Landlord wins case against tenant with unapproved dogs

By Susan Edmunds of RNZ

A tenant has been told to pay more than $7500 to her landlord, including more than $4000 for cleaning and repairs to damage caused by her six dogs, kept indoors.

A representative for property investors says that, ahead of planned changes that would allow them to charge pet bonds, the way the Tenancy Tribunal approaches pets is changing.

The woman had her tenancy terminated on September 27 last year. Her landlord sought reimbursement of several costs and was back before the tribunal last month.

The landlord told the tribunal the tenant kept six dogs at the property, in breach of her agreement, and they were “clearly” kept inside because there was scratching on doors and walls.

The landlord had the carpet cleaned after the tenancy ended but the extent of the staining and smell was such that the carpet had to be replaced.

Blinds were also damaged, in part by the dogs, and had been replaced with curtains.

The tribunal said the tenant should pay almost $1900 for rubbish removal, $1000 for the carpet, $800 for the damage to walls and doors, almost $3400 for cleaning and $300 for replacing the blinds.

The Government intends to amend the 1986 Residential Tenancies Act to allow landlords to charge an additional pet bond of up to two weeks’ rent on top of the existing bond. It would also make tenants liable for all pet damage beyond wear and tear. A bill currently being considered by Parliament’s social services and community select committee intends to make clear that it is up to landlords whether pets are allowed, and consent may be withheld on reasonable grounds.

Sarina Gibbon, spokeswoman for the Auckland Property Investors Association, said she was expecting the committee to report back in November.

“Based on my understanding, the pet rules will likely take effect from late 2025, early ‘26, as opposed to the termination rules being in effect sooner, likely early 2025.”

But she said the tribunal was already “tacitly endorsing” the enforceability of pet-related clauses to the extent that it would support landlords’ applications to terminate tenancies, especially in cases where tenants had deceived landlords about their pet ownership.

A year ago, the tribunal tended to take the view that no-pet clauses were not enforceable because they diminished a tenant’s right to quiet enjoyment, she said.

“When the new pet rules – a rebuttable presumptive right to have pets – come into force, it will be super interesting to see how the tribunal adjudicates landlords’ reasons to decline pets, given the current flavour and development of legal reasoning.

“I also think there could be some interplay between the new risk dynamics vis-à-vis pets and insurance products.”

- RNZ