A pet dog named Rocko has found himself at the centre of a legal dispute.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
or signup to continue reading
A landlord's bid to stop his tenants moving Rocko into the rental home has been overturned.
The pet's owner says it's a victory for renters.
The Victorian government made changes in March which prevent property owners from unreasonably refusing renters' requests to keep a pet.
The tenants at the Wodonga home applied to have the Catahoula Bully Stag move into the property, which the landlord opposed.
He was also concerned about allergies, should he return to the property to live.
When the landlord refused the application to keep Rocko at the home, the tenants decided to move out, but the matter went to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal for consideration.
Elders Real Estate represented the landlord at VCAT but lost the case.
One of the renters - who asked to stay anonymous as she is trying to find a new property - said it was a win for tenants.
"I think it's great," she said of the decision.
"It gives us a bit more leniency on having animals at properties.
"When they said no, we couldn't have a pet, I said it was fine, we're moving out anyway.
"We didn't want to go to VCAT, they took us.
"But I think there will be a lot of VCAT cases coming up because of this, a lot of landlords are going to try to fight this."
VCAT member Kim Knights said there were no grounds for the landlord to refuse the request to keep Rocko at the home, and said the tenants could keep the pet.
"The rented premises comprise an older style home with a reasonable size backyard," she said while handing down the decision in Melbourne.
"I find that it would not be reasonable to refuse consent upon the grounds of type of pet or character and nature of the rented premises.
"Whether or not a landlord takes out landlord insurance with or without an optional extra for tenant pet damage is a commercial decision to be made by the landlord.
"The additional premium and excess for the optional extra for tenant pet damage is not a ground for refusing consent.
"To permit this as a ground for refusing consent would thwart the purpose of the pet laws."
Ms Knights said landlords were able to recover the costs of damage beyond the normal wear and tear caused by pets.
The property owner's allergies and hayfever were also dismissed as grounds to refuse the application.
