Proposed pet bonds could mean more rental options for pet owners

Saturday, 27 January 2024

The wheels are in motion for a change to legislation which would allow property owners to charge a higher bond to pet owners - and it seems there is support for the move on both sides of the fence.

In his “signing ceremony” speech as part of the new coalition government in November last year, ACT leader David Seymour announced a policy change for pets and rental properties which would allow landlords to require an extra bond payment from tenants with pets.

Housing Minister Chris Bishop said introducing pet bonds would be considered under changes to the Residential Tenancies Act in the next few months, which the Government believes will make it easier for tenants to have pets in rental properties.

“I am taking advice from officials on the delivery of such changes and will be making paws-itive announcements in due course,” Bishop said, in a pun, on Thursday.

Currently the maximum bond a landlord can charge is the equivalent of four weeks’ rent, irrespective of whether they allow a pet or not. A tenant can be held responsible for any damage caused by their pet.

However, the majority of property owners are reluctant to allow pets. A quick search on Trade Me for residential rental properties in Christchurch brought up 660 results on Friday morning. When a filter is applied to only show properties that would allow pets, the results drop to 191 properties.

Jaydene Baguley, a mum of three and owner of two cats, knows the struggle of finding a pet-friendly rental property all too well.

After living in a rental house for six years, Baguley suddenly found herself back in the rental race in November - but this time with two cats and facing much higher rent prices.

According to Trade Me’s latest rental price index, the median weekly rent in Christchurch in December was $560. Baguley had a budget of up to $700 a week, well above the median rent, but this did little to ease the process.

“I physically looked at approximately 20 properties and approached six landlords on Facebook about rental properties,” said Baguley.

She ended up applying for 10 properties and was shortlisted for six. “A lot of the properties [I viewed] I didn't apply for, because I asked at the viewing if I could negotiate keeping two cats and was told no.”

Baguley says she was “very lucky” to find a suitable rental property after two months of searching.

She said she supported pet bonds if it would make house-searching easier for pet owners.

“Pets need to be cared for, set boundaries and need to be trained. If a pet has damaged a property, it is because the owner was irresponsible. Some children and people cause more damage to a property than a pet would,” she said.

'If it means more landlords will feel comfortable renting their investments to [pet-owning] families then it's a great step.”

Dave Robinson, from Christchurch, said he was caught off guard by how inaccessible the rental market could be for pet owners.

When Robinson and his partner recently sold their home, they thought getting a rental property would be easy. They are a couple in their mid-50s with cash to spare, have two stable incomes, and no children - “the ideal tenants”.

He did not anticipate that their 7-year-old miniature schnauzer would mean the pool of rental properties available to them would massively shrink.

“When you look at property listings that fit your criteria, and then filter those down to properties that would allow pets, you suddenly have less than a quarter of what would have been available had you not had a pet.”

Robinson finally found a rental property through the real estate agent that sold the couple’s house. He said the property they “settled” for was not quite what they wanted, but they felt they had no choice but to take what was available to them.

Robyn Fantham, managing director of Real Property Management in Christchurch, said while pet owners are often responsible tenants, they “consistently see curtains plucked and damaged by cat claws, carpet plucked at doorways, and occasionally cat urine odours which are incredibly hard to remove”.

“Dogs seem to cause far less damage providing they are given the required level of training, exercise and attention for their breed.”

Fantham said the majority of landlords were reluctant to take the risk of taking on pet-owners as tenants because there is not enough financial protection available to them.

“If legislation changed so tenants were responsible for full replacement or reinstatement of items damaged by pets, together with covering lost rent for the remediation to occur, I’m sure this would give landlords more confidence.”

She said the allowance for pet bonds was a “great initiative” from the coalition government. “I think it’s a step in the right direction, but legislation giving tenants more responsibility for damage would definitely help. I also think it's important for tenants to give serious thought to the right type of pet for their family and living situation before taking them on.”

She suggested a national pet reference database that includes council information, veterinary information and landlord references could be a good way for landlords to verify basic information about a pet and whether it had been the source of complaints or transgressions in the past.

Melissa Benge, managing director of property management firm Irelands, said pet bonds were a good idea as there was already an appetite in the market for it.

“We have tenants who ask if they can pay an extra bond to have a pet, but we are not able to collect that legally. So there is already a request from tenants to be able to do it.”

Benge said the new legislation could possibly persuade more landlords to accept pet-owners as tenants, although there would inevitably be some who had had previous bad experiences that would make them reluctant to take the risk.