Industry body warns rental reforms could drive up rents and reduce supply
1 year ago | 4 comments
Just 8% of PRS homes are ‘pet friendly’
12:01 AM, 12th March 2025, 1 year ago
10
Just 8% of rental homes in England are currently advertised as welcoming to pets, even with forthcoming legislation set to shake up the sector which will see see more pets being accepted by landlords, research reveals.
According to Zero Deposit, out of 101,908 available listings, only 7,788 properties are flagged as suitable for animal residents.
The research comes as the Renters’ Rights Bill will ease restrictions so landlords cannot ‘unreasonably’ refuse a tenant having a pet in their home.
The firm says that 51% of adults in the UK share their lives with a pet and that the PRS has a ‘long history of being far from pet-friendly’.
Reticence among landlords
The chief executive of Zero Deposit, Sam Reynolds, said: “There’s a natural reticence for landlords to open their property to pets for fear of the damage they can potentially cause.
“Many will have experienced pet damage to their properties which has shaped this preference.
“But these landlords are swimming against an increasingly fervent tide.”
He added: “The government is attempting to satisfy tenant demand for pet-friendly homes and when the Renters’ Rights Bill is finally introduced, landlords will find it increasingly difficult to deselect lets with animal companions.”
Pet-owning tenants
Landlords in the North East offer the brightest prospects for pet-owning tenants, with 9% of its listings open to animals.
London, the South West, South East and North West follow with 8%, while the East of England clocks in at 7%.
The East Midlands and Yorkshire and Humber each sit at 6%, with the West Midlands trails at 5%.
Blanket banning of pets
Mr Reynolds said: “While public opinion is naturally in favour of improving accessibility for pet owners, landlord concerns do hold weight.
“Property damage costs money to repair. This spend can be challenging to recoup and can eat into profit margins.”
He adds: “And while the Renters’ Rights Bill disallows the blanket banning of pets, it also limits the amount of money landlords are allowed to take from their tenants for security deposits, further exposing landlords to the risk of property damage and, therefore, to loss of income.
“It is possible that the bill will give landlords the right to insist that specific insurance is taken out to protect against pet-related damage, thus providing greater security.”
Tags:
Availability of Pet-Friendly Properties in UK, Impact of Renters Rights Bill on Pet Policies, Landlord Concerns About Pet Damage, landlord pet policies, pet friendly homes, Pet-Friendly Rental Homes in England, pet-friendly rentals UK, Regional Differences in Pet-Friendly Rentals, renters rights bill, tenants with pets, UK rental market
Comments
Have Your Say
Every day, landlords who want to influence policy and share real-world experience add their voice here. Your perspective helps keep the debate balanced.
Not a member yet? Join In Seconds
Login with
or
Related Articles
Government urged to halt PRS reforms amidst rising rents
1 year ago | 3 comments
Landlords face a changing landscape with rising dog ownership
1 year ago | 11 comments
Member Since March 2022 - Comments: 363
11:18 AM, 12th March 2025, About 1 year ago
The law will state that landlords may not unreasonably withhold permission for pets, but how is “unreasonable” defined? It is very subjective. In my experience, most tenants sneak pets in anyway. Not a lot you can do about it in reality unless you want the grief associated with getting rid of the pet or the tenants. I don’t think that there is any standard insurance policy available to landlords that provides for damage caused by pet scratching, gnawing or fouling, which is what landlords want, with the premium cost added to the rent. Insurance companies know that this sort of damage is commonplace so they specifically exclude it in policies to avoid claims.
.
Member Since April 2021 - Comments: 94
11:36 AM, 12th March 2025, About 1 year ago
If housing tenants with pets was lucrative then more than 8% of landlords would be doing it. Now the Gov will force landlords to take-in pets while also restricting security deposits. In a free market a tenant with pet should expect to pay a higher rent to the landlord because pets cause damage and more wear and tear, but we are very far from a free market…
Member Since July 2016 - Comments: 166
1:47 PM, 12th March 2025, About 1 year ago
I rent student HMOs and will retain the ‘no pets’ wording in my agreements. Can anyone confirm if HMOs are excluded from this bit of the legislation. Regardless I will not under any circumstances give permission for tenants to keep pets of any description.
Member Since September 2018 - Comments: 3510 - Articles: 5
4:30 PM, 12th March 2025, About 1 year ago
“But these landlords are swimming against an increasingly fervent tide.”
Its ok, I’ll survive. I have my 50 metre badge and I’m happy to take the risk of NOT allowing pets in my properties.
Member Since September 2018 - Comments: 3510 - Articles: 5
4:35 PM, 12th March 2025, About 1 year ago
“It is possible that the bill will give landlords the right to insist that specific insurance is taken out to protect against pet-related damage, thus providing greater security.”
LL – OK you can have a pet but you need insurance.
T – no problem – here’s a copy of the policy I have taken out as its my pet.
*T cancels policy within 14 days.
Member Since July 2024 - Comments: 112
6:05 PM, 12th March 2025, About 1 year ago
Been there, done that many times with tenants sneaking pets in. One was a rotweiler of a tenant not on the AST.. the main tenant I found out was drug dealing. Next tenant got a puppy who soiled the property multiples times a day, he was a druggie. Somehow the RSPCA found out and removed the dog. Under no circumstances would I allow another pet, tenant #3 a convicted felon so I found out, dog ruined my property. My solution – sell. refuse to play the game this UK Gov is trying to play with us – money is bad .. not worth it.
Member Since May 2014 - Comments: 617
9:18 PM, 12th March 2025, About 1 year ago
Reply to the comment left by Disgrunteld Landlady at 12/03/2025 – 18:05
They will sneak pets in without permission.
The first I knew about a tenant who had a dog was when I was alerted by the council that the tenants dog was consistantly fouling a childrens play area outside their flat and they wrote to me saying that they would be holding me responsible.
I can see problems ahead with this legislation and Battersea dogs home will need to expand to accommodate the new intake after this becomes law.
Member Since January 2016 - Comments: 472
9:52 AM, 15th March 2025, About 1 year ago
Reply to the comment left by Stella at 12/03/2025 – 21:18
Out of interest, can a council actually hold you responsible for tenants’ behaviours or their pets’ behaviour?
We aren’t the tenants’ parents or babysitter.
Member Since September 2013 - Comments: 374
3:15 PM, 15th March 2025, About 1 year ago
Reply to the comment left by Stella at 12/03/2025 – 21:18
This is the thing that really irks me the most – landlords being held responsible for the behaviour of others – i.e. tenants (and their pets).
I really don’t understand how the law came to be couched in such terms when it is demonstrably not possible to control the actions of another human being in the way that the authorities demand.
If a person was a freeholder that engaged in antisocial behaviour it would be a matter for the police.
Why is this not also the case for people who happen to be tenants?
[ I know I am just howling into the wind with this but it really REALLY does get on my t*ts! ]
Member Since May 2014 - Comments: 617
3:57 PM, 15th March 2025, About 1 year ago
Reply to the comment left by Darren Peters at 15/03/2025 – 09:52
I really do not know if the council can hold us responsible but probably the reason in this case that the council wrote to me saying that I would be held responsible is because this property is an ex-council property.
I was not aware that the tenants had a dog and how could I be responsible for control of their dog anyway.