Government vows Renters’ Rights Act will tackle rental discrimination

Reply to the comment left by David at 19/08/2026 – 15:17
I’m a small portfolio landlord: I feel the impact when an extreme-left-wing government such as the one we have today in parliament gets things badly wrong and allows landlords 28 days (plus only one week and no more) to manage what is actually a high risk situation.

The UK parliament has debated dog attacks on postal workers with as many as 3,000 attacks in one year:

https://edm.parliament.uk/early-day-motion/61147

This month even the Unions called this issue a crisis and called for greater protection for postal workers:

https://www.cwu.org/press_release/cwu-calls-for-stronger-action-as-uk-dog-attack-crisis-continues-to-grow/

Earlier this year a labour MP called for landlords to be made responsible for tenant anti-social behaviour:

https://www.property118.com/labour-mp-questions-landlord-role-in-tackling-tenant-anti-social-behaviour/

But of course, when Labour introduced their Labour Renters Rights Act in May this year they removed no-fault evictions and these were the only powers that landlords had to deal with tenant antisocial behaviour, including dog-attacks (which are tenant antisocial behaviour). The only powers landlords have left are to undertake a property inspection having given 24 hours notice. These are the only powers landlords have to investigate, for example, the situation of a tenant quietly sub-letting and turning a property into an unlicensed HMO, possibly subjecting the landlord to the risk of a fine. But even then these powers aren’t adequate because within 24 hours the sub-tenants can have picked up their mail and kicked their underwear under the bed. Landlords don’t have powers of search like the police do…..ALL the powers landlords had to deal with antisocial behaviour were taken away by the Labour Renters Rights Act.

In theory, the right to a landlord’s inspection having given 24 hours notice is still there. However…given what happens to postal workers who don’t even enter a property…if there is a big dog at a property and you don’t know what it is, its detailed history, and the tenants’ ability to manage it, how can you be sure that you, your agent, or an inventory clerk will be able to safely carry out a landlord’s inspection?

The fact that dogs (being territorial) carry out attacks on postal workers is general common knowledge: This being the case, given that parliament is actually debating it and has debated it repeatedly in the past, why was it that labour MPs, who form a majority in parliament, didn’t have the common sense when they included the right to have a pet in the Labour Renters Rights Act to also place the responsibilities that go along with dog ownership where they fairly belong; with the tenant?

The Labour Renters Rights Act is a terrible piece of legislation: It increases landlords’ personal risk and it dramatically increases landlords’ financial risk: The only option that it leaves landlords is to increase rents dramatically.

Reply to the comment left by Beaver at 19/08/2026 – 15:56
I totally agree, a far left government hitting small portfolio landlords like us.Listening to Rayner crowing on this morning about the social housing they will build and how they have removed Section 21, but not mentioning this has triggered evictions and more homeless.
One reason I didn’t want to be a postie was dogs or as you say irresponsible dog owners.Landlords are also not the police who should be stepping up to deal with anti social behavior, but we are just a target for everything.I had a property I avoided inspecting because the tenant had a big dog, which wrecked the property and a few houses away a drug dealer with another big dog that snapped at passers by.This was not Tower Hamlets but leafy Surrey.
Nothing to do with common sense these Labour MPs only care about votes so anything to please the pet loving public and stuff the landlords.

