Editorial: More questions than answers regarding the Government’s new pet bond

Editorial

EDITORIAL

The Government yesterday announced it will introduce a pet bond with the goal of making it easier for people in New Zealand to find rental accommodation for themselves and their furry friends.

Housing Minister Chris Bishop and his dog, Ladyhawke, made the announcement on Monday afternoon, alongside Act leader and Regulations Minister David Seymour.

“Anyone who has ever tried to find a pet-friendly rental property will know how hard it is, so we’re going to make it easier,” Bishop said, adding that “more landlords would be willing to allow pets if they could protect themselves from some of the risks”.

The policy was one the Act Party campaigned on in the lead-up to the election and then went on to secure in the coalition agreement with National.

While the announcement was fairly slim on details, the new policy will make tenants liable for all pet damage to properties beyond fair wear and tear, whether accidental or deliberate. It also states tenants can only have a pet or pets with the landlord’s consent and the landlord can withhold consent on reasonable grounds.

While it is likely to be welcome news for many renters with pets, it is not without its issues. The new policy will see renters paying an extra bond of up to two weeks’ rent in order to be able to secure a rental for themselves and their pet. With moving houses and securing a rental property being such a costly exercise already, this bond is not likely to be something many renters can afford.

It also raises numerous other questions. For example, how easy will it be for renters to get this bond back? Or rather - how easy will it be for landlords to argue damage to a property was caused by the pet rather than the tenant? Why charge renters an extra bond when the existing bond already covers damage caused by pets? What is deemed “fair wear and tear”? And what are “reasonable grounds” for a landlord not consenting to a pet? Does this really make things easier for renters, or does it just allow landlords to charge them more money?

This change is likely to be included in a Residential Tenancy Act amendment bill which is set to be introduced in May. While Bishop argued the pet bond would make it easier for people with pets to find rentals, he made no mention of how that same bill will roll back changes made by Labour and make it easier to evict tenants.

While introducing pet bonds, the Government is also bringing back no-cause evictions, meaning even if you pay both your regular old bond and your pet bond, you could still end up on the streets for no specific reason.