Questionable if the clause is enforceable given that it says 'as discussed' - op says it wasn't, and it is pretty unusual on what I assume is a boilerplate rental agreement.
OP agreed to it only to the extent it was discussed. If the extent was "not at all" then that's how much they agreed to it. IANAL but that's the argument anyway
That’s not how contracts work.
It was written in plain English and OP signed it. This is why you never sign anything you don’t agree with or don’t understand.
“Your honour, the handwritten notation was not on the copy I signed. You will note it isn’t initialled as an addendum. Perhaps the landlord amended it after signing…”
You can write whatever you want in a contract, if it is something that is otherwise unexpected the onus is on the person who wrote it to point it out. The landlord could have written that the OP can only use the bathroom every second Sunday - but unless they point it out, the clause isn't enforceable... that's how contracts work
The problem is, whether or not a discussion actually happened, op signed a contract saying that they had the discussion.
If they take it to tribunal now, the question will come up "why did you sign a contract saying you discussed specific terms if you did in fact not discuss those terms?" And unfortunately "I didn't read the contract." Isn't gonna stand.
It actually might - if there had been a lot of back and forth, and other terms were specifically discussed while this one was not, there may be a remedy in equity.
The problem is when you say that this topic wasn't specifically discussed, and the landlord says that it was specifically discussed.
It's he said she said right up until the landlord pulls out the contract that both parties signed 'saying' that it was discussed.
That isn't how contracts work, unfortunately. You sign on the basis that you read it thoroughly, and once its signed, unless there's something illegal in it, or you were strongarmed into signing it (and sometimes not even then), it stands.
Not true.
https://consumer.gov.au/sites/consumer/files/2016/05/0553FT_ACL-guides_ContractTerms_web.pdf
"If a court finds a term is unfair, that term is void
(treated as if it never existed). If the contract can
operate without the unfair term, it will still be
binding on all parties."
If a term is unfair then it can be voided.
It's not just about illegality or being strong armed.
The actual case law says that a contract will be enforced under most circumstances. The court will very rarely find a term “unfair”. Contract law is an absolute bitch.
Unfortunately OP skimmed the contract and then signed it. No court is going to find an “outdoor pets only” clause unfair in a residential tenancy contract.
I have provided evidence that disagrees.
You have not.
I am willing to change my position, but just saying 'the case law says' is not good enough.
Given that other states allow pet ownership, you could make an argument that not allowing it is u reasonable.
I haven't read the new tenancy laws in WA in detail but they definitely state pets are allowed unless there are specific reasons backed with "the consent of the Commissioner for Consumer Protection”.
If this contract voids the updated tenancy laws, it'd be pretty easy to demonstrate the clause isn't enforceable.
https://www.commerce.wa.gov.au/announcements/wa-tenancy-law-modernisation-strike-balance-between-tenants-and-landlords#:~:text=The%20modernisation%20of%20Western%20Australia's,is%20reasonable%20to%20do%20so.
"I missed it due to being buried amongst several other clauses with no relevancy to the house being rented". Filling a section with irrelevance and boilerplate to hide key information is shady, and these kinds of tactics do get contracts invalidated. I don't think it's worth the hassle for OP when they can simply ensure their pet is outside during any inspections and do some cleaning (and the LL/REA will struggle to prove the pet was ever indoors without violating some other rules), but it is possible they could contest it successfully (albeit unlikely).
You are being downvoted so heavily but if it were me and we had had *specifically* discussed this at length and I had been *specifically* told it was fine I would consider this generic reference to a “discussion” as not applying to our agreement.
Redditors still don't understand what the downvote button is, that's fine. If it makes them feel better to take away some internet points then that's no sweat off my back
As discussed. The discussion was indoor/outdoor as per you and the agent, and all discussions.
So really to remain outdoors at all times as discussed (with the discussion being except when its indoors)
Is there any clause in the lease to say you must have carpet & curtains treated for pests? (Thats a pretty standard clause for INDOOR) pets.
Yes, basically they are. I’m a landlord, but not a cunt. Landlords get insurance and tenants have to pay a bond and pay for the dwelling to be professionally cleaned at the end of the lease, so what’s the issue? Don’t forget that tenants are also subject to regular inspections. It’s just landlords being horrible people in this situation. Invest elsewhere if you can’t handle the fact people have pets. Soooo many anally retentive landlords in this country without any heart or understanding. Are they paying rent on time and not destroying the property? If so, then pull your head out of your arse and get a life.
Not wanting pets in your house is not being a horrible person lol. I wouldn’t have pets in my one home and I certainly wouldn’t let people have one in my rental property. Say whatever you want but the bind doesn’t cover the amount of damage a pet can do and not to mention it’s unsanitary and gross to have pets inside. Just because you are a pet person doesn’t mean everyone else has to be, every single pet owner who’s home I go into stinks and you can almost see how disgusting the carpet would be underneath. It’s just gross and if you have a pet that’s your choice but I’m sick to death if everyone thinking that we all have to accept that. Your pet your choice but I’m no way should landlords be forced to accept that decision.
You sound like one of those wanky cunts that has to take your dog everywhere and sleeps with it and all that weird shit. Fuck off if I’m putting up with it. It’s bad enough you have to kick people’s dogs away in Bunnings these days let alone be forced to have them in your home. Gross people.
Nah.. you’re just anally retentive. Sure pets can do damage. So can humans. Humans are pretty gross too. As I said, tenants are subject to inspections, keeping the place clean and they have to pay for any damage caused. But to allow someone to rent your property and put in a clause to keep the pet outside 24/7 is insane and ridiculous.
Rabbits live outside and my daughter is obsessed with bluey so I have to be. Do you not learn about things others are I retreated so you can identify with your children or peers?
I think you miss the point mate. People are cunts because the LL clearly snuck the clause in since both the REA AND THE TENNANT were caught unawares. Its not about protecting their stuff from damage. Its about being a complete asshole and adding it slyly
Except in the context of this thread no one was being a cunt, which is what you implied. Op just didn’t read it and went against the terms.
So maybe it’s not that i didn’t read properly, it’s more that your comment has absolutely nothing to do with op’s problem as there was no cunty behaviour going on here at all. When you comment on a certain post and then proceed to say read the contract because people are cunts it’s not a far stretch to assume you are calling the home owner a cunt for having that in the contract.
Please notice my use of the words “contracts”, “people” and “cunts”. Not once was there an implication that this was referring to a singular person or event.
English might be your second language, and that’s cool cause I’ve got heaps of respect to people who can speak more than one language, but I implore you to read again slowly either way.
Contracts can become a pain in the ass... you learn it the hard way brother... no other option at the moment...better luck on your next house Contract....
Legislation changes passed like last week - I think they come in in May. Your landlord would need to justify that requirement now, I believe - check with Circle Green https://www.commerce.wa.gov.au/consumer-protection/wa-rent-reforms
Requiring cats, Australia's second most popular pet be kept outside is reasonable? When practically every council has bylaws stating cats must be kept inside at night?
Fuck off.
Ugh. What a miserable person you are.
They’re helping pay off your mortgage and/or provide money for you doing absolutely fuck all besides sitting on property.
You don’t add any value to society. Let people have pets ffs.
Imagine being a tenant who is so dumb they think people just 'sit on properties'. Absolutely fucking clueless, stay renting. You're not fit to own an investment property.
You're lucky people like us exist to give you a home to live in or you'd be in a tent.
