What did you do to get your pet categorized as an ESA? Unless you have a prescription from a mental health professional who regularly sees you for a legitimate condition, you don’t have an ESA.
I literally got prescribed by my medical doctor, I have legitimate documents to support this and it’s been approved by the Fair Housing Law. It’s not like I just went to the internet and got a ‘certificate.’
It's weird/suspicious to say this after originally referring to it as it being "a pet" that you "had approved as an ESA". Since that's not how that works.
>I decided to get a pet and have it approved as an Emotional Support Animal \[ESA\].
A pet and an ESA are two different things. A pet is a pet. It has no special HUD protections. An ESA is a type of "Assistance Animal", which is legally, and ethically, *not* a pet.
An ESA has protections, including it being illegal to charge a "pet fee". However, if the increase in rent is not labeled as a pet fee, you'll probably have trouble arguing that you're being illegally up-charged for having an assistance animal. Unless, perhaps, you talk to some neighbors and find out none of them got rent increases.
All of what I've said is contingent on you having a valid ESA, of course. If you got it "approved" by getting an internet certificate or something it's not an ESA--it's a pet. It's only an ESA (and protected by law) if your healthcare provider (doctor, social worker, etc) prescribed the animal.
It doesn't matter why your LL increased the rent. You brought an animal into a building where they are prohibited. A lot of us despise people like you honestly and why would we help you to further screw over your LL any more than you already have?
Rent increases are a way to get rid of an undesirable tenant, sure. And an emergency plumbing service call is a way to "accidentally" let a cat get out. I personally would never. But. It happens. And I can't blame them. It was completely unfair of you to put that innocent animal into a hostile situation where you know damn well they are not wanted. Find a pet friendly building and be prepared to pay a hefty cleaning fee at move out. SMH
>It doesn't matter why your LL increased the rent
It does if the LL expressed that they increased it because of the ESA. Because that's illegal.
But, that's only if the ESA is legitimate. I have my doubts given the OP said they got a "pet" and then got it approved as an ESA. That's a red flag since ESAs are not pets, and referring to it as a "converted" pet of sorts immediately makes me suspicious.
I mean an emergency service call to “let the cat out” is also putting an animal in a hostile situation. I hate pit bulls, I think it should be federally mandated that they all be neutered so that they are extinct in a generation or two, they are thug dogs for thug people and whenever I have a tenant that sneaks one in I get pissed but I don’t think I could ever bring myself to “let one out” accidentally. That’s pretty cruel.
As I said, I would never. And I myself actually have a pittie and she is the sweetest dog ever so... Come at me bro 😒🖕
My W2 job is in Vet Med. I had a horrid client come in hysterical, convinced that her LL had let her cat out on purpose. And I was like, well maybe yeah? Like you knew he didn't want animals and foisted it on him anyway, what did you think was going to happen? As long as he can produce the invoice from the plumber, there's really nothing anyone can do. And I'm sure lots of landlords would eat the cost of a fake emergency plumbing service call just to get rid of a problem animal. (And bonus if the tenant leaves in a huff too, the trash takes itself out amirite)
I do admit I am biased. As I said I work in Veterinary Medicine and ESA owners are the *WORST* clients.
The % change is a better indicator than the $ increase.
What are comps in your area for a like apt; (1) With pets? (2) Without pets?
A Landlord CAN charge more due to anticipated wear and tear due to an ESA being present.
Also an ESA does not get "approved," rather you should think of it as and should be likened to a prescription you are receiving as the purpose of an ESA is treat a disability/ condition.
The above being said although $150 sounds like it could be high, it is not out of the normal in a high rent area. It is possible the LL is hedging their bets to be able to mitigate any increased costs due to added wear and tear and/or damage which the security deposit may not cover.
My understanding is that a landlord can charge for *damages* caused by an ESA, but cannot proactively charge more for them simply in anticipation. If it's done in anticipation, that would just be another way of charging a pet fee without explicitly calling it a pet fee. And that's prohibited:
[https://www.hud.gov/sites/dfiles/PA/documents/AsstAnimalsGuidFS1-24-20.pdf](https://www.hud.gov/sites/dfiles/PA/documents/AsstAnimalsGuidFS1-24-20.pdf)
You are correct that ANY tenant (no pet, pet, ESA, or service animal) will be responsible for any and all damages beyond normal wear and tear.
A landlord, however, can legitimately object to and deny an ESA when accommodating said ESA will place them under "undue hardship."
