Set out below is an edited version of a submission made to the Queensland Government in relation to its proposed tenancy reforms. The deadline for submissions was 30 November 2018.

MEMORANDUM

Reference is made to the proposed changes to Queensland's tenancy laws.

We note that there is a possibility that Queensland will follow the Victorian model of allowing tenants to keep animals on a rental property as of right unless the landlord obtains a contrary order from VCAT. (https://www.vic.gov.au/rentfair/pets-are-welcome.html)

Should the Victorian model regarding animals be adopted in Queensland, we have a number of concerns as follows:

Landlords would be required, as an example, to allow tenants to keep a dog (of any size) in each rental property as of right, unless one could successfully argue against this, presumably with QCAT. In our view, certain properties are not suitable for animals such as dogs. Landlords would therefore be required to obtain orders from QCAT to allow them to refuse to permit animals in their properties.
Where properties rent on either a six- or twelve-month lease, it is possible that landlords with multiple properties would need to submit a significant number of applications per year to QCAT. While we agree that is unlikely that all tenants would wish to keep a dog or other animal, a high number of applications remains a possibility.
QCAT has confirmed that the current estimated timeframe for hearing an animal related order (a non-urgent tenancy related matter) following the conciliation process managed by the Residential Tenancies Authority is twenty weeks from lodgement to hearing. Without some form of streamlined process, it is unlikely that a matter would be resolved until most of a six-month tenancy has expired.
It is likely that QCAT would require additional funding and staff levels to deal with the potential significant number of applications from landlords in Queensland seeking animal related orders. QCAT have previously noted that “the judicial structure of the tribunal remains inadequate to address the caseload issues, the appeal load and the provision of the necessary management support to the tribunal. Additional staff and space is urgently required.” (https://www.qcat.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0011/559928/qcat-annual-report-2016-17.pdf)
Where rental properties have no front fence, no driveway gate and no exterior fenced exclusive use areas for tenants to keep animals such as dogs, these animals would need to remain in each unit at all times, including while the tenant was at work. This is likely to cause significant nuisance to neighbours. Multiple dogs residing in different units in a complex would likely increase the nuisance to neighbours. In our view, this would lead to increased tenant turnover.
Without modification, the requirement to allow animals such as dogs would put landlords in breach of certain Council requirements regarding the maximum permitted number of dogs on premises. It is not clear whether landlords would be required to make excess pet applications and whether such an application would need to be completed on a continual basis as tenants move in and out with animals such as dogs.
In one apartment complex example, without the right to refuse animals such as dogs, a situation could arise where there is a maximum of 16 dogs across eight apartments. This is based on the maximum number of dogs permitted per unit under the relevant Council regulations. Such an outcome is likely to result in significant nuisance to neighbours and increased tenant turnover within the apartment complex. Landlords and community title schemes should retain the right to refuse animals on reasonable grounds.
Pet bonds equivalent to, for example, four weeks rent are unlikely to cover the damage which may be incurred by landlords from animals, particularly for premises rented on a furnished basis.
The costs related to QCAT proceedings and any relevant council permit applications as well as likely increased tenant turnover would put upward pressure on rents.

Should the Queensland Government consider adopting the Victorian model of allowing tenants to keep animals on a rental property as of right, we would suggest the following points:

That the Queensland Government defer following the Victorian model until such time as the Victorian model is fully implemented and problems associated with this model can be identified, including issues related to the additional burden placed on VCAT. All the Victorian reforms are expected to be implemented by 1 July 2020. (https://www.vic.gov.au/rentfair/pets-are-welcome.html)
That landlords be permitted to refuse to allow animals such as dogs on reasonable grounds such as the type and size of animal, size of the property, lack of appropriate fencing or outdoor areas and proximity to other dwellings. The Queensland Government should recognise that certain premises such as small units and units close together are not suitable for all types of animals. Landlords are best placed to determine what animals are suitable for particular types of premises.
That community title schemes in Queensland retain the right to refuse to allow animals on reasonable grounds.
If landlords are required to make application to QCAT in order to refuse to allow an animal, a system be introduced whereby a landlord could make a once-off application in relation to a particular property rather than needing to make repeated applications to QCAT as new tenants lease the property and seek to keep animals. An alternative would be to allow such an application to be made in relation to a particular property, for example, once every three years. This would reduce the cost and administrative burden on both landlords and QCAT.

PELEN

November 2018

The content of this publication is intended to provide a general overview on matters which may be of interest. It is not intended to be comprehensive. It does not constitute advice in relation to particular circumstances nor does it constitute the provision of legal services, legal advice or financial product advice.