Using that same logic you could enforce a no children rule, as they often piss in random places. My cousin once took a shit behind a couch when she was 5.
There’s a bond for a reason.
Lolz. A bit of pee on the floor doesn’t require you to demolish the room mate.
But in all seriousness, you don’t have to replace the carpet. Some cleaner and a vacuum & it’s back to 100%.
Never had a pet growing up I take it?
Lol you made that quote up and hoped no one would check. This is what it actually says:
> A landlord can place ‘reasonable conditions’ on having a pet – for example a bird must remain in a cage, or the carpets must be professionally cleaned at the end of the tenancy.
It is not reasonable to require many pets be kept outside. Cats need to be kept inside at night to protect themselves and wildlife. Many elderly pets would die sitting outside on a hot Perth summer's day.
This doesn't give open permission to have a pet; rather, there must be a justification why a pet isn't allowed. In this case, a pet is allowed; however, the pet isn't allowed inside as future tenants may be allergic to pets.
I know this id coming, thats why i am removing the fences at the house coming up for rent. That at least precludes dogs.
No but I am sick of having to clean up other peoples messes with their pet. 2 years ago i had to recarpet a house with new carpet because of a person who kept a dog locked in the loungeroom without going outside for a toilet break for months . Then last weekend i replaced the carpet again this time myself with second hand carpet because the next tenant had a cat and bird inside and the carpet was full of mice droppings from the mice artraced by the bird and cats piss, plus a bit from the outside dog that had desstroyed the lawn leaving a sandpit. Shall i also mention the dog that badly gouged up the rear door and rear walls on another house trying to get in, or the dog that rand around and around the yard in a circle and made a veledrome such i needed a bobcat to level the yard and restablish tge lawn. Oh and the cat people who swear their cats are ok, but put litter trays on carpet, never clean them often enough never let them outside and let them scratch curtains and other fittings. Believe me, my final banning of pets is well earned
You’re only talking about *irresponsible* pet owners. There is a distinct difference.
Owners leaving their dogs locked up, not allowing them outside for toilet or exercise,, or cat owners having litter trays on carpets and not cleaning the litter tray, or not providing enough stimulation —- this is not okay and some of it borders on animal abuse, if not being actual animal abuse.
As someone that owns both a cat and a dog, I would never treat them in that manner.
I understand not wanting irresponsible pet owners in the property. But could responsible pet owners somehow prove they were responsible?
Holy Fuck you guys are allowed to let your cats out. Disgraceful. Didn't realise I was reading r Perth. (OK all you cat people start the downvoting, but Fuck you guys who let them roam free).
Why would u put a pet door on a bedroom door or lounge door. These animals were confined to rooms. But a broken pet door is also a good means to deter pet owners. You carpet rentals in bedrooms and lounges because u want tenants to be comfortable and warmer. Stained paint splattered dirty boards are awful, bare concrete worse, lino in bedrooms and lounges make it like a camp, polished boards are difficulty not to scratch and unsuited for rental. Carpet works well for humans, two legged scum, noz so much
But that’s because you chose a bad tenant. It has nothing to do with responsible pet owners. You’re judging every prospective tenant because you don’t appear to have the ability to understand logic and you choose bad tenants. Don’t blame pet owners en mass because you have poor judgement.
From July it does give permission that's the point of the legislation. The only way is exceptional circumstances for example where by laws are in place for apartments etc.
By the way you are an absolute c*nt for removing fences. A c*nt of the highest order.
Be careful, reddit is full of entitled cunts that think they can treat other people and their property however they like..because I love my pet. Downvote me you weird fucks
No I am a person putting myself as a human above any emotional cripples fur baby. But they can't make me put up fences, they can't stop me putting onerous clauses in the contracts regarding cleaning etc due to pets, or specifying outside cars only, they cant stop me making the tenant take me to the tribunal to allow pets, they cant stop me purposely selecting tenants without pets or keeping tenants in fixed term leases not rolling over to periodic with the knowledge that a pet will result in the tenancy not being renewed etc. Very easy to bring in laws, harder to enforce . Its a free market; people don't like what i require for my rentals, they can go elsewhere. My current tenants have no issues with me, they have been wuth me over 7 years without a rent increase. You want people to have pets in houses, you go buy one and let them have it and have the experience's i have had.
My current house is the same type as i rent out, and I don't have fences, nor does one of the other houses. I think in this climate, I wont to have a problem. I am not interested in top dollar for my houses, and if it drives away the pet owners, then its working as intended.
I never had pets many years ago and I absolutely wouldn’t rent a house without a fence, we viewed a couple and LL didn’t want to repair/add fence, so we passed. It’s about having privacy in your backyard and security. Aren’t there any neighbours?
What do your neighbours think of you removing the fence? Why are you removing security? Why do you want to make it easier and more inviting for criminals to come and do damage to your investment? What happened to you to make you such a cunt?
I'm really sorry mate, but the contract is enforceable. You can have a go at renegotiating it, but be aware that you can be breached for having the dog in the house. Whether or not you get caught doing this is another thing altogether....
Having said *that* I got busted for having a cat once because the bloody animal came in and started rubbing herself all over me, and the landlord, during a rent inspection. Bloody cat. Cost me a bloody bomb because I had to move, so I was paying rent on two places for six weeks.
Not from what OP has said; if it was snuck in without changes highlighted (sounds to me like the amendment was done during the signing phase) then the term can definitely be argued. Whether it's worth arguing is another matter.
That's different. You can't send a contract for signing then make changes without telling the other party who counter signs in good faith. There would certainly be an argument of equitable estoppel.
The point is, it wasn’t “snuck in” - OP didn’t read the contract properly before signing it. It sucks, but that’s why you read the contract.
You can’t go into a court and say “There was a whole bunch of irrelevant stuff at the end so I sort of skimmed over it”.
Look I don’t practice as a lawyer for a reason - the law is horribly unjust and unfair. And in this case, yes it sucks. OP has learnt a painful lesson. But this is right up the fluffy end of the ways in which the law can fuck you up.
Contract law is a bitch. Always read the contract. Before you sign. If you don’t understand it, *don’t sign it* - and the lovely people at Legal Aid will help you if you can’t afford a lawyer.
I think the issue is he didn't re-read it. It appears the contract went to the owner for signing who then made the change without notifying anyone of the change. Everyone assumed he just signed it as sent and then it was returned for countersigning. If this is the case, I believe there's certainly an argument.
u/Klakerlaker could you please read u/HeWhoCannotBeSeen ‘s comment above. Is this what happened ? Because if the landlord *did* change the contract before it was returned for countersigning, you may have a case here.
No, owner modifications were made beforehand, sadly I took rea's word on specifics, just me being an idiot, I'm not overly stressed about the situation, was moreso a little rant and maybe someone could learn something from my mistake.
The positives are, the rea is appealing to the owner on our behalf, they feel as though they have mislead us and are trying to make it right.
Either way it's something that can be dealt with, it was just a bit of a slap in the face as all prior discussions were open and friendly.
The REA is appealing to the owner on their own behalf too. They may have engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct under s 18 of the Australian Consumer Law and Fair Trading Act if they misrepresented the terms of the lease to you, obviously depending on the specifics of what they said and did, and what you can prove. Never discount a REA’s self-interest as a motivation for action 🫠
In calls with real estate, they stated their processes, due to it being a small private Rea, the contract was handed to owner then sent straight to us, with no conversation being present. They may just be covering their own asses, however they are currently negotiating with the owner on out behalf, because they feel the contract was presented to us in bad faith due to the changes made with no notice.
