More and more tenants and tenant applicants are quick to perk up and claim "I have a pitbull, it's an emotional support animal" as if they have found some fool proof loophole. Some applicants have as many as 3 pitbulls. They say it with a smirk on their face. They claim they have a letter. There is a place online that will give you an ESA letter for $22 instantly...
The girl today claimed I have to accept it. I told her my insurance company doesn't allow it and the mortgage company requires me to have insurance. I've had a policy cancelled before because a tenant got a pitbull unbeknownst to me, discovered during an insurance auditors drive by.
I'm honestly shocked that the laws are so ridiculous. Seems like property owners have zero rights other than to pay taxes to fund the Gestapo Government. She claimed I have to accept it, that she has had trouble finding a place that accepts the pitbull. I asked her if landlords have to accept it, why do you have such a hard time finding one that does?
.
@Jack B. Contrary to the belief of many prospective tenants who have been sold a fake "ESA certificate" by the many sites online selling them, an ESA is not the same as a Service Animal, and doesn't have the same protections under the Fair Housing Act. "No pets" policies don't apply to them (they're technically not pets), you can't charge extra pet rent for them, nor can you ask about the tenants disability. However, you don't have to accept her fake letter she bought online. You can request to have the local licensed mental health professional who diagnosed her condition and provided her with an ESA recommendation contact you directly to confirm this for you (directly being the operative word here, not by sending a note to her and then she sends it to you so she can edit it/fabricate it). Usually requesting this and mentioning that you plan to check the credentials of the person making the recommendation is enough to deter any fakers. A landlord can also choose not to rent to someone with an ESA if the animal causes harm to other residents, if the property is not covered by the FHA (is less than four units and the owner occupies one of the units, is a single family rental managed by the owner, or is owned by a club or religious group that only rents to its own members), if the animal (or animals in this case) is/are too large for the living space, if the animal causes physical harm to the property, of if the animal causes undo financial harm to the landlord (such as by causing your insurance company to drop you, resulting in your mortgage company calling your loan). I've gotten halfway through this explanation with people before and they usually say "nevermind" and hang up or leave before I have finished, which is A-OK with me. It's illegal to attempt to use a fake online form to avoid paying pet rent or to avoid a no-pets policy with an animal that is not an actual ESA, prescribed by an actual licensed mental health professional.
@Peter M.
This exactly. We use petsceening.com because it takes the responsibility of this issue off of our and the home owner's hands.
All the other comments may be right, but why bother doing the legwork for something when you can pass the work onto a professional company that that is all they do. And at no cost to you or the homeowner.
Here's another NY beauty.
The DOJ has informed the insurance companies here in NYS they may not exclude dangerous breeds. (Of course, this might mean they are free to charge a ridiculously high risk premium, but I am not sure.)
So, "my insurance doesn't allow it" doesn't wash here.
Is this something new? Do you have a source?
Thank You.
Nor really new, but not widely publicized until recently.
http://www.fhcwm.org/uploads/files/reports/HUD_Memo_-_RA_Breed_Restrictions_Insurance.pdf
Read the last sentence on the doc.
PS You can get involved in educating yourself as NY Landlord. PM me and I will connect you to the coalition group that has formed. Then you won't have to ask me for the source; you'll have access to this directly.
Reading all the other sentences. I think it is pretty clear that a landlord can justify their policy with the insurance company being an unreasonable burden, whether being dropped or high rates.
The last sentence says the Department of Justice may investigate whether the insurance company violated the disabled persons civil rights.
Before they can investigate, there needs to be a case, which means there needs to be a disabled person. Not someone with an online printed ESA certificate, but someone with a real medical condition and real medical professional who will show up in court. What doctor is going to walk into court and testify under oath that "a pit bull is necessary for treatment". The reality is any dog would provide the same level of therapeutic value and that is the counter argument.
From a practical standpoint, this letter is from 2006 and yet the majority of national insurance companies still have a list of prohibited dogs. In other words, over the course of 14 years, there have been no significant cases to force national insurance carriers to change police. Apparently their attorneys see little legal risk or believe they can fight it in court if they do get challenged.
Here is the most important part. Who cares if my insurance company is investigated by the DOJ? If they are forced to allow my insurance to cover hazardous breeds, then they cover me and my tenant gets the dog. That would take months, if not years to play out in court. I am unlikely to have the tenant at that point.
The last sentence says the Department of Justice may investigate whether the insurance company violated the disabled persons civil rights.
