No Pets Clause NZ: When Blanket Bans Are Unlawful

What Changed on 1 December 2025

Section 42D(1) and (2) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 apply only to tenancy agreements made on or after 1 December 2025. In those agreements, landlords cannot prohibit pets without reasonable grounds under Section 42F. A generic "no pets allowed" line has no effect.

Including a blanket ban without property-specific justification in an agreement covered by Section 42D is an unlawful act under Section 42D(3). The Tenancy Tribunal can award exemplary damages of up to $1,500.

What Happens to Existing Agreements

If your current tenancy agreement was made before 1 December 2025 and contains a "no pets" clause, Section 42D(1) and (2) do not apply to it. The existing clause remains part of the agreement, but a tenant can still make a written request for consent under Section 42E. You must consider that request and cannot refuse it solely because of the old clause; a refusal needs reasonable grounds under Section 42F.

That means if your tenant submits a formal pet request under Section 42E, you must process it through the statutory consent framework. You cannot point to the old clause and issue an automatic refusal. The request must be assessed on its merits: property suitability, council bylaws, body corporate rules, and the animal's characteristics.

When a Pet Restriction Is Still Lawful

A clause that prohibits pets at a specific property for documented, evidence-based reasons can be included in an agreement made on or after 1 December 2025. For example:

• "Pets are not permitted at this property because the Body Corporate Operational Rules (Rule 12.3) prohibit animals in all units" — this cites a binding legal restriction under Section 42F(b).
• "Dogs are not permitted because the property has no secure boundary fencing and is located on a busy arterial road" — this cites property unsuitability under Section 42F(a).

The key is specificity. A reason tied to the property and supported by evidence can survive. A blanket preference cannot.

The Practical Impact

For most self-managing landlords, the change means moving from a "default no" to a "default yes with conditions." You still control the process — you can set reasonable conditions under Section 42G, collect a pet bond of up to two weeks' rent, and refuse where genuine grounds exist. The difference is that each decision must now be documented and defensible.

If you have tenants in older agreements who have never asked about pets, nothing changes until they do. But when a request arrives, the old clause alone will not establish reasonable grounds to refuse it.

Our Pets in Rentals NZ guide includes a clause review checklist and replacement wording for tenancy agreements that need property-specific pet provisions.

See more New Zealand guides →