Tenant ordered to pay $7500 to landlord for damage caused by her six dogs

By Susan Edmunds of RNZ

A tenant has been told to pay more than $7500 to her landlord, including more than $4000 in cleaning and repairs to damage caused by her six dogs, kept indoors.

And one representative for property investors says ahead of planned changes that would allow them to charge pet bonds, the way the Tenancy Tribunal approaches pets is changing.

The woman had her tenancy terminated on September 27 last year. But her landlord sought reimbursement of a number of costs and was back before the tribunal last month.

The landlord told the tribunal the tenant kept six dogs at the property, in breach of her agreement, and they were “clearly” kept inside because there was scratching on doors and walls.

The landlord had the carpet cleaned after the tenancy ended, but the extent of staining and smell was such that it could not be fixed and the carpet had to be replaced.

Blinds were also damaged – in part by the dogs – and had been replaced with curtains.

The tribunal said the tenant should pay almost $1900 for rubbish removal, $1000 for the carpet, $800 for the damage to walls and doors, almost $3400 for cleaning and $300 for replacing the blinds.

The government was amending the law to allow landlords to charge an additional pet bond of up to two weeks’ rent, on top of the existing bond. It would also make tenants liable for all pet damage beyond wear and tear. It also made clear that it was up to the landlord whether pets were allowed, and consent could be withheld on reasonable grounds.

Sarina Gibbon, spokesperson for the Auckland Property Investors Association, said she was expecting the select committee to report back in November.

“Based on my understanding the pet rules will likely take effect from late 2025, early ’26 – as opposed to the termination rules being in effect sooner, likely early 2025.”

But she said the tribunal was already “tacitly endorsing” the enforceability of pet-related clauses to the extent that it would support landlords’ application to terminate the tenancy, especially in cases where the tenant had deceived the landlord about his/her pet ownership.

A year ago it tended to take the view that no-pet clauses were not enforceable because they diminished a tenant’s right to quiet enjoyment, she said.

“When the new pet rules – a rebuttable presumptive right to have pets – come into force, it will be super interesting to see how the tribunal adjudicates landlords’ reasons to decline pets, given the current flavour and development of legal reasoning.

“I also think there could be some interplay between the new risk dynamics vis-à-vis pets and insurance products.”