Right: Many strata properties are leased or sold under bylaws that do not allow pets.
 Found a word you're not familiar with? Double-click that word to bring up a dictionary reference to it. The dictionary page includes an audio sound file with which to actually hear the word said. |
Arguments against tenants being able to keep pets
1. Pet ownership is not an unfettered right
The right to pet ownership is limited by a set of legal restrictions even where the pet owner also owns the accommodation.
Using the New South Wales Companion Animals Act as an example, there are restrictions placed on where cats and dogs may be (for example, dogs are prohibited from being in playgrounds, school yards, shopping centres and eateries) and how they may behave. There are behaviours that can result in either dogs or cats being deemed a nuisance or a danger to neighbours or others and which, if they persist, may result in the animal being seized.
These restrictions are intensified where the pet is to be kept on a property that does not belong to the pet owner. The fundamental difference is that the landlord has the right to not have a pet kept on the property at all. All leases in Australia have a pet clause similar to that in the New South Wales Residential Tenancy Agreement where clause 43 stipulates 'The tenant agrees not to keep animals on the residential premises without obtaining the landlord's consent.' Clause 44 further states 'The landlord agrees that the tenant may keep the following animals on the residential premises...' Where clause 44 has not been filled in, the tenant has no right to keep a pet on the rental property.
Throughout Australia tenants have a right to what is termed 'quiet enjoyment' of the property being rented. Under the New South Wales Residential Tenancy Agreement, for example, clause 14 states, 'The landlord agrees that the tenant will have quiet enjoyment of the residential premises without interruption by the landlord or any person claiming by, through or under the landlord or having superior title to that of the landlord (such as a head landlord), and that the landlord or the landlord's agent will not interfere with, or cause or permit any interference with, the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in using the residential premises.'
It is generally claimed that the tenant's right to 'quiet enjoyment' of the property is not substantially affected by a landlord prohibiting pets.
2. Pets can damage a property
Property Owners Association of Queensland president, Mr Bruce McBryde, has said that many real estate agents encouraged landlords not to allow pets in their properties.
Mr McBryde stated, 'Around 80% of agents don't recommend property owners have pets because of the trouble caused post-tenant. It is just an extra burden on landlords.
Pets leave smells behind, fleas and can stain carpets, floors and can really turn a nice house into a not-so-nice house... Pets are one of the few things landlords can discriminate on and it is their right to do so.'
This is not always the case and there appears to be a growing tendency for agents to encourage owners to exercise discretion when considering whether to allow pets to be kept on their premises. This is the attitude of Sydney Real Estate Agent G.K. Hurst who states 'property managers often encourage property owners to have an open mind about pets. However, on their Internet site G.K. Hurst lists both the disadvantages and the advantages of allowing pets.
Included among the disadvantages are that 'Badly behaved pets can cause tremendous damage to your property and garden; especially if pets are younger or left unsupervised.'
Hurst also warns 'Even cute little puppies have the potential to leave nasty odours behind. If pets aren't properly toilet trained, there's even a greater chance for permanent floorboard damage.' Finally they caution 'Pets can be a breeding ground for fleas and other pest infestations if they're not properly cared for.'
In August, 2011, a landlord commented in a Queensland online news site, replying to a story on restrictions on pet owners as renters. She wrote, 'I allowed my current tenants to keep pets on the premises and the lease agreements specified that the pets were to be outside only. I am in the midst of having the lease terminated as the tenants continually bring the pets inside. Worse still, the pets have done some damage to the inside of my property. In the past, other tenants brought their pets inside the property (when specified it was forbidden) and damage occurred...
I've had enough of tenants and am going to sell the property once the tenants are gone. If I ever bought another house and rented it out, I would never allow tenants to have pets on my property ever again. It's sad that those bad people spoil it for those good ones out there but there comes a point when enough is enough.'
3. Pets can inconvenience other tenants
Where a rental property is not a house, but a complex where the tenants life in close proximity to each other pet ownership comes with particular risks and obligations. Some pets can inconvenience other tenants.
The types of inconvenience pets can cause are many and varied. They can cause a noise nuisance. Their excrement can soil common access areas. They can be responsible for disturbing odours. They can prompt allergies in other tenants. They can be aggressive. They can injure other tenants. Their presence can restrict the freedom of movement of other tenants. They can damage gardens intended for the enjoyment of all tenants. They can be a menace to the children of other tenants.
