OCR Announcement & Will Landlords Get Anything In The Budget?

Added: 2026-05-28

[00:00:00]Well, my next guest, we've got a bit to talk about from the first pet ruling since the law was changed to allow tenants to request to have a pet to what to expect from I think it is today the OCR decision comes out, is it today?

[00:00:16]Yeah. Um no increase expected, but will mortgage rates rise anyway? And are we now a tax haven?

[00:00:24]Are the Aussies flooding in? What?

[00:00:27]Uh Matt Ball is from the New Zealand Property Investors Federation and he joins me now. Good to see you, Matt.

[00:00:34]Good day, Leah. Nice to be able to see you and be on the video.

[00:00:38]>> [laughter] >> Look at you looking looking good.

[00:00:40]>> lucky. Um good time, lucky. We got there. Uh let's start with the um the tenancy and pets because I actually talked about this on my show uh when it first um became news. And just to remind the listeners the Tenancy Tribunal has ruled against a landlord in its first major decision on pets and rental properties since new rules came into effect on the 1st of December last year. Uh basically a Christchurch landlord's been ordered to allow his tenants to keep a or get a golden Labrador retriever puppy in their upstairs rental unit, albeit with conditions, uh after initially declining their request because of concerns about the property's suitability for dogs and potential noise and nuisance to neighbors. Um that kind of covers that, doesn't it, Matt? That was it, wasn't it? Three levels and they were in the middle or something? Yeah.

[00:01:37]Yeah, they're in the middle level.

[00:01:38]They've got There's another tenancy above and from what I can tell in the reading, that's the they're the only two tenancies in that in the same building.

[00:01:45]>> Okay. And they've they've got a deck, but um when they take the puppy downstairs, there's a communal area with no fencing anyway. Matt, the tribunal said the landlord's concerns did not meet the legislative requirement that the landlord should provide reasonable grounds for declining the tenant's request.

[00:02:05]Um, this is pretty significant, is it not? Because this sets the tone for how hard it'll be for landlords to just say no to pets going forward.

[00:02:16]Yeah, this is very significant and the first case was always going to be significant because that's interpretation of the law as it's written.

[00:02:25]What I find really interesting about this stuff and I'm, you know, a bit geeky on it. Um, there's two elements.

[00:02:31]The first is that um, just just to add, this was taken by this case was heard by the principal adjudicator. So, the top adjudicator.

[00:02:41]And they do that so that they uh, they have the best people doing these cases initially and then that filters down.

[00:02:49]Um, so they have a standardized ruling.

[00:02:51]So, that's why that was done. So, that's good.

[00:02:55]Um, two things stood out for me in this particular case. One is that the principal adjudicator looked at the reasons behind the law and what Parliament's intentions were when they passed this law.

[00:03:08]Um, he judged, and I think accurately, that Parliament intended to flip the presumption. Presumption previously was that landlords had the right to say no.

[00:03:20]Mhm.

[00:03:20]>> And, you know, it was basically just no pets unless the landlord said this now is flipped on its head and it's the tenant can have a pet unless there are good reasons. So, the this presumption now is that the tenant can have a pet.

[00:03:35]The landlord can object, but there has to be reasonable good reasons.

[00:03:41]>> [snorts] >> Now, the second thing was Oh, sorry.

[00:03:43]Yeah.

[00:03:45]No, no, you ask that question and I'll I can go on to the second >> I think I think I was just to that.

[00:03:49]Yeah, I I I I the takeaway for me too from that and you've still got a second point was that landlords can't just say I don't think this is suitable. They actually have to try and work through solutions first. Is Is that fair representation? Right.

[00:04:07]>> Yeah, so you can't come back with just a flippant No, sorry. We don't think that's okay. You've actually So this has happened in this case that the initial response to the tenant was from a property manager who apparently didn't consult the landlord and just came back and they must have had a chat beforehand and said, "Oh, I don't think the landlord will like this, but I'll check." And then came back maybe with a text message that says, "No, for the aforementioned reasons the landlord doesn't want a pet on the property or says no to you having a pet."

[00:04:36]The tenant challenged that with the next person up the chain of the property manager's office um who then came back with four reasons. And the adjudicator judged that the first response was inadequate, but the second response actually met the the standard required by Parliament. So they were clearly outlined reasons. Mhm. But then the adjudicator went on to look at, well, okay, are these reasons given reasonable?

[00:05:05]And that's where it all fell over. So there were four reasons. One of them was that the dog might bark and cause noise.

[00:05:11]Yeah. The adjudicator felt that that was theoretical.

[00:05:15]They hadn't met the dog of the essay cuz the tenants didn't have a So therefore we don't know if the dog is going to bark. Therefore you can't use that as a reason.

[00:05:24]That's a potential theoretical hypothetical reason.

[00:05:28]Doesn't count.

[00:05:30]The other three reasons um and sorry.

[00:05:36]Go and have a look at my New Zealand Herald. It's online. The directions are in it, but they're outlined in there.

[00:05:41]Um the other three reasons the adjudicator looked at them and and then said that the conditions that the tenant had suggested be imposed and these include things like improving the fencing on the deck, laying down matting in case the dog was toileting, that the dog was supervised in the outdoor area, um and other conditions, that if these conditions were imposed and the tenant met the cost of that and made good any minor changes to the property when they left, then the landlord actually should accept the pet. And then it included a pet bond. So, you can ask for 2 weeks pet bond. Right. Right. That's interesting.

[00:06:18][clears throat] >> Now, it is very interesting because it shows you can't just say no, according to this judgment, that you must then go through a process with your tenant um to see if there are conditions or ways that their request to have a pet can be accommodated.

[00:06:37]And what the judgment or the decision, they call it a decision at the tribunal, um stressed was that it should be done in good faith, that you've got to show that you haven't come into this with a closed mind, that you have been open to the idea of a pet and you've done your best. Made your best efforts.