Header Ad Module

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Highly contentious dog clauses

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Highly contentious dog clauses

    Hi All
    After much reading the sad state of affairs with how the TT say a landlord couldn't define intentional damage when someones dog urinated on carpet even with a no pet policy, plus no additional bonds are allowed for pets, I have made up the following pet clause for a dog. I think I have got around the problem - let me know what you think - is there any wording I should change?

    I know - don't let to pet owners if I don't have to. However I figure DINKY adults with a dog is less damage than 2 kids for example.

    Here is my full dog clause below - the juicy bits are nearer the bottom.
    ******

    This dog clause applies to any and all tenants on the agreement. Please note Clause 2 of the tenancy agreement also applies to the dog clauses - jointly and severally.

    Tenant 1 Name ………………………………………………………………….

    Tenant 2 Name ………………………………………………………………….

    Tenant 3 Name ………………………………………………………………….

    Dog Name: ___________________________ Breed ____________________________________________

    Year Born or DoB______/______/______ Weight ________ kg, Colour __________________________

    Sex M / F Neutered Y / N Council rego ___________________________

    How long have you owned this animal? _____________

    Landlords name on your application that can provide a reference for your pet ________________________

    Brand of flea treatment used: _________________________________Frequency ____________________

    Has your dog caused damage to any other property in the past? If yes please give details ______________

    __________________________________________________ ____________________________________

    Is your dog toilet trained? __________________________________________________ _______________

    Is it your intention that the dog is allowed indoors at all? Yes / No


    All the information below applies to a cold wet winters day or night.

    Location of dogs kennel on the property __________________________________________________ ____


    At night, where will your dog sleep? (circle) Inside the house / In kennel free in the back yard / in its dog kennel and run in the back yard / in the garage / other:

    Specify __________________________________________________ ________________________


    During the day time when everyone is at work where will your dog be kept? (circle) Inside the house / In kennel free in the back yard / in its dog kennel and run in the back yard / in the garage, other

    Specify __________________________________________________ ________________________


    A night if everyone is out where will your dog be kept? (circle) Inside the house / In kennel free in the back yard / in its dog kennel and run in the back yard / in the garage other:

    Specify __________________________________________________ ________________________


    The tenant acknowledges that the landlord has agreed to allow the tenant to keep the above mentioned dog detailed above on the property as a specific term of the agreement. The landlord does not warrant or imply in any way that it will consent to other dogs or any other animal being kept on the property in the future.

    If the tenant wishes to keep a different pet then the tenant must obtain the prior written permission of the landlord. The landlord is not obliged in any way to grant consent to any other pet being kept on the property.

    The tenant agrees that their abovementioned animal is of suitable disposition, the tenant has an accurate knowledge of its historical tendencies of the animal, or is trained, or supervised, or kennelled in such a manner, has no urination problems inside a house, that it will not cause property damage. Therefore the tenant agrees that by keeping the above dog on the premises, that in the event should any damage be caused by that dog to floors, curtains, walls, window sills, gardens, or any other damage will be considered intentional damage and the tenant agrees that the landlord will use the bond or guarantors security to pay for the repair of any damage. This may be more than the deposit.

    The tenant further agrees that after one single event of damage the dog will be physically restrained from being able to preform that act again. For example urination on the carpet, will immediately result in the dog not being allowed inside the house ever again. Digging up gardens, the dog will not be allowed to be loose in the back yard ever again. Therefore any second event of damage the dog causes is intentional.

    The tenant is advised the landlord has no insurance for pet damage.

    The tenant agrees that their abovementioned animal is of suitable disposition, the tenant has an accurate knowledge of its historical tendencies of the animal, or is trained, or supervised, or kennelled in such a manner, has no urination problems inside a house, that it will not cause property damage. Therefore the tenant agrees that by keeping the above dog on the premises, that in the event should any damage be caused by that dog to floors, curtains, walls, window sills, gardens, or any other damage will be considered intentional damage and the tenant agrees that the landlord will use the bond or guarantors security to pay for the repair of any damage. This may be more than the deposit.


    The tenant must notify the landlord and pay for the remedy for any damage caused by the dog to the house or grounds immediately.

    The tenant must clean dog fouling from the grounds a minimum of weekly.

    The tenant must care for the dog properly and comply with general SPCA standards and guidelines for the treatment of dogs.

    The tenant must control the dog so that it is not allowed to roam beyond the boundary section and it is not allowed to create any other type of nuisance to neighbouring properties.

    The tenant must restrain the dog on days the landlord advises an inspection is due to be carried out or for other maintenance or repair contractors.

