Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I have read many posts about pet fees that range from no fee to $1000. I have seen rentals that charge monthly rental for individual pets. Have these costs ever been challenged in court? IMO, the security deposit which is suppose to cover damages to a rental should be sufficient to include a pet. Pet rent is nothing more than extortion. I am surprised landlords are not trying to charge for each child?
I sold my house and moved to a townhouse that required a $500 non refundable pet fee. I was told it was to cover deep carpet cleaning when I left. Upon completion of the lease I was charged for carpet cleaning and was told that was not what the pet fee covered. I re-read the lease and the lease was non specific. I could not get a clear cut answer as to what the pet fee covered.
I am sure I will get posts that say I should have read the lease. I did read it. However, I shouldn't need a lawyer to sign a lease.
Secondly during my year of residency I noticed that the complex who stated only small dogs was now allowing larger dogs of all breeds, (pit bulls included). One person had three dogs and when I questioned him he told me the complex only charged one pet fee for all three dogs. Another, a family of four, with two large breed dogs told me the same thing. When I questioned the manager she say the complex had changed their rules. This complex was losing tenants and this is how they responded. They did not refund any pet fee in effect upon their policy change.
My point is simply that pet fees and pet rent amount to nothing but extortion. Landlords have become well aware that pet owners want to keep their pets with them and are easily manipulated into extra fees and costs that are at the very least unethical.
I urge all renters with pets to contact their respective political representative and challenged these pet related fees.
*shrug* Fine, if you don't want to pay a pet fee don't rent from anyone that charges one. Pets are notorious for causing different types of damage than humans. Most humans don't pee or poop on the carpet or hardwood floor. Most humans don't chew on woodwork or gouge up wooden doors by scratching at them. Most humans don't randomly destroy the yard. Et cetera...
Did you know that if a pet pees or poops on a hardwood floor, that it can ruin the floor and cause hundreds of dollars in repair costs? That's just ONE pee or poop spot that can do that. When pet excrement leaves a stain on the hardwood, it has to be sanded down to bare wood and refinished to get rid of it, and that doesn't always do the trick. Sometimes, the stain penetrates too deeply to be sanded out and then there's no recourse but to live with a stained floor or cut the damaged part out and replace it. No thanks.
As a pet owner, it's just a fact of life that we landlords are going to charge you in advance for whatever damage your pet may do to our property. It's nearly impossible to get humans to pay after the fact for the damage they do to the property, much less getting them to pay for the damage their pets do.
So bottom line...don't like the fee, find someplace to rent that doesn't charge one.
How about short term fees, month to month fees, late fees, view fees, floor fees, satellite fees, amenity fees, trash fees, etc, etc, etc. There's a fee for just about everything that is outside of the norm. Should those be "illegal" too? Fees are another source of income for communities. They're charged to people who want something "extra." The privelege to have a pet is "extra." Communities don't even have to allow you to have a pet at all. But they do, and like anything in this life, you have to pay for it. And you're right, pet fees and pet rent don't get applied towards damages. Only your deposit does. The fees and rent are simply for the privelege to have the pet, but if your pet causes any damages, you still have to pay for those.
Bottom line is apartment communities can charge whatever they want. They own the property. It's theirs to do whatever they want with. If you don't like it, you don't have to live there. Plain and simple. I don't mean to sound harsh, but it's reality and it won't be changing until pet become a protected class under Fair Housing!
Last edited by Babytarheelz; 02-26-2009 at 02:59 PM..
Reason: spelling
*shrug* Fine, if you don't want to pay a pet fee don't rent from anyone that charges one. Pets are notorious for causing different types of damage than humans. Most humans don't pee or poop on the carpet or hardwood floor. Most humans don't chew on woodwork or gouge up wooden doors by scratching at them. Most humans don't randomly destroy the yard. Et cetera...
Did you know that if a pet pees or poops on a hardwood floor, that it can ruin the floor and cause hundreds of dollars in repair costs? That's just ONE pee or poop spot that can do that. When pet excrement leaves a stain on the hardwood, it has to be sanded down to bare wood and refinished to get rid of it, and that doesn't always do the trick. Sometimes, the stain penetrates too deeply to be sanded out and then there's no recourse but to live with a stained floor or cut the damaged part out and replace it. No thanks.
As a pet owner, it's just a fact of life that we landlords are going to charge you in advance for whatever damage your pet may do to our property. It's nearly impossible to get humans to pay after the fact for the damage they do to the property, much less getting them to pay for the damage their pets do.
