Pet charity warns Renters’ Rights Act falls short after pet damage insurance removed

It seems to me that, even if a tenant starts off with no pet, they could the next day bring in a 20 year old incontinent pet and the property could sustain damage in excess of the rent deposit.

Therefore, if I am still renting out properties until it is convenient to sell them and get out of this mad BTL market I will only take on tenants who have a) impeccable references and b) can provide a guarantor of good standing.

All landlords should do the same to protect their interests. It could take a year + to get tenants out, so there are now huge risks, unless you can get cost effective insurance to cover all the potential risks of pet damage, tenant damage, tenant default, court delays, etc.

Also, don’t forget to increase your rent to ensure that it is at least market level. There is no point being an accommodating landlord and giving tenants the benefit of the doubt nowadays, you have to make sure you are as protected as possible an making a reasonable return to cover all the risks.

Reply to the comment left by Ryan Stevens at 29/10/2025 – 11:09
the irony of all this is that market rate will increase by default of the RRB, so a reasonable excuse for a pet refusal could be that the tenant themself is unable to provide evidence they can be a responsible pet owner because they cant afford it!

It was an illogical move by Labour to remove the amendment. Landlords may no longer be able to insist on pet insurance, but when requesting prospective tenant information, one of my questions will be ‘Do you have pet insurance which could be transferred to this property?’.

The problem is that the tenant can say they don’t have a pet and then turn up with one or get one. Or they can say they have insurance and then cancel it.

The default now has to be to get a guarantor, so at least all bases are covered. Or, if it is available, get suitable insurance and bump up the rent to cover the cost.

Two previous tenants of mine ended up with pets – one asked months after it arrived and I couldn’t be the heartless landlord removing the young children’s new playmate. The other never asked at all and when they left I had to cut out large areas of rotten floorboards due to dog wee.

I recommend using a guarantor insurance company instead of an individual. This strategy helps mitigate the risk of avoidance, which can be similar when dealing with an individual guarantor as it is with the tenant.

Regarding pets, if a tenant moves one in without your permission, that constitutes a breach of the tenancy agreement. This breach would allow you to pursue eviction under discretionary grounds (e.g., under the new provisions of the Renters Reform Bill, if applicable).

However, unless the pet causes substantial damage or nuisance, courts are unlikely to grant a possession order, as it may be viewed as unreasonable. If you had a mandatory ground for possession, such as three months of rent arrears, that would obviously increase the odds of an eviction.

As a belt and braces, probably best to have guarantor insurance and landlord rent protection insurance!

There was a comment on a previous discussion, saying that the landlord would only be able to claim under the pet damage insurance policy if the policy was in their name, not the tenant’s, but the landlord isn’t in control of the pet so presumably no insurer would give a landlord such cover. Any insurance experts who can explain how it would need to work, and whether the new insurance products referred to as being ready to go would actually give the landlord any protection against pet damage?

Reply to the comment left by Richard AA at 29/10/2025 – 17:11
Having a pet IS a breach if permission was not sought or given. The action by the TENANT is deemed unreasonable. If the tenant then fails to remove the pet from the property at the request of the landlord (and that request in itself reasonable) then these are justified grounds.

No ‘damage’ has to occur first, or be evidenced to have taken place for the claim for possession to be made. As it is a discretionary ground the judge has to consider if the claim is valid, not the level of damage that may or may not have occurred/impact the breach has had.

The reason for why the LL could have reasonably refused the pet int he first place is because there is no way to legally mitigate against the possibility of damage occurring (for example) – this is irrespective as to if it happens or not. Its the additional risk that is of merit – which is why, if the tenant HAD requested permission, it would have been refused at the time.

Reply to the comment left by Reluctant Landlord at 30/10/2025 – 07:33
I don’t think the courts will take that view unless there is some evidence that this particular tenant and pet have caused damage in previous properties.