Renting with pets

13 days ago
The Open Doors to Renting Reform community consultation has now closed. Thank you for having your say on how we can improve renting in Queensland.

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?

The Open Doors to Renting Reform community consultation has now closed. Thank you for having your say on how we can improve renting in Queensland.

  • Pandora 2 months 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.
    Hide Replies (125)
    • Pam4 2 months 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.
      Hide Replies (113)
      • Pandora 2 months 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.
        Hide Replies (98)
        • Pam4 2 months 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.
          Hide Replies (53)
          • Renting forever 2 months ago
            All I’m going to say here is “Insurance” We’ve had this situation and our landlords insurance covered it!
            Hide Replies (51)
            • Pam4 2 months ago
              Removed by moderator.
            • Pandora 2 months 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.
              Hide Replies (39)
              • Julies 2 months 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.
                Hide Replies (30)
                • homelesswithpets 2 months 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
                  Hide Replies (23)
                  • Julies 2 months 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.
                    Hide Replies (13)
                    • homelesswithpets 2 months 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
                      Hide Replies (11)
                      • Pandora 2 months 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.
                        Hide Replies (10)
                        • homelesswithpets 2 months 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
                          Hide Replies (4)
                          • Samurai0842 2 months ago
                            You are on fire homelesswithpets. Thumbs up for all posts. Could not have said it better myself.
                          • Zoroon about 1 month ago
                            $273 + 68 = $351 pw Total government assistance / pw$150 pw for room in share house.$100 wk for foodLeaves $100 week ( should be able to do this for less )Reduce transport costs by getting a bikeShop at Charity Shops.
                          • Roxanne#1 28 days ago
                            Dear Homelesswithpets, I am sorry you are having such a hard time of it. I remember how difficult it was starting out as a single parent. But what you have to realize is that many Owners are making a loss in the hopes of paying their house off before they retire. And when Tenants do not pay or damage their investment it really hurts. In fact, my Husband went bankrupt because of tenants not paying what they owed. So there are issues on both sides of the fence.
                          • Gman 15 days ago
                            I love it how greatfull you think that property owners should be grateful to tenants who rent out investment properties. Its a two way street here as property owners provide housing for the rental market. As a property owner l have the choice to tent or not rent out my property. I am doing prospective tenants a service
                        • Allforlandlord 2 months 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.
                          Hide reply (1)
                          • Zoroon 18 days ago
                            Yes, this shows what a face the afordability information is in the homelessness report.
                        • avava about 2 months ago
                          Pandora - I don't know why a g'ment site allows people with opposing interests/views to comment, because we all know they will not give up any of their power to those beneath them...renters. You know all the thumbs down and dismissive comments are from home owners/landlords/agents and bitter people that just don't like renters and animals...so this forum should be what renters experience and our views on what would level the playing field...us...informing the g'ment on issues that concern us. Instead the haves just dismiss our experiences/opinions/concerns...because the haves know that is how they can get ahead...and keep getting ahead...by riding on the backs of the poor...
                          Hide reply (1)
                          • Roxanne#1 28 days ago
                            Dear Avava, This site is an opportunity for each side to air their point of view in a respectful manner, which most of us have been doing, It is also an opportunity to find creative new solutions that work for both Tenants and Owners. Cheers, Roxanne
                        • Roxanne#1 28 days ago
                          Dear Pandora, We can agree that there is a shortage of affordable housing but it is the Government's responsibility to provide for those who can't afford to pay a fair market rate. If the Government makes rentals less profitable Owners will sell their properties and invest elsewhere, which will make rents go up. Property is less profitable than many other investments, which is shy Super Funds usually do not invest in rental accommodation.
                    • Cathe_78 about 2 months ago
                      The jobs aren't in places like Bundaberg, either. I grew up there and still have family living there, so I visit the area reasonably often. Centrelink used to (and probably still does, for all I know) have a rule that you needed a very good reason (e.g., a written job offer, significant family reasons) to move to a place like Bundaberg, otherwise they'd cut off your benefits for a few months, because they would deem that you had moved there in order to avoid finding work. The federal government has also recently proposed expanding its cashless welfare card scheme to this region (Bundaberg/Gladstone/Wide Bay) – again, because of the high unemployment rate.
                  • Zoroon about 2 months ago
                    Renting a room in a share house would be much less than $200 a week.
                    Hide Replies (6)
                    • Cathe_78 about 1 month ago
                      Not in Brisbane.
                      Hide Replies (2)
                      • Zoroon about 1 month ago
                        I was easily able to locate some on Gumtree or flatmates.com.au for below $150 week. Of course if you want a en suite or expensive area the $ go up . I even know of a commercial boarding house in Vulture St, near South Bank rAilway station where rooms are $170 week.
                      • Roxanne#1 28 days ago
                        Dear Cathe, There are many rooms for rent in the Brisbane area less than $200 week in Flatmates. com. Cheers, Roxanne
                    • Jennyec about 1 month ago
                      Fortunately I have a well paid job, but I think it would be hell living in share house. Might be ok for teenagers but not a 40 or 50 year old.
                      Hide Replies (2)
                      • Roxanne#1 28 days ago
                        To each his own. Everyone has to make their own choices.
                      • Zoroon 18 days ago
                        I have friends over 50 year old living in share houses.
                  • Roxanne#1 28 days ago
                    Dear Jules, It is the Government's responsibility to provide affordable accommodation for those who cannot afford to rent in the current market. If you want the market to provide cheaper accommodation, we need new ideas like the Build To Rent scheme, in which, for example, the Government provides land and accommodation is built by investors for rental only, not selling off the plan.
                  • Zoroon 18 days ago
                    A single person would be renting a room in a share house for much less than $200 a week. Its easy to get a room for $150 week in Brisbane, in my recent experience. It would be less in regional areas In Gladstone, it would be less than $100 a week
                • avava about 2 months ago
                  Julies - you mean if a person leaves all their family, friends and the only place they've lived all their life...then they might find a rental they can afford...say about 3000 miles away in a town of 15 people, the house will be falling down, with no electricity or amenities...but hey...why shouldn't you move and leave everything, if someone else says so and has no idea what that entails...
                  Hide Replies (4)
                  • Julies about 2 months ago
                    Hi Avava, It seems you have no idea about rural or any part of Australia except for the area where you live. The housing in rural areas are still have electricity. It is rural not the dark ages. The areas like outback Queensland from Emerald all the way to the border have towns varying from 1000 people up to 12,000. Because theses areas are rural most of the services they supply are able to be accessed faster than in the city like hospitals , councils, and the like. You should really do some research before commenting
                    Hide Replies (3)
                    • Cathe_78 about 2 months ago
                      So should you. I grew up in that area and I had to move away in order to get a job. So did most of the people I went to school with. The reason most of these places have a disproportionately older population (than the Australian average) is because the majority of people under 45 have had to move away in order to find work.
                    • avava about 2 months ago
                      Julies - my point is...why should people have to move to find work, why should people be made to move to get a job, it can be very confronting and upsetting leaving a place you are comfortable in and why should you take a job that you don't like or the pay isn't good and in those outback towns, sometimes the rental properties are hiked way up, so any job you have doesn't even pay the rent...and that is fact, I know several single people who tried that, they thought they had a great job, the pay was good, they liked the area...but of course greedy landlords/grocery stores/transportation wanted to cash in big time...so actual experience/fact outweighs research that distorts the truth...
                      Hide reply (1)
                      • Roxanne#1 28 days ago
                        Dear Jules, People don't have to move, that is one option available to you and everyone else. Roxanne
                • Zoroon about 2 months ago
                  I agree, it is possible to rent a room in a share house. I have done this and lived in the situation for years. Of course it does require a person to be able to get along with others and to manage compromises , sometimes.
              • avava about 2 months ago
                Pandora - I so agree...As far as I'm concerned, everybody should have the right to the basics in life...which I consider to be; food, water, medical treatment, transport, a home and security. Those are the basics in life and from that, a person can further themselves to become productive, which in turn furthers society...A GIVE GIVE SITUATION. But when the rich ride on the backs of the poor...and then blame the poor, even when they know the system is unfairly stacked against them...then you get what we have now...mass homelessness, poverty, despair...and what is that met with...the selfish cry of the over entitled...wanting more...whilst blaming the poor...so sad...
                Hide Replies (2)
                • Roxanne#1 28 days ago
                  Dear Avava, We have aAGIVE GIVE SITUATION! The Owner gives the right to use the property and the Tenant gives the rent. You are insulting when you go on and on with the rich riding on the backs of the poor. If you don't like living in a Market Economy with Social Welfare leanings maybe you should try living in a communist country. Roxanne
                  Hide reply (1)
                  • Cathe_78 18 days ago
                    Without reforms to make a market economy less antisocial, that market economy may well end up becoming a communist country in the long run...
              • Optimum 28 about 2 months ago
                Pandora I'n sure the mega 3.6 bil you talk about is far outweighed by the massive expense the government incurs with public housing from damage and loss of rent, i worked in an industry that managed the maintenance and repairs of these premises and it is discussing at how they are looked after and the damage that is done to them the costs allow to repair and maintain these communities easily exceeded your 3.6 Billion when they had to be demolished and rebuilt.It seems your post is talking about public housing and how you expect the government to make landlords meet the same requirements, not going to happen. If you have such an issue with landlords then use public housing, no that's not possible because there is a shortage and we no were you would be if there was no private rentals to cover the shortfall. The Government not going to cover it.
              • Zoroon about 2 months ago
                RE " .... There are well over 100 000 homeless people in Australia right now ...." That is very misleading figure. For example it includes people living in boarding houses. i have lived in a boarding house and it is ok.
                Hide reply (1)
                • Cathe_78 18 days ago
                  It also includes a lot of people "couch surfing", living in somebody's garage, and living rough. And the category "boarding house" covers a lot of different things, some of which are more "okay" than others.
              • Roxanne#1 28 days ago
                Dear Pandora, Just as Tenants find it difficult and time-consuming to enforce their rights, so too do Owners. While you think that the relationship is skewed towards the Owners, It is also possible to see that the Tenants have power once they take control of the Owner's property. What you are proposing is not a free market economy, which would take a lot to change. It is the Government's responsibility to provide accommodation for the 100,000 homeless. You are mocking Owners for complaining about the damage caused by Tenants and their pets but you are not paying for that damage. And negative gearing is for people who are making a loss on their REntal, so it is one way the Government subsidizes rental accommodation. Take that away and there will be fewer rentals and higher rents.
              • red tsar 16 days ago
                71% of people who own rental property, own just one property. I fall into this category. I am close to retiring age, and have worked all my life. There are very few options to put your super or investments into, but buying a property is one with the help of negative gearing. (it is no longer negative geared) So I believe you are barking up the wrong tree. Govt. policy should not be changed to impact people like myself, but the homeless should be attacked by taking money from the super wealthy. We are consistent in seeing multi-million dollar salaries and bonuses; something that did not exists 30 years ago, so the rich get richer, but the homeless pay the price. Now some (few) wealthy own more then 10 rental properties, a simple solution would be a policy to only allow one property to be negatively geared, - but are Pollies are not listening!
            • Pam4 2 months ago
              Most landlords insurance excludes damage from pets.
              Hide Replies (2)
              • Allforlandlord 2 months ago
                Terri scheer just updated their policy to include pet damage either approved or not approved on the lease. It used to be up to $500 if the pet is approved on the lease.
                Hide reply (1)
                • Mel Boyce about 1 month ago
                  It's one thing to have pets covered by landlord insurance, but when you make a claim your premiums go up the following year and you lose your no claims bonus.
            • Pam4 2 months 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.
            • Kevin Belgrove about 2 months ago
              How about YOU pay for the insurance that YOUR pet caused damaged to?Oh no you say that’s the owners obligation not mine as I only own the pet not the property.
              Hide reply (1)
              • Roxanne#1 28 days ago
                How about Pet Owners pay for extra Pet Insurance every week? And the Excess if the pet causes any damage.
            • DAH about 1 month ago
              I agree, that is what insurance is there for, however any insurance claim comes with a level of inconvenience. That said the inconvenience of claiming for damages made by a pet should be experienced by the pet owner not property owner. Maybe pet owners wanting to rent should have Insurance that covers them for any damages - if they are good pet owners and have good pets then no claims are likely to be made, if not they make good the damages, make the claim and bear the inconvenience.
            • Zoroon 18 days ago
              The tenant is still fully liable for any money paid by the insurance company to the owner. This is clearly stated on all insurance policy. The insurance company will often chase the person who cause the damage, seeking payment.
            • Gman 15 days ago
              I disagree as landlords insurance takes away the responsibility of the tenants to look after the house. Tenants need to pay house insurance instead to cover the damage they make to the premises. This way the tenant will make more of an effort to look after the place because the tenant will be paying!!!.
              Hide reply (1)
              • Grover 15 days ago
                This hits the nail squarely on the head. Should be law now.
          • Gman 15 days ago
            Most certainly agree as l have had 16 years experience as a property owners in the rental market both commercial and residential properties
        • Optimum 28 2 months 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.
          Hide Replies (24)
          • homelesswithpets 2 months ago
            Removed by moderator.
          • homelesswithpets 2 months ago
            Removed by moderator.
          • Pandora 2 months ago
            Removed by moderator.
            Hide Replies (7)
            • homelesswithpets 2 months ago
              Well said pandora. I’ve tried to make the point obviously less succinctly as my posts keep being removed lol
            • Allforlandlord 2 months ago
              While I do agree with you that there is housing affordability issue here in Australia, but I do not completely agree that the laws benefit the rich at the expense of the poor. As you mentioned before, it costs 3.6 billion tax by having negative gearing. If we scrap that, how many properties can we build with 3.6 billion? 10,000? Is that going to address the issue we have? In order for investors to invest in properties, it has to work for them financially.
              Hide Replies (5)
              • Pandora 2 months ago
                Yes, good question. I think that reforming that legislation would make housing less attractive and viable to investors, and therefore access to the market would extend to those less well-off. It would mitigate the tendency towards monopoly and wealth concentration, and inhibit rapidly increasing housing values. These things would move us in the direction of creating a more equitable society. The $3.6 billion yearly, that currently legislation has helping those already doing well, could be routed to the many areas we are told there is "not enough money for" - things that would improve the standard of living for our most vulnerable citizens.
                Hide reply (1)
                • Roxanne#1 28 days ago
                  DEar Pandora, YOu say " I think that reforming that legislation would make housing less attractive and viable to investors, and therefore access to the market would extend to those less well-off. " You seem to have a lapse in logic. If housing is less attractive to investors there would be LESS access to the market for those less well-off. Fewer houses for rent = higher rents. I also challenge your statement that this would "mitigate the tendency towards monopoly and wealth concentration. I challenge you to show that there is a monopoly in the housing rental market. Please name some companies or individuals and the number of rentals they have. There are some corporations with larger holdings but are also a lot of individuals with one or a few houses. Rental prices go up and down with the economy and demand. Spending the money from negative gearing in other ways will only help if it creates more rental accommodation. So, for example, using it to build rental accommodation will not work. And I would propose to you that our most vulnerable citizens could be Owners with a mortgage because they have lent their nest egg worth hundreds of thousands of dollars to someone, who may not pay the rent and could damage it.
              • Fc35 about 2 months ago
                Allforlandlord, if negative gearing was scrapped who do think would end up paying the shortfall? that's right rents would go up. Why should the owner not have a tax deduction for things like rental insurance premiums, rates ect?. I dont know why everyone assumes that landlords are all rich, the majority are just ordinary hardworking people who care about their future.
                Hide Replies (2)
                • Cathe_78 about 2 months ago
                  Actually, I suspect that rents would eventually end up going down. Those people who can only afford to own two or three or six properties because of negative gearing (and rising property prices, which artificially increase "equity" in those properties and thus allow an investor to use that equity as a deposit to purchase another property) would end up having to sell their investment properties. This would take some of the pressure off house prices – which would help at least some of us who are currently priced out of the market to buy a single property of our own – which would decrease the number of people seeking to rent, which would tend to lead to lower rents...
                  Hide reply (1)
                  • Roxanne#1 28 days ago
                    Dear Cathe, I agree that reduced attractiveness of the rental market would mean those houses are sold to and leave the rental market. So it might reduce house prices but would not have a long-term reduction in rent. Cheers, Roxanne
          • homelesswithpets 2 months 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
            Hide Replies (2)
            • Roxanne#1 28 days ago
              Dear Homelesswith pets, So vote for better public housing. Owners are not closed to the plight of our fellow human beings, we are the people taking the risk with our savings to provide safe, secure, clean and habitable housing! Cheers, Roxanne
            • Grover 15 days ago
              Yes and keeping it that way.
          • Pandora 2 months 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’.
            Hide Replies (7)
            • Optimum 28 about 2 months ago
              Pandora, what has this got to do with pets, some have some don't that is the fact of life i could sit here all night and complain about James Packer Malcolm Turnbull and all the other rich people in the world, but i don't. No one will hand it to you, you have to go for it and take risks, re educate yourself change jobs until you get were you want to be. Don't tell me you and other can't i left school in year nine (9) with a low education and every thing i have today is because i worked hard for it went back to TAFE as an adult and done three years of education at my cost to make up for what i was failing in. I completed a trade, i have managed and controlled staff as a foreman, completed a online uni course as a project manager and worked in that industry for six years, i finished my career as a District Manager looking after a variety of staff and large volume work loads so when i here people saying how hard done by they are it get on my goat, because i have been there done that and done something about it.
              Hide Replies (5)
              • homelesswithpets about 2 months ago
                Removed by moderator.
              • Pandora about 2 months ago
                Optimum28, there are a great many reasons why an individual may not find economic success. The "I worked hard" line generally demonstrates a lack of insight into the realities of people who experience poverty. Childhood trauma, structural inequality and ill-health are but a few of the reasons an individual might become economically marginalised. As well as that, anyone can have a run of bad luck despite their best efforts. The social policies of a civilised society need recognise that and not further punish people for their bad luck. So this is about philosophy in the end - how we think about society in ethical terms, whether we think equality matters, how we look after our most vulnerable citizens, whether we think it a good idea to afford all members of society a decent standard of living - indeed, whether we live by Christian principles, rather than by the law of the jungle.
                Hide Replies (3)
                • Optimum 28 about 2 months ago
                  Removed by moderator.
                • homelesswithpets about 2 months ago
                  Well said Pandora. Maybe all landlords (and politicians for that matter) should be made to watch and/or participate in the SBS program Filthy Rich & Homeless to gain a real insight into the issues of homelessness and unaffordable housing. Then and only then will they realise that their god complexes are unwarranted and their “hard work to get in this position” arguments could so easily evaporate in an instant
                • Roxanne#1 28 days ago
                  Dear Pandora, You are making some insulting judgments about Optimum28. I think Optimum28 understands the realities very clearly. Most people understand that some people can't make it on their own and that is why here in Australia we support subsidised Government funded housing. You claim Christian principles but you sound more like a Communist. Owners are your Brothers and Sisters, too. (And so is Optimym28) Cheers, Roxanne
            • Roxanne#1 28 days ago
              Dear Pandora, Please substantiate your claim that "Housing affordability deterioration in Australia is largely attributable to tax incentives for investors. " This does not make sense. Negative gearing increases the housing stock available, which means fewer Australians are applying for public housing. Please stop the 'benefiting the rich at the expense of the poor' fallacy. Laws are created to increase the public good. And some Owners are poor and some Tenants are rich (or very rich). And please explain how regulations on rental prices is going to make more housing available. More regulations will make less housing available, so while it might be cheaper it will be even harder to find. You say "These are the mechanisms by which the poor are enslaved and marginalised by housing unaffordability. " Welcome to a Free Market Economy, which is supported by Social Welfare. It is up to the Social Welfare (i.e. Government) to take care of those who cannot afford market prices. Lobby the Government for more subsidised housing, that is their role.
          • avava about 2 months ago
            Optimum 28 - funny how you got all the opposing opinions deleted...doesn't that show an imbalance of power...but hey...that is how the entitled like it...sad...
            Hide Replies (2)
            • Optimum 28 about 2 months ago
              Not an issue, As i have done all my life if i get knocked off the post i get back up and go at it again that is why i am where i am to day. It is just i am telling the truth and not all people like the truth.
            • Roxanne#1 28 days ago
              Dear Avava, Strange, I thought that the Moderators only removed foul and/or insulting comments. Maybe your judgment of what is appropriate is clouded by your personal interest. Cheers, Roxanne
        • GeeGee 2 months 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."
          Hide reply (1)
          • Roxanne#1 28 days ago
            Dear GeeGee, Congratulations! And I bet you are saving the Government a lot of money they would otherwise pay you through Centrelink! Best wishes, Roxanne
        • ngb 2 months 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.
          Hide reply (1)
          • Macrow about 1 month ago
            The issue I think is its all about the tenants RIGHTS and not enough about the responsibility that goes with these rights. If landlords are forced to allow pets then the tenants need to be forced to take responsibility for and repair any damage their pet does to the landlords investment, maybe an insurance policy the tenant has to take out to cover the potential damage so it doesn't affect the landlords policy. This way the responsible tenants would be rewarded with lower premiums and the problem tenants pay their rightful share.
        • Fc35 about 2 months ago
          Pandora what process is it that ‘protects the owners interests’? Why shouldn’t someone own an investment property? Some people don’t want to work hard all their working life in the hope to receive some meager pension, some people work really really hard to better their position.What do you think would happen if people decide not to invest in property & choose shares instead? Do you really think the government will come along and provide housing? Like it or not private landlords are providing the majority of housing for the people.
          Hide Replies (10)
          • Pandora about 2 months ago
            Fc35, tenancy laws protect the owner's interests. Personally I am against the current paradigm whereby people in a position to do so are enabled to monopolise housing for their own benefit at the expense of people who are not. I think it's a fundamental system flaw, and a state of affairs that is counter to the common good. It pushes housing values up, effectively pushing poorer people out of the market. This locks poorer people into lifelong renting with no security of tenure. This is not a position anyone would want to be in, but one an increasing proportion of our society has no choice but to be in. In any case, if by anyone's reckoning this is ok, then at least tenancy law should better serve the interests of tenants, which they currently do not in this country compared with other countries.
            Hide Replies (9)
            • Fc35 about 2 months ago
              Pandora the RTRA act is neither pro landlord or pro tenant. With regards to investment properties, hard working people have the right to spend their money however they please. Some choose to spend their money on travel, some choose shares, some prefer to upgrade their own homes, or spend it elsewhere, and some choose to purchase an investment property. It is not the responsibility of strangers (private investors) to supply & maintain cheap housing, the government need to be properly caring and supporting societies most vulnerable, rent assistance & NRAS just don’t cut it.
              Hide Replies (7)
              • Pandora about 2 months ago
                I agree there should be more public housing. A lot more. But what would be even better is if more people could have the dignity of being able to actually afford to own their own home. It is the system that we have that diminishes that possibility. I don't think it should be "the right" of some members of society to position themselves at the expense of others. As I said, that's a philosophical position. Let everyone have the possibility of owning their own home. The rich can have their mansions, but the poor should be able to own shacks. Right now the 'haves' own the shacks and rent them to the poor at prices they can't afford. I think we can organise things to be more equitable.
                Hide Replies (5)
                • Cathe_78 about 2 months ago
                  The current situation is starting to remind me of feudalism, to be honest. Including the attitudes of those in a position to own property.
                • Fc35 about 2 months ago
                  Pandora, in an ideal world everyone would have the opportunity to own if That’s what they wanted, I doubt though that a lot would be able to afford the ongoing costs. It’s not just the mortgage, there’s insurance, rates, water infrastructure charges, maintenance. I cannot see how someone who has worked hard to be able to afford an investment property has ‘positioned’ themselves above anyone? Only about 1% of people own multiple investment properties, most own 1 modest one. They are just regular people.
                  Hide Replies (2)
                  • Pandora about 2 months ago
                    Cathe_78, I agree, it's all a bit Lords and serfs. There should be no presumption that 'that's just the way it is'. We make things how they are. We need to be careful about what sort of society we create, and we create that through legislation. We are able to compare and contrast the way things work here, over time and also in other countries. Surely we should be trying to learn from all examples and implement changes that will create the most equitable and sustainable system in our country, assuming those are values we champion. Home ownership in Australia hit a 50 year low in 2011 and decreased even further to 65% in 2016. House prices have doubled in 20 years. Since 2012, house prices have risen 70% in Sydney and 50% in Melbourne. Houses are far more expensive relative to the average income and the CPI now than they were for the past few generations. Average prices have increased from around two to three times average disposable incomes in the 1980s and early-1990s to about five times more recently. Wages have barely kept up with inflation. As well as that, other social shifts like a more educated workforce, HECS debts and insecure work models are making it much harder for younger generations to own homes. So we have a situation where most young people are starting work later due to being students longer, starting their working life with a huge education debt, and then taking on huge mortgages without employment security. It is predicted that many young people won’t pay off their houses in their entire working life. And when will they get time to have children? And that’s the situation for young people who are doing relatively well in society. The resultant housing stress has significant cultural implications. A two income family model is deleterious to the quality of childcare families are able to provide, and work and financial stress is key to relationship and family breakdown. So this housing caper is really central to not only the quality of life for individuals, but for our culture as a nation of people. Getting back to the specific issue at hand, it’s just a fact that a significant proportion of the population will never own a house, and that proportion is increasing. Applying a personal blame narrative for this state of affairs is not logical or useful. We should also take care not to manifest a punitive paradigm in our thinking about our society’s vulnerable – the young, the old, the unwell and otherwise less able. We should also appreciate the work and the humanity of the people that do the lower paid work in our society that needs doing. Do these people deserve quality of life? If they are renting for their entire lives should they be able entitled to the companionship of a pet, quite possibly one of the things that makes their life worth living? I think so.
                    Hide reply (1)
                    • avava about 2 months ago
                      Removed by moderator.
                • Roxanne#1 28 days ago
                  Dear Pandora, Everyone has the same rights in Australia. Everyone has the possibility of owning their own home. This is equitable according to the values of Australians who set up the system and the voters who maintain it. Cheers, Roxanne
              • Gman 15 days ago
                I dont agree that the RTA is neither pro tenant or pro landlord. They suspose to be impatial but having contacted the RTA on serveral occasions on various issues as a landlord l have received conflicting information. Some RTA officers in my experience ate pro tenant and some are pro landlord depends on who you get and how you explain your issue
            • Roxanne#1 28 days ago
              Dear Pandora, Please be more accurate in your use of terminology. Maybe you are not familiar with economic theory, but a monopoly is:monopoly[muh-nop-uh-lee]noun, plural mo·nop·o·lies.exclusive control of a commodity or service in a particular market, or a control that makes possible the manipulation of prices. Compare duopoly, oligopoly.modifications) What you are disagreeing with is a Free Market Economy (with Social Welfare modifications), not monopoly, which does not exist in the Australian Rental Market. If you think other countries are better why not bring to our conversation some new ideas? And if you want a better rental market in the future those ideas should benefit Owners as well as Tenants, otherwise, Owners will sell their properties and rental prices go up. That is Economics 101. Cheers, Roxanne
        • Roxanne#1 28 days ago
          Dear Pandora, You are biased towards Tenants. You should know that Owners can be struggling, too. And some Owners are investing in properties as savings for their retirement. The Government is responsible for providing affordable housing for those who really cannot afford it. That is how this civilized society provides for those in need. Cheers, Roxanne
        • Greg Singh 27 days ago
          Without the lessor there is no place for the tenant to live, save for public housing. A lessor makes a significant investment to own the property and at the end of the day it’s a financial investment on which they seek a return otherwise they would put their money and risk elsewhere. The law has to be balanced otherwise lessors will either sell their properties or not let them.
        • Gman 15 days ago
          Investment properties is what drives the economy and provide housing to over 30 percent of the population. Owners want good tenants which they rely on to survive and live a functional life too, to pay for all the expenses incurred when leasing a property. The laws and regulations are currently biased against the owners
        • Grover 15 days ago
          The process that protects property owners rights is not good enough. Owning a rental property is not a privelage. If there was not money put into housing by the private sector where would a lot of people be living today. Wake up to yourself and think before you post inflammatory statements
      • Eleanor 2 months 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.
        Hide Replies (3)
        • .Dee 2 months ago
          Thankyou for your comment Eleanor, my children love our kitty, Precious.
        • avava about 2 months ago
          Thanks Eleanor for speaking the truth...Blessings to you and yours... : )
        • Sun about 1 month ago
          My landlord insurance does not cover or provision for pets. In fact the whole issue of pets in my unit is subject to the body corporate by laws and permission and whilst the BC is aware of the companion animal act it has never allowed pets. Just last year the BC was challenged and now pets are allowed subject to impossible conditions which can never be met. If tenants have pets then they need to take out the pet insurance, microchipping as well as neutering. Too many illegal breeders using rental properties.
      • Nivannii 2 months ago
        How would a property get to damage stage??? That covers more than $1200+?? There's something wrong with whoever is looking after property and whoever allowed the people in. I know there's some 'strange' renters out there, I got bitten when I was a Property Manager however ... there must have been something in the references.
        Hide Replies (5)
        • homelesswithpets about 2 months ago
          Removed by moderator.
        • Grover about 2 months ago
          It's easy. Start out with a property manager who is good at what they do , someone else takes over the inspections and before you know it everything can go pear shaped. Or the other side of the equation is they don't do inspections and lie to you. This happened to me. Don't worry about references because if you had a bad tenant the easy thing to do is brush them off to someone else to get rid of them.$ 1200 can easily be burnt up trying to fix damage from animals.I have had it happen just recently.
          Hide Replies (2)
          • Nivannii about 1 month ago
            Yes, shame there aren't more 'owner direct to renter' places. Is there a business that could take over the interviewing process and entry/exit, yet the owner and chosen renter are in touch throughout the tenancy? A friend of mine living in Melbourne who is also a great renter, told the RE about things that were in need of repair around the property. Of course, things weren't getting fixed. Then the owner came to town and arranged an inspection and was shocked at the state of things. She now has a brand new bathroom and he's doing other repairs. The RE never told him.I'm long term renter and at 60 unless I win something big I will always be a renter. I treat the properties I rent with love and respect as I would my own (cos in a way it feels like it). I have had some really great real estates and some who were shockers and I just wanted to have direct access to owner.If the property is well maintained by owner and the renter keeps that standard then there's very rarely any need to communicate throughout the tenancy. The owner would do a maintenance inspection/schedule every three months, the tenants pays directly into an account and unless something goes awry that's it. As time goes on the owner could choose to do inspections every six months and if the tenant stays on and the property is an investment then yearly for very long term tenants.
          • Gman 15 days ago
            I agree references dont mean much as one property manager said " references are always positive ". Damage to property can easily reach $1200 plus when a dog irinates on the carpet in two rooms . Cost to clean the bare floor and replace the underlay and carpets $2300.
