Government vows Renters’ Rights Act will tackle rental discrimination

Reply to the comment left by DPT at 09:51
Given just how confusing the Labour Renters Rights Act is I think that any landlord would have to be forgiven for being confused about the situation with pets: The situation is confusing because the act is a terrible piece of legislation…it is a horrible confusing mess and amongst other things it reflects the lack of competence in the present parliament.
If such an advert had ever existed no blacks, no dogs, no irish would always have been problematic because of the racism in the phrase; but the Act did not need anti-discrimination clauses because we already have anti-racism and other anti-discrimination legislation. There was actually a benefit in landlords being able to advertise no dogs or no pets because this would tell a tenant with a pet that they were heading for a conflict zone, or at least that there was something that would need to be resolved.
Some landlords would not want pets either because of lack of experience of pet ownership or because of a prior negative experience with pets; before the Labour Renters Rights Act, some landlords (like me, who know from experience that children cost more on average than pets) would be happy to consider pets having had a sensible discussion about what the processes for managing pets would be; there was choice. In fact, the tenant could always approach a landlord advertising no pets say its’ just a cat and offer more than the advertised rent. Now, the Labour Renters Rights Act prevents the landlord from taking more than the advertised rent as a solution even if the tenant offers it; the Act takes possible solutions away.
In addition to reflecting the lack of competence of this Labour dominated parliament the Labour Renters Rights Act also reflects the immaturity of the leaders of some of the housing charities that do not actually house anybody. Pets are not a right, they are a responsibility. Some people have little choice but to have an animal such as a guide dog. But these animals are very low risk, partly because guide dogs, or hearing dogs for the deaf are exceptionally well-trained, but also because these animals are constantly engaged with and are not bored. Saying, in effect, the landlord cannot unreasonably refuse to accept your right to have a pet is just immature.
The Labour Renters Rights Act, reflects not only the incompetence of the current parliament, but also the immaturity of the people influencing it, and also the ignorance of the people driving it. In the one of the quotes referred to above, one of the people behind the Act stated that the deposit would be enough to cover any damage caused by pets: The best interpretation of this statement is that it is ignorance, the worst is that it was a lie. If you put a large, bored dog in a kitchen or flat and give it nothing to do it can rip the kitchen apart, chew off the tops of the radiators and do all sorts of damage. The cost of this damage can EASILY exceed the deposit; this is a rare occurrence but it does occur….like a home-fire, or a flood for example. These are events that occur rarely and you insure for them; but because of ignorance, incompetence, and the drive to give tenants rights rather than oblige tenants to accept that as adults the tenants have to accept responsibilities, the Act fell short of requiring insurance that would cover damage.
The effect of this ignorance, incompetence, immaturity and the not very well hidden agenda behind not being able to discriminate against benefits tenants landlords do not have much choice but to raise rents and inflict the costs of tenants with children and the costs of tenants with pets on every single tenant: The Act does not take away a landlords right to choose which tenants go into a property and will never do that because a private property is not a council house; it just means that all landlords have to do a lot more work to avoid high risk tenants. The main effect of the unnecessary anti-discrimination clauses in the Labour Renters Rights Act is to restrict choice in the market and drive rents up.
The Labour Renters Rights Act is a disaster.
But landlords are quite free to ask whether tenants have pets, whether the pets are insured, and what the insurance covers. I am not worried about this because in my experience children cost far, far more on average than pets.

Reply to the comment left by DPT at 11/08/2026 – 09:51
Pathetic isn’t it.We not only have to be careful about the “language” we use online in fear of a knock on the door, now we have to be careful about what we say to prospective tenants. How about tenants being careful about the language they use to landlords.About time landlords pushed back on all this rather than just roll over and play dead.

The bit of the Labour Renters Rights Act relating to pets is a horrible mess and it did not even have to be in the Act because before the Act tenants would be free to choose between landlords who considered pets (like me) and those landlords who did not want them, possibly offering more than the advertised rent to resolve the problem. It definitely DIDN’T need to be in the Act because keeping a pet is a RESPONSIBILITY, not a right.

This is the wording of the Act:

Right to request permission to keep a pet
(1)In the 1988 Act, after section 16 insert—

“16ARequesting consent to keep a pet
(1)It is an implied term of every assured tenancy to which this section applies that—

(a)a tenant may keep a pet at the dwelling-house if the tenant asks to do so in accordance with this section and the landlord consents;

(b)such consent is not to be unreasonably refused by the landlord;

(c)the landlord is to give or refuse consent in writing on or before the 28th day after the date of the request, except as provided by subsections (2) to (5).

