In the realm of rental housing, a curious disparity often unfolds: while children are typically embraced in rental accommodations, the same warmth is seldom extended to their furry companions. This peculiar dynamic stems from a prevalent belief that most dogs and cats prove to be commendable tenants, unlike the perceived hazards often associated with young children and adolescents. Nonetheless, as Michelle Le Long, Chief Operating Officer of PD Insurance, points out, pet owners frequently encounter hurdles in securing suitable rental properties, despite their beloved animals boasting commendable tenancy records.
However, there is a glimmer of hope on the horizon.
Le Long highlights a positive shift in the government’s approach with the introduction of a Pet Bond, aiming to alleviate the challenges faced by pet owners in securing rental accommodations. Similar to a traditional bond, the Pet Bond serves as a precautionary measure in the event of unforeseen circumstances, with the majority of the bond typically refunded to the tenant upon lease termination.
In a bid to delve deeper into the struggles faced by “pet renters,” PD Insurance conducted a comprehensive Pet Parent Survey in May 2024. Drawing responses from over 2400 individuals across New Zealand, the survey shed light on the myriad challenges, experiences, and perspectives of dog and cat owners navigating the rental landscape.
Undoubtedly, finding a rental property becomes a Herculean task when pets enter the equation. While only 23 percent of respondents identified as renters, the consensus was clear: securing accommodation is far from straightforward. Approximately 59 percent of respondents deemed the process extremely challenging, with an additional 27 percent rating it as moderately difficult.
“Landlords typically exhibit a preference for tenants without pets,” observes Le Long. “However, the introduction of a Pet Bond may sway undecided landlords, potentially opening doors for pet-owning tenants.”
Le Long finds encouragement in the mere 2.1 percent of respondents who reported rehoming their pets due to rental difficulties. While acknowledging this as a distressing occurrence, she finds solace in its rarity, suggesting that the introduction of a Pet Bond may mitigate such scenarios.
The concept of the Pet Bond garners widespread support among pet parents, with nearly 93 percent expressing approval. This enthusiasm is unsurprising, given the broader willingness observed among respondents to incur expenses associated with pet ownership, including measures aimed at securing pet-friendly housing.
When questioned about the ideal Pet Bond amount, respondents exhibited a range of perspectives. Fifty-four percent expressed willingness to pay one week’s rent (between $500 – $1000), while 22 percent were amenable to parting with two weeks’ rent (between $1000 – $2000). A mere three percent indicated willingness to pay three weeks’ rent or more (between $1500 – $3000). Additionally, a significant proportion of pet parents expressed readiness to pay a premium for a dog or cat-friendly home, underscoring the value placed on accommodating their beloved companions.
Despite prevalent “No Pets Allowed” policies in rental advertisements, Le Long contends that such blanket restrictions may seem unjustifiable, particularly considering that a significant portion of households includes pets. She advocates for a nuanced approach, acknowledging landlords’ discretion over their properties while emphasizing the individual merits of pet owners as potential tenants. Le Long suggests that landlords consider factors beyond traditional assessments, such as “pet references,” to gauge the responsibility of prospective tenants and their furry companions.
In essence, while navigating the rental landscape may pose challenges for pet owners, initiatives like the Pet Bond offer a glimmer of hope in fostering a more inclusive and accommodating environment for both tenants and their beloved pets.
Related Topics:
