If Brisbane landlords are happy to have pets in their investment property, the current Queensland tenancy laws allow them to agree on this with their tenants. If tenants would like to hang pictures on a wall or make other cosmetic changes today they can mutually agree on this with their landlord. If both parties to a rental agreement would like a long lease (as many years as they like) they have the legal option right now to commit to this. So why would the Queensland government see the need to remove the landlord’s voice in these decisions? To remove the property owner’s option to not agree to these important issues for their investment? To hand control over to tenants alone.
Over the long weekend a new public consultation started but these issues are not new at all. We first wrote about many of the proposals to change Queensland tenancy laws 6 years ago and again in 2016. Behind the discussions is the concept of making tenants feel more at home and able to enjoy greater security in their rental dwelling. And we completely agree with the sentiment. Our property managers understand the need to look after tenants, to respond to their maintenance requests, to encourage them to put down roots in the home. All landlords want good tenants to enjoy greater security, peace of mind and a long stay in the property. A tenant who pays their rent and takes care of the property makes life so much better for that landlord. And their agent!
But the proposed laws don’t give tenants anything they can’t currently get through discussions with the landlord. What they do is remove the right of a landlord to say no.
The REIQ’s Antonia Mercorella says landlords must have a right to choose. “They have to make the decision whether to allow tenants to have pets and accept the potential risks such as damaged floorboards, fleas or infestation and damaged backyards. Landlords are more likely to be open and flexible on this issue if they can come together with the tenants and reach a mutual decision to manage the additional risk that might come with pets.”
Queensland’s tenant advocates won’t support the REIQ’s call for an extra pet bond, saying the current bond should be enough. So let’s have a look at the facts on this: Currently there’s mandated maximum bonds of 28 days rent (unless the rent is more than $700/week). If a tenant stops paying rent the arrears and eviction process cannot be done in this time frame, so a landlord will always come out behind. And that’s before any extended eviction process (the tribunal system can take months for an “urgent application”) and it’s before any damage bills, unpaid invoices and any cleaning required to get the property back to rentable condition. Landlords wear substantial risk under our current tenancy laws and these risks have increased several times over past years.
Pets are incredibly important members of many families and extra bonds is a simple way both sides could benefit. And one suggestion we heard recently – those pet bonds could be held separately and the RSPCA benefit from the interest. It’d be a substantial sum and help that badly underfunded organisation do more to protect Queensland’s animals.
The vast majority of tenancies end without dispute. Around 98% of them. Most people do the right thing, respect eachother’s position and know they need eachother. But some don’t and the Queensland government wants to remove a landlord’s right to say no to those tenants. Why not have greater flexibility in the law to allow tenants and landlords to increase the bond? Allow cosmetic changes to be made, while the landlord has greater security that restoring/repair works can be paid for.
Removing landlords’ rights to say no to various issues carries a huge risk for Queensland’s tenants. Investors make a choice to invest in property, to borrow a huge sum from their bank, to incur the costs of holding that property, with the hope it will grow in value. They invest for their retirement, lessening the burden on the welfare system. And in doing so they provide essential housing for the one third of Queenslanders who rent. If they choose to invest in other places our rents will rise. Or the government will have no choice but to tax us all for more public housing.
This is a finely balanced marketplace and the government should be careful its radical measures don’t create a huge problem for us all.
Please share your thoughts on the changes here, and also by making your comments on the Queensland tenancy law consultation page.
No way!!! tenants have too many rights now, look how long it takes to get someone out of OUR property for non payment of rent (squatting) they sign a contract to pay rent, if no rent, why the hell can we not evict. Too slack already. There are some dodgy landlords out there, however tenants have the tribunal to go to. If tenants have more say, we will sell our properties, so there you go, less in the pool for renters already!!!!!
All tenants should be entitled to have pets reside with them ! If landlords don’t want pets don’t rent out your property. Any damage that occurs whether it is caused by children, visitors or pets the tenant is liable for and there is a bond. Australia is so far behind countries like Germany where pets are welcome everywhere and tenants don’t have to live in fear of losing a family member ( pet) or being homeless ! Let’s face it there is no correlation at between having pets in homes and a loss in property value . Shame on you for your narrow and one sided view … disappointing . Pets make such a wonderful addition to people’s lives and there are so many studies on the positive effects on people’s mental health by owning a pet . I am lucky I live in a pet friendly building and I believe all tenants should have that right. Irresponsible tenants will wreck a property regardless of if they have a pet and responsible tenants ensure pets like children are housetrained. Pets need homes like people do and landlords should be fairly compensated for leasing out their property not allowed to be dictators.
As a tenant I completely agree. Taking away the rights of someone’s property is a horrendous thing to propose in and of itself. On a more selfish note, this can only lead to less properties on the market as people who own properties on shorter term leases will just pull them to avoid damages they can’t recoup which in turn will mean higher rents. I just can’t see this in a good light.
Wow, the fact that you don’t welcome a review of tenancy laws that are unchanged for more than four decades is proof that you know the system is stacked against tenants. Investors pay your salary so surprise,surprise, you’d love tenants to be even more disadvantaged than they already are.
Thanks for commenting Ulysses. We do need to clarify – the current Act, a whole new Act, was introduced in 2009 and there’s been a number of amendments to it even since then. Any impartial observer would say the majority of these changes have weighted the balance of rights under a tenancy agreement toward tenants. The right for a tenant to refuse open homes, the right to refuse photography, 14 days notice to leave versus a landlord’s 60 days… and there’s more. And all changed in this past few years.
