Pet clauses have been a contentious issue recently, particularly since these piggies jumped onto the Herald front page. Tribunal adjudicators remain divided on whether no-pet clauses are enforceable and if a breach warrants termination under section 56. The lack of certainty and impending changes to tenancy rules vis-à-vis pets make this issue a pressing headache for many landlords and create unnecessary impediments for tenants who simply want to get on with their lives. 

As the rental sector continues to manoeuvre around this moving target, a recent Tribunal order highlights yet another layer of complexity: the critical distinction between companion animals and certified disability dogs and its implications as to the enforceability of no-pet clauses in tenancy agreements. As tenancy law evolves, grasping these nuances becomes increasingly consequential for all parties involved. 

Simply put, there is none, at least not now. 

“Companion Animals” is not a reserved term, and these furry friends are legally pets and do not confer special rights to their owners in tenancy situations. Certified disability dogs, on the other hand, are protected under the law as an extension of their disabled owners and generally cannot be restricted from rental properties. 

The tenant argued his dog was exempt from pet rules due to its registration with the Companion Animals NZ Register. However, this register is merely a microchipping database and confers no special legal status.

It is worth noting that while therapy and emotional support animals are increasingly common for mental health management, they lack the legal status of certified disability dogs. Even with healthcare professional certification, they are captured by any and all (enforceable) pet provisions in the tenancy agreement. In the long term, it...