Government vows Renters’ Rights Act will tackle rental discrimination

Reply to the comment left by Beaver at 19/08/2026 – 09:13
The clause about asking permission for a pet already exists in SATs. Someone has previously said though that you can simply refuse a pet before a tenant moves in.Is this correct. So landlords would need to ask or better still have an application form saying do you intend to bring a pet in to the property and what exactly it is and how many. This does not mean you are discriminating but you would like to know to assess who is best for YOUR property. Of course they might lie, heaven forbid.
Interesting Burnham and Rayner intend to house rough sleepers so part of their masterplan becomes obvious in that they want to bankrupt private landlords and steal their property to achieve this.

Reply to the comment left by David at 19/08/2026 – 10:08
The NRLA has some documents about ‘pet requests’. They provided links to them here:

https://www.nrla.org.uk/news/renters-rights-act-pet-documents

https://www.nrla.org.uk/resources/renters-rights/pets-in-rental-properties

They say ‘have a suitable pet policy’. They give this list:

To decide on this, you should ask relevant questions to assess suitability such as:

– The type of pet being requested
– The size of the pet
– The size of the property
– Whether there is outside space
– How this could impact other residents in the home, especially those with allergies or phobias
– How this could impact other residents in nearby homes
– Whether the pet would normally need training

I think the above list is helpful but it isn’t close to being ADEQUATE to assess risk. You would have to read the legislation but in my personal opinion if you were to advertise:

[IN VERY LARGE FONT] NO PETS
[in small font] except by prior written agreement

Then this would not breach the Act. If your application form looking at affordability criteria said ‘do you have pets, are the pets insured’ then this would be a reasonable question because pet insurance can easily be the size of a monthly mortgage and you are allowed to consider affordability under the Act: Pet insurance typically doesn’t cover property damage but can be expensive anyway and if they are struggling to afford the rent then they can’t afford the pet. And of course if the prospective tenants tick these boxes you can choose one of the other applicants without pets (although in my experience the person with the small breed such as a Yorkshire Terrier or Parsons will cost you FAR less money than the family with four children).

I think your standard rental agreement would need to say no pets except by prior written agreement (therefore absence of a written agreement would breach the tenancy agreement). But I also think there should be a caveat in the rental agreement to define anti-social behaviour associated with pets such as for example that excessive barking is defined as tenant anti-social behaviour and is a reason for ending the tenancy and that all anti-social behaviour is the responsibility of the named tenants, not the landlord. So if other residents contact you in writing, e.g. via the Land Registry or perhaps your agent via the new Labour Landlord Database (which I am firmly against) then you have a reason for ending the tenancy, because anti-social behaviour is a valid reason for ending a tenancy under the Act.

The thing to remember is that it is not the majority of responsible pet-owners that cause the damage. But the minority of irresponsible pet owners cause a LOT of damage and a lot of expense, far more than would be covered by a standard deposit. For example, some irresponsible owners keep their dogs locked up and don’t exercise them, leading to property damage; but some pet keepers throw their dogs out in the morning and let them back in in the evening, causing issues for third parties; if they are in cities they defaecate everywhere or may threaten people, and if they are in the country they get together as a pack with other free-roaming dogs and attack sheep.

This week somebody was killed by a dog and it wasn’t even listed as a dangerous dog….it was a German Shepherd. In the UK there were nearly 11,000 hospital admissions caused by dog wounds in 2024 and 16 fatalities in 2023. So if you give permission for somebody to keep a dog at your property without going to sufficient lengths to check on what it is and how it is managed then I cannot really be sure that somebody would not try to sue the Landlord who as the property owner had given permission for the animal to be kept there.

And some dog owners are very irresponsible indeed. They go and get themselves a Christmas puppy, or lock-down-dog, then two years later they think they can change it or get rid of it in the same way that they get rid of an old mobile phone. A lot of these animals are poorly-socialised, have behavioural problems, and end up in the dog-rescue charities. When they are let out of dog rescue charities they are often a liability unless they are in the hands of somebody who both has the time to manage them and also the skills to do it. But pets are a 24-7 commitment and the named keepers only have to let it be managed by a child for it to kill someone or something. Often though people who have these dogs just deny that the dogs are theirs when there is any significant problem.

The Labour Renters Rights Act is both reckless and irresponsible. A further problem is that if you were to say to a tenant who had applied to you to keep a pet ‘yes but you have to pay more rent so that I can pay for the extra insurance’ then if the dog rips the kitchen apart the tenant won’t pay because the tenant knows that you have insurance. The ONLY thing that you can do is increase the rent (for all tenants) although of course the Labour Renters Rights Act says that you cannot accept more than the advertised rent EVEN if the owners offers it. This means that you ALWAYS now need to advertise high at first letting even if your advertisement says NO PETS, except subject to prior written agreement.

Reply to the comment left by Alexandra at 19/08/2026 – 07:44
Thanks Alexandra, I asked this before reading your comments so yes an application pack and a clause in the Tenancy Agreement, so no pets allowed for new tenants at application stage is legit.

Reply to the comment left by Beaver at 19/08/2026 – 11:16
I did not know about the “pet policy” but have been suggesting this all along and if the NRLA recommend it must be legit. It still does not guarantee a tenant wont have a pet or ask for one when they are in the property though.

