Just 8% of PRS homes are ‘pet friendly’
1 year ago | 10 comments
Ban on pet deposits means all pet owners lose and all pet owners pay!
by Mick Roberts
8:59 AM, 13th March 2025, 1 year ago
39
Who would like to drive a Ferrari, crash it, get another one, and still pay the same insurance cost as a Fiat 500? I’m sure the Labour party can sort that for you.
Who can remember the days when landlords took tenants with pets no problem. Tenants paid a bit of extra deposit, and when they left in five years time, if no damage, got the extra deposit back. How simple was that? It worked.
What went wrong since then? That would be the government and MPs, banning pet deposits. What did we do? We stopped taking pets. Yes Labour, we not taking them, come and prosecute us! Surely that will help the tenants plight won’t it?
How simple it was and now how difficult has it been made by the Labour party.
Shelter supported banning higher deposits, but now landlords are charging more rent to ALL pet owners, meaning ALL pet owners lose, and ALL pet owners pay.
They’re trying to stop this, but what’s happening is happening. Landlords are just refusing ALL pets so ALL pet owners suffer. When in reality, it’s only 10% that cause the damage.
Wake up people, come and ask the Housing Providers.Will you please take tenants with pets and what will it take?
Tags:
government banning pet deposits, higher rent for pet owners, housing providers and pets, housing rent increases, landlords refusing pets, pet deposit ban, pet owners and rent increases, Shelter ban pet deposits, tenant pet policies
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
Best cities for commercial property investment revealed
Member Since March 2025 - Comments: 3
8:43 AM, 5th April 2025, About 1 year ago
After watching Tenant’s from hell on TV it’s obvious the people living in the property are the ones who wreck the place not the pets !
Member Since September 2018 - Comments: 3550 - Articles: 5
10:54 AM, 5th April 2025, About 1 year ago
I might actually ask all my existing flat tenants to sign something to say they all wish to have quiet enjoyment and do not want me to have to allow pets in a property because it will have a negative impact on the way they enjoy their home.
As far as I am concerned I am then being a very good landlord in making sure my existing tenants wishes are upheld when advertising ‘no pets’ from the outset and making any future tenant aware before any contract is entered.
I think this more than qualifies as ‘reasonable grounds’ for refusal quite succinctly if a request is ever made.
Member Since September 2018 - Comments: 3550 - Articles: 5
10:57 AM, 5th April 2025, About 1 year ago
Reply to the comment left by Eddy Lancaster at 05/04/2025 – 08:43
but pets often do as a result of the tenant not giving a c..p
Member Since September 2018 - Comments: 3550 - Articles: 5
12:27 PM, 6th April 2025, About 1 year ago
In just thinking – what do LL’s currently put in their TA’s in regard to pets? Do you put no pets will be permitted under any circumstances or do you word it differently?
Just thinking post RRB I might need to amend the clause I use to say “a request for a pet at any time during the term of a tenancy will be automatically declined by the property Freeholders. The Landlord shall uphold and preserve the contractual obligations placed upon them to ensure quiet enjoyment for all existing tenants within the property.”
Anyone else thinking the same?
Member Since March 2023 - Comments: 1507
2:04 PM, 6th April 2025, About 1 year ago
Cider drinker, see what you mean about vets bills – so far our cat has cost £15,000+, luckily most of it insured.
I have 3 tenants with cats / small dogs, I don’t charge them any extra and I don’t take deposits for my properties. Don’t care any more as when they leave I will gut the place, redecorate and sell.
I have sold 12 and hoping the remaining 6 move out some time, but little chance of that ! (they can stay till they leave , I won’t be turfing them out)
Member Since May 2015 - Comments: 2204 - Articles: 2
6:03 PM, 6th April 2025, About 1 year ago
Reply to the comment left by GlanACC at 06/04/2025 – 14:04
The damage to tenants that the RRB will do, and has done, is beyond imagination.
Member Since April 2025 - Comments: 1
10:12 AM, 8th April 2025, About 1 year ago
The ban on pet deposits has caused landlords to refuse pets or increase rents for all tenants, unfairly impacting responsible pet owners.
A solution could include allowing capped pet deposits, requiring pet liability insurance, or adding clear pet-related clauses in tenancy agreements.
Policymakers, landlords, and tenants must work together to create fair rules that protect properties while enabling tenants with pets to find homes.
Member Since May 2015 - Comments: 2204 - Articles: 2
10:46 AM, 8th April 2025, About 1 year ago
Reply to the comment left by John Lee at 08/04/2025 – 10:12
A better plan would be to leave the two parties to sort out their own arrangements with no government interference.
Member Since March 2023 - Comments: 1507
10:58 AM, 8th April 2025, About 1 year ago
Reply to the comment left by TheMaluka at 08/04/2025 – 10:46
TheMaluka .. as happens now, if it ain’t broke don’t fix it