VIC Tenant keeping a dog out notification to owner or PM

I'd rather clean up a few poo's than mess created from two legged tenants.

 

@Scott No Mates

"Dog fouling is a major concern to many people, not just because of the mess it causes, but because it can be a health risk. Dogs may deposit roundworm eggs (toxocara canis) in their faeces, which become infectious after about 3 weeks, and can remain so for up to 2 years.

Anyone, but particularly children playing near to the ground, can run the risk of picking up and swallowing the eggs. The eggs then hatch in the intestine, burrow through the intestine wall into the blood stream and pass into the body..."

In my case the soil had to removed and disposed of so the garden could be safely used as a vegetable garden.

 

Then don't take your kids to your IPs and let them eat dog poop in the yard?

Honestly, this seems like such a stretch for a justification to ban pets. You wouldn't even be able to pin this sort of thing liability wise on a tenant.

 

Well...three years of deposited dog faeces is more than just a few.

A lease is a contract setting out the terms under which two parties agree to operate under where one party wants to use/occupy an asset that belongs to the other party. It provides rights and responsibilities to both parties. It supposed to provide protections to both parties.

Many posts in this discussion are simply missing the above key point arguing what harm can there possibly be. Others play the man rather than the ball with assumptions that members dislike pets and animals. The problem for an IP owner/landlord is when these situations go wrong and they do. These types of circumstances highlight the erosion of the protections provided by the lease for one party where the other party blatantly breaches a term of the lease.

 

Big assumptions there! Firstly, it was the young children of the next tenant. Secondly, simple hand to mouth transfer (of soil contaminated with the infectious organism), a common form of disease transmission amongst toddlers and young children.

Again more assumptions. This example is not about the banning of pets. It's about examples of tenants breaching terms of a lease related to pets (to not bury faeces on the leased property) that end up having real consequences.

 

This isn't really correct. A common misunderstanding. A lease is primarily a property law construct rather than just a contract. And in property law terms, a grant of a tenancy is basically a grant of a legal right to do whatever the tenant wants to do with the property for the duration of the lease.

A lessor doesn't get to dictate or control what a tenant does with the property.

If you want that sort of control, then run a lodging house or hotel. Those contracts are more contractual. But if you want to grant a tenancy, then be prepared to 'lose control' as part of that grant.

 

Yawn.......Seriously, there's just no point in stressing over this.

 

You mean apart from the fact they can only live in it, cannot run a business from it, has to keep it reasonably clear and reasonably maintained, cannot modify it beyond very simple modification (and require to fix it when leaving), allow the landlord entrance for inspection twice a year etc?

Yeah. Sure. They can everything with it.

 

@thatbum...so a tenant could get a 400 kg pig as a pet in a tiny residential property and that's within their legal rights under a tenancy?

Most would think there's a legal right to occupy and use the property but not without some limits/boundaries, including those that are the terms of a lease that meets the requirements of relevant tenancy legislation. What you've said would be totally contrary to what the majority of lessors/landlords and property managers would believe to be the case and warrants clarification.

 

In his world? Yes.
In the real world? No.

Quite simply, the act states that the tenant has to ask for pet approval. The landlord cannot unreasonably refuse.
A 400kg pig or 10 cats may well be classified as "unreasonable".

 

When I was working in a rural area, a guy who had a stall at the local show (equivalent to the Easter show on a much smaller scale) sold a baby piglet to a kid. It then grew of course. Would this original 20kg piglet be ok.
But seriously, I just read the lease I have with my tenant thinking that because I had IP advertised as "pets allowed" I thought that gave permission for the tenant to have pets without asking me as I already gave consent. Upon reading now I see that it says that the tenant has to get my permission if they want a pet. Seems to undo the "pets allowed" in the initial ad. But you're saying the legislation is more favourable to the tenant saying the landlord can't unreasonably refuse.
Personally I'd like to think any legislation would protect the pet, as it would a tenant, from homelessness.
As for OP I won't push my affinity towards pets on you. But I'd like you to feel at ease knowing that dogs are a part of many Australian homes and do no harm to the structure of these homes. Pets do not like to dirty their own den, hence many tend to bury or kick dirt over their faeces and do these away from the dwelling. My doggo will charge outside even if she needs to cough up something. If you have a good tenant, appreciate them is my advice. They wouldn't have got a pet in disrespect of you, rather more likely a set of unplanned circumstances led them to adopt a dog, possibly to rescue it.

