Topic: Companion Pets in relation to Deposits, proof, size, breed and number.

I need some help here. I guess I'm a little rusty on exactly what is necessary. I just received a call from a Veteran with PTSD. First let me explain, I value all of our veterans especially those who were wounded in service to our country. Here's my dilemma.

He has two service dogs, a Lab and a smaller dog, not specified. He states that he does not have to prove they are service dogs and that I am not allowed to charge a pet deposit or a pet fee.


I explained to him that anyone could come and say they had a service pet, and that I would need some kind of verification if I were going to allow a pet that did not meet the current guidelines and requirements. This is when he stated I was not allowed to ask for this.

He also said that the Lab is his and the other "service dog" is his wife's. I'm wondering why she needs a companion dog. But am I allowed to openly wonder?

In short, I told him I would be happy to accept his application, and that I would do the necessary research to handle his pets in the correct manor.

So...What are my options? Can I charge him a pet deposit? Can I question the validity of the service pets? Is the wife actually disabled and needs one too? Is he as a disabled vet entitled to more than one legal service pet?

The last thing I want to do is harass a wounded vet, but the first thing I want to do is to protect the owners asset.

H E L P !!!

Here's a link to an article that may help:

www.fairhouse.net/library/article.php?id=18

Also you may want to check with corporate or other managers in your company to see how it's been handled before. :cheer:

Thank you, Kimberly. That was very helpful. It answers almost all of my questions.

Now I am waiting on a return call from The Louisiana HUD office to make my options crystal clear.

I really appreciate the quick response. Fair housing is not something you want to get wrong!!! :)

Absolutely, also with all the different names service animal, companion animal etc. it's hard to know what's what! B)

Your company should have a Reasonable Accommodation Request form for him to fill out. It is formatted and will have a section for a medical professional to fill out. There is a check box (yes or no) when asked if the person has a disability, and the medical professional will need to specify the specific accommodation being requested and answer why the accommodation is necessary. You should NOT ask why his wife needs a service animal (or anyone, for that matter). Let the forms do the talking.

A few things to note:

• The medical professional doesn't have to be a doctor. A psychologist, therapist, etc works too.
• You cannot charge a pet deposit or pet rent
• If your community doesn't allow pets, service animals trump that rule because they aren't technically "pets"
  
  Also, if you think you might deny the request, take it up the chain a little to make sure you are clear to do so. Good luck!

Forgot to add - I've had about 25 Reasonable Accommodation Requests in the last year for Service/companion/emotional support animals. In my opinion, only about 5 were legit. BUT, my opinion doesn't matter when a medical professional certifies the need. We have a community that doesn't allow pets and people have gotten wise to the loop hole.

Thank you! That was very informative. I have already downloaded the request form from my research yesterday. I'm well aware of the perils of violating fair housing laws, which is why I wanted to be crystal clear on this. What really stumped me the most was being told I could not ask for the validity of the service animals.

Needless to say, I have not heard back from the HUD office in New Orleans. :S

I bet it did stump you! That was probably his motive - stump you into a "yes". Good luck! :)

Technically you are not allowed to ask about the pet and you can not charge him a pet deposit.Pull up the American's With Disability law- it is all in that.

Best of Luck,
Sandy Glover

Here is my 8 pennies' worth (2 + inflation, insurance, interest rates and income tax):


Unless the need is obvious to the lay person (meaning a seeing eye dog for an applicant who is blind); it must be verified. If you use a reasonable accomodation/modification form, you should use it but all you need is a letter from a medical type professional on their stationery that states the FACT of the need, not the NATURE of it. We property management professionals do not need to know or understand the specifics of the need, just that it exists in the first place.


IMHO, you should include police dogs as companions because they are working animals and often go home with their handlers. You should also consider allowing a resident to train a service/companion animal the same rights as a resident that needs one as this is done on a volunteer basis and is very involved for 2 years or more before being assigned to someone that needs it (I have a cousin that is about to receive a seeing eye dog as we speak and it has been in training for 3 years).

Once the conditons of the need for the animal have been established; any kind of pet rent, additional deposit, or size/breed restrictions DO NOT APPLY the same as to pets. You CAN, however, place the same kind of care and behavior restrictions to the household with the service/companion animal as if the animal were still a pet (this referring to cleaning up after the animal, noise issues, abuse of the animal, if the animal bites anyone on property, or causes other kinds of damage).