        • Roxanne#1 28 days ago
          Dear Nivanni, $1,200 can be done in one night, in fact much more. You cannot tell from references how things will turn out. A pet can easily cause $2,000 damage, carpets, drapes, fleas, urine smell. digging holes in the yard, etc. Sorry to give you the bad news. Cheers, Roxanne
      • Qld renter about 2 months ago
        When you make the decision to be a landlord you take that risk.
        Hide reply (1)
        • Roxanne#1 28 days ago
          Dear Qld Renter, Yes, despite the fact that Tenants will promise to keep the place nice and pay the rent. And despite the fact that they have a signed contract. And yes, the cost of Bad Tenants is reflected in the rents that everyone pays. The Bond should reflect the risk. There should be an additional Pet Bond to cover the risk of pet damage. Cheers, Roxanne
      • Louisa 24 days ago
        So why don’t landlords have insurance on their rental property? The bond would be their excess if there was really damage done by a tenant.
        Hide reply (1)
        • Grover 15 days ago
          Why don't tenants have insurance to cover the damage they might potentially do. Should be mandatory as far as I'm concerned. Might see a change in attitudes then.
    • Tara10 2 months 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).
      Hide Replies (3)
      • Artemis 2 months ago
        Don't forget the disabled. We like to have a friend too. I have a cat and she is a great friend. And as a person almost blind I would rely on a Guide Dog in future.
        Hide reply (1)
        • Fc35 about 2 months ago
          Artemis, it’s illegal to discriminate against guild dogs, they are allowed in public places and rental properties
      • Roxanne#1 28 days ago
        Dear Tara, As an Owner I accept pets if the Tenant can manage the pet. Some Tenants can't. Having a pet is a privilege, not a right. It is not good for the pet to if the Tenant can't manage the pet. Some Tenants should not have pets, for their own good because when the pet causes damage the Tenant will have difficulty paying for it. Cheers, Roxanne
    • NeilN 28 days ago
      Owning a pet is not a human right...it may however be humane .....in your argument you note disabled and the elderly as special groups. Would you be in favour of rental properties being offered to those groups prior to being offered to the rest of the population ? It is an intersting thought but rental properties are a business. It is the business of governments to ensure the aged and infirm are well looked after , hence the vote. Bonds are deliberately kept to a reasonable size so that both parties can afford them but the reality is that it rarely covers the damage caused by uncontrolled pets. Wouldn't it be great if all renting adults were truly responsible for their pets. Just try having to re- turf grass in a backyard after a active dog has created runs may cost thousands. Trying to get the paint / carpets in just one room done for after cats /dogs repeatedly urinating for the price of a bond is neigh impossible. Damage may be more expensive to fix than you may think and every landlord has the RIGHT to have all of their property returned in a state that is conistent with reasonable fair wear and tear as per the document signed. Every Tenant has the RIGHT to expect a dwelling that is well maintained and their privacy respected as per the document signed. Dogs, Cats and other pets are accepted in many many rental properties due to the recognition of the increased isolation of many people in todays society but any damage , noise or mess they cause is always the Adult Human Tenants responsibility (Ie: it is not the gardeners responsibility to pick up the dog poo in the common areas if it is a unit etc and neither should shift workers have to put up with a noisy animal ).I personally allow them, but please remember that if you are renting a unit/flat/villa etc then the owner may be constricted by the Body Corp rules and your frustration at not being allowed your pet in the property may be misplaced. However I believe strongly that this decision on the allowing of pets should remain the Landlords or Body Corps decision.
      Hide reply (1)
      • Pandora 15 days ago
        Yes NeilN, I agree that it a matter of pet-owner responsibility to make sure the property is not damaged. Renters would do well to have small dogs rather than large ones, and all pets have to be managed to not cause problems, absolutely. I do however think it's a shame if a minority of irresponsible people make it very difficult for responsible pet-owners to get houses. Damage costs are recoverable through a legal process, and while that it is a pain, that process is there to protect owners.
    • SamCh 25 days ago
      NO to pets in rental property.Pets must not be allowed without the consent of the landlord. Landlords buy a property based on their view for a future and not for such property to be destroyed. Very often the rent doesn't cover the mortgage repayment and the bond can hardly cover repairs for any damages.
    • Grammarfun 15 days ago
      It is one thing to think that tenants are liable for property damage but you would be amazed what property managers consider is "fair" wear and tear. We have one rental property and will never bother to make the effort to buy more than one (doing without to be in a position to buy one was huge) as it is not much of a return.
    • Gman 14 days ago
      GmanWhile l agree that pets are important companions to all kinds of people and the ensuing benefits. When a tenant signs a lease there are always conditions for the use of the premises even in a hotel , business premises etc. Try going through the excruciating process to recover the costs of damage to a property. Its a nightmere. This is why there is a declining number of properties available that allow pets. Main reason is a bad experience from pet damage to property. In other words reduce your risk of damage to the property by not allowing pets.
      Hide Replies (2)
      • Pandora 13 days ago
        I know what you're saying Gman. The truth is that it's the same from the other side - while tenants have rights on paper, trying to get agents/landlords to actually make obligatory repairs to a property is another thing. I've just moved into a house that has: a broken airconditioner, no working smoke alarms, broken stove thermostat, windows that don't lock, blinds that can't be drawn up, dripping taps, broken taps, appalling water pressure and sub-standard hot water. I fixed the dripping taps myself and replaced blinds at my own expense (the owner wouldn't pay). I've asked for the hot water to be fixed and apparently she has "never had a tenant ask for so much". Tenants are often made to feel like unreasonable whingers for asking for their rights under the tenancy agreement. Tenants are aware that pushing for their rights may result in either an unreasonable rent rise or a notice to quit at the end of the lease, such is the inequality of the relationship. This is why property standards need to be managed by a third party.
        Hide reply (1)
        • Gman 13 days ago
          Gman Join the club of inequitity Pandora as l explained before to get tenants to pay for damage is difficult even through l follow with my responsibilies regarding property maintenance of the premises which l do myself but some tenants dont follow through with their end of the agreement. A third party would only complicate the resolution of issues e.g Take the current system dealing with QCAT it dosent really work for either party and badly needs to be reviewed and hopefully the Government will provide a solution that satisfies both parties
  • SL1986 13 days ago
    Allowing pets is fantastic. I have two cats in my rental property, both very well behaved. However I understand that many animals are not as well behaved, and so I don't disagree with increased bonds if there is a pet. I do, however, believe that there should be restrictions on large animals that need more space in units/small courtyards. For example, a husky in a small courtyard isn't suitable in a shared block. Or a great dane in a 2 bedroom with a balcony, that's just silly. But people do this. As such, I think that it would be reasonable to consider certain restrictions, based on yard access and size, on certain animal types.
  • Brian Bernard 13 days ago
    Its extremely difficult to find a property that allows pets. The suggestion that Tenants have separate insurance is a considered solution. Insurance cover should be sufficient to cover the sometimes substantial damage pets can do such as soiled carpets, torn fly screens, wall soiling, ruined lawns and gardens can be very expensive to repair/replace.
  • Worn 13 days ago
    While there are many other species of pet that a tenant may own, I'll consider the case of dogs and cats.Both these species can be very noisy, destructive, smelly, and even dangerous to neighbours. No-one wants to live next to a constantly barking dog, risk attack if it is unsecured, nor do they want to step in faeces left by the animal on walks or escapes. Cats can get into unholy noisy fights at ungodly hours, murder huge amounts of native wildlife, and can defaecate / urinate in neighbours' property. Well-behaved pets that are quiet, restrained, safe and clean aren't a concern for most people, but there are too many pets that considerably impact on amenity and quiet enjoyment for close and even distant neighbours. A mechanism for ensuring that responsibility for negative consequences caused by ill-behaved pets is easily imposed upon the pet's owners might reduce landlords' unease about leasing to such tenants.Tenants with pets need to recognise that even if the pet is considered a family member, that family member is often noisy, violent, destructive, and poops freely in public, and it seems reasonable that this would make one a less desirable rental prospect. However, well-behaved pets impose little additional wear and tear on a home, outside of pest control and cleaning, and damage caused by pets can be detected by diligent documentation of state of property prior to signing of lease.If the tenant can be reasonably held responsible for the conduct of the pet (repairing damage, ensuring the pet is quiet, clean and safe) then allowing lessors to discriminaate against pet owners seems shady, also given that this creates a strong financial motive for an inconvenient pet to be euthanised or discarded at a shelter. However many properties are simply not suitable for pets, eg a large dog more or less requires a backyard and should not be kept in a tiny 1br high-rise apartment. Properties are shrinking and getting denser and this makes more of them intrinsically unsuitable for pets, and pet owners need to be realistic about this when seeking their next property.
  • Cin.w 14 days ago
    Cin.W,This is suppose to be about Renting with Pets yet the discussion gets railroaded. Who’s rich who’s poor who is harder done by etc. We can argue around and around about this. Some pet owners are great, responsible and fix whatever their pet damages. But not all. A lot of landlords have been burnt. At the end of the day Everyone has the right to choose. A Landord should have the right to choose if they wish to allow pets. A Tenant should have the right to choose if they want to own a pet. If a contract states No Pets and the Tenant agrees when they rent the house or flat then the Contract stands. Landlords who have a no pets policy do so because they have been let down in the past and paid out money to fix damages from tenants who owned pets. If the government stand by tenants over this then they should back the tenants and pay for insurance to cover tenants and their pets for the length of the lease.
  • Sandra H 2 months 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.
    Hide Replies (59)
    • homelesswithpets 2 months ago
      Removed by moderator.
      Hide Replies (46)
      • Ky 2 months 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.
        Hide Replies (43)
        • homelesswithpets 2 months ago
          Owning a rental/investment property is a privilege. As is having someone else pay your mortgage for you!
          Hide Replies (41)
          • Kevin Belgrove 2 months 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!
            Hide Replies (13)
            • homelesswithpets 2 months ago
              Kevin and who is paying the bank on your behalf: The tenant of course! If the mum and dad investors were in a financially secure enough position to enter into buying a property to rent out so they had a nice little retirement nest egg when the time came and the banks didn’t prey on financially irresponsible people and the government, banks and brokers didn’t sell the dream then the rents wouldn’t have to be so overinflated and mum and dad investors wouldn’t now be freaking out about the banks calling in all their interest only and high risk loans. The point here being if you live beyond your means only pain results.
              Hide Replies (12)
              • Kevin Belgrove 2 months ago
                Removed by moderator.
              • Cathe_78 2 months ago
                And the taxpayer. Think of all those negatively geared properties...
                Hide Replies (9)
                • Zoroon about 2 months ago
                  I thing the government believes it is cheaper for government to give (tax) concessions , rather than the government build and manage the properties them selves. For example a recent newspaper report said QLD government spent $16M on repairing damage caused by tenants
                  Hide Replies (3)
                  • cantab about 2 months ago
                    the biggest problem is bad tenants make up an extremely small percentage of Tenants but get virtually the media attention. I guess it's what's sells but it's never fair to take media stories with anything but what they are and that's a story about one small section of society.
                    Hide Replies (2)
                    • Gman 14 days ago
                      Hi cantab.Where do you obtain your figures from about the bad tenants making up a small section of total tenants?. As a property owner for the last 16 years its more like 20 % would be classed as bad tenants from my experience and thats only tenants l have had
                      Hide reply (1)
                      • cantab 14 days ago
                        I was referring to tenants bad enough to make news with the likes of ACA, Figures I got were from Tenants union and REIQ plus a friend with over 30 years experience n property management and is currently a co-owner of a real estate franchise in a large country wide chain. these figures do vary from state to state and area to area with lower cost rentals seeming to attract tenants who seem more likely to have little respect for their home. I have owned and rented and have always treated rentals as my home and as such have done all I can to show pride in my home because it is the resident that the house reflects back to no one else.I'm sorry to hear you have a high rate of bad tenants bt you must therefore still have a much higher rate of good tenants Eg, 2 bad tenants for every 8 good ones.
                • Fc35 about 2 months ago
                  And if the landlord was not able to claim the expenses they must pay to have the property imagine how much rents would go up, not to mention that the government would need to provide more housing.
                • Fc35 about 2 months ago
                  Cathe_78, Think of how much rents would rise if there was no negative gearing. Why should owners not be able to claim the genuine out of pocket expenses of owning a rental property, after all they will be required to pay capital gains tax on it when they sell.
                  Hide Replies (3)
                  • Cathe_78 about 2 months ago
                    Which they also get a VERY generous discount on. If you think back to about the year 2000, you night remember what happened to house prices (and rental prices) when those capital gains tax concessions (and negative gearing concessions) were introduced...
                    Hide Replies (2)
                    • Cathe_78 about 2 months ago
                      Had those tax changes not been made, and house (and rental) prices not exploded, a great many more people in my generation would not now be dealing with landlords.
                    • Dave_M 14 days ago
                      Labour tried to remove Negative Gearing in the 80s and had to reintroduce it because there was no incentive to buy a rental property and thus a shortage of supply. Increased rents and lower house prices. Please understand if you stop negative gearing then you must stop all businesses claiming expenses, including interest expenses (ie business negative gearing). A lot of big business pay little or no tax, as result of the gearing in the business.
              • Suzanna about 2 months ago
                Removed by moderator.
          • Optimum 28 2 months 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.
            Hide Replies (12)
            • homelesswithpets 2 months 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.
              Hide Replies (4)
              • Optimum 28 2 months 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.
                Hide Replies (2)
                • Fc35 about 2 months ago
                  Optimum 28, people have short memories & forget the fallout when Bob Hawk tried to remove negative gearing (I had thought it was the Keating government).
                  Hide reply (1)
                  • Cathe_78 about 2 months ago
                    The fallout was political. A more thorough analysis of rental prices showed that the removal of negative gearing did not actually affect rental prices (some rents went up, some rents went down – none of which were clearly related to the removal of negative gearing). But there was a media storm claiming that the removal of negative gearing had led to increases in rent – and, of course, if you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes "true"...If only the politicians of the day had had a spine!
              • Fc35 about 2 months ago
                In an ideal world that is how it would be, a lot of investors enter the market with the very same sentiments and ended up very disillusioned and in some cases sold their properties.
            • homelesswithpets 2 months 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!
              Hide Replies (6)
              • Eleanor 2 months 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 2 months 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.
                Hide Replies (3)
                • homelesswithpets 2 months 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
                  Hide Replies (2)
                  • Optimum 28 about 2 months ago
                    Removed by moderator.
                  • ngb about 2 months 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...
              • Dave_M 14 days ago
                I am not sure what you are asking? If you paid a rent of $500/week then you must have been there for 7 years. I am sure the owner appreciated your tenancy. When I was younger I rented for a couple years and saved money and bought a property with a mortgage. Saved then rented again for 1 year then bought another property.Need to budget I guess.
          • GeeGee 2 months 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.
            Hide reply (1)
            • homelesswithpets 2 months ago
              Removed by moderator.
          • Grover 2 months 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.
            Hide reply (1)
            • homelesswithpets 2 months ago
              If the banking royal commission has taught us anything it’s that they don’t give a rats about you as long as they get money from you. Privilege for you privilege for them and their fat cat CEOs
          • JaniceAC 2 months 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 about 2 months 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 about 2 months 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......
            Hide Replies (4)
            • Kevin Belgrove about 2 months ago
              Well said.
            • Cathe_78 about 2 months ago
              If property is really such a bad investment, then why are you investing in it? Why not find something else that provides a positive return? No one is forcing you into property investment...
              Hide Replies (2)
              • me tooo about 2 months ago
                (if owners have no say to how our property is treated) good idea maybe we should sell....no extra costs or worry of damage by pets ..if the rules are changed we will.
              • Dave_M 14 days ago
                The rental return on property used to be around 2-3% and now with increased rates, Land tax the rent really is there to cover the upkeep of the property. I had a rental in NSW 2 years ago that cost me around $1000 despite owning the property outright. Neither the tenants or property manager told me about issues which had I been living in the property I would have had fixed well prior to it causing damage to the property. As a tenant if a tap leaks and destroys a bathroom cabinet are you happy to pay for it? Do you know? You should have as you are responsible to alert the owner as soon as the tap leaks prior to the damage?
          • Zoroon about 2 months ago
            The rent is partially contributing to the costs of the house and the largest cost is often bank interest. There are also other substantial costs. Often the owner needs to have 2 jobs , to be able to meet banks conditions for the loan. The owner takes a risk , and especially in the short term, if they need to sell, or there is an economic downturn, a sale can often be at a loss. Returns are not guaranteed and one substantial risk is future interest rate rises, which could happen in next few years and would be a disaster for some owners. Another observation is if these owners did not purchase the property some tenants have now where to live OR would be forced to moce to other areas where rents are cheaper. OR government would be forced to build more accomodation ( which they seem not to want to do )
          • Fc35 about 2 months ago
            But tenants dont pay the mortgage, they pay rent for a house to live in, just the same as they don't pay the rates which provide them with services, the water infrastructure charges, smoke alarm compliance, insurance, maintenance, land tax, make up the shortfall between the rent & mortgage as well as assuming all of the risk. The privilege of owning an investment property does not come without hard work and sacrifice, most owners go without a hell of a lot to make it happen. There are also rent to by options available if that is what you wish to do.
            Hide reply (1)
            • homelesswithpets about 2 months ago
              Removed by moderator.
        • Francesca 2 months 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 2 months 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 2 months ago
        Removed by moderator.
    • Chris1963 2 months 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.
      Hide Replies (7)
      • GeeGee 2 months 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.
        Hide Replies (5)
        • homelesswithpets 2 months 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
          Hide Replies (4)
          • GeeGee 2 months 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.
            Hide reply (1)
            • Fc35 about 2 months ago
              I agree, the property has to be suitable for pets, it needs a properly fenced yard with outdoor shelter. Unfortunately most of the new estates have tiny backyards, and townhouses are becoming more & more commons. Not exactly pet friendly.
          • Zoroon about 2 months ago
            RE ... children can and often do defecate and urinate on flooring ..... If you have this happening >>"often"<< ... somethings wrong. Never happened in my house , with three young children. I understand it could happen once or twice in some homes . In any case I have never heard of a owner having to replace carpet's due to odour that can not be removed from Children's urine etc , but have heard of this for pets.
          • Fc35 about 2 months ago
            Children are human beings, not animals, and there is a thing called the discrimination act which states it is illegal to discriminate against families with children.
      • Fc35 about 2 months ago
        Chris1963, landlords who do not allow pets in most instances have been burned before. Did you know that most insurers do not cover pet damage?, they don't, so the owner has to foot the bill themselves. I've seen it so many times, landlords replacing whole rooms of carpet & then saying no more pets, and yes it's unfair on the tenants who do the right thing but they are not willing to shell out $$$$$ again.
    • cantab about 2 months 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.
      Hide reply (1)
      • Fc35 about 2 months ago
        cantab, Insurers need to step up and cover pet damage to properties, that would be a start. Tenants also need to respect the wishes of the owner when they say no inside pets. Are you as a tenant prepared to replace the carpet when you vacate due to animal odour & staining?, cleaning does not remove the smell it lingers on and is impossible to remove. As far as cat vs dog, its not really about that, I've the worst of each, it comes down to the owner. I agree though that a bad tenant is a bad tenant regardless of pets.
    • Susan Green about 2 months ago
      What about the body corporate no animal rules.
      Hide reply (1)
      • Qld renter about 2 months ago
        Yes I’ve been wondering about this myself since this reform started. Is that going to have to be changed as well if legislation around having pets in rentals changes.
  • Dave_M 14 days ago
    I am not against people having pets but I have also seen carpet stained (smelly tom cat spraying) through cat urine, doggy do etc. Also doors scratched and badly damaged. Curtains torn, fly wire screens decimated. There is a greater potential for damage and from an owners point of few need to have the pet owner take responsibly by having a pet bond of at least 2 weeks rent.
  • nadine Hamilton-Smith 14 days ago
    too restrictive !!!!!pets are part of the family, have seen too many ppl having to surrender family pet .Sad state !!!!
  • avava about 2 months ago
    when we have gone into real estate agents to look at rentals, we get several pages of rentals to look at, maybe 40 rentals. When we say we have pets, basically 38 of those rentals will be crossed out...two may allow 'outside pets'...what is the point of that...leaving your beloved pet outside, at the mercy of being attacked by other animals or animal haters. It is just another power play by real estate agents, who love to stand over tenants, it might make there life easier, but I am sure it breaks the hearts of many pet owners. Just more rights taken away from the already powerless renters...In my opinion, rentals should have high fences and large caged pet areas, so pets can have a safe outside area to be In, as well as being allowed inside if necessary, such as in storms. What next, you won't allow sick, injured, old or young people into rentals in case they vomit or bleed to death on the carpet...just absolute rubbish from control freaks who don't want people to enjoy life with their much loved pets...
    Hide Replies (9)
    • Fc35 about 2 months ago
      It's at the owners discretion of they allow pets or not & this is in writing on the contract between the owner and agent. With regards to have designated pet areas in the yard, there are lots of options available now for pet owners with various dismantlement pet encloses & cages, should not be up to the landlord to pay for this.
    • Talon about 2 months ago
      Confusing. Pets are attacked by people and other animals in the yard? Perhaps if the tenant is letting their pet roam free and not in a fenced property. Cats should not be roaming to destroy wildlife, so should be no issue there. I have no idea what people climb fences and attack dogs in their yards, unless that dog is barking incessantly due to bad ownership and never being walked (seen many of those). Cats should be indoors at night and ALL pet dogs should be trained.
      Hide Replies (3)
      • avava about 2 months ago
        Talon - please don't start blaming cats for killing the wildlife, when many property owners decide to decimate and denude their block of land before they start building or even in a big clean up, then bring in the big machinery to ensure no life lives their for months and then plant non native trees...and if cats are roaming to kill the wildlife, that is probably because renters have had to abandon, dump or rehome their cats because landlords play god and insist that no animals are allowed in their property. Haven't you heard of all the cruel sick people on this planet that love hurting animals...Funnily the council does nothing to stop barking dogs or cruel pet owners or sick cruel animal abusers in general, so it keeps going on...yet landlords can spray generalizations about this and that and blame renters for their lot...when many of the renters issues are created by the pompous...who generally can't comprehend much at all...
        Hide Replies (2)
        • Talon about 2 months ago
          We were specifically talking about pets, not strays.
        • Zoroon about 1 month ago
          My experience is pets , such as cats, do kill wildlife, such as birds . Cats have a natural inbuilt killing . instinct.
    • dolphnisrule about 1 month ago
      avava so true and very well said 😂😀🤗👍
    • Dave67 about 1 month ago
      Hi avava. I have a few rental properties and I do allow pets but I do this once I have seen the animals. I’m NOT a control freak and take offence to being called one. You seem not to understand that you are living in someone else’s home. You pay for the privilege of living there. As an owner I should have the right to say what goes on in my home. If you expect an owner to supply these things then you should have to pay higher rent or supply them at your cost. You’re the one who wants the pet. The other alternative is work hard, save your money for a deposit and spend the next 30 years paying off your OWN home
      Hide Replies (2)
      • Cathe_78 about 1 month ago
        And that, there, is the problem. Whose home is it? If a property is being rented out, then it HAS to be the tenant's home. Your property, yes, but the tenant's home.
        Hide reply (1)
        • Gman 14 days ago
          Hi Cathe. Yes the property is rented out and is the owners home but the lease has conditions which the tenant presumably abides by but invariably does not. Renting will always be temporary housing and its rare for tenants to treat a rental property as a Home as they have no financial commitment to the property
  • P & G 14 days ago
    I used to allow pets in my property, but not any more. In the past dogs have ruined carpets and floor coverings, dug holes in the yard, and left the place full of fleas. my last tenants cat scratched and ripped every curtain in the house. It is a big fight every time to get repairs done
  • Robyne 15 days ago
    As a previous tenant (the last 5 years) and a current landlord I feel I have experienced the best and worst of the rental market - but a nightmare experience was a tenant leaving a cat and kittens living in a bathroom cupboard and fleas throughout the property (+ a whole lot more) I wish to retain a choice about whom I rent to and that includes their pets.
  • Suebm 16 days ago
    I come to this a both someone who has rented, and now an owner of a rental property. I think the owner of a property should have the right to determine if they want tenants with pets, if they will allow tenants to put up pictures, and everything thing else that affects their investment. If this means my property is empty for a while, that’s my problem, and will not sway my decision. If the laws surrounding renting in Queensland change too much away from protecting the rights of the property owners, I can see mass sell-off of rental stock. While I was a renter, not once did I consider it my right to have pets, or to put up pictures; while the properties were my homes, they were not my possessions so I treated them with due respect for the rights of those who had invested hard earned money in their properties.
    Hide reply (1)
    • Gman 15 days ago
      I agree that in a business premise an owner has the legal right to refuse entry or service as long as the owner does is not discriminate against the person as does a landlord currently has the right to refuse the entry of a pet.
  • No no 15 days ago
    Definitely no pets allowed insid the property. Homes these days have expensive carpets curtains, blinds etc and pets can destroy these in nextnto nomtime. Believe me, I have replaced carpets that I did not even get to,walk on. Three times after cats and dogs inside the house when they were not allowed on the lease.
  • Gman 15 days ago
    No dogs or cats because of the damage they cause but will allow other pets that are enclosed. E.g fish , birds and terrapins Use the curent system where tenants must get permission. Other methods have been trialed in other states and have failef
  • LouLou 15 days ago
    I thought this page was about pets in Queensland's rental market, not rental affordability.I have a small dog where I have been fortunate to find rental accommodation in good areas of Brisbane and the Sunshine Coast, however, if you go private, you have more chance of finding a rental where you can have your pet rather than through an Agent.I have applied for rental properties on the Coast through agents where adverts say 'pets on application' then the blanket response, NO PETS ALLOWED! Why advertise 'pets on application' when clearly no pets are allowed. Doesn't this breach the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 for misleading advertising and marketing? I can't stay with my sons as they are not allowed pets in the properties they rent and it is expensive to place my dog into a pet resort. My daughter-in-law told me that pets are not allowed at their house as she was told by the agent that they have fleas which means carpets have to be cleaned??? Any responsible pet owner de-fleas and de-ticks their dogs monthly or three monthly. It would seem that a portion of society who owns an animal of some kind is disadvantaged in that they may be unable to find suitable rental accommodation in QLD. I am not going to give up my dog in order to house myself. I am my dogs forever owner and my home wherever that may be is also his forever home. My dog is my family.
  • GeorgeZedd 15 days ago
    My experience is that pets (especially dogs) can ruin the quality of life of many other tenants staying in the same block/floor. I've lost great tenants because new neighbours have moved in with their supposedly quiet pet who never barks. Within hours of moving in, the dog starts howling, barking at the neighbours and generally causing a nuisance.Requests to quieten the animal are ignored, forcing the landlord and BC to take action at Tribunals and even courts. The process takes so long that my tenants have moved on and I haven't found a new tenant because anyone who comes to look at the unit is put off by the barking of the dog.Are the owners prepared to pay for my lost rent? I doubt it. For every responsible pet owner, there is at least one irresponsible owner.Also, how can you justify a junk-yard dog, built like a bear who barks loudly to live inside a 2-bedroom unit? Where does the dog go when it has an urge?Not only should the bond be double or triple if they want to keep a pet, but I would also increase the asking price for the rent to cover my future costs of cleaning, sanitising and repairing so the unit can be made safe and clean for the next tenant.Further, I strongly believe renters who have pets should have to pay for annual steam cleaning of carpets and floors, as animals do place excessive wear and tear on floors/walls and furnishings. I have invested hundreds of thousands of dollars to buy a unit and I'd like to think that it won't be ruined by people who want to force me to allow them to keep pets.Owners have rights too, and I believe I should have the right to say no to allowing pets to be kept in a well presented unit.An alternative would be for landlords willing to allow pets to state that when advertising their properties for rent, rather than tenants dictating to landlords.
  • Von 15 days ago
    Pets are part of families. Children can do more damage than pets depending on the families. Are we going to ask renters for extra bonds and references for children. The kg weight of the dog should not be relevant to whether they can be allowed. Our dog stays outside does not make a sound and we are very aware of keeping the outside area clean and tidy for him and us. My point is kids and adults can be irresponsible and can cause damage too. Every pet and family are different. We should not discriminate against pets or children when applying for a tenancy. Landlords and Agents should do their due diligence. I live in an development with all pet owners and we live in harmony with very few issues of noise or damage. In fact I would think it would be difficult for you to know that every property has a pet in residence.
  • RebeccaH 15 days ago
    Our dog is "allowed" on our lease, however he is specifically banned from any building on the property including shed/garage or verandahs etc. In order to comply with those conditions, he would have to stay in the middle of the yard only.
  • Grammarfun 15 days ago
    Owners have the right to refuse tenants who have pets. My experience is that this was ignored by one tenant and it took several weeks and a lot of effort to get the two dogs out of the house.Provisions about stipulating that no pets are allowed on a property are a must and remain the right of the property owner to make.
  • APD 15 days ago
    I would prefer to rent a property that doesn't allow pets. We rented a property once that absolutely stank of dog everytime it rained. We hired professionals to remove the smell but it kept coming back and the owners wouldn't let us replace the carpet. It was revolting
  • Lindaf 16 days ago
    There are plenty of rental properties that accept pets, so why change the law? Everyone is catered for under the current system. Renters with pets can find pet-friendly properties and owners who choose not to allow pets are limiting their market but they have the right to do so.
  • JustKay 16 days ago
    Not all pet owners are irresponsible. Surely it is noted in previous tenancy files if a pet owner was responsible or not and it is this information that is looked at by real estates and landlords when doing background checks on tenants? Also, if pets do damage...is that not what a bond is for? I want to live in a place I can call home..and not just a house and for some of us, pets are part of what is called 'living and having a life'. See people as people and not as dollar signs or future retirement packages. Yes, that is what it is about...I get that...but tenants are people ie human and have needs as well.
    Hide reply (1)
    • Suebm 16 days ago
      A high proportion of rental property owners are average ‘mums and dads’, who have worked hard for their investment. If I relied on my rental return for my retirement package, I’d not be eating much. After expenses and taxes, there’s not much of a return.
  • red tsar 16 days ago
    Removed by moderator.
  • Jim640 17 days ago
    One of the major issues facing landlords that influence their decision regarding pets is the inability to ask for an additional pet bond. It is well known that the current bond is often insufficient to cover arrears and/or damage (even moderate damage). Most landlords are ordinary people trying to get a little ahead for their future and not wealthy people. Their decision to refuse pets may be for no other reason than protecting themselves financially. Although not all tenants will be able to afford an additional bond, allowing this as an option for landlords may open up pet ownership to significantly more tenants. It will also incentivise tenants to look after the properties and choose pets suited to the environment. When I was renting I would have been happy to pay a pet bond. As a landlord I will consider pets on a case by case basis with the welfare of the animal very high on the list of priorities.