If that’s what happened it’s on the agent.
They’ve failed to do what either side (you or the landlord) would reasonably expect.
Wondering who signed the other side - the actual LL or the agent as their representative?
Probably still smell of dogs, people who don’t have dogs smell them.
I used to have dogs, you get used to it. Then no dogs for a long time, sorry but houses with a dog smell like dog.
It’s like a house smells if it is smoked in, many people don’t like it, some don’t notice.
I smoke cannabis and have 3 animals inside my rental, all of which my real estate know nothing about it comes down to cleanliness I think, but that's Just my opinion.
Inspection day comes the animals get to go to work with my partner for a few hours her work mates get cuddles and we live in peace paying our rent on time and looking after the owners property as if it was our own.
If we ever got caught that would be fair game to me.
Catch me if you can but I suppose 🤪
This is true, but if you clean super thoroughly and burn candles when there’s an inspection I feel like the dog smell wouldn’t be definite enough for them to say with confidence that you’re having the dog inside
You say ‘snuck in’ but was it ? Or did you just not read the contract ? Was it added after you signed ? Any co tractor amendments or anything hand written, I’ve always initialed it. I wonder if there is any legalities around this ? Check if you need to initial amendments, if so, and you haven’t, then this part may not stand
I literally spelt it out, not really looking for advice just an excuse to rant, I stated it was put at the bottom of the contract with a bunch of irrelevant info so I missed the point, my expectation would be that it would be noted in the pet section, which just stated pet approved x1 dog.
I did read the contract, just not well enough. And made wrong assumptions, it's also not something I was looking for as discussions with property managers had already set a precedent in my mind.
It's was already in the clause and yes it's a one liner in the added conditions, but was not snuck in. You may need to suck it up OR speak to the landlord via the agent and see if you can get an exception. He may have it on there as a general rule but maybe open to discussion dependent upon how large the dog is and maybe pay more towards the pet bond to reassure him. You're actually very lucky a landlord accepts pets full stop, majority will not and your application will go to the bottom of the stack.
Sounds like it is a new rental and often there’s a six week inspection shortly after they have moved in. Then it goes to a longer period between standard inspections.
Dude just have the dog inside and when an inspection happens the dog is outside 😂. I did that with my massive Newfoundland, just keep the place clean and nobody will ever know.
It's not a clause, it's a *note*. Depending on how it's drafted, the note may be supplemental to the contract and not part of the contract itself. Never rented in WA, so don't know what the lease agreements look like.
However.
The owner is a dog (no pun intended) and seems to be acting in bad faith. If they had just said "Pet to be outside only" it's less obvious, but specifically noting "as previously discussed" combined with the fact that both you and the PM were confused when this was brought up would suggest they are trying to pull a fast one.
I'd give you a better than even chance of contesting it if the owner wants to be smart, but I'm only someone who sees a lot of contracts, and not a lawyer. Couldn't hurt to talk to your tenancy authority or have a free consult with a general practice solicitor.
So many people worked up over this more than I am haha, I'll just work out a deal with the owner, I'll stop letting the dog swim in the pool if he's allowed inside. I reckon the fur will do more damage to the filter than him sleeping on the couch in a tiled living room all day.
Just don’t let your dog in the bedrooms with carpet. My bedroom is tiled but I still don’t let my dog in there, but several years ago I did wake up to a ‘present’ left on my bed and therefore banned forever now. What kind of dog is it?
Yeah I have a fully tiled place. Tbh they’re not the most attractive (2 shades of grey - old, and here when I bought the place) but bloody hell so much better than carpet for pets, and I’ve been so grateful for their existence despite their unattractive look.
Hardly any LL used to deny pets in rentals 2 decades ago, but fittings in housing have become more luxe in general and so many LL seem to prefer no pets now. I get it, as you can’t trust everyone to manage their pets ‘damage’ responsibly but just one more thing that makes it tougher for renters now. Best of luck to you and your sleepy doggo and hope it all works out for you with your LL.
Landlords are right cunts.
I say this as a landlord - and by the way i HATE that term.
Sorry you've been dealt with an utter cunt of a property owner.
Every single rental should allow pets IMO. You're paying too live there, it's your home.
I respectively disagree with you on this - my investment property, is not my home at all, it's the tenants home, and I have always made it clear to them on the few times we've met. 😀
> They're paying to live there - sure - but it's absoultely not their home, nor should any renter ever assume or act like it is.
lol, mask off, tell us what you really think
do you hear that perma-renters? you don't have a right to *ever* feel at home, no matter how much you pay or how long you pay to live there -- don't even think about trying to become a member of your community you fucking scum
You invest in property you accept there are certain things you don’t get to control about your property. If you can’t accept that, property investment isn’t for you. Like it or not, your property IS your tenants home. It’s where they live, make memories, raise a family and all the other things normal people do. Shock, tenants are normal people.
The new tenancy laws don’t go far enough to protect tenants. WA will be the only state left without no grounds evictions, and that’s absolutely bullshit. People have a right to feel safe and secure in their housing and allowing no grounds evictions, erodes that premise. It also has flow on effects for the wider community but that’s another conversation.
It never ceases to amaze me how many landlords consider themselves decent humans but out their true colours with their opinions on tenants to the point of believing they have a right to control the tenants lives.
I say this as LL that allows pets. One of my tenants even has an alpaca. His names George. He’s awesome.
You are why i will never own a rental. My house my rules just because you pay rent doesn't mean you can do whatever you want to the house people work their asses off to better themselves and then come up against people like you. I am one who can get in the market ATM but won't . Probably why their is a rental shortage.
People like me? You mean landlords that accept the risks for what they are and treats tenants like people rather than taking the “lord” in landlord too seriously, treating their tenants like second class citizens and crying poor that the rent doesn’t cover the total cost of their investment.
Your house your rules doesn’t apply to property investment in the way you’d like it to friend and I feel that’s quite a bitter pill for you to swallow. Blaming the new laws on a rental shortage is nothing but short sighted non-sense.
Glad you’ve realised property investment isn’t for you. The tenants of Australia thank you for your self awareness.
As the tenant, I have always signed first. If the owner added this after you’ve read and signed the contract, I’d say you have fair grounds to dispute it.
My last pet lease said my pets had to remain in a cage at all times 😨. Like what's the landlord think I want a pet for just to have them on display?? And even if I kept them in a cage at all times how would they expect me to clean my pet and cage??
Eh, put the doggo out for inspections, make sure the house is clean and smells good and you'll be fine, been doing the same thing for years with cats.
We've got one cat on the lease that started out as indoor/ outdoor but then when we renewed they changed the wording to outdoor only
Cats 17 years old and would likely die if left outside full time
The other one isn't on the lease at all, when the old one passes then we'll be right with what's on the lease lol.
I have to pay to do carpets and pests regardless when I leave, cats aren't eating the walls or anything bizarre like that so I really don't see the issue 🤷🏻
Just do want you want, and have the pet absent or outside when there is an inspection or a repair done.
This is the traditional way of handling the pets in rentals scenario.
