Many landlords have a preconceived notion that pet owners cause more property damage than non-owners, and they will be a financial burden.
However, research conducted in Australia and the USA demonstrates that pet owners stay twice as long, and pay more rent. They are no more likely to cause damage than non-pet owners. In contrast, renters with children cause an average of $150 more damage per unit per year. In Australia, it is illegal to discriminate against tenants with children, but not tenants with pets.
The inclusion of “no pets” clauses in tenancy agreements clauses is based on the myth that pet owners cause more property damage than non-pet owners. This myth is not supported by research.
There is no evidence to support the notion that pet owners are a greater risk to cause property damage than non-pet owners, and there are many potential benefits from engaging with a high demand and financially rewarding pet-owning tenant’s market including less vacancy time and less costs for advertising.