Landlords face a changing landscape with rising dog ownership

I don’t have a problem with my tenants having dogs. All of my properties are houses that have gardens.

Any damage is often recoverable but my tenants have stayed with me for many years.

Will they stay with me if it is easier for them to move (as more landlords are forced to accept dogs)? Will I suffer more voids? I hope they leave so that I can sell up.

The main risk as I see it is when tenants are faced with an unexpected vet’s bill. Will they prioritise the health of their mutt over paying their rent?

Whatever happens, the risk of letting property will increase and this needs to be priced in to the rent setting algorithm.

Cider Drinker, that is a very good point.

I have some tenants with pets and they tend to stay long term as most landlords don't allow them, so moving is difficult.

Luckily, I've currently not had any really bad experiences with tenants with pets, but my estate agent knows that my preferences are no pets allowed.

3 dog owners that have left. 1 dog chewed up the flooring in the kitchen a few days before she left and she replaced it. The other one had carpets professionally cleaned and I didn't ask them to do it, they moved into 1 of my other houses in 2018 and are still there and no problems with the house due to the dogs. Both houses were immaculate after the tenants left.

Only bad experience was 1 dog scratched the doors as it was locked out of the living room. Luckily it sanded down and was repainted, so no big problem. I've had children make more damage with felt tipped pens on the walls.

I have a cat and if I was a tenant in a position to need the money to save the cats life or pay this months rent, I'm not sure what I would do. In an emergency situation I'd probably lean towards saving my cats life.

As a tenant, I'd probably try to negotiate a payment plan with both Vet and landlord and hope that they could offer a compromise a little for a few months until I had the money to pay both of them.

As a landlord, I'd probably be willing to accept the payment plan If the tenant had thought it through and could offer a good case but they would need to give me regular updates.

If a long term tenant with a good track record I'd be more likely to accept it. If a new tenant that I didn't know, I'd be more skeptical.

Case by case basis for me.

Landlords face a changing landscape with rising dog ownership.
Nope I don't. I don't accept them and never will. My property my choice. I self manage. There are plenty of landlords that will apparently so they need to find one that matches THEIR need, just as they would if they were looking to rent in a certain area etc.
A LL offers out a property, the tenant decides to rent on the basis of what is being offered. If it is clear from the outset then that forms the basis of the contract. If a tenant approaches the LL to request a VOLUNTARY amendment/variation then that is something they can come to an agreement on or NOT as the case may be. T can then decide to move on if the request is denied.
It is not unreasonable for the LL to say no, if any request for a change to that condition (which was made fundamentally clear BEFORE the contract was voluntarily entered into by the T) is refused.
I may have an appendix to add to the application form in future (then re-attached to the AST)that actually list the pets that are not permitted very clearly so that the T is aware right from the off, the position.
After that, its a straight breach in tenancy.

The government is trying to force landlords to accept tenants with pets.

They say that they are considering allowing landlords to insist on pet caused damage insurance.

The problem is.............insurance pays out to those who pay for it (the tenant).

So the landlord is in the exact same position as if there was no insurance at all.......ie depending on the tenant to pay for the damage.

Reply to the comment left by Reluctant Landlord at 12/02/2025 - 07:09
"It is not unreasonable for the LL to say no, if any request for a change to that condition (which was made fundamentally clear BEFORE the contract was voluntarily entered into by the T)"

I'm afraid it would be regarded as unreasonable to refuse on that basis if the RRB goes ahead as proposed. You would need to come up with reasonable grounds, such as the lease doesn't allow it or similar.

Reply to the comment left by David100 at 12/02/2025 - 09:29
You dont let the tenant buy the insurance. The landlord buys it and bills the tenant. That's if they can find a suitable policy.

Reply to the comment left by David100 at 12/02/2025 - 09:29
ego so it is completely reasonable to not accept pets before the tenancy starts and to reject the same request after the tenancy has begun.

Overall positive 'benefit' to the tenant of specifying a T has the right to ask permission for a pet in the RRB - ZERO.

The penny will drop for the T's when LL's start quoting the details of the legislation (and rejection of requests) and what it actually means exactly once it comes in...

Reply to the comment left by DPT at 12/02/2025 - 10:27
there is no way ANY insurance company is going to get to grips with this.

Ultimately a claim can only be made by the LL - yet the LL has no ownership of the pet/item to be insured.

Reply to the comment left by Reluctant Landlord at 12/02/2025 - 07:09
You need to understand the Bill better. One of the FAQs in the guidance dated 16th January 2025.

???? ??????? ?? ? ???????? ???????????? ????????

?ℎ??? ? ?????? ????? ?ℎ?? ? ???????? ℎ?? ???????????? ??????? ?ℎ??? ???????, ?ℎ?? ???? ?? ???? ?? ???????? ?ℎ??? ????????? ?? ?ℎ? ??????? ?????? ?????? ????????? ?? ?ℎ?? ????? ???? ?ℎ? ???? ?? ?????.

? ????? ???????? ???? ?? ????? ?? ?ℎ? ???????? ???????? ?? ???ℎ ???????.

Everyone went out and bought a pet when they brought covid in.