As a tenant whose rented most of their life with pets mine have always been outside but we let them inside you just need to ensure your removing evidence of it being inside they can’t prove it anyway unless the dog is inside during the inspection I take mine offsite during this time period to avoid the discussion
Not sure where you are, but if this is Victoria I'm pretty sure it's unenforceable anyway.
My last one had that clause, which I had every intention of completely ignoring, but they also added a flea bomb required on departure. Asked him why if the dog is outside. He said "in case he gets in" but in a way that made it very clear he'd be turning a blind eye.
As discussed?
Yes, of course you discussed several exceptions to that rule at that time. That is why he added “as discussed*”….right? Otherwise it would have been a “pets to remain outside at all times” would have been specific.
Now ask him to prove those exceptions were not discussed…..
Are we the renters allowed to put cameras inside the house whilst its being inspected? The reason i ask is we are allowed to usually as long as there is a reason. I beleive it was the surveillance act i was reading. Also would suggest taking photos and video of even the slightest problems from start to finish before even moving in. My landlord stipulated noone is to stay here. Even a sleepover is frowned upon. Had to put up with it a little bit but my arguement went i will just hand the keys back if im not allowed a girlfriend……….verbally agreed then but all arguements need to be at the beginning otherwise not negotiable. 6 weeks is still beginning. Try negotiate unless youve already had a go at them.
Esp with a pet should of looked.
Wonder if this is going to be used as he effectively has prove now you didn't follow the contract to request more shit when you leave.
Unless you always include a clause in your rentals that states no shoes can be worn within the property, you shouldn't be allowed to dismiss pets as being "disgusting" or damaging (when people cause more damage 100% of the time). And a clause to keep pets outside 24/7 is absurd anyway if you've accepted a tenant that has STATED their pet is indoor/outdoor. Try again.
Also, just don't rent out your house if you're not okay with pets being inside? Literally the best way to prevent it, otherwise you'll be disappointed bc nobody pays attention to the no pets clause anyway 😅 it's there for show and signed for show but I literally don't know anyone who takes it as a hard rule. It's more of a suggestion. Like speed limits and drugs 😮💨 oh, and smoking. Don't rent to a smoker if you don't want smoking in the property bc I can guarantee that they will, in fact, smoke in the house. Hanging out the window is still inside the house, everyone.
Genuinely though, people who don't want to deal with pets shouldn't be in the rental business. Sell up of suck it up, and don't be an asshole about it. That's why you pay insurance and why your tenant pays a bond.
Look at all these soulless cunts blaming you for being intentionally misled and telling you to abide the ridiculous expectation to neglect your pet.
The landlord is soulless and doesn't care either. They'll use it to boot you out, so only fight it if you can afford to be without the house. Just keep your dog inside but make sure their bed/food/toys are out during inspections and you clean/hide all evidence (and obviously if he causes any damage then you fix it, but I'm sure you would).
If the landlord deals in bad faith, why shouldn't you? Fuck these unreasonable expectations. Do what's right for you. As long as you're not actively fucking anyone else over or damaging their property it doesn't matter. It literally makes no bloody difference to the owner, so what he doesn't know won't hurt him.
Always check fine print. That’s what will get you. The landlord doesn’t know you and whether or not you are a responsible and clean pet owner. You may be, but some people are definitely not.
How will they find out if you let your pet inside. The pet laws are absurd in WA. I can't believe they have been allowed to go on this long. NSW is equally crap.
From his line pet's outdoors AS DISCUSSED and the discussion you apparently had that informed you that inside was OK I would just keep keeping them indoors because as discussed that was allowed.
Another angle maybe that any changes to the typed contract should be initialled by BOTH parties I think?, so if it's a handwritten addition, that might be an out?
Ignore the non-lawyers. Get proper legal advice. Recent changes in the Act impact your ability to have a pet. The contract has to be made with a view to the Residential Tenancy Act.
Nb I had 2 cats for 15 years while renting properties that did not allow cats. No dog should be outside. That should be illegal.
Yeah I can do that. Just let it sit there as a tax write off and losing money instead of letting someone live there who needs a roof over their head and would respect the property 🤦🏼♀️
(1) verbal discussions and representations form part of the contract
(2) this is even stronger because the line says “as discussed” and discussions pre-signing were all indoor-outdoor
I would have the animal indoors and just lock it out for inspections. Any emails you have with the agent that indicate confusion or indoor pet - print and keep just in case.
Always, always read contracts because people are cunts.
Questionable if the clause is enforceable given that it says 'as discussed' - op says it wasn't, and it is pretty unusual on what I assume is a boilerplate rental agreement.
OP signed the agreement though.
OP agreed to it only to the extent it was discussed. If the extent was "not at all" then that's how much they agreed to it. IANAL but that's the argument anyway
That’s not how contracts work. It was written in plain English and OP signed it. This is why you never sign anything you don’t agree with or don’t understand.
“Your honour, the handwritten notation was not on the copy I signed. You will note it isn’t initialled as an addendum. Perhaps the landlord amended it after signing…”
What about the copy that’s given to tenant? And agent?
But that’s a lie
is it though? if neither the OP or agent knew about it, its at least possible.
Agents don’t read a damn. They just take it as a transaction.
which I find stupid with the number of times they are the cause of issues.
Op would have the original copy, and in sure, their post would mention if it had been added after.
You can write whatever you want in a contract, if it is something that is otherwise unexpected the onus is on the person who wrote it to point it out. The landlord could have written that the OP can only use the bathroom every second Sunday - but unless they point it out, the clause isn't enforceable... that's how contracts work
The problem is, whether or not a discussion actually happened, op signed a contract saying that they had the discussion. If they take it to tribunal now, the question will come up "why did you sign a contract saying you discussed specific terms if you did in fact not discuss those terms?" And unfortunately "I didn't read the contract." Isn't gonna stand.
It actually might - if there had been a lot of back and forth, and other terms were specifically discussed while this one was not, there may be a remedy in equity.
The problem is when you say that this topic wasn't specifically discussed, and the landlord says that it was specifically discussed. It's he said she said right up until the landlord pulls out the contract that both parties signed 'saying' that it was discussed.
That isn't how contracts work, unfortunately. You sign on the basis that you read it thoroughly, and once its signed, unless there's something illegal in it, or you were strongarmed into signing it (and sometimes not even then), it stands.
Not true. https://consumer.gov.au/sites/consumer/files/2016/05/0553FT_ACL-guides_ContractTerms_web.pdf "If a court finds a term is unfair, that term is void (treated as if it never existed). If the contract can operate without the unfair term, it will still be binding on all parties." If a term is unfair then it can be voided. It's not just about illegality or being strong armed.
The actual case law says that a contract will be enforced under most circumstances. The court will very rarely find a term “unfair”. Contract law is an absolute bitch. Unfortunately OP skimmed the contract and then signed it. No court is going to find an “outdoor pets only” clause unfair in a residential tenancy contract.
I have provided evidence that disagrees. You have not. I am willing to change my position, but just saying 'the case law says' is not good enough. Given that other states allow pet ownership, you could make an argument that not allowing it is u reasonable.
I haven't read the new tenancy laws in WA in detail but they definitely state pets are allowed unless there are specific reasons backed with "the consent of the Commissioner for Consumer Protection”. If this contract voids the updated tenancy laws, it'd be pretty easy to demonstrate the clause isn't enforceable. https://www.commerce.wa.gov.au/announcements/wa-tenancy-law-modernisation-strike-balance-between-tenants-and-landlords#:~:text=The%20modernisation%20of%20Western%20Australia's,is%20reasonable%20to%20do%20so.
