Impossible renting in Canberra

Jim Jones said :

Postalgeek said :

I-filed said :

I know a Tuggers EL1 couple who earn $240,000 between them and they have almost no disposable income – paying off big cars, furniture, maxed credit cards, holidays, private school fees for the kids …

So how do you define ‘disposable income’ if it’s not buying furniture, big cars, and holidays?

But these things are not luxuries dahlink, we NEED them

I think if people are paying off massive loans, that isn’t counted as disposable income is it?

Postalgeek said :

I-filed said :

I know a Tuggers EL1 couple who earn $240,000 between them and they have almost no disposable income – paying off big cars, furniture, maxed credit cards, holidays, private school fees for the kids …

So how do you define ‘disposable income’ if it’s not buying furniture, big cars, and holidays?

But these things are not luxuries dahlink, we NEED them

Damn predictive text on iPad. yes I ment leper. Thanks for pointing that out.

I-filed said :

I know a Tuggers EL1 couple who earn $240,000 between them and they have almost no disposable income – paying off big cars, furniture, maxed credit cards, holidays, private school fees for the kids …

So how do you define ‘disposable income’ if it’s not buying furniture, big cars, and holidays?

mattm250 said :

I also must add that I am not putting all agents in the same basket. We have dealt with some fantastic ones Must make a special mention to Maureen Wales at Metropolis RE in Dickson. She went in to bat really hard for us and was amazing to deal with. Highly recomend her to any potential landlords.

Regardless of anything else – thankyou mattm250 for giving ups to good property managers. They should be given medals and parades and paid extra bonuses for treating people – landlords and tenants alike – like human beings.

I would add Danielle Coady at Blackshaw’s at Curtin to that list. She’s fantastic (and no, not my current PM).

Contact http://www.mortgagechoice.com.au/mark.reber from Mortgage Choice. He’s an absolute champion, our solicitor actually said to us on settlement day that he was ‘the first broker that we’ve met who actually had a brain’. Tremendously nice bloke too. With your incomes, you can afford a house in Canberra. I earn around what you guys collectively earn and I have managed to buy a place in Chapman.

Well, lower Chapman. But it’s still Chapman. 🙂

mattm250 said :

I also must add that I am not putting all agents in the same basket. We have dealt with some fantastic ones Must make a special mention to Maureen Wales at Metropolis RE in Dickson. She went in to bat really hard for us and was amazing to deal with. Highly recomend her to any potential landlords.

And there it is.

a Leaper? Does that mean you jump up and down on the spot and flap around?

You don’t mean a leper do you?

I also must add that I am not putting all agents in the same basket. We have dealt with some fantastic ones Must make a special mention to Maureen Wales at Metropolis RE in Dickson. She went in to bat really hard for us and was amazing to deal with. Highly recomend her to any potential landlords.

Wow hasn’t this started a war of words. Well for a start. We are looking at ALL properties UP to $800 pw and because of work commitments we need to be fairly central, hence the prices. Secondly since when did you income determine class or whether or not were professional. Thirdly have any of you tried to get a mortgage whilst being self employed, the banks look at you like your a leaper. I’d have more chance getting a mortgage if I was an employee earning half as much.

http://www.allhomes.com.au/ah/act/rent-residential/43-partridge-street-fadden-canberra/1316774593811

Just one of the 38 potentially suitable properties listed on all homes that allow pets. Do an advanced search, select house, with a rental range from 400 – 700 per week and for special features, select ‘pets allowed’. Narrow your search to not include properties already rented and houses with no price provided.

LlamaFrog said :

a professional couple earning a combined income of $125000 p/a – $60-$70k per year each does not make you a professional couple. double that before you consider yourself middle class.

Rubbish. Many professional people (lawyers, doctors, veterinarians, scientists, accountants etc…) earn that amount in the earlier years of their careers. ‘Professional’ generally indicates the level of education or nature of work – not the income (otherwise all part-time workers would immediately lose their ‘professional’ status!).

We always allow pets in our renal properties; we just ask for references and ask tenants to pay an upfront pet-bond to ensure that any damages incurred may be covered in future.

I agree with previous posters regarding the nature of properties you are looking to rent; you may have to sacrifice location/luxury for something a little more down-market … but susurely it’s worth it to keep your pets with you?? The other thing to try is finding a slightly cheaper property and offering more than the weekly rental price if they allow you to have pets. Good luck!

You can have a pet in a rental house in the NSW without asking?

