This is important as it could make or break your investment.
Tenants need to be matched to the property eg: a family ( 5 ) should not be put into a 2 bedroom unit.
To minimise risk of damage I was thinking of not allowing pets & I have had conversations with friends who advised do not allow children.
If I decide on the above conditions , no pets & no children it will be harder to let the property but in theory the risk of damage is reduced. Is this reduced risk worth having the property vacant a bit longer or am I being paranoid ???
I know the saying no risk , no profit but what I want is to try & reduce the risk as we have all heard the horror stories!!!Domo,
You can discriminate against pets, but don’t even try to make it look like you are discriminating against children otherwise you could be have legal battles on your hands!!!
Pets is one thing, but children an entirely different ball game. NEVER EVER EVER advertise NO KIDS; even if potential tenants don’t have them; they won’t come near you!!! What if a couple read it, and then the guy thought “what if my wife gets pregnant?; no I’ll give it a miss!!!”
Don’t go there!!!!
Jo
P.S. If you are adamant about “no kids” just screen applicants without letting on. That is, if they turn up with kids, or you find out they have them, then note it in the back of your mind; but for heaven’s sake don’t publicise it!!!
Hi Domo,
agree with you totally that you need to match tenants with the property.[biggrin]
But the balance of your argument has some holes. Just because someone has children or pets doesn’t automatically mean increased damage. It really comes down to being especially careful when selecting tenants for your property. The other thing is regular inspections to catch any potential problems before they escalate. Also I don’t believe you are allowed to discriminate on the basis of children. Could be a legal issue (one to be aware of). Finally, make sure your insurance policy covers all possible areas of damage.
Regards,[cap]
HelenOriginally posted by Monopoly:Domo,
You can discriminate against pets, but don’t even try to make it look like you are discriminating against children otherwise you could be have legal battles on your hands!!!
Pets is one thing, but children an entirely different ball game. NEVER EVER EVER advertise NO KIDS; even if potential tenants don’t have them; they won’t come near you!!! What if a couple read it, and then the guy thought “what if my wife gets pregnant?; no I’ll give it a miss!!!”
Don’t go there!!!!
Jo
P.S. If you are adamant about “no kids” just screen applicants without letting on. That is, if they turn up with kids, or you find out they have them, then note it in the back of your mind; but for heaven’s sake don’t publicise it!!!
Jo
I love children I would have a big problem refusing to let my place to someone with children.
The people that advised me about no children do not have any IP’s , so once again it has been proven to be a bad choice to listen to someone who does not have experience in this area.Once again thanks Jo you have been a great help..
..[thumbsupanim][thumbsupanim]No problem Domo,
I didn’t believe for a minute you don’t like kids; I just realised that your (well meaning) friends didn’t advise you of the possible legal implications of discrimination associated with this kind of practice.
Cheers, [biggrin]
Jo
Originally posted by elika7264:Hi Domo,
agree with you totally that you need to match tenants with the property.[biggrin]
But the balance of your argument has some holes. Just because someone has children or pets doesn’t automatically mean increased damage. It really comes down to being especially careful when selecting tenants for your property. The other thing is regular inspections to catch any potential problems before they escalate. Also I don’t believe you are allowed to discriminate on the basis of children. Could be a legal issue (one to be aware of). Finally, make sure your insurance policy covers all possible areas of damage.
Regards,[cap]
HelenHelen
You are correct pets or children do not necessarily equate to damage ….
One of the reasons I asked this question was because of the insurance policies , they do not cover damage due to children or pets being uncontrolled.
A friend’s IP was taken over by rabbits once the tenants did a runner & it was a mess , insurance did not cover the damage.
I am trying to understand what I am getting myself into !!!!!I have read that it can actually be quite good to rent to people who have pets as it is hard for them to find places and will actually stay longer and take care of the place better as they don’t want to have to go through all of the hard work of finding a place that will accept pets again. Personally, if I had a suitable IP i’d have no problem renting it to people who had pets, but I’d probably charge them a bit extra for the potential damage their pets could cause.
