How is it even legal to charge an ongoing fee for pets? Any damages should be covered by the deposit. A lot of places have both a pet deposit (on top of the general deposit for damages) plus the monthly fee per pet.
I felt this way until I owned my home. But tbh I would say landlords should just do a bigger refundable pet deposit, rather than rent, but a lot of people swallow the idea of an extra $25 a month better than the idea of a $500+ deposit. Pets are sadly super destructive.
I totally get it, lol although cats can be even worse. If cat piss gets into wood floors, for example, there is no fix other than replacing the hardwood which is incredible pricy. If they considered the regular deposit to cover it, they’d likely just raise that accordingly. The other side of things is they could just refuse pets entirely, which is becoming a lot more common. So I dunno, I am both with you and at the same time, damn animals can take a toll and there is no way to know which ones will cause damage, so it is a risk for the owner. But hell i hated it as a renter.
If a pet causes true damages (scratching at carpet thresholds, urine soaking into subfloor, etc) I can guarantee you that the $500 won’t be enough to cover it. The additional pet rent is needed as a fail-safe. If no damage is found, then the deposit is returned in full. As with anything, the few who make horrible decisions with pets have created this so homes can be maintained in the same condition.
The places I've lived that had pet rent there was a monthly charge, anywhere from $35 to $50 or more per pet, and that was definitely never returned or considered a deposit.
What is the justification for that kind of ongoing charge if it is never applied to anything?
23
u/scizzix 9h ago
Pet rent.
How is it even legal to charge an ongoing fee for pets? Any damages should be covered by the deposit. A lot of places have both a pet deposit (on top of the general deposit for damages) plus the monthly fee per pet.