Pets In Rental Housing – Part 4
Pets in Rental Housing – Part 4
In Part 1 of this series we discussed some basic issues related to landlord pet policy, primarily why it might be beneficial to be a pet friendly landlord. In Part 2 we discussed certain issues in more detail. In Part 3, we discussed some of those basic issues that should be covered by a pet agreement. In this Part 4 of the series we’ll cover yet other topics of importance to landlords who wish to accept animals in their rental properties.
Know the Laws
Additional rent, a separate pet deposit, and/or other pet related financial items can help offset costs to repair pet damage. Requiring that pets have been spayed or neutered, have successfully completed obedience training, have regular health examinations, are licensed, are current with required vaccinations, are cleaned up after, and are always kept under control at all times, including on leash or harness when in common areas, can reduce unwanted behaviors and help with the various issues related to allowing pets in rental housing.
However, landlords must be knowledgeable about all federal, state, or local laws that might impact their plans regarding such requirements or restrictions regarding pets.
For example, pet security deposits may be in addition to the maximum usual security deposit in some states, but the maximum security deposit includes the amount of any pet deposit in other states. Also, in some states the pet deposit cannot be used for unpaid rent or non-pet related physical damages. Even in those states not having a limit on a separate animal deposit, the maximum amount is limited by the rental market and the financial condition of potential applicants.
Since it is usually impossible to collect a deposit high enough to cover all possible animal-related damages, the best protection is to set screening financial qualifications high enough to improve the chances of collecting for damages that exceed the available deposit. This includes applicants having enough income and assets to cover significant damages and a good credit record that indicates financial responsibility for obligations. Of course, the bar at which financial qualifications can be set depends greatly on the type of property and the location of the property, as well current rental market conditions.
Qualifying an Applicant’s Animals
Just as human applicants should be screened and selected for tenancy based upon well-defined screening and selection criteria, animals belonging to applicants should be screened for qualification and approval before being allowed on the rental premises whether they are with the tenant at move-in or are later acquired.
A “pet resume” provided by an applicant can provide information on licensing, health, vaccinations, training, grooming, etc., but a personal meeting with the pet provides insight into temperament or usual behavior. It may also reveal that the “small” dog listed on the application is a small Great Dane or that a “mutt” is 80 percent one of the breeds considered to be potentially dangerous, even one prohibited by the insurer. It is a good idea to take photos of the animal(s) interviewed so that there is proof of the particular animal that was approved as being qualified.
The same detailed information regarding the criteria for qualifying animals and other policy issues provided to applicants should be stated in a section of the lease agreement or an addendum to the lease that is referenced within the lease agreement. For general understanding and to be legally enforceable, policies must be written and detailed. It should be in language anyone with a basic education should understand and be written so as to be unambiguous.
Even if pets are not allowed by a landlord, when checking rental history with previous landlords, the you should ask if the applicant had pets during his tenancy because you may at least have a better idea of whether or not you will need to keep an eye out regarding adherence to the pet prohibition if the person is otherwise qualified and you want the applicant as a tenant. If yes, ask if the landlord required pre-approval of pet and, if so, whether the tenant had gotten approval in advance or the landlord had simply tolerated the animal after discovery, as this may indicate the degree to which an applicant follows the rules. Ask whether the pet was well-behaved and adequately controlled by the tenant. Were any complaints received from other tenants regarding the pet? Did the animal do any damage to property of the landlord or of other tenants? Finally, ask previous landlords if they remember the type of animal the subject applicants had when they lived at the landlord’s property. If only one question could be answered, it would be “would you rent to this applicant and his/her animals again?” This question only calls for a yes or no answer; although the silence before the answer could provide guidance without the previous landlord actually giving details. When possible, the landlord(s) interviewed should not be only the applicant’s current landlord who might be inclined to slant the history in order to help an unsatisfactory tenant leave.
The most important point regarding the setting of animal policies related to financial risks of landlords is to know which animals are of concern to their particular insurers and so may be excluded from liability coverage of their policies. For example, many insurers now list breeds of dogs that are not covered, as many as a dozen different breeds for some insurers.
Dog bites are a major financial burden for the insurance industry. It is rumored that bite related claims accounted for more than one-third of all homeowners liability claims paid out in in recent years, accounting for around half-a-billion dollars. Insurers are in the business of evaluating risk, and based on what their statistics regarding bite claims show, insurers know the dogs on their ‘uninsurable list’ pose a higher risk to their profits. While the average of claims is in the tens of thousands if dollars, verdicts can be more than a million dollars.
Insurance company lists may be have names such as “excluded dog breeds,” “aggressive dog breeds,” “list of dangerous dogs,” “prohibited dog breeds,” or simply “bad dog list.” The dog breeds which can be found on these lists are similar for many insurers because they all come from similar research studies. For insurers who have a list, the most often blacklisted dog breeds appearing on their lists include many or all of the following:
- Pit Bull Terriers
- Staffordshire Terriers
- Rottweilers
- German Shepherds
- Presa Canarios
- Chows Chows
- Doberman Pinschers
- Akitas
- Wolf-hybrids
- Mastiffs
- Cane Corsos
- Great Danes
- Alaskan Malamutes
- Siberian Huskies
No specific scientific criteria are required for a dog breed to be blacklisted and each company comes up with its own list based upon its opinion of the risks related to particular breeds.
Since most pet owners consider their pet as family on par with children, it may take some diplomacy if such a “family member” is ineligible according to the landlord’s standard pet policies. Setting reasonable, common sense standards in accordance with laws and insurer prohibitions should allow the majority of pets and their owners the chance to qualify for tenancy.
Dangerous Pets
Although only a minority of dogs might be considered dangerous, there are animal types of which all variations are dangerous. Although one usually doesn’t consider such animals as being possible pets, there are some people who do consider any animal, even potentially dangerous ones such as venomous snakes, to be a possible pet. Accordingly, an adequately documented pet policy must take this fact into account, defining what species of animal is and/or what species is not allowed. As for many issues regarding selection of an applicant to be a tenant, even though animals are in general not covered by fair housing laws, all applicants must be treated equally regarding animals in order to avoid even an appearance of housing discrimination.
There are many types of animals that are not the usual dog or cat and that, although not dangerous to human life or health, can be dangerous to a landlord’s property. While there are numerous examples, we will consider fish. Fish, while not usually considered a problem, can be. Even minor aquarium leaks, when undetected for a significant period, can produce thousands of dollars in damages if flooring is ruined, drywall of ceilings and walls of multiple units require repair due to flooding of units above. Not only is the physical damage itself an issue, but it may be necessary to provide temporary housing for other tenants while their units are being repaired. The agreement should limit the size of the tank to the amount of water which would not cause serious damage upon total collapse of the tank, perhaps at most a few gallons.
Also, water is heavy! So, for larger tanks specific approval of the landlord or his qualified contractor should be required and the tenant should be required to provide adequate insurance that includes pet damage, with the policy naming the landlord as additional insured. The tenant should be required to place the tank in an approved safe location within the unit, taking into account structure flooring and supporting framing, including use of weight distribution principles and materials to protect flooring, and to utilize a stand or table sufficient to stably support the weight of the filled tank. The required insurance should cover both minor leaks and catastrophic events.
Lease agreements and/or separate “pet agreements” available from most legal document publishers will fail to adequately cover the animal issue or have the degree of detail that should be desired by all landlords. Accordingly, a landlord should create the necessary documentation based on issues mentioned in this article and future parts of this series, and on the landlord’s experience with tenants that had animals.
While we won’t provide a ready-to use-pet agreement in this series, future parts will further discuss items of importance for agreements.