Proof

My policy? Birds in cages, fish in bowls and pet rocks.

It’s not hard to find rental property in Canberra, it’s hard to find good rental property with 2 car parks ; )

LlamaFrog said :

a professional couple earning a combined income of $125000 p/a – $60-$70k per year each does not make you a professional couple. double that before you consider yourself middle class.

Whether said couple can afford $800 isn’t a matter of rule of thumb though- depends on lifestyle. If they are happy to spend the money on a nice centrally located house, and said house will save on petrol and mean they don’t need a second car, and they aren’t trying to save to buy a house, they can afford $800 a week if they are intending to eat mostly at home … I know a Tuggers EL1 couple who earn $240,000 between them and they have almost no disposable income – paying off big cars, furniture, maxed credit cards, holidays, private school fees for the kids …

I am all for pets, including indoor huskys, though i would understand the consern for a landloard on the pets being indoors, though i don’t understand what the problem is if they are agreed to being outdoor pets.

Where on earth have you been looking? That’s costing $800/week??? As far as I can tell, rental is flat right now based on our experiences and the number of ‘For Lease’ signs I see everywhere (which were NOT there two years ago):

– Hubby and I got a notice to vacate (by phone call) a few Fridays ago.
– We saw rental properties that Saturday and put in applications.
– Got approval for one of them on the Monday (as a back up place).
– Hubby saw another place that Monday arvo and we applied that night by email.
– Got approval for that place by Tuesday arvo.
– Signed lease on Wednesday morning.
– Picked up keys on Friday week (though the real estate agent was pushing for us to move in as soon as possible).

BOTH places that we got approval for had been vacant for about four weeks. We are paying $440/week for a 2bdr townhouse in Phillip. The first place that we got approval for was $410/week for 2bdr ground floor apartment in Kingston. When hubby looked at other rental houses in the $400/week range a month earlier, all the real estate agents said that it was DIFFICULT to find tenants in that price range as everyone is going for the $350/week places or less.

We are on a combined annual income of $135K. No idea why you’re finding is so hard.

I have several rental properties including one in the ACT and pets are always given fair consideration. The only time I have denied pets are; tenant wanted to have a young border collie on a 320m block with only a small concrete courtyard; and an existing tenant asking to buy a dog who was already consistently behind in rent and did not keep the property in good condition.

I am no bleeding heart; tenants who don’t pay or damage the property are out as soon as legally possible. But I don’t see any reason to deny an appropriate pet to a tenant with a good rental history.

Guinea Pigs are rodents. They can chew. They can chew like bastards.

Pitching up with six references could be your problem. I’d would either assume they are BS references, or that you never stick around long. Either way unattractive.

Surely you’re more likely to get into a $3-400/week property with a pet than a $800/week one? Just the amont of damage a pet can do to a better property over a cheaper rental…

When I was renting I just never told the real estate that I had a dog.

On the day of the inspections I’d just send the dog to someone else’s house and hide any evidence he was ever there.

I did that for four years and the half a dozen property managers we had never found out.

I sympathise with the poster, and agree completely with Banjo (#33). Having pets is one of the things that makes a house into a home in my view.

If various landlords (and even developers) realised how important this was to people, how much more they’d be willing to pay in rent, and just how many people make up this market, they could make a fortune.

This is an issue that even the ACT government (!) could make progress upon – not through legislation, but just encouragement.

Property Manager said :

Amanda Hugankis said :

I’ve seen responsible, mature, employed people do more damage to a rental than a single cat or dog. What about people who cook spicy food regularly? That smell never comes out.

Yes, there is always the human factor and that’s hard to manage. A bad tenant without a pet will do less damage than a bad tenant with a pet. So, based on the human factor you have identified, the landlord faces less risk by choosing a tenant without a pet – at least if the tenant turns out to be a turd the damage will be less than if they had a few greyhounds.

So you have in fact made an inadvertent argument FOR the ‘no pets’ policy.

You’re right about the spicy food, but how do you know which individuals will be cooking them? Unless you want to make assumptions about certain ethnicities and cultures I don’t know that you can pick it. If you start making those assumptions you will find yourself before the Human Rights Commission defending charges of racial discrimination.

And I dare say you’ll lose.

I have only made an argument for the no pets policy if we’re talking about renting to an irresponsible tenant who ALSO has a pet (or a few, as the number has now jumped to).