(2)Where the landlord reasonably requests further information from the tenant about the pet on or before the 28th day after the date of the tenant’s request—

(a)if the tenant provides that information, the landlord may delay giving or refusing consent until the 7th day after the date on which the tenant provides any further information that the landlord requests;

(b)if the tenant does not provide that information, the landlord is not required to give or refuse consent.

(3)Where—

(a)the keeping of the pet at the dwelling-house would require the landlord to obtain the consent of a superior landlord under the terms of a superior tenancy, and

(b)the landlord seeks the consent of the superior landlord on or before the 28th day after the date of the tenant’s request,

the landlord may delay giving or refusing consent until the 7th day after the date on which the landlord receives consent or refusal from the superior landlord.
(4)Where the landlord and the tenant agree that the landlord may delay giving or refusing consent, the landlord may delay until whatever date is agreed between the landlord and the tenant.

(5)Where more than one of subsections (2) to (4) apply, the landlord may delay until the latest date to which the landlord may delay giving or refusing consent under any of the subsections.

(6)This section applies to every assured tenancy other than a tenancy of social housing, within the meaning of Part 2 of the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008.

16BRequests for consent to keep a pet: further provision
(1)For the purposes of section 16A, a tenant keeps a pet at a dwelling-house if the tenant permits the pet to live at the dwelling-house (whether or not the tenant is the owner of the pet).

(2)Section 16A does not limit the terms that may be agreed in relation to the presence at the dwelling-house of pets which do not live there.

(3)The tenant’s request under section 16A must—

(a)be in writing;

(b)include a description of the pet for which consent is sought.

(4)The circumstances in which it is reasonable for a landlord to refuse consent include those in which—

(a)the pet being kept at the dwelling-house would cause the landlord to be in breach of an agreement with a superior landlord;

(b)an agreement between the landlord and a superior landlord prohibits the keeping of a pet at the dwelling-house without consent of the superior landlord, and the landlord has taken reasonable steps to obtain that consent but the superior landlord has not given it.

(5)In proceedings in which a tenant alleges that the landlord has breached the implied term created by section 16A, the court may order specific performance of the obligation.”

(2)In section 45(1) of the 1988 Act, in the appropriate place insert—

““pet” means an animal kept by a person mainly for—
(a)
personal interest,

(b)
companionship,

(c)
ornamental purposes, or

(d)
any combination of paragraphs (a) to (c);”

Note that the landlord can reasonably request further information and the tenant does have to give the landlord a description of the pet. But the costs and consequences of all the additional complexity and extra work relating to tenants on benefits, tenants with children, and tenants who want pets are all going to be visited on people who are working, are just trying to rent a room to sleep in and who are now going to find this much more expensive to pay for other people’s luxuries and lifestyle decisions.

The Labour Renters Rights Act is a mess: It is government that is putting rents up.

This Act seems to breach landlord’s (private individuals) civil liberties. Is it unreasonable to refuse a pet just because a landlord does not like pets, does not want any in his property or even fears them, I don’t think so.
Is it correct as some have said you can refuse pets at the application for a new tenancy, if so and this is made clear before the tenancy starts then the tenant should be fully aware that this property is not for them.

Reply to the comment left by David at 11/08/2026 – 19:49
It shouldn’t be unreasonable for a landlord to refuse a pet for lots of reasons. One of them is that having a pet is a lifestyle choice, a RESPONSIBILITY and not a right. Having a baby is sometimes a choice (especially when you’ve had more than two and worked out how babies come along, or should have done); but it is often not a choice and many people will know mothers who own pets but who then have babies, and how their priorities change when the baby comes along. Yes, they still like the pet, but the baby is all-consuming because it has to be.

The difficulty of putting this “right” to not unreasonably be refused a pet (i.e. to have one), a lifestyle decision, into the Labour Renters Rights Act is that it inflicts the consequences of this lifestyle decision in the form of higher rents on families who are trying to get extra space to have babies, to get the babies out of their bedrooms so that they can have some rest, or to have some physical intimacy (which can lead to more babies). And the additional costs of either pets or children are also inflicted as increased rent upon (often young) people who are just trying to rent a room so that they can be near work. The people who don’t have pets or children are punished because of the people who do choose to have them, or choose to have more of them.

It is reasonable for landlords who have had negative experiences of tenants with pets, or know very little about pets, to be fearful of them just as it is reasonable to be fearful of a flood, a house fire, or burglary. These events are infrequent but they have very high impact when they occur and this is why we insure against them; the same is true when your kitchen gets ripped apart by a bored dog. But the Labour Renters Rights Act stops you from doing the obvious thing when a tenant says “can I have a pet” which is to be clear that you can impose a rent increase that may be above market rent to cover the additional risk and/or additional insurance costs.

