REVscene - Vancouver Automotive Forum

Acura604 · 08-20-2012, 06:34 AM

This is such a touchy subject.. back in the day as a tenant, I had a cat and it was so tough finding a rental...now, as a landlord... i know what will happen if i rent to a pet owner i.e. damages, etc.

Advocates want to make it easier for pet owners to rent - News1130

VANCOUVER (NEWS1130) - If you have a dog or cat and are a renter, there is no law in BC preventing your landlord from kicking you out because of your pet.

However if you head out east, it's illegal in Toronto to discriminate against a renter because they have a pet and Sharon Isaak with Renters at Risk says we need to follow that lead.

She thinks the worst thing a landlord can do is make someone choose between their best friend and their home.

"Over 50 per cent of people in Vancouver are renters, and in some parts of the city 70 to 80 per cent of people rent. We need to stop treating renters as second class citizens and allow people to have pets in their homes," stresses Isaak.

In 2003, the Residential Tenancy Act was adjusted to help those with pets find a home.

"[The laws] were changed to allow landlords to ask for a pet deposit to encourage them to allow pets, but what we've seen over the years, there's been no more changes to encourage landlords to allow pets and that needs to change," believes Isaak.

She's seen seen several cases involving an elderly renter who has been forced to put their pet down in order to stay in their building, and wants to see the Residential Tenancy Act changed.

SkinnyPupp · 08-20-2012, 06:41 AM

I thnk that as long as it's made clear that the tenant is liable for ANY damage, no matter how minor (so it would include things like smell) anyone should eb allowed to rent with a pet. If you don't personally like pets, you shoul dstill accept that other people do. As long as they are responsible

dinosaur · 08-20-2012, 03:15 PM

No, you can not be 'kicked out' for having a pet....but if you break the signed tenancy agreement that said 'NO PETS', you can be evicted. See the fine line?

If you move into a building where pets are cool, then a new owner comes along and says that the building is going 'no pet', the tenant can not be evicted....they are grandfathered in.

I love pets....grew up my entire life with cats, dogs, hamsters, birds, mice, etc....I would love nothing more than to have a dog right now, but I can't. I live in a no dog building (cats ok) and although I am the property manager, its the rule.

The problem with pet is obvious...mess, damage, smell, noise. We can deal with the noise situation easily (complaint, complaint, warning, warning, warning, eviction)....mess, damage, smell is a little harder. Yes, we collect a pet damage deposit (can not exceed 50% of the original rent) but often the damage exceeds that. Here is the MAJOR issue....collecting. Its all fine and dandy to have a piece of paper saying that the tenant is obligated to pay for any damage that their animal has cause to the rental property, but when that damage exceeds the pet deposit, it can be very hard to recoup.

Also, a lot of the times, animals can do permanent damage. For example:

When Grid and I took over one of the buildings, the owner had mention that they had evicted some crazy lady a few months prior. Subsequent to that they have been having problems renting that apt as it smelled like cat piss. After re-finishing the floors several times, they had not been able to solve the problem. Grid took a look at it a couple of days later and had decided they the only way to fix the problem was to replace part of the floor....the smell was out of this world! Upon cutting he discovered that the piss had soaked not only the hardwood floors, but the sub floors, and the structural beams/supports of the building (thankfully there was not a unit below it). Then he realized that the drywall had soaked up the piss as well...he had to about 2 feet up and about 12 feet across...remove the drywall only to find that all the studs were damaged too.

In the end, he cleaned what he could, painted everything with killz, replaced the subflooring, covered everything again with killz...replaced the drywall...and then had to install laminate flooring over the beautiful original hardwood. It no longer smells, but whenever the temp outside gets super hot, we are expecting a complaint.

The cost of the loss in rental revenue, refinishing the floors twice, then finally having to remove and cover with new flooring was in the thousands. All for 1 cat and 1 crazy tenant.

And really....if the tenant is cool with a cat pissing in the corner...what makes you think she is going to have the money to pay for the damage. You can have every court in canada rule in your favor...you are never going to see that money.

