Mahvash Ikram
From 1 December, when the Residential Tenancies Amendment Act 2024 comes into effect, new rules will apply to tenants who want to have pets in rental properties.
Landlords will no longer be able to impose an outright ban: the new legislation says they cannot unreasonably withhold consent.
But they will be entitled to collect an extra two weeks’ rent at the start of a tenancy to hold as a pet bond (in addition to the standard four-week bond) and they may also set reasonable conditions for allowing pets, such as requiring carpets to be professionally cleaned at the end of the tenancy.
Tenants will also be fully liable for all pet-related damage beyond fair wear and tear.
Most of the legal wrangling is expected to centre around the meaning of “reasonable” in this context. Experts predict it is likely to spawn a raft of complaints to the Tenancy Tribunal.
There is also concern that the new framework takes no account of a landlord’s medical, religious or cultural concerns about pets in rentals.
Joanna Pidgeon
Joanna Pidgeon, a director of Pidgeon Judd and a member of The Law Association’s Property Law Committee, says the new rules tightly confine the “reasonable grounds” test to the suitability of the premises and the behaviour or risks associated with the animal.
Some landlords might be allergic to cats and they’re renting out their house only temporarily, she says, yet the statute gives no weight to that situation.
But Ed McKnight, an economist at property investment firm Opes Partners, says the reforms simply make explicit that renting out a home comes with risk, and pets are now one of the inherent risks of choosing to enter the rental market.
For prospective landlords there are two options, he says: either forgo renting and “accept that you’re going to have costs like rates, maintenance, insurance and no income,” or accept pets that are suitable for the premises, backed by the new protections around bonds and liability for damage.
In McKnight’s view, the amendment formalises a clearer set of rules of engagement that landlords take on when they rent out a property.
Mid-tenancy requests
Pidgeon says the new rules make it clear that tenants can now seek permission to bring in a pet, even after the tenancy has started, and landlords can no longer simply refuse as a matter of preference.
This is a significant shift in practice, she says, and will make it much harder for landlords to decline mid-tenancy requests unless they can point to specific, premises-based reasons.
Ed McKnight
But McKnight says this aligns with where the Tenancy Tribunal is already heading.
For example, in one case the tribunal ruled in favour of a tenant who initially had no pet but later acquired a dog. The tribunal found that the tenant’s children had formed a bond with the dog and allowed it to remain at the property, despite the landlord wanting it removed.
McKnight says the new law simply gives tenants a clearer pathway to request a pet and limits the landlords to narrow, defined grounds for saying no.
He also notes that accidental pet damage, previously a landlord cost, will now fall on the tenant unless it is fair wear and tear.
So, that shift in liability offers landlords a degree of protection that did not exist before, he says.
“There was a case where a tenant had a pet that was urinating on the floor of a bedroom, and it happened seven times. The first instance was considered accidental damage, so the landlord had to pay for the cleaning. For any subsequent mishaps, that was considered to be intentional or careless damage because the tenant should have known better.”
Personal circumstances
“Reasonable grounds” for refusing a pet might include a home being too small for a large dog, inadequate fencing or an animal with a history of aggression.
But Pidgeon describes the situation as a “structural imbalance”. The law assumes every landlord is a neutral property owner with no personal limitations, when in reality many landlords have legitimate cultural, medical or family considerations that might mean they don’t want pets in their rental properties.
If a landlord wants to decline, the reason must be given in writing within 21 days. If the landlord does not respond within that timeframe, the request may be treated as granted. The new rules apply to all new tenancies from the commencement date, while existing agreements will continue under their current terms until they renew or roll over.
Both McKnight and Pidgeon say how the regime will operate in practice will become clear once the Tenancy Tribunal begins hearing disputes.
McKnight expect the rulings to provide the consistency that landlords lacked under the previous framework.
Pidgeon says the early cases will determine how rigidly the tribunal applies the premises-based test and whether there will be any room for landlords to object on the basis of cultural or medical concerns.
0 Comments