I spent $200 two years ago to register my dogs to avoid non refundable pet admin fees and pet rent. It's saved me almost $5k in bullshit charges.
When landlords stop gouging, I'll stop finding loopholes.
When landlords stop gouging, I'll stop finding loopholes.
You opted in to that price class, and that luxury of having a pet. When you lie that your dogs are service animals, you make life harder for people whose survival depends on it.
Not so with pet deposits in any lease I've seen. They take your money, which is usually non-refundable, and will still charge you for any cleaning and repair not covered by the deposits you paid.
Perhaps it's insurance from the landlord's perspective, but it's an added cost the tenant bears that offers them no financial protection at all.
If a landlord isn't returning your pet deposit when you move out, it's not a deposit, it's a fee. If they're misrepresenting it as a deposit that will be returned, you might have legal recourse, depending on where you live.
What justifies pet deposits being different? What justifies pet rent but not, say, charging extra rent or an extra non-refundable deposit because you have a toddler?
(Is pet rent even collected and applied to the cost of repairing any damage your pet causes? I should find out what's common here.)
As an aside: I've also had a landlord charge almost $5 for a paper statement, or just under $1 to e-mail me a statement instead. (No statement was no option.) They're clearly not above nickel-and-diming their customers—which I found weird because $1 on top of, say, $800 (plausible rent for a two-bedroom unit in not-SF) is nothing—about 0.1% of rent. Which makes it a minor annoyance at worst, but… why bother? $400 (common pet deposit amount in not-SF) + $10/mo (common pet rent, when pet rent is charged) is also nothing—just over 5% of one year's rent. But it's more of a something than a $1 fee for them telling you what you owe this month, which they felt the need to do regardless.
I also opted into no such price class. This has become standard practice in my market. Rents in major metro areas are insane and the additional profiteering on the part of landlords and management companies gets worse every year. They do it because you have virtually no choice but to agree to them.
As for making anyone's life harder: how so?
If you really do have a model pet that damages nothing, why does the landlord get to keep your deposit anyway?
I can grant, say, compulsory carpet replacement—but even then, what if you live there 10 years and the carpet really ought to be replaced whether you had a pet or not? And do two pets double the cost of replacing the carpet?
(Also I know for a fact scroogier landlords will leave the old carpet in when they really shouldn't—when it's 10 years old, the last tenant's cat peed all over it, and also the last tenant chainsmoked indoors. But they'll still collect a non-refundable pet deposit, and probably bill for cleaning in excess of deposits even when that cleaning did not happen.)
Why is that reasonable risk management and not gouging?
A car insurance policy that costs $400 once but only pays for $400 worth of damage ever, and isn't refundable, is a bad deal. No one would buy this unless forced to.
False equivalence.
Not it should not. Dogs are not people! And they should not have the same rights as people. What a ridiculous statement that is.
This whole idea that regular non-service dogs should be allowed everywhere a person is seems to be a product of the ever-increasing narcissism in our society.
How? It's not like legally required accommodation for service and support animals is a finite resource. Just because my hypothetical dog is an ESA doesn't make it harder for yours to be -- in fact it should make life easier for people with real need because more people will be familiar with the requirements and already have procedures/policies in place.
Do you really believe there is no risk or concern a landlord might have for their investment and property. You comment reeks of entitlement.