New Pet Consent Rules: What the First Tenancy Tribunal Decision Means for Landlords

The new pet consent rules are now in force (for residential tenancies), and the first Tenancy Tribunal decision under these rules gives landlords an important insight into how pet requests are likely to be assessed going forward.

Under the new rules, tenants who want to keep a pet must request the landlord’s consent. Landlords can set reasonable conditions, including requiring a pet bond of up to two weeks’ rent, but they cannot simply refuse a pet request without reasonable grounds.

A recent Tenancy Tribunal case involved tenants who wanted to adopt a Golden Labrador Retriever puppy. The landlord refused consent due to concerns about the suitability of the property, including the lack of secure fencing, the elevated deck, possible barking/noise, safety concerns, and the risk of damage.

On the face of it, those concerns were not unreasonable. However, the tenants offered several practical solutions, including paying a pet bond, installing mats and a protective barrier on the deck, putting up temporary fencing if required, supervising the dog in communal areas, accepting responsibility for pet-related damage, and arranging professional carpet cleaning and flea treatment at the end of the tenancy.

The Tribunal found that the landlord should have considered whether those proposed conditions adequately addressed the concerns. Because the tenants had put forward reasonable solutions, the Tribunal ruled that the refusal was not reasonable and varied the tenancy agreement to allow the dog, subject to conditions.

This decision is significant because it shows that landlords cannot take a blanket “no pets” approach, nor can they simply decline because a property is not ideal for a pet. The question is not just whether there are concerns. The question is whether those concerns can be reasonably managed through conditions.

For landlords, this means pet requests now need to be considered carefully and documented properly. If a landlord wants to decline a request, there should be clear, property-specific reasons. General concerns such as “the owner does not want pets”, “the property is not suitable”, or “the pet may cause damage” may not be enough unless they are supported by specific evidence and cannot reasonably be addressed through conditions.

Reasonable conditions may include requiring a pet bond, professional carpet cleaning at the end of the tenancy, flea treatment, restrictions on where the pet can be kept, requirements around supervision, fencing, gates, mats, restraints, waste removal, or other measures appropriate to the property and the type of pet.

However, conditions also need to be reasonable. They should be tailored to the actual risk, the type of pet, and the property itself. A condition that may be reasonable for a large dog may not be reasonable for a cat or a small caged animal.

The key takeaway for landlords is that pet requests should now be approached as a risk-management exercise, not a simple yes-or-no decision. A well-handled pet request should involve considering the type of pet, the layout and condition of the property, fencing, flooring, neighbouring properties, body corporate or council rules, the tenant’s history, and any conditions that could reasonably reduce the risk.

This does not mean landlords must approve every pet request. There may still be valid reasons to decline, particularly where the property is genuinely unsuitable, there are legal or body corporate restrictions, the pet is inappropriate for the property, or the tenant has previously failed to comply with pet-related conditions. But the reasons for refusal need to be specific, reasonable and defensible.

Going forward, we expect pet requests to become more common, and we also expect tenants to be more aware of their rights. Landlords should avoid making quick or informal decisions and should ensure any approval, conditions, or refusal is recorded in writing.

For landlords, the safest approach is to assess each request on its own facts, apply reasonable conditions where appropriate, and keep clear records of the decision-making process. This will help reduce the risk of disputes and ensure that any decision can be justified if challenged.

As property managers, our role is to help landlords navigate these requests carefully, protect the property as much as possible, and ensure decisions are made in line with the current law.

– Case reference A v B Redacted (2) [2026] NZTT 5452836