You need to be signed in to add your comment.

Renting with pets

23 days ago

Tell us what you think:

  • What is your experience of pets in Queensland’s rental market?
  • What is an appropriate approach to pets in Queensland rental properties?
comment
Reply notification settings
Submitting your comment
Cancel
  • Sandra H 18 days ago
    I am the letting manager and caretaker of a unit complex that does permit 1 small pet per household. However, I very rarely allow my tenants to have a pet and very few of my landlords permit it either because it is just 1 more risk factor for a property and 1 more way in which a resident can upset other residents e.g. barking dog, cat fouling neighbour's gardens. When these complaints are laid it is I who has to deal with them so why would I allow pets and give myself the possible stress. Same applies when I'm letting or selling units in the complex - those with a pet, particularly a dog- are harder to let or sell so that disadvantages the owner. However, I do sometimes allow a pet - it depends on the calibre of the tenant, their history, the property and the type of pet. I would never let to tenants with a dog breed I am scared of because it would mean I can't do my job unless the tenant makes arrangemenst when I or tradies have to enter. People with a pet do add extra unpaid work to a property manager's load as arrangements have to be made to accommodate the pet for entry. There are any number of tenants without pets who will apply for a vacancy so tenants with a pet are often not sought after. I have a cat myself. I do consider having a pet is a privilege that comes with home ownership. For me it's about limiting risk to the houses I manage and preserving the peace in the community I carry oiut my work in.
    • homelesswithpets 18 days ago
      Removed by moderator.
      Hide Replies (26)
      • Ky 16 days ago
        I think you missed the point that Sandra H was making about having a pet being a priviledge. Perhaps we should make sure we have good homes for them before we worry about how the children compete.
        • homelesswithpets 16 days ago
          Owning a rental/investment property is a privilege. As is having someone else pay your mortgage for you!
          • Kevin Belgrove 16 days ago
            You do not know what you are talking about. The far majority of investors are just normal mums and dads on an average income. THEY DONT OWN THE PROPERTY! THE BANK DOES!
          • Optimum 28 12 days ago
            It sounds like you have an issue with people that have worked hard and taken a risk with owning an extra property, and therefore believe that the tenant can do what they like with it because it is not theirs. I wonder if you would have a different outlook if the shoe was on the other foot. I am sure you would.
            • homelesswithpets 12 days ago
              Actually optimum 28 I absolutely abhor people who don’t work hard and no I don’t think that tenants can just do whatever they like in or to a rental. And if the shoe were on the other foot I would do everything I could to ensure my tenants were happy, respected and felt that they could approach me for anything they required because I would know then that they would look after my property, I would have low vacancy rates thereby not incurring unnecessary excess fees from agents such as re letting fees etc. And hopefully I would have tenants that would stay for years if required after all it’s a guaranteed income. You look after your tenants and they will look after you.
              • Optimum 28 9 days ago
                homelesswithpets, You have just painted a picture of my units as i have two long standing tenants that have been there for 10 years and two others that have shifted due to age and issues with family members, they were there for a considerable time as well, as i have said before if there were no private rentals then the only option would be public housing which we all know the outcome from there and the long waiting lists and people on the streets because of no vacancies, They tried to remove negative gearing when Bob Hawk was in and he had to reinstate it as the public housing could not cope with the overload from the sale of private rental properties. If there is no incentives for people to invest in property then they won't. If i am made to except pets against my wishes i will sell and move my investments into commercial property therefore if the units are purchased as owner occupier less properties on the market for renters. I have always believed in the old saying it is better the devil you know then the one you don't because if the industry changes you might find one way or the other it will cost you the renter, a lot more to have a roof over your head unless it is a dump.
            • homelesswithpets 12 days ago
              And by the way your tenants also work bloody hard to pay for the rents that pay you or the bank for your property which at end of their tenancy they walk away from without owning the roof over their head. Take my last tenancy as an example: in the time I was there I handed over to him IN EXCESS OF $183,000 in rental payments. Yes that is correct not a typo!
              • Eleanor 10 days ago
                Bravo. And I am sure that owner could have afforded insurances to cover them from that money incase of damage by you & your pets.
              • Optimum 28 9 days ago
                homelesswithpets why are you renting then, its not the investors fault that you decide to pay that much on rent when you could have purchased a small unit as a starting point to get you into the home owners market. It seems there is a lot of jealousy there that you are pay rent which is paying off the investor mortgage, which in turn is putting a roof over your head with no risk at all to you. Reading through this forum it seems there are a few that have the same out look as yourself, but at the end of the day were would you be if there were no people willing to take a risk with property so you can lay your head under their roof for a cost, no different if you go to a motel, caravan park or any other, they all charge a fee that covers profit, mortgage, theft and wages among other things, rentals are a business.
                • homelesswithpets 9 days ago
                  Optimum28 just for the record don’t think for one second that the amount of rent I have paid that owner (and he is an owner outright of all of his rental properties not paying them off) over the time I spent at that unit is equal to the ability to be able to 1: afford a place and 2: have a bank give me a loan to buy in the first place. Obviously when someone like yourself makes comments like you have made you are not considering the fact that yes maybe the total amount a renter has paid someone (like yourself) may be the equivalent of what they could have paid off their own place and/or used as a deposit to get a place it doesn’t mean they in fact can. Maybe they can get together a deposit but that’s only a small starting point. A bank will not loan to a single woman (pay equity between the sexes has still not been achieved). A bank will not loan to a person on a casual or part time income (a hell of a lot of people in employment are in fact underemployed) Rental prices are through the roof, thanks a lot to investors that in actual fact are living beyond their means therefore relying on rental payments from the more unfortunate people in our society, and rent is still payable whilst you are trying to get together a deposit as well as pay for food, utility services, fuel and vehicle maintenance, insurances, registration etc Property prices are through the roof. etc etc etc I’m sure I could go on to show you many reasons why not everyone is lucky enough to enter into buying property in order to ease the strain on you poor disadvantaged investors
                  • Optimum 28 6 days ago
                    Removed by moderator.
                  • ngb 3 days ago
                    That’s right, the rent you pay doesn’t cover the cost of the property you are renting. If it was, you would buy a property. The landlord is actually subsidising you already. This is why landlords can’t be expected to cover the costs of pets, especially where the property is unsuitable for pets or there are other renters who don’t want to live in properties that have been lived in by pets. There are properties that allow pets and they are priced accordingly. Forcing everyone to allow pets will force landlords to either reduce the quality of their properties to reduce costs in other areas or increase the rent and bond or not provide them for rent. You can force everyone to allow pets but you need to be aware that there will be a cost on all renters - higher rents, less supply of rental properties, higher bonds, more rejections of rental applications, lower quality rentals. Then there’s renters who don’t want or can live in properties where pets have been - I suppose they will live on the street. But your pets will have a roof over their heads...
          • GeeGee 12 days ago
            Not sure if you are aware that people who buy houses have to pay for them. They either pay for them outright or pay a hefty deposit and then rent them out. If the rent is higher than the mortgage repayments then there are no negative gearing benefits. If the rent is lower than the mortgage payments (ie owners have to pay part of the mortgage themselves) then they get a tax break on their total earnings for the year. Just as business owner would on his motor vehicle or someone working as a cook in a restaurant that pays for their uniform. It is a tax deduction. A restaurant owner also has many opportunities to claim deductions in the operation of his/her business. Does that make you angry enough to stop eating at his restaurant? Because he is greedy receiving a tax deduction on his investment? If it did, you would not be eating out, getting your hair cut, shopping for groceries, going to the movies or getting your car fixed etcI am hearing you. It is tough renting out there. However blaming the landlord and calling them greedy is not really fair. If all landlords sold their properties and put the money into shares where they can get the same return (but at a little higher risk), there would be no properties for rent. And that would be a big plus if you were in a position to buy a house because prices would come down but not enough for some. So no houses to rent? Is that a good thing for renters? And those landlords who decided to hang onto their investments, the demand would be so high that the rents would be astronomical. So what's the solution? I think it in our politician's hands to come up with an answer.
            • homelesswithpets 12 days ago
              Removed by moderator.
          • Grover 12 days ago
            My wife and I own investment properties . We work long hours to pay for a massive mortgage. It's called having a go, hopefully being a self funded retiree, and we won't have to , in my words bludge off others when we do retire. Try telling the banks they should give me a loan because it's a privilege.
          • JaniceAC 7 days ago
            Owning an investment property is not a privilege. The owner has worked hard to save for that property. The owner is giving you a property wirth hundreds of thousands of dollars and the my should have the right to say who lives there.
          • Natalie Wood 4 days ago
            Having......not necessarily "owning" a rental/investment property is from working hard to get ahead in life. Most rents received do not cover the mortgage and this is covered by the owner so a roof can be provided for the people who need a place to rent.
          • InterestedPropertyInvestor 3 days ago
            Rarely does a property investor own their house. It's not a privilege it's sacrifice and hard work. If a home owner borrows 80% of a property in Coopers Plains for $600k and borrows 480k from the bank. Their "costs" such as Interest, repairs, rates, water access fees, land tax, insurance all work out to be on average $740 per week. A property in Coopers Plains rents out on average $550 per week. How is a tenant paying for "their" mortgage? The OWNER is paying $190 per week for the privilege of you, "the tenant" to live in that rental property......
        • Francesca 8 days ago
          Owning a pet can be a necessity for survival; for both the pet and the owner. It shouldn't be regarded a privelage!!
      • Sandra H 16 days ago
        Actually I am doing my job very well for the body corporate by choosing tenants who won't add a nuisance factor to the complex whether that be a barking dog or a modified car - whatever. It is also my job for rental unit owners to place suitable tenants in their investment properties and I do that well and very carefully as I have never had to take serious action against any tenant I have chosen because I ensure they have the desired attitudes to rules and community before I place them. Some of my tenants do have pets and are no trouble at all because their owner's don't have any sense of entitlement. I am doing my job as I follow legislation in all that I do. Remember, I work for the body corporate and the investment unit owners, not my tenants, although I have a great relationship with them, so I'm not surprised you consider I'm not doing my job if I don't want the extra headache of dealing with barking dogs, for instance. My job, which is a business I own by the way, is 7 days a week, on call, so I think I do actually work hard. If I wasn't bothered to do the job properly I would soon devalue my business and be living in an unpleasant environment. It's about working smart and part of that is to choose tenants who are the best I can source for the complex and the owner of the property i.e. minimal risk of rent default, damage to the property and disruption in the complex and that does often mean not placing a tenant with a pet, assuming the landlord will even allow me to do so. The best advice I can give a tenant with a pet is to ensure you are squeaky clean in all matters relating to your tenancies so that the pet is the only compromise the landlord or property manager has to make to let to you. Other compromise factors as well as a pet can be one factor too many.
      • Kevin Belgrove 16 days ago
        Removed by moderator.
    • Chris1963 12 days ago
      Do you allow children into these propertiesyou manage.... as a tenent and a parent (my 3 children have all grown and move out now) and a pet owner, i can say my 1 dog (6 years old) has done no damage compaired to the nornmal wear and tear that children do to a property during their growing years... but people with children are not discriminated against.
      • GeeGee 12 days ago
        Hi Chris, I once thought the same as you do on. However after some thinking I realised that children do not defecate or urinate in the backyard and most definitely use the toilet in the house. They also do not carry fleas. Neither do they have the propensity to howl at night or bark incessantly. I am a dog lover and have allowed my tenants to keep dogs and cats on my property. I still do. I have had good and bad experiences. Dogs have been allowed to live inside when tenants signed a lease stating it would be an outside dog. I have had carpets infested with fleas from a cat. To say a dog definitely causes less damage than children is not quite true.
        • homelesswithpets 12 days ago
          hmmm actually children can and often do defecate and urinate on floorings etc, they also draw on walls with pens, crayons, mascara, lipstick etc etc and ice addicts punch holes in walls and doors etc etc etc Damage comes from all sources unintentionally and worse still intentionally
          • GeeGee 11 days ago
            I would prefer not to have defecating or urinating children in my house either. Neither an ice addict who punched holes in the walls. But I do allow pets regardless of the risk. I know some landlords do not allow cats because they are allowed to roam free and kill the native wildlife. I know some properties don't have fences. There are legitimate reasons that some owners won't allow pets.I prefer in conversations that landlords are not all tarred with the same brush just as I don't condemn all tenants for the actions of some.This really isn't a debate between all tenants and all landlords so I think it's better to qualify when speaking about either.
    • cantab about 22 hours ago
      I understand what your saying but lets be real bad tenants are bad tenants, but is that then reason to opress every tenants dreams, many pets are comfort pets and make their live much more bearable. you said pet ownership is a privilege of home ownership, but I believe the best right from home ownership is the right to freedom of choice and not be at the mercy of someone else's whims.Children can and often do cause more damage than pets so are we going to see renters banned from having children? I believe Dogs are a far better pet than cats because it's easier to train than cats they don't impact the wild life the same and cats urine and feces smell far worse and are much harder to remove long term, this is my opinion and I accept it won't be everyone's but it proves while you believe you are right you are only ever right in your own mind as am I.Bottom line is a bad Tenant is the issue not weather they have a dog and good tenants wear the blame for previous bad tenants all the time.We need tougher laws to punish bad tenants as well as stronger laws to protect good one.P.S Sandra H, please don't take this as a personal attack on you because that's not what it is, it is just another opinion.
  • cantab 4 days ago
    I'm a renter and was forced to move after our home was 14 years was sold reluctantly by the owner, this was a private rental and I was shocked to have to return to the real estate property managed market to find most agencies property managers have too much love of control for their own good, I was told NO PETS, we have a small very well trained dog who never messes in the house or even the patio for that matter, we had had this pet for 8 years and getting rid of her would be like getting rid of a family member, so I asked if the owner may be a bit flexible to which I was given a short sharpe NO. As this was happening around Christmas with very limit choice we felt maybe we could leave the dog with my sister for the lease period. any way we looked at the house the day the owner was finishing up repairs, he spoke to us and after some time he said he'd looked at our application and thought we'd be prefect and asked us what we thought so I said the only sticking point is the no pets rule, he said we don't mind pets who told you that I showed him the email conversations on my ph I had with the PM and he went up to her and said the property was going to us and we were bringing the dog and that was that. So it's not always the owners making these rules and it does show Property Managers are only employees not owners and their self appointed power needs to have checks and balances.as an after thought.We have always been model tenants who are house proud people, we always say the appearance of the home is a reflection on us and no one else. We always pay all rent and other charges on or before due date and we have never left a property in a worse condition than when we moved in.
  • jbau 2 days ago
    2 years ago, my family was renting a house that backed onto a park. it had a doggy door, fence, back yard, inside and outside area, and most houses in our street had pets. We had 15 years of good rental history and excellent references.We applied to get a dog and were denied siting only that the owner didn't want pets. In our response we said we would pay monthly gardening fees, monthly internal cleaning fees, pest cleaning upon exit, and we agreed to sign the property managers' pet agreement, but we were still denied.In my experience, landlords do tend to be fair and reasonable when it comes to pets, but there are exceptions like the above example where I think the law needs to be reviewed to provide a pathway for tenants to qualify for a pet.
  • InterestedPropertyInvestor 3 days ago
    As a property owner and property manager my experience with pets has not been positive. From damage/staining to carpet, cupboards, doors, security screens, animal defecation and gardens, Every situations with a pet have cost considerable amounts of money to bring the property back to a standard to relist as a rental. The other issue you face, is more people have allergies. As such, allowing a pet in a property can limit your ability to rent it out again. Our most recent experience was a property where the dog was "supposed" to remain outside. Being as this was our own rental, we had a property manager look after it. At the end of the tenancy we did not renew the lease. The carpets had to be removed (urine stained and full of dog hair) , the screens on all doors were ripped apart. While the tenant did pay "some money" out of the bond for their repairs, the cost of $3000 to replace the carpet was our own. Renting a property to tenants of pets is a substantial risk to the landlord and a financially costly one at that when it goes pear shaped.
  • StevieD 3 days ago
    There's pets and there's pets. You can't just have a blanket rule that says allow all pets. I own a small property managed through an agent. The standard rule is no pets but if my tenant request permission to have one i would consider it depending on what it was. For example i would not allow 2 or 3 large dogs, this increases the risk of damage to the property, increases the cleaning requirements with dog hair everywhere, and they may upset the neighbors with barking. If however a request came through for a kitten or a small dog then i would give this consideration.
  • Cathe_78 15 days ago
    To all those landlords who insist that tenants with pets aren't able to keep a property clean, and yet claim to have pets yourselves: how do you keep YOUR house clean? And why do you think that tenants are any different to you?
    • ngb 13 days ago
      I keep my house clean by not having pets and not allowing people to bring pets into my house. I also make everyone take their shoes off at the door and use the toilet when they need to relieve themselves. How do you keep your house clean? When your pet has an accident, how do you get the urine/feacies out of the grout, timber, carpet, furniture and rugs? How do you get all the hair out of the furniture and carpet? How do you ensure it’s pristine before someone who has a serious life threatening allergy to pet hair comes to your house? How do you ensure that the pet uses the toilet and does not deficate in the house or outside in the garden or on the grass? How do you stop them from damaging furniture or landscaping? I don’t think tenants are any different to me. That’s why I provide them accomodation with quality (and often not pet friendly) finishings, furniture and landscaping that I would like to live in and don’t allow pets - just like my house.
      • Cathe_78 11 days ago
        I'm glad to hear that you set the same standards for yourself that you require of your tenants. My question, however, was aimed at all the landlords/real estate agents on this site who claim to have pets of their own but are not willing to allow their tenants to have pets.
        • ngb 8 days ago
          The point is that this proposed legislation is requiring ALL rental properties allow pets. How can u force those landlords to allow pets, when they wouldn’t even allow them in their own house, or if the house is not suitable for pets? What about people who are allergic to pets? This should really be up to the landlord and to individual agreement between tenant and landlord. Some allow pets and that is fine and legal. And some do not, that is also fine and legal now. Changing that crates bad outcomes for everyone.
          • Cathe_78 7 days ago
            The point I am actually trying to make is that there appear to be numerous landlords and real estate agents on this forum who say they have pets of their own but who deny their tenants the same right. They seem to believe that tenants are irresponsible pet owners who will either allow their pets to trash rental properties and/or who will fail to keep the properties clean if they have pets. I am trying to point out the hypocrisy of this stance. I appreciate that some properties may be unsuitable for pets (e.g., too small, no yard, landlord with serious allergies, heritage listed, in an environmentally sensitive area, etc.) – but, if this is the case, it should not be difficult for the land lord to prove it, and to make a case for a special exemption for that property. But the default option should allow that tenants have the same human rights as property-owning citizens, NOT that tenants have to prove their moral fibre before they are allowed to exercise those human rights.
            • homelesswithpets 7 days ago
              Perfectly stated Cathe_78 and also well done for pointing out that the landlord should have to prove the legitimacy of their reasons for not allowing pets
              • Mel Boyce 5 days ago
                As a property owner, it's MY house, therefore I should not have to prove the legitimacy of my reason for not allowing pets. I fall into the "hypocritial landlord" category according to Cathe_78, having a pet but not allowing one in my investment property. That's because I can control how I look after my home and animals - I can't control how other people do. I'm not saying everyone is a bad pet owner... far from it... it's just about managing risk. My hubby and I have worked hard to afford an investment property so are totally risk averse approach is our solution to protect that investment.
              • Natalie Wood 4 days ago
                The landlord is the home owner, this is their investment and if they choose to reduce the risk of having damage carried out to their property, it should be their right to do so. Some landlords have had their properties totally destroyed by tenants who allow their pets to cause damage and they (the landlords) normally are the ones who have to foot the bill for repairs or make an insurance claim and having to pay an excess. I was always open to having pets in my investment properties as long as they were outside, but that was my choice as I owned the home and I was the one paying the mortgage, the rates and the insurances. This was my investment, my hard work and money went into these properties and I should be able to make the choice if pets are allowed or not. That's why I owned my own properties instead of renting so I had control of the decisions.
              • Suzanna 4 days ago
                I don't believe a landlord need to prove anything. I have allowed pets in my rental properties and I have denied pets in my rental properties. I don't see why a landlord is required to take risks without those risks actually being considered by the landlord. I have at times made bad choices about pets and tenants. But I wear the risk and the consequences of my choice. I've also been a tenants numerous times. I may my choice of rental property based on the treatment by the landlord or property agency. My choice. The irony the government sets up consumer choice panels etc for some services and then aims to remove choice in other areas. There are poor landlord, agents and tenants. I don't believe these parties need to be the basis for public policy.
            • ngb 7 days ago
              and how do you cater for renters with serious allergies and people who don’t want to live in places where there have been pets? If every house has had pets in them where will they live? How can a landlord prove whether or not the next tenant will have allergies or not or doesn’t want to live in houses where there have been pets when the renter hasn’t come yet? It’s inhumane to make it difficult for these people to find a place to live.Renters have lots of different requirements and the market needs to be diverse enough to service all of them. Currently there are rentals of all types which allow pets and some that don’t so both types of renters can find places of all types to live. Forcing all properties to allow pets and restricting what properties can get an exemption makes it really difficult for people that do not want to live or cannot live in places lived in by pets or it forces these people into certain types of houses that can get exemptions (eg small apartments, heritage listed properties, places owned by landlords with allergies etc.). What is hypocrisy is forcing all properties to allow pets and restricting the types of places that can ban pets.
            • Morto 4 days ago
              In reality some people do the wrong thing. As a landlord I go out of my way to make sure my tenant get what they want. If there is a fault I get it fixed. If they want a pet I am okay with it BUT let's not forget that landlord's front the money for the houses therefore they cop all costs associated with it and any losses and of course any profits. For me, I'll work with my tenants but where do the government get off telling me what I can and can't do with my property.
  • Morto 4 days ago
    It's plain & simple, there must be an agreement between the Landlord and Tenant as to whether a pet is allowed. If approved a bond should be applied and inspection performed prior to the tenant exiting the property. Personally pets are fine as long as they are controlled.
  • oconnor01 5 days ago
    i dont believe the government should have a say when they are not footing the bills, Some landlords are happy to provide pet friendly homes, but some tenants take this to the extreme. I dont think the government should have a say in this matter. it is not your home you do not pay the mortgage, and therefore should not say what should be mandatory in this situation
    • Suzanna 4 days ago
      Unless the government want to put its money where it's mouth is. It's easy to make decisions about other people's money. My rental property comes at a personal cost to me. I am not a fat cat property owner. Are we forgetting the benefits of owning a property. I foot all the bills to the property. The water heater blew and I had to replace it. I don't have a choice I had to. I haven't been working for 9 months and have no income but the tenant needs hot water so they get hot water. The stove expired so I replace the stove, they asked for a screen door so I put on a door and a security lock and a new light and new carpet. All these benefits a tenant gets at no cost to them.My money, my risk, my choice. If the government wants to make my choices they can foot the bill.PS I do allow pets for tenants but that's a choice.
    • Cathe_78 4 days ago
      Removed by moderator.
