Lack of clarity on pet rules in Renters’ Rights Bill could lead landlords to refuse pets

as a result of the RRB more landlords will feel they have no choice than to refuse pets (given the increased risk and lack of protections if they do).

Again – govt interference takes away the ability for the LL and T to negotiate a sensible solution between themselves

It was supposed to be “responsible pet owners and well behaved pets”. Now it seems it’s anyone and anything.

If someone has never owned a pet before how is anyone supposed to know if they are likely to be good pet owners? How many pets acquired during lockdown were abandoned when the unrelenting reality of pet ownership became apparent to countless novice pet owners?

How are pets going to be dealt with in HMOs? What happens if Mary’s Poodle is savaged by Wayne’s Rottweiler? Or Gary comes home from the pub and thinks it’s amusing to release Elsie’s pet mice or pep up the goldfish with an illicit substance?
Advertising and viewing would be a nightmare. How would we deal with those who are culturally opposed to domestic animals without discriminating?

What are reasonable grounds to refuse?
Obviously in leasehold situations the lease often bans pets.
What about everything else?
Personally I would say it’s unreasonable to keep a dog in a terraced or semi detached property if you’re working full time and leaving the animal for long periods. It’s probably OK if a RESPONSIBLE person is at home most of the day and has time to properly attend to the dogs needs.
Presumably logistical barriers such as lack of space would be reasonable? I had a request for a Blue-tongued skink which required a 6′ x 3′ tank to live in. It simply wasn’t possible to accommodate a tank of that size in the tenants room or anywhere else in the HMO.

Are allergies or fear reasonable grounds? Or religious or cultural customs?

Is it reasonable to refuse a request for a poisoness snake but unreasonable to refuse a request for a cat? Or vice versa? Or would both be equally reasonable or unreasonable?

Reply to the comment left by Jo Westlake at 03/10/2025 – 10:50
‘unreasonable’ refusal, could simply be that the the law in its current form does not permit the LL to take any mitigating action to reduce the risk of damage that may be caused by any pet introduced into the property AFTER a TA was entered into on the basis of there not being a pet present at the start.

As a pet is deemed something that is significant change to the TA terms, and for it to be formally recorded, an addendum would be required. The LL is NOT permitted by law to ask for a separate pet deposit. The LL is NOT permitted to increase the existing deposit over the 5 week rent max allowed. While the T can possibly take out pet insurance – the LL is NOT permitted by law to demand this (and in any case cannot ensure the policy is taken or is able to claim off it either)

In short – it is reasonable to refuse to allow a pet on the basis the law itself does not allow the LL to take reasonable measures to mitigate against any potential risk of damage to their property.

Reply to the comment left by Reluctant Landlord at 03/10/2025 – 11:16
Nice theory for existing tenancies.

I don’t imagine it would work for new tenancies, as presumably all new tenancy agreements will have to accommodate whatever hell the RRB unleashes.

Reply to the comment left by Jo Westlake at 03/10/2025 – 11:54
You can still state no pets accepted post RRB (and when faced with a new tenancy) by using the exact same reasoning as mentioned above.

You could also state that even IF you were to accept the T and pet, (because of the legal restrictions not allowing you to take other means to mitigate against potential damage etc) then the only option you would have is to increase the rent that would be required.

BUT guess what – as you can’t also legally offer/demand or accept a rent above the advertised rent (as a result of the RRB) this is also not possible either.

Ergo you have LEGAL justified reason why you cannot accept a pet.

So for me the tenants need to be working (full time) otherwise I likely reject them on affordability anyway. My per concerns is with dogs. So for a dog the question is simply who cares for the dog whilst your at work? The answer is usually they are left alone at which point I would say RSPCA guidelines say 4-6 hours for adult dogs at which point I consider it’s not possible to keep inline with animal welfare act. I’m not bothered about cats or hamsters etc.. If they have more than one dog then I say I’m willing to allow a maximum of one dog. See what RRB actually does.

The housing minister has obvously not tried to replace cat pi%%ed carpets in a couple rooms on £300 plus repair scratches on doors.