'Dog Clause' and claiming carpet damage cause by dog urine

[Hari]

Our tenants wanted to have a dog after their tenancy started, and we agreed as long as they signed a 'Dog Clause' (which they did) which included 'The tenant must compensate the landlord for any damage or repairs due to the dog at the end of the tenancy'.

When the tenants ended the tenancy and we found urine stains on the lounge carpet that couldn't be removed by carpet cleaning, and so we requested compensation from their bond.

The tenant refused to pay any compensation and has gone to the Tenancy Tribunal claiming a full bond refund. They stated in their TT application that 'The landlord wants us to contribute to paying the cost of relaying new carpet in the lounge because there is some staining due to our puppy peeing on it'.

We would not normally replace the carpet, but as this area of unsightly Uric Acid staining is in the lounge and is approximately 0.5m x 0.5m, and right in front of the ranchslider leading to the deck, we feel that we will be forced to replace the carpet if we wish to attract good tenants in the future.

Out insurance excess is $1250.

As we have a dog clause, does anyone think that we should get compensation from the tenants?

[donna]

Hi Hari,

Welcome to PropertyTalk. I suppose one question is "Why did you only know about the stains at the end of the tenancy?" Regular property inspections should have picked up on it earlier and then you could have dealt with it at the time including a professional clean that may have gotten the stain out. With animals you might also have put in 3 monthly inspections too - just a thought.

Not sure leaving it to the end of the tenancy will be in your favour. Time kills all deals as the saying goes.

cheers,

Donna

[Wayne]

As we have a dog clause, does anyone think that we should get compensation from the tenants?

Should - YES
Will via the TT - possibly not.
They will claim accident and that this over-rules the clause. The adjudicator could well agree.

[Davo36]

And people wonder why vendors don't allow pets!

[FJW]

The tribunal with all damage claims look at 'betterment' and replacing carpet due to stains could be seen as 'betterment'. The newer the carpet the higher the amount of compensation you will get due to depreciation.

Have you tried to get a commercial carpet cleaner remove the stains using a 'stain treatment' often that does the trick or if they can't remove it what about getting the stain cut out and replaced?

Due to the new Osaki Rules I would strongly recommend you don't house tenants with pets....

[isaac129]

This is unfortunately one of the risks you have to take when you allow tenants with pets. What I have been doing to mitigate the risk is to do 3 monthly inspections, and if stains are found, I immediately call stain treatment specialist to clean it and bill it to the tenants. From experience those dog stains can be cleaned if you don't leave them there for too long. Leaving the matter to the end of tenancy can work against you.

[SimonW]

Several years ago, one of my tenants used the lounge floor as an ironing board, which resulted in a lovely iron shaped burn mark in the middle of the room, on carpet which was only a few months old at the time.
Given that the carpet was brand new when they moved in, I requested the full cost to replace all the carpet in the lounge area (about 3 metres x 3 metres - so not a massive area). However the adjudicator sided with the tenant and I was awarded the cost for a carpet guy to cut out the burned patch and replace it with an offcut of the same carpet - about $50 from memory.
To this day, every time I go to the property it irks me - the patch sticks out like dogs bollocks and draws my eye as soon as I walk in the door.

I'm not sure what annoys me more - the fact that it happened, or the fact that the carpet has worn so bloody well that it still doesn't need replacing yet!

[donna]

Ha hopefully you've got 'smarter' tenants now.

cheers,

Donna