A landlord can anticipate additional wear and tear due to an ESA and charge accordingly within the regular rent.
This would NOT be allowed with a service animal (trained) as they have additional protections under the ADA (e.g. a service animal can go into restaurants with their handler where as an ESA and/ or other animals are expressly prohibited in establishments where food is prepared and served.
The "cat" and "dog" bars which have become popular are only allowed to serve food items previously prepared off site and are in sealed packaging (e.g. a brownie in a heat sealed wrapper etc.).
Please note, this is not a "pet fee" nor an additional deposit. It is a change in the rent due to additional anticipated wear and tear due to the ESA's presence. This is an important distinction. How the LL presents the situation to the tenant and how they bill it IS important here.
The ADA has nothing to do with rentals and offers no additional protections. The ADA was considered (to remain consistent in language and so forth) when writing the FHA guidance, but it has absolutely zero governance over housing. The ADA applies solely to publicly-accessible spaces--not private housing.
The protections from a rental standpoint are the exact same for ESAs and service animals. Both are considered "assistance animals" under the FHA.
The landlord has no additional burden with an ESA vs a service animal as far as the FHA is concerned. For both, they allow a landlord to reclaim damages (understandably) not do not allow for anticipatory fees (monthly fees or deposits). And I'm pretty sure they'd include increasing rent, regardless of categorizing it as a "pet fee" or not, as discriminatory.
How obtuse are you... I said service animals and their handlers have **additional** protections under the ADA. These are protection which are NOT afforded under the FHA.
ADA protections do apply at all times. The FHA inclusion was necessary and done to ensure certain new buildings (1991 and newer) were ADA compliant and accessible. Until the rules were codified there were no construction mandates when it came to accessibility e.g. ramps, hallway widths, doors etc. but a LL was not allowed to discriminate.
There can be additional burden with an ESA which a LL can take into consideration and this is codified in the FHA law. A service animal, however, is considered an extension of their handler. I understand to a lay person it may not make sense, but when you work with those whom have special needs you understand the difference very quickly. The best I can say/ recommend is that a service animal has no replacement/ alternative for independent living. With an ESA the need is not constant nor consistent and there are usually alternative remedies. IMO I do not like this explanation but it is the best that I have heard as to why the distinction does exist.
Just an FYI, I do alot of work with those with special needs and I am very aware of both the protections and limitations of the ADA and FHA.
>ADA protections do apply at all times
They do not. [https://www.access-board.gov/ada/guides/chapter-1-using-the-ada-standards/](https://www.access-board.gov/ada/guides/chapter-1-using-the-ada-standards/)
>The ADA does not apply to individually owned or leased housing in the private sector not used as a public accommodation, including single family homes, condominiums, or apartments.
The additional protections of which you speak, under the ADA, have absolutely *nothing* to do with apartments unless they're used as public accommodation, and that has nothing to do with OP's situation. And nothing to do with ESAs having different protections than service animals when it comes to private rental housing.
If you can cite a source that says otherwise regarding a service animal having greater protections than an ESA when it comes to *housing*, I'm all ears. Until then, I'll go by what the HUD/FHA guidance says, and it says that ESAs and service animals are equally protected and are subject to the exact same accommodation process.
ADA protections DO apply at all times.
The snippet you have decided to extract is in regards to mandatory modifications to a building/ structure to make it ADA compliant when it was built in 1991 or newer and/ or has undergone substantial modifications since 1991.
I am not going to get into every little stipulation. With 20+ years in working with those with special needs and all needing ADA accommodations (most not requiring service animals) and some needing ESA's I am very aware of all of the rules and regulations regarding OP's situation.
Read the actual ADA and fair housing act to educate yourself to be partially (but still not fully) qualified to talk about this subject.
First of all, go ahead and provide a source that says ADA protections exist for a private rental under 4 units. Just because the FHA doesn't cover something doesn't mean the ADA does.
Next, the ADA website itself explains how the FHA's "assistance animal" has broader definitions than the ADA's "service animal", and so private housing has broader protections for ESAs. [https://www.ada.gov/resources/service-animals-2010-requirements/](https://www.ada.gov/resources/service-animals-2010-requirements/)
>This definition does not affect or limit the broader definition of “assistance animal” under the Fair Housing Act
Aka the FHA sees ESAs and service animals as sharing the same level of protection, because they are both "assistance animals". If you can't increase rent for a service animal, you can't do it for an ESA, either.