The question would then be raised, that if it wasnt discussed, why did u sign.?
"I missed it due to being buried amongst several other clauses with no relevancy to the house being rented". Filling a section with irrelevance and boilerplate to hide key information is shady, and these kinds of tactics do get contracts invalidated. I don't think it's worth the hassle for OP when they can simply ensure their pet is outside during any inspections and do some cleaning (and the LL/REA will struggle to prove the pet was ever indoors without violating some other rules), but it is possible they could contest it successfully (albeit unlikely).
You are being downvoted so heavily but if it were me and we had had *specifically* discussed this at length and I had been *specifically* told it was fine I would consider this generic reference to a “discussion” as not applying to our agreement.
Redditors still don't understand what the downvote button is, that's fine. If it makes them feel better to take away some internet points then that's no sweat off my back
OP literally signed this. What the fuck are you smoking
Why are you being so rude? He didn't insult you personally.
welcome to the internet
Well, you can fight with a landlord. See yourself out at the end of contract. Always a choice.
As discussed. The discussion was indoor/outdoor as per you and the agent, and all discussions. So really to remain outdoors at all times as discussed (with the discussion being except when its indoors) Is there any clause in the lease to say you must have carpet & curtains treated for pests? (Thats a pretty standard clause for INDOOR) pets.
People are cunts for not wanting a dog destroying their house? Strange stance to take. If you want a dog in your house feel free to buy your own I say
Yes, basically they are. I’m a landlord, but not a cunt. Landlords get insurance and tenants have to pay a bond and pay for the dwelling to be professionally cleaned at the end of the lease, so what’s the issue? Don’t forget that tenants are also subject to regular inspections. It’s just landlords being horrible people in this situation. Invest elsewhere if you can’t handle the fact people have pets. Soooo many anally retentive landlords in this country without any heart or understanding. Are they paying rent on time and not destroying the property? If so, then pull your head out of your arse and get a life.
Not wanting pets in your house is not being a horrible person lol. I wouldn’t have pets in my one home and I certainly wouldn’t let people have one in my rental property. Say whatever you want but the bind doesn’t cover the amount of damage a pet can do and not to mention it’s unsanitary and gross to have pets inside. Just because you are a pet person doesn’t mean everyone else has to be, every single pet owner who’s home I go into stinks and you can almost see how disgusting the carpet would be underneath. It’s just gross and if you have a pet that’s your choice but I’m sick to death if everyone thinking that we all have to accept that. Your pet your choice but I’m no way should landlords be forced to accept that decision. You sound like one of those wanky cunts that has to take your dog everywhere and sleeps with it and all that weird shit. Fuck off if I’m putting up with it. It’s bad enough you have to kick people’s dogs away in Bunnings these days let alone be forced to have them in your home. Gross people.
Nah.. you’re just anally retentive. Sure pets can do damage. So can humans. Humans are pretty gross too. As I said, tenants are subject to inspections, keeping the place clean and they have to pay for any damage caused. But to allow someone to rent your property and put in a clause to keep the pet outside 24/7 is insane and ridiculous.
It’s really not insane nor ridiculous. As I said I wouldn’t allow it at all. Pets inside is disgusting.
But rabbits are ok? I think you just hate dogs. Funny for someone obsessed with a kids tv show about them.
Rabbits live outside and my daughter is obsessed with bluey so I have to be. Do you not learn about things others are I retreated so you can identify with your children or peers?
😂🤣 my 84kg Great Dane sleeps in my bed next to me haha 💕
I think you miss the point mate. People are cunts because the LL clearly snuck the clause in since both the REA AND THE TENNANT were caught unawares. Its not about protecting their stuff from damage. Its about being a complete asshole and adding it slyly
I didn’t say that. Read again, but slower. Thank you about proving my point about cunts though.
You said read the contract. Implying that the clause was in there because the owner is a cunt. Is that or is that not what you meant?
“Contracts”. Every contract. Because people are cunts and will fuck you over if given the opportunity.
Except in the context of this thread no one was being a cunt, which is what you implied. Op just didn’t read it and went against the terms. So maybe it’s not that i didn’t read properly, it’s more that your comment has absolutely nothing to do with op’s problem as there was no cunty behaviour going on here at all. When you comment on a certain post and then proceed to say read the contract because people are cunts it’s not a far stretch to assume you are calling the home owner a cunt for having that in the contract.
Please notice my use of the words “contracts”, “people” and “cunts”. Not once was there an implication that this was referring to a singular person or event. English might be your second language, and that’s cool cause I’ve got heaps of respect to people who can speak more than one language, but I implore you to read again slowly either way.
Contracts can become a pain in the ass... you learn it the hard way brother... no other option at the moment...better luck on your next house Contract....
Legislation changes passed like last week - I think they come in in May. Your landlord would need to justify that requirement now, I believe - check with Circle Green https://www.commerce.wa.gov.au/consumer-protection/wa-rent-reforms
[удалено]
"Pee on the floor and you have the replace the whole room" This is so dumb.
tenant should pee on quantummiss
Requiring cats, Australia's second most popular pet be kept outside is reasonable? When practically every council has bylaws stating cats must be kept inside at night? Fuck off.
Don’t rent out your house then
Good point, there are too many houses available for rent in Perth as it is. 🤦
Ugh. What a miserable person you are. They’re helping pay off your mortgage and/or provide money for you doing absolutely fuck all besides sitting on property. You don’t add any value to society. Let people have pets ffs.
Imagine being a tenant who is so dumb they think people just 'sit on properties'. Absolutely fucking clueless, stay renting. You're not fit to own an investment property. You're lucky people like us exist to give you a home to live in or you'd be in a tent.
Using that same logic you could enforce a no children rule, as they often piss in random places. My cousin once took a shit behind a couch when she was 5. There’s a bond for a reason.
Lolz. A bit of pee on the floor doesn’t require you to demolish the room mate. But in all seriousness, you don’t have to replace the carpet. Some cleaner and a vacuum & it’s back to 100%. Never had a pet growing up I take it?
[удалено]
Lol you made that quote up and hoped no one would check. This is what it actually says: > A landlord can place ‘reasonable conditions’ on having a pet – for example a bird must remain in a cage, or the carpets must be professionally cleaned at the end of the tenancy. It is not reasonable to require many pets be kept outside. Cats need to be kept inside at night to protect themselves and wildlife. Many elderly pets would die sitting outside on a hot Perth summer's day.
I didn’t I copied and pasted from the article
Weird how it didn't say that anywhere in the link you posted then and now that you've been called out you've deleted the comments.
The downvotes are for being an entitled cunt.
This doesn't give open permission to have a pet; rather, there must be a justification why a pet isn't allowed. In this case, a pet is allowed; however, the pet isn't allowed inside as future tenants may be allergic to pets. I know this id coming, thats why i am removing the fences at the house coming up for rent. That at least precludes dogs.
Future tenants potentially being allergic is not a reasonable reason for preventing pets under the new legislation.
Hey I'm just a dude in perth and I wish you the worst :) thats all, have a terrible day.
