We're looking for a rental in Victoria, and have a 2.5 year old dog. He's a great dog, super chilled, doesn't cause harm to property, carpet, floorboards etc. and doesn't bark or cause disturbances in general.
We are at a crossroads as to whether to include him on our rental applications, or to secure the rental then apply to have a pet. We're happy to offer $10-$20/week more in rent to increase our odds of securing the lease, but feel like this might be standard at the moment regardless of applicants having a pet.
It's tough because obviously including the dog on the rental means we're less likely to get accepted anywhere. Yes, there are some rentals that state 'pets allowed' but these are few and far between (maybe 1 in 100 properties in our search parameters will be 'pets allowed') and honestly the quality of these places is lacking.
For the tenants: have you navigated this before? What has been your experience?
For the landlords: is a pet on an application an immediate 'no'? If a tenant didn't declare their pet and then applied to have one once the lease was signed, did you challenge it and on what grounds?
From a logical perspective, if there were two applicants with the same credentials but one had a pet and the other didn't, the owner would more than likely choose the one with no pet. Reason being, less risk of damage. This is not to say that all pets will cause damage. It's the simple fact that the owner doesn't know you and doesn't know your dog - all they have is what's on your application - so why take an unncessary risk if you don't need to?.