• Pyr@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 days ago

    I don’t think ita unreasonable to do so, but it should not be in addition to the deposit. Should be one or the other.

    Like, over time it’s more likely for damage from pets to build up and can easily get over $250 after a year or two.

    But good luck getting over $250 damage in 2-3 months.

    So I would see it reasonable to charge per month per pet, in the assumption that there will be damages to fix building up over time.

    • HertzDentalBar@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      23 hours ago

      So a pet should have a deposit or added rent but not a child? Or a second tenant? Is none of this the point of an overall damage deposit

      Slippery fuckin slope.

    • Pup Biru@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      deposit is the only acceptable thing here… rent? no way! you don’t pay rent per person in the house. the landlord is losing nothing per month for your pet

      the potential damages come from the additional deposit/bond