Before they can investigate, there needs to be a case, which means there needs to be a disabled person. Not someone with an online printed ESA certificate, but someone with a real medical condition and real medical professional who will show up in court. What doctor is going to walk into court and testify under oath that "a pit bull is necessary for treatment". The reality is any dog would provide the same level of therapeutic value and that is the counter argument.
From a practical standpoint, this letter is from 2006 and yet the majority of national insurance companies still have a list of prohibited dogs. In other words, over the course of 14 years, there have been no significant cases to force national insurance carriers to change police. Apparently their attorneys see little legal risk or believe they can fight it in court if they do get challenged.
Here is the most important part. Who cares if my insurance company is investigated by the DOJ? If they are forced to allow my insurance to cover hazardous breeds, then they cover me and my tenant gets the dog. That would take months, if not years to play out in court. I am unlikely to have the tenant at that point.
I guess my point was that you can't deny them as the landlord using your insurance as an excuse. Regarding the document, we just got advised on this within the last month or two via an attorney whom specializes in NY Landlord/Tenant, so there is a possibility there is an additional overlay here in NY at the state level. What I found and linked was from the Feds (and from 2006), but I remember counsel telling us it was the NYS DOJ that had the issue and from what I understand relatively new. I could be misremembering.
I could ask, but we have had absolutely no time during our daily zoom meetings to cover that sort of "back burner" concern these days. NYS is under siege by the tenant groups. Today there was a "sit in" at courts in many of the major cities, protesting the eviction courts reopening to hear pre-COVID cases that have been on the docket since early this year. Some of my colleagues have not been paid since November 2019, and today we learned it might realistically be the end of the year before they can get these tenants out. Ri-freakin-diculous.
The last sentence says the Department of Justice may investigate whether the insurance company violated the disabled persons civil rights.
Before they can investigate, there needs to be a case, which means there needs to be a disabled person. Not someone with an online printed ESA certificate, but someone with a real medical condition and real medical professional who will show up in court. What doctor is going to walk into court and testify under oath that "a pit bull is necessary for treatment". The reality is any dog would provide the same level of therapeutic value and that is the counter argument.
From a practical standpoint, this letter is from 2006 and yet the majority of national insurance companies still have a list of prohibited dogs. In other words, over the course of 14 years, there have been no significant cases to force national insurance carriers to change police. Apparently their attorneys see little legal risk or believe they can fight it in court if they do get challenged.
Here is the most important part. Who cares if my insurance company is investigated by the DOJ? If they are forced to allow my insurance to cover hazardous breeds, then they cover me and my tenant gets the dog. That would take months, if not years to play out in court. I am unlikely to have the tenant at that point.
I guess my point was that you can't deny them as the landlord using your insurance as an excuse. Regarding the document, we just got advised on this within the last month or two via an attorney whom specializes in NY Landlord/Tenant, so there is a possibility there is an additional overlay here in NY at the state level. What I found and linked was from the Feds (and from 2006), but I remember counsel telling us it was the NYS DOJ that had the issue and from what I understand relatively new. I could be misremembering.
I could ask, but we have had absolutely no time during our daily zoom meetings to cover that sort of "back burner" concern these days. NYS is under siege by the tenant groups. Today there was a "sit in" at courts in many of the major cities, protesting the eviction courts reopening to hear pre-COVID cases that have been on the docket since early this year. Some of my colleagues have not been paid since November 2019, and today we learned it might realistically be the end of the year before they can get these tenants out. Ri-freakin-diculous.
I think it is probably very state specific. I would have no trouble denying someone in my state due to insurance. It makes me mad just hearing about your struggles in NY. I hope the landlords of NY are able to score some legal wins, because I don't see change happening at the ballot box.
Novel idea that you can operate in a free market and make business decisions and have control of your asset, right?
Clearly, I'm not shy about my disappointment in NY here on the forums. I appreciate the empathy. We are taking a beating here, and sadly it will just get worse as the agenda is to eventually socialize the housing here and do away with private landlords.
It's going to be a big undertaking and major life change, but I'm a pretty principled guy, so I am moving my portfolio elsewhere.
Whose agenda is it to socialize housing? There is no way that will ever happen. Heck they blew up the projects decades ago because that kind of system does not work.
I do feel badly for those who are not getting paid. That sucks. I do also believe tenants should have certain rights. But there should be a balance between owners and tenants.
Eta: they blew up some buildings/projects in SF (hunters point - it was quite the spectacle!) Dont know about elsewhere
Where I invest the County now has mostly single family homes. They seem to be selling off the apartments or privatizing them.
They seem to think it's the congestion that creates the problems, but it's the tenant class.
