Pet-owning renters won the battle, but might landlords win the war?

Fears that apartment blocks could be overrun by animals were given another (probably irrational) tweak this week with the announcement that the NSW government is rolling out new laws that prevent landlords from imposing blanket bans on pets.

Given that more than 50 per cent of unit block residents are renters, and owners corporations (bodies corporate) long ago lost their ability to impose unreasonable restrictions on companion animals, we can expect to see a few more fur-babies in the hallways and lifts of apartment blocks.

Tenants will still need to have their landlord’s permission to have a pet in their home, as before. But the property owners will no longer be able to respond “because I say so” when asked why it’s been refused. And the landlords won’t be able to stall the decision either. The new laws, which come into force in May, say that if a decision is not provided within 21 days of a written request, it will be assumed to have been granted.

The matter of pets in apartments was hotly debated for decades before the Court of Appeal, in the famous Jo Cooper case, launched five years ago, ruled that bylaws banning all pets for no reason were unreasonable and therefore invalid.

To be fair, ownership of pets in apartments affects more people than just the property owner. A barking dog will irritate people all around and casual encounters in hallways and lifts might upset residents who can’t be around animals. However, there are laws in place to deal with animals that prove to be a nuisance.

Property owners can still refuse to allow pets in their rented homes, but the grounds are very specific. According to the Tenants NSW website (tenants.org.au), landlords can set reasonable conditions for pets, but they must be reasonable and related to the type of animal and the property. These include that there would be an unreasonable number of animals at the property, the property is not suitable for the animal, or the pet is likely to cause damage that would cost more to repair than the rental bond.

Other exceptions include that the landlord lives at the property, keeping the animal would violate a law, local council order or bylaw and, finally, that the tenant has not agreed to a reasonable condition proposed by the landlord.

The word “reasonable” crops up all over residential and strata law and, as the Cooper case proved, is open to wide interpretations that often need to be defined by a tribunal or court ruling.

A similar pro-pets law has been in place in Victoria for five years. There, tenants must fill in a pet application form and there is much social media discussion over whether pet owners should do that when they apply to rent the property – and risk not getting it because the landlord will quietly filter them out – or wait until they are ensconced and hope the landlord doesn’t have grounds to refuse.

In one early Victorian Civil Administrative Tribunal case brought under the new laws, one landlord had refused permission partly because “the rooftop terrace … is insufficiently enclosed to prevent the dog from jumping over the enclosure, which would probably result in its fatal fall to the ground, potentially injuring passers-by”.

In another VCAT case, the landlord argued their insurance policy did not cover pets, and that they suffered from allergies and hay fever, which might affect them if they returned to live there. At the hearing, their lawyer added that the property had been damaged by a previous tenant’s dog and the new tenants had already brought their dog in without permission.

In both cases, VCAT ruled that the refusals were not reasonable, and the pets were permitted. However, the Victorian Tenants Union claims more recent tribunals have ordered pets to be removed from rental properties.

Will we see the same rush to tribunals in NSW? The Cooper case ruling allowed pets in apartment blocks regardless of whether the property was tenanted or owner-occupied. However, the landlord can still refuse, and owners corporations can still deny pets when the tenant doesn’t have the landlord’s written permission.

The new pet regulations are part of a suite of law changes – many also in train for Victoria – that include an end to no-fault evictions, limits on the frequency of rent rises and bans on rent bidding and additional bonds for pets.

There is a concern that these safeguards for residential tenants might push NSW property owners into short-term holiday lets, a form of letting that does allow bans on pets, unfettered rent rises and the freedom to rent an investment property to whomever the landlords want for however long they wish.

That’s where Victoria is ahead of us. It brought in a holiday let levy of 7.5 per cent at the beginning of this year, just to make the jump to Airbnb and its ilk a little less of a no-brainer for landlords. The NSW government is said to be weighing up tougher rules for short-term rental properties, including a levy, but it has yet to propose any changes.

Last month, the City of Sydney demanded action on commercial investors who operate multiple short-term rentals, claiming it could return more than 1000 homes in the inner city to the long-term rental market. For pets, perhaps, as well as their humans.

The humans remain the urgent issue. It’s all very well saying tenants can have pets, and so they should, but finding somewhere affordable to live is the challenge with real bite for far too many renters.

Jimmy Thomson edits the apartment-living advice website flatchat.com.au