Yes, I really understand how much it sucks to not have a pet and I totally realize that for every shitty pet owner, there are hundreds of great ones....unfortunately, sometimes it is not worth the risk. As someone who rents out these places, I can tell you it is a pain in the ass to turn down a great person b/c he/she has a dog. I get tired of saying no...but it is what it is. There are 3 buildings that surround me and all allow cats and dogs...they are out there, the tenant just needs to look.

Gridlock · 08-20-2012, 10:17 PM

You know, I get sick and tired of this bullshit. Oh blah blah blah..tenants rights...bad landlords...ever popular, the "renovictions".

I'm a renter myself. So I get the deal.

But fuck off.

If you want protections, go and buy an apartment. You can do whatever the fuck you want to it, and as long as you pay strata and mortgage, no one gives a hoot(I'm over-simplifying, I know)

People have to stop thinking they can tell owners what they can do with their apartment.

It's discriminating against pet owners? Eat cat shit. I'm with dino..I love pets, but its not a 'right' to have one. If you are going to rent, and you don't want problems with pets, then don't have a cat.

Then you get some left-wing dipshit that gets on the news talking about dealing with bad landlords. Great...there are some out there. Can we deal with bad tenants? We are restricted from having a database of bad tenants, meaning you can trash my place, and move on to the next.

Sure, you want to open up the laws, but are unwilling to consider anything that might be a loss to your side.

So. Aggravating.

impulseX · 08-21-2012, 04:52 AM

i love pets and all, and have two of my own. although it is harder to find homes that allow pets, these people need to realize that they are the RENTers, meaning that they don't own that home. if the landlord doesn't like pets for whatever reason, i do support them because in the end, its still their property.

GLOW · 08-21-2012, 03:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gridlock

If you want protections, go and buy an apartment. You can do whatever the fuck you want to it, and as long as you pay strata and mortgage, no one gives a hoot(I'm over-simplifying, I know)

People have to stop thinking they can tell owners what they can do with their apartment.

It's discriminating against pet owners? Eat cat shit. I'm with dino..I love pets, but its not a 'right' to have one. If you are going to rent, and you don't want problems with pets, then don't have a cat.

Quote:

Originally Posted by impulseX

these people need to realize that they are the RENTers, meaning that they don't own that home. if the landlord doesn't like pets for whatever reason, i do support them because in the end, its still their property.

+1

Soundy · 08-26-2012, 10:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Acura604

This is such a touchy subject.. back in the day as a tenant, I had a cat and it was so tough finding a rental...now, as a landlord... i know what will happen if i rent to a pet owner i.e. damages, etc.

Advocates want to make it easier for pet owners to rent - News1130

VANCOUVER (NEWS1130) - If you have a dog or cat and are a renter, there is no law in BC preventing your landlord from kicking you out because of your pet.

However if you head out east, it's illegal in Toronto to discriminate against a renter because they have a pet and Sharon Isaak with Renters at Risk says we need to follow that lead.

Yeah, and here's the problem with that: if you force landlords to accept renters with pets, maybe they decide just not to rent at all. Then you have a shrinking rental market for EVERYONE, pets or not... and the people with pets find it harder to find a place AT ALL, let alone one that allows their pets.

Quote:

"Over 50 per cent of people in Vancouver are renters, and in some parts of the city 70 to 80 per cent of people rent. We need to stop treating renters as second class citizens and allow people to have pets in their homes," stresses Isaak.

"Second class citizens"? Please. What about people who buy into condos or townhouses that don't allow pets - does that make them second-class citizens as well?

Quote:

She's seen seen several cases involving an elderly renter who has been forced to put their pet down in order to stay in their building, and wants to see the Residential Tenancy Act changed.

That doesn't make sense. If the person had a pet before they moved in, they shouldn't have been allowed to move in with it; if they GOT the pet AFTER moving in, they broke their tenancy agreement and should simply be evicted, or have ZERO excuse for having to get rid of the pet; and if the rules changed AFTER they moved in, they should be grandfathered anyway. And ultimately, nobody is FORCED to put a pet down in a situation like this - that's why shelters and BCSPCA exist.

