[photon]

Originally Posted by topfiverecords

It's kind of a dick move to list and show a property saying you're allowing pets, and then back out and wait for option C because you got applicants with pets.

Yeah an ad should be clear, either saying no pets, or at least "pets considered". Back when I would allow pets, the type and number of pets was a factor. Sometimes I'd request them to bring their pet if appropriate, or I'd arrange to pick up the application in person so I could see their pet(s). 1 old cat is different than 3 huge dogs.

"No pets" is easy to write

Originally Posted by Igster

I'll be accountable for anything that is an issue, but it sucks as a pet owner who has to rent that so many options are not an option because people like yourself discriminate because you lump all pet owners into the same group and you "don't want the headache".

The fault isn't the landlords trying to avoid a headache, the fault is the significant portion number of pet owners that are headaches.

It's easy for you to say you will be accountable, but everyone says that. Reality is different, otherwise we wouldn't have the RTA and mediation and courts. In practice, landlords have to make decisions based on what's enforcable not on what someone says.

Having to go to mediation or take someone to court to get them to pay for the damages their pet makes is a HUGE hassle, often the cost of trying to hold someone responsible for what they agreed to is MORE than the actual damages. It's easy for tenants to be irresponsible jerks and get away with it.

If you could create a reliable blood test to be able to differentiate between the responsible pet owners that will own up to something their pet did and the ones that'll just move out, laugh, and leave the landlord with the bill then that'd be great. Until that point screening tenants is all about risk mitigation, and pet ownership is a significant risk factor.

I don't screen people based on the colour of their shirt because shirt colour doesn't say anything about risk. Pet ownership does. It's not a judgement about the character of pet owners in general, I'm sure the percentage of jerks that are pet owners is exactly the same (or even less) than the percentage of jerks that are not pet owners. It's a higher risk because the ones that are jerks have an additional source of risk along with them.

Originally Posted by To Be Quite Honest

Nobody takes pets in Calgary.

Charge $200 non refundable deposit and $50.00 a month extra per dog.

Compared to $4500 to replace carpets if they let their pet ruin them? $15,000 if it's hardwood? Pet deposits and increased rent can work for some places, I did that for a while but still found that the costs far exceeded what I could reasonably charge for a deposit and extra per month and still expect to get a tenant.

Originally Posted by Igster

Meh. Agree to disagree. I think many landlords are missing out on good tenants by lumping all pet owners into a single group.

For sure, anything a landlord does to screen a tenant is going to miss out on a good tenant. And there's always exceptions to the rules, one of the best tenants I had was a first time renter (I think she was so afraid of doing something wrong she did everything, I had to explain to her that she actually had some rights as a tenant). I've had good tenants with bad credit.

But again from the landlord's point of view it's about risk mitigation and landlords can only do that based on the information available to them.