The Labrador ruling

While most landlords realise that a blanket “no pets” policy no longer applies under changes to the Residential Tenancies Amendment Act 2024, Tenancy Tribunal principal adjudicator Brett Carter’s recent ruling lays out the policy in practice, and what happens when landlords get it wrong.

Adjudicator Carter acknowledged that noise, deck safety, and the absence of proper fencing were all understandable issues raised by the concerned landlord. But what he found was that those concerns could be addressed through conditions, and that where reasonable conditions exist, they must be applied rather than used as grounds to refuse a pet (a puppy, in this case).

The conditions Carter imposed give landlords a practical template for similar situations: tenants must pay a pet bond equal to two weeks’ rent, install mats on the outdoor deck, erect a protective barrier on the wire railings so the dog can’t fall through, and put up temporary fencing if the landlord requires it. Additionally, the dog must be supervised every time it enters communal areas.

At the end of the tenancy, carpets must be professionally cleaned and flea-treated, and the temporary fencing and barriers removed when the tenants leave.

These are a solid set of obligations, but the adjudicator’s point is that they are proportionate responses to real risks, and proportionate responses are what the law now requires.

A flat refusal, by contrast, is a last resort reserved for situations where no reasonable set of conditions can make the arrangement work.

Hypothetical concerns won’t hold

Carter was explicit that the grounds for refusal must be more than hypothetical. Just because a landlord worries that a dog might cause noise, damage the deck, or wander through an unfenced railing, that doesn’t mean they can decline a tenant’s pet request. The law asks for something more substantial, including an assessment of the actual premises, neighbourhood, and the pet under consideration.

The adjudicator’s language on this point suggests that an unfenced property isn’t automatically unsuitable for a dog, nor is a small property, or proximity to other residents and the potential for barking. What matters is a genuine case-by-case evaluation of the dog’s breed, training, and temperament against the specific features of the property.

“The dog might bark” is not an argument.

The deficient refusal problem

Carter found the landlord’s initial response to the tenants’ request was deficient, not because they refused the request, but because they did not clearly explain why. The property manager’s follow-up response, however, was sufficient because it gave specific reasons, including possible disturbance to other residents, risk of deck damage, and the lack of a secure toilet area.

When a landlord receives a written pet request, the response should identify the property features causing concern, the specific risks posed by the animal, and, if the request is refused, why those risks cannot be managed through conditions.

What this means for apartment and multi-unit landlords

The Christchurch Labrador case involved a three-storey building with shared outdoor space – the kind of high-density residential stock that has grown substantially under the Medium Density Residential Standards in recent years.

Landlords in those settings had perhaps assumed that shared buildings would give them stronger grounds to refuse. But Carter’s ruling suggests otherwise. Where conditions can manage the risk to other residents – such as supervised communal access, barriers, and noise management – that’s the path the Tribunal is likely to take.

Landlords with body corporate obligations face a slightly different calculation. If a body corporate rule prohibits pets, that remains a legitimate basis for refusal. But the Tribunal will want to see that rule in writing, and landlords should not assume that a body corporate’s informal preference carries the same weight as a formal rule in the corporate’s constitution.

Pet bonds

The ruling also confirms that a pet bond is a legitimate condition. The bond in this case was set at two weeks’ rent, which the adjudicator clearly considered reasonable for a Labrador in the circumstances.

The 2024 amendments also allow landlords to hold tenants fully liable for pet-related damage, which strengthens their financial protection. The bond, combined with full liability for damage, gives landlords more practical recourse than they had before the legislative changes, provided the conditions are documented clearly in the tenancy agreement.

Presumption shifted

The Residential Tenancies Amendment Act is clear in its intent to move away from blanket prohibitions. What this ruling adds is a sense of where the presumption now sits.

A landlord who wants to refuse a pet request needs to be able to show that the specific animal poses risks to the property that conditions cannot reasonably address. Landlords who refuse without engaging with that analysis – or who give vague, undocumented reasons – are likely to find the Tribunal unimpressed. Those who respond thoughtfully, propose conditions where risks can be managed, and document the whole process carefully are in a much stronger position, whether they ultimately approve the request or not.

One ruling from one adjudicator in one Christchurch flat doesn’t settle every question, but the Carter decision gives landlords a clear signal about where the Tribunal’s reasoning will start.

For advice on managing tenancy changes and protecting your investment, contact one of our property experts on 0800 GOODWINS.