Why do landlords ban pets?

CoffeeCrow

CoffeeCrow

Tourist
Really and seriously. Why is it so hard to find a pet-friendly apartment?

Most apartments seem to not allow pets at all, or at best require approval for a newly acquired animal and will deny your application if you have one already.
Where I live is "pet friendly" but a sublet with a cat already in it, and came with a rule basically saying "no new pets unless my cat dies"

I can understand that pets sometimes cause damage, and that allergies in adjacent apartments could mean walking your dog impacts your neighbors' quality of life more than it would if you had detached houses. At the same time, though, I hear tons of complaints from people moving that they can't even take a short-haired cat to a new place unless they're willing to drop an extra grand per month on rent. What gives? Is it a money grab or is there some reason so many landlords forbid animals?
 
It's because landlords do not whant their property to loose in value. I still wonder, why they don't care about indoor smoking than.

Here in Germany it's kinda weird. Landlords do usualy have a no pets allowed-rule in their contract, buuuut, that rule is illegal, and basicly can be ignored.

Here in Germany you have the right have a pet in your apartment. There are only very few exceptions. For example, if there is another person in the same house who has an allergy against your pet. A mild animal hair allergy will not surfiice, it needs to be life threatening, and the landlord needs to get proof of that.

So the legal way goes like this: you rent the place, than you give the landlord the information, that you will get a pet. He will probably than insist on the contract, that that's not allowed. Than you just tell him, that this part of the contract is illegal, and therefore you will ignore it.
Important is, that you don't just get a pet right away, you need to retain some specific legal times, that I don't know right now. You need to give the landlord the time to make sure that nobody in the house is deadly allergic to your pet. If he can't get proof of that, or he just let the time go by without acting, you can just get your pet, and there is nothing he can legally do about that.
 
Because too many humans are garbage and absolutely terrible pet owners. In addition to that, far too many people who rent have never owned a single fucking thing of their own and don't give the tiniest fuck about the things you own, and so they treat your property like shit, and if they have pets, it's quite a bit worse overall in damage and property destruction.

Add to that potential liability if said shitty pet owners don't manage their pet and it's bites people, possibly children.

I almost never go to anyone else's house, and of the ones I have, the sheer amount of these places that have had pets and the whole house smells like a zoo or there are piles of dogshit everywhere, filthy uncleaned literboxes, etc has convinced me that if I was ever to rent a property out, it would either be no pets at all, or the pet fee would be twice the monthly rent payment, per month you have pets. If you'd be willing to pay that, then I'd be willing to take your money, so I will have the money after you move to repair all the fucking damage to my property.
 
Since a decision by the supreme court, landlords in Germany are not allowed to ban a dog. Unless the dog is dangerous, pollutes the house and property or disturbs by permanent barking.
 
It really depends where you are. Very few apartments in my city forbid pets, but last year I was looking at moving to WV and everywhere was "no pets, no pets, not pets".
 
S
knotjen said:
I'm a landlord and I own a 22-unit apartment building.

My building is 100% smoke-free. Smoke outside or be evicted. Same for pets, none are allowed, not even a goldfish in a mayo jar.

The reason is the damage that occurs often far exceeds the two months security deposit I might get to keep.

One tenant I evicted several years ago wrecked the place. Dragged their furniture all around the hardwood flooring, ruining it. Their 100 gallon fish tank they weren't supposed to have overflowed many times, and that water got in between the hardwood flooring and the structural wood supporting it and mold grew like mad in between. Both layers had to be ripped out and replaced, and because the joists had gotten went too I had to deal with mold remediation for that plus some of the walls the water seeped into. They also jerry-rigged the electrical panel and damaged it to the point where it needed to be replaced.

Hardwood Floors: $8500
Mold Remediation: $9000
Electrical work: $2400
Paint Entire Unit: $2200
Installation of Water Heater they stole on the way out: $1600

$23,900 worth of expense to me, their security deposit which I kept because of it, was two months security, $4200 at the time.

That put me in the hole for $19400 in an instant.

That's why.