    The tenant agrees to waiver the privacy act and allow the landlord to access information and speak to the appropriate people in the dog control department at council in relation to the dog.

    The tenant agrees they have made their own assessments that the existing fencing is suitable to contain their dog should they wish to let it roam free in the back yard. The tenant further acknowledges that the landlord gives no guarantee as to the suitability of the fencing to retain the dog and shall not pay for improvements or repairs should this not be the case, for example but not limited to if the dog jumps over the fence frequently and escapes and a higher fence is required to contain the dog.

    The tenant agrees to have all the carpets commercially cleaned within the last 4 days before departing from the property as the only way to best reasonably remove most of the pet allergens, odours and fur. A copy of the receipt shall be supplied to the landlord. Supermarket Rug Doctor is not permitted.

    If any of these terms are breached, the landlord may follow standard procedures relating to breach of tenancy agreement.


    Signed Landlord: ……………………………………….………..………………. Dated ……………………………………….

    Signed Tenant: …………………………………………………………..……….. Dated ………………………………………..

    Guarantee
    The Residential Tenancies Act clause 18A(3)(b)ii allows for a cash security to be obtained via a guarantor.
    The guarantor must be a person who does not reside at the premises.

    Security: The landlord shall receive $_______________ being 3 weeks rent from the guarantor by way of cash/deposit payment as security for any damage caused by the dog. This is fully refundable and shall be paid within 7 days after the tenancy termination provided no damage has been caused. The guarantor is not limited to the amount stated above but to the value of all damage caused by the dog throughout the term of the tenancy.

    If the dog causes damage and the guarantors money is chosen to be used by the landlord at the landlords discretion to remedy the damage, then the guarantor shall top up the security deposit again within 7 days after the event to the value of 3 weeks rent the day the deposit is made.

    The guarantor cannot cancel out of the guarantee unless the landlord gives consent to this. The guarantee shall remain in place and be effective whilst any of the tenants named in this dog clause reside at the premises, under this current fixed term tenancy, or future tenancy agreements.

    Guarantors debt recovery. If there is an unsatisfied debt, then the guarantor agrees that the tenant be liable for and pay for all costs of recovery, which costs shall be collected by a debt collection agency or courts. Costs payable by the debtor shall include in addition to the original debt amount, legal fees, commissions, fee's and disbursements, and /or court filing fees and disbursements
    It is understood that in the event that the guarantor fails to comply with the terms and conditions, the security may be forfeited in part or in whole in relief for the damage caused by the dog. The liability of the guarantor may not necessarily be restricted to the security paid.


    Guarantors Full Legal Name: __________________________________________________ ____________

    Date of Birth ________/_______/_______

    Address: __________________________________________________ _____________________________


    Drivers License Number ____________________________________________ Version (5b)

    Signature: ________________________________________________

    Please provide a copy of the Guarantors drivers license.

  • #2
    Have you checked that your guarantor clauses are legal? In general you are not allowed to charge a 'pet bond.' Does taking the bond from a third party negate this?

    I also don't think that the following are enforceable/legal:

    The tenant must notify the landlord and pay for the remedy for any damage caused by the dog to the house or grounds immediately.


    The tenant must care for the dog properly and comply with general SPCA standards and guidelines for the treatment of dogs.
    My blog. From personal experience.
    http://statehousinginnz.wordpress.com/

    Comment


    • #3
      In general, the Tenancy Tribunal will just overrule anything you write into a contract. Especially if it's arduous to read or understand. Protecting the vulnerable, etc.

      There's no way to protect yourself, just need to hope for the best.
      AAT Accounting Services - Property Specialist - [email protected]
      Fixed price fees and quick knowledgeable service for property investors & traders!

      Comment


      • #4
        If you mean, have a given it to my laywer = No. Keys has given fantastic advice, i've done alot of my own reading and come up with this.
        Technically it is definitely not a bond - it is a security which is allowed under the RTA clause which I specifically stated for that reason.

        Whos vulnerable? - sounds to me its more like the landlord.

        To me its crystal clear - yes you can have a pet - tenant has by way signing the statement that dog does not cause damage - therefore if it does, it is intentional due to maybe the way the owner has changed its housing habits, training, supervision or whatever.
        If the TT are this bad isn't there a group of landlords (the property investor group - I haven't joined yet) or similar who are persistently and actively pursuing some politicians to get hearings back onto a fair and equitable basis. Or does every one at least go back and make a complaint to ask for rehearing or ask for the adjudicators supervisor to check the result (however it works - yet to learn). In other words if landlords rightfully and consistently go back and ask for what should be a fair hearing this will clog up supervisors time - this will change their mind of training to the adjucitors to make sure a fair hearing is held otherwise there will be comeback. Surely multipe hearing re-checks on a certain adjudicator will go against their own personal performance appraisal which in turn affects their pay rise.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Angela1 View Post
          If the TT are this bad isn't there a group of landlords (the property investor group - I haven't joined yet) . . .
          Why not?