  • Jennifer Crouch 4 days ago
    Allowing pets should be the owner's choice. The owner is responsible for paying the mortgage for the property as well as the cost of maintaining the property. We have had personal experience with tenants having animals in the home. In one instance the tenants left their two cats in the house all day while they were both at work. When we moved into the house there was a very strong smell of cat urine in the lounge every time we had wet weather. We tried everything possible to get rid of the smell but it remained in the room until the day we sold the house. We currently rent out a house and have included a no pets(in the house) clause in our lease agreement. Our tenants ignored the request and had 3 dogs and a cat indoors and the carpets in two of the bedrooms were completely wrecked. Professional cleaning did nothing to improve the look and smell of the carpets. It was not possible to let the next tenants live with the carpets so we had to have them replaced. Replacing carpets is a costly exercise and it is not something a landlord would want to pay for if a tenant refuses to pay for replacement carpet.JC
  • KZ 6 days ago
    As a PM of ten years and somebody who used to work for the RSPCA, as well as being a massive animal lover, I am against any action the government takes to make something mandatory in another’s home. Where I work and in most suburbs I have worked in, including regional and city, we understand that to be pet friendly can attract more tenants and interest. I encourage all of my clients to be open minded to pets and consider all pets on the merit of the application. Not all pet owners are created equally, as my time in the RSPCA demonstrated. I have a property now where the cats have urinated on the carpet and the odour is so strong, our new tenants don’t wish to proceed with their lease and it’s so hard to take odour to QCAT and it looks like now the owners will have to replace the carpet, the carpet was brand new when they moved in. BUT all through out the mediation process, I have been told odour is subjective and despite two carpet people confirming an odour, plus the new tenants, the old tenants refuse to be responsible. So people like this ruin it for the good ones because now this owner will probably change her mind to be “no pets.” Nobody has the right to dictate what is or is not allowed at a property when not on the grounds of being discriminatory. An owner can also refuse children (they evaluate the application when it’s presented so if an owner really doesn’t want kids, they can decline that application). Most pet owners do the right thing and I have never had a problem securing a rental property for myself, my child, my two dogs and my two cats. If anything our government should allow pet bonds so it’s more attractive for owners to accept pets.
  • Natalie Wood 4 days ago
    I have been in Real Estate for 24 years and also had my own investment properties. I have always been happy for my tenants to have dogs at the properties as this would deter any unwanted people from entering the property and feel it would be better protected. The pets were always to remain outside of the property to avoid causing any damage internally. Damage outside could easily be rectified, ie: holes could be filled, grass grows back and chewed items can be replaced. Unfortunately working in the industry though I have witnessed many properties that have been destroyed by pets, especially cats. Brand new homes that have had to have carpets and curtains replaced due to the smell and the damage being so severe. The unfortunate thing is the owner is normally the one footing the bill and then most will not allow any future tenancies to have a pet. Hence an additional pet bond would be more than welcomed by owners and agents alike.
  • Anita G 6 days ago
    If the property manager can correctly educate and supply sufficient information on the housing of pets in their rental property, our agency has found that landlords will often approve the pet/s as they have had a chance to talk out their concerns. Landlords should still have the final decision on if they wish for a pet to be housed in their property as there are some properties that truely are just not suitable to having certain pets housed in them.
  • TaniaGillespie 6 days ago
    As a property manager I find 95% of tenants are fantastic in regards to looking after the property with pets. Most end up longer term as well. Having said that I don't think the option to decline pets should be taken away from the owners if investment properties. It is their property after all.
  • patch 6 days ago
    I own a home - with a pet (a small dog).I own 2 investment properties. One a home And a unit if a complex of 11.I approve pets in my investment properties.The unit is harder - becuase the tenants need body corporate approval as well. which unfortunately is generally denied. So that's an issue in renting - about body corporate views on pets.But in the house I am OK with pets, That being said - for the first 6 months of renting there are inspections every 2 months. To check on how the pet is fitting in.my exerience is people w pets (and I am one) tak eresponsibility for their pet.those that don't and then asked to change or to move out. Which is completely fair enough.Pets do extra wear and tear to a property - so someone who wishes to rent cannot assume that they can automatically take a pet.It must be approved as it's ultimately not their home. but as a landlord I am keen to make the house as much of a home as possible.Maybe bringing in pet bond is smart.I ensure conditions about pets are written into the contract. Tenants need to pay for damages cause by a pet (as you would if you owned the house).But also that ongoing problems caused by a pet is a condition to be asked to vacate (as clearly the pet is not happy in that property).More landlords should allow pets.But pets should never be automatically allowed in a property.
  • MarieC 7 days ago
    In general, tenants are treated like inferior citizens in the rental market in Queensland and in other states. I have been a renter my whole life (including my parents being renters in childhood). I am now aged 56, so have lots of experience of many kinds in the rental market. I have never had a pet in a rental property in my adult years because most owners and agents do not allow pets. Even if I were lucky enough to find an owner or agent who would allow one where I am now (which they don't), it would make it too difficult to find the next rental property in the inevitable circumstance of being moved on from where I live now (the lack of secure and long lasting tenancy is another problem in itself). As it stands, I see it as impossible to have pets in rental properties.The only way I see it as possible for tenants to be afforded the equal right of having a pet, that other Australians are allowed, is for legislation to be enacted to make it impossible for owners to refuse. Tenants pay rent to make a place their home. They should be afforded the same freedoms owners enjoy in their own homes.
  • Teapot 19 days ago
    Pets cause unnecessary damage & owners can & are irresponsible in relation to that. I am a landlord & at the end of the day I own the property & the agent is paid by me & if I say NO pets well it’s the agent that must adhere to what I say. NO PETS it’s that simple.
    • homelesswithpets 18 days ago
      Removed by moderator.
    • homelesswithpets 12 days ago
      There is always pet enclosures Have you thought about that? They are freestanding, removable and don’t cause any damage when either installed or removed. So if they are either made mandatory or just offered up as an option to allow tenants to then keep pets in rentals what complaint can you possibly offer up to that? The use of enclosures stops roaming animals keeping neighbours happy and both pets and native wildlife safe. People really need to open their minds I find
      • Optimum 28 12 days ago
        The enclosure would have to be large or the pet would still be running around the yard digging holes and generally destroying the turf, would you then be happy to relevel and re turf the yard after your lease was up.Also there is issues with pets inside with fleas and general deterioration of carpets, would you be happy to replace carpets at the end of a lease if damage occurred.
        • robboat 12 days ago
          I like the idea of pet enclosures but have never seen a tenant actively offer to have one designed and installed to contain a pet.....As others have commented - many tenants just sneak a pet into the tenancy.
          • homelesswithpets 12 days ago
            I do think you underestimate the amount of people that are aware of these enclosures and would offer to use them. But I think perhaps people seeking rentals with pets get so over being told no that they perhaps give up. I personally always ask the agent to check with the landlord if they really mean it when they say no pets and that I am more than willing to install and use an enclosure if that could change their mind. However time and again agents either don’t ask (they just pretend they have) or the owner is ignorant to the possibility or think they’ll have to pay for it or it will somehow damage the property by being there. This is definately an issue that can easily be resolved by possibly at the agents office and in their website for instance there could be some advertising’s of these enclosures (there are MANY companies that offer them, some or most even do custom design/installs). And even some testimonials of tenants and owners that have had great success in the use of these enclosures. And I guarantee you that wildlife conservation groups absolutely applaud the use of them especially in regards to cats! So come on people think outside the box and open up those minds
            • foxje 10 days ago
              Hi homelesswithpets,I don't think I've agreed with much that you have written ;) but I would like to discuss in good faith. I think that regulating over private property rights is a very bad road that rarely does anything effective to prevent bad people (landlords and tenants alike) from doing bad things, and does a lot to prevent good people (landlords and tenants alike) from doing good things. As someone who self-manages my properties it just makes complete sense to try and keep the tenants (ie customers) happy whether its through long leases, pet ownership, modifications, etc, so I don't have any vacancies. So I keep wondering why there seems to be such a disconnect on this forum between tenants and landlords on this forum, and I wonder if it is because agents are doing a poor job in representing landlords' interest in pleasing the tenant (ie customer). How would you feel about an updating the legislation REQUIRING agents to pass correspondence or requests directly through to the owner if requested by the tenant? For example, if a responsible pet owner has a written reference from a previous landlord and pictures of their pets, they can request the agent pass the rental application and letter through to the owner even if the listing says "no pets". That way, agent isn't able to take the easy route and reject an application with pets, taking an extended vacancy that hurts the landlord, while telling the landlord that there have been no suitable applications.
              • homelesswithpets 10 days ago
                Hi foxje I’m not going to get into whether you (or anyone else) agree with me or not as we are ALL entitled to both our opinions and our voices as for far too long tenants have been both ignored and treated like second class citizens and this is a forum where we can finally have a say. But to your question of would I be in agreement to the prospect of requiring communication directly to/with the landlord. Hell yes! And I’ll give you a very good example of exactly why I would be in agreement: earlier this year I applied for a (in this case a pet friendly) rental via a well known National agency. I spoke with 4 different people from said National agency during the entire process including the “head of rentals dept”. I completed the required paperwork above and beyond. I included written references and a pet resume including their photos. I included all the required information about the pets: council registration numbers, desexed - yes, microchipped - yes, vetinary contact details and emergency pet carer contact details. I included the fact that I was more than happy to use a pet enclosure. There were no other “red flags” on my file; I’m not on TICA, I don’t have a debt to a previous landlord, the property was affordable in relation to my income etc etc. My application seemed to be taking forever so I rang a few times along the way to check on progress. I was specifically told my application had been sent through to the owners by at least two property managers including the head of that dept. As I am not a stupid person and the property was one in a complex of many I worked out who owned these units and reached out to them via written correspondence, I immediately received a phone call from the director herself and during our conversation found out that the agent had blatantly lied to me and had not in fact sent my application through to the owner at all. By then however it was too late. The National agency was subsequently stripped of the property management of these units and sacked. The ability to have direct communication with the owner for major reasons such as pleading your case for being able to have pets there or to negotiate to make minor adjustments to the property or to notify them of the need for maintenance issues to be attended to for emergency repairs to be made in the event of the agencies not doing the job they are paid to do would be great. It doesn’t help with dodgy owners themselves but it’s a start I guess. It also would not necessarily mean having the owners direct contact details if they did not wish for this to happen but perhaps if it was requested via the agency that the owner contact the tenant and then the tenant never heard from the owner and the issue was not resolved then that would be a clear indication that the agency had “gone rogue” and then some forn of recourse could ensue with copies of all communications etc to be forwarded to the owner by an RTA representative or similar type of third party. The owner would be able to know in very quick time that their property managers weren’t doing the job they were being paid for. All details for this type of idea would naturally have to be nutted out for privacy concerns, legalities etc to be addressed but it may be a starting point for change.
        • homelesswithpets 12 days ago
          Optimum 28 you are obviously referring to dogs when you say “the enclosure would have to be large” and “digging holes”. There are many other forms of pets that are and can quite successfully kept within an enclosure type set up. You may have to think past the bad experience you have seemingly encountered in your time. And most animals that cause damage to the indoors environment like you refer to only do so out of boredom and/or are not cared for correctly or sufficiently. Those people should not have pets in my opinion but the majority of people don’t fall into that category. And again if they are contained to their enclosure then there IS NO damage or fleas or whatever
        • Francesca 10 days ago
        • JaniceAC 7 days ago
          But no they will tell you they are good tenants. They paid their rent on time. Never mind all the extra costs the owner had from pet damage.
    • Teapot 12 days ago
      At the end of the day the property I have for rent will be NO PETS & I will not let it out to pet owners. They don’t pay the rates & their names do not appear on the mortgage. Some not all pet owner are irresponsible & as landlord I do not wish to upset the neighbours in the area because of a stray cat that should be inside at night or a continuous barking dog. It’s not fair to the neighbors. NO PETS simple, I would rather have my property vacant than have a pet owner rent it . Simple
    • Francesca 10 days ago
      Don't tarnish us all with the same brush!!I am an extremely responsible pet owner and ensure any damage is professionally repaired - which has been once. If my pets damage anything, it's my furniture only. I find children do a lot more damage to houses.
  • SH 19 days ago
    We've always allowed pets in our rental properties and in 12 years only had one problem that was easily fixed (urine smell). We've also been able to achieve a higher rental fee. It's better to state the information upfront, eg pet friendly, rather than having tenants sneaking them in, or in this new instance, having them regardless of permission or not. Also note the RSPCA is in favour of pets being allowed, as am I, and the best compromise to a solution is saying that all rentals are "pets on application" so the landlord has the final say (eg outdoor pet only, small pets considered).