  • Susanmorley 22 days ago
    Should have special no conditions for people with anxiety issues. Dr certificate should be adaquate
    Hide reply (1)
    • Jim640 17 days ago
      Unfortunately this would be far too easy for people without anxiety issues to abuse.
  • camira 18 days ago
    I do not approve of pets in rental properties under any circumatances
  • Ross Aston 19 days ago
    We are landlords who initially had a no pet policy. However we found that this policy locked us out of probably 70% of the renter pool, So we have now allowed pets on application without a problem. However we want to retain the dicretion to accept or not pets to protect our properties and the rights of the neighbours of our properties.
  • jonv 21 days ago
    I don't believe that a tenant should be able to have a pet without an application for one. Some tenants don't look after yards and pets can damage lawns, gardens etc. not to mention inside the house. Property managers often don't particularly worry about yards too often during inspections either.I have no issues with tenants requesting a pet and it being considered on a case by case basis.As a tenant I have been able to keep pets before and as a landlord I have allowed pets.I think that the current process of requiring an application is sufficient and reasonable.
  • Bob SKIGGS 21 days ago
    Generally speaking most dogs cause less damage than some kids. However as some dogs do cause considerable damage, whether or not pets are allowed should be up to the discretion of the owner. Tenants rarely accept responsibility for scratch marks on doors, ruined carpets or a plague of fleas in the yards. A rental agreement is a two party agreement; if the tenant does not like what he is offered he should go elsewhere; the owner who is the one who must ultimately pay for repairs as insurance always leaves a shortfall and he should not have pets imposed on him.
  • Nessemd 24 days ago
    Landlords insurance covers damage caused by tenants. I have a small dog that is an anxiety aid for my daughter when the rental market is booming and the options are limited the real estates start banning animals I was told on a number of occasions by the real estate agents to just get rid of my dog even though I have perfect rental references. I understand not everyone respects the place they rent but the attitude of the real estates are just awful at times. Wouldn’t damage caused by pets be picked up in the quarterly inspections and addressed with the tenant before it gets out of hand anyway I thought that was the purpose of those annoying intrusive regular inspections
    Hide Replies (6)
    • Louisa 24 days ago
      Was your dog included on your rental contract? If so they can not kick it out. I hope you have luck xx
      Hide Replies (2)
      • Susanmorley 22 days ago
        No. Coming from interstate for holidays with my daughter for 3 weeks. Dog is old.now my daughter can’t see me at Xmas time 😔
      • Nessemd 22 days ago
        Yes I always ensure my animals are listed on the lease they can’t make me get rid of them but they do tend to make it difficult.
    • SamCh 23 days ago
      Where should I start ..... even if the damage is picked during inspection by law you can't make the tenant repair. The bond can hardly cover anything if you are lucky to get the RTA to give it to the landlord to cover damages. Insurance doesn't cover pets. Landlord are always kept out of pocket with bad tenants. References don't mean much as half tenants put fake contracts.Good Landlords are way disadvantaged currently
      Hide reply (1)
      • Susanmorley 22 days ago
        Removed by moderator.
    • Susanmorley 22 days ago
      I agree in the same situation. I do charity work for animals and a lot come in because tenants can’t get their pets approved. Ruthless heartless landlords who most of the time have pets if their own
  • Live 22 days ago
    The landlord/property manager is not just considering 'the damage effect' of allowing a Pet. They consider their body corporate rules; the neighbouring tenants; the environment; surroundings and sometimes the applicants themselves. Allowing pets should not be related to "Terry Scheer" or having landlord insurance. The idea that landlords are "filthy rich" is ignorant and this idea is not relevant to this topic of renting with pets. I was a Renter (experienced the unrealistic agents ) and I manage a number of properties ( some with pets and some NO pets) therefore understand issues from both points of view. It is common knowledge that most animal lovers consider their pet their family and would feel rejection when they are declined a rental property of their choice because the landlord prefers no pets. But I have to agree, it is the landlord's decision! Landlords have their reasons. Decisions can be swayed by the agent, negotiated, changed, altered and if it can not, then it is what it is. Positivity will show something better to rent around the corner.
    Hide reply (1)
    • Susanmorley 22 days ago
      If I registered a dog as companion landlords would suck so why can’t I have a 3 kg miniature even visit lol. It’s a joke
  • Susanmorley 22 days ago
    It’s ridiculous to being denied to have a small pet. I’ve been a landlord and now renting. I had to put my jack russel down as I could not find pet friendly rentals. My daughter visits me and am now told she can’t even bring her mini foxy to see me. How wrong. She can take the dog to a shopping center but not her mother’s house. Now she has to either give her dog up or I have to find another carer to look after me
  • SamCh 25 days ago
    NO to pets in rental property.Pets must not be allowed without the consent of the landlord. Landlords buy a property based on their view for a future and not for such property to be destroyed. Very often the rent doesn't cover the mortgage repayment and the bond can hardly cover repairs for any damages.Tenants want the peoperty to feel home when it comes to pet right but not when it comes to look after the property. Rental properties are not your own home to trash and leave owners to pay for tenants carelessness.
    Hide reply (1)
    • Louisa 24 days ago
      The large majority of tenants are good - they pay rent on time, maintain the property and look after their animals. Why make bad rules which make them feel like prisoners???
  • Louisa 24 days ago
    In a ‘senior village’ in Bethania my dog was allowed with me,and was accepted on my contract. Three months of being there I chose to organise my own food rather than theirs. They knew I had the right to do that, so they attempted to get at me with illegal action against my dog - they evicted her. I went so downhill and after contacting my daughter to pick up my dog, I attempted suicide. While I was in hospital they locked all my belongings inside my unit and I was made homeless for one week. I found a different home miles away from that place and took them to QCAT and won, but I didn’t get any compensation which I believe I was entitled. How they treated me should have gone to court, but I know I couldn’t have afforded to go anywhere than QCAT.
  • SamCh 25 days ago
    If the insurance law hasn't change to remove the cap of the amount the insurance cover for the landlord and to remove the requirements for proving vandalism or the like which is currently disadvantage landlords, no further changes should be made to advantage tenants even more than what they currently have.
  • SamCh 25 days ago
    Like any commercial agreement, each one should be able to draft an agreement which suits his circumstances and the tenant then can reject, negotiate or accept. Tenants have a choice as there is enough rental properties in the market on offer and they are not obliged to sign a tenancy agreement which doesn't suit them.
  • SamCh 25 days ago
    NO to pets in rental property.Pets must not be allowed without the consent of the landlord. Landlords buy a property based on their view for a future and not for such property to be destroyed. Very often the rent doesn't cover the mortgage repayment and the bond can hardly cover repairs for any damages.
  • Rambo 26 days ago
    No to pets unless agreed as even with permission and conditions tenants mostly take little notice of conditions and do as they feel comfortable with and believe aceptable.So even with conditions in place the owner relies on agents, who give notice of entry to discover any breaches. Just about impossible to regulate and just becomes another expenditure for owners when tenant leaves.
  • Chrisecco 27 days ago
    We rented our ex Display Home out to tenants - and there were no pets allowed or on the application. The tenants had an unapproved dog. Within 8 months we had a repair bill of $7.500 on this home, which had been used as a Display Home until this tenancy. Absolutely heartbreaking. There is no means for us to realistically get retribution out of the tenants for the damage and filth they left behind. Landlords should have the right to refuse pets, as the damage they can cause is extensive. There is also a health issue with pet residue in the home for future tenants who may have allergies to pets or suffer from asthma.
  • Tara H 27 days ago
    I have a 2brm cottage on a small block in Brisbane. I have rented to people with cats or dogs no problem but my concern is that being a tiny block with a small back yard some pets aren't going to be suitable to be living in a tiny yard ie. large dogs or a number of pets.. Which actually happened recently..tenant moved in 2 dogs, guinea pigs & chickens which def did not suit the size of the yard! There needs to be control on size & number of pets tenant can have on the property!
  • Roland Auer 2 months 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
    Hide Replies (29)
    • Cathe_78 2 months ago
      Removed by moderator.
      Hide Replies (9)
      • Bulla 2 months 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.
        Hide Replies (3)
        • Tara10 2 months 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.
          Hide Replies (2)
          • Bulla 2 months 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.
            Hide reply (1)
            • Chris1963 2 months ago
              Not all renters have the oppurtunity to become home owners...
      • Optimum 28 2 months 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.
        Hide Replies (4)
        • Cathe_78 2 months ago
          Remember what happened around 2000/ 2001, when PM Howard introduced a big discount for capital gains tax for property? There was a massive spike in house prices that was NOT matched by an increase in population or an increase in the number of first home buyers. Guess what there WAS a big increase in, though? That's right, "investors". Since then, the number of first time buyers has fallen to historic lows, while the number of property investors (and the proportion of them using interest-only mortgages) has risen to an historic high, and we have the largest level of private debt that Australia has EVER had. I wonder whether any of this might be related to our stratospheric house prices...
          Hide Replies (3)
          • Optimum 28 2 months ago
            Cathe_78 I can remember those times and as an investor i can assure you i did not even venture into that market because the outcome was obvious, when everything came to a crashing halt, the million dollar homes that were only worth around half a million in the first place became a stone around their necks when they returned to the true price.
            Hide Replies (2)
            • Cathe_78 2 months ago
              Then why are there still so many million dollar sheds? Real estate has not returned to reality yet. There was a bit of a dip after the GFC but the bubble has well and truly reinflated since then.
              Hide reply (1)
              • robboat 2 months ago
                Real Estate = Royal Estate - they are not making land any more....It's not about the house...it's about the land value....So many people get confused about this.
    • Renting forever 2 months 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.
      Hide Replies (2)
      • Miss Jo 2 months 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.
      • Roxanne#1 28 days ago
        Dear Renting forever, Tenants only pay for water used. The largest charges on the water bill are the State charges for water supply. On the bills, I get it is $150 for water used ( paid by the Tenant) and $500 for water supply (paid by the Owner, me). I do agree with you if you can't act like a Good Owner get out of the market. Same for Tenants, if you can't be a Good Tenant, don't rent. Cheers, Roxanne
    • Optimum 28 2 months 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.
      Hide Replies (9)
      • GeeGee 2 months ago
        Optimum 28.. I will do the same. Our withdrawal from the rental market as landlords will have little affect on us, there are other investment opportunities that do not carry the stress or hassle of a bad tenant. ( And NO they are not all bad.)However those who hate us for having the means to invest in property will struggle to find a property to rent. Those houses left for rent will be double the prices they are now. The govt has to step in with more public housing and/or rent assistance for those who need it. Blaming renter or landlord is counter productive. The govt is not stupid. They have us blaming each other for our circumstances and whilst we are so caught up in our debate they cleverly and quietly take no responsibility.
        Hide Replies (8)
        • Eleanor 2 months ago
          Gee Gee, do you not protect yourself with landlords insurance?
          Hide reply (1)
          • Kevin Belgrove about 2 months ago
            We pay for LL insurance for all our properties however the Tenants are the ones who should pay for the insurance not the owners. Why should the owner pay for bad tenants?
        • Optimum 28 2 months ago
          GeeGee, True in what you say. i can get a better return at less risk with the tenant paying most of the costs if i go commercial property, Dealing with business people far better outcome and on same level.
        • homelesswithpets about 2 months ago
          All these stupid threats of “oh I’m gonna sell my investment property and then there will be less rentals for people” are just that stupid. What will happen - someone else will come along and buy it and then happily rent it out. So pull out of the property market then. Goodbye 👋🏼
          Hide Replies (3)
          • Kevin Belgrove about 2 months ago
            Well I will not be selling I will just increase the rent.
            Hide reply (1)
            • Optimum 28 about 2 months ago
              Like your attitude Kevin, as i have said previously it is better the devil you know then the one you don't. And the one you don't is far higher rents and bonds for the tenant due to all their expectations someone has to pay for the risk, that is just the world we live in every business pases the risk on.
          • Optimum 28 about 2 months ago
            homelesswithpets Not the case in the Hawk/Keating Government when they tried to remove the Neg gearing heaps of investors sold and the Government could not cope with all the extra requests for public housing due to the properties going to private ownership and not retals, so why do you believe it would be any different and why do you think a new landlord would want to take on less of control of his new investment property. They could go into commercial rentals with less costs and hassles. It is ok to dream and look at the world through rose coloured glasses, but sometime it is better the devil you know then the one you don't.
        • Optimum 28 about 2 months ago
          GeeGee fully agree with you as well, but this has been a hold waste of time as there are a few select ones that seem to have an issue with people getting off their butts to make their life better and are using the pet issue as a soap box to voice their opinion on the wrong issues.
    • Eleanor 2 months 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
      Hide Replies (2)
      • Miss Jo 2 months ago
        I'm sure most of us have the insurance but we pay a lot of insurance and a lot in rates. If we have to keep making claims because the tenants are not held accountable this means our premiums will go up and we are still paying. Isn't this why the tenant pays a bond.
      • Kevin Belgrove about 2 months ago
        Incorrect. Most policies do not cover pet insurance. The the very few that go only cover up to $500
    • Kevin Belgrove about 2 months ago
      As a landlord I will be passing any extra costs on to future tenants and I assume all other investors will follow suit sooner or later.
    • Andrew15432 about 2 months ago
      Greetings Roland in Victoria :) Very glad that your state is already leading the way in allowing pets as standard in leases. Maybe you should move up here!
    • Greer 28 days ago
      In Qld the owner does have the right to charge the tenant water usage if it's written in the lease, I pay for mine and I agree with it. Property size should be taken into the factor of the animal on application...so if you have a horse obviously acreage is where you go not a normal size house block, that is just plan silly. So if you have a large dog, a unit/townhouse should not allow that tenant to be approved, it should always be based on size if not approved or the history of the dog if you can obtain that as well.
  • Jac1 about 1 month ago
    Stats show a high percentage over 60% of Australians are pet owners, both property owners and renters have pet, isn't this discrimination on the part of a landlord? Pets are family, RSPCA is full, fair go for all!
    Hide Replies (4)
    • Roxanne#1 28 days ago
      Dear Jac1, By law, Pets are NOT family. This is not discrimination, it is the Owner's right to decide who lives in their property, including pets. Cheers, Roxanne
      Hide Replies (3)
      • Greer 28 days ago
        Hi Roxanne,I can understand your objections to pets, but as a responsible pet owner as well as renter who has been told by my property managers that I am a platinum tenant, I still cannot agree with you. The owners of the pet/pets could they not take out or provide an extra bond if damage is coursed by their pet, and before I leave any place I have pest control done to insure that there is no flea etc in the home. Yes if you have a large animal you should look at a property that is a size for that animal...I do!...there are pros and cons to this argument but at the end of the day investors pay good money for property management and they should do their job and make sure that tenants are well checked out with past history.
        Hide Replies (2)
        • Roxanne#1 28 days ago
          Dear Greer, I was replying to Jac's comment that Pets are family. I agree, there should be an extra Bond for Pets paid up front. Or the Tenant could pay extra for Pet Insurance. The bottom line is that there are Good Tenants, like yourself, and Bad Tenants, who will have pets that damage and then leave owing for damages and often also rent. Unfortunately the Good Tenants suffer because of Bad Tenants and it is impossible to tell them apart in advance. Believe me, I know from experience. We do our due dilligence and Tenants still go bad. Sorry, Roxanne
          Hide reply (1)
          • Greer 28 days ago
            Very true, the few that course horrid damage to properties do affect the good...and if there could be some form of extra bond I would readily pay it, if I had too and then hopefully more families could find renting with animals easier. It's a real catch 22 with this argument!
  • Maurice77 2 months 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.
    Hide Replies (9)
    • Allforlandlord 2 months 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.
      Hide reply (1)
      • Maurice77 2 months 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
    • Optimum 28 about 2 months ago
      Maurice77 well put, as todate that's all i have heard so far from most not all.
    • Cleocattra about 2 months ago
      By your reckoning everyone can buy a home because you even did it on a menial wage (other posts refer) albeit with many sacrifices. You seem to think tenants are losers who are renting because of poor financial choices. Who then is worthy of renting your property? Short-terms tenants while they save for a home? Students? What’s your ideal tenant profile? Careful not to bite the hand that feeds you.
      Hide Replies (5)
      • homelesswithpets about 2 months ago
        👍🏼 Well said Cleocattra
        Hide Replies (3)
        • Maurice77 about 2 months ago
          Hi all, Yep that’s right I firmly believe that if you work hard and save you will reach the goal of entering the property market. But you need to be prepared to make sacrifices and realise you can’t get your dream home as your first property. Don’t recall even coming close to calling anyone a loser above as that would be disrespectful- and that is what a landlord / tenant relationship should be based on - mutual respect. I also stated above, and let me state it once again, that I know many people on much better incomes than me who still can’t afford their own home as they have blown their incomes on poor financial choices. So yes - you and you alone are responsible for the choices you make. If renting the place you’re in means you can’t save much, you probably need to either go and find somewhere more affordable, or make some changes elsewhere in your budget. This proposal to allow pets with no restrictions is simply not on sorry - for the reasons outlined above. Pets damage homes, it’s a clear fact. If this pet thing comes in, the only way I would personally be agreeable to it is via a separate pet bond which would need to be quite substantial
          Hide Replies (2)
          • Cleocattra about 2 months ago
            I’ve said elsewhere that I think the owner should make the decision if they want pets in their property or not because I particularly am not interested in renting a place that’s had dogs inside previously due to the smell. I very much oppose a pet bond, though, for those who do rent with pets. It’d just be another pool of money that grasping landlords would think was automatically theirs at the end of the tenancy similar to how many of them view the bond.
          • Optimum 28 about 2 months ago
            Maurice77 well said, and it seems if the argument is not going a certain way then we are labeling them. Just another way to deflect the truth.
      • Roxanne#1 28 days ago
        Dear Cleocattra, You are making assumptions about what Maurice said. Maurice did not say tenants are losers. Maybe you think Tenants are losers? Maybe you will feel better if you drop that? Cheers, Roxanne
  • Rosa13 about 2 months ago
    As a landlord we have had mostly negative experiences regarding tenants and their pets. Recently we rented out a property on a small block 400 sq mtrs (our local council will only allow a 1 dog) with a cement backyard and a cement pool area. We considered pets on application and discussed with all prospective tenants at inspection the suitable pets. We got applications for 3 different sets of people with cattle dogs as well as other large breeds. The constant factor was that each of these people assured us that they only had a small pet, we insisted on a photo and description of breed, age, weight etc. sure the animal might be small as a puppy. Our concern is not so much if the property is pet friendly but if it is pet suitable. Should a large dog be forced to live on concrete all day while its owners are working or out? I think tenants should consider what property they are looking for with their beloved pet in mind.In the past we have had to replace carpets, curtains, fly screens due to pets being left inside unattended. It is difficult to get a new tenant that has no pets after the property has had cats and dogs inside. As a landlord I don't think we should be forced to accept pets that we consider unsuitable. We are not anti animals. Our newest tenants have a small dog and a cat.
    Hide reply (1)
    • Roxanne#1 28 days ago
      Dear Rosa, Great comments! The RSPCA would not approve of some Tenants having pets in a place too small, etc. Cheer, Roxanne
  • Underwhelmed about 1 month ago
    There are FAR TOO FEW owners that will consider renting to those with pets.
    Hide reply (1)
    • Roxanne#1 28 days ago
      So we need to find ways to entice Owners to allow selected pets to selected Tenants. How about a Pet Bond? Or the Tenant pays the Pet Insurance? Cheers, Roxanne
  • Alicia1997 2 months 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.
    Hide Replies (13)
    • Pam4 2 months ago
      Well said!!!
    • Sky_Owner 2 months ago
      I agree! I also think if pets are allowed that the owner has the right to approve the type eg. a small dog instead of a large one for a property with a small yard.
    • Mel Boyce 2 months ago
      This is the best response I've heard to this argument. Very articulately put - well done :)
    • Cathe_78 2 months ago
      Oh dear – so THAT's what I've been getting wrong all this time! I did wonder about the strange people who turn up to poke through the house every three months, and it's been a complete mystery where all that money has been going every fortnight. But now, at last, I have found the answer! Someone ELSE owns this house. Hallelujah, the mystery is solved! Thank you so much for helping me figure out what is going on!
      Hide reply (1)
      • Roxanne#1 28 days ago
        Congratulations! Welcome to the real world!
    • Eleanor 2 months ago
      Hi Alicia. I engaged a new agent recently for a brand new build I rented out & they asked for proof of land lords insurance. I am with Terri Scheer and they automatically include animal damage in the policy. If more owners were proactive & responsible and insured their properties appropriately (which is a tax deduction) this whole discussion would be moot. I allow animals appropriate to the size of the dwelling \ land. Cheers
      Hide Replies (2)
      • Mel_C about 1 month ago
        It's not that simple. Have you ever tried to make a claim against your landlords insurance for anything?
      • Roxanne#1 28 days ago
        Dear Eleanor, It is not that simple! Can you imagine seeing the house you saved to buy and worked to make clean, safe and attractive trashed by animals? Imagine going into your kitchen this morning and seeing dog and cat poo and smelling the urine! Imagine having to clear it up! (Someone has to.) Imagine the Tenant leaving owing rent and repairs! Imagine being worried that you can't pay the mortgage because of this! It i s not "Simples" . Pets are a privilege, not a right. Some Tenants cannot manage having a pet responsibly. Cheer, Roxanne
    • Talon about 2 months ago
      "some landlords are just saying that tenants cannot have pets in THEIR house". MOST..fixed that for you. "The property owner should have the right to the final say on what is and isn’t allowed in THEIR house". That's what happens when you LIVE in your house. They can move back in. Acting like it's one's precious glass building that is delicate and must be touched with cotton gloves at all times is NOT someone who should be engaged in IPs for rentals. Tenants seem to be absolutely well aware it's NOT their house, and continuously made aware by what feels like constant checks on house cleaning and inability to put a clock on the wall. For people who are in poverty but have a pet (there can be various reasons for that), they have no choice when every owner/REA says no to their pet. It's either homelessness or they have to have their beloved pet killed (rescue groups are often full and the RSPCA usually kill them). Property owners take risks when CHOOSING to invest in property to rent out. They give up a lot of things when having others live in their property and help pay off their mortgages. If they are uncomfortable with that they should assess other options.
      Hide reply (1)
      • Roxanne#1 28 days ago
        Dear Talon, There are Good Tenants, who respect the property and abide by the lease, and there are Bad Tenants who don't. This not about cotton gloves! Get real and listen to some of the Owners'stories. Owners need to be protected from BAd Tenants and this will work for the benefit of Good Tenants. Owners will find other options if they are forced to accept pets, and rents will go up. I rent to people with pets but I will sell because all Tenants cannot manage pets. Cheers, Roxanne
    • dolphnisrule about 1 month ago
      Blabla is all im hearing. HUMANS DO MORE DAMAGE TO PROPERTIES THAN ANIMALS. Its not the animasls fault at all. There are a lot of feral humans out there that should never be allowed to rent.I know renters that do damage to DOH and Private rentals and they dont get penalised for the severe damages they have caused to the properties. One doh beautiful home got trashed thousands of dollars in repairs guess what theyre still living in it.One of house owners doesnt care if rental property is damaged cause he just puts in police report and claims it all through insurances he been doing that for 13yrs since ive known him.
    • Mel_C about 1 month ago
      Amen Alicia. What world are we living in when renters think they have more rights over someone elses house than the person who actually owns. If you don't like renting don't rent.
    • Dave67 about 1 month ago
      As a property owner it’s refreshing to hear what you have said. I like animals too but they can be costly to the owner in regards to damage and flea treatments
  • RayT about 1 month ago
    Landlords are vert negative when it comes to pets maybe there could be an extra bond to insure pet owners make the sure the pets are going to look after the property
    Hide reply (1)
    • Roxanne#1 28 days ago
      Dear RAyT, I totally agree! Cheers, Roxanne
  • Greer about 1 month ago
    Recently a friend of mine who has a pet dog small/med............very friendly and lovable has not been able to find a rental property in her price range....$350 a week up on the Sunshine coast this has been going on for at least 3 months, she is now homeless and living off friends couches..............is this fair? The Sunshine coast seems to be the worst offender for this, as I am in Brisbane and never had a problem, but my price range in rent is much higher so that could be the difference?? Again that should not be the point!
    Hide reply (1)
    • Roxanne#1 28 days ago
      Dear Greer, Yes this is fair. More attractive places, like the Sunshine Coast, cost more. Cheers, Roxanne
  • BrettB about 1 month ago
    Pets are greatly regarded as extended members of a family and in most cases pets have been with owners for a long time. I believe it is fair that anyone renting should automatically be able to have their pets. The main concern from a landlord would be damage to property and as with any other issues with exiting a property this would be up to the tenants to rectify. Overall you are responsible as a tenant to ensure the property is in the same condition that you entered
    Hide reply (1)
    • Roxanne#1 28 days ago
      Dear BrettB, What you are describing is the way it is supposed to work but the damage caused by pets can exceed the bond and Bad Tenants do not make up the difference. Cheers, Roxanne
  • ThinkTank 2 months ago
    Pets do cause extra wear and tear, and someone is going to pay for it. That is why properties that do allow pets typically have somewhat higher rent and bonds. By forcing landlords to accept pets, the landlord will have to assume that the tenant might have or get a pet, and charge accordingly. This might increase rents for many people who do not have pets - as an unintended consequence. The current system is fairer, and it is not broken.
    Hide Replies (9)
    • homelesswithpets 2 months ago
      It is actually illegal to ask for more than the equivalent of four weeks rent and even that is capped for the higher end of town rentals
      Hide Replies (5)
      • Tonia2016 2 months ago
        Thats actually incorrect re bonds @homelesswithpets. Properties over $700 per week do not have a cap on bonds and it is down to mutual agreement between tenant and landlord. And I am sure the above was referring to rents being increased due to pets, and therefore bonds increasing as a result - which is exactly what will happen to the private housing market should this be put into action. Landlords have to cover their costs somehow.
        Hide Replies (4)
        • homelesswithpets 2 months ago
          No I was referring to the implementation of “pet bonds” etcAnd yes bond payments in properties exceeding $700/week in rent need to be negotiated between the lessor/agent and tenant. But it’s beside the point really because if you are rich enough to afford to pay that amount in the first place then rent increases simply due to pets wouldn’t bother you would it. In fact I don’t know why you wouldn’t buy a property if you could afford that much rent!!
          Hide Replies (2)
          • Jordan2018 about 1 month ago
            Removed by moderator.
          • Roxanne#1 28 days ago
            Dear HomelesswithPets, The purpose of this blog is to share information and, I think, hopefully find some solutions that would allow Tenants and Owners each to be better off. In other words, a change in the Act. So just because a Pet Bond is not allowed now, there is no reason it could not be written into the revised Act. Cheers, Roxanne
        • Talon about 2 months ago
          Then it sounds like it will be excellent for open minded compassionate LLs who already allow pets. They should see a huge uptake in interest for their properties.
    • reignbeau 2 months ago
      Well i don't charge more for pets. there are lots of health reasons why pets should be allowed. As a landlord, having a happy long-term tenant is the best scenario for you - less empty weeks, better upkeep etc. so i let pets in as often these are good tenants.
      Hide reply (1)
      • Roxanne#1 28 days ago
        Dear reignbeau, I totally agree, until someone's pet damages my property and the Bond doesn't cover it. Cheers, Roxanne
    • silverline 2 months ago
      It should be up to the owner whether they allow pets or not, after all it is their property so why should they be dictated to and told at the end of the day the tenants should be allowed to have pets in there, come on where is the democracy here, if it`s not broken don`t fix it.
  • Cathe_78 2 months 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?
    Hide Replies (32)
    • ngb 2 months 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.
      Hide Replies (26)
      • Cathe_78 2 months 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.
        Hide Replies (25)
        • ngb 2 months 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.
          Hide Replies (23)
          • Cathe_78 2 months 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.
            Hide Replies (22)
            • homelesswithpets 2 months 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
              Hide Replies (9)
              • Mel Boyce about 2 months 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.
                Hide Replies (6)
                • Cathe_78 about 2 months ago
                  I've encountered this need to be in control in a number of previous landlords. It rarely stops at pets. These are the landlords who, in my experience, tend to undermine the mental wellbeing of their tenants. May I suggest that you look into alternative (and less risky) forms of investment?
                  Hide Replies (3)
                  • Fc35 about 2 months ago
                    Cathe_78, yes there are definitely some owners like that. When looking at a potential property to rent ask if it was previously the owners home, that can be a good indication.
                  • Optimum 28 about 2 months ago
                    Removed by moderator.
                  • Roxanne#1 28 days ago
                    Dear Cathe, If this law is passed I most certainly will! Cheers, Roxanne
                • Heather Morton about 2 months ago
                  Sell you house/s. It seems as though you have a problem about renting your house. And yes you cannot control what other people do. However, 98% of people who rent are responsible people and the 2% who aren't are always flown back into the faces of the 98% who do the right thing. Pets are good it should be what type and how many that should be discussed.
                  Hide reply (1)
                  • Roxanne#1 28 days ago
                    Dear Heather, And when we sell our houses your rent will go up. Cheers, Roxanne
              • Natalie Wood about 2 months 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 about 2 months 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 2 months 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 about 2 months 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.
            • Zoroon about 2 months ago
              One important difference. Is owners with pets bear the cost of all the pet damage and required to put up with it. ie ongoing urine odour ( including lower sale price ) Pet damage can easily exceed bond , and worse some tenants do not have financial capacity to pay for the full damage cost. Landlords insurance often does not cover pet damage, and importantly , has excesses for each incident. As Far as I know there have not been any surveys to property owners of what would cause them to allow pets in their properties.
            • Optimum 28 about 2 months ago
              Cathe_78 The difference is that they own the house and can make that decision to have a pet or not, if their pet destroys something they have to fix it at their cost. If a tenants pet destroys their rental property nine out of ten times they have to pay to repair that as well. I think if you want to or choose to rent then there are certain restrictions that you have to abide by and if that means that by having a pet you can only rent certain houses then or houses that may not be maintained then that is a decision you have made by having a pet, your decision just like a landlords decision not to allow pets.
            • Optimum 28 about 2 months ago
              Cathe_78 You are not a property owning citizen as you do not have all the expense associated with owning a property so there are certain disadvantages that come with that. You are a person that chooses to rent a property that is owned by someone else. Your human rights are covered in that you have a roof over your head at a far reduced cost to owning a property outright, this comes with some disadvantages.