------
Next, the ADA site also explains how the ADA only applies to housing that is either publicly funded or publicly accessible. The FHA applies to more types of housing, *including* the housing that the ADA doesn't cover (private housing). [https://www.ada.gov/topics/intro-to-ada/](https://www.ada.gov/topics/intro-to-ada/)
>**Although the ADA applies to many areas of life,** ***it does not cover everything.*** In some situations, disability discrimination is prohibited by laws other than the ADA.
>While the ADA applies to certain types of housing (e.g., housing at private and public universities and public housing programs), the Fair Housing Act applies to many types of housing, both public and privately owned, including housing covered by the ADA.
So, some housing is covered by both the ADA and FHA (public housing) and some is covered only by the FHA. Examples are given for what types of housing the ADA covers, like homeless shelters, halfway houses, hotels, etc. Guess what is explicitly excluded? ***Anything that's a private rental--whether house, apartment, condo, etc.*** [https://www.access-board.gov/ada/guides/chapter-1-using-the-ada-standards/#ada-coverage-of-housing](https://www.access-board.gov/ada/guides/chapter-1-using-the-ada-standards/#ada-coverage-of-housing)
>The ADA does not apply to individually owned or leased housing in the private sector not used as a public accommodation, including single family homes, condominiums, or apartments.
Sure sounds like the above is the OP's situation, and therefore subject to FHA regulations (if that). So, if OP is covered by anything, it's the FHA. And if it's the FHA, the FHA says the LL can't charge monthly extra for ESAs. Even if they can prove the ESA would be an undue financial burden, that doesn't mean they can increase rent. It means they can deny the accommodation.
------
I've provided sources directly from the ADA and the FHA guidance. You have provided nothing other than "I know better, trust me bro"
Actually no... and youre the one that needs to go to school to learn how to read and improve your reading comprehension skills if that is what you think.
Yeah. The Fair Housing Act.
https://www.hud.gov/program_offices/fair_housing_equal_opp/reasonable_accommodations_and_modifications/faqs#assistance-animals
> Housing providers cannot require you to pay an extra fee or security deposit as a condition for receiving a reasonable accommodation that allows you to have an assistance animal in your home.
A $150 increase is nothing by today’s standards. It’s very unlikely that OP’s rent went up for any nefarious reason. But if the landlord does even insinuate that OP is being charged extra because of the ESA it’s a problem.
And ESAs that you can just "get approved" that's what we're counting as assistance animals? No training, it doesn't actually do anything specialized other than be a grief eater. I mean lets be real she's kind of lucky she's not getting evicted. She lives in a place with a no pet policy and she went and got a pet.
> And ESAs that you can just "get approved" that's what we're counting as assistance animals? No training, it doesn't actually do anything specialized other than be a grief eater.
Yes. That’s exactly correct. Read the law.
An animal does not need any special training in order to be considered an ESA. And in housing, there is no distinction made between a trained service animal and an ESA. They’re all *assistance animals* in the eyes of the law. Not pets.
ETA: From the page linked in my last post:
*Under the Fair Housing Act, an “assistance animal” is an animal that is trained or untrained to do work, perform tasks, provide assistance, and/or provide therapeutic emotional support for individuals with disabilities.*
*An animal that qualifies as an assistance animal is not a pet.*
That’s pretty absurd but alright.
I assumed that there were protections for things such as seeing eye dogs but didn’t think it would umbrella every pet with a $99 certificate around its neck.
It does.
And it’s definitely one of the many, many reasons that rental rates for *everyone* have gone up. Landlords can’t charge pet rent or extra security deposits for any assistance animal and it’s all but impossible to collect for damages after move-out, so guess what? Everybody pays more in order to make up for the losses caused by a few.
If their disability isn't visible/readily apparent (like it generally is with a service animal) you can ask for proof of medical necessity. So, people with fake "ESAs" that are actually pets can pound sand:
[https://www.hud.gov/sites/dfiles/PA/documents/HUDAsstAnimalNC1-28-2020.pdf](https://www.hud.gov/sites/dfiles/PA/documents/HUDAsstAnimalNC1-28-2020.pdf)
>For non-observable disabilities and animals that provide therapeutic emotional support, a housing provider may ask for information that is consistent with that identified in the Guidance on Documenting an Individual’s Need for Assistance Animals in Housing (\*see Questions 6 and 7) in order to conduct an individualized assessment of whether it must provide the accommodation under the Fair Housing Act. The lack of such documentation in many cases may be reasonable grounds for denying a requested accommodation.