    • Van 8 days ago
      • JaniceAC 7 days ago
        I don’t know about the above urine I have just been to QCAT fir an order regarding pet urine. Tenant had permission for a cat, routine inspection was good, three months later tenant vacated. Unit needed a full clean, cat hair everywhere, carpets cleaned and the urine odour was absolutely disgusting. Tenants work hours changed and cat was in the unit on its own more often. Urine was through out the carpet in the lounge, hallway and two bedrooms. Carpet had to be replaced and a full clean. Urine had seeped through the carpet and under the vinyl tiles which made the repair more expensive. Over $3000 in costs. Tenant agreed and we made a payment plan then with $1400 to go decided she wasn’t paying any more. We went to QCAT and was granted an order for the amount owing. This should not have happened, the owner is out of pocket agents costs through no fault of their own. This was not a responsible tenant or pet owner
  • Shellz 8 days ago
    Pets cause far less problems and damage than Children who are often let loose to run a muck, cause damage and disrespect neighbors with constant screaming, bouncing balls for hours at a time, and trespassing onto neighbors properties. Sure there are irresponsible pet owners, however from what I have seen very few children these days are brought up to be respectful of others or other peoples property or possessions and get away with doing whatever the hell they like all because they are children. I would rather lease to a responsible pet owner any day than rent to people with uncontrollable and disrespectful parents with children.
  • Jessierealestateagent 16 days ago
    I am a Real Estate Agent, a renter and a pet owner. While I agree the legislation should be changed, I don’t see that people with pets should be financially disadvantaged and discriminated just because they have a pet. That’s what a standard bond is for…It should be mandatory for landlords to have landlord insurance, this would bring down the cost of the insurance policies and they would be covered for those events that usually have nothing to do with a pet . Looking myself 90% of houses we saw were NO PETS . This is absolutely increasing the amount of homeless pets that we have in shelters. The legislation should be adjusted based on the size of the pet vs size of the property eg. Shouldn't have a Great Dane in an apartment without owner approval....
  • homelesswithpets 7 days ago
    When all is said and done the legislation MUST CHANGE to allow pets without permission whether that be with the addition of a pet bond or other terms added to the leases or not. Because if they don’t change the legislation around this then NOTHING WILL CHANGE. Landlords already of the opinion of no pets will continue to say no pets even when asked if a property listed as “pets may be approved on application”. As so very many landlords have made it abundantly clear here that THEY OWN THE PROPERTY, THEY POINT BLANK REFUSE TO HAVE PETS IN THEIR PROPERTIES AND WHAT THEY SAY IS THE END OF THE MATTER. They can’t get past the negative experiences they have had even though no doubt the ratio of good to bad is probably heavily in favour of the good. I can’t believe that more than 1 in 10 (or more) tenants would have caused issues with pets or otherwise in any given rental property. And if the landlords thought more about their good experiences as opposed to their bad they may be more conducive to a fairer outcome for the tenants. I guess it is probably human nature to do this but that doesn’t mean us (the majority in my opinion) good, socially conscientious, respectful of their homes (and that is what they are even though they don’t own them), clean and tidy tenants and responsible pet owners shouldn’t be allowed to live a similar enjoyable life (in respect to pet ownership etc) to that of the more fortunate home owners. So I think the conversation around changes to the laws should be more about what additional terms or pet bonds etc should be added to tenancies and how will they be fairly implemented rather than should pets be allowed without permission. And if landlords have to spend a little time renegotiating insurances with their current provider or shopping around for a new one like Terri Scheer that covers for pet damage then so be it. We as tenants have to live with probly more risks and inconveniences than landlords like being under the constant risk of finding ourselves without a home at little notice if an owner needs to or simply decides to sell that property and constant invasions to our privacy and security for inspections, maintenance etc so landlords can’t claim that they are shouldering all risk in having an investment property and are thereby in a worse situation than their tenants
  • JaniceAC 7 days ago
    Most owners of houses are ok with pets unless they have had a pevious bad experience. Pets need to suit the property, a large dog in a unit is not fair to the dog.
  • BelleRoyds 7 days ago
    My experience is good. I have always have pets and am lucky to have really understanding property owners in my renting experience that have allowed us to have these pets. I understand their concerns and ensure that we both are in agreement before I commit to the signing of the lease. Not all tenants are bad, not all owners are either. I do wish more places were pet friendly though because I love kids but in my experience that can cause as much damage, if not more than some animals.
  • Dan94 20 days ago
    I feel that there should be a fine line here. Exclusions should apply, for example if you have polished floors or other items that are easily marked or damaged. One thing that I have never understood is when people say “in the cases where pets cause damage, and the tenant refuses to cover the expenses, the bond does not cover all associated costs therefore I think it’s a bad idea.” My experience here is that it’s usually the people who aren’t going to look after a rental house at all that are going to let their animals destroy the place. So what do you do when a destructive tenants costs exceed the bond? ...there are avenues and insurances for this. I do, however, think that while pets should be allowed maybe an external company/s can set up some sort of insurance fund specially for pet damages? Say if the owner doesn’t want pets, but the law stipulates they can, maybe the tenants should then be required to take out insurance with aforementioned company, and provide that policy number to LL/PM/RA...just a thought to help make it fairer for all. No rental property I’ve ever lived in has been pet approved, but my beloved dog had always been in them up until she passed earlier this year. My bonds have always been refunded in full, and I’ve never had them question if a pet lived there. She was a Dingo x Mastiff, and she was like a lap dog! If I can keep a house clean enough that during routine inspection the PM doesn’t notice it, I cannot see a reason for not being allowed them.
    • Ky 17 days ago
      This is why I am so concerned about the deception and lying by tenants on this issue. Pets are put into inappropriate properties as a result and owners are left to pay the bill when it is more than the bond.
      • Dan94 17 days ago
        Im confused as to how and why this makes you concerned in the slightest? Frankly as a tenant i give no care about the preference to a LL who cares more about satisfying their own ego/power trip by denying a tenant a pet, or to some like myself, a member of their family into their rental. At the end of the day I'm quite capable of using reason and logical thought processes to assess if a home is suitable for my pet. I'm obviously not going to put my pet into a home that's going to make them miserable. Again your argument about the bill being larger than the bond and soley the owners problem is moot. You could just as well have a tenant with an approved pet do the exact same damage and your still stuck with the bill as an owner.
        • homelesswithpets 16 days ago
          Well said Dan94! 👍🏼😀 And let’s face it they are more than happy to have someone pay their mortgage for them and make them a nice little extra income on top. And agents want to make the most of making money from the tenants as well
          • Dan94 16 days ago
            I'm all for respecting the wishes of LL who have GENUINE reasons to decline pets, as i originally stated. However, it's a different turn of events when the issue is relating to them simply not wanting them. At the end of the day, you're right, tenants are paying the majority of the LL mortgage. They are the ones that should feel privileged, at the end of the day, we're giving them a cushy retirement. Our investment property is to us just an investment property, but the people who live there call it home. They are very welcome to have pets there, there's a reason we pay insurance for bad tenants. Some do require the disclosure of pets in a rental property when you take out insurance for investment property - say yes and add the fee into the rent! It's not a renters market at the moment, so the house will rent. Thankfully we have JUST been blessed with the ability to move from our last rental, into a purchased home so we can have our pets again in the future when i feel the time is right.
          • Grover 12 days ago
            I have investment properties and the rent does not pay them off. Get real or get educated or better still get a mortgage and an investment property and we will see your opinion change.
            • Dan94 9 days ago
              Then you're doing something wrong. You should have saved a sufficient deposit to purchase the house instead of loaning it all from the bank. This is a big mistake most make when purchasing for investment purposes.All in all, we are only out of pocket around $4500 a year. Because we deposited around 30% of the investment value the rent yielder covers the mortgage in its entirety, and then some. At the end of the day it's just Rates, Insurance, and all water charges not related to usage. We have always had at least a $2000 Emergency fund for any incidentals, which to date we've not had to access. If you're hugely out of pocket, you're simply doing something wrong. Don't try and drag other people down because of your bad Business sense.
              • Cathe_78 9 days ago
                Removed by moderator.
            • homelesswithpets 8 days ago
              Perhaps you should only be in the market with one investment property as opposed to the four you have. And perhaps go for established properties instead of newly built ones like you have. Perhaps then you could afford your properties instead of claiming mortgage stress and blaming tenants. Sounds more like you are trying to be a small scale property developer rather than regular old investor for self funded retirement purposes.
  • S Jones 20 days ago
    Pets become part of a family! Research has shown the benefits of having a pet. I think renters should be able to have a pet. We have had both a lap dog and a cat and we are considered to be good tenants! However, it is much harder to find a rental where pets are allowed. I believe the renter’s should be made responsible for any damages. I think too, that if the property managers are doing their job and checking prospective tenants properly then they should be able to find out if there has been any previous issues. That along with inspections should help alleviate any problems. If an animal damages a property then the damage must be fixed immediately or the tenants given notice to leave. Maybe there is some way of deducting the money for the repairs from the tenant’s pay or centrelink payment where a tenant refuses to pay for the repairs. Certainly those of us who are good tenants shouldn’t be penalised because of irresponsible people. On the other hand the landlord should not be out of pocket either! It angers me when people fail to recognise the privilege they have of living in someone elses house.
    • Kylie.B 20 days ago
      A pet can do a lot of damage between the legal entry times a property manager can enter a property. I’ve seen instances of an unapproved puppy destroying the carpet in all rooms of a house in two weeks because the tenants locked the pup in a room all day without letting it out to go to the toilet. The cost of replacing the carpets was more than the bond that was held for the property. Unfortunately there is no real way to determine if a tenant is a responsible pet owner. At the end of the day the owner is left with the bill of it goes wrong so the owner should be able to make the decision if they want to take that risk.
      • Tonia2016 18 days ago
        I strongly agree with Kylie as I have seen this same situation - even in a house I was living in as my housemate was irresponsible! Thankfully I moved out only a month after she got the dog. She locked her dog inside a spare room all day, urine and poo on the carpets, carpets clawed and ripped apart, skirting boards chewed and destroyed. Tile grout throughout the house was also discolored and damaged due to the dog having bowel issues all over the place. I moved out due to this, And reported it to our property manager as her irresponsible behaviour was causing significant damage and the costs ended up mounting over the bond - This all happened over a month. Unfortunately as it was a share house the rest of us could not be home all the time to make sure this wasn't happening. No wonder the landlord said no pets when the property was readvertised - this was a brand new house prior to that tenancy. Imagine the damage if it was another 5 months before the agents could come for an inspection.
        • Ky 16 days ago
          i agree with all above in this string. Pets are definitely part of the family but if they damage the property and the tenant can't or won't pay then the owner is left as the only one on the on hook as they need to sell or re-let the property. This is why it needs to be with their agreement. If this is not the case, what will happen is investors will leave the market and there will be even less rentals. That doesn't help the situation.
          • homelesswithpets 13 days ago
            To all those landlords sulking about the possibility of being made to allow pets in their rentals and how this will make them sell up their investment properties in droves and get the hell outta dodge. I doubt very much any investor will leave the rental market when homes are necessity for human survival and provide a very equitable and constant return in comparison to other (sometimes volatile) markets such as shares, gold, bonds etc etc. Not to mention any tax offsets, write offs etc that can be derived from the rental property’s income and “property improvements” in the first place.
            • ngb 8 days ago
              Losses aren’t returns. Tax deductions, negative gearing etc, require the landlord to loose money.Additional costs - damage etc eventually get passed on to renters in the form of higher rent or lower quality housing or rejection of anyone but the best renters. Property typically provides very low returns (low single digits after expenses) or with a mortgage a loss with the landlord effectively subsidising the renter.For properties that allow pets, most landlords will avoid putting in anything but the cheapest finishings to make it suitable for pets. Forcing this on renters that don’t have pets is bad for the majority of renters.
  • LaurenF 12 days ago
    My beautiful placid non destructive pet dog of 12 years is dying of cancer. My new lease restricts her to outside pet only.
    • Cattrack 12 days ago
      I would say that the lease is not compliant with the animal protection legislation in any state, because appropriate shelter has to be provided to animals. Some animals might be ok outside if there is a patio/deck and a safe place outside and protection from the elements. But when an animal becomes old and frail, or has health issues, he/she will likely need at least confined access to the inside of the house. Like on a mat in a tiled area. If a pet is old with arthritis or cancer, it doesn't want to move all over the house anyway, but shouldn't be locked in a really small space either. Sometimes people had the pet when they were buying their own home and didn't intend to rent with animals but circumstances change and you have to rent, but landlords don't seem to realise this.