Reply to the comment left by David at 19/08/2026 – 11:24
What the NRLA recommend is helpful, but not adequate to assess risk…you would need species, number of animals, weight, age, history of the dog (rescue centre or X-bred), microchipping details and lots of other details. We have dangerous dogs legislation that lists banned breeds:

https://www.gov.uk/control-dog-public/banned-dogs

These are the Pit Bull Terrier, Japanese Tosa, Dogo Argentino, Fila Brasileiro and XL Bully (unless it has an exemption certificate). But a lot of dogs are X-breeds and it isn’t possible to tell whether a dog is dangerous or destructive by examining it; the person who got killed this week was killed by a German Shepherd, Rottweilers have killed people in the past, so have Dobermans. Staffordshire Bull Terrier X-breds can be hard to distinguish from Pit Bull X-breds and they often kill other animals.

I think the important thing is to understand that IRRESPONSIBLE DOG OWNERS ARE IRRESPONSIBLE and will try to deny responsibility for their dog if something goes wrong and try to dump the problem on somebody else. So the rental agreement clearly needs to specify that problems caused by pets at the property are the responsibility of the named keepers, this is not a pet-problem but is tenant anti-social behaviour, and that this is a reason for ending the tenancy.

But you need to be able to link the animal to the principal tenants so in addition to having the tenants NI numbers (if you don’t already have them) you also need the dogs microchipping details. Any tenant that doesn’t have a microchipping number isn’t a responsible dog owner. Any dog owner that doesn’t also have 3rd party insurance isn’t a responsible dog owner.

Reply to the comment left by David at 19/08/2026 – 11:24
The landlord having an allergy is not one of the reasons the Govertment gave for turning down a pet request. My understanding is that you would be expected to appoint an agent to conduct check-in, inspections etc so that you dont have to visit. I guess if the allergy is so severe that you could go into anaphalactic shock if you ever re-enter the property, even after a deep clean then you might have a case, but honestly anyone in that situation probably shouldn’t be a landlord.

Reply to the comment left by Beaver at 19/08/2026 – 11:36
I agree and good advise.

Reply to the comment left by DPT at 19/08/2026 – 11:38
Isn’t saying anyone with such a serious allergy shouldn’t be a landlord discriminatory. Landlords now seem to have less rights than illegal immigrants, employers, convicted criminals you name it. It is the landlords property, stamp duty paid and if the property is not properly cleaned the landlord could die.But that’s perfectly OK.

Reply to the comment left by David at 19/08/2026 – 11:45
Unfortunately, just as the NRLA guidance is not yet adequate, that information alone is still not adequate either to assess the risk an animal presents, or to protect a landlord from it.

Irresponsible dog owners are irresponsible: When something goes wrong and the animal (whose breed may not even be in the dangerous dogs list) kills somebody or something they say things like “…How do you know it was me?….How do you know it was my dog?….Well, dogs don’t like cats do they?….My girlfriend was looking after it…..It’s my girlfriend’s dog…..It’s my friend’s dog, I’m just looking after it……Staffys don’t like other animals…..Not my fault, I didn’t do it, the dog did it….” etc., etc.

And so because this is what happens with animals in the real world, lots of people have animals (about half of homes), and lots of people who keep animals make stupid decisions about them all the time, you need to be able to identify the animal and link the animal to whoever is responsible for it (the keeper and the owner) and link this to the named tenants in the tenancy agreement: You also need to make it clear that problems with animals at the property are TENANT ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOUR and a reason for ending the tenancy under the Act.

Because irresponsible animal owners are irresponsible, the irresponsible owners will resist this and this gives you a reason to reject their request if they make it. Responsible owners won’t necessarily resist providing you with the necessary information ALTHOUGH they are still not going to want to pay when an enormous bill for the damage their animals have caused lands on the mat and if they know that you are insured they will probably expect your insurance to pay, because theirs probably won’t; and if they aren’t insured they may not even be able to AFFORD it. Especially if they are on benefits.

In law the KEEPER of an animal is not necessarily the OWNER of an animal but the keeper of the animal is the person who has responsibility for the behaviour of the animal whilst the keeper is looking after it. You will need the NI number (and other financial details) of the person with the RESPONSIBILITY for the animal if you have to make a claim using the Money Claim Online service so you are going to need the NI number for the keeper of the animal and also the owner of the animal if the two are not the same; and to further protect you from risk you need the NI number for all named tenants.

It is a legal requirement to microchip dogs. Everybody needs the right NI numbers and it is critical for landlords (and the NRLA) to understand that the KEEPER of an animal may not necessarily be the OWNER of an animal.

Reply to the comment left by Beaver at 19/08/2026 – 12:50
I see you are passionate about this and rightly so. I didn’t know all dogs have to be microchipped, but I do think all dogs should be licensed but they won’t be because as you say a high proportion of the voting public own them.

I think the main worry for landlords is that dogs and other pets might cause serious damage and in my experience this is not always picked up by the inventory clerk, until the next tenant notices a smell.The pathetic deposits do not cover ruined flooring and carpets.

Noted, no NI number, no tenancy, next please.