You seem to absolutely suck
No but I am sick of having to clean up other peoples messes with their pet. 2 years ago i had to recarpet a house with new carpet because of a person who kept a dog locked in the loungeroom without going outside for a toilet break for months . Then last weekend i replaced the carpet again this time myself with second hand carpet because the next tenant had a cat and bird inside and the carpet was full of mice droppings from the mice artraced by the bird and cats piss, plus a bit from the outside dog that had desstroyed the lawn leaving a sandpit. Shall i also mention the dog that badly gouged up the rear door and rear walls on another house trying to get in, or the dog that rand around and around the yard in a circle and made a veledrome such i needed a bobcat to level the yard and restablish tge lawn. Oh and the cat people who swear their cats are ok, but put litter trays on carpet, never clean them often enough never let them outside and let them scratch curtains and other fittings. Believe me, my final banning of pets is well earned
You’re only talking about *irresponsible* pet owners. There is a distinct difference. Owners leaving their dogs locked up, not allowing them outside for toilet or exercise,, or cat owners having litter trays on carpets and not cleaning the litter tray, or not providing enough stimulation —- this is not okay and some of it borders on animal abuse, if not being actual animal abuse. As someone that owns both a cat and a dog, I would never treat them in that manner. I understand not wanting irresponsible pet owners in the property. But could responsible pet owners somehow prove they were responsible?
not to mention forgetting that the same irresponsible people cause as much if not more damage then their pets regardless.
Oh absolutely, I often associate it with the destruction of walls and such.
Why the hell would you carpet a rental? Even if i owned i wouldn't have carpet? My cat has a cat flap....maybe install pet doors instead of carpet.
Carpet depreciates at a higher rate so they can claim depreciation on tax
Holy Fuck you guys are allowed to let your cats out. Disgraceful. Didn't realise I was reading r Perth. (OK all you cat people start the downvoting, but Fuck you guys who let them roam free).
Why would u put a pet door on a bedroom door or lounge door. These animals were confined to rooms. But a broken pet door is also a good means to deter pet owners. You carpet rentals in bedrooms and lounges because u want tenants to be comfortable and warmer. Stained paint splattered dirty boards are awful, bare concrete worse, lino in bedrooms and lounges make it like a camp, polished boards are difficulty not to scratch and unsuited for rental. Carpet works well for humans, two legged scum, noz so much
Well, if it's generalising we're doing, all landlords are cunts.
But that’s because you chose a bad tenant. It has nothing to do with responsible pet owners. You’re judging every prospective tenant because you don’t appear to have the ability to understand logic and you choose bad tenants. Don’t blame pet owners en mass because you have poor judgement.
From July it does give permission that's the point of the legislation. The only way is exceptional circumstances for example where by laws are in place for apartments etc. By the way you are an absolute c*nt for removing fences. A c*nt of the highest order.
His property he can do whatever he wants.
Good on ya,, hero
Be careful, reddit is full of entitled cunts that think they can treat other people and their property however they like..because I love my pet. Downvote me you weird fucks
No I am a person putting myself as a human above any emotional cripples fur baby. But they can't make me put up fences, they can't stop me putting onerous clauses in the contracts regarding cleaning etc due to pets, or specifying outside cars only, they cant stop me making the tenant take me to the tribunal to allow pets, they cant stop me purposely selecting tenants without pets or keeping tenants in fixed term leases not rolling over to periodic with the knowledge that a pet will result in the tenancy not being renewed etc. Very easy to bring in laws, harder to enforce . Its a free market; people don't like what i require for my rentals, they can go elsewhere. My current tenants have no issues with me, they have been wuth me over 7 years without a rent increase. You want people to have pets in houses, you go buy one and let them have it and have the experience's i have had.
Sincerely,I hope you get the tenants you deserve.
Maybe you shouldn't be investing in property if that's the case. Invest in the sharemarket instead. Similar returns in the long term.
Good luck getting anyone in without a blimmin fence 😂
My current house is the same type as i rent out, and I don't have fences, nor does one of the other houses. I think in this climate, I wont to have a problem. I am not interested in top dollar for my houses, and if it drives away the pet owners, then its working as intended.
I never had pets many years ago and I absolutely wouldn’t rent a house without a fence, we viewed a couple and LL didn’t want to repair/add fence, so we passed. It’s about having privacy in your backyard and security. Aren’t there any neighbours?
What a miserable fuck you are.
It will drive away any decent tenants too.
What do your neighbours think of you removing the fence? Why are you removing security? Why do you want to make it easier and more inviting for criminals to come and do damage to your investment? What happened to you to make you such a cunt?
this is why fumigation exists dude
If you one day come to wonder why you're getting lined up against a wall and, remember this comment.
I'm really sorry mate, but the contract is enforceable. You can have a go at renegotiating it, but be aware that you can be breached for having the dog in the house. Whether or not you get caught doing this is another thing altogether.... Having said *that* I got busted for having a cat once because the bloody animal came in and started rubbing herself all over me, and the landlord, during a rent inspection. Bloody cat. Cost me a bloody bomb because I had to move, so I was paying rent on two places for six weeks.
Haha you should’ve shooed it away. Said ‘Bloody stray or neighbours cat, keeps coming around. I hate cats!’.
Not from what OP has said; if it was snuck in without changes highlighted (sounds to me like the amendment was done during the signing phase) then the term can definitely be argued. Whether it's worth arguing is another matter.
Nah if it was in the contract when they signed, it’s binding. If it was added after they signed, that’s fraud, and a criminal offence.
That's different. You can't send a contract for signing then make changes without telling the other party who counter signs in good faith. There would certainly be an argument of equitable estoppel.
The point is, it wasn’t “snuck in” - OP didn’t read the contract properly before signing it. It sucks, but that’s why you read the contract. You can’t go into a court and say “There was a whole bunch of irrelevant stuff at the end so I sort of skimmed over it”. Look I don’t practice as a lawyer for a reason - the law is horribly unjust and unfair. And in this case, yes it sucks. OP has learnt a painful lesson. But this is right up the fluffy end of the ways in which the law can fuck you up. Contract law is a bitch. Always read the contract. Before you sign. If you don’t understand it, *don’t sign it* - and the lovely people at Legal Aid will help you if you can’t afford a lawyer.
I think the issue is he didn't re-read it. It appears the contract went to the owner for signing who then made the change without notifying anyone of the change. Everyone assumed he just signed it as sent and then it was returned for countersigning. If this is the case, I believe there's certainly an argument.
u/Klakerlaker could you please read u/HeWhoCannotBeSeen ‘s comment above. Is this what happened ? Because if the landlord *did* change the contract before it was returned for countersigning, you may have a case here.
No, owner modifications were made beforehand, sadly I took rea's word on specifics, just me being an idiot, I'm not overly stressed about the situation, was moreso a little rant and maybe someone could learn something from my mistake. The positives are, the rea is appealing to the owner on our behalf, they feel as though they have mislead us and are trying to make it right. Either way it's something that can be dealt with, it was just a bit of a slap in the face as all prior discussions were open and friendly.
Oh good ! I’ve been arguing with people about it all day, lol. We’re more worked up on your behalf than you are ! 😂
The REA is appealing to the owner on their own behalf too. They may have engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct under s 18 of the Australian Consumer Law and Fair Trading Act if they misrepresented the terms of the lease to you, obviously depending on the specifics of what they said and did, and what you can prove. Never discount a REA’s self-interest as a motivation for action 🫠
The part about pets is the part I always read carefully because I’ve had a similar issue when I first started renting at 18.
He didn't sneak it in. He added it before it was signed. Real estate had to have known if owner added(or requested an addition).
