Renters’ Rights Bill could create 1 million new pet owners

it could. but if a tenants asks for permission for one in my property the answer will be no.

We used to not allow pets but found out many tenants got them anyway and hid them or feigned ignorance.
We now allow pets and tbh haven’t had any negative issues. At least you know who you’re housing and tenants tend to stay longer. Any damage either human or pet induced has to be paid for at the tenancy end from the deposit.

More false hope for tenants. I’m a letting agent and I can assure you we are still getting an average of 6 applications per property and 92% of the time the landlord will go with a tenant with no pets . How does anyone think the RRB is going to change this ? We will be getting more people fighting over properties because supply will continue to fall whilst demand will rise . Simple economics – rents will continue to increase .

I’ve had very mixed experiences with pets and their owners. I have a pet policy and get tenants that ask to sign up to it. I hold pet damage insurance as not all tenants divulge pets or ask for permission. 3 out of 4 recent checkouts were horrendous, 2 needing new carpets and new underlay as the urine was soaked through the carpet and the 1 year old underlay was so damaged and stinking that it tore apart when lifted. The carpets had been vaguely cleaned except for dogsh!t in the corners. The smell was truely eye watering, but when I inspected it was covered up with air fresheners in each room. Doors scratched and panels damaged. Fleas in 3/5 rooms, cat and dog hairs on radiators and wallpaper as well as carpets. 1 cat owner had 4 cats instead of 1, fleas, carpets, underlay, scratches etc. The last dog owner was perfect. carpets cleaned and place immaculate. I would not have been able to tell which tenant would have had what behaviour, and in 2 cases I was completely blindsided by tenants who had been perfect other than the dog and the cat damage found after they moved out. In cases of damage the deposit was no way close to enough to pay for it.

If a tenant requested a pet after the tenancy began – this would require an addendum to the existing tenancy agreement because by default it was not part of the existing agreement.

If this is the case then surely it is possible to require a guarantor – on the basis that the request (to have a pet) increases the risk of potential damage to the property as it could not be accounted for under normal circumstances (the ‘wear and tear’ element)

As you would not be asking for an increase in rent, a pet deposit, or any pet insurance (all of which a LL cannot do post RRB) surely this a ‘reasonable’ basis on which to refuse a pet in a property?

We once had a tenant who, despite a no pets clause in AST, brought his cat into the flat about a month after he’d moved in without asking permission. He very rarely cleaned its mess up in the communal garden claiming it was other cats mess not his cat. (Funny there was no more mess after his cat died)
Then when the cat died he buried it in the garden, again without asking permission.
But to be fair the cat was far less trouble than its owner!

Our leases stipulate no pets, the RTM company has successfully sued to eject a parrot, and I understand that in our much vaunted ‘rules based order’, none of that matters and contract law will be trampled on, again.

Question, what will the legal position be of non pet owning owner occupiers leaseholders be given that the freeholder no longer being able or willing to enforce the rule becomes a derogation of grant.

All I can say is the dim MP who brought this up has opened a whole big can of worms. It was fine as it was before his meddling. If a system works MPs are there to break it.

What I find amazing many tenants can not afford the rent or looking after the kids .
But some how they can afford pets.

I have seen many occasions where pets are mistreated not looked after. Cause a lot of damage.

Reply to the comment left by Neil Robb at 12/09/2025 – 17:26
this could be a perfect reason for refusal. As part of the process where the LL has to consider a request, the tenant can be asked for proof of how they can afford this if they wish to be a responsible pet owner. If none forthcoming, or not enough evidence then the LL could reasonably refuse. It also means T would have to provide latest bank statements etc . Good way of seeing their latest financial position anyway! 😉