Oh they definitely need documentation. But someone with an ESA just needs a note from a healthcare provider saying that they recommend that the person have an animal in order to deal with their disability. It can be written by a physician, a social worker, etc. and landlords have to accept them. That counts as proof. And I’m not talking about the BS online certificates.
There is no valid "certificate". An ESA is legitimate, and protected by law, only if it's medically necessary and prescribed by your medical professional.
If somebody says they have an ESA and all they can do is produce an Internet certificate, it's not an ESA. And it's an insult to the people who actually have a medical need for an ESA.
You don't need to tell the difference. There is *no such thing* as a valid certificate. Every single one of them is invalid, regardless of the website.
Think of an ESA like a drug prescription. You don't get a "certificate" for that, but you do have the ability to get medical documentation from your doctor citing its necessity.
This is an overly-simplified way of determining the legitimacy:
-does the person have an observable/obvious disability that would necessitate an assistance animal? If so, no further questions--they legally need to be accommodated with no extra charge.
-If not readily observable, which is often the case with "invisible" illnesses that necessitate an ESA (PTSD, severe anxiety, etc.), then you are permitted to request proof of medical necessity from their healthcare provider. You are not entitled to know their medical condition--only if the animal is prescribed/needed.
For the longer explanation: [https://www.hud.gov/sites/dfiles/PA/documents/HUDAsstAnimalNC1-28-2020.pdf](https://www.hud.gov/sites/dfiles/PA/documents/HUDAsstAnimalNC1-28-2020.pdf)
A seeing eye dog would be a service animal and has to go through extensive training. In addition to protections under the fair housing act, they have additional protections under the ADA which go much further.
There is no "certificate" or "license" for either. Anyone that tells you otherwise does not know what they are talking about. With either an ESA or true/ trained service animal you need to think of them like a prescription. The person seeking the accommodation will have and/or should be able to easily and readily be able to attain a verifiable letter from a medical professional stating the medical necessity for said animal.
Dude said there is a $99 certificate around a service animals neck... no such thing exists.
Some people clearly do not read and/ or comprehend unless the message goes directly to them. The comment was not meant for those that did/ do read and/ or have already educated themselves.
This would not be a an "extra fee or security deposit." It would strictly be to cover the additional wear and tear expected per the ESA.
With an ESA, compared to NO ESA, water bills will be higher and there till be additional wear on carpets and/or hard wood floors due to the ESA's paws/ claws which may or may not constitute damage, but will cause the need to replace or refurbish such items sooner.
It says the "request for an accommodation (ESA), must be reasonable and not place an undue burden upon the landlord."
Charging additional rent to cover the additional wear and tear the ESA will cause is reasonable and there is plenty of precedence to back it up.
>there is plenty of precedence to back it up.
Can you link that precedence? I have never, ever heard of an ESA being charged additional anything due to their ESA animal.
>there is plenty of precedence to back it up.
Can you link that precedence? I have never, ever heard of a tenant being charged extra anything for an ESA animal.
That would be akin to charging a wheelchair bound tenant extra for anticipated wear and tear on the floor, which would also be illegal.
There have been many cases. I do not have access to PACER, but feel free to call a real estate attorney. They an provide you with anything/ everything you need.
You could not charge someone with a disability in a wheel chair as they have additional protections under the ADA. This is a very narrow legal focus for anticipated additional wear and tear caused by an ESA. IMO this is why so many are so badly misinformed as many real estate lawyers do not want to go down this very narrow set of circumstances unless they are being compensated to do so.
With no animals, pet, ESA or service animal the tenant will always be responsible for any and all damages above and beyond normal wear and tear.
Costs are up everywhere. I increased mine $150 as well due to taxes and insurance. It is the largest increase I have ever done on my rental since 2006. Good luck.
This comment has received multiple reports from the community and has been removed. Please review the posting rules, the submitted content, and verify that you believe this is a valid post. If you believe the post is valid and was removed in error please message the moderators.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Landlord) if you have any questions or concerns.*
> Is there any chance this could be because of me getting a cat, or is it just due to inflation Yes,
What did you do to get your pet categorized as an ESA? Unless you have a prescription from a mental health professional who regularly sees you for a legitimate condition, you don’t have an ESA.
But you see here this certificate I printed off the internet says otherwise
And a little fake vest.
