Tribunal sides with tenant in test of new laws on pets in NSW rental properties

Australia Broadcast Center

19 hours ago

Casey Munro says his life has changed for the better since new laws making pet ownership easier for rental tenants came into force in New South Wales.
Under new rules in place since May, a landlord cannot reject a tenant's application to keep a pet without a valid reason.
Three months on, Mr Munro's border collie dog Elsie — who was living with his mother — has moved in with him.
"Allowing me to have a dog improved my fitness, my mental health and just … my living standards," he said.
But for Mr Munro, the application process was not without challenges.
After renting a flat in Campbelltown for three years, he applied for consent to keep a dog.
He said his property manager declined the application on the basis it was highly probable a border collie would cause more damage than his $1,300 bond, as per a provision included in the new legislation.
The laws also state landlords must provide a written response to a pet request within 21 days and if they do not, the request is automatically approved.
"Initially they said, 'You haven't filled in the form correctly,' then a few days before the deadline they rejected it," Mr Munro said.
He challenged the outcome with the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal (NCAT), suppliing articles and a statement about the dog's training.
The tribunal noted it was a new area of law, but found the home owner's refusal was unreasonable based on a lack of evidence.
"I believe the tenancy laws are aimed at what is most fair for everyone at the time," Mr Munro said.
"It was a bit of stress when I knew I was going to have to take it to court, but it was worth it."
Tenants' Union of NSW advocacy manager Eloise Parrab said across Australia 30 per cent of renters had pets and they were an important part of people's families.
"The reforms included … renters having better rights and protections to get permission to have pets in their homes," Ms Parrab said.
"Not being able to do blanket bans on pets really impacts on people's abilities to find housing.
"It's an important change in NSW."
Nowra landlord Brenda Morrison has numerous properties and has never had an issue with tenants and pets.
However, she is not happy with much of the new legislation.
"If I agree to put a tenant in [my property] and they say, 'I've got no pets, I'm good,' no problem," Ms Morrison said.
"But if they turn around and put in a pet application, [for] say a rabbit, well, it's going to be running through the house free, and I've got a problem with that."
Ms Morrison said while she considered dogs outside pets, she could not enforce this in her rental properties.
"It's going to be my property getting destroyed and I'm going to have to chase the tenant to get it fixed.
"I feel like I have no rights now."
Although it is now harder for landlords to say no to pets, provisions do exist to protect property owners.
Landlords may refuse a request for more than four animals at the property, and a lack of fencing or open space potentially affecting the animal's welfare are also valid reasons to decline a pet application under the legislation.
Objections to applications can also be made if there is a high probability the animal will cause more damage than the bond covers, as Mr Munro's property manager put forward, or if the home owner lives at the property.
Real Estate Institute NSW chief executive Tim McKibbon said landlords could also object for other reasons.
"Such as the property isn't suitable for a pet of that size or type — and that dispute will end up in NCAT," he said.
He said the laws had also placed other burdens on property owners.
"Prior to these reforms, fit for purpose meant your rental properties had to have … electricity, hot water, etcetera," he said.
"Now, you need to accommodate pets, so if the fence in the yard was leaning down and the pet couldn't be accommodated comfortably in that yard, then you need to repair that fence."
Mr McKibbin said landlords were not expected to provide a fence if there was none.
"It may be wonderful that tenants are going to have some additional rights, but that only means something if you can get a rental," he said,
"Unfortunately, I think that is going to become more difficult and more expensive moving forward."