Fucking wingnut bitch, crybaby stories like this only serve to make all pet owners look bad.

GLOW · 08-27-2012, 07:07 AM

Quote:

She's seen seen several cases involving an elderly renter who has been forced to put their pet down in order to stay in their building, and wants to see the Residential Tenancy Act changed.

that kind of erked me. it's not the pet's fault their owner can't give them a proper home, now it has to die cuz of that?

but IMO if you can't afford to properly own & take care of a pet then don't have one maybe? i've never owned more than fish so maybe i'm talking out of my ass... but i know i can't properly take care of a cat/dog due to my situation and that's why i don't have one.

dinosaur · 08-27-2012, 10:52 AM

You can just add this story to the thousand others out there where the landlord/owner looks like the big bad wolf.

Once a week or so you see a news story about a tenant being evicted for some problem that they claim isn't their fault or being evicted for uncontrollable reasons. Its all bull shit.

There are very few reasons a tenant can be evicted and it is VERY hard to do....especially if they want to fight it and take it to arbitration. The Tenancy Branch does not take eviction lightly at all...in fact, the ONLY way the a case is open/close is failure to pay rent. All other reasons (pets, damage, messy, loud music, health and safety, drunks...and even drugs use) it can be nearly impossible.

Yes, it can be frustrating to have a guy sitting in an apartment smoking a joint next to a hole he punched in the wall listening to Megadeath on full volume. The landlord can fight and fight and fight and STILL not be able to have him evicted. But it is what it is.

All these stories about tenants being kicked out for various, seemingly minor reason, are all bullshit.

My fav was a couple months ago...tenant in kamloops being evicted b/c he son has anger issues or some shit like that....she was having problems finding a place on her limited social assistance. She let it slip that she hadn't been able to afford to pay her rent for that place for the last few months!! WELL NO SHIT YOU ARE GETTING EVICTED! Really? B/c of the anger issue?! NOT b/c you haven't paid your FUCKING rent?!

Some tenants seem to forget that landlords/owners are not pocketing their money....they use that money to pay the mortgage on the property to which they live in.

GLOW · 08-27-2012, 11:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dinosaur

Some tenants seem to forget that landlords/owners are not pocketing their money....they use that money to pay the mortgage on the property to which they live in.

i like to think it's not so much forgetting that some use the rent to pay the mortgage but rather they don't give a flying fuck as it's "not their problem"

Gridlock · 08-27-2012, 11:36 AM

I think in the 3 years that we've been doing this, the worst thing you can come across is entitlement.

I say that understanding that there IS a certain level of entitlement required within the laws of what we do. You are entitled to an apartment that works, is free from disruption and neighbors and so on. I get that.

Then entitlement goes too far. There are people that we've had to deal with that felt very entitled to a lot of things. My time was to work like an all-request line.

"Hey! EVERYONE else is getting new blinds...I have old curtains...I'm ENTITLED to new blinds." No. The new apartments paying more money get new everything. If you want to renegotiate your rent, I'd be happy to give you new everything too. Nope. Didn't think that would work for you.

You want people to be entitled to a cat-its just one little cat, right? Well, what about those with two? Two little cats. At that point, a third cat is only 33% more cat. Maybe one little dog. Then, what counts as a little dog?

I have a suspicion that soon the Residential Tenancy Act will be in for an overhaul. They'll go for closing the renoviction loophole for sure, which will have a negative impact on the quality of available rentals.

gdoh · 08-27-2012, 11:55 AM

I think it should come down to what the Wants not the tenant, if you want to have pets but aren't willing to agree to the terms in the contract I wrote up then find a different place to live simple as that. I have a dog and love it but if I were to rent from some one who doesn't allow pets then you have to get rid of the pet or keep looking there shouldn't really be any argument because the tenant can't have it their way. try to come to an agreement with damage deposit or whatever but its more of a hassle to repair if you pet likes to piss, shit, or puke all over my carpet

just how I see it

Soundy · 08-29-2012, 06:19 AM

Acura604 · 06-05-2013, 01:48 PM

... an update is better than no update lol... thread resurrection possible!