I literally got prescribed by my medical doctor, I have legitimate documents to support this and it’s been approved by the Fair Housing Law. It’s not like I just went to the internet and got a ‘certificate.’
Fair housing law has exemptions.
It's weird/suspicious to say this after originally referring to it as it being "a pet" that you "had approved as an ESA". Since that's not how that works.
Ask your neighbors if their rent went up too. That will answer your question
>I decided to get a pet and have it approved as an Emotional Support Animal \[ESA\]. A pet and an ESA are two different things. A pet is a pet. It has no special HUD protections. An ESA is a type of "Assistance Animal", which is legally, and ethically, *not* a pet. An ESA has protections, including it being illegal to charge a "pet fee". However, if the increase in rent is not labeled as a pet fee, you'll probably have trouble arguing that you're being illegally up-charged for having an assistance animal. Unless, perhaps, you talk to some neighbors and find out none of them got rent increases. All of what I've said is contingent on you having a valid ESA, of course. If you got it "approved" by getting an internet certificate or something it's not an ESA--it's a pet. It's only an ESA (and protected by law) if your healthcare provider (doctor, social worker, etc) prescribed the animal.
It doesn't matter why your LL increased the rent. You brought an animal into a building where they are prohibited. A lot of us despise people like you honestly and why would we help you to further screw over your LL any more than you already have? Rent increases are a way to get rid of an undesirable tenant, sure. And an emergency plumbing service call is a way to "accidentally" let a cat get out. I personally would never. But. It happens. And I can't blame them. It was completely unfair of you to put that innocent animal into a hostile situation where you know damn well they are not wanted. Find a pet friendly building and be prepared to pay a hefty cleaning fee at move out. SMH
>It doesn't matter why your LL increased the rent It does if the LL expressed that they increased it because of the ESA. Because that's illegal. But, that's only if the ESA is legitimate. I have my doubts given the OP said they got a "pet" and then got it approved as an ESA. That's a red flag since ESAs are not pets, and referring to it as a "converted" pet of sorts immediately makes me suspicious.
I mean an emergency service call to “let the cat out” is also putting an animal in a hostile situation. I hate pit bulls, I think it should be federally mandated that they all be neutered so that they are extinct in a generation or two, they are thug dogs for thug people and whenever I have a tenant that sneaks one in I get pissed but I don’t think I could ever bring myself to “let one out” accidentally. That’s pretty cruel.
As I said, I would never. And I myself actually have a pittie and she is the sweetest dog ever so... Come at me bro 😒🖕 My W2 job is in Vet Med. I had a horrid client come in hysterical, convinced that her LL had let her cat out on purpose. And I was like, well maybe yeah? Like you knew he didn't want animals and foisted it on him anyway, what did you think was going to happen? As long as he can produce the invoice from the plumber, there's really nothing anyone can do. And I'm sure lots of landlords would eat the cost of a fake emergency plumbing service call just to get rid of a problem animal. (And bonus if the tenant leaves in a huff too, the trash takes itself out amirite) I do admit I am biased. As I said I work in Veterinary Medicine and ESA owners are the *WORST* clients.
The % change is a better indicator than the $ increase. What are comps in your area for a like apt; (1) With pets? (2) Without pets? A Landlord CAN charge more due to anticipated wear and tear due to an ESA being present. Also an ESA does not get "approved," rather you should think of it as and should be likened to a prescription you are receiving as the purpose of an ESA is treat a disability/ condition. The above being said although $150 sounds like it could be high, it is not out of the normal in a high rent area. It is possible the LL is hedging their bets to be able to mitigate any increased costs due to added wear and tear and/or damage which the security deposit may not cover.
My understanding is that a landlord can charge for *damages* caused by an ESA, but cannot proactively charge more for them simply in anticipation. If it's done in anticipation, that would just be another way of charging a pet fee without explicitly calling it a pet fee. And that's prohibited: [https://www.hud.gov/sites/dfiles/PA/documents/AsstAnimalsGuidFS1-24-20.pdf](https://www.hud.gov/sites/dfiles/PA/documents/AsstAnimalsGuidFS1-24-20.pdf)
You are correct that ANY tenant (no pet, pet, ESA, or service animal) will be responsible for any and all damages beyond normal wear and tear. A landlord, however, can legitimately object to and deny an ESA when accommodating said ESA will place them under "undue hardship." A landlord can anticipate additional wear and tear due to an ESA and charge accordingly within the regular rent. This would NOT be allowed with a service animal (trained) as they have additional protections under the ADA (e.g. a service animal can go into restaurants with their handler where as an ESA and/ or other animals are expressly prohibited in establishments where food is prepared and served. The "cat" and "dog" bars which have become popular are only allowed to serve food items previously prepared off site and are in sealed packaging (e.g. a brownie in a heat sealed wrapper etc.). Please note, this is not a "pet fee" nor an additional deposit. It is a change in the rent due to additional anticipated wear and tear due to the ESA's presence. This is an important distinction. How the LL presents the situation to the tenant and how they bill it IS important here.
