The Australian rental market can be a minefield for tenants, with laws and regulations to protect both renters and landlords.

However, a recent revelation shocked a community of renters and highlighted the lengths some landlords go to protect their properties—even if it means breaking the law.

In a renter's post about pet-friendly rentals, a Victorian landlord openly admitted charging her tenants an illegal 'pet bond'.

'I would rather have pets than kids... I would ask for a pet bond. I have one, it's $1,000 for damages by the pet,' she commented.

The audacity of this statement lies not only in the act itself but in the landlord's brazen disregard for the law.

Pet bonds are not allowed in most Australian states to prevent discrimination among pet owners. Image Credit: Pexels/Meruyert Gonullu

'I have many pets and don't turn down animals. Again, kids have done more damage than animals in my experience,' she further justified her illegal charge.

'Most renters are happy to do it because they can have animals.'

Her reasoning did not sit well with many, as it forces tenants to choose between their pets and a place to live.

Charging a pet bond is strictly prohibited in most Australian states and territories.

'Rental providers and owners cannot ask for an additional bond as a pet bond,' the Consumer Affairs Victoria stated.

This rule prevents discrimination against pet owners and ensures that standard bonds cover any potential damages to the property, regardless of the source.

The reaction from the public has been one of shock and dismay.

Comments poured in, many pointing out the unfairness and illegality of the landlord's actions.

'So, it's like emotional blackmail. Nice,' one commenter wrote.

'You already have a pet bond; it's called a bond,' another highlighted. 'Something like this would only be justified if the pet was an elephant or a termite colony.'

'I would not describe myself as "happy" to be exploited over an illegal bond that I can't dispute because the alternative is that it's almost impossible to get a rental with pets,' a third commented.

In contrast to Victoria, Western Australia allows pet bonds. However, pet bonds are capped at $260.

This bond is specifically for the potential cost of fumigation at the end of the tenancy if the pet can carry parasites that can affect humans.

It's a regulated and legal approach contrasting the Victorian landlord's $1,000 charge.

The conversation around this issue raised essential questions about enforcing rental laws and protecting tenants' rights.

More must be done to ensure landlords adhere to the regulations and that tenants feel empowered to report illegal practices without fear of losing their homes.

For renters, it's crucial to be aware of your rights and the laws that protect you and your furry friends.

If you encounter a landlord requesting an illegal pet bond, know that you have the right to refuse and report the matter to the relevant authorities.

Key Takeaways

• A Victorian landlord admitted to charging tenants a 'pet bond' despite it being illegal.
• The landlord justified this by saying pets cause less damage than children in her properties and believed most renters are willing to pay.
• Outrage and criticism erupted as 'pet bonds' are expressly prohibited in Victoria and most states. Consumer Affairs Victoria confirmed that landlords can't request an additional pet bond.
• Pet bonds are legal in Western Australia, where the maximum charge is $260—far less than the $1,000 the Victoria landlord demanded.

Have you faced similar challenges with landlords? How did you ensure a safe space for you and your furry friends? Share your thoughts with us in the comments section below.

 

[Abby2]

Owning a pet cat should come with clear responsibilities to ensure your pet is not roaming around killing our native birds, mammals, reptiles and frogs.

 

[Rob44]

Tenants and their pet animals. Depends on the tenant's sense of responsibility to ensure that the place they are renting suffers no more than "fair wear" and tear, whatever that may be interpreted as. Some "fair wear and tear" can be extremely expensive and difficult to fix. Fleas and pets' parasites are not "fair wear and tear" but I am sure that one can't hold back a bond to pay for fumigation and disinfectant as that's fleas, sir, bad luck, you shouldn't allow tenants' pets in your property..........

 

[gamiry]

Owning a pet cat should come with clear responsibilities to ensure your pet is not roaming around killing our native birds, mammals, reptiles and frogs.

what about the dogs that kill all these plus humans. Fox terriers were used to kill mice and rats by the Brisbane City Council. I knew someone who had a foxie which would try to kill everything and even took on a goanna.

 

[Kentsue]

Landlords are paying a mortgage,insurance rates and water to the property just for people that choose not to buy a house of their own
If people want to have a pet it’s quite simple buy you own house and then you can do as you want
As far as freezing rent goes the day they freeze the mortgage rises and insurance going up rates going up then landlords should not be told how to run their business

 

[Rob44]

Landlords are paying a mortgage,insurance rates and water to the property just for people that choose not to buy a house of their own
If people want to have a pet it’s quite simple buy you own house and then you can do as you want
As far as freezing rent goes the day they freeze the mortgage rises and insurance going up rates going up then landlords should not be told how to run their business

Don't forget land tax and capital gains tax when one sells; the capital gains tax is not inflation-adjusted. Buy an investment house at 1990 prices in a State capital city and the capital gain now can be ten times that because of inflation, but assume you sell that $60 000 house for $600 000 the capital gains tax will be on 50% of the $540 000 change in price ($270 000) and then taxed at 45 % even in these of 33% top income tax rate. So you lose about $130 000 to capital gains tax. Now you want to buy another house for $600 000?. Sorry you only have $470 00 maximum to do so and where does one buy a house for $470 00 these days? Not in any State's capital city. Probably less expensive to have it burn down and to collect the insurance.

