VIC Tenant keeping a dog out notification to owner or PM

Pounds and Rescues are over flowing because irresponsible people get pets without thinking things through. Nothing to do with a LL denying a pet.

 

Yep. Cannot agree more with this.

 

I now accept having 10 cats can be done without any issues of responsible pet care, hygiene or harm to a property. Yes acreage is an exception with livestock, how could I disagree, I was simply implying a typical residential property, not a farm, a cattery or other type of property. I did say that a tenant wasn't entitled to make lasting changes to the property which damaging cabinets would fall under.

 

The reply was mainly to @thatbum. You've said similar things about the strong legality of what a tenant can do during the tenancy.
The examples were merely to show that this "strong" permission to use is very limited to what consider reasonable.

The OP has now stated he noticed couple of unapproved dogs in his rental.
@thatbum claims there's nothing he can / should do and anyway he's gonna lose.

I'm used to this attitude from him and enjoy stating that it's a big pile of BS.
Landlords are not powerless. Even with the new tenancy laws.

Tenants who are taking the landlord for a ride, such as brining a pet (or two) without following the proper process, in my view, should get the boot.
That's the power that is left in the hand of the landlord. No amount of laws will take this away.
At the end of the day, the legal owner of the rental is the landlord and they are the ones who have the ultimate power on what will happen with the property and who'll get to live in it.

 

I adopted my doggo from Blacktown pound because apparently the previous owner wasn't allowed to have a dog at their new rental. But I agree with your statement about people adopting pets without thinking things through as a cause of pets in pounds and rescues. But when I adopted my doggo, the form asked if I owned or rented. So I believe non pet friendly rentals, that are suitable for pets, contribute to this problem.

 

Again, it's not the landlord doing.
Investment properties are exactly that. They cost money to the owner and as such the owner wants to reduce the costs.
Pet can represent additional cost. Sometime significant.

It's a numbers game; even if most pet owners are responsible, it's enough if you have enough to give all of them bad name.
Same reason you won't hire someone with face tattoo to work in a bank teller. It's not that all of the people with face tattoo are in any way not suitable. But it's just that enough of them created a reputation that cannot be ignored by the general public.

 

I do admit that the lease I have with my tenant expressly states the tenant has to get my permission before having a pet. And I'd have to say in OP's case that this would seem to amount to a breach of the rental agreement. And this definitely favours your argument. However, and I say this without certainty as I don't claim to have expertise in this area. But, as the tenant is now occupying the property, I strongly believe the courts/tribunals or whoever makes the final determination, would be reluctant to evict such a tenant, especially if it would make them homeless. Now as for the pets. I'm not sure of your use of the word "unapproved" being not approved by the landlord, or a breed of dog that is not approved by council given the type of property. If it's the latter, this is a different issue. But if you mean without landlord approval, on a pragmatic level, I would advise the landlord to allow the dogs, simply because as a general rule, dogs don't cause harm to property, many many Australian homes have dogs. As for the landlord's right to insist the dogs be removed, and keeping my personal feelings aside, I would hope the decision maker of this would try to arrange a conciliation between landlord and tenant, possibly involving an undertaking by the tenant to ensure all bathroom use by the dogs are outside and cleaned daily, as it's not in the best interest of the community to have them going into a rescue shelter, but, I am not sure.

 

Your hunch would be correct in the vast majority of cases. And all the states are starting to legislate this position expressly in the current round of residential tenancy legislative reviews. But even in states without the express provisions, breaches of no-pet clauses simply do not give rise to termination unless they come with a separate stand-alone breach that's related to the pet.

And that's from someone with expertise in the area - a tenancy solicitor for over a decade.

 

And what about the outcome of breaches of no pet clauses for the pet(s)? Again, I would hope that commonsense would be applied where there's conciliation arranged between landlord and tenant possibly involving the tenant giving various undertakings to give the landlord peace of mind, such as daily cleaning up of poops, possibly fencing around any garden beds.

 

It worth mentioning you do state this everytime someone disagree with your legal certainty.
Not only myself, but also in other discussions, even when a different law is being discussed and the same disregard to others who disclose they are in fact practising lawyers.

I have a mate, who is a senior barrister, and even he won't be as strong in his assumptions as you are. All the time. On every matter. Without knowing enough details.
Everybody in law knows that nothing is never clear-cut.

Coupled with the fact that you have stated certain outcomes in RTA situations I was in, which in reality tuned out to completely opposite to what you said will happen. Even when the other side has paid for legal representation.

 

Usually in the cases I've worked on, the tenant was willing to offer up lots of those sorts of "commonsense" arrangements but the owner just wanted get rid of the pet just because it was a breach of the lease, or other speculative damage type reasons that some in this thread have mentioned.

So it went to hearing and ultimately the court/tribunal had to rule whether the breach was serious enough to justify termination - just yes or no. There's not really much scope for other legal remedies, since there's no actual loss or damage (yet, I guess) in most of these cases.

 

Look, no one knows what the member will decide on the day. NOT ONE.
it will probably be quite difficult for the tenant to let a member just keep everything as it is now given they didn't seek approval for pet from the landlord (it's not just your contract, it's the act. The tenant has to seek permission. The landlord cannot refuse unreasonably).
The fact they now probably have two dogs, may be considered "unreasonable", depend on the property and the size of the dogs.

In any way, the tenant took a liberty that I classify as huge red flag.
I personally don't like tenants who raised red flags. They don't worth the hassle.

 

BTW, the decision might not be termination.
There are many other options the member will accept, such as removing one of the dogs or both (if the property does not fit for any dog or if the dogs are restricted by the local authority or if the dog is nuisance or if there are strata bylaws etc)

 

There's a good reason why investors are selling up and there's a rental shortage, be careful what you wish for. I had a tenant's dog cost me over 5k in reapplying a termite barrier that the dog had dug up all around the home.

 

...do you think I make the laws or something?

 

You don't seem to be delightful about changing them or making the system a bit fairer, I've been in talks with tenant advocacy groups In Qld for the last 2 years about problems, and now the prophecy has come true and I don't see them inviting people that are living in their cars into their own homes, funny that isn't it? They tend to throw all the stones and then hide when people need them the most.

 

I don't understand what you're actually saying here. Can you explain?

 

Haha. You've got it completely wrong. It's the empathetic people that want to help those animals ----be compassionate, you'll feel better

 

There are 1001 ways you can be empathetic. But being pushy and pretending to have a moral high ground by alluding that owners who do not want to have pets in their property are devoid of compassion is outright silly and haughty.

Everyone shows empathy in their own way. I am a vegetarian by choice (yes my compassion is not just limited to cats and dogs) and have regular monthly donations going out to non profit organisations dedicated to animal rescue. Now I am wary of pets in my IP and would likely not choose an application that has pets. Does that make me any less humane?

I will echo what Ronen said "tenants who do not follow the process and just get a pet deserve the boot" and so do some posters on here who are obnoxious enough to preach compassion and empathy.

 

Its hardly pushy, I'm a guy behind a keyboard with an opinion I've been plant based for 3+ years and agreed everyone demonstrates compassion differently - we feed the local strays and donate to the rescues also.

In answer to your question, yes