              Hide Replies (6)
              • Cathe_78 about 2 months ago
                The reason I don't own property is because I can't afford the deposit. I have enough income to service a mortgage but I can never save enough to actually buy a place of my own (and I am actively trying – but the goal posts just keep moving, so that they're ALWAYS just out of reach!). This is not my choice – this is the furthest thing from free choice! The sort of money you need for a deposit these days would have purchased many properties outright before the current property bubble began! If property prices were not so ridiculously inflated, I would have purchased a place of my own (because I would have been able to afford it!). I don't have a pet because I know that, as a renter, I can't guarantee that I wouldn't have to surrender that pet the next time my landlord sells the house I'm living in and I have to move on (again!). I used to think that I would wait until I could purchase my own place to have pets (or a family) but that time keeps getting further and further away into the future. If property prices don't come down, there is an entire generation of people who will never be able to afford their own homes – for reasons that are beyond our control. Changing tenancy laws to treat tenants like human beings rather than second-class citizens (or lower life forms) is one MINOR way to redress this injustice!
                Hide Replies (5)
                • Optimum 28 about 2 months ago
                  Cathe-78 that is a fair call and i can understand that but i can assure you property prices will never come down other then when you are in a recession or property lul due to oversupply or market turnarounds, investors do not cause the above problem like a lot on this site think. The real estate market normally has a 7 to 10 year rotation were the price fall and rise which can be affected by a lot of variables but normally they are going to rise over a period of time, and i am sure if you owned a house you would want a higher price then a lower one if selling.It is the real estate industry and the demand at the time that will increase or decrease property values, not investors alone i'm sure if you do your calcs you will find there are a lot more first home buyers general public purchasing homes then investors. Have you spoken to a financial advisor, most banks have them and give you free advice which you might be surprised at what is out there to let you get a start, small one bed unit and then you move up. Over the years i have been surprised at the number of people that i have spoken with that don't look at all avenues or think it is just to hard to purchase a house without really get some advice and direction. Have you thought about talking to a broker they don't charge for their service it is all free they get their money from the banks its normally included in the interest. I have been using the one broker for about 15 years and the deals and reduced interest rates he has sourced from the banks has been great, don't put it in the to hard basket give it a go what is the worst they can say, no we cant help you but they may give you a plan to work to.
                  Hide Replies (4)
                  • Cathe_78 about 2 months ago
                    Given what's been revealed in the Royal Commission (and the general behaviour of banks and mortgage brokers, which we've all observed over many years), I find it hard to believe that any of their advice will be in my best interest. I have done my own calculations for how much I can afford (including at the sort of interest rates that prevailed in the late 1980s) and my figures always turn out to be significantly lower than the "borrowing power" that different banks suggest I have. I also find it hard to believe that any house (or property in general) should be worth as much as a medium-sized to large farm or a business (assets that are actually productive) – so I'm placing my hopes on the very optimistic bet that house price increases over the last twenty years are simply part of a long-running real estate bubble that will eventually burst (cf. the 1890s Australian property bubble), letting houses return to their primary purpose: providing a place to live, rather than a commodity to speculate on. It's not much to place your hopes on, but it's all I've got.
                    Hide Replies (3)
                    • Optimum 28 about 2 months ago
                      Cathe_78 Don't hold on to that dream for to long or you may end up owning a very small Plot in the end.
                      Hide reply (1)
                      • Cathe_78 about 1 month ago
                        More likely to be a very small hole in a wall, I'm afraid.
                    • Roxanne#1 28 days ago
                      Dear Cathe, There was a good opportunity to buy following 2009 and I predict there will be another one coming soon if this legislation is passed. I hope you are able to achieve your dream of owning a home. Cheers, Roxanne
            • Roxanne#1 28 days ago
              Dear Cathe, It is not hypocrisy. Some Tenants are not responsible enough to handle pets. And it is not a human right to have a pet in a rental property. Nor should it ever be. Cheers, Roxanne
        • Fc35 about 2 months ago
          Cathe_78, the reason the majority of landlords do not allow pets is due to a past bad experience that cost them a lot of money.
    • Fc35 about 2 months ago
      Are you as a tenant prepared to replace rooms of carpet because your pet urinated on them? I'm betting no. The owner occupier on the other hand is prepared to do this, its their property, no one else is going to foot the bill are they?
    • Optimum 28 about 2 months ago
      Yes because it is not there house
      Hide Replies (2)
      • Cathe_78 about 2 months ago
        *their*
      • Cathe_78 about 2 months ago
        So the basic distinction then, is that one person has enough money/credit to own property and the other person does not? This seems to hark back to the days when only property-owning citizens were entitled to vote...
    • Roxanne#1 28 days ago
      Dear Cathe, We KNOW Bad Tenants are different to us because we see the damage they let their pets do and the conditions they live in. There are Good Tenants, who are responsible enough to have pets, but not all Tenants can manage pets. Cheers, Roxanne
  • Nippy 2 months ago
    I am Property Manager and a rental home owner. My previous tenants decided to have cats without permission. She had up to 6 cats living inside. One rooms carpet needed to be replaced due to the smell which could not be removed but also due to the carpet being over 5 years old no QCAT could be done
    Hide Replies (16)
    • avava about 2 months ago
      Nippy - there is a product called 'urine free'...that gets rid of cat urine smells...and if the guy cleaning your carpets can't get rid of the cat urine smell, he isn't doing a proper job, we aren't living in the dark ages...getting rid of pet odours is big business and they have good products our there...It's too easy to blame cat owners and hate cats, when the reality is carpets are generally putrid at the best of times and why would anyone want or put carpets in rentals anyway...
      Hide Replies (15)
      • Fc35 about 2 months ago
        avava, once it has soaked through or animals have repeatedly been urinating in the same place it is impossible to get rid of. It soaks through the underlay and into the porous concrete slab below or floorboards.
        Hide Replies (9)
        • homelesswithpets about 2 months ago
          Fc35 and this wouldn’t happen or be an issue if better flooring choices were made. There are some extremely good vinyls on the market these days
          Hide Replies (6)
          • Nippy about 2 months ago
            Avava, not everyone wants vinyl in their house. Yes I have replaced the carpet with vinyl in the room but I really wanted to polish the floors but have been told that the urine has soaked from the carpet, into the underlay and now in the floorboards so I do not have many options now.
          • Fc35 about 2 months ago
            Removed by moderator.
          • Fc35 about 2 months ago
            Homelesswithpets, my previous response to your comment was removed so I’ll say it again. Landlords don’t want animals urinating & deficating throughout their properties, nor do most want a house completely fitted with vinyl. It’s easy to have an attitude like yours though when you don’t have to foot the repair bill. Take responsibility for your pets.
            Hide Replies (2)
            • avava about 2 months ago
              Fc35 - carpet is last century and what renter would leave poo and pee all over the rental property if they are living in it...I find that hard to believe that people just let their pets poo and pee everywhere and never clean it up and just let the smells stew for months, just to punish the owners...highly doubtful...but a story repeated enough becomes believed....to some people...
              Hide reply (1)
              • Fc35 about 2 months ago
                Avava, unfortunately I have seen it time & time again. Some tenants don’t care, it’s not their carpet, they have it cleaned at the end the end of the tenancy and feel they have fulfilled their obligations, they are not foooting the bill, they don’t have to deal with it. Many people also don’t believe their pet smells & are incrediblely offended at the mere suggestion....the fleas are another issue.
          • Kevin Belgrove about 2 months ago
            My be you should pay for your own flooring choice based on your pet. Now that would solve the issue, owners do not supply any floor coverings but tenants bring their own and take it when they leave.
        • avava about 2 months ago
          Fc35 - as I said, getting rid of animal odour is big business...and their are many products that will get rid of the smells, but landlords prefer to whinge about the renters and keep their bond and keep relaying carpet that perpetuates the problem of cost...just lay tiles or lino...easy to clean and easy to spray products like 'urine free' onto them, which gets rid of the odour...very easy and simple...
          Hide reply (1)
          • Fc35 about 2 months ago
            Avava, I beg to differ. Over the years I have fostered many cats & kittens, once urine has soaked through to the underlay the only way to get rid of the smell is to remove the carpet & under and deodarise the slab before relaying new floor coverings. As far as laying tiles or Lino, that is not up to a tenant to decide what the owner should do, the flooring choice is made with with what MOST people would be comfortable with. Keep your pets off the carpet simple!!!, get some baby gates & block off the carpeted areas, If your pets cause damage or ruin the carpet replace it!! Why do you feel you have the right, I’m absolutely flabbergasted
      • Kevin Belgrove about 2 months ago
        AvavaThere is NO product that can get rid of cat urine period. Your product you mentioned does not work as soon as it rains the smell returns!
        Hide Replies (3)
        • avava about 2 months ago
          Removed by moderator.
        • avava about 1 month ago
          Kevin Belgrove - so, if someone gives you a truthful response that you don't like, you get the moderator to delete that comment...isn't that just typical of the entitled...and to reiterate what I said, don't lay carpets, renters don't want carpets, if you keep putting carpets in...which are putrid at the best of times...then you only have yourself to blame...but you prefer to keep blaming the renters and their pets...the removal of animal smells is big business...and products do work...
          Hide reply (1)
          • Roxanne#1 28 days ago
            Dear Avava, Don't blame Kevin, anyone can Alert the MOderator. (I didn't this time) I thought the Moderators only removed offensive language. I think the Moderators have been very lenient and that they should also remove personal insults because they do not further the discussion and seem to be intended to inflame. Cheers, Roxanne
      • Grover about 2 months ago
        Buy a house and land package in Cairns and if you don't want to pay extra for tiles throughout you will get carpet.Some people find that desirable but not too good if you have animals inside. Dealing in facts here not about hating anyone, lying or putting any one down.Too many comments in this forum with half truths or someone pushing a certain agenda. I feel if you want to contribute, be honest, state your position and back it up with facts not hysterical emotional outbursts.
  • NeilN about 1 month ago
    This thread has been hijacked and no longer addresses the initial questions.
    Hide reply (1)
    • Roxanne#1 28 days ago
      Dear NeilN, Thanks! I agree, but when people are making unviable suggestions someone needs to respond. Cheer, Roxanne
  • Sallly about 1 month ago
    I have never had a Pet, I am a renter, however it would be great if Owner and Renter could come to an agreement about having a Pet. As I am a Senior and get lonely a Pet would be such company. However I understand that some folk do not take care of home and damage can be caused by Pets.If there was a guide line that all could follow ie: only small dogs, one cat, a caged bird....something along those lines. And a signed agreement that any damage be paid for by Renter.Just a thought.
    Hide reply (1)
    • Roxanne#1 28 days ago
      Dear Sally, That is the current situation but unfortunately Bad Tenants with pets leave owing money and don't pay for the damage their pets do because there is no extra Bond to cover pets. If the current situation is not working, how will allowing everyone to have pets be better? I have allowed pets in all my houses but only to responsible Tenants. If you can't choose the Tenant and the pets you are going to have damage. I allowed one Tenant to have a dog and then she picked up a stray cat, which had kittens in the house and of course they were not potty trained! She was breaking the lease. After moving in some people don't think about the rules they agreed to in the lease. And of course, she didn't Bond clean when moving out. That cost me an extra $300. Would you like to move into a house with cat urine and cat hair? What about people with allergies? They will not be able to find a house that has not been inhabited by animals. Having an animal is a priviledge, not a right.
  • tbx about 1 month ago
    I rented my house in qld, supposedly thru an agent, the tenant lied to me saying he had 2 dogs, he had three and they destroyed my gardens, dug out around my building foundations. repairs cost thousands, including concreting around foundations, replacing a fern garden and replacing reticulation and pest control for fleas. it is my right to decide who i rent my house to not the govt, after all its my house...if the govt decides i cant control the destiny of my house that i worked for and bear the risk on, I and many others wont rent out our houses any more... then youll really have a rental crisis!
    Hide Replies (2)
    • benjamin29 about 1 month ago
      you had a bad experience with ONE tenant regarding pets,not all pet owners are irresponsible and landlords should not be allowed to discriminate against pets
      Hide reply (1)
      • Roxanne#1 28 days ago
        Dear Benjamin, If Owners cannot discriminate against pets, then the Good Tenants have to pay for the damages of the Bad Tenants. More likely Owners will leave the market if they cannot control their losses. Then rents will rise for everyone. There should be extra Bond for owning pets or weekly contributions towards a pet damage fund that Owners can claim against like insurance because many Insurance Companies do not cover pet damage.
  • Graham18 about 1 month ago
    What is your experience with pets in Queensland’s rental market?As a landlord/property owner I have allowed pets (dogs outdoor only and indoor, cats and in one case a bird) in my rental property but I always advertise as no pets. In each case where I agreed to a pet with a tenant, I felt confident the tenant was taking good care of the property, keeping it clean etc and that gave me some faith that the person would be a responsible pet owner, and protect my investment from damage by their pet. In one case I was wrong and a small inside dog caused damage to carpet that was brand new when the tenant moved in. As a result, I had to replace the carpet at a cost of 5000 dollars including installation. This was in no way covered by the bond and bluntly the current remedy to recover the funds is a joke. Allowing that pet has cost me a significant amount of money. While I respect that some people want pets those people should respect that if they are renting in a house it doesn't give them the right to trash it, and the consequences should be equal to the action. What is an appropriate approach to pets in Queensland Rental properties?The current system where the landlord can choose to allow pets or not is in my opinion appropriate. If a tenant shows a history of being a responsible pet owner and can provide references they would have no problem letting from me with that pet. If the state introduces a tenant's right to have a pet then they must also allow Landlords or property owners to demand a significantly higher amount of bond is lodged with the Authority, to provide adequate protection for the property owner. Either that or create a system where the property owner can claim the full cost of the repairs from the Authority, and the tenant must settle that debt with the Authority. It should not be up to the Landlord or property owner to cover the damage of an irresponsible pet owner. Let the government go chasing delinquent tenants for years on end to try and recover 5c on the dollar of any given loss if they so desperately want to expose me to that risk, or if they are foolish enough to think that risk isn't real. It concerns me that the discussion here seems to centre largely on tenants rights instead of an equal consideration of both parties. Does no one realise that if the cost of owning a rental goes up = so does the cost of renting it? The government can make me allow pets but the additional cost burden will result in a higher rent, and I suspect that I'm not alone.
    Hide Replies (6)
    • benjamin29 about 1 month ago
      I have lived in several rental properties with animals,have letters from all landlords stating my pets haven't destroyed the properties but still get turned down because the landlord thinks they will destroy the house,the laws need to change because not all pet owners are irresponsible,yes landlords should have rights but tenants should also have the right to have pets,
      Hide reply (1)
      • Graham18 about 1 month ago
        I'm sorry to hear that benjamin29 and I can see how that would be frustrating, as a responsible pet owner. I get the impression that you also see that many property owners like myself are once burnt twice shy. I fully accept that people should have a right to own a pet. I own a pet, and he is a very important part of my family. I also think I should maintain the right to decide who lives in the house that I own, including fur/feathered family members. The right of a person to own a Pet should not trump the right of an investor to care for their investment. A property owner not wanting to allow pets is, not me saying you or any other person cannot own one. But the government mandating that I cannot stop people from bringing a pet into my investment is directly impacting on my rights, to protect it against damage by irresponsible pet owners. But I guess we will have to wait and see, I just would like to see a more balanced approach that respects the rights of both parties rather than one that shreds the rights of one group.
    • PM GC about 1 month ago
      Its a shame 1 dog has tainted your experience Graham18. I'm an agent and a tenant and have pets so I know what it's like from all sides. As for the damage to carpets - was any of that picked up during the routine inspections? It seems like a lot of damage was done to have them all replaced.Also, consider insurance (cover tenant damage), there's a number of companies that cover pet damage now - claim from them and they claim back from the tenants. As for tenants, it's important for them to have full disclosure for their pets - many think they have to lie to get themselves across the line. If it's an inside dog - say that, if it's an outside dog - keep it outside etc.As for a pet bond - I fully agree
      Hide Replies (3)
      • Graham18 about 1 month ago
        PM GC, I appreciate the thought. My insurance would not cover the pet damage as it was an exclusion that I had not been properly aware of. While I accept that I may be able to change insurers or pay an extra premium to cover pets, the fact that it increases my costs and provides no additional income makes it not worthwhile. The rental is after all an investment not a charity. For now, I will revert to a simple no pets policy. Unfortunately, like most things in life, it is the few who spoil it for the many. I stand by my point though. As a property owner, I firmly want the right of refusal to remain with me. If that is taken away then an increase in bond to cover the increased risk or a state-funded system to mitigate the increased cost of Insurance must be implemented.
        Hide reply (1)
        • PM GC about 1 month ago
          Hey Graham18, ultimately it’s your property and you should have the right to say either way. Not sure who your insurance policy is with but i had one as part of my general landlord policy and when I went to claim they wanted an excess for every single item of damage. Needless to say I changed insurers. What I’ve found is that specialist tenant insurers are generally better for tenant related claims. I go through PI-Plus (not sure if I can say that). All the best.
      • Roxanne#1 28 days ago
        Dear PM GC, As an agent and a tenant you have not seen it from all sides because you have not been the Owner who has to pay for pet damage. Are you telling me that if you lent $5,000 to someone at the Pub, who did not pay you back that you would do it again? That is the definition of insanity. It is very easy for people to say Owners should foot the bill when they do not have to contribute. What if all Tenants with pets had to contribute every week to a Pet Damage Fund? Then participating Owners could apply to that fund to cover damages. But the legislation will say that Owners can't charge more for pets and can't take extra Bond, so Owners have to shoulder the risks all by themselves and the Good Pet Tenants suffer. Sorry!
  • Sacredness 28 days ago
    My experience as a rental property owner and tenants with pets costed me thousands of dollars in repairs and 5 years on my rental property still smells of the stench. Many other expenses also from tenants who lie about keeping pets when they haven’t followed the no pet rule.
  • Roxanne#1 29 days ago
    I have rented houses to Tenants with pets but I think this should be a privilege, not a right. I have heard that a dog can cause on average over $500 damage, while a cat can cause over $2,000 damage. There should be a separate Bond to cover the risk of damage by Pets. Urination etc can cause irreparable smells. And I don't think it is possible to get rid of cat hair for people with allergies.
  • Seaside about 1 month ago
    I have cats and had to agree to pay extra for flea/tick treatment when I leave. I don’t have an issue with this request.
  • Property Landlord about 1 month ago
    We have said tenants can have a dog or 2 but they are not allowed inside. None of the tenants have adhered to that. All of them have let their dogs inside until inspection day when they are conveniently left outside. It is hard to get the smell of a dog out of a house. We have had our gardens demolished and the tenant has not been made to replace the plants so once we decide to sell in a couple of years, we will have to replace the plants to make the place presentable for sale. Another cost to the landlord as the rent doesn't cover the mortgage.
  • CSullivan about 1 month ago
    I have always had pets (2x large dogs and a cat for awhile) and never had a problem finding a house that allowed pets. It might not have been my first choice of property all the time but I chose having my pets over this. I completely agree with having to get permission - I believe it's the owners right to choose if they accept the risk of possible damages. If they choose not receiving rent by having a vacant house over risk of damage than, as the owner, that is their choice. I am a current tenant with 2x dogs who has never had a claim for damage against me and also the owner of a home (that we had to move away from for work) who has been burnt by the first tenant we allowed to have a pet and ate the walls (literally) throughout our brand new home we haven't lived in ourselves yet..
  • GJan about 1 month ago
    Permission should always be approved by the landowner before a pet is purchased. Problems are fencing and the invasion of privacy of other tenants, as well as spraying for ground fleas when the animal leaves the premises.
  • DAH about 1 month ago
    as a landlord I'm not opposed to tenants having pets however the reality of renting with a pet must be acknowledged and accepted, there potentially could be absolutely no issue however the issues can be damage to property (walls, cabinets, carpet etc) and yard (gardens, lawn fences etc), noise complaints, odours difficult to remove. Unfortunately some pet owners believe just steam cleaning the carpet is enough to remove any sign of a pet being their. This does all depend on the pet and how good the pet own is so the responsibility does lie with them.
  • Cameron McCreanor about 1 month ago
    Don't discriminate against pets, allow tenants to remain anonymous about having pets until the first inspection.Put it in the contract that if there is any damage caused by pets at the first inspection then tenants are to move out.If there's no damage then all good
  • Karen G2 about 1 month ago
    Pets should be considered on an individual basis and more carefully monitored. In suburbs, where properties have small lots, some pet owners show enormous cruelty not considering the needs of their pet and then blaming the landlord if they are unable to keep the pet enclosed. The landlord and agents responsibility is already to manage the safety, privacy and enjoyment of a tenant. Yet agents then have to take on pet damage, pet mess, pet safety etc. Having said that great tenants generally take good care of their pets. Poor tenants add chaos with their pets. I believe an owner should have the right to decide whether they want pets at their property or not. As a tenant myself, I need to choose a pet friendly property as part of my selection process if I have a pet - that is common sense.
  • rylo about 1 month ago
    Allowing a pet should be up to the landlord. I do a fair amount of maintenance on the properties and am allergic to cats, so do not want them. Do allow dogs, but want to have the ability to decline cats. So should be up to the landlord.
  • KevinH about 1 month ago
    It should be up to the landlord
  • KME about 1 month ago
    I'm a landlord and I allow pets in my property, but I believe that choice should remain with the landlord. The risk of damage / repairs will always sit with the landlord therefore they should have the right to choose the level of risk they are willing to accept - especially when the bond is rarely enough and insurance companies aren't always forthcoming in paying the needed funds. The government has laws and fines in place that restrict pets from being taken onto some beaches and into state/national forests and parks regardless of whether or not the pet is on a lead, because they don't trust that some pet owners will suitably control their animal. Yet, under the new proposed laws the landlord is expected to have to blindly accept into their property these same pet owners without choice.
  • Owner2018 about 1 month ago
    I am an property owner, Pets shall remain at the decision of the owner, And the owner may find they have to reduce their rent to gain a tenant, but this is their choice, My rental property of 20 years ago I never allowed pets, but they did any way 15 plus years on I can still smell the dog urination smell when I visit the property, in the home, I’ve replaced the carpet and paint in 2008 and the smell is still there. Real estates need to do their job better at enforcing this This Property was an unit Dogs scratching clawing at the fly screen is considered fair were and tare,?? it must be green framing, there good tenants if pets where not left home alone it would of never happened and the response was children would only do the same ware and tare, children are not left at home while at work home alone. I visited the property to do maintenance and witnessed the dogs running up and down the hall way, while the tenants woke after many attempts to wake the tenants with a arranged appointment. There are real estate Company that will force property owners in to allowing pets, which I than change real estate agents, If owners are forced to allow pets, I may look at leaving my new rental property vacant as I plan to move in to property and I don’t want it wrecked like the last one. As I rent my property out when I am on FIFO contracts. People rent there property's out for a range of reasons, but if laws are introduced I may not rent my property out when I am not living in it. if I am forced to allow pets.
  • Wolf about 1 month ago
    As tenant you need to consider the property owner's position and their concerns for the considerable damage that irresponsible pet owners can inflict. I have no issue with compatible neighborhood pets being permitted in doors as long as the tenant is responsible and provides a guarantee that any damage to floor coverings and walls etc will be made good. A rental property is often a retirement investment for older couples who depend on the rent for their living. It is not about the lessee being oppressed its being cautious with your investment and abiding by your insurer's conditions. So lets all try to understand each others needs and seek some place we can all feel secure....perhaps some special provisions in the lease?
    Hide Replies (2)
    • Mel_C about 1 month ago
      Spot on Wolf. That is definitely the case for me. It's not about haphazardly trying to deny anybody anything just for the fun of it. It is about having assurance and peace of mind that if a tenant's pet damages any part of the property then the tenant needs to be responsible for rectification and repair to an acceptable standard. Special clauses in leases to this affect would help ease owners anxiety around this. If the tenant isn't willing to take responsibility for their pet then they shouldn't be signing a lease.
      Hide reply (1)
      • Lynpm about 1 month ago
        There is a very important note to consider. The Act already covers damage but the problem is if it has to go to the tribunal then the magistrate decides and the outcome varies so markedly from case to case. Most insurance companies will only cover costs above the value of the bond so if the Magistrate on the day decides that for example because the carpet is 10 years old it’s ok to have it ruined because it’s time to replace it then the owner will have to pay. It’s the inconsistency of the rulings by the tribunals that cause owners and property managers to be so cautious. Special clauses will not change the workings of the tribunal
  • Wendya about 1 month ago
    I do not think it is appropriate that all rental properties should be allowed to have pets unless the owner is in agreeable. When I say "pets" I am mainly talking about dogs & cats.What if the property is not adequately fenced to contain the pet.What if the dog attacks a property manager or tradesperson or anyone attending the property who were not aware there was a dog there.What if someone attending is allergic & has a severe reaction & they were not aware there was a pet at the property.Of course there are other pets which possibly do not necessarily need approval, this would be birds & fish (depending on the tank size) & perhaps any other simular animal. When it comes to pets like snakes, it would be a "nice to know" for people entering, but shouldn't need to be approved.It should be the owner's choice, it is their property after all & they deserve to make the decision.
    Hide Replies (2)
    • Jac1 about 1 month ago
      No one should enter the property unless first advising the tenant and making suitable arrangements.
      Hide reply (1)
      • Wendya about 1 month ago
        Yes Jac1, that is correct however the amount of times our property managers go to properties to do routine inspections (entry notice sent) & dogs are not restrained is unbelievable.
  • Kimmy78 about 1 month ago
    Pets should be allowed at all rental properties. If the pets destroy the property then the tenants should pay the cost to fix .I am in a rental and would love to have pets for my kids but our landlord wont allow us to.
  • katel 2 months 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
    Hide Replies (3)
    • foxje 2 months 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!).
      Hide reply (1)
      • Talon about 2 months ago
        Except that rental properties used to be much more pet friendly. There has been a steep decline. At current trend it will continue to decline. I wonder how much the changes in demographic of IP owners is pushing the downward trend.
    • LisaB about 1 month ago
      Hi Katel,If you were to pay a pet bond of 1.5 times the monthly rent on top of your regular bond I would allow pets. You would get the money back at the end of your lease assuming there was no damage. This is how much it costs me every time I allow pets from the damage. Is it fair that I have to pay for a tenants pet damage? It's unfair on you too that other tenants' pets cause this type of damage and make us say no to everyone. Your pet may be perfectly behaved but due to others that don't we can't take the risk as it's too costly. Sorry.
  • LisaB about 1 month ago
    It should absolutely be at the discretion of the home owner whether a tenant should be allowed to have pets, unless they bring in a mandatory pet bond of $1.5 times the monthly rent plus the tenant gets pet insurance to cover any accidents.Every time I allow pets there is a huge amount of damage costing me thousands of dollars. One dog chewed up the Termite reticulation system outside and it cost me $3000 to reinstall it and inject with termite solution. I hardly got any compensation from the tenant as they lied and said it was the gardeners lawn mower which was untrue.Another tenant left and got the carpets cleaned professionally. The new tenants could smell cat pee but the agent couldn’t. They insisted and got their own private inspection where it was discovered that the carpets were clean but the underlay had traces of cat pee. So we had to replace the carpet in the whole house. We didn’t get any money as the previous tenant had moved out.Then we said no to pets to a different tenant but the tenants brought in 2 dogs and a cat. The cat scratched and tore up the new carpet in 3 rooms, causing long pulls in brand new carpet. Devastating!! It’s not a power thing to say no. It’s to protect our investment that we work hard for to save and buy so we can afford to keep letting it out to tenants.
  • Monsta 2 months 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.
    Hide Replies (3)
    • foxje 2 months ago
      Hi Monsta, I am not sure these proposed law changes would apply to body corporate by-laws.
    • Talon about 2 months ago
      You could certainly challenge that decision.
    • Underwhelmed about 1 month ago
      Removed by moderator.
  • Rentowner about 1 month ago
    No to dogs they impose too much on neighbours and on the property
  • Ronny about 2 months ago
    All of the extra rights demanded by tenants such as pets and nails in walls, once approved will lead to many long term landlords no longer wanting to be in that business. Less accommodation will be available and at higher rents.
  • Theresa M 2 months 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
    Hide reply (1)
    • Talon about 2 months ago
      I had the same experience with fleas. People never believe me. Tenant in unit next door vacated with her friendly cat. A couple of weeks later my unit got infested with her fleas. It took months to get rid of them. I'm asthmatic and had nowhere to go so could not spray. I had to lay vinegar traps multiple times a day and constantly got eaten everywhere, including on the couch and in bed. It was absolutely awful and as a tenant/neighbour no one could help me. This concerns me greatly as at least half the pets I have encountered have fleas, though that is usually dogs in my experience. Not much is done about tenant noise, that's not true. When they are banging around deliberately trying to harass you the REA never does anything, and that is a tenancy matter not police. But it is quite enough having to deal with bad tenants than having constantly barking dogs and poo in the yard on top of it.
  • Corey8888 2 months 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!
    Hide Replies (5)
    • Tonia2016 2 months 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.
      Hide Replies (4)
      • Myfanwe 2 months 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.
        Hide Replies (3)
        • Tonia2016 2 months 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.
          Hide reply (1)
          • Talon about 2 months ago
            In general, complete pet ban by-laws are ruled as invalid when challenged. This is from the Qld Govt website regarding body corp animal disputes "The complete ban on keeping animals in a community titles schemes has been the subject of numerous dispute resolution applications lodged with us.Since the introduction of section 180(7) of the BCCM Act in 2008 by-laws that have prohibited pets have been consistently ruled as oppressive and unreasonable.In one application, the adjudicator’s order (which supported the no pet by-law) was appealed at the Queensland Commercial and Consumer Tribunal (CCT) (now known as the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal—QCAT).In this case, decided in June 2008, the member of CCT considered whether a by-law that set an absolute ban on all animals was reasonable. He considered a hypothetical situation where an owner sought approval to keep a gold fish, and stated:‘Since there is clearly no rational basis upon which it can be said that the keeping of a gold fish in a safe and healthy environment could be a matter which could cause any difficulty to any other lot owner, yet is the subject of an “absolute” ban, the conclusion is fairly open that such a by-law is “unreasonable”.’Based on that order, adjudicators have consistently found that by-laws that impose a complete ban on animals are invalid." Apologies for the text wall, you'd think allowing paragraphs would be assumed in a forum.
        • Grover 2 months ago
          Removed by moderator.
  • Ronny 2 months ago
    Disabled people due to allergies suffer if they follow a tenant with a dog or cat into a property. There remains either an animal smell or a chemical smell from the cleanup.
    Hide reply (1)
    • Talon about 2 months ago
      Some disabled people need a pet for companionship or other reasons. In fact, disabled people may have an assistance dog or therapy cat and it is against the law to refuse the animals in a rental property. Moving into rentals after pets has not triggered my allergies to both dogs and cats, but the smell in the carpet has offended my nose.
  • Shell75 about 2 months ago
    At my last house I had a dog (outside only) chickens, birds and fish. The owners were very good with me having pets. The real estate was not fore coming. As when I left they made me spray the house for fleas. The dog did not come inside and she had no fleas. The house had also been sprayed for pests about a month before I left.
