Friday, October 29, 2010

Pet Deposits

I love pets... all kinds. Dogs, cats, birds, fish... Of course, having a pet requires one to be responsible for them as well.  I would like to think that most people are, however sadly, there are some that are not.  When you have your own pet, in your own property, then any potential damage that pet could cause is your problem.

However when you have a pet and live (aka rent or lease) on someone else's property, an entirely new "can of worms" comes into play.

Let's face it.  Being a landlord isn't an easy task.  If you have your own property up for rent, or managing someone else's property... you have to follow the rules set out under the Landlord and Tenancy Act.  This act should equally protect both the landlords rights, as well as those of the tenant.  Seems reasonable, right?  People are required to pay a security deposit, which is normally the same as one months rent, and according to the law it isn't allowed to exceed one months rent.  So it doesn't matter if you are a single person, or a group of people (with or without children), you pay the same price.  Seems reasonable too.

But if you are a pet owner, those rules go out the proverbial window.  Clearly, the possibility of the pet causing damage (urine etc on carpets and floors, scratching of doors and floors and walls and carpets, and any other thing that a pet could do...) to the property has increased.  And landlords should have the right to require additional assurances to allow for those times when things happen.  But since the law says that a security deposit can not exceed 1 months rent, landlords are now charging a "pet deposit".  The problem with this is... it's not really a deposit, because the landlord is not required to refund it.

This is WRONG.  The legislation needs to be changed, and it needs to be changed NOW.  Allow for an increase within the legislation, that permits landlords to exceed the 'maximum one months rent' limit so that pets become part of the security deposit, which makes those fees refundable when the tenant moves out.  Responsible pet owners will then be taken care of.  If the pet causes no damage, they will get those amounts refunded.  There doesn't need to be any "differences", as in "part 'A' of the deposit applies to normal things and part 'B' of the deposit applies to pets".  So even if the pets caused no damages, but the property is trashed, the landlord still has the right to use the entire amount of the deposit to make repairs etc.

As it stands now, pet owners are being abused by the process, and in fairness to responsible pet owners (which I submit are the majority of the people) the Government needs to stop allowing landlords the right to rip people off.

YOU must speak up, and let YOUR voice be heard.  You can send in a letter or email or fax, and tell the Government of Alberta to stop allowing landlords having a license to print money.

Snail Mail:
Investigative Services
Attention Consumer Programs
3rd Floor
10155 - 102 street
Edmonton, Alberta T5J 4L4

Email to nfs@gov.ab.ca

Fax to 780-422-9106

By the way, in my humble opinion, the legislation should be made retroactive to cover all people that have paid "pet deposits"... It's only fair!

21 comments:

  1. I completely agree with this. I am currently dealing with the same issue. My dog is well trained and behaved and I never have any problems with her in the house. I moved at the beginning of this month and lost the "pet fee" of $250.00 that i had paid at my previous place as well as having to pay another non-refundable fee of $300.00 at my new place! Completely ridiculous. In BC they have a clause that allows landlords to charge a pet fee but states that it cannot be deemed non-refundable at time of move it. It can also be over and above the one months rent allowance to protect landlords as well. My only worry about changing the "one months rent" clause is that it will allow landlords to start going astronomical with their damage deposit prices.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hello
      This is Eva and my niece is playing a joke on me yes she is correct about the MLA and nothing else(kids are all ears).This is not my number. I have spoken to my sister about my niece and yes she is up s%$# creek with out a paddle. I apologize if anyone has been offended.
      Thank You

      Delete
    2. Laughs... I would have edited the post and removed the phone number, because the other elements of it were .. shall we say .. correct. But unfortunately the software doesn't allow that (which is a huge fail but... anyway)..

      I took no offense.. No harm, no foul..

      Cheers

      Delete
  2. From my understanding, Alberta renters can not be charged more than one months rent for a damage deposit. Let's forget the fact that the 'boom' has driven a $500 per month apartment into $900, giving landlords mega profits already, which also gives them the option of charging a huge deposit.

    Even good pets can do damage, and I have no issues with landlords wanting to be protected. But I believe our legislators in power have (yet once again) forgotten about "the people". Fees and such SHOULD be returned if there is no need to use them. Sadly, I seriously doubt the current government will step up to the plate and do the right thing and fix this.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Unfortunately not all damage is evident when the tenant moves out. We recently spent 1200 to repair a fairly new furnace that was overworked from tenants with pets not changing the filters. When they moved out we replaced the filters which were full of dog hair but it was too late for the furnace. It quit a few months later and the technician said it was due to lack of air flow through the filters. The pet fee did not go far. After 20 plus years of renting, our properties where pets are allowed need updating much sooner than those without

      Delete
    2. Interesting, Pat.. I'm trying to understand how that could happen. Yes, I get that the air flow would be restricted. That would mean the tenants would have had extremely high heating costs, and really low air flow. I can't imagine anyone in Alberta, as a tenant, "suffering" through that situation, and not complaining about it.

      My guess would be, they just plugged up the filter, didn't care about maintenance, and took the filter out totally because they didn't want to pay the cost to replace it. With that said, the fan motor should be a sealed unit, so I don't see how dog hair could have affected that. I suppose hair could have wrapped around the bearings of the fan itself, but man... that would have to be a LOT of hair. Any hair that made it into the heat exchanger would have been fried.

      Don't get me wrong... :) I know pets add to the risks. Kids also add to risks. Life as a landlord can really suck. I've taken care of 3 major highrise complexes over the years.