While you can't ask about the disability, you CAN ask the medical professional why the accommodation is necessary.

And as a technicality, don't ever refer to the animal as "pet", because it isn't. It's a Service Animal (or Companion animal, etc.). That was a hard habit for me to break! As another poster said, though a deposit or additional rent cannot be charged, the pet rules must be followed by the owner/animal.

I noticed a Fair Housing course in regards to this very topic on April 9th, I think. It was on this site. Might be interesting!

I am sorry, but you are mistaken on a few points. A service animal is not a pet and can not be treated as such under AWD act and under HUD discrimination laws. A service animal must be allowed anywhere the public is invited and that includes an apartment. The exception would be if the animal is destructive or dangerous; and these animals seldom are unless they feel their handler is threatened. There are all so may be HIPPA laws that apply. The person does not have to disclose his/her disability if it is not obvious. For more information go to the American's With Disability and HUD Housing Compliance and Discrimination Division in Washington, DC. As far as police dogs go, you are right, they are considered a member of the department and should be welcomed-great security.

Sandy, the gentleman I spoke with at The Department of Justice, American Disabilities Act section, would not verify that claim. He said that the law applies to public places but that Housing was not considered a public domain.

He referred me to HUD and subsequently I called the Department of Housing and Urban Development in New Orleans, LA and no one would return my call of discuss it with me.

Thank you all for your very fine responses and it has been very informative for me. One thing is clear. The clear cut definitive answer is as clear as mud. The request forms seem to be the way to go to do my best to protect the owner's asset. Also to only acknowledge that there is a request and to act on this request by concise documentation every step of the way.

Courses on this topic are definitely a good resource. Thank you for the information regarding the next session!

Ann, your comments have been immensely helpful to me. Thanks so much! :)

I'm so glad! If you want, I can forward you a copy of our Request forms.

Thank you Ann, but I downloaded the ones from the site that you sent me to. Now I'm prepared. I just followed up with my prospect in question. They have renewed at their current location but thanked me for following up and have decided to come and pay me a visit in the near future.

:)

I was a victim's advocate for the domestic abuse council which includes housing for disabled victims,and the law is very clear. The folks in DC have the answer. That said you should have your attorneys research-illegally refusing a disabled person could land you in court and I doubt if your owner would appreciate that at all! or on the news

Sandy; the OP did not refuse to accept the application. He indicated that he was not sure how to handle the request and would need to get some advice before responding; which he did here and through his team.

This is a perfect example of what we need to know in terms of the kinds of questions we CAN ask and those we CAN'T when it comes to ADA requests.

To summarize; we CAN ask the following:

1) What is the accommodation / modification request.
2) Unless the need is obvious to the layperson, we can ask to verify the FACT that the need exists with medical personnel, just not the DETAILS of the need as that information falls under HIPAA and is confidential. The applicant can choose to share the information, but we don't need to. We do need to verify the need medically. This is a case where we need to document everything regarding the request, including the response.


The one thing that should be automatic is if you happen to process an application for a hearing impaired person; you need to make sure that at least one of the smoke detectors is replaced with a strobe based one. Medical verification in this case is not needed as you should notice this issue when interacting with them. Go ahead and fill out the reasonable modification request documentation and when it asks for the verification of need, simply write in that staff was able to identify the issue without asking about it. Same thing if the applicant is obviously blind and has a seeing eye dog.

I once had a resident ask that carpeting be removed from the living area of the unit as she suffered from some sort of breating difficulty. She happened to have a written prescription for vinyl flooring that was signed and attached to her request.

The Fair Housing Act doesn't define "service animal" and doesn't even specify the animal be certified as such, or not certified or even be designated as a support animal. Housing providers cannot even mandate that the service animal wear a special tag. The Act doesn't limit the number of service/companion animals a PWD can have. Persons with disabilities should make a request for reasonable accommodations for their service animals but as a Manager, I would not ask why there is a need for the request for reasonable accommodation. It is non of my business and it is not my right to ask.

There is really no reason to "verify" either, but most Residents I have ever worked with will simply supply a letter from their physician to place in their file when they make a reasonable accommodation request. I still do not ask. I used to years ago, but stopped because my FH class specified it was not correct to do so.

