The landlord refused.
Photographs advertising the property showed a cat. Its outdoor areas were a large deck and a section at the back, shared with other units.
A property manager appeared for the landlord at the tribunal hearing, and said the owner was concerned about the suitability of the deck for dogs and the noise for other people in the building.
The owner was also worried the dog could roam, because the property was not fully fenced.
The tenants offered extra conditions, including a trial period and support from an upstairs neighbour.
Carter said the purpose of the pet rules was clear.
“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.”
He said landlords needed to consider requests in good faith, with an open mind, and consider the premises and the particular pet.
“Dogs provide a useful example for why this case-by-case assessment is required. A property may not necessarily be unsuitable for a dog just because it is unfenced or small.
“An unfenced and/or small property may still be suitable for a small, well-behaved, house-trained dog, but may be unsuitable for another, just as a large and fenced property might be suitable for one dog, but unsuitable for a different dog.
“Likewise, the property will not necessarily be unsuitable due to the proximity of neighbours and/or the potential for barking. Again, what is required is an assessment of the premises, its neighbourhood, and of the dog, its breed, its training and its propensity to bark.
“This will always be a case-by-case assessment.”
No clear reasons
Carter said the grounds should be more than hypothetical.
He said the landlord’s initial response to the tenants was deficient, because they were not given clear reasons why they were being refused.
The response they received from the operations manager was sufficient, because reasons were given, including the potential for disturbance to other residents, the risk of damage to the deck, and the safety risk of the dog not having a secure exercise or toilet area.
Carter said the reasons were understandable, but could be addressed with reasonable conditions.
To have a dog, the tenants must pay a pet bond equal to two weeks’ rent, pay for and install mats on the outdoor deck, erect an adequate protective barrier to ensure the dog does not fall through the wire railings, and pay for and erect temporary fencing, if required by the landlord.
They must also supervise the dog every time it is in a communal area, including the section at the back, and remove all temporary fencing and barriers when they leave.
They were told they must also have the carpet cleaned professionally and flea-treated at the end of the tenancy.
Tenancy.co.nz consultant Chris Matthews said the recent amendments to the law allowed landlords to hold tenants fully liable for pet-related damage, which gave landlords more financial protection.
He said the Christchurch decision was likely to influence future cases.
“The message is clear. Where reasonable conditions can mitigate potential risks, those conditions should be implemented, instead of landlords trying to justify reasons to say no.
“Landlords and tenants have a bit more clarity around how this legislation actually works. The clear message there is that, instead of finding reasons to say no, the parties should be trying to find solutions and conditions on how it could possibly work.”