot of properties with only hard floors.
This is the exact reason we did precisely that.
But, we do consider more potential tenants with pets now that there is the risk of less cost to us.
Last time it was between 5 suitable tenants (3 with pets) - the reptile owner now lives there.
like most reasonable people I believe that tenants should be allowed to keep pets.
LOL … no prejudice at all …
Please be sensible, be reasonable … do it my way.
The onus is on the landlord to give a good reason to a tribunal why a tenant shouldn't have pets.
Because it's THEIR property, THEIR asset, that cost $400K and up in most cases. But since when did government recognise insignificant details like that. (I'm a tenant btw.)
I have aspergers, i have spent 13 years on the waiting list (so far, and im 51) for a place where i can have a companion animal (been alone all my life), why? because private rental is hell even with a formal diagnosis, and the trouble with public housing is lack of security, they seem to give places to people with issues (mostly drug and criminal) who poison entire housing blocks and stopping other, law abiding people, from feeling secure in accepting properties - just last week turned up to look at a public housing property where multiple units had windows broken out, garbage everywhere, junkies walking around and a well publicised near fatal stabbing recently - and housing wonders why as someone who has never had so much as a parking fine declines it because they dont feel safe in just viewing the place, let alone living there full time?. These public housing menaces always seem to have dogs on the breeds to avoid list too, and they always seem to go from infecting one public housing complex to another, because housing keeps giving them places. So, stuck between rock and a hard place as a responsible person….id happily avoid being on public housing altogether if private rental wasnt so restrictive. All i want is a single cat for company….in 2022..i started on that hunt in 2010
First, the druggies/ferals are due to being on welfare - which is the majority of people who get government housing, because others can afford to pay full rent on their own (that's how government sees it). i.e. It's just the kind of mentality being on welfare fosters.
Second, change your preferred area. I used to live in government housing. I was on the list for years. Then they sent me a letter saying to check in with them or I'd be removed and the waiting list was another X years. That time period was the same as when I signed up years earlier, so I gave up and ignored it. Several years later again, I went back in to reapply, and they just "reactivated" me so it was like I hadn't been out of the system. Then they said if I changed to xyz area I'd be on the top of the list for an offer. So I did. A week later I was in a property. It was 70km from where I first wanted but I was paying a third of the rent. Ask them what are the high turnover areas, which have the number of bedrooms you qualify for, which are closest to where you'd prefer to be. You might have to at least head in the direction of more rural areas. Once you get in, advertise everywhere you can for a swap.
Third, I see people wanting to share rental properties all the time. On Gumtree, Facebook rental groups, university and library and supermarket noticeboards, etc. Many of them mention "must be a cat/dog person."
I did switch areas once after an appalling experience with a regional housing provider Housing NSW subcontracted out (possibly because they wanted arms distance form any responsibility) and spent 10 years out of the 12 on that regional providers list getting nowhere, now in the city they will only offer me properties in blocks with junkies, who they keep rewarding for some reason…i dont get it, ive never even had a parking ticket…and after 12 years of bs that even they admit shouldnt have happened, thats the best they can do apparently. I do have my local members assistance lately, thankfully, otherwise theyd have bumped me off for 2 rejections (which i think they try and get by offering you places they know you'll knock back - trying to get the numbers down on the waiting list). Literally every time ive been to a housing office, me, whos never put a foot wrong in life, worked part time and volunteered for most of my life and im waiting behind someone fresh out of jail who gets a golden ticket ahead of someone 12 years on the list….cant let them out until they have an address, so guess who goes 1st folks….criminals, paedophiles are my personal bugbear, they seem to get a property, get found out by their neighbours, and magically get moved to a new location…meanwhile, again, im 12 years in….Someone needs to stop rewarding the dregs of society.
As for sharing, im afraid, with my aspergers and other disorders, sharing is just not on the cards for me. I doubt i could be around another aspie for more than a few hours a day.
You probably already know but there's another one in NSW too. I forget what they're called now. Community Housing or something like that!?
Uncle got out of residential properties due to pet issues. One renter was using one bedroom of the house as a dog kennel for his 3 dogs not only did the carpet have to be replaced but floorboards as well.
Doubt that this is the norm though? Presumably most people with pets aren’t like that
It's happening often enough, which is why landlords put in those restrictions.