 

Nearly everything you mentioned is either not true, or an owner couldn't do anyway.

An owner probably couldn't do this either. How are you making a point with this exactly?

Do you think an owner could do this?

You guys are making my points for me!

 

I think a pig would come under livestock. And 10 cats might be considered a commercial enterprise or possibly in some cases a neurological condition.
I don't really know the legality of a lease as to how it fits in contract law. But I believe a lease is quite a strong right over the occupation of property, which as we know supersedes ownership when a property is transferred.
I'd like to think a tenant has the right to the reasonable enjoyment of the property just as if they were the owner, with the exception of making lasting changes to the property, as it is only for theirs to enjoy for the term of the lease. The question might then be if having a dog would lead to lasting changes to the property. I think it would be difficult to say it would. My last tenant had a dog which my PM said could be smelt a bit immediately after they moved out. I couldn't smell a thing. And my PM simply said after opening the windows and doors for a day, any odour would be gone. I strongly believe that having a dog is within the reasonable enjoyment of the property. Owners are allowed, let the tenants too.

 

This is a good way to think about it actually. Pretty close to the historical rationale and legal precedents for a common law tenancy, which is largely the basis for the current residential tenancy law legislation around the country.

 

I guess we can abolish xCAT than.

I'd love if you could show me a residential property, under residential agreement, which the tenant used as business (not home business, place that either include trade, clients or manufacturing) without the landlords permission that could go on when brought to xCAT.

I'd like to see the same happening when a tenant removed a wall to "open the space" (I removed few walls within my house and there was no issue).

Or having the property horded and dirty or neglected garden while the landlord doing their bi-yearly inspection.
I can fill up every room in my house to the brim every day of the week.

I can, if I want to. No issue what-so-ever. I have large enough land to comply with council requirements.
My tenants wouldn't without my approval and I can easily argue a 400kg pig will destroy my well maintained rental garden.

Nothing stopping me from having 10 or 20 cats in my house.
Won't be that easy for my tenant.

 

Easy. Allowed in acrage.

Huh?
People can have 10 pet cats.
Can you show me a law or bylaw against it?

Within the boundaries of the agreement and the act.
You can use it. You cannot do whatever you like with it.

Very very different.
An own can do whatever they want with it and no law can stop them.

I can break all the kitchen cabinet door cause they really annoy me when I need a glass of water and pee in the kitchen sink cause I like it.
Tenant, even if that will make him "quickly enjoy" the property - cannot.

 

I've worked within cat rescue, and know personally quite a few people with up to 20 cats as pets. Each and every one of them given vet treatment when needed and homes kept very clean. Not everyone with a lot of pets have neurological conditions, but yes you do hear of horders and it's a terrible life for an animal.

I have 4 cats myself and up to recently was doing foster care and would take in underage/sick kittens and nurse them until adopted out to new owners.

 

Not quite. A owner can do anything within their legal rights to their property. Many laws limit what they can do incl paint colours, noise, planning approval etc. They also cant expect to allowed entry in some cases. The tenant has a right to refuse unless certain conditions apply. And then they cant affect the rights of a tenant.

Tenants are goiverned by the Residential Tenancies Act in their state which may limit BOTH the landlord and tenant from doing certain things that may harm or affect others. The tenant has rights to occupy with quiet enjoyment provided they abide by the lease and state law. There is nothing in any state RTA which limits a tenants right to use their sink as a toilet. And to know they are doing it may also breach privacy. A owner however cant come in and do that while its leased.

 

Disgraceful telling someone to get rid of a pet. The pounds and rescues are over-flowing.

Across 3 investments each family has a couple of pets and not one has left in 7+ years of renting...they add value to your investment..not detract from it.

 

You missed my point...
@thatbum claims that lease basically allows a tenants to do whatever they want (his words) with the property during the tenancy. It also aligned with the way he responds to most queries about rentals.

I was giving examples of things an owner can do to their own house (aka PPoR) and a tenant cannot do in their rental.

You can remove a wall inside your house, a tenant cannot.
You can rip out the kitchen and cook on camping stove, tenant cannot.
etc etc.