Pet Fee vs. Security Deposit

[Flafla.away]

I just moved out of my apartment, where I lived for 2-plus years. With two dogs and two kids, we were admittedly hard on the carpet.
I received landlord's demand for payment to replace carpet today, at a depreciated rate, and other charges including flea treatment.
The problem is that only my security deposit was applied ($500). Pet "fees" of $400 per dog, total $800, were not applied to anything.
This is the second time this has happened to me, in Florida. The first time, I called the landlord to complain and was told that they were not obligated to apply any of the pet "fees" to pet damage. The fees were "just to be able to have a pet."
This is unfair at the least, even extortion and/or discrimination against pet owners, isn't it?

[OHlandlord]

There is a difference between a pet fee and a pet deposit. The terms are not interchangeable. A pet deposit is just that, a deposit. Money used to hold & apply toward damages for the pet (just as a security deposit is money used to hold & apply toward damages to the unit). Pet deposit money in excess of any pet damages is refundable.

A pet fee is only money paid for the ability to have a pet. It is not applied toward anything. It is not refundable. It represents extra money the LL requires to make up for the extra wear & tear on the unit. This wear & tear is not to be confused with damages. You and 2 children would cause a normal amount of wear & tear on a place. Adding 2 dogs to the unit causes an extra amount of wear on the unit. The pet fee is to pay for this. It is not for damages.

LLs do not usually accept pets in their units because of the extra wear & tear and the chances of extra damages to the unit. Extra wear & tear might be vinyl flooring that has a wear pattern near the door, leaving pet hair and dander around the unit, or nose prints on the windows. Ruined carpets and fleas are two of the most common damages, along with scratched/chewed woodwork, floors, & doors, torn screens, torn up yards, uncleaned waste from the yard, pets smells, pet accidents in the house, etc. For this reason, LLs take pet deposits in return for the possibility of damages not covered by the security deposit and take pet fees for the extra wear & tear.

In the future, you should be sure the pet money you pay is termed a "pet deposit" if you want it applied toward pet damages. However, this may limit the number of places where you will be able to live. Most LLs term their pet money as FEES. In many places, the LL will actually charge you a non-refundable pet fee *AND* an extra pet rent each month (usually an extra $25 per animal per month). None of this applies toward damages. Many times the LL is left with not enough deposit to cover the damages. We end up unable to collect the extra damages and lose money because of these damages.

This is neither discriminatory, nor extortion. To be discriminatory it would have to rule out renting to one of the classes of people protected by the Federal Fair Housing Law. Pets are not included in there. LLs do not have to accept pets (with the exception of service animals which are included under the Disability Act), smokers, waterbeds, unauthorized occupants, people with poor credit, those having poor prior LL references, or those with a history of damages to their previous units, to name a few.

LLs just do not want their places destroyed. They do not like the extra wear on their carpets, floors, walls, doors, windows, etc. But they definitely don't want the damages. You yourself said, "we were admittedly hard on the carpet." The LL had to take deductions for "replacing carpet, at a depreciated rate, and other charges including flea treatment." So you ruined the carpet and left the place with fleas in just over 2 yrs. In fact, you said, "This is the second time this has happened to me." So you have shown a history of this. You might think of getting rid of the dogs and save yourself lots on money on places you rent. You are not taking care of the places. I suggest you pay the LL the money for the damages you caused.

[Flafla.away]

OH Landlord,
I honestly am not disputing the fact that the carpet needed replacing as well as the pad and that flea treatments needed to be done.
I understand the extra wear and tear that dogs cause, and in fact, that I caused. What disturbs me is that all of the types of things you mention that happen, damagewise, are outlined on the statement the landlord sent me and charged me for. In other words, he is receiving an additional $800 from those pet fees and applying none of it to those wear and tear issues.
Do you think it is unreasonable of me to want to know what those $800 fees are paying for?
And I'm sure it sounds reasonable to many people to just get rid of the dogs, but like many (most?) pet owners, I can tell you that it's just, well, out of the question.
Thanks for your help.

[OHlandlord]

Your $800 was paid for the priviledge of having those pets in that unit. Nothing more. It doesn't apply to any damages. If you think the LL charged you for wear and tear instead of damages, you may challenge it in court. Since these are the only deductions you mentioned, I can't comment on any of the other charges. But I can tell you, ruined carpet and fleas are not wear and tear, they are damages not covered by that pet fee. Perhaps you should look into buying your own home. If you are paying these types of fees every couple years, it may be worth it.

[Flafla.away]

Thank you. Actually, I've been in my own home a month, and there is no carpet!

IOW, it's a b.s. fee. If a pet causes extra wear and tear it can and should be addressed by increasing the damage deposit. Why penalize those who take care of a property, keep up repairs and maintenance and don't allow their pets to damage the place?

A home we just looked at has a 'cleaning fee' and a 'redecorating fee,' as well. The only way to counteract this kind of nonsense and keep it from becoming standard practice is to vote with your feet (and I say that as a former landlady).

A pet fee is not a BS fee, as you say. Pets can and do cause damages. Those damages are not wear and tear since they would not occur if you did not have a pet in the unit. In cerain states, a LL cannot increase the security deposit to cover the damages that may be done by a pet. Many states limit the amount of deposit a LL may take or make the LL pay a prohibitively high interest rate on any deposit over a specified level. This the LLs in these types of states charge a pet fee rather than a higher deposit. State law treats this pet fee differently than the deposit and it is a way around all the regulation on the deposit.

Pets cause a different kind of damages than you get with other tenants or their children. Scratches on floors, doors, and trimwork, torn screens, pet stains in carpet and floors, urine smells, pet dander and hair in carpets, window coverings, and ductwork that the next tenant may be allergic to, not to mention fleas! You don't get these types of damages with anything other than a pet. Thus the normal deposit isn't sufficient to cover these. This pet fee is a standard business practice and is justified by the number of pet owners who do not care for the property and their pets. (If they all too great care of the pets and their places, no one would ever charge these fees!)

Now the fees you list ARE bogus! A cleaning fee should only be charged when there is need to clean the unit after a tenant leaves. If the tenant leaves the unit if clean, rentable condition, there is no need to charge this fee because nothing needs cleaned. A redecorating fee is a true BS fee because it merely justifies the LL passing on his normal improvements to you, the tenant. Those improvements and redecorating is part of the normal business practice and is tax deductible already. To pass that along to the tenant is truely BS!