    Hide Replies (2)
    • Talon about 2 months ago
      It was standard practise if pets were kept on the property, for it to be treated at the expense of the tenant, upon vacating. Been like that for years. People don't think their pets have fleas. Be the person living next door whose property becomes infested because the fleas have hatched next door after the tenant left with doing pest control.
      Hide reply (1)
      • Shell75 about 2 months ago
        My dog still does not have fleas. I treat my dog for fleas all the time as I have a child that is allergic to flea bites.
  • avava about 2 months ago
    Why can't people on low incomes and welfare buy a house. If we are paying off other people's houses, then why can't we pay off our own house. 10 years ago we could have bought a house we were renting for $65,000...we couldn't get a loan, so instead we ended up paying $72.000 in rent...so why are the poor kept poor by never being able to buy, as we could have. All the issues with pets and damage would dissolve if renters could buy a new, clean, cheap house for themselves...OR is it that it is designed that way...that the poor are kept in a powerless situation, because those above them require a large pool of powerless poor to pay for them...as usual...the rich ride on the backs of the poor...that is how they get ahead...whilst making sure the poor never do...sad...isn't it...
    Hide Replies (3)
    • Optimum 28 about 2 months ago
      avava it is common sense that a bank wants its money back and if they deem you to be a high risk then they wont loan money to you for a house, it has nothing to do with investors or keeping one group rich and one poor. I'm sure if you lent a friend money you would expect to get it back from them yes with out interest but if that friend refused to pay it back would you be stupid enough to give them more. My kid were in the same boat when they tried to purchase a house the banks would not loan money to them so i had to go gauenteen for them and if they decided not to pay then i had to or loose my house.
      Hide reply (1)
      • avava about 2 months ago
        Optimum 28 - how can we be high risk when we have already paid off not one house...but several. So, if you have helped your kids financially, to 'get ahead'...then it has everything to do with 'generational financial help' as opposed to 'generational welfare/poverty'...keeping one class in their place, so another class have a better chance of 'getting ahead'...so if you can't see the connection...it is just because you don't want to see it...
    • Cattrack about 2 months ago
      You could try a finance broker. The banks will turn you down, but it's still possible to get a loan through a broker particularly if you have some kind of deposit, show on your bank statements that you have saved at least some amount of money in the past 3 months, and your repayments are withing the budget you currently operate with on paying rent and living costs. Ring around and don't give up if you get turned down because they all have their different criteria.
  • gazza about 2 months ago
    Pets should never be allowed in rental properties
  • Kuzza33 2 months ago
    Our realestate and the landlords of our rental property need to change the rules with being allowed to have any pet when we first moved in 5 years ago we were allowed to have any pet at the property and then the real estate changed hands we were no longer allowed to have certain pets this is why too many animals and pets are landing up in pet rescues and animal shelters because of the unlawful and selfish decisions real estates and landlords make
    Hide Replies (10)
    • Fc35 about 2 months ago
      Kuzza33, an agent or lessor cannot make significant changes to your tenancy agreement without your consent. Check your lease, whatever pets are on your agreement are what you can have.
      Hide Replies (4)
      • Kuzza33 about 2 months ago
        Fc35 since weve been with this realestate that brought raine and horne they have changed alot of things with out our consent ive got old tenancy lease agreements that have what animals we are allowed to have and with the pet thing being ticked but our current property manager wants to agrue and disagree with me about it and now expecting us to do a pet application how ridiculous
        Hide Replies (3)
        • Fc35 about 2 months ago
          Kuzza33, if the agent is requesting details of what pets you have I would give them the information, it’s not unreasonable. Always carefully read any new lease you are offered, if you are not happy with any changes contact the agent to discuss & negotiate an outcome all parties can be happy with. If it’s a significant change and your agent won’t budge contact the RTA for further advice.
          Hide Replies (2)
          • Kuzza33 about 2 months ago
            I have contacted the RTA and they wont do anything for me about the tenancy lease agreement thing and the pet thing
            Hide reply (1)
            • Fc35 about 2 months ago
              Kuzza 33 then there is most likely nothing wrong with the lease agreement,
    • Kevin Belgrove about 2 months ago
      Your story does not add up. If you had a lease with pets approved then no real estate agent not any owner can withdraw what’s already on a lease.If they did in fact do what you have claimed then you would have a bullet proof case against them, through the RTA. So may be you don’t understand your rights as a tenant or there is more to this than what you are claiming?
      Hide Replies (4)
      • Kuzza33 about 2 months ago
        Removed by moderator.
      • Kuzza33 about 2 months ago
        I know what iam talking anout
      • Talon about 2 months ago
        Kevin that is not how it works in Qld. NEW rules can be added/changed on a new lease. So you can rent a property for 10 years and all of a sudden have new terms forbidding pets. The idea of being able to negotiate with the renting agent is like believing in unicorns. If they offer a lease and you want to change a term, usually the ONLY option the tenant has is to not accept the lease, which means being denied tenancy. In 20 years I have never come across an agent who negotiates, they just give you the blanket "You're just a wallet and we don't care about you" lease and if you don't sign you get booted. Even if you do sign, if you later expect some kind of respect, you get booted. Just how it is and this is why we need an overhaul and to bring back the REA Code of Conduct!
        Hide reply (1)
        • avava about 2 months ago
          Talon - just like the attitude of the big banks and any businesses people deal with...they change the rules when they wish...if we don't like it...too bad...they have the power...same with real estate agents/landlords...
  • avava about 2 months ago
    I don't know why landlords insist on carpet in rental properties...and then when the carpets are damaged, they cry about the cost of removal and replacing it. Why have carpet at all. If I were a landlord, I would make sure the rental was easy to maintain and easy to clean...which is very possible. Is carpet used as a good excuse to blame the renters on repairs...oh woe is me...my renters fouled the carpet yet again...I've had to get more...renters are scum. Don't rent to renters. Is it a joke. We've had landlords that have insisted on carpets, even when we have said...'please don't'...and we even had one landlord that wanted to put carpet in the kitchen...I mean...just keep the rental as easy to keep clean as you can...pretty simple really...
    Hide Replies (3)
    • homelesswithpets about 2 months ago
      avava so true👍🏼 Personally I prefer no carpet too even in the bedrooms. I mean this is bloody QLD for gods sake - we don’t need carpet to keep our toes from freezing It’s not like we live in a cold climate. And I agree if I was renting out any properties I would certainly use vinyl or tiles. If they want to move in to the property many years down the track and they wanted carpet then that’s when they should carpet the property not whilst it’s used as an investment property. And that’s another point to bring up: so many landlords on here are claiming that they’re going to be moving into their properties later on and I’m pretty damn sure that the likelihood of them NOT doing any form of Reno (even only relatively minor like flooring or paint change) before living there is most likely LOW. There is a good chance that what they considered good quality or fashionable at the time of renting out the property would have changed in at least some areas. Also the property would have been through the usual wear and tear of a place that has been lived in. So I think their arguments on that point are moot and very much invalid. Perhaps they consider their properties to be museum pieces not homes for others alongside the way. I have even heard of real estate agents being told by the owners of their properties to move the tenants on after a certain amount of time because then that ensures a full and proper clean is done as well as the chance to do maintenance regularly.
      Hide reply (1)
      • avava about 2 months ago
        homelesswithpets - carpet is just another excuse to blame the renters...'oh, we had to remove the carpet and buy more, all at our expense, the smell was horrendous'...well...why get more, carpet is really bad for asthmatics and people with allergies and it is hard to clean properly and it is a great place for bugs to breed. Create a simple open, easy to clean rental and you will get that back...pretty simple really. Yes, true, every landlord we have had have said that they will be moving into the house in a few years...never happens because they lie to you, because they just see the renter as the sucker paying their house off for them...and yes, all those good quality fixtures/furnishings/etc may have been fashionable and new 15 renters ago...but it is falling apart now...of course things will only be renovated when it can be written off on tax. and again, yes...moving renters on and making them spend their entire bond on a bond clean and then not wanting to give them their original bond back because a 40 year old carpet smells...We had one real estate agent who insisted the carpet be cleaned and the carpet cleaner said it would fall to pieces if it was cleaned...they still took our bond money, to get second hand off cuts laid, so they could blame the new renters for stains/marks on the carpet...whilst insisting that new carpet was laid...and even when maintenance is done, it is usually the home owner and his dodgy tool box...and don't forget all the mowing and yard work that has to be done...really the landlord should be paying the renters, because we are maintaining their properties...at our expense...we are paying for all our bills, they certainly don't. We have had to fix locks and doors and windows, not even an offer of a reimbursement...when those problems were built mid last century, we have to pay for and upgrade and maintain their property...yet...how dare we ask that our beloved animals live with us...yet again, just the pompous elite, making sure those below them never get ahead...
    • Talon about 2 months ago
      Some tenants like carpet. Carpet is pretty normal to have in a property. You can rent really really really old dives if you don't like carpet, they have lino and are so small it would be easy upkeep. My only issue with carpet is when the cheap junk is installed and it is impossible to clean, like the China stuff with indents that you have to use your hands to pick tiny flecks of grass or paper out of because the vacuum can't pick it up after 7 passes or more. I would hate to see that with pets! That and 30 year old shaggy carpet..should have to be replaced. But otherwise, having Raynaud's disease which makes my hands and feet burn from the cold, I really appreciate the owner of the property I am borrowing (renting) having carpet for me to enjoy.
  • Dan94 2 months 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.
    Hide Replies (13)
    • Ky 2 months 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.
      Hide Replies (11)
      • Dan94 2 months ago
        Removed by moderator.
        Hide Replies (10)
        • homelesswithpets 2 months 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
          Hide Replies (8)
          • Dan94 2 months 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 2 months 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.
            Hide Replies (6)
            • Dan94 2 months 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.
              Hide Replies (3)
              • Cathe_78 2 months ago
                Removed by moderator.
              • Optimum 28 about 2 months ago
                Not sure were you are getting your calcs from but the last time i spoke to my accountant the best option is to borrow 100% for investment properties. Give me your number and i will send my tax to you for next year as you should be able to get back a motza for me.
              • Grover about 2 months ago
                Multiple investment properties. Not under mortgage stress. Have enough money to cover any unforseen circumstances. Treat my tenants with respect and fix any problems that arise asap. Just resigned tenants to another two year lease to take their time in that property to four years with no rent increase. Have long term tenants in all but one of my property's. Don't think I have bad business sense. I deal in facts not assumptions and innuendo.
            • homelesswithpets 2 months 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.
            • Optimum 28 about 2 months ago
              Grover full agree with you if the shoe was on the other foot they would be different.
        • Kevin Belgrove about 2 months ago
          That’s why most owned don’t bad attitude tenants. Pets or no pets.
    • me tooo about 2 months ago
      you as a tenant was told no pets !bad tenant !
  • me tooo about 2 months ago
    if an owner wants restrictions they should be allowed.it is their property .They own that property .if you want to have use of that property be aware they are not instantly making a fortune .THEY are paying a lot more than you in yearly costs in the off chance they might increase the value amount they have in the property . we were on a low income and bought our rental property .our tenant wanted a dog which we allowed.we had added security screens as they asked as well as other improvements the dog destroyed the brand new screens as well as doors and the garden and carpets and left fleas and dreadful smell we could not get rid of .If the law demands that renters have pets there will be less people willing to own rental properties . This will lead to a shortage in the market.We have another property that we will not allow pets. If the Law changes we will sell rather than pay the damage that pets can do.
  • Judith about 2 months ago
    We traveled caravanning with our pet I put it to several managers that they could have a card no tick pets and ownersBehaviour.many dogs and owners cause no problems,unfortunately some do.We rented a house with dog being able to be outside,after owners gave permission for her to be inside.When we left due to improving property ,they sold .As well as us getting a glowing reference they gave our dog her own.I believe this helped us to get our next place and again they sold.We now have another with dog permission.We are in late seventies and find it extremely difficult moving due to ill health.We can't get public housing a ex police pension just over allowed amount.We get angry when we see tenant destroy property then get another.So why not have pet reference. Does it bark ,destroy property, is owner responsible etc.
    Hide Replies (2)
    • Susan Green about 2 months ago
      I agree
    • Talon about 2 months ago
      Because pet references are not always legitimate. It's just like personal references, where some tenants use friends to lie for them. Your age may have some influence on being allowed a dog. I know some REAs would bend for aged people but not anyone else.
  • Cleocattra about 2 months ago
    I’m in the minority, I’m sure, being a tenant who actually never wants to rent a property that’s had dogs living inside. You can’t get rid of the smell. Dogs belong outside. I know a lot of owners’ interest in this argument is purely from a damage point of view because a lot would have dogs inside their own homes too. I don’t care about damage. I care about the smell.The owner should decide if they want pets in their property and tenants who don’t want to rent a property that’s previously had dogs inside, for example, should have a reasonable pool of properties to choose from that fits that bill.
    Hide Replies (4)
    • Fc35 about 2 months ago
      Boom, you hit the nail right on the head & people feel the same way as you, another reason why ultimately the owner should have the final say over their own property. I've been into properties that I know for a fact the tenant has not had a pet & there's that doggy odour, its worse on rainy days and near impossible to remove. I have always had pets but have never allowed my large dog onto the carpet, if tenants wish to have pets inside they should be prepared to replace the carpet when they vacate. And I would never want my babies and young children laying on carpets knowing dogs had been on them previously.
      Hide Replies (2)
      • Cleocattra about 2 months ago
        I have a friend who has two dogs who have the run of the house including sleeping on beds. I hate even sitting on her sofas when I visit let alone eating at her place.
        Hide reply (1)
        • Fc35 about 2 months ago
          Cleopatra, I love my pets but that is just gross.
    • Talon about 2 months ago
      Sometimes the agent's go to the property to open the windows before you pick up the keys, to get rid of the smell. Then it's not until later you start to realise pets have been kept inside. I have a stinky bedroom currently from a dog being kept in there. Been here for years and the smell is still awful. Those tenants had been removed by the police so I assume no recourse for the owner, and they didn't know the dog was inside. If I had family in there and didn't use it for storage I can't imagine how much it would cost the owner to fix.
  • Nushy 2 months ago
    The availability of pet friendly rentals limits your rental choices to almost nothing, although it seems to be improving lately.No problem with being asked to pay a pet bond, but when it comes to bond cleaning, it ads to the price of your normal bond clean which is becoming exhorbatant as you are forced to use the agents bond cleaners.
    Hide Replies (6)
    • Fc35 about 2 months ago
      Nushy, it is illegal for an agent/lessor to require you to purchase goods or services as part of the rental agreement, that is they cannot make you use any particular cleaner, it is up to you who you use or if you choose to do the cleaning yourself. And yes the RTA are prosecuting for this.
      Hide Replies (5)
      • Nushy about 2 months ago
        Fc35, thing is, when using your own bond cleaners, I’ve found that the standard is never good enough and you are forced to get the bond cleaners in again to redo work (eg venetian blinds that were not cleaned to agents standards, even though they were properly cleaned). I have a feeling it’s because the agents bond cleaners weren’t used, which quoted around $200 more for the job. Another thing, it seems unacceptable to do the bond cleaning yourself these days. This could save you between $500 and $800, yes $800 for a 3 bedroom townhouse) plus $160 for pet bond cleaning. It’s just getting crazy.
        Hide Replies (4)
        • Fc35 about 2 months ago
          Nushy, there are so many rouge cleaners out there, and everyone wants a ‘cheap’ cleaner. Cleaning like mowing requires no trade qualifications, there is no agency or body to complain to if you get ripped off. Always best to go with trusted recommendations & ask for a guarantee, any reputable cleaner will go back if things have been missed.
          Hide reply (1)
          • Qld renter about 2 months ago
            But most people are able to a an absolutely fine job themselves. The bond gets completely eaten up every time you move in professional cleaning. I am the granddaughter of a cleaner who was in the business for 30 years and do a very good job cleaning myself yet agents repeatedly make excuses for making you use a cleaner, which pretty much eats up your bond. I had an agent tell me I still left dust and had used a dirty mop. I took video of me going back and using a white cloth to prove there was no dust and a doing another mop with a brand new out of the packaging mop....she still claimed we needed to use a cleaner to go back for the third time even though the house was spotless.
        • Qld renter about 2 months ago
          This happens over and over again, you are so right!
        • Talon about 2 months ago
          The only reason to use the REA's bond cleaner is so they cannot whinge after the fact. It's their cleaner so they need to take it up with who they chose to appoint as their nominated mob. I think many bond cleaners are lazy, you see them whip in and out in 3 hours for a 3 bedroom apartment and you know they didn't even touch the walls, look at the ceiling or tops of cupboards and never went near the door and window tracks. The only way to know it's done to a satisfactory standard is to do it yourself. Good thing is at least in Qld the tenant can submit the bond refund form themselves, so if you cleaned great, submit. If they complain and make up "dust" which is very very common, tell them to take you to QCAT, they go away as they have no leg to stand on. They just do this to threaten tenants into giving up bond. This is why we need the Code of Conduct to be reinstated for REAs.
  • Andrew15432 2 months ago
    1. If a landlord cannot refuse to lease to parents of children, they should have no power to deny pet owners the opportunity to have their animal. 2. In the age where properrty investors are given priority over would-be homeowners if prices were not sky-high due to afiresaid investors (created through various tax incentives and negative gearing particularly), the would-be homeowners should not be denied the chance to own an animal because the investor doesn’t like them.3. I believe that the Victorian approach should be adopted with the additional allowance for Landlords to demand a pet bond if a pet is ownered by the tenant. This is fair to compensate for the risk of damage, and to keep the onus on the tenant to ensure the property is kept in proper condition.
    Hide Replies (2)
    • winnie4506 about 2 months ago
      I think children and pets are no comparison. I like the idea of a pet bond though.
    • Talon about 2 months ago
      Hate the idea of a pet bond as it discriminates against poor people. But absolutely agree that children are as bad if not worse than pets. Would be fantastic to have a psych eval for parents before renting to them. Only thing worse than the barking dogs around here are the neglectful parents screaming at their kids who then scream at their siblings. Don't ever expect to have dinner in your home in peace.
  • hilary graham about 2 months ago
    I have owned rental properties in QLD and NSW, and always allowed pets with no problems.
    Hide reply (1)
    • Grover about 2 months ago
      I have five rental property's in Qld and have had them for years. Some are new. I have had damage from Dogs, cats in every house except one of them. I live in probably the worst house of all the ones I own and it is devastating to look at a property that went from shiny , new and gleaming to being left dirty after just twelve months. This being due to the tenants and the animals they had in them. I find this very hard to believe based on my own personal experience as an owner of rental properties.
  • Talon about 2 months ago
    It's extremely hard to rent with pets in Queensland. In my experience there is basically a flat out ban on pets in most unit rentals, agents and LLs won't even enter into a discussion. It's very hard even to have a small bird! I had to beg a PM to do a deal with me to have my cockatiel, which was if anyone complained about him in the first month I had to get rid of him. There were no complaints and I knew there wouldn't be because he was good, but to be threatened with having to "get rid of" the only friend you have is really vile. I'm all for agents purging bad pets from rentals if they damage the property or are a nuisance to neighbours, but assuming ANY pet is going to be that way is ridiculous. This is why so many people sneak pets in, because they have no other choice (unless we expect ALL people, owners included) to get rid of their pets.It would be more helpful to have flexibility in allowing pets and then address issues as they arise, including eviction for negligent or malicious damage as already applies to tenants themselves. Pet bonds don't really work as they disadvantage poor people, and those who are terrible pet owners (and terrible people) cause more damage than a bond will cover. It should also be taken into account what type of pet (including size and needs) and the type of property (eg a big dog is not appropriate in a 1brm unit with no yard).
  • sandram about 2 months ago
    not allowed pets, in most houses I've rented, real estate says no pets from start
  • LaurenF 2 months ago
    My beautiful placid non destructive pet dog of 12 years is dying of cancer. My new lease restricts her to outside pet only.
    Hide Replies (5)
    • Cattrack 2 months 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.
      Hide Replies (4)
      • LaurenF 2 months 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.
        Hide Replies (2)
        • Cattrack 2 months 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.
          Hide reply (1)
          • Van 2 months ago
            I agree with you that agents can act as walls between landlords and tenants, and I believe that many problems renters and landlords encounter could be solved if only they could communicate directly.
      • Optimum 28 about 2 months ago
        Not the landlords problem with supplying protection under any animal protection law it is the owners responsibility, and the landlords right to specify what happens with their house.
  • dolphnisrule about 2 months ago
    I am a pet lover and my pets are well looked after I would hate to be told by my landlord that I can no longer have my pets. Another statistic of animal dumping this is a huge problem as it is. To the person complaining about cat pee in the carpet well then to me sounds like those tenants aren't very good with owning cats. I have a cat and she uses her litter box and she has always got access to her litter box she does not go anywhere else inside the house to do her business. It gets cleaned regularly. Maybe a suggestion remove all carpet and just have tiled floors problem solved. That way if there are accidents it can easily be disinfected and mopped up. I think that would be a much easier solution for all rental properties is to have no carpets at all. In govt housing tenants have to supply their own floor coverings.
    Hide Replies (7)
    • Kazzy about 2 months ago
      Dolphinsrule.......Great idea in theory but not all homes are suitable to be tiled and in the case of some beautiful old character Qlders, tiling the whole house will actually devalue the property. And who bears the cost to do this?
      Hide reply (1)
      • dolphnisrule about 2 months ago
        In DOH tenants are responsible for all flooring costs except in the kitchen and wet areas. Then old Qlder homes are timber flooring so dont need to be carpeted. I honestly dont see problem with it at all. It would be lot more healthier and fresh not affect people who are asthmatics and allergy sufferers having carpet.
    • dolphnisrule about 2 months ago
      People complain about pet smells, umm well yeah what about the people the smoke and the stench from that you cant get old filthy stale of cigarette smell out of homes and the discolouration it has on paint turning it yellow. The world's turning into full of moaners that moan about everything.
      Hide Replies (2)
      • Fc35 about 2 months ago
        The majority of leases now stipulate NO smoking inside. The tenant would be up for extra cleaning if they do and there is smokers residue.
      • Optimum 28 about 2 months ago
        Removed by moderator.
    • jollybear about 2 months ago
      I love my pets too. I have 2 dogs. But over the year we have had to refuse pets on our investment property mainly because the damage that has been done by previous tenants pets. Having tiles on the floor is a great idea but if the floors dont have tiles already, its a big exoense to put them in. There appears to be an assumption that all landlords have plenty of money.
    • Fc35 about 2 months ago
      The thing is a lot of people want carpets in the bedrooms at the very least, new spec homes also come with carpet. Tenants should simply respect the 'no pets inside' or the very least keep them on washable surfaces only.
  • Dirst 2 months ago
    I moved in with one cat and was approved in my application to have a cat. I have been here nearly three years and slowly my cat number has increased due to my disabled 19yr old daughter bringing free kittens home. At one point we had four But one passed away and we now have three. The landlord hasn’t been informed as we take care of them and you don’t even notice we have three cats. Kitty litter and vacuuming done daily. I don’t see why it matters if I have one or three. I was approved to have an indoor/outdoor cat so number doesn’t matter as long as they are cared for and not damaging property (which would be noticed in routine inspections)
    Hide Replies (5)
    • Teresa 2 months ago
      The next occupant may have an allergy to cats and the protein they leave behind cannot be seen. As a result they would sign up a lease move in then get very sick. As a Property Manager this is very difficult to say as I love cats but who would be responsible once your bond has been refunded to rehome the tenant with no penalty as the landlord and owner were not aware of this potential issue as you have not informed them you have the cats?
    • ruralsue 2 months ago
      I have a severe allergy to cats that can lead to a hospital visit. People who do not declare their pets is one of the reasons landlords do not allow pets on the initial lease. Additional what type of example is your dishonesty by omission setting for your children. The comment of why can't I have as many as I want seems rather entitled.If I am an owner why then am I not entitled to say no pets?What happens if the new tenants get ill when you leave? Will you be responsible? Unfortunately it is likely to be the unaware owner who is likely to be at fault who would then need to do a costly legal pursuit of the previous tenant.
      Hide Replies (2)
      • Dirst 2 months ago
        In my first sentence I stated I was approved for a cat when I first applied so I am not lying or being deceitful about having a cat. So in terms of your allergy whether one or three cats was in this property your symptoms wouldn’t be any different.
        Hide reply (1)
        • Optimum 28 about 2 months ago
          Dirst That is why landlords don't allow pets because some tenants cannot be trusted to abide by the lease and do the right thing.
    • Fc35 about 2 months ago
      Removed by moderator.
  • Allison about 2 months ago
    Pets should be allowed without need for someone else to decide how big, what breed etc. The law states tenants are responsible for any damage incurred regardless. If the dog or cat is too loud it is a neighbour and community matter and should be treated as such. If noise restriction laws are broken for barking or pet disturbance it should be reported to local authorities such as the police or council. The landlords should not be involved in such matters as they are not the police or council. If they wish to negotiate a shorter lease for fear of judgement from neighbours then they should do so andthats fine and move back in themselves as that is another reason landlords have too much power.
  • cantab about 2 months 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.
    Hide Replies (10)
    • foxje about 2 months ago
      I am a landlord and I agreee totally! I think agents can be a serious issue and can play off the owner against the tenant. I would be in favour of a regulation requiring that agents must pass on an application or request to the owner if requested by a tenant or prospective tenant.
      Hide Replies (5)
      • Fc35 about 2 months ago
        fozje, agents are required to pass on information to the owner. If yours is not it time to find a new agent, or manage it yourself.
        Hide Replies (3)
        • foxje about 2 months ago
          Hi Fc35 I manage myself, so I am not sure of what is required, I didn’t think it was a strict requirement to pass on everything? Ie does EVERY application have to be sent to owner? Or does the agent simply have to inform the owners that they received an application or more broadly, keep the owner informed as to how things are going....
          Hide Replies (2)
          • Fc35 about 2 months ago
            Foxje, all applicants should be presented to the owner for consideration, ultimately the owner has final say and needs to be comfortable about who is renting their property.
            Hide reply (1)
            • Kevin Belgrove about 2 months ago
              By the time the owner reads over the application and ponders for a while the tenant has already found another property and the owner misses out on a good tenant. Tenants are not just making applications on one property, they put in multi applications and they expect a quick response. And a good agent dies just that.
      • Kevin Belgrove about 2 months ago
        Maybe you should do the job yourself and manage your own property -
    • Zoroon about 2 months ago
      Re Previously having a long term pet. Suggest present verifiable evidence of this to rental agent and >>ask<< to be presented to owner. ie that you did rent there and owners phone number. I know as a previous owner, this verifiable evidence would help change my mind.
    • Kevin Belgrove about 2 months ago
      I find your comments very strange. For a start if the owner did approve a pet then the property ad would have stated “Pets on approval” or “pet friendly”?
      Hide Replies (2)
      • foxje about 2 months ago
        Hi Kevin, Perhaps, but it sounds like often owners will just say “no pets” as a default, because they’ve had a bad experience. If someone was willing to push a bit further and provide solid evidence that they are very low risk despite having pets, that same owner may be willing to look at them, despite being “no pets” by default. After all, no owner wants a place vacant and losing money. Cheers
        Hide reply (1)
        • Kevin Belgrove about 2 months ago
          We had one like this were the tenants had excellent references for thier two small outside dogs so we approved them in that basis. When they moved out they had the carpets professionally cleaned with receipts and their bond fully returned. New tenant moved in and within the first week they complained that thier 7 month old crawling baby had dog hair on her hands and clothing. I personally inspected the property and found the same so I was left paying for another clean. Two weeks later the tenant complains about it again so again I attend the property and sure enough the problem was better but I still had to pay for another clean. So here we have excellent references for outside dogs living 100% inside and the owner having to pay for something they should have to pay for. By the way I contacted the previous tenant and told them of the situation however they were not interested in paying for the extra cleans and stated that the dogs were hardly ever inside and besides we never had a problem with any dog hair. At the end of the day it should always be up to the owner to decide.
  • winnie4506 about 2 months ago
    With the recent changes to legislation about tenants no longer having to provide a receipt to show that they got professional pest management or carpet cleaning done on vacating the premises I am very reluctant to let people with pets move in. Once again the minority of pet owners who let there pets tear up carpet, chew door frames & do their business inside the house are the ones who ruin it for everyone else. Have you have tried to get the ammonia smell from cat urine out of a house? Good luck!
  • Qld renter about 2 months ago
    There seems to be a lot of resentment here between the ‘haves’ and ‘have nots’. Why people rent is a decision based around their personal finances and family situation. It has nothing to do with the quality of an individual person and landlords who think renters rent because they are lessor or lazy people are ignorant of maths and life. Tenants that resent their landlords for making them ‘pay their mortgage’ are ignorant of the need for investors who provide the homes they are able to live in while saving for their own, or for people who are unable to work and save due to disability. The facts are this - we are all reliant on each other and it isn’t fair to treat people like garbage or tell them they can’t have a decent home just because they have a pet, especially if they are a single person living on their own (which isn’t always a choice either, finding housemates online can be dangerous). Unless you come from a family that has at least one owned property that you can live at while saving to buy your own and that home is large enough and safe enough (eg no abuse etc) for you to be there, most people will need to rent before saving the money to buy. No one can tell me that over the entirety of QLD moving in with family rent free to save a home deposit is an option for the majority of people. You can also not assume that every buyer is in a couple, or has a family member or friend willing to buy with, so you must calculate as a single buyer. A single person will also need a full time, permanent position making at least $70-75k to buy a small unit close to the CBD or a house an hr away from the CBD and will need to save a deposit of at least $15-25k to do this. They will also need to be approved for a mortgage. This can take years. My point is, can we move away from judging each other and just put controls in place to allow people to have a pet? Most people will be happy to fix any damage a pet might make and if taken care of they don’t make any more mess than a small child would anyway, most kids draw on walls and need to be trained to use the toilet as well. I guarantee you half the properties that are saying no to pets currently have pets residing there and being hidden. Let’s just put some controls in place and bring it out into the open.
  • LindaK about 2 months ago
    Pets are to the discretion of the property owner
  • Michelle2018 about 2 months ago
    I think property owners should be allowed to decide whether or not pets are allowed. I own pets myself, know the damage our beloved animals do around the home and the cost of that damage. I do not think it is fair on property owners that they take a risk on other tenants pets. If forced to do so there would need to be clauses in the lease, such as replacing carpet, screens, curtains etc, ruined by pets though urine, or scratching, or whatever other damage the pets cause.
  • Dozer54 about 2 months ago
    Removed by moderator.
