As pet owners suffer rental insecurity, perhaps landlords should think again
August 16, 2016 6.08am AEST
In countries where many if not most households have pets, ‘no pets’ rental policies are a serious obstacle to housing security. Mike Hoff/flickr, CC BY-NC Author
Emma Power
Senior Research Fellow, Geography and Urban Studies, Western Sydney University
Disclosure statement
Emma Power receives funding from the Australian Research Council. The 'renting with pets' research was funded through the Western Sydney University Industry Research Partnerships program in conjunction with MARS Petcare.
Pet owners grapple with rental insecurity, new research shows.
Despite the popularity of pet ownership across countries such as Australia (where 63% of households include a pet), the United States (62%) and United Kingdom (46%), rental policy rarely recognises pets as important members of households. Instead, landlords and property agents typically restrict the right to keep pets.
Reports from animal welfare organisations suggest these policies make it difficult for pet owners to find rental housing.
My research shows that pet ownership can trigger feelings of housing insecurity for renter households. The research involved an open survey with 679 households that had rented with pets in Sydney, as well as 28 in-depth interviews.
The majority of survey respondents rated finding pet-friendly housing in their suburb as difficult.
They perceived that it became more difficult to find rental properties after they acquired their pet.
About half of those who always declared their pets when they applied for properties had been given pet ownership as the reason their application was rejected.
These figures are likely to represent only a small proportion of those who have been rejected for pet ownership as reasons for rejection are rarely provided.
A small number of households had even been offered rental housing if they got rid of their pet.
These experiences led to a sense of rental insecurity and feelings of stress when participants wanted or needed to move house. Compromising on quality, cost and location
In the in-depth interviews, households were asked how they found their current rental property.
They explained how long lists of available rental properties would disappear when the “pet-friendly” filter was activated on popular property search websites.
There was also a widespread perception that advertised pet-friendly housing was of a lower quality than housing that did not allow pets.
Many described making compromises on property quality and cleanliness.
Some purposefully chose less desirable properties to increase their chance of success.
Emma Power
