Tenants just moved in - with undisclosed dogs

Which part of any tenancy act specifies no pets?

I'm not saying people don't send breach notices. I am saying that at tribunal many landlords discover they don't have the powers they thought.

 

Hi Larry
Yes anything can be negotiated by mutual consent. That's not the problem here.
The challenge is going to be if the owner on the one hand is saying that they do not want pets on the property and on the other hand will decide to do a new lease if more money is offered. I would stay right away from confusion when it comes to tribunal matters. In many ways they are like little children and you need to deal with only one single issue and build a case around it, negotiation comes in layers on top of that if the first thing fails.

Having the experience to keep your mouth shut in tribunal hearings is more important than knowing legislation well. What is written gets you so far, the rest of it is people management. That's why it's important to have a property manager who has done hundreds of tribunal cases. The junior ones that companies employ will not act in your best interest. They will lose the case based on legislation being against them and not have a clue why.

Anyway the question will come down to Do you or DO you NOT want pets? It is a breach of lease because no pets were authorised, it is not a breach of lease because not enough money was offered for breaching the pet clause of the lease. You cannot confuse this, they will have you for breakfast if it gets to tribunal.

You can, if you want try to negotiate with the tenant and do an amendment for a higher amount out of tribunal, but they are already displaying misleading and dishonest conduct so if this part backfires and it ends up at a hearing you would have set a precedence that you are allowing pets. You asked for more money to allow it so you have accepted them.

What I would do:
1. Get them to sign a pet clause - I have a one page one if you want it.
2. Get landlords insurance that covers you for pet damage.

3. Apply to tribunal to terminate the lease based on a breach of allowing unauthorised animals into property - can go either way but you can give it a go.
If the lease is terminated on those grounds, you may be able to also apply lease break charges, including vacancy and reletting. In SA you most certainly can but I am not familiar with other states.

4. Forget the other lease with an increased amount - this is admitting that you are OK with pets on the property and will be used against you as permission to keep animals, no termination charges will apply if you try to go down this path. Keep it as a wild card if above falls through however. Ie, OK I understand lease cant be terminated based on ..... how about we amend lease now to a higher amount..... Never bring this up at the beginning.

5. Get a property manager who is experienced with tribunals.

 

Break lease costs are a given when lease is ended prematurely, including by termination

 

Geez staffys are coping it in this thread, my kid has done more damage to my houses then my staffy ever has

 

@Xenia you're one step ahead of what I'm suggesting but note your experience with tribunal. I would avoid tribunal if I'm in that position.

 

Quite often best to negotiate outside of tribunal if ya can.

 

Thanks so much for your comments.

PM spoke to the tenants today and they've said they're "babysitting" one dog and whilst the other is theirs, it lives with their parents. Apparently both will be gone tomorrow.

Meanwhile my neighbours tell me they've put up barbed wire around all the fencing and blocked in the missing pieces of fence. A lot of work to babysit dogs for just a few days.

I think I'll have to let this play out for a few more days before deciding what action to take. I'd imagine the tenants weren't expecting their landlord to be friends with all of the neighbours - makes hiding dogs a lot harder.

 

That's always helpful!

 

Possibly
Tribunals can take things in any direction.
Best to have it in the lease to begin with.

Also NOT having it is more risky.
It needs to come down to protecting the landlord as best as possible.

 

Been down this pathway.

The pets NEVER belong to the tenant. They are always minding them for a friend, and will conveniently relocate them for any inspection once notice is given.
Marg

 

They are full of it, gone for a visit ? I see, they babysit dogs for 89 days and are home elsewhere for 1 during an inspection - nah, I don't buy it, and now made it even worse in my eyes, who said they can erect barbed wire ? and you sure that is to keep the dogs in, or some of the people they mix with out ? lol

 

And back the day after!

 

Do the tenants know they have been dobbed in by the neighbour? That would be unfortunate.

 

What you can issue a breach notice for, and what tribunal will enforce if the tenant decides to kick up a fuss, are two different things.

 

Yes been down this path too - after pointing out the large poo and dog bed to the agent on inspection. When he questioned the tenants - they were just minding the dog for a few days.

Friends of ours 'allow pets' because applicants are usually honest and write it on their app. The landlord then chooses the applicant without pets. I liked this approach.

 

Barbed wire seems odd. I'd think it's more to keep People out, than dogs in. Watch out they don't start covering the windows with alfoil ;-)

 

Friends of ours 'allow pets' because applicants are usually honest and write it on their app. The landlord then chooses the applicant without pets. I liked this approach."
what a great idea owlet!!Love it !

Is it possible the manager was a bit slack and said ill write no pets on the lease ,then just bring them in once you are in (and i didnt tell you that.)

 

Yep; immediate breach notice and end tenancy.

Do not much around; they have clearly lied and who knows what else they will do down the track.

Inch....mile.

 

I had a tenant who did this (neighbour called me re noise issues). Inspection without notice confirmed this to the PM (they had cages to breed it seemed) and they were given choice to leave (eviction) or remove dogs and had to accept a stricter agreement in lease that they had to acknowledged their breach. They removed dogs and no further issues.