There is also a Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, HUD's Pets in Elderly Housing regulation from 1986 that was updated as late as 1999 and the Americans with Disability Act that all prohibit this type of discrimination. Lastly, medical costs that are declared at recertification time apply toward the spend down used to calculate rent when the person lives in subsidized housing.

Don't ask; just do it.

Today I had a prospect come to view an apartment. His wife has a Chihuahua but said that if it was extra he would leave it at his parent's home. I explained to him that the pet could not visit without a pet deposit. Then he said to me...Well my brothers are policemen and they said that all I have to do is get it registered for about $50.00 and then you can't limit me or ask me any questions.

So... what d ya do??? What I am hearing is that...Anyone can get a pet registered and then at that point...I can not even ask a question?

There has to be a happy medium somewhere in this whole scenario. Eventually, this system is going to be so misused and only after, a lot of property damages due to animals, and the are owners going to lobby the fair housing bureau for stronger qualifications along with the proper documentation to substantiate claims.

We're talking cumulatively speaking nation wide...millions of dollars in potential property damage due to the gaping loophole in this legislation.

Consider this as a comparison...When a doctor prescribes narcotics for pain relief...the pharmacist does not just hand it over. There are strict laws that prevail before these drugs can be administered without misuse. How is this any different, considering the potential for fraudulent opportunists to take advantage and the result is possible financial ruin for the owner.

Let me be clear...I have no intention on breaking any fair housing laws, but I also see the potential for tremendous property destruction due to those who would "work the system".

Food for thought.

The system is already misused - big time! I think, if it had been me, I'd have replied with, "Hmm. Interesting, thanks for letting me know that. If you'd like to provide me with all of the information, I'm happy to take a look at it. Until then, if you want a pet, if even for visits, you need to comply with our pet policy."

Our Reasonable Accommodation Requests ask for a medical professional to fill out and sign "under penalty of perjury" that the request is necessary.

In regards to the damage, I know it's not always successfully collected, but you have the social security numbers of folks so you could report them to credit bureaus. I know some people could care less about that, sadly.

Good luck!

@ the last post: what do you mean by 'registered'? Do you mean that if the resident applies for a city or county required registration? I have never heard of a registration specific to a companion animal; but the registration required by the county is for the express purpose of identification if it becomes separated from it's humans. Companion animals are still required by many jurisdictions to be registered in this manner for the same reasons.

Yes, I agree that there is a lot of confusion and abuse in terms of pets vs. companion animals. At the same time, I am against the thought of any additional fees or deposits for pets. I am for the use of reasonable size and breed guidelines, as well as holding residents responsible for any injury or property damage caused by the pet AND reasonable guidelines in terms of safe and humane care of the animals (you would not allow a resident to train animals for fighting on property, would you?).

In terms of requests made by residents for reasonable accomodations / modifications; it is important to document WHY you are doing WHAT you are doing. What this means is that if the resident requests a companion animal for a property that establishes fees for pets or has a no pet policy; you need to document why there was an exception made to the rule to avoid fair housing complaints. Same holds true if the resident has asked for a physical modification to the unit (installation of strobe based smoke detectors, a taller toilet bowl, convenience bars, lowering cabinets and countertops, or the removal of carpeting in favor of vinyl.)

This past year, I have had to turn several past residents over because of pet damage. I recently added Rat Terriers to my breed restriction list. These little aggressive dogs did thousands of dollars in damage to one of my units. We're not just talking about carpet and pad, I'm talking about base board, tile, sheet rock and of course blinds were completely destroyed.

Negligent pet owners typically will not pay up. They will take their lumps and move on to the next unsuspecting property owner. We might get it on their credit report but the financial recovery is not there.

I did reply similarly to what you just said, and this young prospect was not only blatantly intent on working the system, but objected when I asked him for his ID to tour. They he ended the tour with...My wife wants a French Bulldog too! LOL So...then I told him the pet deposit was per pet and that I could work with him paying out the $800.00 I would require.

You almost have to laugh at a day in the life of a property manager. :P

If there is a pet agreement or addendum to the lease that states that the resident is responsible for all damages caused by the pet; then you are covered. You do need to make sure that you have a separate yet similar agreement for service animals (the service animal agreement cannot contain any mention of a pet deposit or any kind of other pet fee; but can address animal caused damage and behavioral issues in terms of the care of the animal).

