What's the point of paying higher rent to have a pet?

Question

We rented a property and paid $35 extra a month because we had a pet. (We did not pay a pet deposit, per se.) When we moved in, the carpets were stained and not in the best condition anyway. When we moved out after 15 months, the landlord kept our $400 deposit because the carpets had to be replaced because our pet had scratched at them. So is the $35 extra each month just because they want it? That's $525 total they collected in extra rent alone, that I had thought would be to cover pet damages. There's no way we did a total of $925 damage to that property. We couldn't have if we had gutted it. Can anyone please explain this to me?

Answer 1

The $35 extra per month is the rent for your pet. That's nice of your LL didn't charge you extra security deposit.  Just like you still have to pay rent on top of the security deposit each month you live there. I, as a LL, just simply refuse to have any pet in my rental apartment. period.

Answer 2

You agreed to the rent - you can't reclaim it now.

Answer 3

The $35.00 extra per month was pet rent.

That extra monthly cost is not to cover damages, it is a fee for allowing your pet.

As far as the cost of replacing the carpets, you are only responsible for the depreciated cost of the carpet.

If the carpet has a life expectancy of 10 years and it was 5 years old, you should only be liable for 1/2 the cost. If it was 7 years old, you would be responsible for 3/10 of the cost. If it was 10 years old, you are not responsible for any of the cost.