 

[Sloopy]

Maybe illegal, but plenty of pet owners would rather have to pay a pet bond than either get rid of their pet or not have somewhere to live themselves.

 

[gamiry]

You want a pet, be like me and get some fish or birds. Nothing they can do with "enclosed pets". My cockatiel sadly died last year but I still have a 4 foot tank of fish. They can live so long. my oldest gold fish died a few weeks ago at 15 years of age. I also have a bristlenose fish who is over 10 years old and gets on with all the other fish. One + you don't have to walk them in the rain.

 

[joany]

Tenants and their pet animals. Depends on the tenant's sense of responsibility to ensure that the place they are renting suffers no more than "fair wear" and tear, whatever that may be interpreted as. Some "fair wear and tear" can be extremely expensive and difficult to fix. Fleas and pets' parasites are not "fair wear and tear" but I am sure that one can't hold back a bond to pay for fumigation and disinfectant as that's fleas, sir, bad luck, you shouldn't allow tenants' pets in your property..........

As a landlord you have no choice , tenants can have pets and there’s nothing the landlord can do as the new law says they can have animals.

 

[gamiry]

As a landlord you have no choice , tenants can have pets and there’s nothing the landlord can do as the new law says they can have animals.

the new law might say that but my landlord would just say "get out".I can't even get my back wire door open and concrete to clothes line, just over 2 feet, is dangerous and has been like it for over 3 years I've been here. My clothes line is a length of rope tied to the lattice After 3 years I finally got permission to put in an outside powerpoint for my scooter and I had to pay for it. Even my estate agent can't make this woman do what needs to be done.

 

[Knell]

Don't forget land tax and capital gains tax when one sells; the capital gains tax is not inflation-adjusted. Buy an investment house at 1990 prices in a State capital city and the capital gain now can be ten times that because of inflation, but assume you sell that $60 000 house for $600 000 the capital gains tax will be on 50% of the $540 000 change in price ($270 000) and then taxed at 45 % even in these of 33% top income tax rate. So you lose about $130 000 to capital gains tax. Now you want to buy another house for $600 000?. Sorry you only have $470 00 maximum to do so and where does one buy a house for $470 00 these days? Not in any State's capital city. Probably less expensive to have it burn down and to collect the insurance.

Not sure I see the view-point of investment properties coming from altruistic motives.
So, your $60,000 initial commitment is being largely paid off by way of tenants paying off the mortgage, presumably as an investment for future self funding (including the benefits of tax deductions along the way)- actually makes good with an asset of $600,000. I would have thought most would be happy about that. So, yes, if you want to sell and repurchase another investment property you will pay the capital gains tax, yet your $60,000 has become $470,000, apart of the tax deductions along the way. If this investment was for say, superannuation - funds for retirement - how is this a bad problem to have? Or is this just a bad investment choice?
“…but we all like our tax cuts, don’t we”? I always thought you were coming from a Socialist point of view.

 

[Rob44]

Maybe illegal, but plenty of pet owners would rather have to pay a pet bond than either get rid of their pet or not have somewhere to live themselves.

As a landlord you have no choice , tenants can have pets and there’s nothing the landlord can do as the new law says they can have animals.

Most unfortunate. Therefore a "pet bond" becomes essential. Having spent an entire day cleaning up the dog-shit scattered across the back garden by the tenant's doggies, the tenant having who done a runner owing a couple of thousand dollars............it's odd how tenants whinge when treated decently.

Not sure I see the view-point of investment properties coming from altruistic motives.
So, your $60,000 initial commitment is being largely paid off by way of tenants paying off the mortgage, presumably as an investment for future self funding (including the benefits of tax deductions along the way)- actually makes good with an asset of $600,000. I would have thought most would be happy about that. So, yes, if you want to sell and repurchase another investment property you will pay the capital gains tax, yet your $60,000 has become $470,000, apart of the tax deductions along the way. If this investment was for say, superannuation - funds for retirement - how is this a bad problem to have? Or is this just a bad investment choice?
“…but we all like our tax cuts, don’t we”? I always thought you were coming from a Socialist point of view.

1) The deductions along the way include the repairs because of the tenants' neglect or vandalism. That happens; coffee thrown over walls, holes punched in walls, lights and curtains stolen, fitted carpet stolen, doors removed and burnt in the fire etc. There are no deductions for non-payment of rent when a tenant deliberately doesn't pay rent whilst occupying a property.

