Government vows Renters’ Rights Act will tackle rental discrimination

Reply to the comment left by David at 22/08/2026 – 13:49
The other consideration to remember is that if you are advertising then you now have to include an amount and if a tenant who has a pet applies for the property the Labour Renters Rights Act prevents you from accepting more than the advertised rent (to cover the increased costs and risks) even if the tenant offers it. I have accepted pets in the past but they have always cost me more than the additional costs they have incurred because the tenant has challenged the request to withhold the deposit. So I would never accept a pet unless I could increase the rent to cover the additional costs and risks; but the Labour Renters Rights Act stops me doing this.

I use an agent: If a tenant were to make a request to have a pet DURING a tenancy I would expect the agent to:

1. Advise me that they cannot manage the risk of the pet, or;
2. Tell me what the microchipping status of the pet is and what it is insured for, and
3. Tell me by how much I can increase the rent.

If the agent doesn’t do these things then it’s not a good agent. If the agent tries to get me to accept the responsibility of saying yes or no to the request for the pet then it’s a really bad agent.

Reply to the comment left by Beaver at 22/08/2026 – 16:46
I use an agent to find a tenant only but there is nothing stopping me asking them for microchipping and pet liability insurance.However if that insurance runs out you should still be able to claim for property damage regardless of who or what caused it, but you could still be liable if that dog bites someone.I have now asked a property manager to ensure he asks anybody wanting a dog for all this, but I doubt he will.
But if you are saying you can longer increase the rent to cover the risk then that seems to mean you can not accept the tenant, which would be discrimination.

Reply to the comment left by David at 23/08/2026 – 10:35
There are a lot of problems with the Labour Renters Rights Act. Tenants with pets are higher risk. I have taken them in the past but when I have done so I have never managed to recover the costs of these tenants from the deposit, either because the costs exceeded the deposit, or because the tenants challenged the deduction because they were ‘entitled’ tenants. If you reflect on what the Labour Renters Rights Act says, i.e. that a landlord cannot unreasonably refuse to accept a pet, do you think that the ‘entitled’ tenants who think they have a right to a pet will be more or less ‘entitled’ and more or less likely to challenge the deduction from the deposit?

The Labour Renters Rights Act causes other problems. If you advertise ‘no pets’ the tenants still have a right to request one. Even if you advertise £2,500 PCM for tenants with no pets you still cannot take more than the advertised rent if a tenant with pets turns up and applies for the property, or moves in and then requests a pet that you did not know about (but which they may not have disclosed). So because the tenants may own a pet or apply for one after they’ve been given the keys you don’t have any choice to cover this risk but to ALWAYS advertise high if you advertise at all. A sign on a property saying a property is to let does not count as an advert.

Insurance is also important but it is difficult to get insurance that covers property damage caused by pets. When property damage is caused by pets it may be very significant indeed and damage to third parties (e.g the postman) may also be very significant.

Reply to the comment left by Beaver at 23/08/2026 – 13:36
Yes I am sure most pet owners will challenge a landlord’s claim for damages, in the same way they don’t want to pay to return the property in the same clean condition it was offered, especially when pro cleaning just a 1 bed flat costs £300.
As you say you have no idea if the nice prospective tenants at the interview who say they have no pets, will ask for pets when they move in.All you can do is ask for microchipping and pet liability insurance and see what happens.If they don’t have these documents then say no and see if they take you to a tribunal.
This is just one more issue caused by the RRA that now triggers me selling.

Reply to the comment left by David at 23/08/2026 – 13:46
Asking for the microchipping details is essential as this links the animal to the keeper/owner of the animal and when the postman loses the use of his hand everybody is going to need to know whose dog it is. When you ask for pet insurance you need to check what it covers and check that it includes third party liability. It probably will not include property damage as it is difficult to get insurance for that. In my experience tenants challenge you if you try to deduct the cleaning costs from the deposit and pets always cost more than you can successfully deduct from the deposit. And so asking for microchipping details and pet insurance isn’t the only thing that you should be doing; you should be putting the rent up.

