All Forum Posts by: Jeffery Smyter

I have been showing one of our rental properties, and received an application today.  This has historically been a difficult property to rent, and it has been vacant for 2 months, with no other qualified applicants at this time.

The applicants have 2 small "service dogs" with certificates from a random website.  The dogs are apparently 15 years old and only became "certified" a year ago.  We do allow for up to 2 pet dogs with additional pet rent and additional pet deposit.  The applicants are clearly qualified financially based on their application, and I conduct a thorough check on applicants.  Financially it probably makes sense to sign a lease with these applicants rather than leave the property vacant for an unknown period, even if it means not collecting pet rent or additional deposit.

My question is: Would you push the issue for the "service dogs" and make the applicants provide a letter from a medical professional?  There was no apparent disability (not blind, etc), and the dogs were not present at the time of the showing.  Is there any liability to not doing due-diligence and fully vetting the "service dogs" as being legitimate?

Sorry, I should have provided a little more background.  I am in the Denver Metro area.  We have owned the property for 16 years.  For the first 10 years we lived at the property, and the last 6 years we have been renting it.  While I see other landlords doing most of their work without a permit, I have always checked to see if a permit was needed before starting a project.

During the last 6 years, I have obtained 2 permits for work on the property.  The first was to remove and replace the roof.  The second was to install a backflow preventer to then install an irrigation system 2 years ago.  Both of these projects I completed myself and passed the inspection on the first visit from the inspector.  This time around, I was denied a permit solely because I am a landlord.

There is a list of items that need permits, and a list of items that do not require permits.  Items such as paint, flooring, landscaping, "minor repairs", etc do not require permits, so it appears that I will still be able to complete a considerable amount of work at the property.  Thanks to everyone for the feedback.  As you can understand, I was a bit shocked when this happened.  It sounds like it is becoming more common.

I currently own a single family rental in a suburban neighborhood.  Recently I went to obtain a permit to make some improvements to the property.  I was told that permits are only issued to owners who reside at the property or to contractors.  Since I do not fit either criteria, I was unable to obtain a permit.  There are many other rental properties on my block, and all too often improvements are made by the homeowners without a permit.  Now I am understanding why.

My questions: Is this a common scenario?  Do other localities have the same stipulation?  What is the rationale behind this?