I totally agree. It is quite frightening to think that a tenant can go ahead and have pets on a premises without asking for approval from the landlord!!! I can’t believe that they planning on doing this. Hanging pictures on the walls is not such a major worry maybe, a bit of sparkle and paint can fix that. We have had huge problems with tenants (who did ask and we agreed) to have a cat – whom they kept in the house all the time and who peed everywhere and completed wrecked all the carpets! At a cost way beyond the bond of course.
I will certainly make some comments on the Queensland Tenancy Law Consultation page also. Let me know if there are any other ways to make strong objections.
I totally think that the landlord should have a say in anything going on in THEIR property. I think it’s a disgrace to remove the owners opinion on how their property is maintained by letting someone randomly have a go at hanging pictures all over the place, and if the owner wants to return to THEIR property can the tenants then say they like the house and want to stay?..
Everyone has seen cases of DIY gone monsterosly wrong and I for one would not be happy letting someone “having a go” at hanging curtain poles, mirrors, etc and leaving big holes everywhere!..
Also I’ve not understood this in Australia?.. if a tenant is renting a property then the tenant should pay EVERYTHING including council rates, FULL water charges etc.. THEY are using the property so THEY should pay everything… what do people think about that?
Hi Rob,
There is a percentage of the population that will not stay at a ‘pets welcome’ motel because they may have allergies or whatever other reason.
How do you think property managers will cater for potential tenants who want to lease a property that has never had a pet in residence?
Regards. Jeff
An excellent point Jeff. Respect for all views and preferences is essential in the rental market.
As a pet lover and landlord I don’t have objections to pet but landlord needs protection too so they know their investment is being looking after when things go wrong.
There should be a separate bond for pet – as the landlord insurance (with pet cover options) will only cover a pathetic amount (and only a few actually provides cover for pet damage to be honest).
Not everyone is looking after their pet as well as me or you guys, and hygiene standard between people can be very different too.
Landlord should not be the one to blame. I have rent my property to someone who have a cat they are excellent but still some damages as the cat love to climb on the diamond grille.
At the end of the day it is about looking after our family and safeguard our investment, we are in a dilemma too. People always think landlord is rich so they should give more, not until you own an property you will know how much outgoing there is and the risk involved.
I am a tenant with a cat pet. Both dog and cat lover all my life. Although, I would love for my landlord for me to have a little dog in my apartment. I don’t totally agree with the landlord not having a say at all about having pets in their investment property. However, if the tenant is a really great clean tenant and been there for years, I think that they should allow to have a dog. Right now I have a cat and took my landlord to accept that and still complaining about it. Today I just had an inspection from the reality agent. Apparently, out of 10 property he inspected my apartment is way way the best out of them. Very Clean and all in order. In every inspection I had for the past 3years and 4months. It has always been a great one as I’ve always treated my apartment as my own. In saying all this. It will be a case to case basis. That is my opinion. My landlord is still being convince by the reality agent that is looking after me.
Pets should be allowed 100%. Everyone should apply for antenancy and once I’ve been accepted pets should then be declared.
I am not against a pet bond of say, $200 per pet to a max of $500 or something extra. It’s unfair people have to give their pets to the rspca just because of landlords not liking pets. A lot of these pets get killed too because no one wants adult pets!
Children make far more noise, babies crying and breaking things as well as drawing of the walls. Why are children allowed but pets aren’t?
Make it the law please. If needed add pet bonds so both landlord and tenancts are protected.
If tenants are not happy that a landlord has the right IN THEIR PROPERTY to exercise THEIR RIGHT to pets and pictures, the answer is simple – BUY YOUR OWN HOME. Then you can hang as many pictures as you like, and have as many pets as you like.
I am both a landlord and a pet lover myself, so am only too aware of the dilemma placed on prospective tenants who own pets, and although a bond is secured, it rarely covers the cost of repairs incurred by tenants who have no respect or sense of responsibility for the premises they are occupying. The majority of landlords are hardworking, middle income earners, just looking to provide themselves some financial security – they are no more privileged than the tenant who CHOOSES to occupy THEIR property. If you don’t like the rules – rent something else.
In the alternative, talk with your landlord, respect each other and their point of view, and work towards a resolution that ensures both parties needs are met. Not all of us landlords are opposed to “pets and pictures”, we are only opposed to tenants who don’t respect the property.
I’m a renter and former pet owner. Having just walked through dog scat to get to my apartment I understand the reticence to allow pets. Since a dog moved in, flies, which have not been a problem in the previous two year, are now. Some *>”/.'[]*-wit has disposed of scat in the garden under my window. Most pet owners are more considerate then this, I was. But why would an owner want to deal with the entitled losels who aren’t.
Society has become so entitlement focused and responsibility blind.
If you want the veto privileges of an owner become an OWNER. Otherwise live within your means/limitations.
If any tenant is accepted, only to declare pets afterwards, that is dodgy, shonky and suggests the tenant will be a trouble maker. Who wants a tenant like that? The presence of pets can also affect insurance. For example, what if a 250l fish tank breaks? That spilled 250l of water can cause a lot of damage to flooring, fittings and walls.
Allowing pets is fine, provided the tenant is a responsible pet owner, fumigates the premises on vacancy and makes good any damage caused by (cat) scratchings of the carpets or other fittings; fill in all the dog holes and restores the lawn, beds, garden and fencing to its original condition.
A pet bond, like they do in WA, should be made lawful.
While no property owner wants to see a property vacant, they should still have the right to say no. It is their property, their money, their risk and taking that right away to say no totally undermines their investment. Will the tenants’ advocates make good the damage and destruction caused by the tenants they advocate for?
People are screaming out for more and more rights, yet few are talking about the responsibilities that come with those lobbied for rights.