Because the Labour Renters Rights Act stops you from taking more than the advertised rent, if you are concerned about the possibility of pets and you were thinking about renting the house out for £3,000 PCM you now need to be advertising for maybe £3,100 PCM: This is because the Act prevents you from taking more than the advertised rent. In my experience children do more damage than pets and the Act has made families on benefits and families with children even higher risk than they were before. Families with children are more likely to own a pet than those without and now the family on benefits with children can request a pet and the landlord cannot ‘unreasonably refuse’, or risks being taken to a tribunal.

The lowest risk tenant is likely to be the retired couple with several pensions. If that couple had a small, insured, microchipped dog then I would always take those tenants in preference to the family with children (and of course the family on benefits). However, if I were to drop the rent slightly to encourage these tenants to stay then because the Labour Renters Rights Act contains provisions to punish landlords for discriminating against families with children and families on benefits then I cannot risk dropping the rent for the lower-risk tenants because I would be risking a £7,000 fine under the Act.

So the most important thing now for any landlord is actually to put the rent up if you aren’t selling; and more landlords who are staying in the market are going to need an agent (who will put the rent up for them).

Reply to the comment left by Beaver at 13:36
if you ask the question about pets on the application form – Do you have any, What type, and the tenant says the don’t have any, then Day 2 of the tenancy there’s a bl00dy big St Bernard in a one bed flat with no garden, then surely this is a clear case of the tenant lying to get the tenancy, otherwise why not have declared it at the time?
Would this not be a S8 Ground 17?
Ground 17: Use this if the tenant knowingly or recklessly made a false written statement about having a pet to induce you to grant the tenancy. It requires proof that the statement was false and that you relied on it.
Ground 12: Use this if they are currently breaching a clear “no pets” term written into their signed tenancy agreement. Reasonableness Test: Because both Ground 12 and Ground 17 are discretionary, a judge will order possession only if they agree it is reasonable to evict the tenant based on the severity of the lie or the impact of the pet.
Next Steps and Action Plan. Gather written application forms, emails, or messages where the tenant explicitly denied owning a pet. Collect evidence showing the pet is currently at the property (photos, inspection notes, or neighbour reports).
Serve a formal Section 8 Notice specifying the correct discretionary grounds and providing the mandatory two-week notice period.
Section 8 notice has no minimum waiting period because it is based on a breach of contract or fraud. Key Factors for New Tenancies. Immediate Effect: You can legally serve a Section 8 notice on day one of a tenancy if a breach or fraud is discovered. Notice Period: For Ground 12 (breach of contract) and Ground 17 (false statements), you must give the tenant a minimum of 2 weeks’ notice before you can apply to the court. The “Reasonableness” Hurdle: Because these grounds are discretionary, a judge might be reluctant to evict a tenant after only four weeks unless the lie was severe or the pet is actively causing a major issue (e.g., severe property damage, strict block-of-flats headlease breach, or building-wide allergy risks).
Recommended Strategy Issue a Formal Warning: Send a written letter highlighting the breach of Ground 12 and the false declaration under Ground 17.Offer a Remedy: Give them a short, strict deadline (e.g., 7 days) to rehome the pet or rectify the situation. Serve the Notice: If they ignore the warning, formally serve the Form 3: Section 8 notice to start the legal clock. This demonstrates to a judge that you acted reasonably and gave the tenant a chance to fix the issue.

Reply to the comment left by Reluctant Landlord at 24/08/2026 – 11:07
I think that to make what you suggest work you should also be asking how long they have owned the pet and looking for evidence of that. If they just have a friend keep the animal for them for a period of time then issue a request to have a pet once the tenancy has started all that the Act does is to oblige the tenant to send you a ‘description’.

Reply to the comment left by Beaver at 24/08/2026 – 11:16
If you have the microchipping details these give you the pet owners contact details on the microchipping database and this will tell you how long the pet has been owned by that owner.

https://www.gov.uk/get-your-dog-cat-microchipped

But the Labour Renters Rights Act does not oblige the tenant to send you ANIMAL IDENTIFICATION DETAILS, such as the microchipping details. It only obliges the tenant to send you a ‘description’ and if the landlord says no you risk being taken to a tribunal. This is probably deliberate.