So bottom line...don't like the fee, find someplace to rent that doesn't charge one.
Yea best off just saying NO PETS. Most renters with pets aren't responsible anyways.
If you are a pet owner and you read these posts you can clearly see what I am trying to point out. The only post that has merit is the one that states "no pets." However the poster goes on to say, "most renters with pets aren't responsible anyways," and making a broad statement such as that would indicate a special type of thinking.
There is also the assumption that all pets are destructive and have unclean bathroom habits. As a lifelong pet owner and owning my own home for many year I assure you that I would not have kept a pet as you describe. Nor do I think most people would either. However, during my last lease the complex had many college kids. The units were two bedroom town houses. There were as many a eight kids living in one town house. Saturday was party night. I talked to the maintenance man who had the task of cleaning vacant town houses. He told me that upon being evicted at the end of a semester these college kids had a major final blast. He told me he found cigarette butts put out in the carpet, holes punched in the walls, vomit on the carpet. He also said there were so many kids at this party they used one bedroom as an overflow bathroom. I never heard of a pet doing anything close to that.
Paying for the privilege of having a pet...as I said...extortion.
Lookout before you sign the lease because when you do, as the spider said to the fly, "gotch ya." How often to do you see an advertisement for an apartment that states $500 pet fee in the ad? No, you find this out after you look at a place and then you get, "oh by the way."
I heard, "all pets damage property," so why rent to pet owners? The reason is simply, you're making money off them. Most of the landlords at this forum are constantly moaning about tenants. If the rental business is so bad, why are you in it to begin with?
To avoid misunderstandings I have a no pets policy... part of the reason is my Insurance Company started auditing to enforce a no "Aggressive Breeds" dog policy which is expanded to any animal it deems dangerous.
California does not permit the Landlord to collect any Non Refundable deposit in connection with residential rentals...
I have had pets and paid pet fees, so I've been on your side of the fence. But I have also managed large apartment communities so I know how the industry works and why they exist. As far as pets causing damage, that really has nothing to do with it (although I can say that the overwhelming majority of damages I've charged over the years were to pet owners). A deposit will cover that. Your issue is the non-refundable fees. It is by no means "extortion." No one is forced to pick a specific apartment home, no one is forced to sign a lease there and no one is forced to pay the fees. So no one is "extorting" anything. Fees are commonplace in the apartment industry. As I mentioned before, there are so many fees that exist if you have/want something that is outside of the norm. It's a business, and just like any business, property owners are in it to make money. Do you think they should just sit back and let you live in their place and break even just for kicks? No, of course not, they should be able to make a buck of two off of their investment. And rightfully so, it's their investment. If a person wants to make their own terms, they can buy their own property. It is what it is, it's what it's always been, and it's not illegal so it's not going anywhere.
To avoid misunderstandings I have a no pets policy... part of the reason is my Insurance Company started auditing to enforce a no "Aggressive Breeds" dog policy which is expanded to any animal it deems dangerous.
California does not permit the Landlord to collect any Non Refundable deposit in connection with residential rentals...
Yes, but where California gets you is in the pet rent...it's WAY higher than anywhere else in the country. I've seen $75 per pet per month! Add that up and it's way more than a $300 up front pet fee!
When I managed a pet friendly complex in CA we had a 2 pet min and $200. deposit per pet....now, if the resident moved out and there was no damage made by the pet...holes in the carpet, urine/feces stains determined after the carpet cleaning was done, wood in the fence chewed out....areas on lower cabinets sprayed by cats...then that was fine. The pet deposit was a backup to the security deposit given in the event the damage was great. As a general rule most pet owners always had booboos happen. I would usually recommend that a pet owner took a unit that wasn't all new. That way the pro-rate on carpet/wear and tear worked in their favor.
As an example of damages...my mom has a beautiful home she rents in the Hollywood Hills...and at the time charged a small deposit for 2 cats...When the tenants moved out we went up for the walkthrough. We knew the minute we walked through the door it was going to be bad...the cats urine had totally destroyed the
hardwood floors...and the urine had rotted the wood near all the heater vents and also the electrical boxes that were in the floor.....the amount of deposit in NO way covered the thousands of dollars it took to fix the house...
My mom has a no pet policy now....
They were great tenants...they paid their rent on time and had no maintenance needs....oY
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
