DIY Landlord: What's the Difference between Pet Deposit and Pet Rent? Why you should charge both?

What's up, people?

Did you know that you can charge monthly Pet Rent and collect a Pet Deposit when moving a tenant into your investment property? Watch this video to learn the pros and cons of both options.

Plus, you'll learn what questions real estate agents ask when reviewing pet applicants. Don't entertain looking at a pet until you watch this video.

[christophercordes]

So if landlord's want to charge pet rent should your property taxes increase by 4000 a year if you have a pet

[mllebonnechance]

Charging pet rent in addition to a pet deposit is an unreasonable and potentially exploitative practice that warrants dispute. Pet rent essentially amounts to an ongoing, indefinite fee solely based on the presence of a pet in one's home. Unlike a pet deposit, which is intended to cover any damages or cleaning expenses at the end of a lease, pet rent does not serve a clear purpose beyond generating additional income for landlords. This practice can disproportionately burden tenants who are responsible pet owners and take good care of their animals, treating them as family members. It is fundamentally unjust to charge tenants extra for the companionship of their pets, especially when responsible pet ownership is not a detriment to the property. A pet deposit, which can be refunded if no damage occurs, is a more equitable way to address any concerns while ensuring that pet-friendly housing remains accessible to all tenants.

[iicinnxmonbuniip]

how much do you think someone would charge for something like a hamster or gerbil?

[byronewhite]

I can tell some of these comments are from renters. I don't always find all the damage until the property is being inspected and made ready to rent again. The renter wants there deposit back stat so I can't hold it for a time to make sure nothing was missed.

[cindy]

Hi quick question. In the state of Texas can landlords charge pet fees each month if you don't have a pet?

[serendipityblooming]

This is absolutely absurd! A deposit is more than understandable, but pet rent just seems like a greedy way to set up resentment towards the landlord from the getgo. Good luck!!!

[Jean-wkon]

The man who created this video is someone with no real sense of ethics. Of course, it is renters, not property owners, who should be completely responsible for any damage caused by renters' pets. That is what a pet deposit is for, and it should be assed to cover the cost of potential damage and unusual wear-and-tear to the property. It is the property owner's responsibility to reasonably asses what that fee would be, and it is in the property owner's best interest to do that (for several reasons). However, regarding pet rent, here are the rational and ethical problems with what he said. (1) Rent, by definition, is what a person pays for the use and or occupancy of something. In this case, that something is a predefined and limited space, with or without furnishings. Rent is non-refundable.(2) A rental deposit is charged to cover any cost of damages to the owner's property. Rental deposits may be refundable in whole, if no damage is incurred; in part, if some damage is incurred; or not at all, if the full amount of the deposit would be needed to repair damage to the property. (3) When a property owner charges a rental deposit for the tenants and a pet deposit for animals, both deposits can be used to cover any damage to the property, whether the damage was done by adults, children, or animals. (It would be extremely unusual for those combined deposits to not cover all damage to the property.) (4) If the renter is disabled and has a service animal or presents the property owner with a document stating that the animal is needed for service or for the emotional stability of the renter, the property owner cannot charge pet rent. Now, does that mean that the disabled person's dog or the emotionally unstable person's cat will potentially not do any damage or will do less damage to the property? Of course, the obvious answer to that question is no.

Clearly, charging "pet rent" is unethical (for the reasons stated above) and therefore wrong for anyone to claim any logical and reasonable justification for charging "pet rent." Charging a monthly "pet rent" is dishonest and should be deemed illegal. This is simply a ridiculously dishonest way for a rental-property owner to collect more non-refundable money from renters per month.