When you have a clause that stipulates this; then you can add the charges at move out against the deposit. If the resident does not have enough on deposit at move out, then you send a statement of damage charges as you normally would and proceed with normal collection practices if the resident does not make payment to you. This way, the debt to you shows up on their credit report as debt to another property when another property does a background check on them as applicants.

Johnny, here's the rub. I'm not sure what he meant but "registered". He referred to his police officer brothers who have "service animals". I'm thinking police dogs. He was obviously informed by his brothers that there was a way to have a pet without paying a pet fee/deposit.

At this point in the conversation / apartment tour, I was basically put on notice. Disability was never mentioned nor was it asked.

If only turning someone into the credit bureau was a sure fired way to collect on property damage loss. Sadly...It's only a consequence for the previous resident.

I do think that K9 officers are registered in some form with county authorities, but that is largely hit or miss; so I reserve the right to be wrong. In many jurisdictions, registrations of animals are done for a fee for pets, and no fee for documented service animals; however for the same purpose.

As far as turning someone in to the credit bureaus; it is also a hit or miss endeavor; but when I review applications and backgrounds, property debt is something I specifically look for; if found and documentation of payment is not provided or verified, I will decline an applicant for. I am confident that any resident selection plan that overlooks debts to other properties (whether discovered via rental history requests or found on credit reports and not necessarily court orders that would be in the public record as the result of a petition for UD action by a property; these debts could simply be damages in excess of the deposit on record) ALSO overlooks many other factors and will not attract responsible residents. This is a sign of an owner only interested in keeping the property full regardless of cost.

Agreed!

Did the OP ever get this issue resolved?

This was on one of my local news reports about a veteran who used a companion animal to assist with service related PTSD issues and was asked to leave:

sacramento.cbslocal.com/2014/04/04/orang...service-dog-dispute/

While I have placed a comment on the article, some of the comments made by others are really outlandish and show how ignorant most people are when it comes to ADA laws.

This is always a prevalent topic however I had some levity to add :)

Had one property that no one could do anything with so made it uber pet friendly, worked out wonderfully. Had one tenant that had two small dogs, deposit paid etc. A good friend of the tenant passed away and she asked if she could bring in her friend's dog. I mulled it over for a moment and said yes, no additional deposit. She stood there dumbfounded, then started arguing with me that she has a doctor's note etc etc etc. I stopped her and asked why she was arguing with me after I already said yes lol

Another showed me how their living room looks when they come home. They had laminate floors and they would find the furniture in the living room, including sofa, moved all over when they came home. Imagine YOUR reaction if you saw that when you came home. It turned out that these (big) dogs would engage in rough play throughout the day and as a result the furniture was rearranged!

Getting back on topic, our other properties have different requirements. We decline the "companion" animal doctor's note because it's not a service animal. If property policy allows pets, they pay the additional deposit or unfortunately they must consider moving to a different community.

@ Jenette:

Under ADA law; you really cannot decline a companion animal once it's need is documented and verified. Under the law, a companion animal is seen as a service animal.

If your practice continues as you describe it; you are setting yourself up for a potential fair housing complaint. I am not an attorney, nor do I play one on TV; so check this with your attorneys.

I say this with good humor - I just knew you'd respond.

Our position is based on the advice of our attorney. However, I think you may have missed the point that the tenant is merely required to pay the deposit. In addition, the attorney additionally states that we would fight tooth and nail to decline named aggressive breeds such as pits even if it was a papered service animal.

Jenette; I too say this with a little humor.

Once an animal is determined to be a service/companion/therapy animal and is needed by the human for whatever reason; it is NO LONGER A PET and size/breed restrictions along with pet rents and additional deposits are forbidden under ADA law. A service animal can be a monkey for all it matters under the law.

You can, however, have the resident agree to a service animal agreement that addresses the following:

- Care of the animal
- Damages/injuries caused by the animal
- Behavior of the animal
- Clean up after the animal

This agreement can be similar in language to your pet agreement; except that it cannot include additional deposits or rents for the pet; or restrict the size, breed, or even type of animal. If you use the same agreement, you need to indicate that this agreement is for a service animal and cross out all indications of these requirements or indicate N/A to them somehow.