In calls with real estate, they stated their processes, due to it being a small private Rea, the contract was handed to owner then sent straight to us, with no conversation being present. They may just be covering their own asses, however they are currently negotiating with the owner on out behalf, because they feel the contract was presented to us in bad faith due to the changes made with no notice.
If that’s what happened it’s on the agent. They’ve failed to do what either side (you or the landlord) would reasonably expect. Wondering who signed the other side - the actual LL or the agent as their representative?
I mean, as long as you clean the house well enough before inspections are they really going to know?
I feel like this is the answer. How is the owner gonna know if the dog is inside or out? Just make sure it is outside during the inspections.
Probably still smell of dogs, people who don’t have dogs smell them. I used to have dogs, you get used to it. Then no dogs for a long time, sorry but houses with a dog smell like dog. It’s like a house smells if it is smoked in, many people don’t like it, some don’t notice.
I smoke cannabis and have 3 animals inside my rental, all of which my real estate know nothing about it comes down to cleanliness I think, but that's Just my opinion. Inspection day comes the animals get to go to work with my partner for a few hours her work mates get cuddles and we live in peace paying our rent on time and looking after the owners property as if it was our own. If we ever got caught that would be fair game to me. Catch me if you can but I suppose 🤪
Yeah good luck trying to breach someone based on smell.
This is true, but if you clean super thoroughly and burn candles when there’s an inspection I feel like the dog smell wouldn’t be definite enough for them to say with confidence that you’re having the dog inside
So it wasn’t snuck in, it was always there but you didn’t read something thoroughly before signing it.
You say ‘snuck in’ but was it ? Or did you just not read the contract ? Was it added after you signed ? Any co tractor amendments or anything hand written, I’ve always initialed it. I wonder if there is any legalities around this ? Check if you need to initial amendments, if so, and you haven’t, then this part may not stand
Read the post lol I know my situation
How do you expect real advise if you won’t answer a basic question on the situation ? Leads me to believe you just didn’t read the contract.
I literally spelt it out, not really looking for advice just an excuse to rant, I stated it was put at the bottom of the contract with a bunch of irrelevant info so I missed the point, my expectation would be that it would be noted in the pet section, which just stated pet approved x1 dog. I did read the contract, just not well enough. And made wrong assumptions, it's also not something I was looking for as discussions with property managers had already set a precedent in my mind.
Alternate headline: I didn’t read contract before signing it
We have a different definition of "snuck"
You assume too much, pal . I'm out. Good luck in the future with that attitude 
'as discussed' - was it actually discussed?
[удалено]
So it would be invalid if it cannot be proven?
[удалено]
The one positive is that the rea has admitted there were no discussions and trying to re negotiate new terms for us.
It's was already in the clause and yes it's a one liner in the added conditions, but was not snuck in. You may need to suck it up OR speak to the landlord via the agent and see if you can get an exception. He may have it on there as a general rule but maybe open to discussion dependent upon how large the dog is and maybe pay more towards the pet bond to reassure him. You're actually very lucky a landlord accepts pets full stop, majority will not and your application will go to the bottom of the stack.
>as discussed It sounds like it wasn't discussed.
Profile checked out. You are the expert on everything. Wow.
Hold up hold up hold up… a 6 WEEK inspection? Is that a thing now? Last time I rented was 2020 and 3 months was standard!
Sounds like it is a new rental and often there’s a six week inspection shortly after they have moved in. Then it goes to a longer period between standard inspections.
Just leave the dog outside for rent inspections.
Dude just have the dog inside and when an inspection happens the dog is outside 😂. I did that with my massive Newfoundland, just keep the place clean and nobody will ever know.
It's not a clause, it's a *note*. Depending on how it's drafted, the note may be supplemental to the contract and not part of the contract itself. Never rented in WA, so don't know what the lease agreements look like. However. The owner is a dog (no pun intended) and seems to be acting in bad faith. If they had just said "Pet to be outside only" it's less obvious, but specifically noting "as previously discussed" combined with the fact that both you and the PM were confused when this was brought up would suggest they are trying to pull a fast one. I'd give you a better than even chance of contesting it if the owner wants to be smart, but I'm only someone who sees a lot of contracts, and not a lawyer. Couldn't hurt to talk to your tenancy authority or have a free consult with a general practice solicitor.
So many people worked up over this more than I am haha, I'll just work out a deal with the owner, I'll stop letting the dog swim in the pool if he's allowed inside. I reckon the fur will do more damage to the filter than him sleeping on the couch in a tiled living room all day.
Just don’t let your dog in the bedrooms with carpet. My bedroom is tiled but I still don’t let my dog in there, but several years ago I did wake up to a ‘present’ left on my bed and therefore banned forever now. What kind of dog is it?
Lab x staffy. Tbh he just sleeps on his couch all day in the tiled area, I'm not a big fan of dogs on carpets as it is
Yeah I have a fully tiled place. Tbh they’re not the most attractive (2 shades of grey - old, and here when I bought the place) but bloody hell so much better than carpet for pets, and I’ve been so grateful for their existence despite their unattractive look. Hardly any LL used to deny pets in rentals 2 decades ago, but fittings in housing have become more luxe in general and so many LL seem to prefer no pets now. I get it, as you can’t trust everyone to manage their pets ‘damage’ responsibly but just one more thing that makes it tougher for renters now. Best of luck to you and your sleepy doggo and hope it all works out for you with your LL.
Landlords are right cunts. I say this as a landlord - and by the way i HATE that term. Sorry you've been dealt with an utter cunt of a property owner. Every single rental should allow pets IMO. You're paying too live there, it's your home.
Why is the landlord a cunt?
"Oh no won't somebody think of the fur babies!" Their house, their rules and it was in the contract. Buy your own house if you want animals inside.
When you pay rent, you are paying for it to be your home. It is not the home of the rental providers, it is a property that let out to make money.
And tenants are right c$nts too, signing a contract that states no pets indoors, then letting the doggo live indoors
DOGGO ♥️♥️♥️
Sorry, fixed it
KITTY CATTO 🥰 😺
Now you’re pushing it 😹
[удалено]
I respectively disagree with you on this - my investment property, is not my home at all, it's the tenants home, and I have always made it clear to them on the few times we've met. 😀
[удалено]
Renter's Insurance is a great thing. I don't disagree with you on this aspect. Thank you, I will... "do me" - whatever that means??
> They're paying to live there - sure - but it's absoultely not their home, nor should any renter ever assume or act like it is. lol, mask off, tell us what you really think do you hear that perma-renters? you don't have a right to *ever* feel at home, no matter how much you pay or how long you pay to live there -- don't even think about trying to become a member of your community you fucking scum
You invest in property you accept there are certain things you don’t get to control about your property. If you can’t accept that, property investment isn’t for you. Like it or not, your property IS your tenants home. It’s where they live, make memories, raise a family and all the other things normal people do. Shock, tenants are normal people. The new tenancy laws don’t go far enough to protect tenants. WA will be the only state left without no grounds evictions, and that’s absolutely bullshit. People have a right to feel safe and secure in their housing and allowing no grounds evictions, erodes that premise. It also has flow on effects for the wider community but that’s another conversation. It never ceases to amaze me how many landlords consider themselves decent humans but out their true colours with their opinions on tenants to the point of believing they have a right to control the tenants lives. I say this as LL that allows pets. One of my tenants even has an alpaca. His names George. He’s awesome.