Don't forget as a landlord, I also have other expenses. Roofing, siding, landscaping, snow removal, replacement windows, replacement heating and cooling and water heaters for each apartment, all the infrastructure within the building (gas, electric, chimneys, drains, plumbing) and all the fixtures relating to any of that.

And I'm one of the more responsive landlords in the area. If you call at 1am to say your toilet is leaking, I'll have my handyman there in a couple hours.

And sometimes, the damage done upstairs damages the units underneath. I was lucky with the fish tank tenant they were on the first floor.
Click to expand...
Security, or damage deposit here in BC is half a months rent. If anything gets damaged, the landlord foots the bill pretty much, as a half months rent is peanuts towards any repair bill. Most tenants are brain dead too.
 
Keepinitlowkey said:
S

Security, or damage deposit here in BC is half a months rent. If anything gets damaged, the landlord foots the bill pretty much, as a half months rent is peanuts towards any repair bill. Most tenants are brain dead too.
Click to expand...
Fuck that.

ARE there limits on the amount of "pet security" deposits, by law?
 
Dogdaddy69 said:
ARE there limits on the amount of "pet security" deposits, by law?
Click to expand...
Would be entirely local if there are.


My last place had a $300 pet deposit with no monthly fee. They charged me like $800 in "pet damages" when I moved out, and didn't even apply the pet "deposit" towards it, rather took my normal security deposit and charged me the rest. Most of which was replacing the carpet, which was bullshit since I'd been there 5 years and they would have been replacing the carpet due to normal wear anyway, pet or no pet.

My current place has a $35 monthly fee and I don't recall the deposit.

An old place was a $100 deposit then a $25/month fee, I was there for 8 years... that's over 2 grand in pet fees I fed them.
 
knotjen said:
Combining state, county and town laws relating to landlords/renters, I can collect up to a two-month security deposit, plus up to a $500 pet related security deposit.

I don't allow pets so I don't collect the latter nor do I have pet damage very often. Just from the occasional tenant who feels the rules they agreed to by signature don't apply to them.
Click to expand...
lol......

So, then, that answers any real question I would have had. NO pets period. If I can't charge double, per month, whatever the rent is for them to have pets, then there are no pets.

There is no way in hell I'm eating the cost of some irresponsible fuckwad wrecking my property through their shitty habits.

But, the reality is the entire concept, for me, only makes any sense at all until we get to the irresponsible person part anyway.
 
Dogdaddy69 said:
Because too many humans are garbage and absolutely terrible pet owners.
Click to expand...
I can say even as a responsible "pet" owner, dogs are freaking destructive to a living space. Your dog ate something random off the ground behind your back during your walk? Whoops! Prepare for a day of diarrheal shit on your carpets as their body does its best to violently expell whatever it was that they ate! Your dog gets a UTI? Welp, prepare for them to urinate on your carpets as well. Not only those issues, but over time dogs will also leave residue on your walls, and if you're not careful cleaning it, you can literally scrape the paint off the wall doing so. My girl also likes to sleep in the corner of my bedroom next to my bed and she's rubbed her backside against the wall turning herself around, so many times, that it's rubbed the paint off the wall. The last thing that comes to mind is that dogs often leave a "dog smell" behind. And while I'm pretty nose blind to it, non-dog people won't be. You can clean and clean and clean some more, but it's really hard to get every bit of fur and pet dandruff out of every single nook and cranny.
 
FloofyNewfie said:
I can say even as a responsible "pet" owner, dogs are freaking destructive to a living space. Your dog ate something random off the ground behind your back during your walk? Whoops! Prepare for a day of diarrheal shit on your carpets as their body does its best to violently expell whatever it was that they ate! Your dog gets a UTI? Welp, prepare for them to urinate on your carpets as well. Not only those issues, but over time dogs will also leave residue on your walls, and if you're not careful cleaning it, you can literally scrape the paint off the wall doing so. My girl also likes to sleep in the corner of my bedroom next to my bed and she's rubbed her backside against the wall turning herself around, so many times, that it's rubbed the paint off the wall. The last thing that comes to mind is that dogs often leave a "dog smell" behind. And while I'm pretty nose blind to it, non-dog people won't be. You can clean and clean and clean some more, but it's really hard to get every bit of fur and pet dandruff out of every single nook and cranny.
Click to expand...
I agree. And, I think that's a relative consideration, but, I also believe that's part of the trade off you accept with pet ownership and is a known (or should be) and accepted part of ownership.