If the animal causes injury to another resident, a visitor, a vendor, or an employee; the resident is to be held responsible to the injured party and the animal can be required to leave.

Most service animals are not aggressive by nature, they either react when humans threaten them; or are trained to be that way.


Your attorney states that you would fight to decline an aggressive breed as a service animal. Let me give you an example based on not only a childhood friend that has dealt with this (he was born with a birth defect that left him without eyes and is blind), but also a cousin that is dealing with this (he is going blind due to a disease). Both have documented needs for a service animal.

Both of these people got their service animals as retired K9 officers (oftentimes these animals are retrained to be service animals after serious injuries prevent them from continuing their law enforcement duties). Both are documented full blooded German Shepherds; a breed often listed as aggressive and on the banned list for apartment communities. Since these animals have been trained for dangerous duties, but have since been retrained; how would you address this?

Should I send my cousin your way to apply to have the dog so you can deny it? I will collect a finder's fee from the court settlement.

The American's With Disabilities Act directly address aggressive service animals. Pull up their web site.

Interesting Article. Here's a question and I thought I knew the answer but now I'm wondering.

A landlord with not more than 3 properties, does not have to comply with fair housing legislation.

www.icgov.org/site/CMSv2/file/humanRight...ceAnimalsHousing.pdf

I also think this article clears up a lot of questions regarding substantiation of claims and need for a service animal.

This topic is obviously a hot bed for debate and it really needs to be clear in all property management personnel on how to handle it.

Our first obligation is to protect the owner's asset and by that I mean also following the legislation set forth by the fair housing act as well as the disabilities act. Thereby protecting the owner from litigation as well as those who would be litigious under any circumstance.

I'm relieved to know, I'm not the only one in a quandary about this issue, but at the same time would love some clear cut guidelines for future claims.

Johnny, I find this reply to be on the aggressive side. I've stated how my company approaches the issue, but, in all due respect, wasn't seeking advice. As someone who not only is responsible for site management but for managing other properties and personnel I also have to set the example of allowing the owner to have the final decision on how matters are handled, regardless of whether or not I agree.

Jennette; I did not mean to sound so aggressive. Please accept my apologies.

I have discussed this with several attorneys and other peers that I am networked with. The general consensus is that when someone invokes ADA rights for either reasonable accommodations or modifications, most things must be approved. In the case of service/companion/therapy animals; they cannot be denied, nor can they be subject to any kind of additional costs or size/breed/type of animal limitations like a pet. Once the need for an animal of this type is documented/verified, it makes for a whole different discussion. As a site level manager, one of the things we must all be wary of is the fact that WE can be named parties in a fair housing case, even if we are following directions of the legal team or those above us in pay grade. That said, if we are uncomfortable with these issues and feel that the policies go against the law, we need to do our homework and present it to the powers that be in order to protect all parties involved from such matters. Making the assumption that the animal is aggressive with no evidence to back it up, but on the sole basis that the animal is part of a breed that CAN be aggressive when provoked or trained to be is like blaming the obesity problem on the fork. What about the PERSON controlling the fork or the animal? Even animals trained for law enforcement work only work on command by a HUMAN, and generally only do so with enough force to detain. I have seen law enforcement animals being trained in the past, and it is fascinating.

Slightly off the topic of companion animals, we also have to know fair housing as it applies to reasonable accomodations / modifications; I have had a request that had to be denied from a resident that wanted to grow medical marijuana (which is legal here in CA) because it was determined that it was not reasonable to ask the owner to allow a resident to break a federal law. For an affordable property or for a resident receiving a housing choice voucher, such a request would not even be entertained since these programs are federally funded and would cause either the resident to lose the housing and/or the housing assistance, OR the property would lose it's tax credit status.

Also be aware that many states are making it harder to deny recipients of housing choice voucher assistance on that basis alone and the list is growing. The basis for this is the fact that the voucher is considered a source of income and many states include income source as a protected class. Precedents are being set, despite the best effort arguments by owners, property managers, and apartment associations against the idea. Many states are following suit and making it so that a denial on that basis alone is a fair housing violation. Let me make myself clear, I do not like the HCV program as it stands now because there is too much work involved for too little returned, and in the event the need to terminate the lease is needed, it is very difficult to do so. PLUS, if there are any damages at move out (for whatever reason) it is very difficult if not impossible to collect.

