QLD Pet yea or nay ?

Except there's nearly no way this is true. You're basically suggesting on average the difference between a pet owning tenant and non-pet owning is literally hundreds of dollars per tenancy.

I'm firmly in the camp of pets being no more of a damage issue at all. You either have a bad tenant or a good tenant and its just incidental whether the damage is caused by pets or something else. Most of the time it seems like something else.

And I get this from being in the courts every week seeing the bond claims that come through. I'm genuinely surprised there aren't more issues with pet damage sometimes.

 

Thats a very sensible post. Very helpful advice as always. Thank you very much @Sackie

 

No problem at all with the vast majority of pet owners.

Your PM should have explained why that one was better. Overall less bodies in the house (i.e less wear and tear), more income, better rental history?

 

Yep, better income. But no pets in the other application. There are new carpets, new roller blinds among heaps of other reno work like full internal paint etc in the house. Hence my preference for the application with no pets but caved in when PM strongly pushed for the pet owners.

 

Just blue sky thinking here, but would not the insurance you already pay for and the bond you would have normally taken regardless aid in reducing concerns?

The deprecation on all your new works only lasts so long and the longevity of all your improvements shouldn't be in any worse of a condition than arguably having children in the home - providing the property manager did their job, conducted a detailed entry inspection report along with regular, detailed routines.

I think we all sometimes forget that pet damage is not reasonable fair wear and tear. It's damage the tenant is liable for.

 

Yeah true. Let's see how my experience goes

 

In my experience, the % of pet owning applicants will vary greatly depending on the type and location of the property. Don't exclude everyone in the ad, put "small pets possible - subject to application", then you can make the decision based on the application.

I agree with Tom - its the problem tenants that create pet problems. In pet-appropriate properties I focus on responsible pet owners with strong pet references and solid rental history, mitigate the risk with good landlord insurance. It may result in reduced vacancy/higher rent plus longer-term tenants.

 

I agree with the above from some very experienced people. As a LL with a large portfolio, many of which are in lower socio areas, I always allow pets. The only bad experiences I've had with tenants who own pets are tenancies that have other issues as well.

If I look at pet owning people that I know personally, there are some that I'd have no issue at all allowing them to rent my properties, and others I'd have a huge issue with. The ones I'd have an issue with, the issues aren't so much with their pets, but rather their own care of the properties that they reside in.

 

Unfortunately it is not as simple as choosing tenants without pets. Next thing you know they get a pet without permission. So sometimes it might be 'better the devil you know'. If they apply with an existing pet at least you know what you're dealing with. If they get one afterwards you could end up with a puppy of a large destructive breed ... like we did!! If a tenant lets a puppy inside you are 100% going to have pee on the flooring indoors. Then you can't evict the tenants because you can only breach after inspection (when you see some evidence of animal's existence at the premises). Tenant then 'removes' animal. Temporarily. And this cycles. It takes a year to evict at least.

 

@wylie I was reading your story with a sinking feeling, but it turned out well!

Great examples!

 

Lol, nice way to keep the pest and pets away. Good on you!

 

On a flip side, would tenants with pets usually be prepared to pay for a higher rent than market be it a new leased or a rental increment upon lease renewal I.e tenants do not want to test yet again if their application with pets may or may not be accepted if they decide to not renew the lease.

 

It was one of my landlords initiatives

 

Last vacancy I chose single tenant with dog over couple with 3 kids. I think I’ve gone full circle on pets tbh. Maybe as the properties get older I prefer less hassle

 

A tenant has been in my rental apartment since November 2021. She is now feeling lonely and requests an indoor cat, a new cat she is interested in buying. (Basically she will have to train it).

Property is in Queensland. Can I refuse to accept the pet? And on what basis do I need to explain?

This tenant unfortunately is one who wanted two new garage remotes only to find they work perfectly - I offered to check them myself before just saying replace; complained the A/C wasn't working - had it serviced and was working as normal; claimed the stove wouldn't turn on and luckily the A/C guy attended and showed her how to turn on stove. (During the same visit).

 

What's the issue with a cat?

As far as the maintenance is concerned, you need to make sure your PM is advising her that only maintenance will be done, not upgrades, and if trades are called for things that don't need doing, then she will pay for it.

 

Your PM seems to be keeping things too loose. What is their recommendation?

 

So the tenant has come from her own home, rather than from a previous tenancy. From the beginning of the tenancy, the tenant began putting maintenance requests through (last tenants broke lease and basically didn't report anything) - as above, stove not working, A/C not working, bar fridge not working, so when the stove and A/C were actually working after getting the electrician out, I started to become wary about "dud" maintenance requests. The bar fridge I offered to have assessed and/or replaced but she just decided she would use it as storage turned off. (even though I suspect it's working). eg. Latest request - both remotes requiring about 10 presses to open garage, please replace. Which I offered to check out myself (to at least change the batteries myself) - even though tenant said she changed them. She then worked out they needed to be pressed harder and work on first press. (but I still think a change of batteries myself and checking the contacts would do the trick).

Now the request for a cat because she is lonely and separated from husband, and the adult children have now chosen to live with the husband instead of her.

My concern with the cat is property damage, especially she wants to buy a new cat, (a lottery about how it will behave) - scratches on walls, blinds etc, cabinetry. Which may then just get passed off as "wear and tear". Of course she's after a toilet trained one, but the bedrooms are carpeted.

Unless my concerns are unfounded? I feel sorry for the tenants loneliness, at worst I could let her out of her lease so she can find a suitable property that owner is happy for pets

 

Why would obvious cat related damage be passed off as "wear and tear"?

And what's the alternative - find a new tenant that might have even more people living there?