Wellington nurse Caitlin Flanagan thought it would be easier to find a home with her cat, Edgar Allan Pūkeko, with the legislation.
Flanagan and her cat, Edgar Allan Pūkeko, were even rejected from homes that already had cat doors.
“There was one place that said the place wouldn’t be suitable because of the hardwood floors and then didn’t explain further.”
Jacob Holmes, an agent from Tommy’s Property Management, said they have had issues with landlords digging their heels in about no pets — to the extent they dropped a client from Tawa.
The client tried to use a small break in the property’s fencing as an excuse, he said.
The legislation lists that inadequate fencing could be a reason for not allowing pets – a reason Holmes said landlords are using as a “crutch”.
“The fencing’s just an excuse. The reason is because they think it’s going to be damaging to a property.”
Other reasons listed on the Tenancy Services could be that the property is too small or has unique features that could be hard to fix or dangerous for the animal.
“It’s a basic human right at the end of the day to own a pet,” Holmes said.
A 2024 report by Companian Animals found that 63% of New Zealand households have a pet.
Holmes believed tenants with pets tended to stay longer.
He wanted the rules to be more defined for what exactly is reasonable grounds, as “everyone’s making guesswork.”
Jason Whitty, director of Rent Care felt the decision lay with the homeowner, even though the company would “push hard” for pets.
“If an owner does dig in their heels, obviously, we can’t override their decision,” Whitty said.
With 65 properties currently listed, he said their portfolio is split, with about half of the properties not allowing pets.
Whitty liked to be open-minded and educate homeowners along the way, rather than drop them, saying the legislation was still fresh.
The legislation, under the Residential Tenancies Act, said landlords could lay down “reasonable conditions”, such as a pet bond of up to two weeks and carpet cleaning at the end of the tenancy.
However, Whitty believed this bond wouldn’t always be enough to cover costs, particularly if carpet needed to be replaced for urine damage.
Holly Davies of Wellington pays an extra $10 a week in rent to house her cat, Skye.
“It’s a great step where we’ve gone to, but it doesn’t cover the whole situation.”
He encouraged renters to contact Trade Me rental listings even if they said “no pets”, as this was the default setting on the site.
Another property agency in the capital said listing homes as ‘No Pets’ was its “normal”.
The agency was still figuring out how to manage the new law, saying the team “haven’t had a whole conversation about it yet”.
Quinovic chief executive Parrish Wong said advertising properties as “no pets” was no longer appropriate, as the legal position is that pets cannot be refused by default.
He has explained to clients that pets cannot be refused as a blanket rule.
“We are clear about our obligation to operate within the law. Where a property is suitable for pets under the legislation, refusing consent without valid grounds isn’t an option.”
Cat owner Holly Davies said the power was ultimately in homeowners’ hands.
“You feel somewhat helpless to a landlord who says they don’t want pets, despite the new legislation,” she said.
Davies found a home under the agreement where all tenants pay an extra $10 a week for any potential needs related to the cat at the end of the lease.
The tenants also promised to provide carpet cleaning services after the lease.
“I think there’s also that power imbalance where it’s like, if the landlord says no, you feel like you can’t question that,” she said.
“I think it can be anxiety-inducing, not knowing if you can have your fur-baby with you, and not knowing how things will go.”
Sammy Carter is a journalist for the New Zealand Herald covering news in the Wellington region. She has previously worked at the Rotorua Daily Post.