It is common practice for landlords and real estate agencies to include no-pets clauses in lease agreements. According to the RSPCA, the most stated reason for surrendering pets is the owner is moving house and cannot find pet-friendly accommodation. Some tenants approach rescue groups to have their pet re-homed while others are put down. Also know that most people adopt cute and cuddly kittens over senior pre-loved cats.
The concern is that pets might cause property damage. Landlords and agencies usually impose a blanket ban on pets. The reasoning is completely flawed. They could reject applications from parents with young children on the same basis. Some would say children are more destructive than pets. This tenant comments:
I find it insulting that every study shows that the average child causes more damage to a house than the average pet, yet pet owners are consistently turned down or forced to give up their pet. The number of animals in the RSPCA that are there purely because their owners couldn't find a rental property that would take them are horrific.
But we don’t outlaw children and in some jurisdictions families are protected from discrimination. It is also unfair tenants are judged on the behaviour of others. Research shows pet owners have made clear progress in socially responsible pet ownership.
I am concerned the prohibition on pets affects some groups in society more than others. Low income earners are effectively precluded from having pets while those on higher incomes can. Something this simple has created a capital divisions in society between the haves and have-nots. Kathryn comments, "I’m so thankful I have my own home as I think it is shocking the way rental agents state no pets a lot of the time…I for one would live in a tent in the country, rather than part with my beloved pets".
Some rescue groups recommend a pet resume and references. We have seen the development of pet-friendly real estate search engines with "pets permitted" options. As recently as 2009, a frustrated pet owner introduced Pet Friendly Rentals. Tenants can use a simple search to find pet friendly rental properties. But it is still very difficult for tenants to find appropriate accommodation. And this is so despite research showing pet-friendly properties increase in value because tenants are usually prepared to pay more to keep their beloved pets.
Research shows pets have numerous physical and psychological benefits. Research has shown that pet ownership reduces risk of cardiovascular disease. Dog owners tend to get outside more and get more exercise. Studies have also shown infants with access to furry pets are less likely to develop allergies. Pets also help people struggling with depression, anxiety, and other kinds of mental illness. Pet companionship is an important support for those coping with the grief of the loss of a loved one. Elderly people, especially those with dementia, benefit greatly from pet companionship. I am not going to list all the studies. They are too numerous to count.
But the right to keep a pet on residential premises is not guaranteed in any state or territory in Australia. This seems incongruous when we consider Australia has one of the highest rates of pet ownership in the world. We only have to watch the Aussie film Red Dog too see Aussies love their pets. Perhaps I am naïve but I thought the law was supposed to be a reflection of community attitudes. Not so. It's all about protecting property ownership.
A trend for pet bonds or agreements to be used is developing. In Western Australia, a landlord can ask for a pet bond if they allow a tenant to keep a cat or a dog. The pet bond can only be used to fumigate premises at the end of the tenancy. It can be no more than $260 (there are some exceptions). In other jurisdictions, pet bonds or agreements are being used informal basis. So who determines if fumigation is needed? The landlord? Clearly, a vested interest clearly exists there. This could be an opportunity for unscrupulous landlords to make some extra cash at the expense of pet owners. And how do we even know that the landlord will use the pet bond for fumigation?
The issue came up in Queensland when there was a review of tenancy laws in 2007. The Committee decided the maximum bond of four weeks was sufficient. This definitely reflects my view. These kind of bonds create an additional barrier to renters with pets trying to enter the private rental market. I do not think other states and territories should follow in the steps of Western Australia. Pet ownership is a normal incident of living. It should fall within a permitted zone of tenant activities. It is a right to be protected, not taken away.
I must admit that I am biased. I have a much-loved black Persian cat Mojo. I used to live in a flat and the landlord did not allow pets. Almost everyone in the block had a cat. Pets would be hidden at a friend’s place come inspection time. If the law was amended to protect pet ownership, tenants could finally stop hiding their pets. We just need someone with leadership to stand up for pets.
No comments:
Post a Comment