      • LaurenF 12 days ago
        Thank you for you insight Cattrack. I was disgusted that the owner/agent stipulated that lease condition after being fully informed of her condition. For the pet lovers here, I have her inside and well cared for regardless, I just have to move all her things outside when I get inspected every 3 months.
        • Cattrack 12 days ago
          It's sad that real estate agents will usually just callously re- stipulate the terms of the lease because that is the convenient thing for them to do. They usually won't go out of their way to ask the landlord if they are willing to consider the circumstances and negotiate the situation, which some landlords would be willing to do. I became aquainted with two of my landlords, from them coming over to do maintenance things, and my previous lawn mower guy is a landlord, and they say when they have a good tenant doing their best looking after the place they are happy to give and take with the conditions of the lease. In a lot of cases landlords lose good tenants because of the real estate agent's behavior. I'm glad to hear your dog is ok because summer's coming on and older animals are much more highly susceptible to heat stress even if under a patio in the hottest part of the day.
  • R.S 8 days ago
    Yes, to allowing tenants to own pets! I also agree that it's fair to have terms in the contract.
  • Jim Edwards 10 days ago
    I have been a landlord for over 10 years and have always allowed pets with the conditions in the rental agreement. I have never had a problem
    • Grover 8 days ago
      Removed by moderator.
  • Jenko69 9 days ago
    I allow pest in my rental properties. However I think landlords should have the right to not allow.. Because I have had tenants let their pets damage my properties on several occasions.
  • Theresa M 9 days ago
    Also, “ Pet resumes “ are not worth the paper they are printed on.. as any Property Manager or landlord will tell you , the more you want your tenants or pets out = the more glowing the reference you give so you can get them out and moving on !If you want to truly check an animals character , always check with the neighbours .
  • lifetimerenter 11 days ago
    after reading all the posts, I cannot think of anything to add, other than, it is fairly obvious that most landlords think tenants are a lower order of human being and should just take whatever they feel like dishing out, and pay though the nose for the privilege of living in and paying for their investment, while they in most cases hide behind a rental agency property manager who only acts in their best interests. Great that we have the RTA looking out for us, thank goodness for them. Just for the record, I have been a renter for 51 years and have never wanted to own a dwelling, and have always received my bonds back in full, minus the cleaning fee, and I always use their cleaners, except for the carpets, I get them cleaned by a company that I called, that way I know they are done for the next tenant, does that sound like I don't trust, you bet it does, live and learn.
    • Nivannii 11 days ago
      Yes, us renters PAY the owner to look after their property. People like me do a really great job at that although I have seen some horror stories. Where I'm renting now the standards are lower than I like. I asked the landlady, who lives in the flat above the rooms to get a cleaner in. She did yet would't pay her enough to finish the job. So I get an email saying it's not 5 star. I replied that clean windows and screens is not OTT. Yet with two dogs, I just can't afford to be too fussy. I have had a real estate thank me for leaving a place so clean. I've also had one say I did the paint damage to the corners of two walls (they were obviously older than the year I lived there). I kept my mouth shut and painted it - what legs did I have to stand on? Yes, similar life time renter, live and learn. Now I take photos of EVERYTHING!!
    • Emmadeanne 11 days ago
      I find this post sad and slightly offensive. I am a property owner (hate the term landlord) and there is no way I think of my tenants as lower order human beings. I attend to maintenance as quickly as I can after I am alerted to the need for it, charge a fair rent and do allow pets. At present there are four chooks, two very large but friendly dogs and a cat in one property with no problems. Love having chooks as they keep termites at bay. That said this is a house on a large block I would not allow these pets in a small apartment. When a new tenant moves in their new home is clean, repainted if necessary, all appliances are working and the air conditioners have been serviced. This may be why I have tenants who have been with me for twelve years and I hope they stay for another twelve at least. However I know not all property owners think this way as I am a resident letting agent managing a strata complex and earlier this year 'sacked' an owner who refused to replace an oven that could not be repaired. He suggested the tenants buy a bbq! His whole townhouse was in a very poor state and not worth the rent he was asking. I find most owners are fine but there is always one or two who have a poor attitude just as there are tenants who think nothing of not paying their rent and turning their home into a tip. The above mentioned owner has come crawling back begging me to manage his property again as another agent let the tenants fall three months behind in their rent. I have agreed but on the condition that the property is brought up to and maintained at a reasonable standard. The painters are in their now and the new carpet will be laid tomorrow. If owners want good tenants they have to be good owners and if you can't afford to maintain an investment property perhaps it should be sold. I feel it is sad that this is becoming a them and us debate. Let's try to help the government produce legislation that is fair and equitable to all parties. There will always be those who do not do the right thing by others but I find the majority of tenants and owners are great.
    • Over it 10 days ago
      It is really disappointing that a tenant feels they need to have RTA looking after them I am a landlord who ensures that my home is well maintained and has all the mod cons they need including dishwasher,reverse cycle air cond upstairs and downstairs and outdoor spa which I supply the chemicals. I have no intention of ever keeping bond money from my tenants unless they disrespected my home ie trash it or not paid rent but no tenant to date has done this to me and i thank them for looking after my home.my tenants do not pay me to look after my property I take full responsibility- actually my rent does not cover my mortgage or maintance however any tenant I sign a contract with feels it is their home and their pets are welcome and need only to ask if there is a issue so i can attend to it immediately.
      • homelesswithpets 9 days ago
        Hi over it. Thank you for being such a great landlord. I wish we could clone you👍🏼😃 There seriously needs to be more like you. You don’t happen to have a rental available in the Sunshine Coast area do you?😉
        • Over it 9 days ago
          Our property is in Redlands on a island my tenants will be moving next year due and I wish them well it is a beautiful cottage that is small but I love it.Possibly you may wish to move to our end of town lol I have to spend in January almost $2000 in pest control ie termit due etc and spa checks for pool fence laws I will not receive any rent for almost two months and yes it is tough to keep maintance done but it is highest on my list of priorities So my point is there are probably a lot of landlords under extreme pressure and all you need is an interest rate rise and their world hurts and tenants just assume just because you have a rental your pockets are full.Ps I did notice one review that said if you cannot afford your rental you should sell unfortunately due to a dropping house market and difficult banking lending law changes there may be many who are stuck between a rock and hard place and for this it is a very difficult situation to be in, imagine having a house you borrowed for now worth less than you paid 15 years ago and you owe more than you can sell for what exactly are they expected to do? when I purchased elsewhere I never thought for one minute I would not be able to sell my property but I was wrong and have decided to keep renting this property for as long as I can get a good quality tenant hopefully until I retire, this is why this discussion forum is great it puts all opinions in a valuable light and hopefully a good outcome for both Landlords and Tenants. thank you homelesswithpets for your kind comments I wish you and your fur family well.
  • Paul M 16 days ago
    My partner and I have an exemplary rental history, with my partner having rented for over a decade with pets, and still we have been refused properties because of our pets.When recently moving we were told we all but had a property, but the owner changed their mind because they thought our dog looked dangerous.We provided the property manager and owner with a full veterinary history and personal references as to the dog in questions behaviour and personality.Still we were rejected based on the personal opinion of a breed.An owner should should simply have to answer two questions and the stipulate conditions.Animals allowed, inside or out and what animals you're ok with.
    • N4Y 12 days ago
      I have also recived discrimination because i have large breed dogs. They are very well behaved, well socialized and have their own references. However people see large dog and assume large damage which is terribly misinformed
    • Grover 9 days ago
      As an owner of rental properties and having to repair and pay for damage done by cats and dogs every time I have allowed them in my houses I will not allow pets in my houses again. People need to get it into their heads that a rental property owner pays for their investment, with help from the rent monies received, but mainly from their own pockets. I have tenants on multiple year leases, at a discount , if they sign up for two years or more. I have never put up rent for an existing tenant. I have given tenants gift vouchers and fix problems that may arise as soon as I practically can. I do not treat my tenants as second rate citizens and tell them that I appreciate how well they look after my investment. There are some dodgy owners around, some terrible property managers around who will cost owners money and I have had them. There are also lots of really good tenants out there. But at the end of the day it is the one paying the mortgage who ultimately must have the say on this matter or stipulates the conditions to who ever rents the property.
  • ChrisM 9 days ago
    The owner of a property should have the right to state if they want pets in their investment property or not.
  • Theresa M 9 days ago
    Unfortunately as a long term landlord I have had only negative experiences with allowing animals in my properties and few positive ones . I know that it is getting harder for good tenants with animals to get tenancies, but local councils are also too overwhelmed by the increase in suburban pet ownership to actually do anything about noisy and disruptive pets.and there are no workable systems in place that vulnerable neighbours .1.If tenants continually made loud disruptive noise neighbours could get the police to handle it ..but that is not the case with animals 2. If tenants noise was at nighttime or unsociable hours , police are pretty responsive , but what about fretting dogs that go all night and day 3. An elderly neighbour was highly allergic to cats let out tenanted neighbour allowed her cats to roam . This caused the elderly neighbour to have multiple visits to the hospital as the cats continually entered her property .. it took months of writing to the council and a serious drop in her health and well being before anything was done ( remember a landlord has to give 2 months notice to vacate and a tenant only has to give 2!)2.tenants often would go for extended holidays leaving bored barking dogs to go all day all a night .. as a landlord I could do zero !! But accept the abuse of sleepless neighbours as I Was powerless 3. A tenant decided to get a cat . ( the food bowls Were a giveaway) kept the place clean so we decided to overlook that she had not asked formally.but on vacating refused to fix a house full of new fly screens or even do a pet spray as she denied having a cat . Because she had not notified of her ownership and she denied owning a cat ( although neighbours verified she did) she was not liable !!!4. Had a lovely couple who had the most lovely dog..quiet , beautiful ( I loved that dog!) and vacated with a perfectly presented place.. but the fleas!! It was only after they had well and truly gone their flea treatment was not effective .( was brand new carpet in a new home they were the first to live in ) . the new tenants were distraught , and Had to do nearly 3 more chemical treatments , at my expense , which stained all the carpets and had to put up the tenants else where while doing and they were never happy after that( before everyone starts going on about landlord insurance , don’t forget you have to pay a decent excess for most claims ) I do feel for some people with pets who have trouble getting suitable tenancies and I can see why so many landlords don’t want the extra financial responsibility _ as there are also so many excellent tenants without pets looking for good tenancies .For the situation to improve , councils and RTA are going to have to work on better strategies for helping landlords and tenants and neighbours that deal with animal problems in a more timely manner
  • Lynnykay 9 days ago
    Pets: any changes to the act should reflect the owners and tenants’ rights regarding pets, therefore we would strongly suggest that the Owner be allowed to charge a ‘pet bond’ to cover any damages. We recommend 2 – 3 weeks over the required 4 weeks currently. Then we could, as Property Managers, be able to convince more owners to allow pets in properties. Pest control for fleas upon ending of tenancies must be allowable for situations where the tenant is allowed a pet. Section 171 currently restricts this. It should be allowed as a condition of having a pet, as opposed to a condition of the tenancy. Section 171 should be amended to allow this moving forward. This, with an extra bond, would be an attractive incentive for lessors generally for allowing pet friendly rental.
  • Lynnykay 9 days ago
    Removed by moderator.
  • Nivannii 11 days ago
    I think it depends on the pets. I have two very small dogs. They don't damage furniture or chew posts or even dig holes. However soon as a landlord sees two dogs they think of 'real' dogs and their sometimes behaviour. The reason I have two is so they have each other when I'm at work or away and can't take them with me. Having two actually prevents bad behaviour yet it's harder to find a landlord who will let me rent even though I'm super clean.
    • foxje 10 days ago
      Hi Nivannii,I have a house I rent out to a lady, her son and their dog. As a landlord, I want (and need!) a tenant in my house paying rent and this is the same for nearly every landlord. However, the risk is scary particularly when budgets are right. Can I suggest you attach pictures of your lovely pets as well as a written reference from your previous landlord (or parents / friends with whom you were living) to each of your applications and I think you will find that at least some of the agents / landlords would look favorably at your application. All the best...
