Can you still say no to a tenant’s pet request?
A tribunal decision suggests its getting harder. A recent Tenancy Tribunal decision has confirmed that under New Zealand's new pet consent rules, turning down a tenant's pet request needs a genuinely reasonable reason. “No pets” as a blanket policy won't cut it.
Key takeaway:
Under the new pet consent rules, "no pets" isn't a valid reason on its own. A recent Tenancy Tribunal decision signals that if a tenant's proposed conditions genuinely manage the risk, refusing their request may not hold up - though the ruling isn't binding, it's expected to strongly influence how future cases are decided.
What changed on 1 December 2025
Since 1 December 2025, every pet request has to be considered on its own merits. Blanket “no pets” clauses in tenancy agreements are no longer enforceable, and you can only decline a request if you have reasonable grounds - genuine safety concerns, damage risk, or the property simply not suiting the animal, for example.
You still have tools to manage the risk including a pet bond of up to two weeks' rent, and the ability to set conditions when you approve a request. Tenants remain liable for any pet-related damage beyond fair wear and tear. (Disability assist dogs sit outside these rules entirely - no consent or bond required.)
Read our ‘new pet laws for rental properties’ article here where we go into detail about the new pet laws which came into effect.
The case that put it to the test
This year's first real test of the new rules came out of Christchurch. Tenants renting a unit of a three-storey building asked to bring home a golden Labrador puppy. The landlord said no, pointing to fencing, noise, safety and potential damage. The tenants came back with a plan: temporary fencing, supervision, protective mats, and a pet bond to cover the risk.
The Tenancy Tribunal sided with the tenants - and its reasoning is the part worth paying attention to. The starting point is no longer “no.” It's “why not, and can the risk actually be managed?” If a tenant's proposed conditions genuinely address your concerns, refusing outright is likely to be seen as unreasonable, even if you'd simply rather not have a pet in the property.
What this means for you
This isn't a story about one landlord getting it wrong - it's a signal for how every pet request will now be judged. If a tenant asks and you're inclined to say no, it's worth asking yourself:
What's the actual risk - not just the general discomfort of having a pet in the property?
Could a condition (fencing, flooring protection, a higher pet bond, size or breed limits) reasonably manage that risk?
Have I responded in writing, within 21 days, with clear reasons?
A blanket refusal, or a refusal without a documented reason, is exactly the pattern the Tribunal has just pushed back on.
Where Birds Nest comes in
Every pet request that lands on our desk gets assessed against the same standard the Tribunal just applied - properly, on its merits, with the paperwork and pet bond handled correctly from day one. That's one less compliance risk sitting on your plate.
If you're managing a rental yourself and a pet request has landed in your inbox - or you'd simply rather not be the one weighing it up next time - we're happy to help.
Disclaimer: Please note that the content provided in this article is intended as an overview and as general information only. While care is taken to ensure accuracy and reliability, the information provided is subject to continuous change and may not reflect current developments or address your situation. Before making any decisions based on the information provided in this article, please use your discretion and seek independent guidance.
