Re: Not a pet...can we raise the rent?

Re: Not a pet...can we raise the rent? by Gerald on March 21, 2012 @18:18

One thing I've tried in the lease (but not had the chance to test out in court) is to have an additional cleaning fee as specified in the LPA lease agreement which is waived until lease commencement. Although I state NO pets and have a NO pets policy in the lease, my cleaning fee is obligatory if any animals (allowed or not) are brought into the property.

I try to cover the scenario described by the OP where you are forced to allow an animal (or someone brings one in for any reason after you sign lease), but cannot alter the lease as a result. By having the cleaning fee apply to any animals that end up in the unit it seems to me to cover my bases and possibly prevent a 'faker' who used that as an excuse to bring a pet.

I have no issue with someone who ends up truly needing a real service animal but fakers using this loophole is what I am trying to avoid.

[ Reply ] [ Return to forum ]

Question for Gerald by Anonymous on March 21, 2012 @20:25	[ Reply ]

I like you idea of the cleaning fee to apply to any animals...how do you get around the part of your lease that says no pets or no animals, and then have the cleaning fee for any animal that are brought into the property? If a tenant asks you about this, do you kinda say "umm, you know, like if your friend brings over her dog or something like that..." ??

Re: Question for Gerald by Gerald on March 22, 2012 @02:56	[ Reply ]

Yeah, it's definitely a gray area because I say no pets in my ads, and when I screen, and in my lease... however the lease appears to contradict itself by claiming no pets in one area and then then mentioning a cleaning fee for pets (authorized or not). I felt this was the only way to have my cake and eat it too since I've read so many stories about people not having pets and then suddenly needing a companion animal and then forcing that down your throat with no recourse. I've not been asked that question by a prospect but if I were I would just say that although I do not allow pets, if for some reason it is determined that animals have been brought in I will enforce the cleaning fee. I won't get into the companion pet issue for fear of giving them ideas. I feel that a judge would be compelled to enforce this pet fee agreement that is in the lease especially given the circumstances of how the animal got into the property although it was not specifically allowed at lease signing. I also feel that it is fair even to someone who truly needs the pet as a companion animal to pay the fee if there is actual 'extra' pet damage beyond normal human wear and tear, especially since they consented to it at lease signing. If nothing it makes it very clear at lease signing (assuming T reads) that pets really aren't desired in this property (I love pets, but also spent $$$ on new floors) so it's no pets until those floors start to fade.

Re: Question for Gerald by MrDan (Georgia) on March 22, 2012 @09:17	[ Reply ]

"I also feel that it is fair even to someone who truly needs the pet as a companion animal to pay the fee if there is actual 'extra' pet damage beyond normal human wear and tear, especially since they consented to it at lease signing". Service animals that assist persons with disabilities are considered to be auxiliary aids and are exempt from the pet policy and from the pet deposit. Examples include guide dogs for persons with vision impairments, hearing dogs for people with hearing impairments, and emotional assistance animals for persons with chronic mental illness. When a tenant requests an emotional support or other assistive animal, the landlord should not assume, without justification, that the animal will cause excessive, financially burdensome damage. In the event that a tenant's assistive animal does cause significant damage, that tenant should certainly be held financially liable. However, it would contravene the purpose of the statutory protections afforded people with disabilities to allow a landlord to charge a deposit at the outset, in the absence of any significant damage. Just as it would be inappropriate to charge a tenant who uses a wheelchair a deposit for potential damage to carpeting, it would be similarly imprudent to demand a deposit from a tenant who uses an assistive animal. FHA’s regulations prohibit housing providers from imposing deposits and fees for animals that are necessary as a reasonable accommodation to “assist, support, or provide service to persons with disabilities.” 24 C.F.R. 960.705(a). Other's before you have found that it is very expensive to violate the law. Your requirements and lease clause has already been found to be unlawful and in violation of FHA regulations in other cases.

Re: Question for Gerald

Re: Gerald