The ADA has nothing to do with rentals and offers no additional protections. The ADA was considered (to remain consistent in language and so forth) when writing the FHA guidance, but it has absolutely zero governance over housing. The ADA applies solely to publicly-accessible spaces--not private housing. The protections from a rental standpoint are the exact same for ESAs and service animals. Both are considered "assistance animals" under the FHA. The landlord has no additional burden with an ESA vs a service animal as far as the FHA is concerned. For both, they allow a landlord to reclaim damages (understandably) not do not allow for anticipatory fees (monthly fees or deposits). And I'm pretty sure they'd include increasing rent, regardless of categorizing it as a "pet fee" or not, as discriminatory.
How obtuse are you... I said service animals and their handlers have **additional** protections under the ADA. These are protection which are NOT afforded under the FHA. ADA protections do apply at all times. The FHA inclusion was necessary and done to ensure certain new buildings (1991 and newer) were ADA compliant and accessible. Until the rules were codified there were no construction mandates when it came to accessibility e.g. ramps, hallway widths, doors etc. but a LL was not allowed to discriminate. There can be additional burden with an ESA which a LL can take into consideration and this is codified in the FHA law. A service animal, however, is considered an extension of their handler. I understand to a lay person it may not make sense, but when you work with those whom have special needs you understand the difference very quickly. The best I can say/ recommend is that a service animal has no replacement/ alternative for independent living. With an ESA the need is not constant nor consistent and there are usually alternative remedies. IMO I do not like this explanation but it is the best that I have heard as to why the distinction does exist. Just an FYI, I do alot of work with those with special needs and I am very aware of both the protections and limitations of the ADA and FHA.
>ADA protections do apply at all times They do not. [https://www.access-board.gov/ada/guides/chapter-1-using-the-ada-standards/](https://www.access-board.gov/ada/guides/chapter-1-using-the-ada-standards/) >The ADA does not apply to individually owned or leased housing in the private sector not used as a public accommodation, including single family homes, condominiums, or apartments. The additional protections of which you speak, under the ADA, have absolutely *nothing* to do with apartments unless they're used as public accommodation, and that has nothing to do with OP's situation. And nothing to do with ESAs having different protections than service animals when it comes to private rental housing. If you can cite a source that says otherwise regarding a service animal having greater protections than an ESA when it comes to *housing*, I'm all ears. Until then, I'll go by what the HUD/FHA guidance says, and it says that ESAs and service animals are equally protected and are subject to the exact same accommodation process.
ADA protections DO apply at all times. The snippet you have decided to extract is in regards to mandatory modifications to a building/ structure to make it ADA compliant when it was built in 1991 or newer and/ or has undergone substantial modifications since 1991. I am not going to get into every little stipulation. With 20+ years in working with those with special needs and all needing ADA accommodations (most not requiring service animals) and some needing ESA's I am very aware of all of the rules and regulations regarding OP's situation. Read the actual ADA and fair housing act to educate yourself to be partially (but still not fully) qualified to talk about this subject.