@Mike Morawski
Who was your insurance? I’d like to avoid them if possible. That really sucks.
It's likely they didn't cover the damages since they don't allow the breed. Insurance companies also don't allow you to have a hot pot, it's a fire hazard. They sued a church for the 150K they paid them after arson investigators ruled the hot pot was the cause. The policy explicitly prohibited such equipment. Insurance isn't a do whatever you want and we'll cover you regardless kind of thing. You'll have the same issue with ANY insurance company...
I agree with Erik. This is why I will only buy properties In B/B- neighborhoods. I need to be able to fully screen them based on pre determined criteria. Not saying it will absolutely solve the problem but it has greatly reduced my risk regarding these situations.
In my experience, people with pitbulls ALWAYS have bad credit, criminal records, low income, bad references or a combination of 2 or more of these. They never qualify anyways. Just apply, I'll review your application.
Whose agenda is it to socialize housing? There is no way that will ever happen. Heck they blew up the projects decades ago because that kind of system does not work.
I do feel badly for those who are not getting paid. That sucks. I do also believe tenants should have certain rights. But there should be a balance between owners and tenants.
Eta: they blew up some buildings/projects in SF (hunters point - it was quite the spectacle!) Dont know about elsewhere
I'm pretty sure you know who, considering your posting history and often being the apologist for such policies. Would you consider your comments in other threads such as the one below, supporting socialist structures? Also, the projects still exist, your one sample is not representative of the entire population and has little meaning. HUD also started moving the people living in the projects into affluent neighborhoods so that everyone could have a house they could be proud of. Socialism...your very comments below indicate support of it. Tax the wealthy, pay for the poor. Statistically the vast majority of people who are poor will have many many kids, the lower the education and income the more kids they have. Yet you want others who have no kids to pay for their education via forced taxation. Is that capitalism or?
So just curious - is noone concerned about kids getting an education?
I mean i like to keep my money as much as the next person, but honestly our infrastructure and schools need to be funded somehow?
Here's another NY beauty.
The DOJ has informed the insurance companies here in NYS they may not exclude dangerous breeds. (Of course, this might mean they are free to charge a ridiculously high risk premium, but I am not sure.)
So, "my insurance doesn't allow it" doesn't wash here.
Is this something new? Do you have a source?
Thank You.
Nor really new, but not widely publicized until recently.
http://www.fhcwm.org/uploads/files/reports/HUD_Memo_-_RA_Breed_Restrictions_Insurance.pdf
Read the last sentence on the doc.
PS You can get involved in educating yourself as NY Landlord. PM me and I will connect you to the coalition group that has formed. Then you won't have to ask me for the source; you'll have access to this directly.
Reading all the other sentences. I think it is pretty clear that a landlord can justify their policy with the insurance company being an unreasonable burden, whether being dropped or high rates.
The last sentence says the Department of Justice may investigate whether the insurance company violated the disabled persons civil rights.
Before they can investigate, there needs to be a case, which means there needs to be a disabled person. Not someone with an online printed ESA certificate, but someone with a real medical condition and real medical professional who will show up in court. What doctor is going to walk into court and testify under oath that "a pit bull is necessary for treatment". The reality is any dog would provide the same level of therapeutic value and that is the counter argument.
From a practical standpoint, this letter is from 2006 and yet the majority of national insurance companies still have a list of prohibited dogs. In other words, over the course of 14 years, there have been no significant cases to force national insurance carriers to change police. Apparently their attorneys see little legal risk or believe they can fight it in court if they do get challenged.
Here is the most important part. Who cares if my insurance company is investigated by the DOJ? If they are forced to allow my insurance to cover hazardous breeds, then they cover me and my tenant gets the dog. That would take months, if not years to play out in court. I am unlikely to have the tenant at that point.
My thoughts exactly when I read that. You have a high level of reading comprehension on this. My biggest argument for all this nonsense is: you don't need a pitbull as an emotional support animal. Get a labrador or some other non dangerous breed. But like I said, every single applicant I've ever had with pitbulls was an abject loser in general and would have been a problem tenant. I just don't see Bill Gates, Warren Buffett or other high end people with pitbulls for some reason....hmmmmm....
I was under the impression that an SA or ESA doesn’t need to be disclosed. According to the Americans with Disabilities Act only two questions can be asked, “(1) is the dog a service animal required because of a disability? and (2) what work or task has the dog been trained to perform?”. The article also says the owner has the right to train the animal, they could just say I’ve trained the animal to pick up items I’ve dropped, and whip out their cane. Good luck fighting that scenario.