Landlords say pets destroy homes—tenants say they’re family. Who’s right?
- Replies 0
Casey Munro thought his life would stay divided between his home in Campbelltown and his dog Elsie, who lived with his mother.
Instead, a landmark tribunal ruling gave him the right to bring her home under new pet-friendly rental laws.
But the journey to get there was far from smooth.
When Mr Munro applied to keep Elsie, his border collie, his property manager rejected the request.
They argued the dog could cause more damage than his $1,300 bond would cover—a clause allowed under the May reforms.
Mr Munro said the rejection came only after delays and claims he had filled the form incorrectly.
With little choice, he took the matter to the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal (NCAT).
He presented articles and a statement about Elsie’s training, while the property manager submitted inspection reports, a letter, and an insurance article on the energetic nature of border collies.
The tribunal sided with Mr Munro, ruling the landlord’s refusal unreasonable due to insufficient evidence.
‘Allowing me to have a dog improved my fitness, my mental health and just … my living standards,’ Mr Munro said.
‘It was a bit of stress when I knew I was going to have to take it to court, but it was worth it.’
The decision highlighted how the new laws are reshaping the balance between tenants and landlords in New South Wales.
Tenants’ Union advocacy manager Eloise Parrab welcomed the reforms, saying 30 per cent of renters nationally had pets and needed better protections.
‘Not being able to do blanket bans on pets really impacts on people’s abilities to find housing,’ she said.
But not all property owners supported the changes.
Nowra landlord Brenda Morrison, who owns several homes, said she feared pets would damage her properties.
‘Someone can say, I have an inside dog, and you just have to deal with it,’ she said.
Ms Morrison, who keeps her own pets including a dog, turtle, fish, and crickets, said she felt landlords had lost rights.
‘I feel like I have no rights now,’ she said.
The legislation does still allow landlords to refuse in certain circumstances, such as if there are more than four animals, or if fencing and open space are inadequate for the animal’s welfare.
Applications may also be rejected if a pet is likely to cause damage beyond the bond, or if the landlord lives on the property.
Real Estate Institute of NSW chief executive Tim McKibbin said disputes would inevitably flow to NCAT.
He added that landlords now had extra responsibilities, including maintaining fencing if the property was otherwise suitable for pets.
‘It may be wonderful that tenants are going to have some additional rights, but that only means something if you can get a rental,’ he said.
If one tenant’s battle over a border collie shows how much the rental landscape is shifting, the next big changes could affect thousands more.
The laws around pets are only part of a wider shake-up that is reshaping the rights and responsibilities of both renters and landlords.
Here’s a look at what’s about to change—and how it might impact anyone navigating the rental market.
Read more: Tenants will see rental rule changes in a few days! Here's what renters need to know
The question now is whether these reforms will ease the housing struggle—or make rentals even harder to secure.
Instead, a landmark tribunal ruling gave him the right to bring her home under new pet-friendly rental laws.
But the journey to get there was far from smooth.
When Mr Munro applied to keep Elsie, his border collie, his property manager rejected the request.
They argued the dog could cause more damage than his $1,300 bond would cover—a clause allowed under the May reforms.
Mr Munro said the rejection came only after delays and claims he had filled the form incorrectly.
Tenant fights back after pet request refused. Image source: Pexels/Lum3n
Disclaimer: This is a stock image used for illustrative purposes only and does not depict the actual person, item, or event described.
Disclaimer: This is a stock image used for illustrative purposes only and does not depict the actual person, item, or event described.
With little choice, he took the matter to the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal (NCAT).
He presented articles and a statement about Elsie’s training, while the property manager submitted inspection reports, a letter, and an insurance article on the energetic nature of border collies.
The tribunal sided with Mr Munro, ruling the landlord’s refusal unreasonable due to insufficient evidence.
‘Allowing me to have a dog improved my fitness, my mental health and just … my living standards,’ Mr Munro said.
‘It was a bit of stress when I knew I was going to have to take it to court, but it was worth it.’
The decision highlighted how the new laws are reshaping the balance between tenants and landlords in New South Wales.
Tenants’ Union advocacy manager Eloise Parrab welcomed the reforms, saying 30 per cent of renters nationally had pets and needed better protections.
‘Not being able to do blanket bans on pets really impacts on people’s abilities to find housing,’ she said.
But not all property owners supported the changes.
Nowra landlord Brenda Morrison, who owns several homes, said she feared pets would damage her properties.
‘Someone can say, I have an inside dog, and you just have to deal with it,’ she said.
Ms Morrison, who keeps her own pets including a dog, turtle, fish, and crickets, said she felt landlords had lost rights.
‘I feel like I have no rights now,’ she said.
The legislation does still allow landlords to refuse in certain circumstances, such as if there are more than four animals, or if fencing and open space are inadequate for the animal’s welfare.
Applications may also be rejected if a pet is likely to cause damage beyond the bond, or if the landlord lives on the property.
Real Estate Institute of NSW chief executive Tim McKibbin said disputes would inevitably flow to NCAT.
He added that landlords now had extra responsibilities, including maintaining fencing if the property was otherwise suitable for pets.
‘It may be wonderful that tenants are going to have some additional rights, but that only means something if you can get a rental,’ he said.
If one tenant’s battle over a border collie shows how much the rental landscape is shifting, the next big changes could affect thousands more.
The laws around pets are only part of a wider shake-up that is reshaping the rights and responsibilities of both renters and landlords.
Here’s a look at what’s about to change—and how it might impact anyone navigating the rental market.
Read more: Tenants will see rental rule changes in a few days! Here's what renters need to know
The question now is whether these reforms will ease the housing struggle—or make rentals even harder to secure.