  • Dozer54 about 2 months ago
    No Pets
  • Von about 2 months ago
    Pets are part of families and families come in all shapes and sizes and they rent. There are bad and good in every bunch; tenants with or without pets, Agents and Landlords. Pets should be allowed with provisions. We rent and have a large dog that does not enter the house. I also would not like a dog inside the house because of the smell. Its not a one size fits all. I am OCD about cleanliness and have a big dog that lives outside. The issue is about responsible pet owners like responsible tenants. The issues of big dogs not under 10 kg really irritates me also. If my dog is 30 kg but lives outside and never enters the house how is this worse than a little under 10kg dog who lives inside the house on carpet etc? My dog is quiet well trained gets walked everyday and in fact many don't even know we have a dog living with us. Its about being a responsible pet owners what ever size your dog is!
  • Teapot 2 months 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.
    Hide Replies (18)
    • homelesswithpets 2 months ago
      Removed by moderator.
    • homelesswithpets 2 months 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
      Hide Replies (10)
      • Optimum 28 2 months 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.
        Hide Replies (9)
        • robboat 2 months 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.
          Hide Replies (4)
          • homelesswithpets 2 months 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
            Hide Replies (3)
            • foxje 2 months 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.
              Hide Replies (2)
              • homelesswithpets 2 months 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.
                Hide reply (1)
                • avava about 2 months ago
                  homelesswithpets - I agree, real estate agents are very dodgy...We asked the real estate agent for another lease of a year, for a bit of added security, but they didn't give us one. They preferred to keep us on a monthly one, giving us no security. The house next door became vacant and we gave notice and moved...well...wasn't the real estate agent man really angry...obviously he had been telling the owners that we had a lease and charging them for that...then he was caught out and had to admit he was a liar...but then he was out to punish us...he didn't want to give us our bond back, which was all done professionally...(basically you have to pay out your entire bond in cleaning fees, to get your bond back - something landlords/real estate agents don't want to acknowledge...which is why many people just leave, because they can't afford to pay out a bond, to try and get a bond back...). Anyway, due to the pest spraying, some dying flies pooed on the walls and fell dead onto the floor...The real estate agent said the house was disgusting and he wanted it all done again...We had dealt with all the cleaners before from our last few moves and we told them what he said...one couple in particular were livid...why...because the real estate agent owed them a lot of money from work they had done and not been paid for...needless to say...we got our bond back and the house was let with no further cleaning...just shows you what deceitful grubs many real estates are...and I have had renter friends tell me that their real estate agents have told them that 'they are second class citizens and should just stfu...because they should be grateful that the wonderful landlords are letting them live here'...wtf...disgusting...We have also heard that real estate agents have talked amongst themselves and resolved to not give people their bonds back...that sounds like collusion to me...anything done about it...NO...and of course then we have TICA...their favourite way to make life hell for renters. Is there a TICA that renters can warn other renters about real estate agents or landlords...I doubt it...because we are in a powerless position, one of just paying off their house, keeping their yard and house clean, but basically having no rights...SO...yes...we should be allowed pets...why should we heartbreakingly have to get rid of our beloved pets...because some bitter person prefers money over love...
        • homelesswithpets 2 months 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 2 months ago
          Children are just as destructive
          Hide reply (1)
          • Tammy N 2 months ago
            Yes and I have applied for rental properties only to be told that the landlord will not accept children. Pets are not the only restriction for some properties. I looked at a four bedroom home once and when I asked for the application I was informed that there were to be no children.
        • JaniceAC 2 months 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 2 months 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
      Hide Replies (2)
      • Tammy N 2 months ago
        I currently live in a property that has a lease saying strictly no pets. I still have to deal with 3 cats that live in the neighbourhood. they all try to enter the house when the door is opened, they fight in my back yard, they claw at the screens on the doors. I know I am going to have to fix screens when I move and I don't even own the animals responsible. By saying no to pets you are not protecting your property from irresponsible owners. If you have responsible owners they will not allow pets to wander and will keep them home.
        Hide reply (1)
        • homelesswithpets 2 months ago
          Tammy N well said👍🏼 And add to that barking dogs in neighbouring owner occupied properties interfering with peace and enjoyment or those in rentals as well. There are many sides to the coin and it’s not only bad tenants that are responsible. But of course it’s so much easier to take aim at tenants isn’t it🤔
    • Francesca 2 months 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.
      Hide Replies (2)
      • Optimum 28 2 months ago
        Francesca, Yes there are responsible tenants out there that will do the right thing with pets but for every responsible owner there are quite a lot more that aren't. Just one irresponsible pet owner can cause a substantial cost to the landlord which is hard to recoup unless the rent is put up or maintenance is limited, This is life who do you think pays for theft in shops you the shopper do, so the bad tenants are the ones that have created the cost rises and refusal of pets. You guys that are down on landlords that refuse pets should be pushing that anger towards the tenants that have caused this situation in the first place.
        Hide reply (1)
        • Francesca 2 months ago
          Optimum 28As I said, children can be just as; if not more destructive. I would prefer pet owners as tenants.
  • Kevin Belgrove 2 months ago
    As a landlord with six well maintained properties it should be up to me to allow pets or not. I have allowed 1 pet on occasions after being told the dog was only small and friendly. Then find out they had two vicious dogs and a cat!When questioned they said that the other pets were only being minded yet they were always there. Also the property manager could not inspect the property unless the tenant was home. Also had trouble having trades people attend maintenance issues as again the tenant had to be present to control the dogs. With a lot of the properties the tenants would leave pet food outside which attracted ants and cockroaches etc then demand me to pay for a pest spray!Another time a cat urinated in a bedroom then the tenant vacated and all seemed good until the next tenant moved in and complained that after it rained there was a horrible smell in the bedroom that could not be fixed until the carpet was replace. Now who do you think paid for this ?Another problem is dog tracks in the lawn. The dog was not exercised hence huge tracks were left in the lawn. The problem is also when new tenants see the lawn like that then they turn away from the unsightly appearance. Then we have to wait for the tenant to move out completely and fix the problem as what the tenant did was to buy some cheap turf and just place it on top of the tracks without preparing the ground first of course it died so who paid?Not the tenant. Now you wonder why we do not allow pets in our properties!
    Hide reply (1)
    • Fc35 about 2 months ago
      Kevin Belgrove, this is exactly why a lot of owners do not want pets in their properties, and this type of thing happens way too often.
  • Pierina about 2 months ago
    A tenant had a dog which scratched and chewed around the doorway trying to get out. The tenant did fix the damage but if the dog was kept outside this could have been avoided. I do not agree pets should be left inside if no one is there to supervise.
  • Fay about 2 months ago
    Mostly over 50 years tenants have been excellent with pets but cats can scratch and claw walls and furnishings, dogs have urinated and left faeces in the home. I am satisfied with the property manager having control with the lease whereby I am asked to give permission and the tenant is not to bring other pets into the home without permission.
  • oseyis about 2 months ago
    Having worked in the veterinary industry it is devasting when families are forced to put their pet to sleep because they can't find a rental property that allows pets. These are always beautiful, well cared for and much loved family pets, who often can't find new homes if they are senior or have a medical condition. I think if owners and property managers were made to attend some of these devastatingly sad events they would begin to see how important pets are in many families. These situtations are especially traumatic for children and elderly people.
  • Sperse about 2 months ago
    If pets are to be kept on the property, firstly the owner should be informed and then only if the conditions allowing pets is mutually agreed upon.
  • Concerned owner 2 months ago
    I had a no pet policy on my house - the tenants got a cat for their daughter without our knowledge - you can never get the smell of pet pee out of the carpet unless you replace the carpet - this is in breach of the contract, we had to balance having a good tenant in a poor rental market with allowing them to keep it to keep them. We agreed they could keep it as it was the child's pet as long as it was kept outside. I know for a fact that they don't do this. Is it their right or the owners right as we are the ones left to foot the bill for replacing carpets at the end of their tenancy. This could increase the cost of insurance significantly for owners and therefore rent for the tenants. Why can't people just live by the rules especially if they are living in someone else's house?
    Hide Replies (7)
    • Tara10 2 months ago
      Because some people are desperate for a roof over their (and their pets) heads. I've applied for so many houses and the moment you say you have pets they disregard you. Yes I have 2 dogs. But they have never caused damage, they are good dogs. But because of a minority of people who have let their pets go wild in the house (but lets be honest, those type of people would have trashed the house anyway without the pets) we're on the verge of being homeless. I pray daily that some one will give us a chance. The stress is killing me, I can't take it much longer, I even considered suicide with my pets. The house I'm in now, there is so much damage, on the walls, paint and texter on the carpet, things smashed, curtains ruined, screens ruined, this was all cause by people, but you want to blame pets? I just can't understand why people like that will get a place, but a clean person like me won't because I have pets? If I haven't found a place week after next, I will have no other choice but to lie and say I don't have pets. What else can I do?? My pets bring me joy and help with depression and prevent suicide, what else can I do??
      Hide reply (1)
      • Concerned owner 2 months ago
        Tara10, I feel for your situation and I urge you to contact someone to discuss your issues and stressful situation you are in. There is always someone that can help. The house you are in sounds dreadful and the owners should also have it up to a standard for living in (this means they should also play by the rules also). I know how important pets are and how they assist our mental health - I have a dog and as much as he would love to live inside with us, he can't as we are also in a rental - we moved out of our home for my husband's work and plan on returning to our home one day so would like it looked after in the meantime. And our tenants do a great job - just annoyed by the sneaky way this was done. You need to be upfront and not lie about your pets (as this will breach a tenancy agreement and will get you kicked out) but maybe make an arrangement to keep them outside? As you said you are a good tenant so I'm sure you will find somewhere for all of you. Please talk to someone about your situation. Help is always available.
    • avava about 2 months ago
      Concerned owner - you don't have to replace carpets...there are many products out there that get rid of pet smells, it is a huge business, a good one is urine free...Really, I hear this cry so often, always saying carpets have to be replaced...the tenants and pets are so horrible...the reality is...get a good carpet cleaner who does a good job and the pet odour will be gone...end of story...
      Hide Replies (2)
      • Pam4 about 2 months ago
        Products to remove smells may work in some cases but in severe situations the urine soaks into the underlay and even into the floor underneath it making replacement essential. Often the odor only becomes really bad when the carpets have been wet through cleaning as the smell has been "reactivated". I have had this issue with both pet and human urine as a property manager.
      • Fc35 about 2 months ago
        Actually no, this is not always the case, once urine has soaked through carpet into the underlay and finally into the concrete slab or floorboards the lot needs to be replaced. The slab or floorboards need to be sanitised and deodorised before new underlay & carpet is layed. Initially upon cleaning and deodorising it may seem to be fine but once dry the smell and stains appear.
    • dolphnisrule about 2 months ago
      Dont have carpet in your rental properties problem solved.
      Hide reply (1)
      • Fc35 about 2 months ago
        Be a responsible pet owner- problem solved.
  • Debbie Russell about 2 months ago
    This should be totally up to the land lord if they would like pets within their property. There is an issue with fleas and treatment of pest the care of the animal by the tenant and the cleanliness of the property while renting with a pet.As a home owner it is essential that the tenants have their furry friends and as a property manager I will advocate for the tenant with the owner so they can have their pet.HOWEVER as a tenant if you want your pet in a rental property then you must be prepared to ensure of the following - 1. cleanliness of the property is to a extremely high standard (no pet smells/ overflowing Litter trays inside or dog poo in the back yards).2. pet is kept clean - if the owner requests that it stays out side then this should happen.3. treatment of fleas \ pests upon infestation; or ensure that this is completed at end of tenancy.4. Replace any items that have been damaged by the pet.Failure to do this actually poisons the landlord/owners mind against future pet owners renting their property and this is where the problem is.
  • Tammy Vitale about 2 months ago
    I think the owners of the property should have the right to say YES or NO to having pets at their property.I don't believe the tenants should have any rights to decide.I have seen many properties destroyed by pets and this should Always be the owners right to say NO
    Hide Replies (4)
    • dolphnisrule about 2 months ago
      I think owners/landlords should ban humans from renting i have seen lots of feral humans around that cause more damage to rental properties than animals. I will always defend any animal before I defend humans. Animals dont have a voice to defend themselves.
      Hide Replies (3)
      • BethGK about 2 months ago
        I definitely agree that it is frequently humans that cause more damage to a property than animals & there is a bond to cover any damage regardless. There is also talk about an additional pet bond that I am sure many pet owners would be happy to pay. It is also important to not paint all pet owners with the same brush as those that are irresponsible & cause damage to properties - pets & their owners should be judged on a case by case basis just as humans are in the application process.
        Hide Replies (2)
        • dolphnisrule about 2 months ago
          I dont agree with pet bond as that is adding more financial costs and hardships to the already high cost of living. If they made renting houses much more affordable as its absolute joke of the high cost of rental prices its robbery, even NRAS properties aren't that cheap either, then I would probably consider it. If there was one thing I would change to improve renting experience is lower the cost of renting as its just as much as paying a mortgage. This is what people should really be focusing on this is much more serious problem we have in Australia, take a look around look at all the homeless people living on the streets and really I can understand why its because of the pure greed in rents, so instead of targetting people who do the right thing that have pets we should be focusing more on the homeless.
        • Fc35 about 2 months ago
          The best thing tenants can do is make absolutely sure they respect the terms of the rental agreement while living in the property (ie pets outside) and rectify any pet damage before vacating, if your pet has urinated all over the carpet- Replace it.
  • markbuzz about 2 months ago
    Most people are aware that some property owners do not want pets in their homes, so if you are a renter and choose to have a pet you have to accept that you are going to find it harder to rent a property. This is a choice you made.I've allowed tenants to have pets in my rental property but on one occasion had to replace all the carpets in the house to eradicate a persistent flee issue that wasn't apparent until after the tenants had received their rental bond back. Whilst I want to be accomodation to my tenants, if this happens again I will have no choice but to put a ban on pets.
    Hide reply (1)
    • Fc35 about 2 months ago
      That's a huge issue, things like fleas and the smell are often not apparent until the tenants have vacated and the property has been vacant for a week or so. You then find out that the 'outside' pet was very much inside.
  • Leone.Christie about 2 months ago
    People who already have pets and wish to.apply for a property should not be discriminated against how ever,I believe that all property owners should be aloud to specify whether pets are aloud to live inside. All tenants with pets would of course need to pay for.any.damages the pets are responsible for.
    Hide Replies (3)
    • dolphnisrule about 2 months ago
      That should come out of the expensive Rental Bond if there is sufficient evidence of course. Tenants must take photos before moving in that way they dont get stung for damages that were already there.
    • Hatch0408 about 2 months ago
      Being a rental property owner I have trusted tenants with pets who have also destroyed all my carpets and blinds and the bond didn't cover half of the repair costs.
    • Fc35 about 2 months ago
      Absolutely, unfortunately so many tenants do not respect the owners wishes and the owner is left to clean up, they then say "that's it no more pets" which of course is unfair on those that do the right thing.
  • Benthemagnificent about 2 months ago
    Pets should be considered children for the purpose of renting, ie you should not be discriminated against because you have pets.
  • carolinebelladusty about 2 months ago
    I am an Agent/Manager, ( and I am also a Landlord/Apartment /home owner and pet owner) and am responsible for many large modern residential complexes throughout Queensland. We had started accepting pets some years back but regretfully the damage and fall out from this has been a total disaster and has caused substantial loss to the Apartment owners with on going work and enormous stress for Management.. This trial in accepting pets has resulted in some unsuccessful fumigation and cleaning with expensive carpets having had to be replaced and in two instances having QCAT involved.The complaints from other tenants from barking dogs etc. are never ending and most non pet owner Tenants now leave when their agreement becomes due for renewal.. It is also much harder to secure new Tenants when people without pets apply.. The other unsettling thing about it all is that its pretty much impossible to erase the fact that a dog has previously resided in any property. Dearly love my own little dogs but it is really a very sad and impossible situation that we are all caught up in.
  • ChrisM about 2 months ago
    Pets should not be simply allowed
  • Paul Butler about 2 months ago
    I think the owners of the property should have the right to say YES or NO to having pets at their property.I don't believe the tenants should have any rights to decide.I have seen many properties destroyed by pets and this should Always be the owners right to say NO. I've had my property destroyed by tenants pets. At inspections they hid their pets, when they vacated the carpets were destroyed and there was animal waste on the wall. We were unable to remove the animal smell from the house. As an owner I am left with the bill to fix this and still have the mortgage to pay.
  • George.C about 2 months ago
    The landlord owns the property, often in todays market landlords are faced with the decision of approving maintenance vs paying the mortgage on the property as rental returns fall in parts of Queensland. The decision to allow pets is not easy, but I believe that a pet bond would make this decision more palatable.I know some one will reply saying the mortgage and low returns is the landlords problem. Do some research on rent for areas 50 km or more from Gold coast, BNE and Sunshine coast in area from Gladstone up to Townsville before you react. Landlords cannot even sell their properties the value has dropped that much.
  • Brisgirl about 2 months ago
    Qld needs to follow VIC law & make all properties pet friendly. Australia is home to the largest pet families and the number of pet friendly properties are dismal. More families are choosing to house pets instead of, or before children. Landlords have our bond-if there’s any issue on vacate the same policy applies regarding repairs. Such an old fashioned law
    Hide reply (1)
    • dolphnisrule about 2 months ago
      Pets are more loyal, honest and obedient than humans 😉
  • hsr about 2 months ago
    Landlords should be able to specify whether they allow pets. Some will, some won't, but it shouldn't be left up in the air
    Hide reply (1)
    • hsr about 2 months ago
      But given the therapeutic benefit that pets bestow, landlords should be encouraged to allow them somehow (we allow a pet at our investment property)
  • Leone.Christie about 2 months ago
    Wether you have a pet or not your liable.for damage done to a rental when renting,the pets damage properties argument is.irrelevant .
  • Haldane about 2 months ago
    Pets can, and sometimes do, damage rental properties. With that said, so do people. In the case of people, landlords can access tenancy databases (https://www.qld.gov.au/housing/renting/finding-place-to-rent/tenancy-database) to help them avoid the wrong kinds of tenants, so why not have a similar database to allow landlords to look into the renting history of tenants with pets? This may help alleviate the common grievance that a lot of landlords have with pets which is that they're too concerned that they'll damage the property. If they could look into a database and see a history of complaints (or lack thereof) about a tenant's pets, they could at least entertain the idea of allowing tenants with pets knowing with some degree of certainty that their property isn't likely to be damaged.
  • Juzzy about 2 months ago
    I believe the current laws on pet ownership in rental markets are too strict. Pets are important parts of family and people cannot simply abandon them if they need to move. I believe that if pets consistently cause damage to property and the owners can't afford to make the repairs tenants should have the right to evict. I believe the rule of thumb should be no pets disallowed until harm/damaged occurs.
  • mmanning about 2 months ago
    I think that the owner of the house should be able to ban some pets like cats and dogs in a rental contract as they can damage property, damage the environment. However, other pets without such consequences such as fish should not be able to be banned or restricted by the landlord.
  • tallowood19 about 2 months ago
    I'm an Owner and allow Pets of a certain size as I have Strata Properties in QLD, I have a Special Condition on the Leases to Professional Clean and pest spray after they vacate. I rely on Pet Owners more so to rent my properties
  • Geeves about 2 months ago
    The difficulty I see for a landlord is how to identify the good pet-owning tenants from the bad. If they have previously rented with pets, their history with previous landlords could be checked, but if they have no history, all the risk rests with the landlord. For that reason, whilst I am not against tenants having pets, the choice should remain with the landlord.
    Hide reply (1)
    • jollybear about 2 months ago
      Totally agree. Its becoming very difficult to allow tenants with pets. Im sure there sone good tenants but thats not been our exoerience recently.
  • Christine01 about 2 months ago
    I am a LL and am a director with a property management business. I consider it very important to consider pets for tenants, and it makes sense for LLs as tenants are more likely to stay renting when their pets are approved for a property. When potential tenants apply for a property and they have pets, we encourage that they provide a Pet Resume - with photos, information about their temperament, size, age, hobbies (eg sleeping a lot!). This assists us to negotiate with the LL. I do feel that a formal process for considering pets would be useful however there is not a one size fits all. In regard to my own rental property, I am open to dogs, cats etc however I would be concerned about several large young dogs and would want them screened very carefully. Protection for LLs also rests with the property manager. When we let a property to a LL who has allowed pets and this is the first time, or was not overly keen about it, we conduct more frequent inspections to make sure everything is OK at the property. With a common sense approach I do feel having pets is workable however having this 'right' forced on LLs is somewhat confrontational.
  • CMC_82 2 months ago
    As a former Tenent I really would not like to move into a property that has previously had pets, not all owners are clean or responsible, viewed a unit that had previously had a cat and the smell was sickening.. not all renters want this and not all pet owners are responsible, this should not be forced on landlords, the potential cost from damage far outweighs and bond and insurance usually doesn’t cover. I got 2 dogs once I bought my house (cheap one in the country) and that was my reward to myself.
    Hide Replies (4)
    • Chris1963 2 months ago
      Not everyone has the oppurtunity to buy a house... we rent because we have no other option.... so lucky you for having that option available to you... Are we to be penalised and unfairly discriminated against because we have a pet.
      Hide Replies (2)
      • GeeGee 2 months ago
        Unfortunately it is previous irresponsible pet owners that have created this situation for you. I feel for you. I love pets and would hate it if I wasn't allowed the choice to own one.
      • Casey11-80 2 months ago
        Removed by moderator.
    • avava about 2 months ago
      CMC_82 - if a rental property is more than a few years old and had several previous tenants...the house will stink...don't blame pets...because people leave a lot of unpleasant smells around as well...and the older a house is the more unpleasant smells it gives off...not every sickening smell is created by pets...
  • RosieShaw 2 months ago
    I have been on the receiving end of a renter keeping pets in a house owned by me when we specifically asked that no pets were to be in the house. When they moved out, the house was so filthy and absolutely full of fleas. It cost us money to get it fumigated.
    Hide Replies (2)
    • Ky 2 months ago
      So have I, not fleas, but pet damage. I have another property where pets are fine. It just depends. It needs to be according to be to the property and as the person who will be stuck with the bill in the end, the ultimate decision needs to be made by the owner.
    • avava about 2 months ago
      RosieShaw - when we move we get the house professionally cleaned, then there is no blame on us. It is generally in the lease that the house be professionally cleaned, then the full bond is given back to the renter. Did your renter get their bond back and if they didn't, then their bond would have paid for the flea problem and cleaning.
  • BethGK about 2 months ago
    I am a nurse, I work hard and have been lucky enough to grow up in a privileged situation and be supported to get the education to get this well paying job that will likely allow me to be an owner one day. However, not everyone will ever be in my situation even if they work very hard because of multiple factors such as prejudice & socioeconomic background. Many people have grown up with animals and consider them a part of their family.I think that all people that are renting should be able to have pets within reason. It should of course come with the responsibility of being liable for any damage they may cause to the property (which is already the case) & there should be some special considerations to size of pet for apartments (considering having a large dog in a small apartment would be cruel) and mediation processes for noise complaints. Tenants would have to incur the cost of fencing or other measures appropriate for their pet (and the removal if the owner desires). But these things should not be barriers to tenants having pets at all.There are many renters out there who wish to be responsible pet owners, that can afford it and have a hole in their heart because their families are incomplete or their companions are absent. There are also plenty of homeless animals that are being euthanased as a result of a renter who loves and takes good care of their pet genuinely unable to find a property that is suitable to their situation (such a proximity to work or cost). There are multiple studies about pets improving mental and physical health. It really is an issue that has become exhausting for tenants & is extremely outdated. I do not wish for there to be free reign on this issue nor for owners to incur the burden of cost but we need to get with the times & in line with the research and statistics about how much our furry family members improve our wellbeing.
  • jbau about 2 months 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 about 2 months 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 about 2 months 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.
    Hide reply (1)
    • kiki about 2 months ago
      Hi, we allowed a small dog the tenants told us it went to work with them it was toilet trained (it was a couple of years old) - It urinated on the a carpet in the entrance way and stained the floorboards 4 places. Penetrated too deep to sand back.We have allowed pets in the past but they always have had an unpleasant impact on our properties.Usually big dogs scratch floor boards. Cat urine can be impossible to remove from the smell from tile grout.
  • Morto about 2 months 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 about 2 months 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
    Hide Replies (2)
    • Suzanna about 2 months 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 about 2 months ago
      Removed by moderator.
  • Jennifer Crouch about 2 months 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 about 2 months 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.
    Hide Replies (3)
    • smithc about 2 months ago
      Hi KZ, just wanted to say, thank you for posting this well rounded and honest response. I am a tenant and I would 100% appreciate the opportunity to have a pet bond to reduce owner uncertainty about having a pet in the property.
    • ChristineA about 2 months ago
      In some instances there is a strong odour after a pet leaves a property and additionally sometimes fleas hatch sometime after the pet leaves. What if the pet bond did not have the same time frames for refunds as the current bonds have. What if the pet bond had (maybe) 6 - 8 weeks to be refunded. That way if there was any damage to carpets that was not originally apparent, or new turf in gardens that had to be watered, the bond would still be in place to rectify items like these.
      Hide reply (1)
      • Suzanna about 2 months ago
        That has been my experience where pets were allowed in a rental property. After the tenant had left and bond was returned I lived in the home for a while and there was a flea infestation. I had to foot the bill. I make my choices on whether pets are allowed by assessing the owner and the pet. I always prefer to allow pets because I think well cared for pets are a beautiful part of the family. I am opposed to any government intervention on my decision making on my financed investment. I wear the risk not to government.
  • Natalie Wood about 2 months 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 about 2 months 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 about 2 months 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 about 2 months 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 about 2 months 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.
  • SH 2 months 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).
    Hide Replies (2)
    • Van 2 months ago
      Out of curiosity, how hard was it to fix the urine smell?
      Hide reply (1)
      • JaniceAC 2 months 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 2 months 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.
    Hide reply (1)
    • JaniceAC 2 months ago
      There are irresponsible pet owners and irresponsible parents.
  • Jessierealestateagent 2 months 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....
    Hide Replies (4)
    • ngb 2 months ago
      As a real estate agent, you will be aware that the standard bond is not large enough to cover non-payment of rent let alone damage caused by people or pets. You will also be aware that it is both extremely expensive, time consuming and practically impossible to recover costs from renters via qcat or the legal system. They spent an entire course on this in your real estate training.
      Hide Replies (2)
      • N4Y 2 months ago
        If bond doesnt cover rent let alone damage caused by people then allowing pets isnt much of a factor
        Hide reply (1)
        • ngb 2 months ago
          It is because none of the damage is covered by the bond. So many landlords will avoid anything that increases the risk of damage because every dollar of damage is a loss.
    • JaniceAC 2 months ago
      I am also a real estate agent, renter and my dog has Rudd if old age. Why should a landlord have increased insurance costs because you want a pet. Get your own insurance to cover pet damage.
  • homelesswithpets 2 months 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
    Hide reply (1)
    • JaniceAC 2 months ago
      Why should an owner have to increase their insurance costs to cover your pet damage. Wouldn’t it be more fair to say that tenants should provide their own pet insurance and a pet bond to cover any damage to the owners property. I think the tenants insurance premiums would be increasing each year.
  • JaniceAC 2 months 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 2 months 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.
  • S Jones 2 months 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.
    Hide Replies (5)
    • Kylie.B 2 months 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.
      Hide Replies (4)
      • Tonia2016 2 months 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.
        Hide Replies (3)
        • Ky 2 months 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.
          Hide Replies (2)
          • homelesswithpets 2 months 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.
            Hide reply (1)
            • ngb 2 months 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.
  • R.S 2 months ago
    Yes, to allowing tenants to own pets! I also agree that it's fair to have terms in the contract.
  • Jim Edwards 2 months 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
    Hide reply (1)
    • Grover 2 months ago
      Removed by moderator.
  • Jenko69 2 months 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 2 months 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 2 months 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.
    Hide Replies (5)
    • Nivannii 2 months 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 2 months 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 2 months 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.
      Hide Replies (2)
      • homelesswithpets 2 months 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?😉
        Hide reply (1)
        • Over it 2 months 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 2 months 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.
    Hide Replies (2)
    • N4Y 2 months 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 2 months 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 2 months ago
    The owner of a property should have the right to state if they want pets in their investment property or not.
  • Lynnykay 2 months 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 2 months ago
    Removed by moderator.
  • Nivannii 2 months 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.
    Hide Replies (2)
    • foxje 2 months 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...
      Hide reply (1)
      • Nivannii 2 months 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.
  • Van 2 months 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 2 months 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
    Hide reply (1)
    • Francesca 2 months ago
      That poor dog was obviously bored brainless and needed rescuing
  • Jo deegee 2 months 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 2 months 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 2 months 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 2 months 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 2 months 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 2 months 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
  • Tenantof25years 2 months 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.
    Hide reply (1)
    • foxje 2 months 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 2 months 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.
    Hide Replies (5)
    • Pam4 2 months ago
      There are laws about aged based discrimination which would apply. No one is asking people to put their life on hold, just to have the owners permission to get a pet and for the laws to make it more viable for a lessor to take the risk of allowing someone to have a pet. Most pet owners, be they owners or tenants are responsible but as always it is the small minority that cause issues for everyone. Why would an owner take the risk. It is just another thing to go wrong.
      Hide Replies (3)
      • AnneN 2 months ago
        Hi Pam, Do you know how hard it is to find a rental property in QLD that will accept pets on application. As of last year it was nearly impossible, the market is now slowly opening up to the possibility of allowing pets in rental properties. However it is still limiting the rental market for pet owners by at least 70% of properties. With the housing market the way it is today, it is very unlikely that the next generation will ever be able to afford to buy their first home, this will lead to life time renters, who are then limited to never owning an animal due to the hassle of trying to find a rental property that will allow pets.
        Hide Replies (2)
        • Pam4 2 months ago
          That is why I suggest making it more attractive for owners to allow pets through changes to legislation. Currently owners cannot charge a pet bond and have to be very careful about the wording of pest control clauses so they don't contract out of the legislation. Change these things and more owners will allow pets. Allowing a free for all on pets isn't the answer.
          Hide reply (1)
          • foxje 2 months ago
            Agree Pam4 - owners will be more than willing to rent to pet-owners, particularly if there are more and more pet-owners, as long as the risks are managed. Allowing for individuals to negotiate will permit things like pet-bonds or even more regular inspections for a certain period of time to put the owners' mind at ease. If you are a pet-owner of good faith you would have no problems doing something extra to help satisfy the property owners' mind.
    • Optimum 28 2 months ago
      AnneN, simple just purchase your own house and you can then do as you want no landlords to worry about, we had to start some were so why not now.
  • Ivegotmistletoe 2 months 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.
    Hide reply (1)
    • foxje 2 months 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.
  • Lateesha 2 months 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.
    Hide reply (1)
    • Eleanor 2 months ago
      Don't forget that most landlords have insurance that includes cover for damage by pets & are compensated appropriately, AND any thing they do or replace outside of the insurance is deductible on tax or they get depreciation. As a landlord I can't see the problem with appropriate pets for appropriate property sizes.