If we’re talking about a responsible tenant with a pet, as a landlord myself (also a tenant), I’d take the good tenant with a pet over the bad tenant without a pet every single time. On a quick canvas of friends/family who rent to all including pet owners, they’ve had far more trouble from those without pets than those with. Generally those with pets have been so grateful to be able to rent somewhere with Fluffy or Fido that they take the extra care with the property that general tenants often don’t.

On the spicy food issue – I don’t know how you tell … I was just thinking out loud! I thought as a ‘property manager’ you’d have some insight into this also. I get the feeling that if you could do something about it and avoid the tag of ‘discrimination’ and any possible legal action, the industry would do so before you could say ‘judgey wudgy was a bear’. I mean, I know that property managers would never discriminate or make judgements about potential tenants that they possibly shouldn’t … *cough cough*.

Wonder where Matt the original poster is now? Probably too scared to come back. lol

Woody Mann-Caruso said :

a week mark and we are a professional couple earning a combined income of $125000 p/a

Mate, I’m on a single income more than that and there’s no way in hell I could find $800 a week for rent. That’s my fortnightly repayment on a $200K-odd mortgage. What’s your secret?

PS – good hunting.

Your single income means you pay a lot more in tax than two people sharing that amount as income.

watto23 said :

georgesgenitals said :

Jim Jones said :

Tooks said :

Any reason you’re not buying a house? You could be paying off a mortgage for far less than $800/week.

Assuming you have 20-30k handy for a deposit.

Rent something for two years at $500 a week instead of $800 a week and save the difference. $31,200.00 saved in 2 years.

Yes exactly. Plus interest on the money.

Then, the deposit can be used to close the sale on a $460k property which, surprise surprise, costs about $800 per week to repay.

(I’ve assumed the whole deposit will be taken up in costs, and not applied to the principle)

a week mark and we are a professional couple earning a combined income of $125000 p/a

Mate, I’m on a single income more than that and there’s no way in hell I could find $800 a week for rent. That’s my fortnightly repayment on a $200K-odd mortgage. What’s your secret?

PS – good hunting.

georgesgenitals said :

Jim Jones said :

Tooks said :

Any reason you’re not buying a house? You could be paying off a mortgage for far less than $800/week.

Assuming you have 20-30k handy for a deposit.

Rent something for two years at $500 a week instead of $800 a week and save the difference. $31,200.00 saved in 2 years.

Yes exactly. Plus interest on the money. Then once you have bought a house, you could get a rental and rent it to pet owners. I love pets, but i wouldn’t rent a house to someone with pets if i didn’t have to. Same for renting to people with kids, or groups of young guys.

In fact it was because my mate and I had difficulty renting a place and people assuming we were going to wreck it, that I bought in the first place.

Apart from all the comments above which appear pretty valid.

For $800 a week ask forgiveness and not permission.

Repeat after me
“Do you have any pets?”
“No.”

Then when you have inspections your beloved pets can be at someone elses house for the day. Also just a question but how the hell do you afford $800 a week and still feed your pets, eat yourself, drive a car and pay the bills???

We had no trouble renting our place out – mind you we specified that we would only rent to people with pets – I just cant trust people who dont have pets.

georgesgenitals said :

Jim Jones said :

Tooks said :

Any reason you’re not buying a house? You could be paying off a mortgage for far less than $800/week.

Assuming you have 20-30k handy for a deposit.

Rent something for two years at $500 a week instead of $800 a week and save the difference. $31,200.00 saved in 2 years.

Couldn’t have put it better myself… Although, rent somewhere around the $400 mark per week, I’m sure you could save up to another $500-$1k a month for savings and you’d have more than enough saved up for a house deposit within 12-18months.

paperboy said :

arescarti42 said :

Seriously, how much damage can a pet do?

Ask Joel Monaghan

LOLZ =P

arescarti42 said :

Seriously, how much damage can a pet do?

Ask Joel Monaghan

Jim Jones said :

Tooks said :

Any reason you’re not buying a house? You could be paying off a mortgage for far less than $800/week.

Assuming you have 20-30k handy for a deposit.

Rent something for two years at $500 a week instead of $800 a week and save the difference. $31,200.00 saved in 2 years.

Amanda Hugankis said :

I’ve seen responsible, mature, employed people do more damage to a rental than a single cat or dog. What about people who cook spicy food regularly? That smell never comes out.

Yes, there is always the human factor and that’s hard to manage. A bad tenant without a pet will do less damage than a bad tenant with a pet. So, based on the human factor you have identified, the landlord faces less risk by choosing a tenant without a pet – at least if the tenant turns out to be a turd the damage will be less than if they had a few greyhounds.

