Why rent controls are the wrong answer to a housing shortage
1 week ago | 17 comments
How the tenancy pet trap leaves landlords financially exposed
9:34 AM, 19th June 2026, 3 hours ago
5
Categories:
If you want to understand exactly how the Renters’ Rights Act is going to restrict private landlords of control over their own property, look no further than the story this week about a tenant named Ms A and her pet cat, Marshy.
Property118 reports that the tenant wanted a cat in her one-bedroom flat; the landlord initially said no; a charity stepped in, challenged the refusal and the landlord ultimately accepted the request.
For me, this case reveals a new reality for the private rented sector because what campaigners present as a straightforward victory also exposes the imbalance in the protections available to the two parties.
Property size remains relevant, but landlords can no longer rely on a blanket rule. They must relate the size and nature of the animal to the particular property.
The charity involved countered the ‘too small’ reason by stating that ‘sweeping generalisations’ regarding property size are legally non-compliant.
If a tenant requests a pet, you can no longer reply with casual, practical logic.
The moment you type only ‘the flat is too small’ or ‘I don’t think it is suitable’, without explaining why that particular animal is unsuitable for that particular property, you risk an immediate challenge.
A restriction in a superior lease or a documented allergy in a shared home may provide strong grounds, but the legislation does not give landlords a simple checklist of guaranteed exemptions.
Pet tenancy negotiation
The most worrying part of this story, however, is what happened when the landlord tried to negotiate.
Wanting to mitigate their risk, the landlord requested two reasonable conditions: that the tenant purchase pet damage insurance, and that they commit to a professional deep clean at the end of the tenancy.
The charity’s response was that both conditions would amount to prohibited requirements under the Tenant Fees Act.
While early drafts of the Renters’ Rights Act teased landlords with the right to mandate pet insurance, that provision was quietly axed before Royal Assent.
And under the Tenant Fees Act, a landlord cannot ask a tenant to buy a pet insurance policy, impose a separate pet fee or require the tenant to enter into a cleaning contract.
Requiring a prohibited payment can attract a civil penalty of up to £5,000. A further qualifying breach within five years can lead to prosecution or a thumping financial penalty of up to £30,000.
In theory, a landlord can recover reasonable cleaning costs where an inventory and check-out evidence prove an actual loss – but actually recovering the full amount may be a different story, particularly where the damage exceeds the deposit and the tenant has limited means.
Landlords carry the pet risk
Landlords are left relying on a deposit generally capped at five weeks’ rent, which may be nowhere near enough to meet extensive flooring, furnishing or odour damage.
If a cat decides to use the carpets as a scratching post or spray the floorboards, the cost of remediation will demolish that deposit, leaving the landlord to foot the bill.
To me, it looks like the law has shifted a substantial share of the practical financial risk from the pet owner to the property owner, leaving landlords to rely on their own insurance, the limited deposit or a potentially difficult claim against the tenant.
The other shame here is that the Labour government promised to ‘level the playing field’ between landlords and tenants.
We knew that wouldn’t be the case but the one-sided tilt in favour of renters is becoming clearer by the week.
Although landlords retain legal claims for pet damage, those rights may be expensive to enforce and worthless where the tenant has no recoverable assets.
The law has clearly strengthened the tenant’s position without giving the landlord an equivalent, readily usable financial safeguard.
If you own a leasehold property, check your superior lease immediately. The Renters’ Rights Act explicitly protects landlords bound by head-tenancy pet bans.
Just note: if your lease allows pets with freeholder consent, you must actively apply for that consent before you can legally turn your tenant down. Find out where you stand before a request lands.
Beyond that, refusals still stand if you can tie them to the specific animal and property: type, number, welfare or a genuine allergy in a shared building.
Welcome to the new age of being a landlord in the PRS, where the tenant gets the companionship, the charity gets the PR victory, and the landlord gets the repair bill.