Ah, more regulation on long term rentals. Just what we need in a rental supply crunch.
It's no surprise that more properties get taken off the long term rental market and put into short term like AirBnB when regulations get tighter.
Which is exactly what government wants, at the behest of their puppet master scum like Bill Gates and Klaus Schwab… they want everyone poor, hungry, renting everything instead of owning, unable to buy decent or enough food, eating bugs while they dine on angus beef, taking their useless poison jabs and organ-destroying and mind-altering medications, to reduce world population. Just as they openly admit in their books, speeches, etc.
I'm biased but no to dogs because they bark but yes to cats. Also I think LL should be allowed to have some form of pet bond otherwise they won't accept pets anyway.
Then we'll have people claiming their dog identifies as a cat.
We'll need a new Matt Walsh documentary: "What is a cat?"
Anything that gives more power to renters is ✅
If there’s damage from the pet it comes out of the bond like any other damage.
People have no idea the cost of repairs. Maybe if you're able to take time off work. But even then the bond rarely covers the damage… and that's if the tenant doesn't object to some tribunal who just wastes the landlord's time and money on multiple appearances, only to hand it all back to them in the end anyway. Most landlords just wear it instead of indulging in months of "lawfare."
Say a dog scratches the back of a door every time it wants to get out. It's going to cost about the same, a few hundred $, for a painter to come and sand, fill the scratches, then repaint - as it will for someone to fit and paint a brand new door. And if the dog did that, you can bet there's more to fix. Just this repair alone could take the entire bond after paying a tradesman.
Or say the dog scratches through the clear coating on a couple of floorboards with its claws at the back door when it wants out. If the scratches are too deep to fill it's going to cost at least a few hundred $ for a carpenter to rip out just those two boards, then say another $50 for two replacement boards (if you can even find that exact type at a secondhand building supplies place) or you'll have to take new planks somewhere to get custom-routed the same each side and thicknessed to fit. Then you'll have to either make a… dogs breakfast, lol… of the recoat job by only coating those two boards, or else sand and recoat the entire floor.
Same thing with gyprock. You have to fill holes, then match the paint, paint the entire wall at least to each corner in the hope it won't show a difference. (Because obvious differences reduce the overall value of the property.)
Carpet damage will require the ENTIRE HOUSE be redone if that shade/style is no longer available. That's at least a few thou$and. The landlord might be able to cut a section out of an inbuilt wardrobe, then get a carpet layer to cut that same shape into where a dog's claws have ripped through, but it's still going to be more than the entire bond due to the time and care that will need to be taken by him - and again, it will still look stupid due the other wear around it, devaluing the property again. Or he'll have to replace only the area coming off the kitchen, thus making it different shades or colours again reducing the value of his property.
And that's if the tribunal is worth the time and fight, and if they don't just order him to refund the entire bond regardless.
Years ago I owned a rental property and reluctantly agreed the tenants could have a dog. "It will always be outside".
When I moved back in the carpets had urine stains and the smell was instant as soon as I opened the door. The tenants paid for carpet cleaning (and that is all the tribunal will support). But it did not do the job, so I was out of pocket for new carpets years earlier than planned.
And ….. my daughter in law is renting. She had an old dog that was incontinent (now passed on), and has a cat that loves to claw the carpet.
To reduce rental prices the market needs to be more attractive for landlords, not less attractive. Less supply means higher prices. So this will result in happier tenants that just have to pay more. New Zealand made a number of pro tenant/anti landlord changes. Do some research to see the result there.
OP 'but my pet doesn't stink or urinate!'
Yep. Just like smokers…
"Mum, you STINK of cigarettes!"
"What are you on about… I just had a shower!?"
Cats yes, dogs no.
Looks like we are heading slowly to https://www.verifythis.com/article/news/verify/crime-verify/… and this https://ca.news.yahoo.com/mom-daughter-face-homelessness-buy…
Pets are not the problem, tenants are the problem.
@dave999: I think we are generally in agreement then, but if it is a well designed law, the effect on overall rental prices should be fairly negligible.
Non-pet owners are only subsidising pet owners to the amount of damage that is in excess of the bond and can't be clawed back from the one that caused the damage. I would argue that this would be pretty small even if there was no change in the bond system. But there is definitely place for a discussion around pet-specific bond schemes.