Reply to the comment left by David at 17:28
Yes, just like you lots of landlords do not know the basics of pet ownership, like the legal requirement to microchip dogs for example or the fact that the keeper of an animal and owner are different in law. And there is no reason why you should know as a landlord; if you do not know the risks, you should be free to advertise NO PETS, with no qualifying statements because if you are not qualified to assess the risk you should also not be put in the completely unreasonable position of having to accept an unquantifiable risk that you may not even be able to insure against.
But things like microchipping and insurance are just the basics. The risks are different and far higher if the tenant is breeding, selling or importing animals. Lots of tenants breed dogs for cash because they make so much money on selling puppies. That is why knowing the number of animals is important (the sex is also helpful) and there should probably be other requirements in there like an obligation to tell the landlord if the tenant is running a business, e,g, is a breeder.
IF Labour had wanted to put a right to request a pet into the Act they should have made it clear that full animal details must be supplied and landlords are free to increase rents as a consequence AND/OR require insurance, because this is a lifestyle choice that should be subject to market forces. That would have created some market pressure for insurers to step in and insure the risk. It would have been expensive initially because insurers cannot quantify the risk but some would probably have done it and the freedom to increase rents would have provided other options, e.g. for the landlord to fund increased insurance costs from more rent. It would have allowed the market to respond to something labour wanted; instead they just made it part of the ideological war on landlords that left-wing labour MPs and left-wing pressure groups were trying to wage against landlords. The Labour Renters Rights Act is a full-on left-wing attack….it is extreme left-wing legislation..
The Labour Renters Rights Act only obliges the tenant to give the landlord a description of the animal and if the landlord does not say yes within 28 days the landlord risks either getting torn apart by a dog or risks getting torn apart by a tribunal. In reality, the responsible pet owner should have been thinking about the implications of getting a pet for months if not years….but a landlord, who may know nothing about pets, is given 28 days? They even did this when they were debating 3,000 attacks a year on postmen…their incompetence and their hypocrisy are bizarre.
The Labour Renters Rights Act is reckless, irresponsible….28 days to assess an unquantifiable risk?….something a responsible tenant should have been thinking about for months? Once you know the implications, or have them pointed out to you, the Labour Renters Rights Act is stupid. It is actually quite difficult to overstate how stupid the Act is. It can only increase rents and it does not even help tenants on benefits or tenants with children which was the point of this thread and apparently a key objective of the Act.

Reply to the comment left by David at 19/08/2026 – 17:28
The police as you say are responsible for dealing with antisocial behaviour, although stray dogs are also antisocial behaviour and the responsibility for stray dogs is with the local authority’s dog warden. The local authority should routinely be checking for a microchip: it is a legal requirement for dogs to be microchipped. No landlord should let any dog into his or her property unless they have the details of the microchip because the microchip links the dog with the animal owner/keeper.

Reply to the comment left by Beaver at 21/08/2026 – 09:54
Well could you in fact not allow a tenant to have a dog unless they provide microchip details and check this with the LA. Seems a fair ask

Reply to the comment left by David at 21/08/2026 – 10:09
The Labour Renters Rights Act only obliges the tenant to provide a description of the animal. The tenant can also make as many requests a year as they wish under the Act, and if the landlord doesn’t say yes the landlord risks being taken to a tribunal. The right to request a pet was unnecessary, but the Labour Renters Rights Act doesn’t even help the people that Labour said they were going to stop discrimination against and the anti-discrimination clauses are not only unnecessary, but also harmful.

It is a common myth that people on benefits have more children. In fact, the majority of families claiming Universal Credit or Child Credit have 1-2 children. However, there is a link between numbers of children and poverty so if you have 4 children you are more likely to be in poverty.

The government makes benefits tenants high risk because its legislation permits the housing benefits people to go back and get money back off the landlord if it turns out that the tenants weren’t eligible for benefits. But in reality landlords have no powers to check eligibility for benefits and my experience when I used to house working-age benefits tenants was that they were all moonlighting…gaining extra cash from elsewhere…and I never found out until they left. So I was potentially liable to pay their rent back.

I believe that although under the Labour Renters Rights Act the landlord is prohibited from taking rent in advance even if the tenant offers it, the housing benefits people can still offer to pay six months’ rent upfront in order to ‘persuade’ (i.e. con) the landlord into taking the tenant. However, if you take six months’ rent upfront the housing benefits people can still get that back off you; the government makes benefits tenants high risk.

In my experience whilst pets do incur a risk they do not incur anything like the risk that having large numbers of children incurs. In my experience the family with four, badly supervised children, is both more likely to incur very high maintenance costs, but also be more likely to upset the neighbours, i.e. to cause problems with antisocial behaviour. But when labour produced the Labour Renters Rights Act and ended no-fault evictions they actually took away all powers that landlords had to deal with antisocial behaviour. My experience as a landlord is also that families with lots of children AND pets are even higher risk.

