Landlord Found Out My Roommate Has A Dog And Is Charging Her 20$/day Because Of Me

Securing a pet-friendly apartment in a bustling city often feels as challenging as finding a needle in a haystack. Amidst a sea of apartment complexes, pet-welcoming options remain scarce, pricey, or laden with stringent regulations. This ordeal transforms the already stressful task of house-hunting into an almost herculean endeavor for pet owners. But what unfolds when one decides to bend or break the rules to accommodate their furry companion?

A recent Reddit post delves into the ethical and financial consequences of such a choice. The quandary arises: who bears responsibility when rule-bending results in a sticky situation? The story unfolds with OP seeking a new roommate for a lease commencing in June 2023. Enter Helen, a potential roommate with a canine companion. Despite the lease’s explicit prohibition of dogs, OP assured Helen they wouldn’t report the pet to the landlord. Helen agreed and signed the lease, knowing full well about the no-pet policy. However, a few months later, the landlord discovered the dog’s presence, leading to daily fines and a fixed fee. OP contends that they had clearly communicated the no-pet policy to Helen and even offered a temporary resolution.

Scroll down to read the full story below.

Recently, OP was in need of a new roommate for a lease that will expire in June 2023. Helen, a potential roommate who also had a dog, enters the picture.

via Reddit

After some time had passed, the landlord learned about the puppy and hit Helen and OP with daily fines and a one-time cost.

via Reddit

Edits made by the OP reveal that her roommate was aware of the pet policy.

via Reddit

The consensus in this confusing circumstance seems to be that Helen, the roommate, is primarily to blame. The majority of Reddit users who responded to the story said that she is responsible for willfully breaking the lease’s explicit no-pet rule. The general consensus is that Helen made a calculated risk and must now pay the price for it, even though OP was aware of it and participating in it. This instance brings to light a bigger problem. The consequences of breaking or bending housing regulations can be complicated, expensive, and potentially relationship-damaging. Despite the temptation to break the law for comfort or company, whether it is with a human or an animal, each choice carries a unique set of risks and obligations.

Now that you have read the story, it’s time for you to see what Redditors had to say about this. Read till the end to see what are other people’s opinions on this. Don’t forget to share your own opinion at the end of this article, too.

Edits made by the OP reveal that her roommate was aware of the pet policy.

OP has provided the justification for why they believe they might be the a-hole as follows.

OP claimed to be fine but declined to speak on the landlord’s behalf.

She failed in her attempt to game the system. No justification for anger.

She was aware that pets were not permitted.

The bottom line is, she knew that it was risky.

A contract should not be broken.

Why would they call it YTA?