In my opinion, Small pets should not be allowed to be forbidden by landlords or condo associations

From "The Landlord and Tenant Act 2025"

Go to the project

I don’t think it’s fair to make someone give up a beloved pet and or prevent them from getting a small pet just because the landlord/lady doesn’t want them to have one or for a condo association to ban pets. Rules could be set, but these should be reasonable and fair (eg if your dog barks a lot and disturbs neighbours something needs to be done to stop that). Also, pet owners would need to be responsible for their pets (eg picking up poo in common areas) and if they don’t, there should be a penalty or fine for this.

Comments(8)

Commenting is not possible because this project is currently not active.

Most recent comments have loaded.

Profile of V Edmonds

Posted by:V Edmonds

10 months ago

As a pet owner, I don’t agree with this - pet damage can be substantial. What about furnished apartments? If the landlord then needs 2-3 months security deposit for potential pet damage, how will people feel about that?

Profile of Patrick Caton

Posted by:Patrick Caton

9 months ago

Animals are wonderful companions but not every site is suitable for them, and not every animal is a suitable tenant either. At the very least there should be a separate contractural agreement to cover all repairs resulting from pet damage.

1 like

Profile of Jan Card

Posted by:Jan Card

9 months ago

This has to be something that happens by mutual agreement. There are both hygiene and medical issues as well as the physical damage and noise risks. An extra deposit may be a way out to allow for full allergy-level cleaning after the tenancy but in cases of furnished premises with furniture and possibly carpet/underlay this gets to be very expensive. I believe in pets but have suffered unforeseen loss due to damage beyond the deposit by allowing them in the past. Once bitten.....

1 like

Profile of Dinah Sinnock

Posted by:Dinah Sinnock

10 months ago

Agree with you and children can be more destructive than a pet.

Profile of Karen Belboda

Posted by:Karen Belboda

10 months ago

I guess when you have had a pet destroy your property to the tune of several thousand dollars you would rethink that position. Half a month's deposit doesn't begin to cover the damage

2 likes

Profile of Rebecca Holloway

Posted by:Rebecca Holloway

10 months ago

@Karen Belboda I’m sorry to hear that. It sounds like the renter wasn’t a responsible pet owner, which some aren’t, unfortunately. As I mentioned, pet owners would need to be responsible for their pets (eg picking up poo in common areas) and if they don’t, there should be a penalty or fine for this. They should pay for any damage, I think.