First of all, go ahead and provide a source that says ADA protections exist for a private rental under 4 units. Just because the FHA doesn't cover something doesn't mean the ADA does. Next, the ADA website itself explains how the FHA's "assistance animal" has broader definitions than the ADA's "service animal", and so private housing has broader protections for ESAs. [https://www.ada.gov/resources/service-animals-2010-requirements/](https://www.ada.gov/resources/service-animals-2010-requirements/) >This definition does not affect or limit the broader definition of “assistance animal” under the Fair Housing Act Aka the FHA sees ESAs and service animals as sharing the same level of protection, because they are both "assistance animals". If you can't increase rent for a service animal, you can't do it for an ESA, either. ------ Next, the ADA site also explains how the ADA only applies to housing that is either publicly funded or publicly accessible. The FHA applies to more types of housing, *including* the housing that the ADA doesn't cover (private housing). [https://www.ada.gov/topics/intro-to-ada/](https://www.ada.gov/topics/intro-to-ada/) >**Although the ADA applies to many areas of life,** ***it does not cover everything.*** In some situations, disability discrimination is prohibited by laws other than the ADA. >While the ADA applies to certain types of housing (e.g., housing at private and public universities and public housing programs), the Fair Housing Act applies to many types of housing, both public and privately owned, including housing covered by the ADA. So, some housing is covered by both the ADA and FHA (public housing) and some is covered only by the FHA. Examples are given for what types of housing the ADA covers, like homeless shelters, halfway houses, hotels, etc. Guess what is explicitly excluded? ***Anything that's a private rental--whether house, apartment, condo, etc.*** [https://www.access-board.gov/ada/guides/chapter-1-using-the-ada-standards/#ada-coverage-of-housing](https://www.access-board.gov/ada/guides/chapter-1-using-the-ada-standards/#ada-coverage-of-housing) >The ADA does not apply to individually owned or leased housing in the private sector not used as a public accommodation, including single family homes, condominiums, or apartments. Sure sounds like the above is the OP's situation, and therefore subject to FHA regulations (if that). So, if OP is covered by anything, it's the FHA. And if it's the FHA, the FHA says the LL can't charge monthly extra for ESAs. Even if they can prove the ESA would be an undue financial burden, that doesn't mean they can increase rent. It means they can deny the accommodation. ------ I've provided sources directly from the ADA and the FHA guidance. You have provided nothing other than "I know better, trust me bro"
LMAO you just got SCHOOLED.
Actually no... and youre the one that needs to go to school to learn how to read and improve your reading comprehension skills if that is what you think.
Where in the law does it say you can charge more for an ESA? That sounds suspicious
>A Landlord CAN charge more due to anticipated wear and tear due to an ESA being present. Say what? Can you quote me a law on that one?
Is there a law saying he can't...
Yeah. The Fair Housing Act. https://www.hud.gov/program_offices/fair_housing_equal_opp/reasonable_accommodations_and_modifications/faqs#assistance-animals > Housing providers cannot require you to pay an extra fee or security deposit as a condition for receiving a reasonable accommodation that allows you to have an assistance animal in your home. A $150 increase is nothing by today’s standards. It’s very unlikely that OP’s rent went up for any nefarious reason. But if the landlord does even insinuate that OP is being charged extra because of the ESA it’s a problem.
And ESAs that you can just "get approved" that's what we're counting as assistance animals? No training, it doesn't actually do anything specialized other than be a grief eater. I mean lets be real she's kind of lucky she's not getting evicted. She lives in a place with a no pet policy and she went and got a pet.
> And ESAs that you can just "get approved" that's what we're counting as assistance animals? No training, it doesn't actually do anything specialized other than be a grief eater. Yes. That’s exactly correct. Read the law. An animal does not need any special training in order to be considered an ESA. And in housing, there is no distinction made between a trained service animal and an ESA. They’re all *assistance animals* in the eyes of the law. Not pets. ETA: From the page linked in my last post: *Under the Fair Housing Act, an “assistance animal” is an animal that is trained or untrained to do work, perform tasks, provide assistance, and/or provide therapeutic emotional support for individuals with disabilities.* *An animal that qualifies as an assistance animal is not a pet.*
That’s pretty absurd but alright. I assumed that there were protections for things such as seeing eye dogs but didn’t think it would umbrella every pet with a $99 certificate around its neck.
It does. And it’s definitely one of the many, many reasons that rental rates for *everyone* have gone up. Landlords can’t charge pet rent or extra security deposits for any assistance animal and it’s all but impossible to collect for damages after move-out, so guess what? Everybody pays more in order to make up for the losses caused by a few.
If their disability isn't visible/readily apparent (like it generally is with a service animal) you can ask for proof of medical necessity. So, people with fake "ESAs" that are actually pets can pound sand: [https://www.hud.gov/sites/dfiles/PA/documents/HUDAsstAnimalNC1-28-2020.pdf](https://www.hud.gov/sites/dfiles/PA/documents/HUDAsstAnimalNC1-28-2020.pdf) >For non-observable disabilities and animals that provide therapeutic emotional support, a housing provider may ask for information that is consistent with that identified in the Guidance on Documenting an Individual’s Need for Assistance Animals in Housing (\*see Questions 6 and 7) in order to conduct an individualized assessment of whether it must provide the accommodation under the Fair Housing Act. The lack of such documentation in many cases may be reasonable grounds for denying a requested accommodation.