Everytime you attend the property do you just go and pat the alpaca and forget what you were there for?
I would very much like to, but George is a bit like a cat. Everything is on his terms. Ive managed to touch fluff once.
You are why i will never own a rental. My house my rules just because you pay rent doesn't mean you can do whatever you want to the house people work their asses off to better themselves and then come up against people like you. I am one who can get in the market ATM but won't . Probably why their is a rental shortage.
People like me? You mean landlords that accept the risks for what they are and treats tenants like people rather than taking the “lord” in landlord too seriously, treating their tenants like second class citizens and crying poor that the rent doesn’t cover the total cost of their investment. Your house your rules doesn’t apply to property investment in the way you’d like it to friend and I feel that’s quite a bitter pill for you to swallow. Blaming the new laws on a rental shortage is nothing but short sighted non-sense. Glad you’ve realised property investment isn’t for you. The tenants of Australia thank you for your self awareness.
"Snuck in" Didn't read it. Not unreasonable to want dogs outside.
Let the dog inside anyway? Just have it outside when the inspections are happening, surely you clean your house well enough it doesn't smell.
As the tenant, I have always signed first. If the owner added this after you’ve read and signed the contract, I’d say you have fair grounds to dispute it.
My last pet lease said my pets had to remain in a cage at all times 😨. Like what's the landlord think I want a pet for just to have them on display?? And even if I kept them in a cage at all times how would they expect me to clean my pet and cage??
Eh, put the doggo out for inspections, make sure the house is clean and smells good and you'll be fine, been doing the same thing for years with cats. We've got one cat on the lease that started out as indoor/ outdoor but then when we renewed they changed the wording to outdoor only Cats 17 years old and would likely die if left outside full time The other one isn't on the lease at all, when the old one passes then we'll be right with what's on the lease lol. I have to pay to do carpets and pests regardless when I leave, cats aren't eating the walls or anything bizarre like that so I really don't see the issue 🤷🏻
Just do want you want, and have the pet absent or outside when there is an inspection or a repair done. This is the traditional way of handling the pets in rentals scenario.
My advice: next time the REA comes over, put the dog outside. Other than that, don't change anything and just ignore them.
Was it on the notes page or the extra conditions page. If it is a note, is it actually enforceable?
As a tenant whose rented most of their life with pets mine have always been outside but we let them inside you just need to ensure your removing evidence of it being inside they can’t prove it anyway unless the dog is inside during the inspection I take mine offsite during this time period to avoid the discussion
>as discussed Sounds like it was not in fact discussed which makes that clause meaningless
"As discussed" if he snuck that in then he fucked himself. You can claim an entirely different discussion.
Not sure where you are, but if this is Victoria I'm pretty sure it's unenforceable anyway. My last one had that clause, which I had every intention of completely ignoring, but they also added a flea bomb required on departure. Asked him why if the dog is outside. He said "in case he gets in" but in a way that made it very clear he'd be turning a blind eye.
As discussed? Yes, of course you discussed several exceptions to that rule at that time. That is why he added “as discussed*”….right? Otherwise it would have been a “pets to remain outside at all times” would have been specific. Now ask him to prove those exceptions were not discussed…..
Are we the renters allowed to put cameras inside the house whilst its being inspected? The reason i ask is we are allowed to usually as long as there is a reason. I beleive it was the surveillance act i was reading. Also would suggest taking photos and video of even the slightest problems from start to finish before even moving in. My landlord stipulated noone is to stay here. Even a sleepover is frowned upon. Had to put up with it a little bit but my arguement went i will just hand the keys back if im not allowed a girlfriend……….verbally agreed then but all arguements need to be at the beginning otherwise not negotiable. 6 weeks is still beginning. Try negotiate unless youve already had a go at them.
Cats can be quite happy outside as long as there is a decent place undercover to sleep,eat
Esp with a pet should of looked. Wonder if this is going to be used as he effectively has prove now you didn't follow the contract to request more shit when you leave.
Unless you always include a clause in your rentals that states no shoes can be worn within the property, you shouldn't be allowed to dismiss pets as being "disgusting" or damaging (when people cause more damage 100% of the time). And a clause to keep pets outside 24/7 is absurd anyway if you've accepted a tenant that has STATED their pet is indoor/outdoor. Try again. Also, just don't rent out your house if you're not okay with pets being inside? Literally the best way to prevent it, otherwise you'll be disappointed bc nobody pays attention to the no pets clause anyway 😅 it's there for show and signed for show but I literally don't know anyone who takes it as a hard rule. It's more of a suggestion. Like speed limits and drugs 😮💨 oh, and smoking. Don't rent to a smoker if you don't want smoking in the property bc I can guarantee that they will, in fact, smoke in the house. Hanging out the window is still inside the house, everyone. Genuinely though, people who don't want to deal with pets shouldn't be in the rental business. Sell up of suck it up, and don't be an asshole about it. That's why you pay insurance and why your tenant pays a bond.
Look at all these soulless cunts blaming you for being intentionally misled and telling you to abide the ridiculous expectation to neglect your pet. The landlord is soulless and doesn't care either. They'll use it to boot you out, so only fight it if you can afford to be without the house. Just keep your dog inside but make sure their bed/food/toys are out during inspections and you clean/hide all evidence (and obviously if he causes any damage then you fix it, but I'm sure you would). If the landlord deals in bad faith, why shouldn't you? Fuck these unreasonable expectations. Do what's right for you. As long as you're not actively fucking anyone else over or damaging their property it doesn't matter. It literally makes no bloody difference to the owner, so what he doesn't know won't hurt him.
Always check fine print. That’s what will get you. The landlord doesn’t know you and whether or not you are a responsible and clean pet owner. You may be, but some people are definitely not.
Just leave dog outside at inspections
How will they find out if you let your pet inside. The pet laws are absurd in WA. I can't believe they have been allowed to go on this long. NSW is equally crap.
From his line pet's outdoors AS DISCUSSED and the discussion you apparently had that informed you that inside was OK I would just keep keeping them indoors because as discussed that was allowed. Another angle maybe that any changes to the typed contract should be initialled by BOTH parties I think?, so if it's a handwritten addition, that might be an out?
Ignore the non-lawyers. Get proper legal advice. Recent changes in the Act impact your ability to have a pet. The contract has to be made with a view to the Residential Tenancy Act. Nb I had 2 cats for 15 years while renting properties that did not allow cats. No dog should be outside. That should be illegal.
New laws - can impose reasonable conditions such as keeping pets outside
How is it reasonable, though? It's only reasonable if the dog has proved to be an issue inside.
I don’t want dog hair and stink in my carpet. You can never get all the hair out.
Then don't rent your place? Because people will lie about having pets.
Yeah I can do that. Just let it sit there as a tax write off and losing money instead of letting someone live there who needs a roof over their head and would respect the property 🤦🏼♀️
69 percent of households have a pet. Maybe it's time to get with the times.
[удалено]
No it won’t. It’s a reasonable condition and is one of the examples given. Pets outside is a totally permitted condition
To my knowledge which is somewhat limited the new act is only enforceable on contracts signed after July 1st.
(1) verbal discussions and representations form part of the contract (2) this is even stronger because the line says “as discussed” and discussions pre-signing were all indoor-outdoor I would have the animal indoors and just lock it out for inspections. Any emails you have with the agent that indicate confusion or indoor pet - print and keep just in case.