So you have in fact made an inadvertent argument FOR the ‘no pets’ policy.

You’re right about the spicy food, but how do you know which individuals will be cooking them? Unless you want to make assumptions about certain ethnicities and cultures I don’t know that you can pick it. If you start making those assumptions you will find yourself before the Human Rights Commission defending charges of racial discrimination.

And I dare say you’ll lose.

I do the opposite with my property. I DO allow pets and collect more rent because of it. As MATTM250 already pointed out, he is willing to pay more in rant than what is being asked to be able to have pets and be given a go. I don’t know why more property owners don’t do this, the extra rent collected more than pays for potential damage in the long run and there are ALWAYS families looking to rent with pets. It’s more of a niche market on top of what already is a tough market (renting) to begin with.

I’ve seen responsible, mature, employed people do more damage to a rental than a single cat or dog. What about people who cook spicy food regularly? That smell never comes out.

I’d have to agree, why the large amount of rent? That being said all the comments about buying a place. Sure I’ll buy a house, oh wait I don’t have $20000 spare for a deposit and I am responsibile enough not to try and live beyond my means. That and given the market in Canberra I doubt that I will ever be able to buy a house here (not for lack of wanting to). Not unless my house ended up with two incomes at about the $80,000 level ( which we don’t have).

Now I understand landlords have valid reasons for not wanting pets (all those listed above, and of course the simple fact of money money money). But seriously there are houses on all homes advertised as “family” houses that say “no pets” I have always wondered if these people actually believe these families don’t have pets. I feel sad if there is a generation of children who grow up without interacting with animals (and learning how to) because they didn’t have the chance.

Oh and to the real estate agent who when asked if a canary would be a problem said “won’t it be outside?” *headshake*. Who puts a canary outside in Canberra in winter or autumn? seriously. What did they they my canary was going to do sing at the walls?

arescarti42 said :

We were told that the owners would rather leave the place vacant than “RISK” have a pet on the property.

This kind of thinking boggles the mind. The owner would rather incur DEFINITE losses of $3500 a month whilst their property is vacant, compared to the POSSIBLE losses incurred if the tenant is an irresponsible pet owner?

Seriously, how much damage can a pet do?

Negative gearing

LlamaFrog said :

a professional couple earning a combined income of $125000 p/a – $60-$70k per year each does not make you a professional couple. double that before you consider yourself middle class.

Plenty of people working in the field of their specific higher education qualification for that wage, and that would make them a professional couple.

I’m a renter, an owner and a landlord. I just realised this year, having always lived with cats but not having a cat at the present rental property, that I get the privelege of rats instead. I’d much rather the cat. At least it doesn’t chew up the carpet, chew holes in the walls, get into the pantry, leave droppings around the place and when poisoned, stink up the house. Something for landlords to consider perhaps?

We were told that the owners would rather leave the place vacant than “RISK” have a pet on the property.

This kind of thinking boggles the mind. The owner would rather incur DEFINITE losses of $3500 a month whilst their property is vacant, compared to the POSSIBLE losses incurred if the tenant is an irresponsible pet owner?

Seriously, how much damage can a pet do?

Jim Jones said :

Tooks said :

Any reason you’re not buying a house? You could be paying off a mortgage for far less than $800/week.

Assuming you have 20-30k handy for a deposit.

Fair point.

That seems like a pretty reasonable explanation of the motives that I’d suspected were behind the “no pets” policy.

Tooks said :

Any reason you’re not buying a house? You could be paying off a mortgage for far less than $800/week.

Assuming you have 20-30k handy for a deposit.

$800 is quite a big commitment on your salaries and would agree that they might consider this a risk, however, if you have longevity in your workplaces etc then that shouldn’t faze them too much. Would get you quite a flashy place though. My mortgage only costs us $500 a week and we earn $160k between us.

Agree that RE’s in Canberra (or the world over), especially their rental departments, are atrocious. The dog thing is also a mystery. I have a dog, and when we get around to buying a new house and renting ours out next year I would definitely accept house trained/well behaved dogs.

Post this again next year and you can rent my house – that’s if you want to live in the Beautiful South in an average 3 bedroom house that would probably only cost $500 max. We may even throw in the gardener.