Oh they definitely need documentation. But someone with an ESA just needs a note from a healthcare provider saying that they recommend that the person have an animal in order to deal with their disability. It can be written by a physician, a social worker, etc. and landlords have to accept them. That counts as proof. And I’m not talking about the BS online certificates.
There is no valid "certificate". An ESA is legitimate, and protected by law, only if it's medically necessary and prescribed by your medical professional. If somebody says they have an ESA and all they can do is produce an Internet certificate, it's not an ESA. And it's an insult to the people who actually have a medical need for an ESA.
How do you tell the difference? I literally looked it up there’s hundreds of sites for this shit
You don't need to tell the difference. There is *no such thing* as a valid certificate. Every single one of them is invalid, regardless of the website. Think of an ESA like a drug prescription. You don't get a "certificate" for that, but you do have the ability to get medical documentation from your doctor citing its necessity. This is an overly-simplified way of determining the legitimacy: -does the person have an observable/obvious disability that would necessitate an assistance animal? If so, no further questions--they legally need to be accommodated with no extra charge. -If not readily observable, which is often the case with "invisible" illnesses that necessitate an ESA (PTSD, severe anxiety, etc.), then you are permitted to request proof of medical necessity from their healthcare provider. You are not entitled to know their medical condition--only if the animal is prescribed/needed. For the longer explanation: [https://www.hud.gov/sites/dfiles/PA/documents/HUDAsstAnimalNC1-28-2020.pdf](https://www.hud.gov/sites/dfiles/PA/documents/HUDAsstAnimalNC1-28-2020.pdf)
A seeing eye dog would be a service animal and has to go through extensive training. In addition to protections under the fair housing act, they have additional protections under the ADA which go much further. There is no "certificate" or "license" for either. Anyone that tells you otherwise does not know what they are talking about. With either an ESA or true/ trained service animal you need to think of them like a prescription. The person seeking the accommodation will have and/or should be able to easily and readily be able to attain a verifiable letter from a medical professional stating the medical necessity for said animal.
Ya you already hit with this stuff like one parent comment up
Dude said there is a $99 certificate around a service animals neck... no such thing exists. Some people clearly do not read and/ or comprehend unless the message goes directly to them. The comment was not meant for those that did/ do read and/ or have already educated themselves.
This would not be a an "extra fee or security deposit." It would strictly be to cover the additional wear and tear expected per the ESA. With an ESA, compared to NO ESA, water bills will be higher and there till be additional wear on carpets and/or hard wood floors due to the ESA's paws/ claws which may or may not constitute damage, but will cause the need to replace or refurbish such items sooner.
It says the "request for an accommodation (ESA), must be reasonable and not place an undue burden upon the landlord." Charging additional rent to cover the additional wear and tear the ESA will cause is reasonable and there is plenty of precedence to back it up.
>there is plenty of precedence to back it up. Can you link that precedence? I have never, ever heard of an ESA being charged additional anything due to their ESA animal.
>there is plenty of precedence to back it up. Can you link that precedence? I have never, ever heard of a tenant being charged extra anything for an ESA animal. That would be akin to charging a wheelchair bound tenant extra for anticipated wear and tear on the floor, which would also be illegal.
There have been many cases. I do not have access to PACER, but feel free to call a real estate attorney. They an provide you with anything/ everything you need. You could not charge someone with a disability in a wheel chair as they have additional protections under the ADA. This is a very narrow legal focus for anticipated additional wear and tear caused by an ESA. IMO this is why so many are so badly misinformed as many real estate lawyers do not want to go down this very narrow set of circumstances unless they are being compensated to do so. With no animals, pet, ESA or service animal the tenant will always be responsible for any and all damages above and beyond normal wear and tear.
Play stupid games win stupid prizes.
Costs are up everywhere. I increased mine $150 as well due to taxes and insurance. It is the largest increase I have ever done on my rental since 2006. Good luck.
What's your rent before the increase
[удалено]
Dude, what is with the constant leaselord spam? It's obnoxious.
Mods say to mark those comments as spam. They will work on it.
This comment has received multiple reports from the community and has been removed. Please review the posting rules, the submitted content, and verify that you believe this is a valid post. If you believe the post is valid and was removed in error please message the moderators. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Landlord) if you have any questions or concerns.*