In that same way of viewing it, as a property owner, I would view it that same way, as something that comes with the territory.

It's the blatant disrespect for the property of others that I wanted to point out makes it a no go for me personally without a very serious financial way of ensuring it doesn't come at my personal expense. Given what *some* humans will willfully do to property, I see no need to take any chance that this same type of person could in any way be trusted to care for their pets in a responsible way.

For example, I mentioned houses smelling like a zoo earlier. I expect a house with pets to smell like pets, that's a given. What I meant is when it's never countered or minimally countered by actual cleaning. Some people are not fit to live in a house and could make a barn a disgusting place to be.

It's sad, but unfortunately, it's also true.
 
What I'm getting here is that individual crackhead-tier tenants ruin it for everyone. Why rent out at all if the supposedly average tenant is a total slob who will ruin your floor with exploding fish tanks and failing to clean up their messy knotty creampies?

Alternatively, why not sue individual tenants for individual damage? Damage deposits are a thing too, which are meant to cover that kind of damage. If damage is done in a common space and the tenant intends on continuing to stay (and won't be evicted or bullied out) why not sue for that damage secure in the knowledge that even if you lose or the case goes stale, you still have that chunk of change to cover the damage?

All this ignores that modern renting involves all kinds of background checks (sometimes at cost to the prospective tenant) and interviews and shit. Are you really renting to people who show up for a viewing reeking of dog shit and covered in last season's fur?
 
Reconscope said:
Specieism and prejudice as well as "human power superiority". Take your pick.

Of course there's money reasons or allergies or liability or damage. But it all comes down to speciesism
Click to expand...
No it comes down to shit care takers! People who neglect their animals and allow them to do any thing, the damage can be extensive, and the law favours these people far more then the land owner.

So would you risk it? Easy to say ya sure when you are not holding the bag in the end
 
CoffeeCrow said:
What I'm getting here is that individual crackhead-tier tenants ruin it for everyone. Why rent out at all if the supposedly average tenant is a total slob who will ruin your floor with exploding fish tanks and failing to clean up their messy knotty creampies?

Alternatively, why not sue individual tenants for individual damage? Damage deposits are a thing too, which are meant to cover that kind of damage. If damage is done in a common space and the tenant intends on continuing to stay (and won't be evicted or bullied out) why not sue for that damage secure in the knowledge that even if you lose or the case goes stale, you still have that chunk of change to cover the damage?

All this ignores that modern renting involves all kinds of background checks (sometimes at cost to the prospective tenant) and interviews and shit. Are you really renting to people who show up for a viewing reeking of dog shit and covered in last season's fur?
Click to expand...
You'd be amazed at what levels people will go to to fake all of this, sad as it is this is the world we live in.

I was that guy who got sent in to repair and clean those rentals for the next person, all I can say there is a reason I say humans are 98.5% of all problems int his world and live far away and off grid.

Some units really aut to been just burned down they where so disgusting.
 
OffgridK9lover said:
No it comes down to shit care takers! People who neglect their animals and allow them to do any thing, the damage can be extensive, and the law favours these people far more then the land owner.

So would you risk it? Easy to say ya sure when you are not holding the bag in the end
Click to expand...
Exclusive background checks as well as past deeds from other landlords. Best cover all angles objectively speaking as well as check on the neighbors see their responsibility levels as well as identify bias from each person.

(Yes I'm in that mindset now where I am pretty objective not emotional.)

The one thing you quoted before was the "emotional" me... This one is the cold hard logic. It took me 1 and half weeks to get my emotional sector back into flux. But now when I wrote my notes I can finally alternate between the two by reading them.
 