Dare I stick my neck on the block? Here goes…

I understand that having a pet while being a renter can be a massive hindrance. You have asked why – here are some reasons:

* Allergies: Whether its the owners or potential future tenants, allowing pets in the property now can cause allergy issues for future occupants. There is no amount of deep cleaning that will extract all the cat or dog hair from the fibres of carpet. The owners have to consider the future of the property, not just the immediate needs of one possible tenant.

* Lies: You have references, you have clean pets, they are only ever outside, they are clean, desexed and well trained. Unfortunately no one ever says their pet is a bastard, so it’s hard to know who is telling the truth until it’s too late. As usual there are some bad apples ruining the bushel, and those that lie about how good their pets are ruin it for those that have great pets.

* Increased wear and tear: While tenants are expected to pay for any damage done during their tenancy (including any done by pets), they aren’t responsible for fair wear and tear. It is reasonable to expect that a pet will cause an increased rate of wear to the property – not damage that the tenant can be held to account for, but wear that could have been avoided if the owner chose not to allow pets. Just like a single professional who is only around on weekends is likely to cause less wear on a property than a family of 6.

* Smells: Like smokers, pet owners rarely recognise the pungent aroma of their much loved, but those who don’t share your enthusiasm can smell it a mile away. Such smells linger, and while extensive cleaning may neutralize it, this causes its own issue – see below.

* Additional cleaning: Similar to smoking clauses in tenancy agreements, tenants will initially agree to extensive cleaning at the end of their lease to remove any trace of the pet or smoke etc. Problem is that when it comes time to deliver the tenants regularly believe that their level of cleaning is enough, despite previously agreeing to have additional work done. To enforce the initial agreement the owner has to claim against the bond, which ends up at the tribunal and costs them significant time and money to pursue. Meanwhile they either face a vacancy until it gets done, or risk potential issues with the next tenants who don’t want to smell your dogs.

Hopefully this outlines some of the factual reasons why property owners choose not to allow pets at their property.

I suspect that pet owners will believe that none of this is relevant as you believe you have the right to take spot with you – he’s a part of the family and it’s not right to discriminate based on any of the above reasoning. Unfortunately you are incorrect.

I am a renter, and I would love a dog almost as much as I’m sure my infant daughter would love a little puppy. Unfortunately though I’d prefer to leave my options open when renting so that we aren’t limited to living in the few rentals that will allow pets. That is a conscious decision that we have had to make.

Any reason you’re not buying a house? You could be paying off a mortgage for far less than $800/week.

I’m surprised to hear that the ACT is the only place where “no pets” is allowed in the ad, I was under the impression that this was commonplace pretty much everywhere. Maybe they just apply it more sneakily in other jurisdictions.

In any case, pets and renting don’t mix well – to get what you want on one side you’ll probably have to compromise on the other. This may be unjustified in your case, but that’s the way it goes. I couldn’t say I’m surprised that people renting out the kind of house that goes for $800 a week are little snobby about who they’ll rent to.

I have to jump on the combined 125k / $800 p/w band wagon… what are you thinking? Get realistic and aim for middle bracket homes of around $500 p/w and you’ll get one. End of story.

I realise…not release!!!

Sounds like a crappy situation, my sympathies. I would strongly suggest buying a property instead.

My 3-bedroom investment property in Kambah is providing me with $400 a week in rent. What are you thinking looking for a rental property for $800 a week? That is far too much to be paying in rent. Get a mortgage instead…or have a look at some cheaper rentals. And for the record, being a responsible pet-owner myself I release that there are other responsible pet-owners out there so actually don’t have a problem with my renters having pets (and yes the property has a lovely garden). Might I suggest you have a think about how you present yourself to the real estate agent when applying for the rental…I’m not making any assumptions about you but they do judge a book by it’s cover. And yes the formula of rent being no more than 1/3 of your income (in a previous comment) is correct. You seem to have champagne taste on a beer wage.

Is it really that surprising that someone with a really nice house that is able to fetch $800 a week in rent doesn’t want someone else’s pets living there? If they’re willing to go without rent for weeks without any applicants that’s their business, otherwise it’s supply and demand and if someone without pets can pay it, wouldn’t you choose them?

LlamaFrog said :

a professional couple earning a combined income of $125000 p/a – $60-$70k per year each does not make you a professional couple. double that before you consider yourself middle class.

I think your monocle just popped.

a professional couple earning a combined income of $125000 p/a – $60-$70k per year each does not make you a professional couple. double that before you consider yourself middle class.

You are looking at places costing $800pw on a combined income of 125k? Perhaps your issue lies right there.