So the family with perhaps one, or maybe two not very focused parents and four children is very high risk. The Labour Renters Rights Act now gives that family the right to request a pet and in reality they can make as many requests to have a pet as they like under the Act; they don’t have to request just one, they can do it repeatedly. But because as a consequence of the Labour Renters Rights Act landlords now need to do more stringent affordability checks and these need to allow for retired people, self-employed people, partners, income from all sources etc. they are always going to be able to see when tenants are on benefits and/or have children.

So this makes the families who are both most likely to be in poverty even higher risk than they were before. But also, because the effect of the Labour Renters Rights Act (including the unnecessary discrimination clauses) is to dramatically raise rents this also means that when councils just have no choice but to place the family with four children in private accommodation, the costs of doing this go up because the Labour Renters Rights Act is driving up rents.

It is very hard indeed to overstate just how stupid the Labour Renters Rights Act is.

In my OPINION no landlord should let any animal into a property unless the tenant has full animal details INCLUDING MICROCHIPPING DETAILS; but because this goes beyond the requirements of the Act the landlord is risking being taken to a tribunal if making this requirement. This places an additional, unnecessary burden on the courts because pets are a lifestyle-decision, a responsibility, not a right.

But Labour 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/

Reply to the comment left by Alexandra at 10/08/2026 – 13:20
For the benefit of any landlord concerned about ‘pets’ or the risk of ‘unreasonably refusing’ {and you appear to be one of them} I’ve had a look to see what’s around in terms of advice because unfortunately what’s on the NRLA website just doesn’t cut it.

Probably the most well-known animal charity in the country is the RSPCA. The RSPCA website says this and this is as close to anything responsible that I’ve seen anywhere:

https://www.rspca.org.uk/findapet/advice/renters#letter-template

How to ask your landlord to allow pets
You might feel unsure when approaching your landlord about pets, but a clear, thoughtful request can make all the difference. Keep things simple and practical – explain what pet you’d like, why they’re a good fit for your home, and how you’ll care for them responsibly.

Where possible, try to speak directly with your landlord rather than going through a letting agent, as they may be more open to the idea.

Whether you’re asking a landlord for a dog, cat or another animal, showing you understand their needs and how you’ll manage them day to day can help build trust. Before writing an email or letter to your landlord asking for a pet, make sure you have the right information ready – follow our template below.

Landlord and pets letter template
When asking to keep a pet, make sure your request is reassuring and easy to understand, showing you’ve thought about both your pet’s welfare and your landlord’s concerns.

You might want to start with something simple like:

“I’d like to request permission to have a [pet type] and wanted to share a bit more detail with you.”

Having a few key details ready will help you draft a confident message or letter to your landlord.

Include information about:

Your choice of pet

Species (dog, cat, rabbit, etc.)
Breed
Size (or expected adult size)
Pet care and health

Exercise routine
Whether your pet is microchipped (for dogs and cats)
Whether they are neutered or spayed
Pet insurance details (if you have them)
How you’ll be a responsible tenant

How you’ll minimise noise or disturbance
How you’ll prevent damage to the property
Steps you’ll take to keep the home clean and well maintained

Although the above is what the RSPCA says (and broadly it tries to be responsible) it doesn’t protect the landlord: It’s there to help animal charities to home pets. But it does document some of the things that need to be done to BE responsible.

As a landlord to get some idea of risk you need NUMBER of animals, SPECIES, age, weight. You need to know sex and it is helpful to know not only if the animal is neutered but also at what age it was neutered. If it’s a dog you need to know breed. I would also recommend that you insist on being sent a picture of the animal from a mobile phone. If it’s a young dog with big paws you know it will be big when fully grown and if it is mature and attacks somebody’s sheep (or the postman) at least you have some more details to identify the animal.