Thanks,
LuckyoneOriginally posted by luckyone:I have read that it can actually be quite good to rent to people who have pets as it is hard for them to find places and will actually stay longer and take care of the place better as they don’t want to have to go through all of the hard work of finding a place that will accept pets again. Personally, if I had a suitable IP i’d have no problem renting it to people who had pets, but I’d probably charge them a bit extra for the potential damage their pets could cause.
Thanks,
LuckyoneLuckyone
There are always different ways to look at the same situation & it’s great to get the different points of view as it helps you to start thinking outside your square !!!![hmm][hmm]Hi Domo
Monopoly & Elika are spot on about discrimination.
Do it wrong and you have broken the law.
In NSW (not sure abot other states) the PM can decline a tenancy application without giving a reason. That’s the best way.
Pets and kids increase wear and tear, no doubt about that. The lease can state that the tenant is responsible for the cost of repairs of any damage or smell caused by pets inside or outside the premises. However, the Residential Tenancies Act permits reasonable wear & tear, and “reasonable” is interpreted according to the type of tenants in the property. Extra damage is permissable as “wear and tear” if the tenants include kids, wheelchairs, or someone who has any kind of mobility or other problem which might understandably increase damage, provided the problem was obvious or explained to the PM prior to acceptance of the tenancy application.
So if you accept a tenat who will obviously or understandably cause your property more than “normal” wear & tear, then the higher level of wear and tear becomes legally acceptable, and the tenant is not liable for it.
I always included an additional clause in the lease stating that
“the condition in which the tenants found the property was “professionally sprayed for fleas, spiders, cockroaches etc. and the tenant especially with a dog was responsible for leaving the property as they found it and therefore must have the property professionally sprayed the same when vacating at the tenant’s expense with a copy of the invoice provided to the PM.”
hope it helps, hope it always runs smooth for you.
cheers
thecrestthecrest | Tony Neale - Statewide Motel Brokers
http://www.statewidemotelbrokers.com.au
Email Me | Phone Meselling motels in NSW
Regarding Pets during the screening of tenants can you ask what type of pet a tenant has ??
As this may help match the tenant to the property eg: if the property has a small court yard & the Tenant has a big dog it would seem that the tenant does not fit the property !!!!!
Does anyone have any thoughts on this ????
Hi there,
I’ve had trouble where previously good tenants with no pets have decided to take it upon themselves to get a large dog. Even though it was against the conditions in the agreement.
This was where I remembered why I pay a property manager. She met the dog at the door where it tore half the fly wire off, Huh! She conducted an inspection( After giving the required notice) and there was no further damage.The tenants stayed for another 12 months but have since moved on.So it ended well.
I’ve often wondered how people go taking tenants with pets and raising the yeild.
Have a bunch of hounds in the back yard and a motel next door, mmmmm…..
Shawn
I think you should have thought about the types of tenants that you want before you buy the property. We own houses in the burbs and they are usually tenated to families and have pets, We also have town houses and in these we get a mixture of young people or families and they also sometimes have small pets, then there is our units which dont allow pets. The ones that we allow pets into we usually require them to have professional cleaners( our choice) and fumigators inside and out when they leave. I cant say that we have had any more problems with the pets than we have had with some tenants. I myself rent and we have 2 horses, 2 rabbits 1 cat some fish 2 budgies 1 guinea pig and several chickens depending on how hungry the fox is. I would obviously not be looking for a unit in the city. So if you dont like children and pets maybe a 4 br house in the burbs is not the ideal rental property for you.
Erikai am not sure if it is a common thing or not,but i have heard of 2 friends that had pets giving a “pet bond” to ease the agent/owners minds.
Theres always the option of increasiong the rent by $5 a week or so for tenants who are wanting to rent with pets
pet bonds are the way to go it can cover any damage to plants lawns etc. It is also a good way to retain and atract tennants. We have 4 ip’s and ask the perspctive tennant to provide pet referee’s from friends and preferably from past landlord(s). It may sound funny but people understand and seem to like the fact that you are treating their animal as part of the family unit in deciding on their tenancy application.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. If you don't have an account, you can register here.
