First Pet Rulings

Pet Rules by Matt Ball NZPIF

‍

This week I got the chance to read the full decision in the first pet rules case. Here are the key points that stood out to me. This is detailed as I think it will affect a lot of landlords and is important.

The tenants live in the middle floor of a three-level building, with another tenant living above them and a basement below. It’s a two-bedroom dwelling with a ‘large outdoor deck’. The property isn’t fully fenced and has a communal area at the rear.

The tenant made a request to get a dog which was rejected by the property manager who in writing stated that that the landlord declined the request “due to the aforementioned issues”. I assume the ‘aforementioned issues’ were part of a verbal discussion at some point. Regardless, the adjudicator ruled that this response was deficient.

The tenant then appealed to the operations manager of the property management company, who again declined the request, but provided the following reasons:

• The premises are not suitable for the dog due to the lack of secure outdoor space and containment.
• The increased nuisance or disturbance to other residents because barking/transient noise will transmit through shared walls/ceilings without soundproofing.
• The pet being unsuited to premises due to the risk of causing damage to the deck (puppies have high toileting/activity risk on deck surfaces).
• The safety risk to the dog due to no secure exercise or toilet area and the risk of falls from the elevated deck.

The adjudicator considered that this complied with the legal requirement to give clear written reasons for refusal and went on to consider if the reasons were reasonable.

When making his decision, the adjudicator first looked at Parliament’s intention in making the law. This sets a precedent for future cases:

“The pet consent rules are an intentional move away from blanket “no pet” policies and are intended to enable tenants to have pets, while enabling a landlord to decline consent – but only where it is reasonable to do so.”

The adjudicator went on to assess whether the reasons given were reasonable. These points may be important guidance for landlords assessing future pet requests:

1. Landlords should consider pet requests in good faith:
   A landlord should have an open mind and consider each request in good faith - with honesty, fairness, reasonableness, and the absence of ulterior motive or impropriety.

2. Landlords must consider the premises and the pet:
   Consideration of the request requires an assessment of the particular premises and that particular pet.

3. Grounds relied upon by a landlord should be more than hypothetical:
   Reasonable grounds cannot be established by theoretical possibilities or generalised concerns alone.

4. Landlord should consider whether conditions, including conditions proposed by the tenant, could mitigate any identified concerns:
   A good faith assessment of the tenant’s request to keep a pet should include consideration of whether reasonable conditions can mitigate the landlord’s concerns.

5. Landlord must consent to any minor change to make the premises suitable for a pet:
   The RTA already allows tenants to make minor changes with consent; this decision argues that it includes changes that would make the premises suitable for a pet.

6. Landlord must provide clear written reasons for refusal:
   The explanation under this point is illustrative: “A failure to provide a clear written response may be an unlawful act, and may demonstrate to the Tribunal that the landlord did not have reasonable grounds at the time the decision was made.” (my emphasis)

Of the four reasons for refusal given by the landlord, the adjudicator found that the second reason, that the dog might bark, was unreasonable, because it was theoretical. He considered that the other three reasons given were reasonable - but could be mitigated by a series of conditions, including a pet bond and minor adjustments to the dwelling, at the tenant’s expense. So, they did not stand.

I think this is the biggest point to take from this decision. It is not enough to give reasons which might seem reasonable to you; a landlord must also consider how these points could be mitigated by the tenant, through conditions (including conditions suggested by the tenant), before making a final decision. This decision seems to me to be saying that it's not enough just to consider the pet and say yes or no, you need to demonstrate that you've tried your best to accommodate the pet before saying no.

‍

Links with more detail

‍

Full Blog Post from NZPIF (well worth reading)

Lawnews Article.

‍