Real Estate Investor · Fenton, MI · Member since 2008 · 946 posts · 153 votes
After gaining a little more experience it seems the two most common problems with house are water damage from various sources and pets. In a very short amount of time a dog can do large amounts of damage to a house and yard. They of coarse urinate, defecate, and then they dig holes, and run paths though the lawn. Worse yet is cat urine. Even charging a non-refundable pet fee does not truly compensate me for the time and materials to fix these messes.
How many of you have gone “no-pet?” Is it much harder to get a tenant to fill a vacancy? I used to like dogs and cats. Now I just see them as property destroyers.
You get a bigger share of the renter pool, many of which are lousy tenants with neglected pets who piss all over the place.
I'd say, don't let that "extra 50% tenant pool" blind you.
That phrase makes it seem like you're missing out, but the reality is, there are plenty of qualified people who don't own pets.
Do you guys who allow pets actually get more applicants who are qualified? people who NET 3x rent per month?
Are pet owners so much better?
Owning a pet is like raising a baby. There are costs that eat into their income.
I've had no shortage of people see my house and I have a no pet policy.
A weight limit on dogs has no bearing on whether they will tear up your house or not. 10 pound dogs piss all over the place too. and 50 pound dogs could be very docile.
One of these days, I'm going to do a pet experiment, and see how much better the applicant pool is.
I have a few personal SFR and I'm also a Full time agent...If I had to guess, if you Don't allow Pets it will eliminate 50% of your renter pool. Don't quote me on that.
Obviously if you have a good rental with High demand you will still be in good shape.
I suggest no puppies/kittens and charge a one time Pet FEE.
I allow pets ... if I chose the right tenants, they are people who are responsible enough to live in my house,and responsible enough to care for their pets.
I just allowed a pet for the first time. It makes me a little nervous though even with the pet fee. There is just so much that can go wrong but I agree, it opens up a lot more renters. We have turned down a few renters before we eventually decided to allow it.
I think we touched on this in another thread recently?
We treat all pets as exceptions to a default position of "no pets" and deal with each case individually. In certain properties we are more likely to accept a pet than others.
When we do accept a pet, we do not charge extra rent for the pet, but we also require the tenant to sign a "pet" addendum to the lease and to carry damage coverage for their pet as a rider on their tenant's insurance.
Animals can be a nice source of income if screened properly. I charge $150 upfront, non refundable, but $20 extra per month, up to 2 animals. I say animals because I don't want more than 2 of any type of animal, dogs, cats, mice, rabbits, snakes, etc. While some sleep in cages, they all don't stay in cages and all animals stink.
If you can, visit the animal at the tenants current residence. If it stinks, if the animal goes crazy barking or just plain scares you, then don't allow the animal. I wouldn't allow any dangerous breeds, I stay under 45 lbs and all animals must be pre-approved. There isn't anything that says you must rent to pet owners except for service animals.
So advertise you will possibly rent to animal owners, then screen properly and charge them. I don't want to eliminate 1/3 of renters automatically.
We accept pets with restrictions on size and breed (pertaining to dogs- definitely no vicious natured dogs Pit bulls, Rotties) which we have to approve and all papers and shots have to be in order, with a 1 pet limit and a $25.00 per month pet rent.
Fish, birds and other small animals that typically are caged we don't charge.
You get a bigger share of the renter pool, many of which are lousy tenants with neglected pets who piss all over the place.
I'd say, don't let that "extra 50% tenant pool" blind you.
That phrase makes it seem like you're missing out, but the reality is, there are plenty of qualified people who don't own pets.
Do you guys who allow pets actually get more applicants who are qualified? people who NET 3x rent per month?
Are pet owners so much better?
Owning a pet is like raising a baby. There are costs that eat into their income.
I've had no shortage of people see my house and I have a no pet policy.
A weight limit on dogs has no bearing on whether they will tear up your house or not. 10 pound dogs piss all over the place too. and 50 pound dogs could be very docile.
One of these days, I'm going to do a pet experiment, and see how much better the applicant pool is.
Another thing to consider is insurance. The underwriter for my rentals in Houston has a specific animal liability clause that excludes personal liability coverage "caused by any animal owned or kept by you or any insured whether or not the injury or damage occurs on your premises or any other location."
I'm not sure if "animal owned or kept by you" applies to animal owned by the tenant. I got conflicting advice. For now, I'm not allowing pets until this clears up. Houston rental market is so hot I haven't had any problem finding quality tenants.
Check with your insurance agent on pets - especially dogs. Important.
I charge $25 per month per pet. Doesn't matter what the pet is (dog, cat, fish, etc.). I do not allow rodents (gerbils, pet rats, etc.).