  • kingo 2 months 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 2 months 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 2 months 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 2 months 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 2 months 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 2 months 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
    Hide Replies (2)
    • Grover 2 months ago
      Thanks for thinking of the landlords who have to pay for the damage your furkids do. If you pay for the damage they do no worries. Otherwise get a mortgage and buy your own place.
      Hide reply (1)
      • Kuzza33 2 months ago
        None of pets ive owned have never ever damaged any of the rental places me and my family have lived in
  • CindyLee 2 months 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.
    Hide Replies (18)
    • homelesswithpets 2 months ago
      If you think that pets create more damage than children you are sadly mistaken. Should we also start making parents pay a “children bond”
      Hide Replies (15)
      • CindyLee 2 months ago
        Good idea.
        Hide reply (1)
        • CindyLee 2 months ago
          I'm not charging you additional fees, it's just the bond. Why didn't I say "increase the rent" but just increase the "bond" because the bond can be refunded if no damage is caused by pets. Today we are talking about "tenants can bring pets without owner's permission", meaning owners are not prepared for "any possible pet damage" at all. If you are a good tenant who always look after the property well and have a very well trained pet, then basically you shouldn't worry about "pet bond". Re children bond, we should also think about that too but that's another topic.
      • Eva 2 months ago
        Well actually the bond did absolutely nothing when I rented my house to a single mother with 5 children and a dog. First time investor, was getting desperate for a tenant due to finances and never again! She’s been added to the database to warn anyone else!! The damage done was in excess of $8,000. House had to be repainted, new carpet, fix many holes in walls, broken windows eventually absconded without returning keys another $800 for that not to mention lost rent....
        Hide Replies (11)
        • CindyLee 2 months ago
          ...I guess the owner does not have insurance? I don't understand why some investors don't purchase insurance
          Hide Replies (9)
          • Eva 2 months ago
            Of course we have landlord insurance on all of our properties. That does not change the fact you have to pay the upfront costs to fix all of the damages. So to say here is some bond money to fix the damage caused by a tenant is a joke. You also have to pay tribunal fees, agent fees and insurance excesses not to mention lost rent. So after all that and you receive your claim back months later you do not end up on top let me tell you
            Hide Replies (5)
            • CindyLee 2 months ago
              I understand that the bond may be useless sometimes but it's irrelevant to the topic today. The situation you have had, can possibly happen in any investment properties with OR without pets. I actually stand for the property owners I don't want my tenants to keep pets, but I have had quite a lot experiences which tenants keeping pets without letting the owner know, you can never stop them to be honest. If you vote NO today, you are not making any change, do you get any additional benefit by voting NO...?
              Hide Replies (4)
              • Optimum 28 2 months ago
                Hard to believe if there are regular site inspection by the property manager, they should be able to identify the typical identifications around the rental property of pets in the yard or house, i certainly would not use that real estate or property manager, sounds like they are not doing their job.
                Hide Replies (3)
                • Allforlandlord 2 months ago
                  It is only done every 3 months and they would have caused enough damage within that 3 month.
                  Hide reply (1)
                  • CindyLee 2 months ago
                    Correct, if the property managers enter the property and check too frequently, tenants can send breach notices and even terminate the lease without any penalties. It is on the RTA website. The routine site inspection wouldn't help in pet case to be honest.
                • CindyLee 2 months ago
                  Of course managers can easily find pets, so do you expect managers to steal pets from there? If you are familiar with RTA rules - tenant cannot be evicted due to pets (even the body corporate cannot evict tenants). They can be issued a breach notice that's all, which is sad. Many landlords end up with keeping tenants and their pets because the rental market is so bad. The law gives too much privilege to tenants. So don't blame property managers, if you self manage it you will have the same problem.
          • Grover 2 months ago
            Are you serious? Make a claim and your policy costs will go up.
            Hide Replies (2)
            • Allforlandlord 2 months ago
              Try Terri Scheer, the premium is same for every one and the cost would not change at all if you make any claim
            • CindyLee 2 months ago
              No the annual premium won't increase, it may increase just a bit with CPI. I've used one for years and claimed quite a few things (loss of rent & damages etc) from them. Landlord insurance is different from other insurances.
        • homelesswithpets 2 months ago
          Removed by moderator.
      • AnneN 2 months ago
        WOW I love this response, I am a long term professional working renter and have 2 cats. Any damage that was done by our cats, we fixed out of our own pocket before vacating the property and I definitely agree that Children do way more damage than pets will ever do. Currently there is no Children Bond required, so why should there be a pet bond?
    • Philip_ 2 months ago
      It is not possible/financially practical to completely clean a property once pets have been inside, I am severely allergic to pet hair and would be unable to live in a property that has been rented to someone with pets.
      Hide reply (1)
      • AnneN 2 months ago
        Hi Phillip, This is unfortunate, however does this mean that all renters should never be able to own pets because a select few are allergic to animals. Also we always do a pest control for pets, along with the standard exit clean - ensuring that carpets are clean etc.
  • Marie 2 months 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
    Hide Replies (10)
    • Lucietta 2 months 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.
      Hide reply (1)
      • homelesswithpets 2 months 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 2 months 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.
      Hide Replies (2)
      • homelesswithpets 2 months 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 2 months 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 2 months ago
      Removed by moderator.
    • Paul M 2 months ago
      Why does it matter if a tenant uses a cleaner when they vacate?If the property is in great condition, there should be no issue.
      Hide Replies (2)
      • Grover 2 months ago
        I had a tenant vacate one of my houses and cleaned the place herself. It was immaculate. Did not have to touch up anything. Unfortunately this is not the norm.
        Hide reply (1)
        • Paul M 2 months ago
          It may not be the norm, but why is it that when a tenant does clean the place top to bottom the property manager and or owner are never satisfied.My friend just moved, cleaned her property top to bottom, and the property manager complained about dust when it had been a week since it was cleaned and vacated.Not happy with the bad eggs, but they crucify the good ones.
    • Tara10 2 months ago
      I clean usually every second day (depends how tired I am). I remember one house we had to leave because the owners were moving back in. We scrubbed it walls to floor, till our hands swelled and we were in so much pain, but the house was spotless, like brand new. So don't assume all renters are pigs. We treat our rentals like our home, because it is, and we keep it clean not just because we're clean, but because we also realise its someone elses property. Also we have pets. Inside the house. OMG look how much damage my birds feathers are doing, wow look at it, oh nope you just vacuum that up, all gone.
  • Paul M 2 months ago
    Removed by moderator.
  • Arbee 2 months ago
    Owners are too demanding as all Australians should have the right to pets. If they cannot agree with this they should not lease property.
    Hide Replies (5)
    • Pam4 2 months ago
      I would like to know if the RSPCA would agree that all Australians should have the right to have a pet. Their website says that if you are wanting to adopt a pet they reserve the right to do a property check to make sure the place is suitable for said pet.
      Hide Replies (3)
      • homelesswithpets 2 months ago
        Pam4 of course the RSPCA would agree that anyone has the right to own a pet (naturally barring people who torture, deliberately injure, kill and neglect and fail to care for an animal). The reason they want to ensure that a pet is appropriately housed is so that said adopted animal has a forever home and is not returned to any refuge. Our local RSPCA shelter won’t allow pet adoptions to anyone that doesn’t actually own their home where the pet will be homed. I can fully understand their stance (sad as it is for animal lovers who rent and would love to ease the pressure on refuges by adopting a pet). Unfortunately one of the main reasons these shelters are overwhelmed with abandoned animals is due to the culture of banning pets in rentals.
        Hide reply (1)
        • Pam4 2 months ago
          My point is that not all properties are suitable for a pet. The RSPCA inspect to ensure adequate fencing, shade etc if they are not happy they won't let you adopt.
      • Thomaslu 2 months ago
        It should also says "only if you own the place or have written permission from the owner to do so".
    • Grover 2 months ago
      Removed by moderator.
  • Pierina 2 months ago
    My rental property is advertised for no pets. To have pets I feel you must have a back yard and a special place for the pet.
  • Karen21 2 months ago
    I agree that pets should be allowed. But there needs to be a pet bond in the lease, as the normal bond doesn't always cover the damages. If there's no damage done by animals, you get it back in full .
    Hide Replies (2)
    • homelesswithpets 2 months ago
      The problem I have with a pet bond is this: what is going to stop a landlord/agent from simply claiming something as being caused by any pets kept at the property simply to help themselves to your bond. And there are clearly many many landlords that don’t want pets at these properties so there’s nothing to stop them from maliciously doing this in retaliation for being made to have pets there when they didn’t want them. And we’ve all heard the stupid reasons real estate agents use to keep normal bond payments now. A couple of the worst situations I’ve seen was a tenant who had bond deducted for dead insects in the exterior light fitting (not hard to overlook plus I don’t think it was in a very safe place to get to: over a two storey staircase) Another example was a ring of dirt left in the laundry sink when they pulled the plug and let the water out after they finished their exit clean (an oversight again no doubt). There really are some dodgy agents and landlords out there!
      Hide reply (1)
      • Karen21 2 months ago
        The Pet Bond would have the same regulations that the normal bond has, any claims on it would have to be done through the same channels as its done now. Landlords /agents would have to prove that the damage was done by the animals, which would remove the likelihood of a malicious claim.And I can assure you there really are some dodgy tenants out there too!
  • celeste 2 months ago
    Single parent with my son in a 2 bedroom unit. We've never been permitted to have a cat or a small dog so my son has missed out on having a pet and I get lonely for a pet too.
  • SusanPriscilla 2 months ago
    I think tenants should get owners permission first. We have had some good and some bad experiences as land owners. Barking dogs can be problematic also aggressive dogs. Also tenants should have pest treatment inside and out at end of lease
  • Manuela Busack 2 months ago
    I believe pets are fantastic companions, not only for the elderly but children too. We aren’t allowed a dog here due to a past tenant and that’s the issue. People only hear and see those bad reports. Not everyone is like that. Most people love their pets as an extension of their family and so they would treat them as such.
  • Mike Hyde 1 2 months ago
    It seems unreal that someone should be able to rent my property that I may need to live in when I have allergies to some pets. What happens to my “rights”? That should be my call. Regarding damages, it is not right that someone can cause quite considerable damage to a property by pet damage and walk away without paying ALL the additional costs: would pet renters agree to a $5000 additional bond? I don’t think so.
  • styles 2 months ago
    All I ever hear is bad reports from owners in regards to damage done by pets.Instead of blaming animals start looking at the people a little better.It doesn't take a brain surgeon to work out after a meet and greet, whether the owner and his/her furry pal are the real deal..Unfortunately for conscious pet owners like myself (And I'll challenge anyone who'd like to take me on with that ) It seems a lot of people sadly have been given ownership to animals that they are obviously not in anyway competent to own..Judging by these other comments the owners shouldn't have been given the lease either..Well done to you bunch of grotty sub urban twits for making life that bit harder for people who are genuinely loving owners. All I hear is brainless concerns now from people that are obviously glued to current affairs shows and believe everything they hear about certain breads of dogs and how violent they are, how someones yard was dug up and thrown out into the street..Wake up !! It's the owners not the pets..What are the real estates apparenty employed to do ?? REGULAR INSPECTIONS..I'm sick of being pigeon holed and unable get a look in because of some other grubs lack of life skills. Open your minds a little Australia. Not all of us are dribbling $$ but that doesn't make us all the same either.
  • CCS 2 months ago
    I love dogs, cats and responsible pet owners would not be a problem. However the damage they can cause including having to replace carpets because you can't get the smell out, replace screens and repair scratch marks would make the small pet bond not so small.
  • Sue Barbi 2 months ago
    Pets should be allowed withing reason but the tenants should be made to pay a pet bond.
  • nnkitto 2 months ago
    Cats/Dogs whether housed inside or outside can cause disease, damage to gardens, damage to internals through scratching and hair loss as well as being a nuisance to neighbours and adjacent tenants who do no wish to have a pet. Birds also attract mice and rodents which cause damage/infestation to contents and property.A mutual arrangement between tenant/owner should apply with a pet rental bond included. Owners have to consider adjoining tenants and neighbours to ensure harmony of everyone involved.
  • MrsBad 2 months ago
    We’ve had 1 bad tenant who after giving permission for a small dog got a small dog & then we’re “looking after a friends” large German Shepard which was allowed in the house, ate timber skirtings, door jams etc & damaged the timber fence & then said they should’ve responsible as it wasn’t their dog!! We have tenants now with a small/medium size dog which is fine, but it should be a landlords choice for whatever their reason & if dogs do damage then the tenant needs to remediate or pay for damage - not just a small bond.
  • Grover 2 months ago
    I have three houses in Cairns around four years old. Tenants recently vacated the newest one, just over two years old. The outside irrigation system was destroyed, the outside patio and concrete edging, outside walls had red dirt stains the cleaners couldn't remove. Inside walls in the ktichen, the two pack paint in the garage and a hallway in a house the same. Every door scratched on the inside hallway going into a bedroom. Scratches high up on inside walls , window sills with deep scratch marks. Shredded fly screens, massive holes around the yard, the list goes on. All from dogs. We have had cats in another house that clawed window sills, curtains. We use a property manager and have instructed them not to allow cats or dogs in these properties. We have another older house of concrete block construction with tiled floors and the tenant has two dogs. I have had to replace screens straighten out sliding screen doors in that one. Anyone who thinks it is their right to tell an owner what to do with their property should walk a mile in their shoes. It's not easy.
  • pmtsv 2 months ago
    Some property are ill suited to accomodate pets and this is the reason that I am against the pets without permission. Damage and other factors have been a huge issue for some owners previously and the awards for the damages are not always granted through QCat or insurance. Landlords should have the opportunity to choose if they allow a pet and how many and what sort of pet as not all pets are suitable for all property.
  • Ashlie 2 months ago
    We have a pet dog and have found that it limits the option and also seems that properties cost more to rent. I think that Pets should be more acceptable with owners having a choice on what sort of pet. Permission to have a new pet. And an additional pest control at the end of the tenancy If the owner requests. We also provide a profile on our pet and have a good review fromPrevious rentals. I think a combination of this would make it a lot easier.
  • LeaBrant 2 months ago
    Fairly good with present rental, but previously great difficulty in getting permission for pet. Had to have my son's cat put down when I left a domestic Violence marriage as wasnt allowed to have house trained cat. A proper response should either be a bond or written into lease agreement that pet has to be house trained and demaages have to be paid for up to the amount of residential bond amount.
  • Camilla54 2 months ago
    Pets are ok ad is curtaints and pay tv. But just discuss it with the owner first. It's about give and take.
  • jburley 2 months ago
    Having pets restricts where we can rent . We have 2 large dogs and found it could be difficult to find a rental that doesn't mind having large dogs.I don't think there should be restrictions on having pets, and I think paying a higher bond to cover this risk is fair.
  • 02 Rent 2 months ago
    There are many many Landlords which have had problems with bad tenant and the tenants causing damage to the property. One case in particular was when dog eat through the water storage bladder under the house causing nearly $5,000 worth of damage. Landlord insurance does not cover pet damage. A Landlord should NOT be forced to accept pets - end of story. There are other landlords who will accept pets and renters should seek out those rentals. Landlords are not public housing providers they are opening their private homes to people who can not afford or who do not want to purchase their own homes. Private rental should not be treated as a tenant having ownership rights. I know of a case where the tenant has made changes to the property without consent and is claiming reimbursement of their funds to make the changes. You are opening a huge can of worms if this is allowed to happen!!!!
  • JJNF 2 months ago
    As a renter with three rescue animals I believe that pets should be allowed but I think that we should have a animal bond in place for this that is for general destruction a pet may cause if the tenant leaves the house in a state that animals have caused considerable damage.There are many foster animals that need homes and with so many people renting unable to foster to adopt this harms the system greatly.
  • PB 2 months ago
    After having kids you realise how many people are in the world with horrendous allergies. It is annoying but a fact of life and I don't feel that forcing an owner who may have allergies to pets and want to move back into their property eventually should have to be exposed to things that could be endanger them or their family. I didn't get a pet until I bought my first home and was allowed. To be honest I am glad I waited till then, he destroyed my yard and house!! Cost me a lot of money in training and then repair work.
  • Jan1147 2 months ago
    1. Generally I have not had any major negative problems with anyone having a dog, although a resident in a nearby block of flats has a large dog that is always off leash and occasionally barks and she is not around to collect the dog poo.2. There must be strict guidelines regarding behaviour and the number of pets allowed.
  • Malibu_tan 2 months ago
    Landlords should not be forced to accept pets - end of story. There are other landlords who will accept pets and renters should seek out those rentals. If you want to be able to choose where you live with pets, then purchase somewhere. Landlords are not public housing providers.
  • heyemilyhay 2 months ago
    We've been denied a rental due to our cats. I appreciate people have bad experiences but they shouldn't have the option of declining standard pets because innocent people and pets suffer as a result. I'm happy to pay an extra pet bond if legislation allowed for it.
  • Johan 2 months ago
    Removed by moderator.
  • PJDarling 2 months ago
    I find the rental market generally hostile to people with pets. This is an outdated view as there is research that demonstrates that pet owners make better renters. (https://www.statecustodians.com.au/blog/2015/01/08/15/05/pet-owners-may-make-better-tenants) - it seems children are much more likely to cause damage. Teenagers are notorious for putting their fists through walls, but we don't have special rules for people with teenagers (and nor should we). More importantly however, the house we rent is our home for as long as we can live there. People should be able to keep standard pets in their home. We are very lucky to have a great landlord presently who is not bothered by our pets. An appropriate approach to pets would be to take the same rules that apply for local councils (ie. no more than 2 dogs etc) and have that be the rule of thumb for rentals. It is absurd to treat pet owners differently to anyone else. A home is a home, regardless of whether it's rented or not. If people who own can have pets, renters can have pets. We're not second class citizens.
  • Bell87 2 months ago
    Yes u should be allowed alot of us have kids kids need to be able to grow up with pets teaches them responsibility and their great company/security also once u have a pet their part of the family having to get rid of a pet to have a roof over your head is just cruel
  • jantu70 2 months ago
    From experience one pet can extend to another (a dog then pups or cat and kittens) , hygiene in buildings with lifts can be a problem with owners of animals (pets having little accidents . )I would limit pets to houses and villas ,not apartments with lifts and balconies .
    Hide Replies (2)
    • Tara10 2 months ago
      Well with dogs, you are now less likely to get puppies due to the new laws, you need to register and pay permits to breed. If there is a cat in a lift, it would be in a crate so you're safe. Dogs may have accidents in the lift, but they are not out of control with their bladder, my dogs would not pee in a lift, they wait until they're on the grass. But I think dogs should be in houses with yards, small ones may survive in apartments, but I feel dogs should have regular access to grass and sun and room to run.
      Hide reply (1)
      • N4Y 2 months ago
        Whilst i agree with most of this, large dogs can do very well in apartments. Great danes for example are generally less active than fox terriers and need less space. A good walk or park visit once a day is all a giant breed needs to be comfortable where smaller dogs are found to need more active stimulation
  • Chris1963 2 months ago
    I have 1 dog... she is part of my husbands and my family now that our children have grown and moved out... she make no mess and is no problem. I believe that she should be allowed to be inside because she is a family member. Children do more damage to houses but they are not made to stay outside.And besides that, if tenents want their bond back in full we are expected to return a property to the condition it was in when we moved in... so if a pet does damage then surely this rule applies... it does if it was a child that caused the damage.I believe the reason there are so many animals dumped in shelters is because landlords will not allow pets in properties....Something seriously needs to be done to allow pets to remain as part of families and not banished to backyards or worse still surrended to a shelter or worse even still... dumped along the side of a road...
  • AM4JAS 2 months ago
    Perhaps there needs to be a major overhaul of legislation nationwide as each state is different and allows different things. Yes tenants should be allowed to have pets. Make a pet bond a nationwide payment as it’s currently against laws to charge it in QLD. Seriously, not all pet owners are irresponsible when it comes to keeping a pet- it’s the minority who are the ones you hear about just like it’s the minority of tenants who ‘trash’ rental properties who you hear about. Not all tenants are bad. Not all tenants children are bad. If landlords are allowed to impose such strict conditions on renting, that is going to only hurt them longer term... they won’t have their investments rented quickly. They won’t have happy tenants. The unhappy tenants are the ones possibly likely to cause damages. Time for an overhaul of legislation so there are ONE set of laws for renting. Let every tenant and landlord have their say across Australia about this argument.
  • Janine1 2 months ago
    This is a simple argument - when insurance companies for landlords start covering pet damage on policies - then yes you can have pets! We were caught out with thousands of $$$ damage when only 1 dog outside was allowed and found 3 dogs and 2 cats, all had been inside. Fleas were everywhere, smell of urine was horrific, had to replace carpets, curtains had pet hair all over them and had to be replaced - most not covered by insurance as it was a direct result of pets to which the tenant wasn’t allowed anyway.
  • Sky_Owner 2 months ago
    I would like to see owners have the ability to say yes or no to pets in their property. Furthermore if pets allowed the ability to decide the type of pet eg. a one bedroom unit with a small backyard would be suitable for a cat or small dog not a large/active dog that needs space. I also believe flea & pest control inside & out should be mandatory on vacating after pets so the property is ready for its new tenant.
  • foxje 2 months ago
    There are certain increased risks that come with specific tenancies. Allowing families or children would be riskier than only allowing single people. Having pets would also be riskier than only allowing single people. Having a casually employed tenant may be marginally riskier than a permanently employed tenant. Only the property owner should be permitted to judge what risks he or she will accept. To do otherwise is a dangerous infringement on the principal of private property on which our country is built on . HOWEVER: Landlords should recognise that as they narrow the band of tenants they accept, they increase the likelihood of vacancy and have less competition to increase rents. Thus, it is in landlords' best interest to maximise the range of who or what they will accept in their rental property. If it is true that more and more people want to have pets in their rental home, what will be the inevitable result? Those landlords who offer pet-friendly homes will have more competition, lower vacancies, and increased rents. Those landlords who do NOT offer pet-friendly homes will have less competition, increased vacancies, and suppressed rents. What will happen as a result? More landlords will make their house pet-friendly, as it will be costing them money if they do not. Let the free market work, regulatory intervention will distort the market while driving 'pet-discrimination' underground (ie making up other reasons to reject tenancies) without forcing them to pay a price for not wanting pets in their rental properties. The existing legislation balances the rights adequately. Yes there will be bad landlords, just as surely as there will be bad tenants. But there is no need to infringe upon private property rights as the free market will do that if left alone.
  • LindaB 2 months ago
    Overall good. Most pet owners are very responsible. I have had more problems with tenants than pets.
  • Kevin Belgrove 2 months ago
    How about tenants buying their own pet insurance that way they can make thier own claim against their pets causing damage. Why should the LL pay. Or should the LL also pay the tenants car insurance as well?By the way most insurance companies will not provid any pet insurance at all. ( I wonder why)Also the maximum insurance cover is $1,000 minus the excess of $250.So the max is 750.
  • Franco 2 months ago
    What is not explained to people is that ownership is made of legal and equitable rights. When a lease is in place, the owner is assigning his equitable (beneficial) right to the tenant. A lease is an agreement of this assignment under certain conditions. Tenancy laws, as they currently stand, have adequately balanced the interests of the Landowner and the Tenant; if not, being more obscured infavour of the tenants interests.These laws were meant to originally standardised procedures for Landlord's to be able to exercise their rights within limits and for tenants to be able to have reasonable use and enjoyment of the property they let within those standardised procedures. For example: right of entry under certain conditions and notices.I think that by allowing pets without permission and/or allowing tenants to make alterations to a property without permission; without rectifying any damage or alteration to an original condition, with exception of wear and tear, is ludicrous. This would override the Landlord's right to claim CONVERSION and rights for restoration! In addition, all the additional costs of rectification works required by the Landlord to relet the property without any realistic recourse of recovering these damages from the tenant. Even with the current system, even with an order from the Tribunal, followed by a default order with an enforcement order, it is almost impossible to be compensated by a tenant who generally has no money and what is generally received is no more than the bond retained.On the issue of pet being allowed on the property, the landlord should be able to retain that right to not allow any pet be kept on the property; this should be allowed to be part of the conditions to assigning and equitable right. A prospective tenant also has the right to keep or not to keep a pet. It is that simple!If the Landlord decides to allow pets, the Landlord is able to put further conditions in the agreement to ensure and to hold responsible the tenant to rectify any unfavourable conditions caused by the pet; so as long it is not inconsistent with the legislation. This being contract! We all know that their are unreasonable landlord's, but there is also many unreasonable tenants who would like top end properties for a minimal price and have complacent attitudes. But, there is also the in between where there are excellent Landlords and Tenants and there is mistrust and miscommunication between them; generally being the result of Real Estate Agents who play devil's advocate. I think that Landlord's and Tenants should be able to communicate with each other directly, even if their is an agent involved.More education needs to be placed on actual laws and sensible outcomes, rather than from political point scoring from politicians. More education should be placed on paradigm shifts of mutual respect and respect for peoples' property.
  • ngb 2 months ago
    I like to provide good quality finishes in my rentals. eg, thick expensive carpets and timber flooring. Tenants that choose to stay with me love the accommodation I provide for this reason. Requiring that I allow pets means that I have to reduce the quality of my rentals (provide less expensive pet friendly carpets etc) so they are appropriate for pets. This is not fair on tenants that don’t have pets and enjoy the types of good quality non-pet friendly finishes that you would normally only get in private homes or expensive hotels. Renters deserve to have the option of higher quality accomodation like this. Forcing all property owners to accept pets will remove this option and reduce the quality of rentals in the long term.
    Hide Replies (6)
    • ruralsue 2 months ago
      Totally agree. I would prefer to rent a high end pet free property then have to sacrifice this option so someone else can own a pet. I do not want to own a pet but I would be forced to rent a lower quality pet friendly place even without pets.I would also like to be in a complex without pets as this is my personal preference as there is no barking.
      Hide reply (1)
      • Cathe_78 2 months ago
        If there's a genuine reason that a property shouldn't have pets (e.g., owner is allergic or property is often rented to tenants who are allergic, property is too small, etc.), then that property could be a "no pets" property. But the burden of proof should be on the landlord (that the property is not suitable for pets) rather than on the tenant.
    • Tara10 2 months ago
      tiles, wooden floors, vinyl. Because of my allergies I prefer not to have carpet. Right now I have this really nice vinyl flooring in my room, it looks like wood. Its soft to stand on, stays at a nice temperature and looks beautiful. I love it. Its pretty cheap (of course theres more expensive options too). There is always options. But if you want to provide more high end quality rentals then just up the price, you could try renting it privately and find people who dont have pets to rent it.
      Hide Replies (3)
      • ngb 2 months ago
        Yes that’s right. Landlords should be able to decide whether to allow pets or not. This change in legislation takes that right away from landlords and removes the option of higher end finishes for renters and the legislation applies to every rental (not just those through an agent) - all of these are reasons why I object to it. If the landlord agrees to allow pets and their property is suitable for pets then there is no problem having pets for anyone - which is the current legislation. But changing it (as is being proposed) to force landlords to accept pets means that all rentals need to be made suitable for pets, regardless of price range. This means no expensive or non-pet friendly finishes or non pet friendly furniture for all renters - again renters will be worse off, particularly those without pets who enjoy some of the nice non-pet friendly finishes and furniture because they won’t have this option. Hardly a way to improve conditions for renters.
        Hide Replies (2)
        • homelesswithpets 2 months ago
          Not every renter is so up themselves that they only want high end finishes and fixtures. While no one wants to live in a dump I’m sure the vast majority of renters would just like a nice, comfortable and affordable place to call home. I would dare say those landlords wanting to use higher end fixtures and fittings do so just to get a higher rental yield or are so stuck up themselves that they are used to that standard of living and think that that is actually the norm.
          Hide reply (1)
          • ngb 2 months ago
            I think that’s the point. There are many different types of renters. Some like higher end finishes, some have pets, some don’t. Legislating to force everyone to accomodate one type of renter (in this case pets) means that landlords cannot cater to the needs/wants of other types of renters. Some renters don’t want or can’t live in houses that have been lived in by pets, some want higher quality finishes. Don’t take that option away from them. The current legislation allows some choice and a large variety of different renter needs to be satisfied. What is being proposed does not.
  • cn 2 months ago
    The issue with pets is noise and damage - from chewing, feeding and urinating/pooing. While it sounds like a lovely idea to give people the right to have a pet, there is little evidence of the responsibility being part of the proposal. What happens when a house is uninhabitable because of the smell of animal? Who pays to replace carpets? Are you really going to propose a pet bond that will cover the potential cost of thousands of dollars? We look after the place we let so the tenants live in somewhere we'd be comfortable to live in, but a law change like this would make us wonder why would we spend anything on making the place comfortable.
    Hide reply (1)
    • homelesswithpets 2 months ago
      Typical attitude from the “haves” brigade to the “have nots”. When will people learn some basic humility and decency. So tiresome
  • Jacquik 2 months ago
    Many owners are put off allowing g pets for several reasons includingWhile responsible tenants will often offer things like pet bonds, professional carpet cleaning and professional flea/pest treatment legislation in Queensland does not allow owners to make these agreements. Western Australia for example allows for professional fumigation for fleas and mites. There is also the issue of liability for injuries caused by or to pets. Most landlords insurance also offers no protection at all for damage caused by pets including expensive accidents like fish tanks rupturing and flooding properties etc. Legislation could do a lot to improve access to insurance for tenants/landlords, allowing pet bonds and agreements for professional fumigation and cleaning when pets have been involved, ensuring pet owners not property owners are liable for injuries caused by pets and for keeping pets safe. There also needs to be a process for ensuring appropriate types of pets for properties and agreement around where the pets are to be housed eg -birds to remain in a cage when in the house and not in carpeted rooms. -dog is (or is not) permitted inside or on the tiled areas only- horse is to stay in paddocks and stable and not in houseyard or other buildingsAnd if the agreement on where the pets live is not followed or there is damage then owners can require them to be removed. Most tenants would not have issues with these types of requirements as they offer these now however owners would be far more likely to accept pets.
    Hide Replies (2)
    • Tara10 2 months ago
      We're always told that we must do a flee treatment when we leave and we have to show the receipt. I think we also have to use professional carpet cleaners too, even though I can clean better than them. Anyway these things are on the tenancy agreement. I don't mind.
      Hide reply (1)
      • Jacquik 2 months ago
        Hi Tara, like yourself, most tenants who are responsible pet owners are happy and think it’s fair to do professional carpet and flea treatment if they have had pets. Under the current law though it is actually illegal and to make that a condition of a lease. The RTA have been prosecuting (criminal charges) and fining owners and agents who make professional flea treatment or carpet cleaning a condition, even if tenants offer or agree the terms as part of a pet agreement. In turn owners are getting scared to have pets in properties. More would agree if they could make that a condition.