In my opinion you need to know whether the animal is insured, whether the insurance covers third party insurance and whether it covers damage to property (such as yours), or other animals. If a dog is POTENTIALLY dangerous it MAY NOT BE dangerous if it is in the hands of somebody trained and insured; police handlers for example are trained to control dangerous dogs. Other professional animal handlers carry insurance so it may be helpful to know not only whether the ANIMAL is insured but also whether the KEEPER is insured (police handlers for example may not own their dogs) and whether the keeper has any training.

It is a legal requirement to microchip dogs (and the RSPCA advice refers to microchipping). It is possible to microchip dogs, cats and rabbits. Rabbits are not an easy pet to own; they are more destructive than cats (they chew wires, skirting boards etc.) and unless they have a large amount of space they are a welfare problem.

In my opinion the basics are that no landlord should be allowing a pet into a rental property unless it is microchipped, the landlord has the details of the microchip clearly linking the animal to the keeper/owner and you have the NI details of the keeper/owner in order that you can make a claim at Money Claims Online. The RSPCA website refers to microchipping so if anybody gets taken to a tribunal for ‘unreasonably refusing’ to allow a tenant to keep a pet they can refer to the RSPCA advice and also to the legal requirement to microchip dogs.

In my opinion the government also needs to make it clear to the courts that landlords are free to increase rent/and/or require insurance if a tenant requests a pet. Requiring insurance ALONE is unreasonable because insurance may not be obtainable for the specific risk you need to insure against so you need to be able to require insurance OR raise rent. Practically, you may need to be able to do both, because of course somebody might want to sue you for the dead sheep as the only person worth suing and the person allowing the dog to be at the property. Rent tribunals are NOT QUALIFIED to assess the risk presented by animal ownership; landlords need to be able to raise rents and this needs to be made clear to rent tribunals, otherwise this presents an unnecessary burden on the courts.

Responsible owners microchip their pets and insure them.

Reply to the comment left by Beaver at 21/08/2026 – 12:16
I would suggest and from what you have said the RRA has overlooked the legal requirement for all dogs to be microchipped and if a landlord accepted a dogs who had not been chipped they would be an accomplice to a criminal act.Rock and a hard place, but a landlord could argue to a tribunal he has a right to deny a dog on those grounds.
It’s quite possible though that if you said the tenant I can’t accept the dog they may then get it microchipped.

Reply to the comment left by David at 21/08/2026 – 22:16
The postman who has lost the use of his hand and can no longer work, the parents of the child that has been permanently disfigured, or the responsible, retired owners of the small micro-chipped, insured dog that has just been killed by the dog next door that looks like a staffordshire bull terrier but has extremely long legs may need to sue somebody if the tenant isn’t insured. Clearly, the postman’s solicitor is going to know where the dog was because he’s delivering the mail and his solicitor can identify you from the land-registry. If you let any tenant with a pet into your property then you need to know who is accountable for it and the way to do that is to insist that the animal is microchipped and insured, plus what for, and ensure that all responsibility for managing the animal rests with the named tenants.

I think following the Labour Renters Rights Act a lot more landlords are going to need agents to manage their properties for them. If you look at what the RSPCA said (try contacting the landlord, not the agent) I think a lot of landlords are going to have to be very careful of agents trying to get them to take responsibility for the decision as to whether the tenant is allowed the pet.

I think that if you need an agent to manage your property your question to your agent would have to be, are you capable of managing all risks associated with this pet or these pets? If the answer is no then the reasonable response to the request to have a pet would be that the agent is not capable of managing the risks.

Reply to the comment left by Beaver at 12:59
Exactly and I every landlord should be asking any tenant requesting a dog to provide them with the microchip details, confirm they have current pet insurance and confirm everything with the council, otherwise they could lose everything and even end up in jail. As i have said before landlords need to challenge not just suck it up.There is so much detail in this RRA that I really doubt any letting agent will be willing to to deal with landlord’s requests and will either brush them off with a yes or say we are unable to do all this for you.