Allow Pets At Your Rental Property To Increase Its Value

Allow Pets At Your Rental Property To Increase Its Value

The consensus among most landlords is that pets significantly decrease the value of a rental property. This is due to the increased likelihood of damaged furniture, lingering odors, weird stains and loose fur. However, new research suggests apartment owners who ban pets could be missing out on up to 10 per cent in capital growth and rental yields; more than enough to offset a few torn cushions.

Naughty dog picture from Shutterstock

According to “pet industry consultant” and apartment project manager Susie Willis, Australian apartments that enact pet-bans could potentially be missing out on additional revenue from renters. This is mainly due to the fact that around two thirds of all Australians own pets whereas most rental apartments have a strict “no pets” policy in place.

“Research consistently shows us that people are prepared to pay a premium for apartments that allow them to keep their pets, in terms of both prices and rents,” Willis said in an interview with Fairfax Media.

“There’s no doubt that buildings where pets are allowed appeal to more people, and more buyers, both owner-occupiers and investors…In financial terms, it would make sense if body corporates agreed to admit them.”

In other words, if you’re a property investor looking to make some additional revenue, a pro-doggy policy could be the answer you’re looking for. (As to the property damage/bad odor risks, it’s worth noting that you often get this from human tenants too.)

[Via Business Insider]


  • We paid double bond to have our cat at the place I rent. We were happy to pay, and the owners were happy to know that if anything happened, they had extra money to cover it.

      • It was in NSW, but it was about six years ago, so I’m not sure whether the law has changed. Regardless, we were quite happy to pay it.

    • It is also illegal to collect a double bond in Queensland unless the rent is more than $700/wk, the maximum allowed bond is 4 weeks rent. You also cannot collect a pet specific bond. Not sure what exactly the reasoning is behind it, in my case, I also was happy to pay a premium but was left with not too many options, ended up just paying $10/wk extra in rent which I was ok with.

  • i wouldn’t go as far as saying id be happy to pay a premium but it was certainly a deciding factor in wether i even considered a property even more so now i have the pets but more to the point its already pretty well established that at the end of the lease any damage the pets have caused has to be 100% covered by the tenatns and not the owner, its no different to any other cause of damage to the property, i think the decision not to allow pets is more swayed by the stories of bad tenants, which often involve pets, for some reason, its the whole few rotten apples thing.

  • Most people I know with pets lie, it’s either that, be homeless, or get rid of the pet. Even though we have an oversupply of rentals right now, pets allowed is still rare and highly competitive.

  • I’ve yelled at agents a few times who excluded pet-owners against my explicit instructions.

    My pet-owning tenants have been much more reliable, stable renters than not.

    Bad agents have had a worse effect on the state of my property than any tenant or their pet.

  • I allowed pets for my rental property and the eventual tenants said it was incredibly difficult finding a place that did. The few times I was over to repair things, their dog has been most gentle and quiet. Plus, they’ve grown a beautiful flower patch & a veggie patch, cleaned up under the house and put these gorgeous gnomes all over the garden! Pet or not, I’m sure the inside of the house is being taken care of just as well.

    The didn’t, however, declare that they had a pet snake in a tank in the garage….!

  • I hope a lot more landlords and body corporates see this! I specifically chose the place I live in because the body corporate allowed small pets and the owner did as well. Pets bring many people joy and comfort, even good health, as a poster said above, I don’t understand why landlords/real estate agents are so against having pets and so afraid of extra damage when there’s no difference in whether or not permanent damage occurred due to a pet, child, irresponsible housemate or just general scumbag. It all has to be fixed at the end of the tenancy by the tenant!

  • This has always baffled me too. Rental agencies seem to have no restrictions on number/age of children, yet animals are considered wild and dangerous. But I’d argue that kids are more likely to cause physical damage to a property than a pet.

    We rent out a property (privately) and have no objections to the tenants keeping a dog. The floors are all boards or tiles so there’s no problem if any “spills” occur. And all the walls have washable paint. And I don’t really care that the dog digs up the lawn from time to time as kikuyu is virtually indestructible and grows back to fill the gaps. Otherwise the tenants look after the place almost better than we would ourselves. Which generally speaks to the mentality of pet owners.

  • we allow pets at both of our rentals for one simple reason, a dog has never drawn on our walls in crayon!

Show more comments

Comments are closed.

Log in to comment on this story!