The widely accepted formula used by real estate agents to calculate one’s ability to ‘afford’ a rental property is that the weekly rent must not make up more than one third of the applicants weekly income. A combined income of 125k would equate to approx $2403pw BEFORE tax. This is pretty much bang on $800pw.

If 125k is before tax, your actual income would be significantly less than this and you would be considered ‘unable to afford’ $800pw. Whether this is true or not only you know, but that is the rule that 99% of property managers will go by in the absence of very compelling other reasons.

Also understandable is that fact that if an investor owns a property that can be rented for $800pw- its a pretty damn flash place. No wonder they dont want to take a risk with pets, regardless of how well trained you and others say they are.

Perhaps you need to start looking at places more like $5-600 pw???

Unfortunantly it is thier house, not yours, it is thier property and they don’t want pets, that is thier decision, not yours. Doesn’t matter what you think, it is not your house.

That said, renting here is pointless, and I suggest you buy your own house, then you can have as many pets as you want!

Totally agree. Canberra’s rental market is absolutely ridiculous. After investigating moving overseas, I actually discovered that the real estate market and overall cost of living in what is classified as some of the most expensive major cities in the world, is actually CHEAPER than Canberra. The price you pay for being surrounded by public servants I guess.

gospeedygo, i’d highly recommend that you look into moving into a share house. You can find a place in the inner north for $150 – $200 a week. Unless you’re a rich public servant, living by yourself in Canberra is just simply not worth it.

I’m a lanldord, I was nce a renter. My values have remained the same, being once a responsible tenant who looked after the property and now being a home owner who looks afer the property.

I sympathise with your plight. I’ve had pets, none at the moment. Things really haven’t changed. I can recall lining up to rent a house in 1984 and there were 30 people there. No pets were allowed. During that time period, I didn’t own pets, so I increased my chance of renting.

I won’t allow pets in my rental property. It’s a supply and demand thing, I don’t have to.

Good luck in your search (sincerely).

Try Tamara Baxter from LiveIn Property Management. http://www.allhomes.com.au/ah/act/agents/tamara-baxter-livein-dickson/17868211

I dealt with her in another industry unrelated to property and she is extremely professional, and willing to assist in any manner possible. Whilst I don’t know if she works with tenants who have pets, based on her past performance I would suspect that she will assist in anyway she can.

Unfortunately that’s the reality. The landlord can dictate their terms, pets or no pets. We rented a place in Canberra with two dogs, the landlord (private rental) was fine with it, but there was always a good understanding that we’d fix whatever the dogs chewed. Now that we own, we’re unsure if we’ll open our house to dog-owning tenants simply because you don’t know what you don’t know. 80% of dog owners are responsible, but 20% are very irresponsible.

Having said that, $800/wk is a lot, no?

You know, I hear so many of these stories ‘blah blah the agent is ridiculous blah blah how can they do that? Its sooooooooo hard to find a place!’
Ive been renting for 5 years, 3 properties, and not once a major problem, beside the usual slow actions of an agent.
Ever thought the problem may actually lay with you, the renter? So quick to attack the real estate agent for minor things you could correct yourself, relying soley on them is not the best thing you can do.

And yeah 65% do own pets, guaranteed 50% have not informed the owner/agent.

A young couple I know have a big dog and got a rental house about 4 weeks ago after searching for about 3 weeks. They are both young kids that previously lived at home and they did it fine. A sample size of one obviously isn’t a fair indication, but maybe these people were lucky, or they were just “given a go”.

Mmmm, this obviously doesn’t bode well for anyone wanting to leave home for the first time does it? Sigh, looks like I am stuck here for a while then…

$800 a week? Those are upmarket houses, why not try something in a lower price range? Or better yet, why not just buy a house considering you could pay less than that on a mortgage?

We rented two places before we bought our house, they were the only two we applied for and we were accepted for both. No pets, but we even got one of them before my partner had found a job in Canberra.

My friend and his partner recently changed rentals with their large outside and inside dog. They were also accepted for the first place they applied for (which was also very affordable).

Other friends have had more difficulty but they all got a place in the end. Chatting to the agents, having applications ready at the inspection, good presentation and even a pet “resume” will all help.

I agree, it’s absurd. If you write a clause into your rental contract then what’s the problem? The hassle we had to go to because we had a cat (one cat, not twenty) made us think very hard about keeping our pet.

In the end it has the catalyst for us buying a place – having a large mortgage is still preferable to having to justify having a pet in your life.

Have you tried private rentals?