          AMAC

          Comment


          • #6
            Why haven't I joined yet? short answer very busy and took alot on at once. It seemed to be more about the investment side of it - When the dust settles, my intention is to buy another rental, I intended on joining when in the process of looking for another rental to learn about it from a purchasing perspective, what not to buy, yields profit etc. My immediate problem is getting good tenants in my first house I am renting out - and doing self taught property management RTA rules all at the same time.

            What does AMAC mean? I googled it and came up with Assoc of Mature Citizens of America.

            I would appreicate your experienced comment on the dog clause - however brutal it is. Is there anything technically illegal in it?

            Comment


            • #7
              AMAC

              Also Must Add Characters.

              Similar to (MAMC)

              Or, if your post is really short:

              (MAMFC!)
              www.3888444.co.nz
              Facebook Page

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Angela1 View Post
                If the TT are this bad isn't there a group of landlords (the property investor group - I haven't joined yet) or similar who are persistently and actively pursuing some politicians to get hearings back onto a fair and equitable basis.
                Originally posted by flyernzl View Post
                Why not?
                Being devil's advocate here, what has the NZPIF done - and seen to be done - about redressing the socialist, pro-tenant outcomes at the TT Kangaroo Kourts? I.e. something that overcomes the joining inertia of people like Angela [and me & Mike B] - inertia based on seeing a lack lustre performance from the NZPIF.

                And, if you think I'm being harsh, Flyer, have a look back at a certain thread, working backwards from here.

                Angela - you may benefit from having a read of this post from Flyer:
                Report on the NZPIF Conference held at New Plymouth 14th - 16th October

                It is not an easy job!
                Want a great looking concrete swimming pool in Hawke's Bay? Designer Pools will do the job for you!

                Comment


                • #9
                  What use is an Army.
                  They sit around all day costing us money.
                  After all, we haven't had a war for - how long?
                  Get rid of them and save millions.

                  But then, maybe the very existence of an army deters would be invaders.
                  So the deterrence aspect should be factored into the equation.

                  There is a lot of lobbying behind the scenes by NZPIF:

                  So . . .
                  We don't have a residential rental WOF
                  We don't have ring fencing of rental losses
                  We don't have a CGT specifically targeted at investment property
                  We don't have artificially imposed rent increase limitations
                  . . . . and I could go on and on.

                  What we do have is a fairly small group of people who are funding the fight on behalf of all residential landlords

                  and a much smaller entirely voluntary group who are actually getting quite exhausted with the constant effort required to combat those who, with access to significant taxpayer and/or ratepayer funding, make it their full-time salaried job to come up with these flawed ideas.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Perry View Post
                    . . . what has the NZPIF done - and seen to be done
                    Originally posted by flyernzl View Post
                    * We don't have a residential rental WOF
                    * We don't have ring fencing of rental losses
                    * We don't have a CGT specifically targeted at investment property
                    * We don't have artificially imposed rent increase limitations
                    * . . . . and I could go on and on.
                    Sounds good. But how do you know - and how can the rest of NZ's PIs know that those [beneficial] things you describe are a correlated result of the direct efforts of the NZPIF?

                    In my earlier post, I gave a link to a thread on this forum. One in which the then NZPIF president sought input from PT forumites - and gave an undertaking to report back. That never happened, despite reminders.

                    Yes, I know one bad apple does not ruin the whole barrel, but Andrew let a lot of people down there, including the organisation he represented. That inevitably leads on to the speculative musing - if the president is like that, perhaps the Federation is the same?

                    Originally posted by flyernzl View Post
                    * We don't have artificially imposed rent increase limitations
                    Maybe not.

                    Or do we?
                    Originally posted by RTA
                    25 Market rent
                    (1) On an application made to it at any time by the tenant, the Tribunal may, in accordance with the succeeding provisions of this section, on being satisfied that the rent payable or to become payable for the tenancy exceeds the market rent by a substantial amount, make an order reducing the rent to an amount, to be specified in the order, that is in line with the market rent.
                    Want a great looking concrete swimming pool in Hawke's Bay? Designer Pools will do the job for you!

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      This is getting way off topic, but thanks for that link Perry.After reading it I can see that obviously the investors group do do alot of work.While previously I haven’tlooked into what they did, I was pretty sure they did do good things that Iwould be interested in joining - at least for a year and then decide.So my lackof joining thus far wasn’t a reflection on what they had to offer, nor is itabout cost which I haven’t looked up either – it was purely and simply my lackof time, combined with I have found so far this forum seems to have served mypurpose very well.

