The Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal will struggle to deal with an influx of disputes brought on by the state government’s changes to rental rules, a former tribunal member has warned.

The claim was made as the insurance industry and market analysts move to allay fears the changes will impose financial stress on landlords and tenants.

William Holloway sat on VCAT for 15 years and said when he was last on the tribunal three years ago, it was already under-resourced.

He predicted the tribunal would be hit with a wave of disputes between landlords and tenants, because the amendments to the legislation had created a raft of new situations referable to VCAT.

“I think it will mean a lot more cases, and as a consequence we’ll need a lot more resources,” Mr Holloway said. “Despite what [Labor] have said, I don’t think they’ve clearly costed it.

“It’s totally under-resourced. If you go to NSW they’ve got researchers to help the members, we don’t have anything like that here.”

If a landlords chose to dispute a tenant’s newfound right to have pets, he or she would have to go to VCAT, Mr Holloway said. Disputes over entry-condition reports would go to VCAT, and if a landlord was slow to fix an urgent repair problem, it could go to VCAT. And Mr Holloway said that may only be the beginning.

“The possibilities for extra cases … there are so many extra things and that will mean more delays,” he said.

“There are some disputes over where you now don’t have to go to VCAT, but the cut-down won’t be worth it.”

Consumer Affairs Minister Marlene Kairouz said the government was planning to review the tribunal’s resources.

“We’re working with VCAT and stakeholders to make sure we get this right, so that everyone can receive affordable, easily accessible and effective dispute resolution,” she said.

In addition to concerns about the state’s tribunal body ability to deal with any increase in claims, the Opposition has also raised concerns about increased insurance premiums and rents.

However, National Insurance Brokers Association chief executive Dallas Booth said fears that insurance premiums would spike in reaction to law changes were mostly unfounded.

“I can’t see an immediate review of pricing following these changes, but there will certainly be insurers following this very closely,” he said. “It’s a wait and see thing.”

Mr Booth predicted that changes over pet ownership would have little effect as premiums often had options to cover for pets and any damage caused by them.

Changes made about what modifications tenants were allowed to make could change the way insurers charge landlords, he said, but it would depend on the changes and whether amendments to bonds were made to take these into account.

“If landlords want that sort of cover, I think insurers would look at it and would be interested in covering it,” Mr Booth said.

Claims that rents would spike following implementation of the laws were similarly unfounded, Domain Group economist Trent Wiltshire said. Similarly, threats of rentals being pulled from the market had also be overplayed.

“I think some landlords may decide to not rent out their properties because of these new laws, but they’ll sell to another landlord who will rent it out, or a tenant who wanted to buy so that won’t affect rents,” Mr Wiltshire said. “There may be some landlords who decide to leave their properties vacant or list them on Airbnb but I would think this is a very small amount of landlords.

“So again, the effect on rents would be minimal.”