You find a pet-friendly rental and think: “Great, I can finally live with cats.”
Then the agent adds a bonus prophecy:
“If the place gets badly damaged, move-out costs can reach around ¥400,000.”
Cat: “The wall is a canvas.”
Landlord: “It absolutely is not.”
So is ¥400,000 an exaggeration? Are cats more expensive than dogs? Does owning two cats simply double the bill? And what are the average and median move-out costs for dogs and cats?
The first important finding is that a reliable nationwide dog-versus-cat average or median was not identified in the government material and major 2026 surveys reviewed for this article. What we do have is useful data on cases where pet-related move-out problems actually occurred. In that group, ¥300,000–¥500,000 was not unusual at all.
That makes ¥400,000 neither a normal bill for every pet owner nor a fantasy. It is a plausible high-cost outcome when damage and odor spread across several parts of a unit.
0. Do Not Turn a Random “Average” Into a Budget
The internet is full of neat figures such as “dogs cost about X” and “cats cost about Y” at move-out.
The problem is that many such figures do not clearly state the sample, apartment size, years of occupancy, number of animals, deposit treatment, or whether the unit was actually damaged.
The public and 2026 sources checked here did not provide a nationally representative dog-only and cat-only average or median.
So a figure such as “cats cost ¥85,000” should not be treated like a fixed insurance premium.
Move-out restoration is not a bathroom scale. You do not place a cat on it and get “¥85,000.”
What matters more is which materials were damaged, how widely, and how deeply.
1. ¥400,000 Can Happen—But Look at the Sample
In August 2026, Blue Clean surveyed 849 people who had owned or managed rental properties within the previous five years. 23.67% said they had experienced pet-related restoration or cleaning trouble at move-out.[1]
A follow-up survey of 100 people who had experienced such trouble found:
- ¥300,000–¥500,000: 34%, the largest group
- ¥500,000–¥1,000,000: 11%
- ¥1,000,000 or more: 7%
- 52% in total were ¥300,000 or more
- under ¥100,000: 11%[1]
From those bands, the median for these 100 trouble cases falls in the ¥300,000–¥500,000 range.
But this is not the median for every renter with a pet. The sample was already filtered for pet-related move-out trouble.
The correct reading is:
¥400,000 is not the universal market rate. It is entirely plausible inside the trouble-case population.
2. Why Costs Jump: One Pet Can Trigger Several Trades
In the same survey, the most common reported problem was floor damage or deterioration at 42%. Wallpaper replacement was the most common post-move-out response at 52%, and 26% required specialized cleaning.[1]
This shows why bills escalate.
A single incident can become a chain:
- scratched wallpaper,
- damaged trim or doors,
- urine penetrating flooring,
- odor surviving ordinary cleaning,
- deodorization or specialized cleaning,
- flooring or substrate replacement.
Cat: “Small accident.”
Floor: “Received.”
Subfloor: “Also received.”
Wallet: “I was not consulted.”
The number of animals matters, but the number of repair categories often matters more.
3. Cats vs. Dogs: Think Damage Pattern, Not Winner
There is no solid national dog-versus-cat price table to rely on.
Cats can create risk through scratching wallpaper, posts and doors, as well as marking or litter accidents that penetrate flooring.
Dogs can create floor scratches, damage to doors and walls, odor and toilet accidents; in some buildings, barking can also become a separate neighbor issue.
Instead of asking “Which species is more expensive?”, a better checklist is:
walls / floors / fixtures / odor / urine / special cleaning.
The farther damage travels across those categories, the higher the tail risk.
4. “Pets Allowed” Means Permission to Keep Them, Not Free Repairs
Japan’s Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism states in its restoration guideline that scratches and odor caused by pets are often treated as tenant responsibility because they are not simply ordinary wear from normal use.[2]
So:
pet-friendly = you may keep the pet
does not mean:
pet-friendly = the landlord pays for scratching and urine damage.
Tokyo’s consumer affairs authority published a 2026 case involving one small dog kept for five years in a pet-friendly rental. The tenant received a ¥240,000 restoration bill, and the lease contained a clause covering pet-caused staining and damage.[3]
Permission and damage liability are different questions.
5. A Bill Is Not Automatically the Final Answer
The opposite extreme is also wrong.
The MLIT Q&A says that when a tenant damages wallpaper, restoration should consider the age of the material and the minimum reasonable repair unit.[4]
Tokyo also advises tenants facing high restoration charges to request an explanation and notes that there may be room to discuss the tenant’s share in light of the damaged area and elapsed years.[3]
So “there was a pet, therefore replace everything at full new price” is not automatically the correct calculation.
Actual responsibility depends on the lease, the damage, depreciation/age, and the repair scope.
6. Two Cats Do Not Mean “Cost × 2”
If one cat scratches one wall and two cats scratch that same wall, it is still one wall to replace.
Conversely, one cat that repeatedly marks several rooms can create a much larger bill.
More animals may increase the opportunities for scratching, accidents and odor, but restoration is primarily driven by the final damage footprint.
For two cats, the better question is not “What is the per-cat fee?”
It is:
Can a problem be contained before it spreads from one surface to multiple materials and rooms?
7. Five Lease Items to Check Before Moving In
Before signing a pet-friendly lease, check:
- extra deposit required for keeping pets,
- whether that extra deposit is refundable or automatically retained,
- whether pet deodorizing/cleaning is fixed-fee or actual-cost,
- the exact scope of pet-damage clauses,
- whether a second animal triggers extra deposit, fees or restrictions.
A 2026 survey by ielove GROUP found that 58.0% of real-estate companies cited restoration costs as an issue in handling pet-friendly properties.[5]
So agents warning about restoration costs are not inventing the issue. It is a real management concern.
8. Conclusion: Do Not Fear ¥400,000; Break the Path That Creates It
The useful conclusion is not “cats cost ¥400,000.”
It is:
- no robust national dog/cat average or median was confirmed here,
- among documented pet move-out trouble cases, ¥300,000–¥500,000 was the largest cost band,
- 52% of those trouble cases were ¥300,000 or more,
- ¥400,000 is not a standard bill for all pet households,
- but it becomes plausible when floors, walls, odor and specialized cleaning stack together,
- pet-friendly status does not erase tenant responsibility,
- the final allocation depends on the contract, damage scope, age and repair unit.
In short:
A cat does not create a ¥400,000 bill merely by existing.
A room that turns into a multi-trade restoration project can.
Protect walls and floors, deal with toilet accidents immediately, photograph the unit at move-in, and read the pet clauses before signing.
Cats may have unlimited charm. Your restoration bill does not need unlimited upside.
References (5)
- Blue Clean, pet rental trouble survey, Aug. 2026 b-clean.jp
- MLIT, Restoration guideline mlit.go.jp
- Tokyo Consumer Affairs, Mar. 18, 2026 shouhiseikatu.metro.tokyo.lg.jp
- MLIT, Restoration guideline Q&A mlit.go.jp
- ielove GROUP, pet-friendly rental survey, Feb. 27, 2026 ielove-group.jp