2) Capital gains tax. A house is a house is a house. One could see it as reasonable that if one house gets sold one should be able to use the money to buy another, although there is the estate agent to pay, the cost of removals/renovation to enable sale and the stamp duty ($24 000 on a $650 000 house where I live). A landlord pays income tax on the rental income, less legitimate tax-deductible costs of doing business. This includes interest on borrowings to buy the house; what is good for BHP, if it borrows billions, is surely legitimate for a landlord. But individual landlords are an easy target, BHP is not.

3) And of course superannuation. The aim is investment for a profit and for the Australian taxpayer not to pay taxes enough to support all those who have had to retire because of age and consequent decrepitude. When such events as the Great Financial Scam of 2007-2008 occur, one can lose a considerable amount of superannuation overnight. My remaining superannuation went on getting a son through medical school. Working in a rural public hospital, he has felt obliged on occasion to call the local helicopter service to get patients to a big-city hospital where they can receive proper life-saving treatment, much to the dismay of the rural hospital's administrators who didn't want to spend the money. Rural hospitals are not that well-equipped, are under-funded and are commonly staffed by locum doctors there for only a day or few days, and who obey management as they may want return. However, how I spend money is my choice, and I could have left my son to live on the streets whilst at the university of his choice; he is also needing to buy a house, and that is part of my evil landlord's plan to protect my family. House prices never reduce significantly and are now horrifyingly high; that, alone, is ridiculous as a house is a house and commonly deteriorates with age.

4) Yes; I would like to see an Australian government with the courage to put in train the social reforms of the former Attlee Labour government in the UK; massive yearly investment in low-rent Council Housing, free child care and free tuition fees for tertiary students, non-repayable grant assistance for uni/TAFE/polytechnic students' costs of living, a proper NHS, nationalised public transport, nationalised telephone service, City Councils doing their jobs properly, no rorts for the AFL etc and a decent, government-guaranteed old age pension on which two people can live without fear of hunger or of being homeless. But we have CentreLink. And food-banks. And can blame refugees for our social problems.

That would cost money, and we really don't want a graduated income-tax system starting at 60% top rate, do we? Australia has voted repeatedly for what it is now, LNP or ALP, a dog-eat-dog country with a bit of mateship thrown in behind closed doors. So I have taken steps to safeguard my family's future and get a son educated using what personal resources have come my way.

Waltzing Matilda!

 

[Knell]

Most unfortunate. Therefore a "pet bond" becomes essential. Having spent an entire day cleaning up the dog-shit scattered across the back garden by the tenant's doggies, the tenant having who done a runner owing a couple of thousand dollars............it's odd how tenants whinge when treated decently.

1) The deductions along the way include the repairs because of the tenants' neglect or vandalism. That happens; coffee thrown over walls, holes punched in walls, lights and curtains stolen, fitted carpet stolen, doors removed and burnt in the fire etc. There are no deductions for non-payment of rent when a tenant deliberately doesn't pay rent whilst occupying a property.

2) Capital gains tax. A house is a house is a house. One could see it as reasonable that if one house gets sold one should be able to use the money to buy another, although there is the estate agent to pay, the cost of removals/renovation to enable sale and the stamp duty ($24 000 on a $650 000 house where I live). A landlord pays income tax on the rental income, less legitimate tax-deductible costs of doing business. This includes interest on borrowings to buy the house; what is good for BHP, if it borrows billions, is surely legitimate for a landlord. But individual landlords are an easy target, BHP is not.

3) And of course superannuation. The aim is investment for a profit and for the Australian taxpayer not to pay taxes enough to support all those who have had to retire because of age and consequent decrepitude. When such events as the Great Financial Scam of 2007-2008 occur, one can lose a considerable amount of superannuation overnight. My remaining superannuation went on getting a son through medical school. Working in a rural public hospital, he has felt obliged on occasion to call the local helicopter service to get patients to a big-city hospital where they can receive proper life-saving treatment, much to the dismay of the rural hospital's administrators who didn't want to spend the money. Rural hospitals are not that well-equipped, are under-funded and are commonly staffed by locum doctors there for only a day or few days, and who obey management as they may want return. However, how I spend money is my choice, and I could have left my son to live on the streets whilst at the university of his choice; he is also needing to buy a house, and that is part of my evil landlord's plan to protect my family. House prices never reduce significantly and are now horrifyingly high; that, alone, is ridiculous as a house is a house and commonly deteriorates with age.