The New South Wales Young Lawyers Animal Rights Association has stated, 'Keeping animals in residential areas, particularly in a strata scheme, can raise issues such as cleanliness, noise, and unsociable behaviour.'
Referring to a strata scheme they go on to state, 'Whether you are intending to rent or purchase in a strata scheme, you may need to obtain prior written consent from the Owners Corporation in order to keep your pet in the scheme, depending upon the By-laws which apply.'
Strata arrangements require not only the permission of the landlord; they require the approval of other tenants. Though other tenants cannot 'unreasonably' object to the presence of a pet the landlord has approved, their reasonable approval depends on the pet not presenting a nuisance of any sort to other residents. Indeed there are some tenants who move into a particular complex precisely because they will not have to deal with the difficulties posed by their neighbours' pets.
David Ferguson, the managing director of strata company Strata Plus, has referred to one waterfront building in Neutral Bay where the bylaws ban pets - and some residents moved in for that very reason, believing pets might attract rats.
The New South Wales Young Lawyers Animal Rights Association has stated, 'Even though you may have the consent of the landlord any owner or occupier within the scheme can apply for an order to remove a pet on the grounds that it is causing a nuisance...'
4. Property owners are often not indemnified against pet damage
It has been noted that allowing pets is a significant risk for most landlords as the bond may not cover the cost of repairing any damage caused and most insurance policies do not cover damage caused by a tenant's pet.
When advising landlords on their insurance options, the online insurance advice site, Insurance Buddy, notes, 'There are some restrictions, as you may expect. Landlord insurance may not cover damage by rodents, trees or tenants' pets.'
Similarly, on a renters' and landlords' forum, one of the posters notes, 'The challenge is that it may well cost far more than the bond to repair pet damage, and landlord insurance policies do not cover pet damage. For most landlords not allowing pets is risk mitigation.'
It has also been noted that a pet bond is not part of the tenancy act in most Australian states. Some states actually specifically disallow the charging of such bonds. Tasmanian legislation, for example, prohibits landlords from receiving any monies other than one period of rent in advance and four weeks' bond. Landlords cannot accept any other fees or bonds relating to the tenancy.
In Western Australia it is possible to charge a pet bond of up to $100. In New South Wales the maximum amount that can be charged as a pet bond was raised to $260 in June, 2011; however, this does not affect tenants with pre-existing leases who have made different bond arrangements.
Property Owners Association of Queensland president Bruce McBryde has indicated that property owners were generally wary of the cost of damage to their properties and the difficulties in recouping those costs. He has claimed it is difficult to get tenants to take responsibility for damage caused by pets to rental properties since in states like Queensland the Residential Tenancies Authority allowed for no extra protection for landlords.
5. Some rental accommodation is not suitable for pets
A number of animal support groups actually discourage those in certain sorts of rental accommodation from owning pets. It has been noted that apartment living is not suited to the needs of many pets. The New South Wales RSPCA has brought out a brochure giving advice to prospective dog owners who are apartment dwellers. The brochure states, 'Dogs are social animals and are not suited to being left alone for long periods. Getting a second dog to keep the other dog company is not a logical solution - you could make the problem twice as bad for yourself and your neighbours.'
Some of the factors the RSPCA considers could make an apartment problematic for a dog are indicated in the following questions. 'Are the balconies safe and of suitable size for the dog? Are the floorboards/floor coverings suitable? Is there sufficient insulation or soundproofing throughout the dwelling? Can you give the dog access to windows so it can look out? Are there dog-friendly parks and walking areas nearby? Do you travel often? If so do, who will care for the dog when you are away? Can you interact with the dog at least three times a day?'
This view of responsible pet ownership is endorsed by the American Kennel Club which states, 'Owning a dog is a privilege and a responsibility. These animals depend on us for, at minimum, food and shelter, and deserve much more. If you are considering taking a dog into your life, you need to think seriously about the commitment that dog ownership entails.' From this perspective, pet ownership is not a right and someone should only take on a pet if able to meet its needs. Apartment living may be incompatible with meeting a pet's needs.