Skip to content Skip to main navigation

Lifestyle

Part of the Canberra community
for over 30 years

Pet owners being discriminated against?

By vetboy1 - 21 May 2009 22

I have just stumbled across an earlier post about companion animals in rental accommodation and think it is about time something was seriously done about this issue.

I am a Veterinary Surgeon and have been renting for a number of years. For years I have been desperate to start a “dog” family but am unable to because of ridiculous by laws set by by increasingly militant strata groups.

Despite many appeals to strata and landlords alike, and logic not prevailing, it seems even a Vet is unlikely to be a responsible pet owner and the process has always met with a resounding NO.

Whilst I am fully aware that most strata organisations are toothless tigers, what is unfortunately in their capacity, is the ability to make your rental record look like absolute rubbish which will make further rental near impossible.

I am not schooled in law, but I believe that there it would not be unreasonable to suggest that this form of rental restriction is a form of unfair discrimination and if pressed in a court of law, could a precedent be set upon which this ridiculous trend of no pets is binned for ever?

I totally agree with all the earlier respondents and clearly this “law” has been established due to poor behaviour by previous pet owning renters.

However, it is by no means a difficult task to come up with a fair and reasonable act that allows pets and protects landlords simultaneously. By constructing a law that provides certain criteria and checks and balances, I believe a balance could be struck between successful responsible pet owneship and the ability of a landlord to rent his/her property out in the knowledge that any damage caused by human (or animal) will be accounted for and remedied (pet bond).

What’s Your opinion?


Post a comment
Please login to post your comments, or connect with
22 Responses to
Pet owners being discriminated against?
Clown Killer 1:57 pm 21 May 09

I never had any issues with getting rental places with pet dogs. In fact at the last place I rented – a weatherboard three bedroom in Turner – I think that the managing agent had more of an issue with it being a group house rather than the fact that we had two malamutes.

screaming banshee 1:43 pm 21 May 09

djk said :

You will be happy to know that with the new Unit Titles Amendment Act that came into force on ~31 March 2009 actually covers this.

51A Animals—owners corporation’s consent
(1) A unit owner may keep an animal, or allow an animal to be kept,
within the unit or the common property only with the consent of the
owners corporation.
(2) The owners corporation may give consent under this section with or
without conditions.
(3) However, the owners corporation’s consent must not be
unreasonably withheld.
Note An owner or occupier of a unit may apply to the ACAT to resolve a
dispute with the owners corporation about keeping an animal, or
allowing an animal to be kept (see s 123).
(4) In this section:
animal includes—
(a) an amphibian; and
(b) a bird; and
(c) a fish; and
(d) a mammal (other than a human being); and
(e) a reptile.

Note that it is unit owners that this refers to.

Having seen what additional wear and tear pets can cause to a property I find it completely reasonable that the owner of a property should be able to decide whether they are willing to have pets or not.

As a potential pet owning renter would you be prepared at the end of a lease to cover the costs of repainting the house and recarpeting or polishing the floor and making repairs to outdoor areas that may have been damaged by your pets waste or activities.

AG Canberra 1:13 pm 21 May 09

Friends of ours have just leased out a house and they had a strict no kids policy….

AngryHenry 1:05 pm 21 May 09

I know kids that do substantially more damage than pets, I’ve never seen a dog writing with crayons on the wall or trying to put toast smothered in jam into a VCR.

You should have to microchip and register those little buggers.

Postalgeek 12:51 pm 21 May 09

By constructing a law that provides certain criteria and checks and balances, I believe a balance could be struck between successful responsible pet owneship and the ability of a landlord to rent his/her property out in the knowledge that any damage caused by human (or animal) will be accounted for and remedied (pet bond).

Nice in theory, but I can imagine a lot of disputes as pets can do a lot of damage, and bonds don’t go very far at all when it comes to trashed properties.

Not all pets are destructive, and ideally landlords would take the pet’s nature in account case by case, but owners must have the discretionary power to decide who/what resides at their property.

orangegirl 10:47 am 21 May 09

I wonder if it is a Human Rights issue? Maybe someone can think of some argument under the Human Rights Act? I identified these two sections as possibilities:

11 Protection of the family and children
Note Family has a broad meaning (see ICCPR General Comment 19 (39th session, 1990)).
(1)The family is the natural and basic group unit of society and is entitled to be protected by society.
(2)Every child has the right to the protection needed by the child because of being a child, without distinction or discrimination of any kind.
Examples of distinction or discrimination
Distinction or discrimination because of race, colour, sex, sexual orientation, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth, disability or other status.