Should landlords be able to deny renters with pets? | News1130

VANCOUVER (NEWS1130) – If Vancouver city council has its way, landlords will no longer be able to demand “no pets allowed.”

Not everyone is in favour of this motion.

The Rental Housing Council of BC doesn’t agree with the idea, President and CEO Amy Spencer says it should remain based on choice.

“Ten per cent of irresponsible pet owners do cause damage, so back in 2004 when the province did look at this, they provided landlords with the ability to charge a pet damage deposit.”

“We’ve actually had cases where people have been sued in the past where they’ve had new tenants come in and there has been some pet dander left over. Their children had an allergic reaction. It is a very individual choice. I’m a renter and I have a pet, and pets to me are a privilege and not a right.”

Councillor Tim Stevenson disagrees, “So why should people, just because they can’t afford to have a house or a big backyard, not be able to have a pet?”

He says over half of Vancouver households are renters, and the City of Vancouver is home to more than a quarter of the rental housing for the entire province.

A final decision would be up to the province of BC.

Ontario does not allow landlords to ban pets in rental housing agreements.

Soundy · 06-05-2013, 02:02 PM

Maybe a "You break it, you bought it" policy should apply here...

westopher · 06-24-2013, 10:24 AM

I think owners of a building should be allowed to make the decision to allow pets or no pets, or cats only or whatever, but these size restraints are bullshit. A 130lb mastiff can live in a condo and be less of a disturbance, and be more comfortable than a 6lb yappy untrained pomeranian. These 30lb restrictions are fucking retarded.

dinosaur · 06-24-2013, 10:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Soundy

Maybe a "You break it, you bought it" policy should apply here...

The problem with this policy is that pets can cause significant damage and this damage can far exceed the pet damage deposit.

When you take a deposit(s) for a rental unit, 50% is tenant damage\cleaning and 50% is for pet. From what I have been told from the RTB if the pet damage exceeds the pet damage deposit, you can not collect it from the "human" damage deposit.

Furthermore, if the pet (or tenant for that matter) causes damage in an amount the exceeds either or both deposits, you will need to go to court and collect...which can be very difficult (albeit, entertaining).

Although we have discussed this above a lot, I can not reiterate enough how damaging a pet (especially a cat) can be to a rental property. Unlike human, it isn't just patching and painting....it can be removing walls and flooring. Its just fucking nasty. The attitude of "you break it, you buy it" is great....but if I have a tenant with a floor pissing cat, what makes me think they have any integrity to pay for the damage.

Quote:

Originally Posted by westopher

I think owners of a building should be allowed to make the decision to allow pets or no pets, or cats only or whatever, but these size restraints are bullshit. A 130lb mastiff can live in a condo and be less of a disturbance, and be more comfortable than a 6lb yappy untrained pomeranian. These 30lb restrictions are fucking retarded.

Yes, I do agree that the owners should be able to make the decision. I don't think I would ever buy a place where someone else can make that decision for me. I allow tenants to have pets on my property....a little of it is because it is easier to rent, but mostly because the rent is substantial and therefore the deposit is, and because it is a townhouse in a family complex with an off-leash dog park.

I also agree that size restrictions are fucking ridiculous!

miss_crayon · 06-24-2013, 02:02 PM

Goodness, I hope this new rule doesn't pass.

I love pets, have 2 cats myself but I could never allow pets in any of our rentals. Not saying all, but there are a lot of people who do not give a shit when it comes to the rental property let alone their pets making a mess. I see it in the properties we list, I hear about it from my office's property managers. There are a lot of people who simply do not care!

I think of all the years I've been in the business..I've only met 1 couple (tenants) who had 1 dog and 1 cat that kept their 700sqft 1 bedroom apt SPOTLESS when I was listing the property. It was so well kept--you wouldn't even have known they had animals running around. But on the other end of the spectrum...you won't believe what some people will let their pets do. Pee on the carpets/hardwood, muddy paws all over the floor, ripped up carpets from cats clawing at it etc etc.