Last edited:
CoffeeCrow said:
Alternatively, why not sue individual tenants for individual damage?
Click to expand...
Because odds are you'll never recover any actual damages leveled against the defendant by the court. Your average renter, especially one who damages property, lives pay check to pay check, so they're sure not gonna pay anything. Even if the court goes far enough to garnish their wags, they'd only be able to garnish a tiny amount and it'd take 20 years to garnish the settlement amount.

So all you'd gain by sueing is even more costs in court fees and the time spent prosecuting it.
 
dartel said:
Because odds are you'll never recover any actual damages leveled...
Click to expand...
Is that not the point of levying a damage deposit in the first place? Many places also force tenants to have renters' insurance now, too, which you could eat out of if you really had to.
 
I don't think I saw anyone here mention insurance on behalf of the property management company. Large rental managers usually have insurance policies that place strict restrictions on them, which means they can't budge on pet policies at all. That's why so many apartment complexes (in the US anyways) have the same list of banned breeds. If you have a dog that's labeled an aggressive breed/dogs that are too big/too many pets you are better off looking for individually owned apartment buildings or renting a house as they may make exceptions if they meet your pet/s.
 
Dogdaddy69 said:
Fuck that.

ARE there limits on the amount of "pet security" deposits, by law?
Click to expand...
I can’t really remember, as it’s been a while since I dealt with it, but it was something like half the damage deposit per pet. Not sure, but it barely covers getting the floors cleaned/shampooed. Renting things up here is fucked up. Here in Canada, low life’s and pieces of shit have more rights than anyone else. It’s really pathetic, and only getting worse.
 
CoffeeCrow said:
Really and seriously. Why is it so hard to find a pet-friendly apartment?

Most apartments seem to not allow pets at all, or at best require approval for a newly acquired animal and will deny your application if you have one already.
Where I live is "pet friendly" but a sublet with a cat already in it, and came with a rule basically saying "no new pets unless my cat dies"

I can understand that pets sometimes cause damage, and that allergies in adjacent apartments could mean walking your dog impacts your neighbors' quality of life more than it would if you had detached houses. At the same time, though, I hear tons of complaints from people moving that they can't even take a short-haired cat to a new place unless they're willing to drop an extra grand per month on rent. What gives? Is it a money grab or is there some reason so many landlords forbid animals?
Click to expand...
I'm sure this is already been answered but it comes down to two things most people don't take very good care of their pets so they usually end up causing very severe damage to the property which in some cases can go as far as requiring to have the entire subfloors removed and sections of drywall replaced the other issue is insurance like seriously go look at the list of dangerous pets that insurance companies will just straight up say fuck you you don't get house insurance if you have one
 
CoffeeCrow said:
Really and seriously. Why is it so hard to find a pet-friendly apartment?

Most apartments seem to not allow pets at all, or at best require approval for a newly acquired animal and will deny your application if you have one already.
Where I live is "pet friendly" but a sublet with a cat already in it, and came with a rule basically saying "no new pets unless my cat dies"

I can understand that pets sometimes cause damage, and that allergies in adjacent apartments could mean walking your dog impacts your neighbors' quality of life more than it would if you had detached houses. At the same time, though, I hear tons of complaints from people moving that they can't even take a short-haired cat to a new place unless they're willing to drop an extra grand per month on rent. What gives? Is it a money grab or is there some reason so many landlords forbid animals?
Click to expand...
Because landlords are assholes 🤷🏼‍♂️
 
With how disgusting some people are, I get it. They can't keep after themselves, let alone animals.

But I'm not used to that as it is not legal for a proper rental to deny pets, where I am. Basically, if there is a lease (not for a room or in pvt house) they can't say no pet, and if the lease does, it's considered legally void.
 
Cause pets are still NULL class beings, considered property. So when all you care about is making money, it's a no brainer to ban them! Never mind that they are part of a family, and kids can be even more destructive when raised badly.
 
I think insurance reasons play into it. Labradors, for instance, can be destructive if left alone, and it's the /landlord/ who has to pay for that damage. It's easier, from their perspective, to just forbid pets itfp
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top