12 Privacy and reputation
Everyone has the right—
(a) not to have his or her privacy, family, home or correspondence interfered with unlawfully or arbitrarily; and
(b) not to have his or her reputation unlawfully attacked.

The Residential Tenancy Act is not very helpful. It sets out 100 terms that all agreements must contain. Any other terms must be agreed to by both parties. The act says a person cannot be coerced into signing an additional term, but this is kind of toothless considering the power imbalance between the parties, and the fact that the discrimination happens before the agreement is ever signed.

I can imagine the outrage if there was an agent who had an openly acknowledged policy of refusing to rent to families with children.

fnaah 10:26 am 21 May 09

Crustaceans and insects, too. Yay for pet lobsters!

Pommy bastard 10:16 am 21 May 09

When I was looking to rent some years back, I was appalled by the numbers of private owners who advertised as suitable “family” or even “families only”, but had “no pets” clauses.

caf 9:59 am 21 May 09

It looks like pet spiders are exempt, you can have as many of those as you want.

pinklink 9:40 am 21 May 09

RSPCA CEO Michael Linke here.

RSPCA is continuing to work with the industry to improve opportunities for people to live in rented accommodation with their pets. We have developed a guide, see our web site and the links and resources section for dog owners (http://www.rspca-act.org.au/pages/images/dogs%20in%20apartments.pdf). We are currently developing a similar guide for cat owners.

The change in the unit title legislation signals a change in attitude and one can hope that this will meld its way into other forms of rented accommodation.

RSPCA’s interest is always the welfare of the animal, so landlords need not worry that RSPCA will “push” and “force” the argument of pet owners if we believe the living arrangement for the pet is unsuitable.

Michael

djk 9:26 am 21 May 09

Whoops beaten to the punch.

With regards to renting with pets, I dont really see it as being discrimation. There are obviously issues that go along with pet ownership that may not be wanted by the landlord. It is a bit like allowing smokers or not to rent your property – you own it, so you can decide.

I do feel for those are trying to rent with pets though, my own experiences weren’t that great when trying to do it. Fair to say we settled on a few less than perfect houses as a trade off for being allowed pets.

Jim Jones 9:23 am 21 May 09

Yes, but it looks like the Unit Titles Amendment Act covers body corporates.

Does the act extended to rental properties?

djk 9:19 am 21 May 09

You will be happy to know that with the new Unit Titles Amendment Act that came into force on ~31 March 2009 actually covers this.

51A Animals—owners corporation’s consent
(1) A unit owner may keep an animal, or allow an animal to be kept,
within the unit or the common property only with the consent of the
owners corporation.
(2) The owners corporation may give consent under this section with or
without conditions.
(3) However, the owners corporation’s consent must not be
unreasonably withheld.
Note An owner or occupier of a unit may apply to the ACAT to resolve a
dispute with the owners corporation about keeping an animal, or
allowing an animal to be kept (see s 123).
(4) In this section:
animal includes—
(a) an amphibian; and
(b) a bird; and
(c) a fish; and
(d) a mammal (other than a human being); and
(e) a reptile.

threepaws 9:14 am 21 May 09

The unit titles legislation amendments took effect at the end of March, the main change being that body corporates can no longer say a blanket ‘no’ to pets: From the City News:

The amendments to the Act now require that an owners’ corporation may not unreasonably withhold approval for a resident to keep a pet. This raises the question of what “unreasonably” means. My advice to executive committees would be to develop clear criteria for considering pet requests.
It may be useful to consider information recently published by the RSPCA regarding the suitability of pets within high-density communities. It would be a safe bet that any pets policy that borrows from the RSPCA would be seen as reasonable, however this will no doubt be tested more thoroughly in the years ahead.

motleychick 8:57 am 21 May 09

I agree with you completely. I’m still living at home with the olds because I have a puppy and am unable to find a rental property that will allow dogs! I think it’s silly.

Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2017 Riot ACT Holdings Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.
www.the-riotact.com | www.b2bmagazine.com.au | www.thisiscanberra.com

Search across the site