Many landlords who are parents will be familiar with this question: “….daddy, mummy, can I have a dog?” And the smart parent doesn’t automatically say yes. The smart parent may say yes but will use the yes to teach the child about responsibility….”…if you have a pet it will cost a lot so you will get less pocket money”….”…if you have a dog then you will have to walk it every day after school rather than playing games on your mobile phone and you will still have to do your homework.”

Many landlords will have noticed that during the formation of the Labour Renters Rights Act the government appeared to be listening to organisations claiming to be representing tenants, whose ‘leaders’ were either extremely immature, had a very limited understanding of the world, or both. And sometimes they had another agenda…they wanted the dog, still wanted to play games on a mobile phone, and not have to do any homework.

But what the labour government did not do was to consult the Competition and Markets Authority about their proposals and ask them:

1. Noting the fact (which is general common knowledge) that most tenanted properties are provided by landlords who are small portfolio, non-incorporated landlords who presently cannot offset their finance costs against rents.
2. Given that we are proposing to introduce anti-discrimination clauses into the Act that are over and above our existing anti-discrimination legislation.
3. Are these proposals likely to constrain the supply of properties?
4. Are these proposals likely to push rents up?
5. And given that small portfolio landlords are the bulk of the market, will this push up average rents in the private rental sector?

The truth is that you don’t need to ask the question: Your average working parent would be able to work it out.

But the government did not ask the Competition and Markets Authority and it also did not do any significant consultation with small portfolio landlords. Instead, it appears to have listened to so called “charities” that do not house anybody and in doing so it is pushing up rents for everybody.

If you look at the wording of the Act with respect to pets (something that did not need to be in a “Rights” act at all because it is a lifestyle choice) you will see that it is not really clear whether you can raise the rent to cover risk/insurance if the tenant says “…daddy can I have a pet…” and it leaves the matter to a tribunal to decide whether the refusal to say yes is reasonable or not. And so this additional, unnecessary requirement in the Act places an ADDITIONAL burden on the courts.

But Labour ALSO refused to publish the results of its justice impact test on the courts:

https://www.property118.com/government-refuses-to-reveal-renters-rights-bill-court-impact-assessment/

The Labour Renters Rights Act is a disaster because the labour government were arrogant and were not listening to who they should have been listening to: It is government that is putting rents up.

I am afraid the government has only been very selfish in introducing RRA and all the taxes and stupid fees like £7k upwards. They are just helping irresponsible tenants and themselves.
I have started to sell my properties since 2018 and will continue to do so until they are all gone. 3 going within a year. One of them still has a tenants, who refuses to leave, keeps extending the date of leaving. Today they said it will be at the end of September.
It needs complete refurbishment and sell it.
As tenants leave or fixed rate mortgages come to end, I shall give notice and sell them. I have to let them stay 12 months and then a notice of 4 months. Having up to 12 months empty will help council with double CT, but not help tenants. This is what the government wants, get their coffers filled but the tenants can be without a home in this low housing availability country. They give priority to asylum seekers who have been here less then 6 months, the entitled people.
I will definitely sell to owner occupiers so they have all got to be empty before selling them.
I am not helping the government or any tenants.

Reply to the comment left by Tiger at 15/08/2026 – 17:51
I own flats in a large block over which I also own the freehold. When I sell I will amend the leasehold agreement to specifically forbid subletting.

Reply to the comment left by The_Maluka at 16/08/2026 – 15:42
I think that if you own the freehold you may also be able to specifically forbid pets if I’ve understood the legislation correctly. Page up for the detail of the legislation.

Reply to the comment left by Beaver at 16/08/2026 – 15:53
Pets are already forbidden but the tenants take no notice. There is absolutely nothing a landlord can do to control tenants having pets and there never was even before the RRA.

Reply to the comment left by The_Maluka at 16/08/2026 – 16:20
The discussion about pets is really about who pays for the extra risk and cost. Pets are a responsibility, not a right, and there was no need to include a right to request a pet in the Labour Renters Rights Act; tenants were free to choose between landlords who advertised no pets and landlords who didn’t. If Labour had wanted to include a right to have a pet [which is a responsibility] in the Act then they should have put the reciprocal responsibilities in there as well by making it clear that landlords have a right to raise the rent and/or request insurance in order to cover the additional risk. Instead, Labour left the additional burden to tribunals:

https://www.property118.com/government-refuses-to-reveal-renters-rights-bill-court-impact-assessment/

The only thing that a landlord or agent can do is to advertise at the highest possible rent and raise rents annually to market rent; everything about the Labour Renters Rights Act and labour fiscal policy is inflationary.

However, in my experience as a landlord, children do far more damage than pets.