9 months ago | 9 comments
A new landlord pet damage policy has been launched to provide financial protection for landlords against damage caused by tenants’ pets.
The provider, Total Landlord Insurance, says the move is in response to the upcoming Renters’ Rights Bill.
The bill will give tenants the right to keep pets in rental properties, with landlords only able to refuse if they have a valid reason.
The new product will provide £2,500 of cover per policy period for pet damage to buildings or contents (if insured), and will cover up to three pets per residential property.
The policy includes protection against long-term wear and tear, such as a cat or dog scratching a carpet, as well as one-off incidents.
It is landlord-controlled, which Total Landlord Insurance says removes the risks associated with tenant-purchased insurance. Cover applies to all domestic pets kept indoors, with pet details only required at the claims stage.
It will cost £134.40 per year per tenanted property.
The insurer says the policy is available immediately to new and existing Total Landlord Insurance customers as an optional paid-for extension to their policy, with plans to launch it as a standalone product in the near future.
Landlords who wish to use it will need to take a traditional security deposit from the tenant, protect it with a government-authorised tenancy deposit scheme, and have a professional inventory or condition report prepared as part of the tenancy agreement.
According to mydeposits, on average, settlements involving pet damage are 141% higher than those without (£1,520.24 compared to £629.92). In 35% of disputes involving pet damage, the cost of repairs exceeds the deposit protected, leaving landlords out of pocket.
Eddie Hooker, CEO at Total Landlord, says this is one of the key reasons for launching the new policy: “Our new pet damage protection policy is a direct response to landlord concerns in the evolving rental market. With deposits currently capped at five weeks’ rent and the government’s recent decision not to mandate tenant reimbursement for pet damage insurance, landlords are left exposed to additional risk.
“We understand the challenges that come with allowing pets in rental properties, and our policy offers landlords the financial security they need to confidently accommodate responsible pet ownership.”
Despite landlords not being allowed to require tenants to take out pet insurance, members of the House of Lords have voted to accept an amendment allowing landlords to take a separate pet damage deposit of up to three weeks’ rent, in addition to the usual deposit cap.
However, the amendment still needs approval from the House of Commons before it can become law, and one firm warns that its passage is uncertain and the details remain unclear.
For more help and advice about any type of landlord insurance, contact the team The Home Insurer.
Alternatively, you can use the form below to request one of the team to give you a call back.
Every day, landlords who want to influence policy and share real-world experience add their voice here. Your perspective helps keep the debate balanced.
Not a member yet? Join In Seconds
Login with
Previous Article
Surge in BTL incorporations fuelled by foreign landlords
9 months ago | 9 comments
9 months ago | 10 comments
10 months ago | 6 comments
Sorry. You must be logged in to view this form.
Member Since December 2023 - Comments: 1582
8:39 AM, 11th August 2025, About 8 months ago
I assume rents will rise by around £20 per month to cover the cost of insurance, admin and the risk of the insurers not paying out.
Member Since September 2018 - Comments: 3521 - Articles: 5
9:32 AM, 11th August 2025, About 8 months ago
the devil is in the detail and the policy wording!
The policy includes protection against long-term wear and tear, such as a cat or dog scratching a carpet, as well as one-off incidents.
So it has already been established by the insurer that it is expected/inevitable that cats and dogs will scratch carpets, and its not damage then….
Ergo it’s not insurance to mitigate ‘risk’ but to cover the expected.
Member Since April 2018 - Comments: 373
10:22 AM, 11th August 2025, About 8 months ago
Reply to the comment left by Cider Drinker at 11/08/2025 – 08:39
By the time we factor in all the new risks and costs to landlords caused by this Bill rents will need to double. What about the extra specialist fumigation cost of the property, or the next tenants claiming they have become ill due to these pets, on top of mould they have caused.It’s all become a big joke, on the landlord.
Member Since July 2013 - Comments: 754
10:34 AM, 11th August 2025, About 8 months ago
Reply to the comment left by David at 11/08/2025 – 10:22
Only on the landlord that stays in the letting business, not in those that don’t.
I have sold several of my properties already, and am now contemplating selling the last one, even though I have very good tenants who don’t want to leave.
I am of an age when I want to wind down. I really don’t want to have to deal with all this RRB nonsense which is ruining what was broadly a well functioning PRS, turning it into an adversarial situation where the LL is in peril for trying to protect his/her own property and livelihood.
Member Since July 2016 - Comments: 169
10:58 AM, 11th August 2025, About 8 months ago
The type of tenant that doesn’t care about damage to property caused by themselves and their family will not care about damage done by their pets. They will care even less if they know the landlord has insurance to cover damage. I am cynical about these insurance policies because they must surely exclude damage caused by negligence and that will be the cause of the majority of pet damage.
Member Since August 2016 - Comments: 1190
11:16 AM, 11th August 2025, About 8 months ago
So there’s still not one single insurance company providing pet insurance cover that a TENANT can take out.
Member Since May 2017 - Comments: 765
11:32 AM, 11th August 2025, About 8 months ago
I’m wondering how the sweet smell prior to pets inhabiting and the smell after they’ve left can be recorded in a check in/check out inventory
Member Since July 2013 - Comments: 2002 - Articles: 21
12:40 PM, 11th August 2025, About 8 months ago
Reply to the comment left by Dylan Morris at 11/08/2025 – 11:16
Dylan
There are policies that a tenant can take out. However, such policies give a false sense of security to landlords. The landlord is not the insured and has no control over the policy. Policies require prompt notification of damage but in most cases tenants won’t report it. Unless they do monthly inspections, landlords won’t know until it is too late for the tenant to claim.
With the RRB it was proposed that landlords could take out insurance and charge the tenant. That was removed so unless it goes back in, the options are for landlords to bear the cost themselves or to increase the rent to cover the premium and/or to take an additional deposit equivalent to 3 weeks’ rent (assuming that survives when the Bill is passed).
Member Since January 2022 - Comments: 267
12:41 PM, 11th August 2025, About 8 months ago
Reply to the comment left by Marlena Topple at 11/08/2025 – 10:58
i agree with your comments. we all have to accept the act is coming and we have to accept the new rules or possibly get out.
But i am struggling with :
1 if a tenant’s pet ( which seems to have a very wide definition, much wider than normal’ house hold pets), causes any damage, the owner will not suffer financial loss. as i under stand there might be a claim against the 3 weeks extra deposit required, which has been suggested is unlikely to be sufficient.
so LL out of pocket
2 i welcome the new policy, but with a premium of £135, suggests the insurance company is expecting multiple claims, but the LL pays the premium and if this policy is linked to the existing policy, and there is a claim, all future renewal premiums are likely to be increased because of a claim their policy for something they did not necessarily want in the 1st place.
Member Since June 2019 - Comments: 781
12:49 PM, 11th August 2025, About 8 months ago
If we take out the policy we would then be hit by big future cost increases for making a claim.
Maybe not a problem for those of us with one or two properties, but a real risk for large portfolio holders.