      • Nivannii 9 days ago
        Thank you, foxje. Yes in the last house the pups were born there. She is my daughter and is in a 'bad' mood with me (nothing to do with the 'renting' aspect of our relationship) so I'm not sure she would give me a reference. I will ask the people here though. I decided this morning to let the landlady know that I am starting to look for another home with the view in moving when my 3 months is up in another 4 weeks. I signed a page saying I would stay as much as possible for the 3 months.I am such a great tenant however not nearly appreciate enough. I would love to find a little place of my own to love and care for. My rent comes before any other payments including food (I can visit friends at dinner time ;) ), and I love any place I rent as my own.I wish they also had a list for great tenants - like tikka is for unreliable tenants.
  • Roland Auer 17 days ago
    QLD rental market already an odd one out there.1. Owner of a rental property has to pay for the water usage of his tenant. Sorry, where else in this world someone gets asked to pay for a usage of someone else with NO control over it?2. To allow pets now is making the property market even less interesting for investors! What is a pet? Dog, Cat, Horse, Pig? Honestly, this is a very wrong approach to allow for something again that the owner has no control over it.Be careful on this descision, as I know me and other investors will pull out of the QLD market and many will strugle to find a apropriate rental place. Greetings out off VIC
    • Cathe_78 15 days ago
      Removed by moderator.
      Hide Replies (9)
      • Bulla 15 days ago
        Yes. poor financial literacy and lazy thinking has deemed 'buying a house or unit' the go to option for an investment for way too long. Buying an investment property has only been rewarding because it is leveraged by debt, lent at low rates, or when rates were higher compensated for by high inflation lack of supply. This is a poor use of capital, creates taxation inequity, and potentially adds t6o conflict between those that have with have not. We over estimate human nature. I am what might be regarded as an 'investor' but i view housing as a human right more than a the domain of investment. Surely after 200 years those qualified to do so should do the math, that I believe will find the cost of the lost opportunity of capital and rising house prices, is not sustainable. Its time, globalisation, economic reform and that thing called 'disruption' will not reward 19th century investment strategy. Cracks are already in the walls, populist politics, political debate around negative gearing, its only 'just' being held together by outdated government policy and taxation reform, ...... won't happen you think .... just ask those who were the last to own newsagents and taxi licences.
        • Tara10 14 days ago
          I always thought the point of an investment property was so 1. someone else pays it off and 2. in the future aka retirement, you can sell the property and you will have money, or even by then the house would be paid off and you would be receiving income weekly. It's supposed to be a long term investment, meaning later down the track you will get the reward, not before hand.
          • Bulla 14 days ago
            Yes, in theory Tara, but there are alternatives, including, at the right time of 'an investment cycle' when not investing i.e. saving, works too. For anyone stressing re home ownership, don't, the landscape is changing. To be worthwhile, buying residential investment property depends on uplift in value. The tax credit and rental paid by the tenant the sprukers espouse is a justification to take the risk of there being growth. Do your own math, look at historical growth, include ALL costs involved in buying and then work out the true NET annual return pa. If you include all costs including management, letting and don't incur one off capital expenses or extended vacancies or tenant defaults it will likely be 2-3%pa. If you have read the papers lately, interest rates are on the rise, and house prices are falling, and then there is Labors policy on doing away with negative gearing. Its a good bet, in the near term at least, time will be 'renters cum aspiring home owners' friend, so chill, save your money, put them into 'safe' higher interest rate deposits (the NET %pa returns match property) and, this is important, tune in, read, learn, via free INDEPENDANT platforms, there are many out there, to help you become more investment aware. Knowledge is power. Regarding your journey finding affordable rental accomodation, I feel for you, and encourage you to keep doing what your doing, reaching out, PLEASE, contact the many helpline platforms, there are many, that do great work and can help. If Labor do get elected and the government pays out less negative gearing tax credits to investors, the government may channel more funds into public housing which in turn will create competition, choice for renters, it takes time but it can happen. For those that disagree please invest wherever you like, it is just my opinion, so go for it, its a free world and it does employ a lot of people. My suggestions are aimed at folk with limited means who feel stressed or overwhelmed.
      • Optimum 28 12 days ago
        Cathe, why do you think it is the property investor that is lifting the market, i am sure there are a lot more first time home buys out there then there is investors. Most investors want to purchase the property cheap not bid up high.
    • Renting forever 15 days ago
      Tenants pay water - at least WE have always had it in our leases here in qld (and yes that means I’ve had to pay for the leaking pipes the owners REFUSED to pay for)! So that street definitely goes two ways! As an owner, you seem to think you are entitled to more. Actually you need to change your opinion on your tenants who are providing you with wealth. Yes, I’m both a landord and a tenant at the same time. I’m delighted to say I don’t treat my tenants other than how I wish to be treated. I’m dismayed to say, as a tenant I’ve been treated exactly as “a tenant”. If you can’t act with equity, please pull your money. You’ll not make as good a returns in any other investment, even with the same amount of discrimination.
      • Miss Jo 9 days ago
        As a landlord I have made it my business to meet all of my tenants. We have a good relationship. They still work through the realestate though and if there is something wrong we get it fixed. We have 1 property that we pay the ex water as there is a lot of garden and we want it to survive so this is an agreement between us and the tenant. I'm not happy with the changes it is my opinion that when you leave a property it should be in the same condition as it was when you moved in. Yes you should be able to make it your home while you are there and a few piture holes in the walls are an easy fix. Pets well I'm ok with cats and small dogs but where dose this end and they must do the flea and tick treatment when they leave why the hell should that be left to me. I'm not rich by any means we are just trying to get ourselves ready to retire and are following the instructions from out financial advisors. We as well as some others are thinking it could be time to start selling if all these extra costs are going to start coming in.
    • Optimum 28 12 days ago
      Roland well said i am in the same boat i certainly will pull out of QLD if my rights as a landlord are taken away. and yes not my problem if mine is sold as a permanent dwelling. That just means one less on the rental market which then can cause rental increase due to a lack of properties. But there is always public housing.
    • Eleanor 10 days ago
      Roland, do you not have landlords insurance? It covers animal damage as well as other damage & loss of rent etc. Why worry if you are fully insured? After all it is a tax deduction and you will also get depreciation on larger items if damaged etc. Cheers
  • Van 9 days ago
    I am in two minds about this one. It's pretty terrible to think that people who rent for large chunks of their life might not be able to have animal companionship during that time. It's a very human thing to want to have animals around. I am a long-term renter and I consider myself lucky that I have been allowed to have reptiles in enclosures in my past three rentals.On the other hand, I am allergic to cats and cannot stand the smell of dogs. I don't really want to commit to renting a property that's had a cat living there, in case I have a reaction to any allergens that have been left behind. I also don't want to live in a property that smells like dog.I can therefore understand why landlords would be cautious about allowing an animal that might shed allergens or cause smells or damage.I don't think landlords should be able to say "no" without reason, but I don't think they should be forced to allow pets where there is reasonable cause to refuse. I'm not sure what the answer is.
  • Rossmonty 10 days ago
    Hi have had rental properties and have allowed pets twice, in both instances ther has been damage by the pets that the tenant refused to pay. one was the garden where the dog walked around and around the yard continually and plants died, a track was in the lawn around the gardens and it took me $1500 to rectify the damage. Second was a cat which ruined a new carpet in the bedroom. it was shredded under the bed and cat pee I could not get rid of. cost $1200.Sorry no pets ever again
  • Jo deegee 9 days ago
    Responsible pet owners would be ok. End of lease tenant needs to spray for fleas and repair turf damage. I approve pets on application.
  • Burpengary 10 days ago
    I rent in a complex of about 70 units and renters are allowed to have a dog or cat. I have a small dog and I had to have a reference for him which I think is far enough. Obviously I agree that renters should be able to have pets if the residence and yard are suited to having a pet. Some places stipulate the size of a dog because the yards are small. Barking doesn't seem to be a problem in my complex though I do here a dog barking constantly in a neighbour's house outside the complex. I believe that it is more about allowing renters to create a home with reasonable rules to apply.
  • SJ johnson 10 days ago
    Pets are such an important part of people’s lives. I think if you were allowed to have a pet in your rental home- you’d be more inclined to stay at that place a lot longer. We could not find a pet friendly rental property at all when we were renting. We got a cat and dog a week after buying our house. Let them have pets. If they make a mess of the place, keep the bond money. They seem to keep it for a lot less!!
  • AusRent 10 days ago
    At the end of the day its the owners choice. If an owner says no well fine, thats their choice. The reality is that almost 80% of perspective tenants have an animal or will want one. To miss out on 80% of perspective tenants is a big loss.
  • Over it 10 days ago
    I am a landlord and I welcome pets I think they complete a family, and I allow them inside with their owners if they choose. I would be devastated if a prospective tenant had to get rid of a family member just to live in a house.I understand damage but most pets cause no more damage than children and I am insured for all types of damages which I have no had to use.ps I pay for my tenants pest control to be done every year its a tax deduction anyway and it ensures I have a pest free home including termite control.It makes me sad to see so many landlords who have such a dim view on the fury family member.
  • SusanPriscilla 10 days ago
    I have had responsible tenants with pets but generally the experience has been negative;- pets - dogs usually -that bark incessantly and annoy neighbours, that leap at fences aggressively as people walk past, that trash the yard and on occasions have urinated inside the house. I have had tenants who do not have pest treatments done when they leave
  • katel 12 days ago
    Yes you should be able to have pets while renting in QLD, the minority who do the wrong thing ruin it for those who are responsible and do the right thing. Rental properties which aren't pet friendly seem to sit on the rental list for a while. I would rather live in my car then give up my pets
    • foxje 10 days ago
      Hi katel, I think the key point is that "rental properties which aren't pet friendly seem to sit on the rental list for a while". That means that landlords are having to pay a price for not accepting tenants with pets. The more tenants with pets around, the more the landlords that don't accept them will have to pay. This problem will sort itself out, there is no need to legislate against it as that will result in numerous other issues (as most government intervention does!).
  • Monsta 12 days ago
    I have now lived here on the Gold Coast for 2 years. I had to leave my small Maltese/Shih Tzu with my brother, 7 hours away in NSW because where I was renting don't allow pets. Both of the places we have rented had and have adequate areas for an outside dog. And to make it more frustrating there are two dogs in the complex we are renting now....The owners have said yes but the body corporate put it vote and one person said No!!! Go figure???? I am so over the fact that it is ok for some in this complex and not for others. I could never surrender my dog to a pound, I am just grateful my brother can have her. The laws need to be changed.
  • Tenantof25years 11 days ago
    Renting a home is a life of being vulnerable & being valued as less than.I have rented for 25yrs & I'm not even forty.I don't earn enough for a bank to give me a homeloan.I haven't received an inheritance, lotto win or insurance payout to come up with a 20% deposit.So like many others, my money is invested in building the wealth of my landlord's. I have pride in my premises, keeping the lawns mowed & house clean.I need a dog for security having had my house robbed & stalkers. My current landlord appreciates the efforts I make & my reliability.But like every other tenant I am vulnerable to a change in real estate, bank reposession & rent increase.Add to this the stress & trauma of finding a new residence if my dog can't move with me.Sure, we need rules. But we also need rights & protection.
    • foxje 10 days ago
      Hi Tenantof25years, I understand the vulnerability of renting. I personally believe that tenants and landlords should have the flexibility to request and negotiate long term tenancies (ie 5 or even 10 years) which I think can ease the stress and be a win-win. I agree that there needs to be balanced legislation to provide rights and protection. Just as a thought, it is worthwhile reflecting that some property owners (particularly the mum and dad investors) also have vulnerabilities and stress. I worry nearly every night about the chances of interest rates going up to 20% again, or losing a tenant and having a prolonged vacancy, or having a lot of damage done to the property, or losing my job and not being able to pay the mortgage, or the chances of property prices dropping significantly like they did in the US and hence losing all of the money I used to buy my house and investment and losing our home also.