A couple months ago, we found out a tenant of ours had a cat even though the contract strictly states NO PETS (And which he understood and signed). He got evicted but not after threatening us that he would leave (as if we would have problems find a new tenant) if he couldn't keep the cat.

dinosaur · 06-28-2013, 08:31 AM

So I get a call yesterday about one of my rentals I have been advertising on CL. Conversation is going alright until she asks me about pets:

Lady: "Oh, I see on the ad is says 'no pets', what about a dog...I really want a dog"
Me: "It is a no-pet buildings, so no"
Lady: "Well, you know that soon your not going to be allowed to say 'no' and I'll be able to get a dog"
Me: *stifle my sarcastic laughter* "Yeah, if you read that article is it was in regards to the city of Vancouver and the likelihood of that ACTUALLY happening is slim to none"
Lady: "Oh"

So, just a heads-up to those of us who deal with rentals....wait for more of these conversations to increase

lowside67 · 06-28-2013, 09:01 AM

Personally, I believe that the most reasonable answer is to remove the ability to specify no pets but SIGNIFICANTLY raise the pet deposit that can legally be collected. You should be able to collect a 1/2 month rent for standard damage deposit and 1 1/2 months rent for a pet deposit. That way you have a reasonable chance of actually being able to repair the place for the amount of the pet deposit. A half month's rent doesn't do crap - good luck repairing all the floors in an apartment if a dog has scratched the crap out of them for $750...

Gridlock · 06-28-2013, 09:17 AM

One more thing...do we really want a large population of the renting public going out en masse and suddenly getting dogs and cats because they can?

I can name a large amount of tenants that I would not want owning pets of any kind. Hell, I can name a few that currently have pets that I wish, for the sake of the pets that they didn't.

dinosaur · 06-28-2013, 09:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lowside67

Personally, I believe that the most reasonable answer is to remove the ability to specify no pets but SIGNIFICANTLY raise the pet deposit that can legally be collected. You should be able to collect a 1/2 month rent for standard damage deposit and 1 1/2 months rent for a pet deposit. That way you have a reasonable chance of actually being able to repair the place for the amount of the pet deposit. A half month's rent doesn't do crap - good luck repairing all the floors in an apartment if a dog has scratched the crap out of them for $750...

Some times it is not just the damage, unfortunately.

Dogs bark...some dogs bark A LOT. There is a building across the street that allows dogs and at any given time, you can hear dogs barking. Imagine living next to that shit. Imagine the constant complaints. Trying to evict someone for a barking dog would be a nightmare.

There are a TON of dogs in that building because dog owners have few places to go...I can just imagine what the halls smell like. What happens when a dog pisses or shits in the hall? How do you prove whose dog it was? What do you do about the lawn that is covered in piss stains?

We had a tenant who would never clean the cat litter box....stunk up the hallway like you wouldn't believe!

No amount of damage deposit will solve those issues.

Soundy · 06-28-2013, 10:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gridlock

One more thing...do we really want a large population of the renting public going out en masse and suddenly getting dogs and cats because they can?

I can name a large amount of tenants that I would not want owning pets of any kind. Hell, I can name a few that currently have pets that I wish, for the sake of the pets that they didn't.

Funny, I had that exact same though about the lady Dino mentioned a couple posts north of here.

westopher · 06-28-2013, 02:11 PM

I wish there weren't so many pets out there with shitty owners. It makes life a lot tougher for those of us that treat our pets like part of the family.
Posted via RS Mobile

dinosaur · 06-28-2013, 03:53 PM

^^ I couldn't agree more. I have grown up with dogs and cats and currently have a bunny (who does not live in a cage) and it is sad that people in general are not more responsible.

The other downside to such legislation being introduced is that I think a lot more people will go out and purchase and adopt animals without considering the responsibility. There are many people out there who want pets, but don't have them because of living situations. It would break my heart to have tenants who neglect their animals or leave their dogs inside 24/7. I fear that if something like this ever passes you will see droves of people acquiring animals....and then 6 months down the line, you will see droves of animal being carted off to the SPCA.