NSW rental law changed in 2021 to allow tenants to keep pets unless the landlord applies to the Tribunal for a reasonable objection. This was supposed to make renting with pets easier. In practice, landlords have found ways to make pet-friendly rentals significantly more expensive through increased bonds, pet deposits, and pet rent.

I work with tenants navigating rental markets across Sydney, and pet-related costs have become a major barrier. Understanding what landlords can legally charge versus what they’re actually charging helps tenants negotiate and know their rights.

What the Law Actually Says

Under NSW law, landlords cannot unreasonably refuse a tenant’s request to keep a pet. If a tenant requests permission, the landlord can either consent (with or without conditions) or apply to NCAT within 21 days arguing why the pet should not be allowed.

The law allows landlords to require a pet bond of up to $260 (separate from the regular rental bond) to cover potential pet damage. This is the only pet-related charge explicitly provided for in residential tenancy legislation.

Landlords can also require the tenant to take out insurance, keep the property in good repair, and comply with body corporate by-laws if applicable. But they can’t charge ongoing pet rent as a condition of allowing pets under standard residential tenancy agreements.

What Actually Happens in Practice

Despite legal limitations, landlords and agents have implemented various pet-related charges:

Higher base rent: Agents often advertise properties as “pets considered” but list rent $20-50 per week higher than comparable properties. The increased rent isn’t explicitly called “pet rent” but functions that way.

Maximum bonds: For pet-friendly rentals, landlords routinely charge the maximum allowable bond (4 weeks rent) plus the full pet bond ($260), even for excellent tenants who might otherwise negotiate lower bonds.

Conditional approval: Landlords approve pets conditionally, requiring professional carpet cleaning at lease end, yard restoration, additional inspections, or specific insurance policies. These conditions add costs beyond the $260 pet bond.

Upfront professional cleaning: Some agreements require professional carpet and yard treatment before the pet arrives, paid by the tenant. This can cost $200-400 upfront.

Pet rent by another name: While direct pet rent isn’t allowed in standard residential tenancies, some landlords structure agreements to effectively charge it through higher rent or additional fees described as “property maintenance contributions.”

The NCAT Application Reality

The law says landlords must apply to NCAT if they want to refuse a pet. In practice, this creates an approval process that favors landlords:

Most tenants request pet permission when applying for a property or just after signing a lease. If the landlord says no, the tenant can either accept it or argue the refusal was unreasonable. Arguing means potentially going to NCAT, which takes time and creates landlord-tenant conflict right at lease start.

Landlords know most tenants won’t fight a refusal through NCAT, especially before moving in. So informal refusals happen without formal applications. The tenant accepts the refusal or looks elsewhere.

For tenants trying to bring pets into existing tenancies, landlords can make NCAT applications arguing the pet would cause damage, disturb neighbors, violate body corporate rules, or create other problems. Even if the landlord ultimately loses at NCAT, the process creates delay and stress.

The Rental Application Disadvantage

Having pets creates disadvantage in competitive rental markets. When 20 people apply for a property and 5 have pets, agents often eliminate pet owners first to simplify landlord decision-making.

This happens even for properties listed as “pets considered.” That phrase often means “we’ll consider it if we can’t rent to someone without pets” rather than genuine pet-friendliness.

The pet disadvantage means pet owners compete for a smaller pool of properties, which are typically more expensive or less desirable. This market segmentation costs pet owners money beyond any specific pet-related charges.

What’s Actually Reasonable

The $260 pet bond is reasonable. Pets can cause damage beyond normal wear and tear—scratched floors, stained carpets, damaged yards. A bond to cover potential pet-specific damage makes sense.

Requiring appropriate insurance for liability (dog bite injuries, property damage) is also reasonable if the landlord’s insurance excludes pet-related incidents.

Requiring compliance with body corporate by-laws about pets is legally necessary where such by-laws exist, though it would be fair to disclose this before the tenant applies.

What’s not reasonable: charging effectively double the rent increase for a pet compared to additional human occupants, requiring extensive upfront treatments for properties that aren’t unusually valuable, using “pet rent” disguised as other charges.

The Negotiation Approach

For tenants with pets, negotiation strategies depend on market position:

Strong application: If you’re an ideal tenant otherwise (stable income, excellent references, long-term rental history), emphasize this. Offer to pay the pet bond upfront and provide vet records showing your pet is desensitized, well-trained, etc. Consider offering to do more frequent inspections.

Weak market: In tight markets, you have little leverage. Focus on finding genuinely pet-friendly properties rather than trying to convince reluctant landlords.

Existing tenancies: If you’re a good tenant requesting to add a pet mid-lease, this is your strongest negotiating position. You have established trust, moving costs work in your favor, and the landlord wants to keep reliable tenants.

Offer solutions preemptively: Rather than waiting for landlord objections, offer solutions upfront—professional cleaning schedule, pet insurance details, references from previous landlords, photos showing pet behavior.

The Insurance Question

Some landlords require pet liability insurance. This is legal as a reasonable condition but should be proportionate to actual risk.

For cats, pet liability insurance seems excessive—cats rarely cause third-party injuries requiring insurance. For dogs, especially larger breeds, liability insurance is more reasonable given bite risk.

The insurance shouldn’t cost more than $200-300 annually for basic coverage. If landlords are requiring expensive comprehensive pet insurance beyond reasonable liability coverage, this is probably unreasonable.

Tenants should check if their existing contents insurance includes pet liability before paying for separate policies. Many comprehensive contents insurance policies already cover pet damage to rental properties and third-party liability.

What Happens When Pets Cause Damage

The pet bond exists to cover pet damage beyond normal wear and tear. At lease end, landlords can claim from the pet bond for things like: carpet staining that can’t be professionally cleaned, scratched floorboards, chewed skirting boards, damaged yards from digging.

Normal pet wear and tear shouldn’t come from the pet bond. Some fur on carpets, minor scratching in normal use, general wear from a pet living in the property—this is expected normal use, not damage requiring bond deductions.

Disputes about what constitutes pet damage versus normal wear happen frequently. The Tribunal considers factors like pet size, lease duration, property condition at start, whether damage exceeds what’s reasonable given the circumstances.

Having documented property condition at lease start (including photos) helps resolve these disputes. If the carpet was already stained and worn, claiming it for pet bond at lease end is harder for the landlord.

The Body Corporate Complication

Strata properties often have by-laws restricting pets. These by-laws can limit pet size, type, number, or prohibit pets entirely. Landlords must comply with by-laws regardless of tenancy law allowing pets.

This creates confusion where landlords advertise properties as pet-friendly, then refuse specific pets due to by-laws. Tenants should ask specifically about body corporate restrictions before applying if pets are essential.

Body corporate by-laws restricting pets are subject to reasonableness tests at NCAT, but challenging them is difficult and time-consuming. As a practical matter, tenants should treat body corporate restrictions as hard constraints.

The Long-Term Solution

The current situation—where pet-friendly rental is theoretically allowed but practically expensive and difficult—serves neither tenants nor landlords well. Tenants face financial barriers and application disadvantages. Landlords deal with unclear rules and potential disputes.

Better policy would be: clear limits on what pet-related charges are allowed, stronger enforcement against discriminatory practices in applications, standardized pet agreements reducing case-by-case negotiation, support for pet-friendly rental design and insurance products.

Until policy improves, tenants with pets should budget for higher rental costs, expect application disadvantages, document everything carefully, and know their legal rights while understanding practical constraints.

The $260 pet bond is fair. Everything else layered on top—higher base rent, maximum bonds, excessive conditions—often isn’t fair but is currently hard to challenge in tight rental markets where tenants have limited leverage.