  • AnneN 13 days ago
    Renters should not have to put there life on hold in relation to owning animals until they can afford to buy a home. Having pets should also not limit the amount of rental properties available to you, imagine all the rescue animals that could be saved if renters were allowed to own pets. Another perspective is, there is no rule about renting a property to families even though Children can damage a house way more than pets can. Also most pet owners take care of their property and understand that if there pet damages it, they will need to replace it. Cats are more widely accepted but dogs are still banned in a lot of properties. In the generation we are living in and the price of houses atm - It is very likely that you will have a lot more people renting instead of buying due to affordability. Because of this it is unfair that these renters will not have the chance to own pets due to never being able to afford there own home.
  • Ivegotmistletoe 10 days ago
    I commute 2.5 hours for work everyday (and I have for about 8 years) so my partner and I are looking to move closer to my work. We would be looking for a place with a courtyard so our cats can safely spend some time outside (we have a cat enclosure at our current place). I’ve seen ads for a lot of rental properties that would be suitable but almost all of them stipulate no pets. We are feeling extremely discouraged by this - we are responsible cat parents and they have never caused any damage to our current place. We would be happy to pay an extra pet bond to be able to have our cats in a suitable property.
    • foxje 10 days ago
      I sympathise with your situation and this is an example of where legislation restricts what a reasonable tenant and reasonable landlord can work out. I am sure there would be many landlords who would be happy to take you on with the added assurance of a pet bond. However under the current legislation it would be illegal. Can I suggest you reach out to the agents / landlords for the suitable properties and provide a written reference from your previous landlord vouching for your pet. As a landlord myself, it would be silly to lose money keeping a property vacant if another suitable tenant is knocking on the door and the risk of the pets can be shown to be negligible.
  • Alicia1997 13 days ago
    I currently rent in QLD, work in Property Management and have 2 dogs. I think what some people are not understanding is that as a renter you DO NOT own the house you are renting. The property owner should have the right to the final say on what is and isn’t allowed in THEIR house. No one is telling renters that they cannot have pets in every rental property in QLD, some landlords are just saying that tenants cannot have pets in THEIR house – which should be their right as the owner of the property. I myself have rented 4 different houses with my dogs. Sure, sometimes it has been hard to find a house that is pet friendly, but it just means you have to look for a rental in a different area or look at moving into a different type of house (ie. older). At the end of the day if you care about your pet (which I’m sure most people do) you will do what you have to do to be able to keep your pet. During my time in property management I have seen my fair share of damage caused by pets and their negligent owners. I know not all pet owners are negligent, but you have to see it from the property manager and/or owners prospective. Why risk your property being damaged by a pet? There are already so many risks that come with renting your property. Although I would say I am a responsible pet owner and I do not currently own an investment property, if I was to own an investment property I would not allow tenants with pets into my property.
  • Lateesha 11 days ago
    Even though a renter does not own the house, they are paying for it to be their home. Thy should be allowed to have pets as there is an understanding at the start of a lease that they are responsible to cover any damage they cause during their tenancy. If they pay for any issues caused by their pets, then there should be no issue. When this isn't the case, bond is alot of money and should be sufficient to cover any damage caused by the pet. If not, write it into the lease at the start.
  • Pandora 17 days ago
    Over time, fewer properties allow pets. Pets are very important companions to many people, especially the elderly and disabled, such that it should be a human right to have them. A significant proportion of the population are in the rental market by necessity, and they shouldn't be penalised by being disallowed pets. Tenants are already liable for property damage under current legislation, and this includes damage made by pets.
    • Pam4 17 days ago
      Yes current laws say that the Tenants are liable for any property damage but the reality is that in most cases a bond of four weeks rent is all that can be taken which is not enough to cover damages. The process to go through the Tribunal to claim bond and money above the bond is takes a long time. In the meantime the owner has to pay the costs up front to do repairs so that they can re let the property.
      • Pandora 16 days ago
        While it takes time, there is a process that protects the owner's interests. What I'm suggesting is that legislation should also protect the tenant's interests. Owners and tenants interests are at different levels on the hierarchy of needs - tenants need housing to actually survive and live a functional life that enables them to participate in society - people do not need investment properties to do that. A civilised society should ensure the basic needs of all citizens, before it privileges the wants of the better off.
        • Pam4 16 days ago
          Pandora the reality is that it takes months to get through the court to get an order. If successful getting it enforced is like getting blood out a stone. You end up with a payment plan of $5,a week for a court ordered debt of thousands. So while there is a process in place it useless.
          • Renting forever 15 days ago
            All I’m going to say here is “Insurance” We’ve had this situation and our landlords insurance covered it!
            • Pam4 15 days ago
              Removed by moderator.
            • Pandora 14 days ago
              In terms of process, tenants are similarly positioned on many issues. While there is legislation to protect tenants’ rights, it can be very difficult and time-consuming having them enforced. Any contractual arrangement between people relies to a large extent on goodwill, decency and responsible conduct. There are bad tenants, and there are bad landlords, in that regard. Having said that, I reiterate the idea that the relationship isn't equal, because it is the tenant that requires housing for their survival. We cannot have a system that privileges people well-positioned enough to be landlords at the expense of a more vulnerable people.There is no regulation on rental prices in this country. We don’t have the tenure security of long leases that many other countries have. There is literally not one rental property available in Australia that is affordable to a person on Newstart. Homelessness in Australia has increased 14% in 5 years. There are well over 100 000 homeless people in Australia right now. This is among the highest levels of all developed countries. And btw, according to 2014/15 tax estimates, negative gearing costs more than $3.6 billion a year in lost revenue.So, you know….tell me about that bit of scratched paint.
              • Julies 13 days ago
                There are plenty of rental properties available for people on Newstarts . You just need to look in the regional or country areas not in the big cities. They are quite affordable with the help that you get from the Rental Assistance Program available.
                • homelesswithpets 13 days ago
                  Julies are you a politician cause you are clearly out of touch with reality. The only areas that would be affordable to rent for people on Newstart would be in areas like Gladstone where, sure, you can rent a place for under $200/week (mind you that’s still up to 60% of your Newstart allowance gone on rent alone) {total amount payable to a person on Newstart including rent assistance is $340/week} but then there is little to no employment prospects there either. And that’s the point of Newstart; you have to be actively looking for work. So on goes the vicious cycle of poverty. So when you say there are plenty of available properties you just have to look outside of the cities then yes you are right IF AND ONLY IF you mean WELL OUTSIDE like north of the Bundaberg/Maryborough or west or south west of Toowoomba areas
                  • Julies 13 days ago
                    No I am not a politician. I am just going by previous experience. I have rental houses west of the great divide and have rented to people on Newstart and If that is where you need to go to get away from the coast and cities like Gladstone, Bunderberg etc to find work then I would say that should be considered as an option. This is a big country and all the jobs are definitely not on the coast.
                    • homelesswithpets 13 days ago
                      And the jobs are not in the cheaper rent areas either Less disposable income = cheaper rents. Otherwise the places wouldn’t rent. Unless they were overcrowded by groups of people sharing one place to afford it in the first place
                      • Pandora 13 days ago
                        The dissonance between tenant and landlord experience is clearly evidenced on this thread – a conversation between the ‘haves’ and the ‘have-nots’. On the issue of housing affordability, we don’t need to rely on anecdotes to gain an insight into the situation in Australia – we have actual data and studies based on sound methodology. A very recent study showed that the rental crisis is worse than ever. The Snapshot surveyed over 67,000 rental listings across Australia and found that there is a chronic shortage of affordable rentals. Highlights from the report include: – 485 rentals were affordable for a single person on the Disability Support Pension – 180 rentals were affordable for a single parent with one child on Newstart – 3 rentals were affordable for a single person on Newstart – 2 rentals were affordable for a single person in a property or share house on Youth Allowance – 0 rentals were affordable for a single person on Newstart or Youth Allowance in Sydney, Canberra, Melbourne, Adelaide, Darwin or Perth. The idea that people should further marginalise themselves by moving to remote areas is as unsound in its reasoning as it is elitist.
                        • homelesswithpets 12 days ago
                          😉 hmm yes you could say we have differing opinions and I am also the first to acknowledge how off topic this went too. As we are all aware housing affordability is yet another topic that needs some serious consideration. It’s just that I get very irritated when people who clearly have no idea about how hard it is to get by on Newstart Allowance offer up these inconsiderate opinions. I’m not even currently in receipt of these payments but have been in the past. I am in fact employed however only part time so therefore underemployed and still can’t afford most rentals in my region and I fear for the future if I have to return to these payments. So I just want to put it out there for anyone reading this: these are the facts A single person on Newstart will receive a MAXIMUM payment of $272.90 a week and if they are eligible for it a MAXIMUM payment of $67.90 a week for rent assistance (both payable as a fortnightly payment). The amount of rent assistance DOES NOT increase because you pay more rent. That’s as good as it gets and no one on Newstart is living, they are lucky to survive. So yes we live in a lucky country and we are fortunate enough to even get that. But perhaps this is the time for all you investment property owners to acknowledge just how lucky YOU are to own (or yes, be paying the bank for) not only your own home but one or more investment properties that you insist on demanding to have the entire rule book stacked in your favour. Without tenants paying your mortgages for you, you would be extremely close to losing not only your investment properties but whatever you have up as collateral
                        • Allforlandlord 11 days ago
                          I do agree with you on a large extent. However I would also like to point out that while you are disadvantaged financially, you need to compromise on your living standard. I see a lot of ads on gumtree around $150/week/room, and this is within Melbourne metro.
            • Pam4 13 days ago
            • Pam4 13 days ago
              Insurance is not the answer to everything. A lot won't cover for pet damage and in some cases insurers will chase up tenants for monies owing.
        • Optimum 28 12 days ago
          Pandora,If that is your thoughts then use public housing which covers a civilised society, the other is for people that choose to live in a more up market situation which costs the landlord to supply, and in turn they end up with an investment that gives then back something as well. At the end of the day if investment properties are not viable then people will not purchase them and you will then need to line up with the rest of the people that choose to use public housing.
          • homelesswithpets 12 days ago
            Removed by moderator.
          • homelesswithpets 12 days ago
            Removed by moderator.
          • Pandora 12 days ago
            Removed by moderator.
            Hide Replies (3)
          • homelesswithpets 12 days ago
            People don’t choose public housing. They are forced into it due to unaffordable rental prices and waiting times to get into public housing has in fact blown out to between 10 and 25years depending on where you are. Perhaps you could open you mind to the plight of your fellow human beings. We are all deserved of having safe, secure, clean and habitable housing
          • Pandora 11 days ago
            Optimum28, an estimated 1.3 million Australian households are in a state of housing need, whether unable to access market housing or in a position of rental stress. That’s 14% of Australian households. This figure is predicted to rise to 1.7 million by 2025. Demand for public housing exceeds supply by a long margin, and the waiting lists are very long. Housing affordability deterioration in Australia is largely attributable to tax incentives for investors. These laws benefit the rich at the expense of the poor. The more properties investors own, the less low to middle income earners have access to the housing market. On top of that, there are no regulations on rental prices. These are the mechanisms by which the poor are enslaved and marginalised by housing unaffordability. I wouldn’t call that ‘civilised’.
        • GeeGee 12 days ago
          "tenants need housing to actually survive and live a functional life that enables them to participate in society - people do not need investment properties to do that."We have an investment property that we rent out at $100/ week below market value because we have brilliant tenants. We bought this property many years ago and now at the age of sixty five it affords us an income "to actually survive and live a functional life that enables us to participate in society."
        • ngb 12 days ago
          I think that’s the problem. The process doesn’t protect the owners interest. The bond isn’t large enough to even cover non-payment of rent, let alone damage. If there is a dispute the owner ALWAYS ends up out of pocket. The reason less and less properties allow pets is because of those that do, after renting to one or two tenants with pets they inevitably end up with some damage and find that the bond is not large enough to cover damage costs or legal costs. This thread is littered with examples of this. This is a really good case of the restrictions around the bond and recovering damages and legal fees and lost rent resulting in bad outcomes for tenants - ie less and less owners willing to rent to tenants with pets. Now you want to make it even worse by forcing owners to accept pets. This is a really good way to reduce the amount of properties available for rent and reduce the quality of rental properties (out with the good quality non-pet friendly finishes and furniture, in with the cheap synthetic carpets, tile/vinyl floors/ikea furniture) for all renters, not just pet owners. Not sure this is the result you want.It would make more sense to increase the bond amount able to be taken. An unlimited pet bond that allows owners to take both damages, legal costs and lost rent would make it easier for owners to allow pets.People saying “that’s what insurance is for” don’t understand that insurance claims require an excess payment and every time an owner make an insurance claim, their insurance premiums go up the next year, which means they end up out of pocket again. Then after a number of claims the insurance company refuses to insure them. Insurance, while another imperfect layer of protection, isn’t a solution.