  • Debs Mad Chook Lady 2 months ago
    Alot of places don't seam to allow pets, I personally feel like pets are important to alot of people. I think that pets should be allowed in most homes especially ones with yards.
    Hide reply (1)
    • Tara10 2 months ago
      I agree, especially ones with yards. So many have nice big fenced yards, but no pets allowed. Whats the point of a yard then? Unless you have kids, which with kids your house is more likely to be damaged than with pets.
  • Bulla 2 months ago
    All good, I support allowing Pets in with responsible pet ownership aka proper training and discipline, I personally would find sharing my common property with a pet no problem, as long as they respected my desire to not share my personal space, right to not be disturbed inside my apartment by noise or odour. But how do you measure that? What happens when things go wrong, what are the remedies? That is the area that needs fleshing out and made very clear to the pet owner in advance. By the way i find the concept of putting a size limit on a pet as redundant as it would be on a human. My personal experience is as with people, size is no measure of potential disruption. A suggestion why not create a Course or Assessment procedure ie if you have a dog you need to demonstrate it has undertaken and passed appropriate training, has a Vet check, and ideally some good old third party referrals.
  • kwilliams115 2 months ago
    Unfortunately allowing pets in Rental properties has always been an ongoing issue. I am a landlord, and have leased our property for 17 years. For the first 2 tenancies, I allowed Pets (outside) in the Lease Agreement. Unfortunately both times, we were left with damage, smell and clean up of droppings from cats and dogs. I am a dog lover myself, however at my home, it is part of the routine cleanliness to pick up droppings, keep pets of carpets, only allow them to eat outside and have pets on hard surfaces, tiles, vynals etc that can be cleaned as a routine chore each week. At the time of application for a lease, everyone indicates they will be responsible for a pet and adhere to the rules of the lease, however in my experience, this does not happen. After being left with costs to incur for damage/clean up from pets, I now have a NO PETS clause in every lease Agreement. I really wish I could have a tenancy were the incoming conditions are adhered to and the outgoing conditions Report reflects this. I am about to re let the property in 2018, as part of my commitment as a landlord, I will fly to QLD, meet and greet prospective applicants and hopefully be able to give applicants the benefit of the doubt, if I allow pets. Unfortunately past experience, does not support allowing pets
  • FP 2 months ago
    I have owned a rental property, a home and rented all with pets. I was open to allowing some pets in our rental property (an apartment in a small quiet block of 9 units) as long as they did not disturb the other neighbours or foul common property, ie: the pet owners had some responsibilities that were made clear in their rental agreement. We didn’t have carpets and had metal screen doors, very resilient to pets and children. This was our guarantee that we had done our part to allow pet owners to have a place to rent. As renters we went to great lengths to create pet profiles and it seemed to work but we are extremely restricted as to what properties we were able to apply for which was frustrating as we knew we would look after a rental as if it was our own so in that way I feel as if pet owners are discriminated against. We pay more rent as a result and thankfully our landlords took a chance on us and have not regretted it as we look after the property better than renters without pets! Each case needs to be assessed properly and opportunities given to those pet owners who want to find rentals and make the effort to prove they will look after your property.
  • BronwynJ 2 months ago
    Some properties are suitable for pets and some aren’t. Some yards suit small dogs only. Plenty of damage can be done to lawns and gardens with a large dog in a small backyard. As a PM we see lots of expensive bond claims for screen doors clawed by dogs, dirt and grease stains on the walls near back doors and on outdoor areas. Cat urine on carpets can be impossible to get out of underlay. The idea of a bond for a pet has merit but honestly it would need to be several hundreds of dollars. Would the bond loan dpt offer those too?
  • MLN 2 months ago
    Extremely difficult to find pet friendly rentals.A pet bond can ease the issues though I think pets are less destructive than kids!
  • Samantha Marshall 2 months ago
    I am a property manager / investor / tenant of a commercial property/ pet owner. We allow pets but more than 80% of our bond claims are due to damage from pets. the 4 weeks bond just is not enough anymore. Unfortunately some tenants ruin it for others. They tell you want to hear and then do what they want to do anyway. Hide unapproved pets, let them in the house, they pee and poo inside and chew things. We approved an outside dog only on a property and the tenants let it inside and it chewed all around the base of the kitchen. It is really hard to get animal urine smell out of carpet and more often than not the carpets need replacing. This should not have to be an owners responsibility.
  • RKahika 2 months ago
    As an Snr Property Manager I have dealt and been privy to a number of issues with pets in properties. I am a pet owner myself ( bull mastiff rescue dog). I validate that a responsible tenant renting a property that can sustain a pet that is loved & cared for responsibly, will not cause you to much grief ( if any) in a rental property. It is all about respect. Good tenant usually good pet control! However... my mind goes to one stand out experience with a dodgy tenant with attitude who had a great danemastiff x in his property ( yard was big enough ) but of course the pet outside clause was not respected and the dog lived in the house with tenant! Causing damage to house and Routines impossible as the dog was aggressive, tenant was never home of course. RB etc issued as tenant had other issues eg rent arrears,property damage etc finally court date he was weeks behind on rent BUT on compassionate grounds the court stated because he could not relocate successfully with his DOG ( nobody would have him) he got another 4 weeks in the property! Before we could action a WOP -which we had to do and of course he did not pay any rent, or clean the rubbish/filthy property or fix damage. Terrible loss for the owner. I believe pets should come with 'references' if possible. Definitely a pet Bond in place and the usual clauses to Tenancy. Tenants need to realize renting is a privileged not a right, and tenants are chosen on the basis of suitability to rent a property, same as ability to pay and overcrowding etc. IF this law changes, tenant education must be a priority and realize you can risk a tenancy continuing/renewed if your PET needs a Remedy Breach ;)
  • K. Q 2 months ago
    I am all for having pets. I personally have 2 cats and 2 dogs and I rent. However, I don't expect to be able to have my pets in every house unless approved. I believe that the owner should have the final say as to yes, you can have a pet or no, you can't have a pet. Some properties are not suitable for pets. Some people are allergic to pets. There are many factors why pets may be declined for a property. If tenants want to do whatever they want with the property without seeking approval they should purchase their own home. If a tenant wants to rent a house with a pet, they should rent a home where pets are considered on application.At the end of the day, the landlord owns the home and they should have the right to say yes and no to certain things. If tenants do not stay in the home as long as they would if they had a pet, than this is an expense that the landlord will have to deal with. I personally would allow pets in my rental home if I had one however, I certainly would not expect all landlords to approve and that is their choice.
  • Rupert 2 months ago
    The problem with pets is that the damages caused by pets are usually very costly. Dog owners are used to their dogs' smell, so when their dogs peed on the floor, it may sometimes be overlooked before the urine eat into the carpet underlay, floorboards or concrete. To remove the smell alone will require re-flooring, which would cost somewhere in between $500 to $10,000. Some people are allergic to cats or dogs, that they will have lethal reaction if breathed in substances from the cats or dogs. To clean the whole house with extra care will require proper machineries and chemicals, plus extra time of labour. The Pet Bond is needed in the situation that the tenants abandoned the property with great owings. Insurance only cover a small amount for any pet damages. Landlords cannot profit from taking a Pet Bond as it would be kept by the RTA and the interest goes towards to this government agency. It only provides assurance to the landlords. If we all agree that we should pay higher insurance premium for extras like higher engine power for a car in car insurance, or expensive additions to a house for building insurance, a Pet Bond will be justified as not all tenants want to keep a pet.
  • jessben 2 months ago
    My partner and I are landlords of a property in QLD and rent a place in QLD. We have a small cat and are aware that upon leaving this residence that we will be required to pay for a pest spray and for the bond clean to be up to the same standard as what the property was in when we first moved in. I'm happy to rent out my property to tenants with pets as long as they (i) keep us informed about the number and types of pets they have, (ii) ensure a pest spray and bond clean is done on vacate. However in saying that, the most recent tenant we've had, didn't adhere to what they signed up for, and we are left with a bill where their bond may not be enough to cover everything to bring the place up to the same standard as per the start of their lease.If this is the experience landlords have when renting out their investment out to tenants, I can understand why landlords are unsure whether to allow pets in their investment property.
  • Kirstenelayne 2 months ago
    I had a dog and I gave up so much for her. I clipped her hair, paid for obdience training, spent a lot of time ensuring she was well behaved. She was a well behaved and very clean dog. Unfortunately she passed away from cancer.. I miss her terribly however but I cannot have another pet due to having to rent and nowhere allowing pets. I do understand that there are bad pet owners and bad renters out there but some of us are very aware and respectful of the environment we are in. I think if you can provide references and vet and obedience/training certification than you should be allow pets. You should also be 100% liable for any damages.
    Hide reply (1)
    • Ky 2 months ago
      I think you are a wonderful dog owner. I think you are probably also a wonderful tenant. I think the decision of whether you should have a new dog in a new home should be up to both you and the owner of that new place. This should be mutual. Not mandated. I am an owner who allows pets in some properties but it is not always suitable and in the end the owner ends up paying the bill.
  • Debbiemon 2 months ago
    I think the current rental culture is one rife with secrecy and fear when it comes to the keeping of pets. Basically what’s happening and what’s on their lease doesn’t match up. I’ve lost count of the number of stories people have told me about keeping pets when they aren’t allowed them, or having something other than what was originally approved because of fear of refusal of their application. People get desperate when they are pet owners and they have been refused multiple places because of pets. People shouldn’t have to choose between their beloved pet and having a roof over their head, but often that’s what it comes down to. Having these ‘secret pets’ puts both the tenants and the landlords in a position of risk. I think it would be much better to have a culture of openness and transparency when it comes to pets, that way landlords, body corps and tenants can have adequate protections/insurance/pet bond in place to cover them should things go wrong. I’ve always chosen to be up front about my pets (big dog and a cat), I have an extremely solid rental history but it still takes me 2-3 months to find a place when I need to move because so many places are not pet friendly. I think there should be better links between council and RSPCA records for things which the tenant may not be doing so well, as well as a way to capture tenants which are doing the right thing (some sort of rating/feedback scheme - basically a standardized pet reference).
    Hide Replies (2)
    • homelesswithpets 2 months ago
      So true. I also know so many people who hide their pets when inspections are being done and they aren’t declared on the application. When will agents learn that even though they say no pets that’s often not what’s happening in the rentals that they are overseeing on behalf of the owners?And I too am upfront but because it’s now been two years since I had a roof over my head, due to the lack of rentals that allow pets (in my area it would certainly be less than 5%) I am getting close to just lying about having them just to get somewhere to live.😫
      Hide reply (1)
      • Ky 2 months ago
        I totally agree with Debbiemon that the lying and secrecy is one of the main problems in the current renting culture about pets. As an owner who allows pets in some of my properties, they haven't been a problem. It's when they have been inappropriately living in my property where it is not appropriate for pets that the issues have arisen.This doesn't mean that owners should be forced to allow pets. They are the owner and I hope that still means something in our society.I have found that tenants' dishonesty is definitely an issue but that they should be allowed to have pets in appropriate properties and it does definitely make for a better home for both the tenant and the owner.
  • FiM 2 months ago
    If the ability to protect a property against pet damage and costs involved then I believe more owners would accept pets. But it can only be at an owners discretion.
    Hide Replies (2)
    • homelesswithpets 2 months ago
      It would be nice if it was at the owners request and discretion however I have definately noticed a growing trend amongst agents to simply make a blanket ban of no pets in any property they manage regardless of whether the owner allows pets or not. All because they don’t want the hassle of dealing with any possible issues that may arise or they are just too lazy to check on the tenants history with pets in previous rentals or do more inspections and that it’s just easier to say no pets allowed full stop!
      Hide reply (1)
      • Ky 2 months ago
        I have personal experience of tenants' dishonesty on this issue and that is what causes the distrust in this area. Some tenants who have pets are great and there is no issue but unfortunately there are those who deceive and try to avoid their responsibilities who make owners want to avoid allowing pets. If pet owners were consistently responsible for the resulting issues, this wouldn't be a problem but that isn't the case.
  • Ky 2 months ago
    I am a landlord who has a property in both situations - pets and no pets. There are properties suitable for both. A previous tenant decided to have a pet in the property which is not suitable for pets even though I disallowed it - resulting in significant damage and the tenant eventually had to leave and pay for it. The other propery where it is suitable, it's not a problem. It can't be a blanket rule. It needs to be a case by case basis and in the end if there's a large bill, and the tenant can't pay, it will fall on the owner so it should be their decision. Anything else will eventually end up with people withdrawing from renting out properties because of the risk. If they can't have a say in how their properties are occupied, they will invest elsewhere.
  • Emmadeanne 2 months ago
    I am the manager of a strata complex as well as an owner. I also manage several properties that are not within the complex and I can see both sides of this argument. I am sure that many people will not agree with my next statement but from my experience the vast majority of owners and the vast majority of tenants do the right thing unfortunately it is those who do not (on both sides) who cause problems.I have always allowed pets in my own property with no problems at all. The body corporate by-laws in the complex I manage do allow pets, I have thirty townhouses in my letting pool, there are two dogs and eight cats in these townhouses. Until recently I would have said there have been no problems at all, not even a misplaced bark, but unfortunately some irresponsible tenants have changed this. When they broke lease I found that their approved dog had urinated on the bedroom carpets and this is where the problems began.The carpets, only three years old, were so badly damaged they had to be replaced. The tenants' bond did not cover other issues let alone the replacement of the carpets. To make matters worse the tribunal only ordered the replacement of the carpet in two bedrooms. Although the carpets were only three years old they could not be matched so one bedroom a hallway and stairs would have one type of carpet and the other two bedrooms another not a good look for prospective tenants. The departing tenants did not even pay for the two bedrooms to be recarpeted so the owner had to claim from insurance and pay a large excess.The legislation says that properties must be returned to the condition they were in at the beginning of a tenancy less normal wear and tear. A pet damaging a carpet is not normal wear and tear and property with mismatching carpet at the end of a tenancy is not in the same condition in which it was rented if the carpet matched at the start of the tenancy. Surprisingly the owner of this property has allowed the new tenant to have a cat. As I said most owners and tenants are ok as are most tenants.If pets are allowed the tenants should have to pay for any damage the pet causes to be fixed even if this costs more than the bond and the tribunal should ensure this happens if necessary. Owners have to take out insurance so perhaps tenants should also be required to take out pet damage insurance as it is unlikely that the amount of any pet bond would be sufficient to cover the type of damage I am referring to.If the government does legislate to allow pets without owner approval perhaps it should set up a fund using some money from the millions of dollars it holds in rental bonds to either offer tenants pet insurance or to reimburse owners when pets do cause damage. I know this opens a whole can of worms regarding investment risk but I have at least three owners who will consider selling if automatic approval of pets is passed into law as they want the right to decide if and what type of pet will be allowed. If three out of every thirty owners across the state decide to sell rental properties will become scarcer and rents higher. It's just supply and demand.
  • Kuzza33 2 months ago
    And the fact you should be allowed to have both a inside and outside all pets and animals should be allowed in the rental home or property
  • JaneLane 2 months ago
    Having been on both sides of the fence, a tenant with a pet is no different to a tenant with a child. Council by-laws state how many pets a household can have, and if they are willing to pay a pet bond and have pet insurance (and can provide such details of) I don't see the problem. Perhaps a more intelligent way to approach it is to zone dwelling sizes and compare this to pet sizes, for example: An apartment block is only suited to one or two small animals, say A small or toy sized dog and the equivalent cat. For a tenant renting a large property, say an acre lot with 5 bedrooms, maybe then they're eligible for one or two large dogs.I definitely wouldn't allow it to be open slather, but I would rather all properties be Pet OK and allow me to prove to the landlord that I am a responsible pet owner.
  • SandynFrank 2 months ago
    We are first time landlords, When we purchased the house there were tenants in it, and we kept the same rental agreement. Their agreement had a clause about having a dog, and it is to be kept outside. As it looks like the tenants really look after the place and we could see no damage done by the dog, we are happy to keep this in place. I think it should be discussion between the landlord/agent before you rent about whether they are happy to have pets, it really depends on the pet itself, the size, what it is etc. And perhaps also have the ability to charge a pet bond.
  • Setante 2 months ago
    I have rented and am now an owner/landlord. Currently I am a moderator for responsible pet ownership!! By that I mean I have both allowed and denied pet access to my property. This was negotiated based on an application. A example of a denied application was for 2 puppies (active mid size breeds). Irresponsible in the tiny backyard of the property. It would be crazy to allow open rules on pets... Naturally tenant advocates would want this and Owners not. Don't force it on me, I'm happy to negotiate....
  • Zoi 2 months ago
    I am a landlord and for health reasons, I cannot allow any pets in my home which will eventually be our retirement home. I suffer severely from animal fur, especially cats. I can't even enter a home who has outdoor pets.
    Hide Replies (3)
    • Arbee 2 months ago
      You might be better off selling. If you are happy to take the rent payments then there has to be an allowance made for the rights of people paying you. It is not your home if you are not living in it. It is the tenants home while they are paying to live there.
      Hide reply (1)
      • Pam4 2 months ago
        If the tenant is told up front that no pets are allowed then they can take it or leave it. No one is forcing them to move into a property that specifies no pets. It is a negotiation at the start of the tenancy.
    • lilbw 2 months ago
      Any home that is purchased off of someone else that had a pet has the same consequences... or do you negotiate a lower price, or for them to get rid of their pet before you purchase?Have the house professionally cleaned as part of a pet agreement; if it's going to be over 3 years until you live in that house then I think any tenant should be able to have a pet.
  • reacon 2 months ago
    Pets and smoking are 2 big issues. When a landlord says no pets, or no smoking it is done for a reason. My reasons are that I know there are an increasing number of people with allergies, To have a property that does not smell and is microscopically clean and free from the putrid stench of tobacco and smelly dogs, guinea pigs , mice and flea ridden cats. gives me a more specific and solid group of tennants who will look after the house as i will look after them. If you do chemical testing on a house after a tenant has been smoking there are positive markers everywhere. The paint absorbs it, as well as the carpet and the ceiling plaster. To a lesser extent the cabinet work. the tiling grout is very absorbent. so if you want to smoke or keep a pet and not lose your bond. pick a house that allows it.
  • Michelle Lowe 2 months ago
    As a property owner I definitely do Not agree with no approval needed for pets. We do allow 2 small dogs in our rental property. There is not adequate room in the back yard for a big dog. Apart from that, property owners should have the right to know who and what is living in the residence. I can see a lot of problems arising from this if it is put through.
  • PXT 2 months ago
    My experience is only as a landlord. We have allowed pets in the past, but are now disinclined to do so as they have proven to be quite destructive for property. We have had wooden doors with scratches all over them, screen doors ripped, claw scratches over polished wooden floors, holes dug in the garden. All these things become evident once the tenants depart, we have to spend time, labour or money to fix them - can't use the bond as agents tell us that damage could be defended as "normal wear and tear". Once pet is allowed by the owner, then as it grows, there is pressure applied to the landlord to provide pet doors, fencing etc for the pets safety - all expenses that tenants feel that the property owner should carry.
  • Mardi 2 months ago
    Pets should be on a case by case basis and a bond should definitely be paid to cover any costs for damages. Many people plan to return to their house at some point and could have allergies that wouldn’t then allow them to. I have often allowed pets but find the outside only rule for dogs is often broken so if you can’t trust the tenants to do the right thing they should pay for the privilege.
  • reignbeau 2 months ago
    as a landlord i have no problems with cats, birds etc and jave always let them in. . but dogs can be a problem. i have let them in on a case by case basis but fact is they can do a lot of damage - and my own dog is an outside animal. i have also had tenants break the outside dog rule and then have damage inside. this is where a bond is very useful as it is easier to say yes, if possible damage is covered. I think pets are really important for people and try to say yes, but it shouldn't cost me to do this.
  • Steve g 2 months ago
    Removed by moderator.
  • B Garland 2 months ago
    Everyone should be entitled to have a pet, and most landlords would probably agree to this under restrictions. Pets can also do a lot of damage to properties and therefore if no control is given to a landlord as to the type, number and whether they are allowed into the property or not then the bond is usually insufficient to cover the expense.
  • petrie46 2 months ago
    when i was looking most places said no to a pet i had had for 24 years and had rented all the time and he was no problems finally found a place and we were fine than after 24 years my cat died and now was told no more pets allowed
  • Lft 2 months ago
    Tell the owner/ real estate owner you have a pet . Be responsible and on exit ensure the property is safe/rentable for future tenants
  • Leanne R 2 months ago
    I have been on both sides and i rent to people who have pets but only allowing this after they have rented with me for a year to see how clean they keep the property. I want my tenants to feel at home but too many take advantage of that. And getting rid of bad tenants is so hard! I have one tenant that been in one of my properties for 19 years this year she has 2 cats and the house is spotless.If she calls and wants something it is because it needs to be done. I have put in a new kitchen for her and air conditioning if I could afford more updates I would but the cost of land tax takes away so much I could put back into the Property.
  • Pam4 2 months ago
    I feel that owners should be able to make agreements with a prospective tenant about an extra bond to be payable if pets are allowed. The majority of pet owners are responsible and do the right thing but as always it is the minority who ruin things for everyone. The current bond of four weeks rent seems like a lot but it doesn't go very far to cover potential damage at the end of an agreement. A higher bond would increase the number of lessors who would allow pets. If legislation was going to be changed to allow pets without the consent of of the lessor it would have to have a very clear definition of what is a pet, some people keep all sorts of animals as pets, not just cats and dogs.
  • BrookePerea 2 months ago
    I understand that dogs can cause disturbances and cats can cause damage, however under the renters responsibility, pets should be allowed no questions asked. Some pets are all people have, seniors or young. I think, if renters have a pet, it should not restrict them to rental properties. Instead there should be a form of agreement all renters fill out when doing the lease, stating any damage is the renters responsibility.
    Hide Replies (3)
    • robboat 2 months ago
      An agreement is fine but in practise no tenant will pay to renew carpet, reface scratched doors, clean and deodorise the house after an un-cared for animal.The smell will put off new tenants and the landlord gets no rent. The bond is inadequate for these repairs which can cost thousands of dollars.
    • Stevensharon 2 months ago
      And who is it who has to try and sort out and pay for the settlement of the hostile arguments in apartments between those with a pet and others that don't , some people are shift workers and have to listen to a dog barking all day while they are trying to sleep, others suffer from allergic reactions, with some being subject to the stench of cats urinating and deficating as they are let out at night. Or should we ignore these people because they may not agree with your no questions asked statement.
      Hide reply (1)
      • Deborah kerr 2 months ago
        There are far more apartments that don't allow pets, I think shift workers people with allergies etc should live in these places. Why on earth would you stay somewhere where pets were accepted if you didn't care for them or your work schedule and social life stopped you from being home long enough to comfort and care for them. Cats shouldn't be allowed out side because of the danger they pose to local wild life. Deborah
  • Tex13 2 months ago
    As a home owner with a rental property, I do allow my tenants to have a pet aslong as they ask. My tenants are completely aware if the pet causes any damages that they will be liable for the cost of fixing the damage. I completely think it should be up to the landlord if they allow pets on the property as we are the ones taking all the risk and we own the property I think if there was some sort of issuance the renter could take out to be insured for any damages caused by a pet that may open up a lot of other landlords to allowing pets in the property as it’s a massive financial burden on us if everything goes bad.
  • Jodie1973 2 months ago
    I don’t think this situation is as simple as it may seem to a lot of people. As a pet lover and a rental property owner, I have never stopped my tenants from having pets, but that is my decision. As a long time property manager, I have declined many pet applications, sometimes because of the state the tenants already keep their properties, but some for the tenants or pets best interest. For example I had an elderly gentleman who applied to get a small pup. He had mobility and major health issues. He also had no family or friends as he had his solicitor listed as his emergency contact with my organisation and tried to list me personally as his contact with others. Not only was the dog going to be a trip hazard for the tenant, but there was nobody to look after it if he fell ill or worse, which sadly is exactly what happens only a couple of years later. This poor pup would have had to be surrendered to the RSPCA. I have personally seen and smelt the after affects of irresponsible, disrespectful tenants, and the bond is rarely enough to cover the costs to rectify the properties, without the extra costs a pet can add. I have seen landlords decline applications from excellent tenants with pets, just because they can’t afford to take the risk and I have seen tenants apply for properties that are totally unsuitable for the type, breed and size of their pets, which would be unfair to the animal and increase the likelihood of damages and the pet causing a nuisnace to neighbours.At the end of the day, I think pets need to be allowed at the owners discretion, after all they have paid a lot of money to buy the property in the first place. I also believe a pet bond would go a long way to making more landlords agreeable to allowing them.
    Hide reply (1)
    • Myfanwe 2 months ago
      This is why I think that the law should not 'force' property owners to allow pets, but should at least change so that all rentals are 'pets on application' thereby allowing the property owner/manager to have some say over the type of pets kept on the premises. The owner may not want a dog or cat, but maybe a budgie or guinea pig or other small animal could work because it is in a cage.
  • Activist Consumer 2 months ago
    I spoke to someone today at International Tenant's Day function who told horror story of moving in to a public housing property, when summer arrived, the carpet came alive with maggots from previous tenant pet(s). Dept refused to replace carpet, she left. Point is, automatic approval would allow this, so some negotiation indicated. Don't get me wrong, I'd love a pygmy pig. You can teach them to do tricks apparently, and so good to eat.
  • Lucietta 2 months ago
    I believe that as a tenant we shouldn't be discriminated against because we have pets. It's very hard to find a home when everyone is saying no pets. I currently have 2 dogs and a cat. I look after the house better than the owner does. I am currently being told get rid of 1 dog or move out (but then the owner says pay extra 10 a week and keep both dogs knowing very well I can't afford to pay any more rent). Obviously these laws should also be within reason to also help protect the property owner. So nobody being outrageous and owning like 4-5 or more dogs in suburbia (properties inland different case) or an outrageous number of cats or rats Guinea PIGS etc.... I think have it as part of the lease that specified animals allowed ask if ok to get other animals. To begin with new tenants have a inspection a month or so to see if animals being destructive or neglected then return to the 3 monthly inspections
  • Brettles 2 months ago
    Removed by moderator.
  • dd 2 months ago
    Removed by moderator.
  • JAF 2 months ago
    I am both a landlord and a tenant. Initially, as a landlord I was reluctant for any of my tenants to have a dog - simply because I do not believe the yard is large enough (they do now!). However, that was before I myself became a pet owner! I have two rescue cats in the residence I am renting. I now have no problem with tenants having pets. I think part of the problem is (and was for me) 1) I was never brought up with animals so I actually had no idea; 2) the bad press that tenants with animals get; 3) attitudes of councils towards domestic animals; 4) humans poor behaviour in abandoning their 'pets' when they move or simply do not want them anymore (which in the former, mainly due to the current renting legislation!). There is a need for some evidence regarding the association between pet ownership and renting and its subsequent outcomes for renters, landlords, and consequences for pets.
  • Denise 2 months ago
    I know for certain I was selected as a tenant by the owner because l didn't have a dog or cat.
    Hide reply (1)
    • SH 2 months ago
      We've just had to move and decided to rent for the first time, and can't begin to tell you the difficulty we had finding a place because we had 2 small dogs. I'm in favour for changing the legislation BUT it still has to be at the landlords discretion.
  • Kylie.B 2 months ago
    I believe that the approach we currently have in place is appropriate. There is no definitive way to determine if someone is a responsible pet owner and it will always be a risk for the owner of the property. At the end of the day the owner is responsible for the damages if the bond doesn’t cover the cost and the tenant refuses to pay. This should entitle the owners to make the decision if they want to take on that risk.
  • Onekel 2 months ago
    I think this topic needs to be based on rental references and the owner of the property, there are many owners that will allow pets and there are many great responsible pet owners however, to take off boundaries and taking away control from the property owner making that decision will end in less people wanting to invest and less housing available and there is already a shortage.
  • Kylz 2 months ago
    I’ve been a Property Manager for 20 years and although most pet owners do the right thing and I’ve only had 5 bad experiences with pets in properties throughout this time, the decision of allowing a pet should ultimately be up to the home owner. If the investor has had a bad experience in the past it ultimately alters their decision to have one in their investment property a second time round. If we take away the voice of our investors, we’re going to find less people Investing in the property market which will in turn affect affordable housing right across the board. People need to look at the big picture and domino affect that overturning this decision may have. Although most renters that have pets are responsible, there’s always a handful that make poor decisions. Unfortunately common sense isn’t that common as I’ve also had a ridiculous amount of applications over the years from people that think it’s ok to have a German Shepherd kept in a backyard that’s only big enough to have a shitzu comfortably run around so whilst the legislation is there to help protect the investor, in turn it actually helps the pets that don’t have a say who owns it. Some of their owners don’t always their best interests at heart.
  • Tonia2016 2 months ago
    Pets should be allowed if the owner is comfortable with this. As a property manager, I know that the majority of my owners and properties are pet friendly. Not once in the past 6 months have I declined and application due to someone simply having a pet. I have however declined applications due to pets previously causing damage at properties and this being reported via a reference from a previous property manager of a tenant. Responsible pet owners are not the issue, and the large majority of landlords are open to accepting pets from responsible pet owners - after all many landlords are pet owners themselves. However, it should always be the landlords choice whether they accept a pet to be residing at their property - after all, It's their property. Those who are surrendering animals due to not being able to find a home that accommodates pets are not responsible pet owners - when you get a pet, you are committing to keeping it for its entire lifetime. Chances are, the pet also isn't the issue with your applications. Pay your rent on time and look after the property - keep to your basic obligations as a tenant and I almost guarantee you will have no issues finding a rental property with a pet approved by the landlord.
  • Brianna Egan 2 months ago
    It should always be the home owner’s choice to approve any pet requests - the property still belongs to them after all and they are inheriting all of the risk.I have seen on too many occasions where tenants with pets have caused damages to a property and an owner has not been covered under their landlord insurance for damages made by the pet. An owner should always be able to make the decision to approve a pet or not as they have to accept the risk if something goes wrong. The majority of tenants with pets don’t cause damage and do look after a property but that does not entitle everyone to the right to have a pet at a property.
  • Darcie 2 months ago
    I think the landlord should definitely be able to restrict the type and number of pets. When a landlord says no pets they are usually thinking about cats and dogs. Most, I think, would be happy to consider birds/fish/reptiles. The property may not be adequately fenced for certain dogs or of a suitable size.
  • Sophie L 2 months ago
    The issue with pets is that in high density living a barking dog will be disturbing a significant number of people. I know as I live in a body corp allowing them... I can also hear a significant number of dogs living in the neighbourhood. They get scared in small units at the noise they hear. As an owner I should be entitled to rent to people without pets to avoid damage to floors, furniture, etc. It might be a thing to have pets in QLD but you shouldn't force it on people. I live in a building of +130 units