      I would think that, with a written report from the technician, you should be able to take legal action. I know, that too is a PITA. Collecting can even be worse.

      Just as a hint, for houses with furnaces.. supply a washable filter. They get cleaned once a month. And it gives you a reason to inspect for compliance.

      Delete
  3. Perhaps the animals do not do any visible damage, but it is necessary to clean carpets, furnace and duct work after pets leave. This costs more than most pet deposits.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes...it is necessary to clean carpets, furnace and duct work after pets leave. Carpets...that is done as part of the regular damage deposit piece whether pets or not. Furnace...in your own home or a condo, you should do that anyhow, regularly...whether rented or not. In an apartment, that "furnace" piece doesn't apply. Duct work...if you are not cleaning out your ducts...whether you own or rent, and whether the previous tenant had pets or not...then good luck and lots of sympathy for you dealing with plugged ducts, carpet beetles, bed bugs and mice. If you are a landlord that is not doing the cleaning items you specifically mentioned, regardless of whether the previous tenant had a pet or not...I won't be renting from you....because you did not ensure the premises were cleaned and pest free as well. And with our warmer winters...you WILL be dealing with pests. Whether you are landlord or an owner, or whether the tenant had pets or not.

      Delete
    2. I certainly hope that the carpets are being cleaned after every tenant! All tenants have the right to walk into a CLEAN home, not just non pet owners. So....that' s kinda discriminative to say that only after a pet has lived there that carpets should be cleaned.

      Delete
  4. To Anonymous @ Feb 2, 5:41

    Some valid points. Carpets are already covered via the normal damage deposit side, and landlords will generally clean them if the tenant does not. Standard stuff there.

    I'm not sure I would agree that furnace and duct cleaning would be *required*, but I guess a lot of it depends on the type of animal there. Yes, some folks have allergies etc, so it would be up to them to nail those issues down before renting. And of course, landlords aren't required to allow pets so for those who think the "expense" is too much, they can just say no.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I wonder... if the pet causes damage to the carpet and whatnot, and the pet deposit is already automatically being kept, can the repair costs be taken out of the security deposit as well??? I feel like landlords get away with this too!

    ReplyDelete
  6. One would think the damage would be covered by the "pet fee" first. Logic would say that costs in excess of that, could come from the security deposit. If this has happened to you, then contact the government.

    ReplyDelete
  7. All animals will cause some damage - even those that are well-behaved. It's just the nature of the beast, no pun intended. I don't see the problem with the charge.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Blah. I've never had any of my pets cause any damage. No pee or poo where it shouldn't be, no scratched doors or walls etc. This isn't about a problem with the charge.. this is about taking the money and not giving it back when no damage has been done.

      Delete
    2. If there is no damage from pets...the money should be refunded. Period. If landlords don't agree...then maybe they should have a "child specific deposit" too.

      Delete
  8. Pet deposits have great use when used right and should remain separate from any security deposit and should be non-refundable. For example, a tenant moves into my property who has a cat. I charge $300 to cover things that are guaranteed to occur. A good example would be an extra furnace and duct cleaning to remove the dander from the ducts so that people who are sensitive are not alienated from being replacement tenants, this is just one example.

    Now if the pet is misbehaved and scratches the walls and floors; leaves urine stains everywhere that is a whole other ball game. This damage would come out of the Security Deposit just like everything else.

    As a landlord if my right to charge a Pet Fee is removed I simply would not allow pets on my property.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So what you're saying is that this whole pet "deposit" thing is a cash cow for you and all other landlords that take advantage of pet owners?

      Delete
  9. So a tenant moves in, stays for 2 months, moves out.. you feel you are "entitled" to keep 300 dollars... (rolls eyes) .. As I've said before, not all pets cause damage. And the amount of (cough) "dander" in the ducts... seriously?

    Stop being a rip-off landlord, You seem to be the "prissy" type, so just don't allow pets. That's your right. The reasons you give, are absurd.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree, Gary. Just wait until that person finds out what is REALLY going on with carpet beetles and bedbugs and mice in the ducts. Duct cleaning (for example, the fan in the bathroom in an apartment) is part of the move-out report (at least in any apartment I have rented). In a house...that should be done regularly regardless of whether there is a pet or not. So that person should not allow pets (as you pointed out)...and should be cleaning the ducts because of plugged ducts and pests...not pets. Yep...this person is a "take every dime, plus a little more" type of landlord.

      Delete
  10. Gary, how do I contact you?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I noted your 3 replies, thanks for taking the time. First of all, let me point out that I am NOT a landlord. I do have major experience with tenants, having worked in several high rise buildings over the years.

      You made reference to carpet cleaning, and yes... by law, carpets are supposed to be cleaned by the landlord (sometimes the tenant is allowed to do that). I'm not sure how long a tenant has to have lived there, before that is done though. For example, if they are only there 2 months, does it still need to be done? Maybe not, providing they remained clean.

      This would also apply to things like curtains too, if the landlord provided them. This is a different item though, and when I was "in the business" many years back, they were generally only ever cleaned once every 5 or 6 years.. Sorry, a little off topic. Anyway.

      My entire point is those landlords that decide to allow pets, should be entitled to collect a pet "deposit". And when the tenant moves out, providing the pets have caused no damage, they should be allowed to get that deposit back. And yes, rules do need to be created as to what defines a deposit, and what defines damage...

      Did you still need to contact me? :)

      Delete