                      Obviously Flyer is a member of the investors association –and now somewhat frustrated with me being the typical person not joining when clearlyI should be/need to be.I promise I will!

                      I am on a committee myself and I fully understand thefrustrations that come with hours and hours of unpaid work and yet others whodo nothing but complain about what they got.However you do it because you are passionate about it.I have been on various committees and clubsmost of my life.In all cases it seemsto be 10% of the people do 90% of the work.This just seems to be the way it is, its better just to accept and geton with it and don’t expect to change that statistic.However, in terms of gaining membership – myexperience is it comes down to money. People are happy to pay tens of thousands ontheir main interest, then a lesser amount with their decreasing level of interest.Thereare probably thousands of people who own a single investment house, possiblygained through inheritance.They hand itto a property manager and the problem is gone –
                      so why pay (I just looked it up $274 p.a) to join a property investors group when they perceivethey have no need.They are earning anincome off the property – and aren’t significantly bothered by the costs whichcome around – their property manager simply explains it to them as part andparcel of it which they accept – the owners are still unaware it’s due to the propertymanagers poor performance could improve the situation.

                      Granted that investment home may be worth $1M but that stilldoesn’t make it the owners interest – but maybe if it was a smaller amount moremight join?In other words charge peopleaccording to the number of investment properties they have?

                      Or, I’m guessing there is a good chance that said propertymanager doesn’t even tell them this group exists, or promote it at all if theyare asked about the benefits of it – thereis no benefit whatsoever for the property manager having the owner join aninvestor group - as the owner becomes more educated on the matter it willresult in them becoming more demanding from the property manager alongwith increased risk they might then decide to manage it themselves with theirnewfound knowledge.
                      Variations of:
                      Owner to property manager – “I’ve found about this group ofproperty investors do you think I should join, is it beneficial?”
                      Property manager “ No don’t worry about it, save your money,I will look after your property for you”

                      To all the property managers out there – yes I agree thereare some of you are that great, above average and excellent and wouldn’t do theabove.
                      I am in no way lumping you allinto the above category – but just suggesting this could conceivably happen –and might be part of the reason why memberships are lacking?

                      The trick then is bypassing the property manager so the investorsgroup can be promoted direct to the newfound owner of an investment property to learn about the benefits. Us outsiders are ignorant of the politics, anygood things or failings the group may have done, so for a first time joiner thatwouldn’t come into it.

                      Any chance of getting back to topic?


                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Well, 'topically,' your local PIA may have some people who you could well ask about your doggie clause.
                        Want a great looking concrete swimming pool in Hawke's Bay? Designer Pools will do the job for you!

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Professional carpet cleaning clauses are non-enforceable.

                          I rented a flat in 2014 and had a one of these clauses in the agreement. I moved out a few months later due to pervasive mold and dampness problems, which perversely the PM wanted me to make worse by shampooing the carpet. As a single guy with no pets the carpet was just the same as when I moved in. I sprayed the floor with aerosol can supermarket carpet cleaner, vacuumed it and the only way the PM knew I hadn't got it done professionally was because the carpet wasn't wet. I refused, referred them to the RTA and they changed their mind and refunded my bond in full.

                          As with all other places I have rented, I left it in better condition then when I had moved in.
                          Last edited by PTWhatAGreatForum; 03-01-2017, 02:14 PM.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by MichaelNZ View Post
                            As with all other places I have rented, I left it in better condition then when I had moved in.
                            Good on you!

                            But, Michael, you are a special case. Only a few times have I been lucky enough to have a tenant like you.

                            In one case, it took a commercial cleaner 7 hours to restore the place to the same condition (including the stove), plus I had the carpet cleaned professionally. Single person, small place, but . . . they aren't all like you, unfortunately.

                            Welcome back, BTW.
                            Want a great looking concrete swimming pool in Hawke's Bay? Designer Pools will do the job for you!

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Angela1 View Post
                              To me its crystal clear - yes you can have a pet - tenant has by way signing the statement that dog does not cause damage - therefore if it does, it is intentional due to maybe the way the owner has changed its housing habits, training, supervision or whatever.
                              Sounds like faulty logic to me.
                              If the animal doesn't cause damage and it happens to then it is an accident.
                              If they know the dog rips up wall if left locked in a room and it does - intentional.
                              If they know the dog doesn't rip up walls if left locked in a room (past experiance) and it does then accident. Something abnormal happened to cause the animal's behaviour (a bee came in and it was chasing it etc).

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X