Government vows Renters’ Rights Act will tackle rental discrimination

Reply to the comment left by Beaver at 14:51
I still think a landlord/letting agent can make it clear that for example the landlord does not like pets, has an allergy, phobia or other residents may object and therefore suggest the property may not be suitable. Imagine a dog upsetting other residents , then the property manager gets complaints and tells you that either the dog must go or the tenant instantly, not in 12 months time.

Reply to the comment left by David at 17/08/2026 – 16:05
Dogs upsetting other residents is an issue. This is why we have dangerous dogs legislation:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1991/65/contents

The dangerous dogs legislation came about partly because of American Pit Bull Terriers or similar breeds damaging or killing people. There has been a debate over the last year about XL Bully dogs:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-66775985

But neither American Pit Bull Terriers nor XL Bullies are inherently dangerous; the problem is what people do with them. A car isn’t inherently dangerous but if you drive it recklessly then it is. A gun isn’t inherently dangerous, but if you point it at people, then it is. And a dog isn’t inherently dangerous but if you don’t know how to control it OR you point an aggressive dog at people then it may be more dangerous than a gun.

If owners keep dogs bred for fighting and use them as a weapon, or to intimidate other residents that is not something inherently to do with the dog; it is antisocial behaviour and it is dangerous antisocial behaviour. But landlords can no longer do anything about that because the Labour Renters Rights Act banned no-fault evictions and in doing so Labour took away any powers landlords previously had to deal with dangerous dogs.

Reply to the comment left by Beaver at 17/08/2026 – 17:02
Not just dangerous dogs, but out of control , excessively noisy dogs may be more common. As you say it’s not the dog it is the owner at fault.
What happens if your tenants dog attacks another resident though?

Reply to the comment left by David at 17/08/2026 – 21:08
Anti-social behaviour is anti-social behaviour: The Labour Renters Rights Act took away all powers that landlords had to deal with anti-social behaviour when it ended no-fault evictions.

Reply to the comment left by Beaver at 18/08/2026 – 08:51
Oh so if my tenant’s dog attacks another resident i say” nothing to do with me”? I suspect if that happened the council will be harassing me as well as the victim, property manager etc.

Reply to the comment left by David at 18/08/2026 – 10:23
It’s nothing to do with me….. I didn’t write the legislation!!! I don’t think the ‘right’ for a tenant to request a pet should be in the Labour Renters Rights Act at all because having a pet isn’t a right, it’s a responsibility. And if Labour CHOSE to put it in the Act as they have done then in my view Labour should have put the responsibilities that go along with animal ownership in the Act as well, but they didn’t. The Labour Renters Rights Act is a TERRIBLE piece of extreme left-wing legislation.

But I think that the answer to your specific question, if a tenant’s dog attacks another resident [or even another resident’s cat or dog] do you say “nothing to do with me” then it isn’t nothing to do with you if you gave the tenant permission to have the dog: Dangerous dogs are HUMAN ANTI-SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR.

The Labour Renters Rights Act in effect gave landlords [who may have never owned an animal] 28 days to find out everything that they need to know about something the tenants describe as a ‘pet’ before saying yes or no to the ‘pet’ and leaving the landlord vulnerable to action under a tribunal if the landlord says no.

There is also no easy answer in this terrible legislation: If when you advertise your property you say something like “Landlord doesn’t like pets” then do you think that would count for you when you reach a tribunal, or against you? For many landlords who have had bad experiences of pets, don’t like pets, or have very limited knowledge of animals I believe this puts them in a very difficult, and in fact an unfair position. Why should a landlord have to fund a tenant’s lifestyle choice? The only thing that a landlord can do to reduce the risk is to put the rent up (therefore pushing market rents up even higher), or to recover the additional risks and costs from other tenants in a property portfolio; but why should the other tenants who don’t have pets have to fund this lifestyle choice?

But we need to recognise that SOME TENANTS WITH DOGS ARE DANGEROUS: Their behaviour is anti-social behaviour and they are a risk to other residents. Even if a dog makes a lot of noise because it is locked up all day and barks incessantly then that is also anti-social behaviour in the way that playing excessive amounts of loud music is also anti-social behaviour.

But the only powers landlords had to deal with that were no-fault evictions; Labour took all these powers away with the Labour Renters Rights Act. No-fault evictions were a good way to deal with dangerous dogs; it generally isn’t the dog’s fault. But even if a dog barks all night we shouldn’t minimise the impact of that on other tenants because the people next door might be working and need their sleep. If it barks all day then it might be waking up the baby next door.

When Labour put [in effect] the right to have a pet into the Labour Renters Rights Act along with all the other measures in the Act, but failed to put the responsibilities of animal ownership in there as well, they weren’t JUST putting rents up (the Act does drive rents up); they were also doing something ignorant, dangerous and RECKLESS. Nobody should be surprised about this because when Labour were putting their Labour Renters Rights Act together they did not do any significant consultation with small-portfolio landlords. They did on the other hand listen to organisations whose leaders were ignorant, immature, and who had an extreme-left-wing axe to grind, but who the Labour government wanted to listen to because they made a lot of noise in the media.

Consequently, the Labour Renters Rights Act is both IRRESPONSIBLE and RECKLESS…it is in fact, juvenile.

Reply to the comment left by David at 17/08/2026 – 16:05
Unfortunately, none of the things you mention would be sufficient to reject a tenants request for a pet without breaching the Renters Rights Act.

Reply to the comment left by DPT at 18/08/2026 – 16:24
It was just a suggestion “the property may not suit you”. I think though if you have say you have an allergy you could deny entry in to the property .

Reply to the comment left by David at 18/08/2026 – 23:00
I have not read every single comment on this post.so can I ask when you say deny entry do you mean you are looking for a reason to refuse to grant a new tenancy to someone with a pet? If yes I have noticed that some agents/landlords have not realised it is still perfectly legal to advertise a property as no pets and refuse an application due to the tenant already having a pet. The right to request a pet only applies once a tenancy has started – so I guess the risk is that they hide the pet until they get the tenancy. If they move the pet in without going through the “request process”. Then as I understand it it is still a breach of tenancy agreement but whether a judge would support that is another matter. Apols if I have misunderstood or this has been covered in thread already…,,

Whether a tenant tells you that they have a pet is probably going to depend upon which AI bot they ask the question of and how they ask it because they probably aren’t going to read the legislation itself. A lot of tenants will just interpret the change in legislation in the Labour Renters Rights Act as yes, they can have a pet because they will ask the question as ‘does the renters rights act let me have a pet’. Many will not even ask the landlord. The NRLA suggests having a ‘pet policy’ and including that policy with the application pack. I think that for most landlords, in order to protect themselves they are going to need to include a clause in their tenancy agreements saying no pets without prior written agreement following request in writing to the landlord because a clause like this clearly does not breach the Act.