      • Eleanor 12 days ago
        What a lot of people are not aware of is that landlords insurance (like Terri Scheer) generally covers damage by pets up-to $2000 or $3000. I allow my tenants pets & to-date have never had to make a claim. I have dogs & myself, why shouldn't others have the joy I get. Shame on those landlords who are taking all the bond & then claiming insurance.
      • Nivannii 11 days ago
        How would a property get to damage stage??? That covers more than $1200+?? There's something wrong with whoever is looking after property and whoever allowed the people in. I know there's some 'strange' renters out there, I got bitten when I was a Property Manager however ... there must have been something in the references.
    • Tara10 14 days ago
      You can also think of it as doing society a favour. Children who are raised with pets (and taught how to look after them properly) generally become better people, they're more caring, gentle and more responsible, they can learn a lot from a pet. Also those with mental illness, having a pet helps them, the suicide rate may go down. Elderly will have a friend. More jobs will be created to take care of said pets (vets, grooming, pet sitters, dog walkers, petshops).
  • Maurice77 12 days ago
    Regarding pets being automatically approved in all rental properties in Qld, I vehemently disagree. Pets (esp dogs) are likely to cause permanent damage to a property - chewed timber, wrecked carpet, etc. People just take advantage as well - I allowed “one small dog, outside only” and the tenant took this to mean “huge dog inside, carpet wrecker” And the some of the comments about landlords being priveliged while tenants are more needy, sorry disagree again. I saved up for over 10 years to buy my first home which I then rented out, yet I know many people on much better incomes than me that fritter their money away on things like travel and daily coffees and have no savings at all. 2 things - learn how to save, and stop playing the victim.
    • Allforlandlord 11 days ago
      Hi Maurice,I guess we are discuss whether pets should be allowed automatically. But your argument just suggests that you had a really bad tenant. I do think a responsible tenant is able to manage their pets just like responsible parents are able to educate their children.While we are trying to maximise our return of our investments, we should also consider the fact that we are allowed with property depreciation by the government with taxpayer's money. These taxpayers include renters. They do help us making money in the long run, hence we should offer them greater rights.
      • Maurice77 11 days ago
        Hi “Allforlandlord”. I vehemently disagree with you. Common sense would tell you that property depreciation has nothing to do with damage pets cause! Are you seriously suggesting that I somehow cash in my depreciation schedule (which I pay someone to do for me btw) to pay for a chewed timber bannister or scratched floor boards? Sorry makes no sense. I worked and studied damn hard to buy this asset (on a menial Income btw) so why should I allow someone’s pet to have the run of the place just because tenants need even more “rights”. Sorry - you want a pet, then you save up like I did and go and get your own place - it can be done, you just have to make some “sacrifices”. Actually are you even a landlord? Based on the “logic” of your post it sounds like you are pushing a particular agenda
  • kingo 11 days ago
    I live in a house divided into 4 flats. The lawns and gardens as well as under the house are communal areas. Recently one of the tenants had a dog and as well as barking incessantly, it dug up the lawn and under the house. This is totally unacceptable and in these circumstances, no dogs should be allowed.
  • Elizabeth Moll 11 days ago
    As a property manager I have seen some damage done by pets, eg scratching of doors and skirtings from smaller dogs, I have been jumped on by larger dogs when doing inspections, one actually dislocated my shoulder and the tenant was right there. I think owners should be open to pets being allowed but with permission as I don't want to go to a property and upon entering being greeted by a not too friendly dog that you didn't know was residing at the property.
  • ahl 11 days ago
    Some people are allergic to cats, and some can't stand the smell that pets leave in houses (pet owners often don't notice these). Some tenants are responsible some aren't. Owners can't tell. They should be able to set rules for their properties and potential tenants know these before they choose to rent. Make life too hard for owners and there will be less properties to rent anyway.
  • elleke 11 days ago
    people in europe and the uk live happily with pets , children, curtains etc,the live in the same rentals for yrs sometimes for lifethey can take the dog on a bus or a train etci just don,t see why we are so different that we can,t manage to find a way for all to be able to live happy home livesi don,t own a pet anymore as i don,t want it to out live me but have owned cats in the past and never let them roam, had them fixed up and kept the place clean etc, mind you it was easier yrs ago to have a pet in a uniti have rented all my life and have seen it get harder and harder for a tenant to have a decent semblance of home life
  • Kuzza33 11 days ago
    We live in a 3 bedroom home that we are currently renting and been told that the owners/landlords cant afford to do any maintenance but then again can go and put up the rent to $415.00 per week why do these people own houses if they cant even afford to do maintenance requests or make people live in a house that isnt at the safety and healthy standards
  • Kuzza33 17 days ago
    I think every tenant in Queensland and Brisbane should be allowed to have pets in their rental property or rental home and believe that no one should have to ask to have any type of pet in their home arranging from a cat or a kitten,dog or puppy or any other pet especially if you are a family or anyone else that is renting
  • CindyLee 20 days ago
    I'd agree with allowing pets, BUT, at the same time allowing the landlord/agent to collect additional bond/deposit from the tenant. Reason 1: You cannot stop people having pets even the lease states "no-pets-allowed". Reason 2: You have to admit pets bring more wear and tear to the investment property and tenants are responsible for these and damages caused by their pets. Therefore to make both happy: I allow you to keep pets in the property, you should allow me to collect more bond for covering damages.
  • Corey8888 18 days ago
    I work in animal rescue and the amount of rehomes that happen due to animals not being allowed in rentals is huge. I think that if pets (within reason) were allowed to stay in rentals, it would reduce the amount of animals in pounds, it’ll decrease our euthanasia rates and it would also keep families happy and healthy with their beloved pets. I think that there obviously needs to be stipulations as to what pets can be kept in which properties but if think it’s definitely something that needs to be looked at. It’s working wonders in VIC. Let’s move ahead with the times!
    • Tonia2016 18 days ago
      Actually the legislation allowing pets in rental properties in Victoria does not come into effect until 2020 and if the opposition is to come into power at the next election most of the items passed will most likely be rescinded and not ever come into effect - including that of allowing pets in properties without permission. So no, it is not doing wonders in VIC and has not by one bit reduced the number of pets in shelters. Responsible pet owners know that when they get a pet, they are making a lifetime commitment for that pet and will not simply get rid of it for reasons like this when the majority of QLD rental properties are actually pet friendly. People need to compromise on the type of home they are looking at if the big requirement is pet friendly. Please know your facts before making comments such as this.
      • Myfanwe 18 days ago
        How can anyone think that the majority of rental properties in QLD are pet friendly? Have you actually tried looking for a pet friendly rental recently. I have and in my experience it it more like 10% or less are pet friendly. Nearly every property ad I have looked at in the past 6 months says "sorry, no pets." admittedly, I am looking for a unit, as opposed to a house, but to ban any pets, not even a goldfish or a budgie is absolutely unreasonable.
        • Tonia2016 18 days ago
          As a property manager I am more than aware that the majority of my owners are pet friendly. If you are looking for a unit and finding they are saying no pets, that is not because the landlord is saying so, it is due to body corporate by laws preventing pets from living within the complex. I'm sure if you spoke with the property managers you would be told this and would maybe understand the processes better. Many body corporates do not allow pets in order to reduce noise, disputes and issues arising between neighbours in a complex where everyone is living so close - the landlord has no say in these by laws and even if the laws were to change, pets would still not be permitted in complexes that are not pet friendly as body corporates are not governed by the RTRA Act.
        • Grover 11 days ago
          Removed by moderator.
  • Marie 19 days ago
    Damage to property and I have experienced damage. Odour.Tenants are quick to ‘want’ but reguse to acknowledge when they cause damage. They don’t have the money to buy property but are happy to rent with little care taken. They clean spasmodically and engage Bond Cleaners when they move. How can they kept the property clean with an animal. Cats in particular have a heavy odour. People have Carpet plyons. Would you care to do a routine inspection with these things. What if an animal is savage. We, as owners have the right to inspect the property and how is this possible with a savage animal. Absolutely no to pets but if such a law is passed there must be a heavy PET BOND. Thus this must be sorted before moving into a property
    • Lucietta 18 days ago
      I am currently in a situation where I have lived here 4 years now but being told to get rid of 1 dog or move or pay 425 a week rent for a house in which the owner isn't looking after at all (plumbing constantly blocking and leaking into garage house cockroach silverfish rat and mice infested since I moved in) she sees the dogs have not done damage. I am having to fix things myself out of my own pocket all because it's very hard to rent a place because everyone is saying no pets. We pay alot of bond to cover issues and if damage is more than the bond you get it reimbursed through taking those people to court if they refuse to pay. The laws protect the owners better than the tenants.
      • homelesswithpets 18 days ago
        Totally agree with you Lucietta! I had been in a rental for well over 20years with pets (cats) the whole time. I never let them roam freely unless I was home to watch where they were and never let them out at night. I never had an issue with other neighbours in regards to them and there was never any odour issues as I always kept their litter box clean and used a litter with deodoriser crystals. However the property was never maintained by the owner and like you I often paid for my own repairs. In addition to this, even though he wasn’t a qualified or registered electrician or plumber, on the rare occasion he would fix a leaking hot water system, plumbing leak through a wall, leaking toilet, blocked pipes, broken electrical switch, replacement of faulty oven hot plates etc he did these repairs himself. Totally illegal and dangerous!!! He even installed his own safety switches on the electrical switchboard for the units (a number of years) after laws came into effect that they were mandatory. And at least once that I witnessed he did a complete install of a hard wired oven. The end result of his “repairs” was always that the “fix” would not last as it was not done right in the first place; a major blowout at the joint of a pipe he installed along the underside of the gutter of the carport so he didn’t have to actually dig up and replace the faulty original pipe and the electrical switchboard bursting into flames from his dodgy installation of switches, fuses and wires!!!Tenants have pretty much no rights to protect themselves but lessors have all the protection under the sun. There is a reason why pet bonds are illegal and I don’t think they’ve even been brought into the recent Victorian (now pet friendly) legislation changes.
    • Myfanwe 18 days ago
      I have rented for all of my adult life and have never left a property dirty, or smelly, even when I have had cats. Your sweeping statement about renters cleaning haphazardly and 'engaging bond cleaners' is pretty harsh. I take pride in my home and keep it clean and tidy and smelling fresh at all times, pets or no pets.And as to engaging bond cleaners? What's the problem? They do a good job and make it more likely that the landlord will refund the bond without issues. I've done both ways and have had the experience where my personal cleaning wasn't good enough (even though the place was cleaner than when I moved in), so now I go with whoever the agent recommends.
      • homelesswithpets 18 days ago
        Agree👍🏼 It is so offensive to be discriminated against for having pets when you are a Very house proud person. Not all us of are slobs that keep a dirty filthy smelly place and just because agents have had a poor experience with other tenants in the past I believe the vast majority of people with or without pets are clean and responsible people. What’s that saying: don’t tar all of us with the same brush. Or words to that effect!
      • Cathe_78 15 days ago
        I know what you mean. I don't have any pets (although I wouldn't mind having a cat if I could be confident of finding rental properties that allowed pets) but I've been through the cleaning merry-go-round too many times now (even for routine inspections, where they seem to think the house should be as clean as if you were ready to move out, rather than still living there and working full time). I just don't have the time to spend two weeks cleaning and re-cleaning every time I move out (or I get a routine rental inspection real estate agent who has a hissy fit). I'm pretty sure a lot of real estate agents just want to see the receipt for the bond cleaners anyway – so now I just do that. It's not really an expense I want to have to pay but I don't have the time to do anything else.
    • Paul M 16 days ago