You're so funny - you remind me of some of my more energetic people who don't want to accept a response or decision. So I'm going to put it this way - in this company, this is the way it is whether or not we agree with it. And, yes, some people have to learn the hard way. So while you or I may not agree and know better, fortunately in situations like this it's not my name that gets dragged into court.

And because this is an open forum I'm going to invoke discretion and bow out of the topic.

Jennette; this will be my last comment on this thread.

Please accept my apologies for what it is worth.


In the state of California; if an animal is denied as a companion/service/therapy animal as a verified reasonable accomodation request made by a resident or prospective resident; OR special restrictions/conditions are placed on that animal on the sole basis of size/breed/type of animal for fear of additional damages or potential injury based on the fact that the animal may be on a restricted breed list is not an acceptable response under Fair Housing or ADA guidelines. I have had dogs in my life for most of my life; which have included dogs that ARE on a typical restricted breed list and ALL of them have been very docile and never once caused anyone harm.

If this happens, the person making the request has every right to file a complaint against the property and all those involved in making the decision, setting or abiding by the policy, INCLUDING the site manager. When the defense of 'We made this decision because (our attorney/property owner/supervisor) TOLD us to do it this way', even IF those involved knew or should have known that it was not a proper response is made; it is viewed by many judges or arbitrators as the equivalent of ignorance of the law, and will likely rule against the property.


I have worked for large companies with in house legal teams, and for small companies who farm out their legal needs and the legal defense of any claim made that names ME as the site manager is MY responsibility and not the company or the owner.

Simply put, if I am part of a decision that could be determined wrong in court/arbitration and I am a named party, I am on my own for my defense and could be held accountable.

It is not a matter of whether or not I accept a response or decision, I just don't want to be held accountable for a questionable one.

OK now I think I understand where you're coming from - so I'll put it this way - you're not part of it and none of this is about you.

As stated in the beginning, I was relaying how my company handles this. No one is running back to the owner and telling him this guy on a website says thus and such. Johnny, sometimes people have to learn the hard way and until then that's the way it is, whether right or wrong or anyone agrees or disagrees.

I hope this puts it into perspective.

Jenette, I would typically agree that learning the 'hard way' is the best way for most things; but when learning something this way calls MY work ethic, professionalism, credibility, or competence into question, or has the potential to affect my bank account in a negative manner; this is most definitely a case where it is not okay to learn the hard way. These are things that I take very seriously, and yes; I am very aggresive at protecting these things.

An ounce of prevention is better than a pound of cure.

Johnny, you don't have to debate me on every post that I make, they're not related to you or what you're sharing.

However, I get the impression that you don't want to understand the context of what I'm saying and intend to keep hammering away until someone concedes. So if it makes it a little easier for you to accept: no one is disputing what you've shared.

I'm not in the position to dictate to the owner of my company so there won't be any "hey you were right" accolades. And yes, sometimes people do have to learn the hard way.

No one shoot me as I am just trying to throw somethings out there. Now I do not know if there is a new version and I am thinking there is. This is from 2011 and at that time there were some changes which were addressed: mapbd.org/blog/2011/03/14/new-ada-servic...-effective-03152011/

The link may be of use and give moment to look at the whole picture. So, lets take 10 and let those emotions go :unsure:

Wanted to throw this out there as well: a service/companion animal's breed can be restricted:

Can a landlord refuse a service dog based on breed?
In some specific cases, yes. For example, if the landlord can show that permitting a dog of a certain breed to reside on the premises would substantially increase his insurance premiums or cause his insurance carrier to drop him, then it would generally be considered an undue burden on the landlord and he can refuse to permit the dog even if it is a fully trained service dog.

This is the case with the company I work with. We cannot allow a few breeds regardless of whether they are a service/companion animal because our insurance would discontinue our coverage.

I went around looking for the information about this because the company I worked with when I originally started used to send me to fair housing seminars hosted by forrent.com and the lady we worked with stated, ecactly as you did, that we cannot restrict the breed of the animal.

I don't agree with this 100%, but. I don't own the company, so what can you do?

Reference: servicedogcentral.org/content/files/2006...20accommodations.PDF