All pets must be pre-approved. Max of 2 pets. Non-refundable pet fee of $200. Also, my pet tenants have been great so far (I also screen carefully). Left the place as clean as when they arrived.
I think a lot of it depends on the neighborhood. In some of the class C neighborhoods that I have rentals, everyone has a dog.
I base pets on the house. If it has really nice hardwood floors, I don't allow pets. If the house is beat up, pets are fine. I prefer no cats and try to limit dogs to smaller ones. I charge an extra $35 per month per dog. I recently rented to someone with two yorkies and just charged $35 for both. They are tiny.
I also make sure that the dogs are older and housetrained. I don't want a puppy being housebroken in my house. I'm going through this now with my own puppy. It's like having another baby. A puppy needs constant supervision and chews on EVERYTHING.
For some properties with newly redone floors and nice yards I can see not allowing pets but for the right property that you are planning to redo after the next tenants or the right type of floors that don't get damaged easily I think its a chance to charge a little more than market. This is coming from being a Real estate agent who has spent the past week trying to help a couple with a dog find a rental they would happily pay a extra $50 maybe $100 for being able to bring their dog.
Most of my houses are no pet houses. I have one I do allow pets, and it needs fixed up every time it empties. I have 2 houses where a current tenant asked for permission to have a pet. Both places were spotless every time I went there so I said yes. Both are well kept. On 2 prior occasions where I allowed pets my repair bills were 2K or more, and I never saw the difference from the tenant who moved out of state. I am no pet except for proven renters.
Going through this same issue right now. The first time we rented out our larger house, we allowed pets. Tenants lived in the property for 2 years and the dogs ruined the carpet. I'm guessing the dogs (labs) were never bathed and we allowed to have free reign of the house. Was never able to get the smell or the filth out of the carpet. In my area is seems more like 75% allow pets so we left the carpet as is and rented it out to another pet owner. Current tenant is getting ready to move out after 3 years and her dog has destroyed the front yard. Never ceases to amaze me how disrespectful others can treat a property when they don't own it.
I have two SFR rentals and allow all of my tenants to have whatever pets they like (dogs, cats any size welcome). I dont charge any additional for animals.
I have no trouble whatsoever allowing them because my properties are in an excellent area, just outside of DC, where there is no lack of high quality, well qualified tenants. good tenants + a high demand/expensive area = no problems with pets in my experience.
I think if I was in a different location with a different type of property, however, I might think twice.
That phrase makes it seem like you're missing out, but the reality is, there are plenty of qualified people who don't own pets.
On another house I own with carpeting all five inquiries asked about pets. That is discouraging, but this house is not as nice as the one with the wood floor.
As I mentioned in prior posts, we have moved away from being "pet friendly" in most of our properties for some of the very reasons you are now encountering: a 2K floor refinishing on a 1-2year turnaround grows old quickly.
In the one property were there are still pets (3-dogs, which we inherited with the building), we have used commercial grade vinyl {think Target, Wally-world, etc} and it appears to be standing-up to the livestock. The trim ... well, that's another story (and why Rob K is warning you off puppies).
We have always allowed pets and over dozens of tenants have only had significant damage one time. Particularly irked me because we had been in the house several times and still missed it. There was one room that they must have let the critters use in lieu of the yard. Hardwood too... just sealed it and laid carpet.
little kids and red kool-aid - that's a recipe for heartbreak.
On another house I own with carpeting all five inquiries asked about pets. That is discouraging, but this house is not as nice as the one with the wood floor.
oh man. You should have said you would consider them case by case.
At least you could see if they were qualified, pets aside.
I would like to see more anecdotal evidence about the "other 50% of tenants".
I allow well-trained family dogs, no puppies and no outdoor dogs, but I used to meet the pet and list that specific pet in the lease -- name, age, and breed. I have breed restrictions for insurance, but no weight limit. I've learned owners of small dogs seem less vigilant about outdoor potty breaks, even knew a lady who routinely let her chihuahuas poo in her house, said it was so small it wasn't a problem for her to clean up, easier than training them properly. Yuk. You can tell if a dog is well-trained within 5 minutes of meeting him/her and seeing the interaction with you and its owner, and I never had issues with the ones I met. Now that I have property managers, I have found out that they do not meet the dog before signing the lease, which makes no sense, so I'm rethinking my pet policy. Even so, I have more issues with tenants' children than with their dogs, but I'm not allowed to say, No children allowed. I will not ever allow cats. The stench is unbearable, and I've only ever met one cat owner (including friends & family) where I could visit and the home smelled clean, not like cat urine. Most cat owners seem unaware of the smell. Even though I allow dogs, probably half of my tenants over the years did not have a pet, anyway.