4) Yes; I would like to see an Australian government with the courage to put in train the social reforms of the former Attlee Labour government in the UK; massive yearly investment in low-rent Council Housing, free child care and free tuition fees for tertiary students, non-repayable grant assistance for uni/TAFE/polytechnic students' costs of living, a proper NHS, nationalised public transport, nationalised telephone service, City Councils doing their jobs properly, no rorts for the AFL etc and a decent, government-guaranteed old age pension on which two people can live without fear of hunger or of being homeless. But we have CentreLink. And food-banks. And can blame refugees for our social problems.

That would cost money, and we really don't want a graduated income-tax system starting at 60% top rate, do we? Australia has voted repeatedly for what it is now, LNP or ALP, a dog-eat-dog country with a bit of mateship thrown in behind closed doors. So I have taken steps to safeguard my family's future and get a son educated using what personal resources have come my way.

Waltzing Matilda!

Yes, Waltzing Matilda - God Save the King….and all that!

I get a bit dizzy from the dancing around. You can be as obtuse as you like - perhaps it's a case of want your cake and eat it too?

1. Yes I have some understanding of how investment properties work, thanks. Yes, we do indeed make our choices on how and what investments we make. Nothing is without risk, upturns and downturns.
2. In 1990 CGT was in place, so a known variable at point of investment choice. The GFC happened to all of us - I wasn’t born yesterday. It recovered and how well we recovered depended upon choices we may have made at that time. As Franklin said - “in this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes”. Yes, many of us put their children though Uni - and they lived at home until such time that their excellent education produced an excellent income and afforded them the time to save and have a good deposit to purchase a home of their own…hence they do it on their own now and do not live pay to pay - it is a choice made because of a choice, however, again irrelevant.

1. As a medical professional - they have an obligation to provide or facilitate proper life-saving treatment/transport, - your comment “dismay of rural hospital’s administrators” I do not understand this statement - money comes from a different pot - it is funded by various means….and everyone has the privilege of such help, free of charge ...however all this blab is irrelevant to this discussion at hand. Yes, again a house is a house, of course of course! …whatever that means - more dancing? And land is more valuable in some areas. However, selling the nest egg/investment property does mean your pension may be affected perhaps?
2. Attlee - 1945-1951 - well before my time (and yours I suspect) but it seems that the people voted. A long time ago and a different world. English politics. Three nations that tried socialism - failed.

Australia or Straya as you like sling it, is a democratic country, thank goodness. We all have one vote and it is every individuals choice to make. Like it or leave it is always a choice. This is my country and would rather be "standing in it" than anywhere else.

 

[Rob44]

Attlee; gidday young 'un. Before your time, pity. No ;'socialism' did not fail in the UK. Unfortunately a minority of the British electorate voted Thatcher into power, three times too often. That's democracy and the place is now a neo-Victorian mess with enhanced poverty. Australia is also my country and it could be doing a lot better socially; it is rich enough to do without needing food-banks. But none of us want to pay taxes, do we, let alone a top income-tax rate of 60% to help those less wealthy?

Waltzing Matilda; an ironical song, classically Australian although that ironical sense of humour goes back further than 1788. A low-class thief gets nobbled for nicking a sheep by a high-class thief riding his thoroughbread backed up by three coppers; it's very mediaeval. At least he wasn't nicked for poaching Milord's rabbit.

 

[Knell]

Attlee; gidday young 'un. Before your time, pity. No ;'socialism' did not fail in the UK. Unfortunately a minority of the British electorate voted Thatcher into power, three times too often. That's democracy and the place is now a neo-Victorian mess with enhanced poverty. Australia is also my country and it could be doing a lot better socially; it is rich enough to do without needing food-banks. But none of us want to pay taxes, do we, let alone a top income-tax rate of 60% to help those less wealthy?

Waltzing Matilda; an ironical song, classically Australian although that ironical sense of humour goes back further than 1788. A low-class thief gets nobbled for nicking a sheep by a high-class thief riding his thoroughbread backed up by three coppers; it's very mediaeval. At least he wasn't nicked for poaching Milord's rabbit.

"But none of us want to pay taxes, do we, let alone a top income-tax rate of 60% to help those less wealthy?" ..... Apparently not!
I know the song - are we dancing again or just being obscure for fun?
Anyway, I always read what you post - usually sends me down a rabbit hole on google haha...that's a good thing, it's engaging.

 

[Rob44]

"But none of us want to pay taxes, do we, let alone a top income-tax rate of 60% to help those less wealthy?" ..... Apparently not!
I know the song - are we dancing again or just being obscure for fun?
Anyway, I always read what you post - usually sends me down a rabbit hole on google haha...that's a good thing, it's engaging.

There is nothing, absolutely nothing, quite like stirring the possum. Keep laughing; we are dead for far too long!

 

[Knell]

There is nothing, absolutely nothing, quite like stirring the possum. Keep laughing; we are dead for far too long!

True that! lol