Fucking landlord bullshit

[AdamH]

Me and Katie have been scouring the city for 2 bedroom apartments, and there are a lot of them. There are even a few in our price range which is nice. But what drvies me fucking mental is people who enforce a no pet provision that also excludes cats! I know they have the right to enforce what they want, and I guess I could understand not wanting dogs, but no cats?

we looked a t a beautiful place on waverly yesterday, and everything was set in stone until Mama says no pets in the building. We briefly contemplated lying and just moving in, but if you sign something that says no pets then you've agreed to that policy. And no one wants to be booted out.

[dave-O]

Can landlords still do that (legally)? I know that highrise mgt companies can only say they "discourage" pets.

[ollie]

I've also heard that it's not enforceable. The first lease I signed had a "no pets" provision. Half our building (including me) has pets and it's never been brought up.

[rabidmonkey]

I think the rules are something like this, at least in Ontario:

Only if the pet is dangerous, causes allergic reactions or causes problems for other tenants or the landlord, must you get rid of your pet or consider moving elsewhere.

Even if you signed a lease with a "no pets" clause, if the pet is not a problem for anybody they can not enforce it; such clauses are invalid under the law.

You do not have to move or get rid of the pet unless the Tribunal issues a written order to do so.

[kung]

Yeah I'm with the monkey on this one. I'm one of those cranks whose taken landlords to tenancy hearings and gotten them fined by the city and all- that's my understanding of the situation as well.

[rubberdinghy]

My old landlord has a place to rent on fifth ave...he's pretty cool with pets...The building I live in now had a dog and still has a cat, and he had no problems...Check it out!

[AdamH]

HTanks for your comments, they're all pretty consistent with what I was aware of. What I've found is that, when pressed to give a reason, most landlords will say that someone in the building has an allergy. Whether that is true or not, and despite all the legal reasons to press forwad, there's the practical aspect of just squatting in a unit that you successfully plundered with your two kitties, and always looking over your shoulder knowing the landlord just downright despises you ( I know there are thos landlords who include the clause simply because they don't know better; witness our currnet one who just scratched it off the agreement when we said we had cats).

Rubber where was the building you lived in? Got a phone number?

[SevenSeasJim]

I went through this bullshit a couple years back as well. The landlord's wife said she was allergic to cats. So we told them to "Fuck Off" and bought a house instead.

[Blurry]

Ya, from what I've been told your "squatting" idea is true. I've heard if you can successfully keep your landlord in the dark about your cat for 6 weeks (not too sure on the timeline?!?!) they can't make you get rid of it or make you leave.

Mind you how you prove that you've had the cat there for six weeks - without anyone knowing - might be a little hard.

[AD]

If I lived in a place where someone did that I'd be really put in a bad spot. I have severe allergies to cats, and while I'd hate to try and have someone's pet removed from the building, I would have to do it. I like to breathe and see.

I'm all for staying with your pets, but if you're sharing a building with other people, keep the neighbours' rights in mind so you're not putting anyone in a tricky spot.

AD

[rubberdinghy]

I didn't live in it however my old landlord owns it as well...(He just sold the place I live in...) Anyhoo its 798-1982...It's on fifth just east of Bank st...I think it's a sixplex...