Until next time,
The Landlord Crusader
Tags:
Landlord Dispute, No fault eviction alternatives, Pets in lets legislation, Property118 landlord column, Renters’ Rights Act 2025, Tenant Fees Act fines, The Landlord Crusader
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
Previous Article
Four lenders cut buy to let mortgage ratesRelated Articles
The price of tenant activist politics: When campaigns collide with reality
2 weeks ago | 6 comments
The RRA trap: Why decent landlords are about to get a £7,000 wake-up call
3 weeks ago | 9 comments
Member Since September 2022 - Comments: 198
10:08 AM, 19th June 2026, About 3 hours ago
Thank You once again for your brilliant article Landlord Crusader
We have a 2 bed flat and in the advert stated we would allow pets which vastly increased the number of interested potential tenants
Couple moved in with one cat 🐈
Six months later 2 more 🐈 🐈 have appeared
We know that the flat will need new carpets and curtains/blinds , repainting and repairs when are tenants move on.
I hope they stay for years but they can also give 2 months notice under the RRA act
Member Since January 2021 - Comments: 53
10:47 AM, 19th June 2026, About 2 hours ago
I have been in the same position and suffered large losses from a cat owning tenant and months of renovations inc new floors and carpets, skirting plus repairs to bannisters etc.
I realise it will not help Landlords who already have a tenant in place who then requests a pet but the new legislation only applies to existing tenancies and Landlords can still advertise no pets and reject applicants with pets. In the pre viewing questionnaire I ask if tenant has or intends to get a pet. Then when doing viewings I explain clearly to prospective tenants that although the legislation gives them the right to ask for a pet and I cannot unreasonably refuse should they choose to get one I will issue a section 8 to sell up as I cannot face the £ losses and the work needed to put pet damage right. I appreciate this is not a foolproof approach, that I am still not legally protected and ultimately Landlords should at least be offered equal protections but it does seem to focus most applicants. Many applicants are under the misconception that the new rules apply to the application process as well as existing tenancies and are surprised when you explain they do not. Also If I understand correctly if the tenant gets a pet without written permission you can still apply to evict for breach of contract but sadly I think this may be a discretionary scenario and I would be concerned about the judge granting possession
Member Since April 2018 - Comments: 461
11:54 AM, 19th June 2026, About 51 minutes ago
Not sure why another charity is sticking it’s nose in and what power they have to prevent a landlord saying NO.Perhaps all landlords should club together and start a charity which will be more profitable than being a landlord. However if you are in a block of flats with no pet ban and have a proactive property manager /directors you could send out a letter to all owners and residents asking for objections re noise , fouling communal gardens and those with allergies and pet phobias.It’s not just pet owners who have human rights and surely a property manager has a “duty of care” to all it’s residents .Is it the council who have the final word on this?
Obviously a landlord can not keep shelling out to repaint, repair and clean up after pet owning tenants who stay for a short while especially as profits now are negligible.
Member Since March 2025 - Comments: 6
11:55 AM, 19th June 2026, About 50 minutes ago
I intend to advertise in the future with two rent options. First rent for tenants with no pets who do not ask for permission for one during the tenancy, and second rent for tenants who do not have a pet but choose to ask for permission during the tenancy. The new rent will apply from the date of their request. I will set the second rent about £300 per month higher.
As far as I can tell from a careful study of the RRA this is a legally acceptable approach.
Any comments ?
Member Since September 2018 - Comments: 3631 - Articles: 5
12:03 PM, 19th June 2026, About 42 minutes ago
As far as am aware there is nothing stopping a LL ( at the point a T requests a pet) stating that IF permission were to be given then this would require a formal addendum to the APT. As the addition of a pet would by default increase the risk of damage, (over what it was at the start of the tenancy when there were no pets), then this would have to be taken into consideration. As legislation does not permit a ‘pet deposit’, increase in rent, the owner to take out pet insurance, and of course the LL cannot insure a pet that is not theirs, then the only way of mitigation would be the use of a guarantor.
I know it might be a ‘grey area’ if the existing APT does not have a specific clause saying the use of a guarantor is needed BUT again, take this literally, then you could take a step back and say that an addendum would need to be agreed with the tenant to allow a guarantor clause to be added, then an addendum to allow a pet if backed up by a pet guarantor….
Charge T £50 for the first addendum change.
I cant see how this would be deemed ‘unreasonable’ if challenged. The T requested the pet, and you are still agreeing but only if the additional potential risk for additional damage can be mitigated against. The LL is not demanding any payments contrary to the TF ban.