Pet charity warns landlords may reject pets after insurance amendment

A pet charity has warned a government amendment to remove the right for landlords to require pet damage insurance will mean fewer landlords accepting pets.

AdvoCATS, along with 47 organisations including Landlord Action and Propertymark, have written to Housing Secretary Angela Rayner and Housing Minister Matthew Pennycook asking them to overturn the amendment.

The Housing Secretary had previously championed the insurance requirement, saying it would ensure “no one is left unfairly out of pocket.”

However, the new rules scrap this provision, while still expecting landlords to accept tenants with pets unless they can provide a compelling reason to refuse.

Small landlords cannot easily absorb damage costs

AdvoCATS’ Head for Tails! campaign, launched in 2021, called for a “common-sense proposal” to amend the Tenant Fees Act by adding pet damage insurance to the Act’s list of permitted payments.

The proposal gained support from the Conservative government and was incorporated into the Renters’ (Reform) Bill, before being carried forward into Labour’s Renters’ Rights Bill.

However, in a surprise move, the Labour government has now amended the bill to remove the provision for pet damage insurance, a decision AdvoCATS describes as “baffling.”

In an open letter to Housing Secretary Angela Rayner, AdvoCATS founder Jen Berezai warned that many landlords cannot afford to absorb damage caused by pets.

Ms Berezai explained: “Pet-friendly rentals are still extremely hard to come by, more animals are ending up in rescue because of this and without a one-size-fits-all solution, pet-owning tenants are in increasing danger of being cast into the abyss.

“Despite the right to request a pet, landlords will still be more likely to take the perceived easy option and rent to non-pet owners from an ever-swelling pool of applicants, if they cannot protect themselves.

“Let us remember the majority of landlords have less than five properties; indeed many are termed “accidental” landlords, having inherited one or two properties which they let out to future-proof their pensions. They are not big corporate landlords with huge reserves to fall back on, they cannot easily absorb arrears or damage costs whether caused by adults, children or indeed pets.”

Landlords simply won’t accept pets

Ms Berezai, fears a bleak outlook for pet-owning tenants if the amendment is not changed.

She said: “If landlords feel they’re leaving themselves exposed to the risk of unrecoverable costs, they won’t accept pets, it’s as simple as that. They have an almost overwhelming choice of potential tenants as the supply of rental properties is dwindling, while demand is increasing.

“So much so that it’s easy for them to go for the perceived easy option and rent to non-pet owners. Landlords need encouragement, and tenants need a negotiating tool, neither of which are provided by this revised bill.”

Insurance policy offers a budget-friendly option for a tenant and peace of mind for a landlord

Ms Berezai argues that pet damage insurance is an “archetypal no-brainer,” widely supported by both landlords and tenants.

She said: “Everyone I explain pet damage insurance to has the same reaction. It’s a great idea, pleases everybody, and is such a simple way to effect significant change”

“Furthermore, we are convinced that the government did not have the correct information in front of them when they made their decision. Pet damage insurance is the most cost-effective option on the table and is favoured by both landlords and tenants alike. The products are available. The industry is ready. We say it’s a Win:Win, an archetypal no-brainer.”

In her open letter, Ms Berezai also addressed concerns raised by peers over affordability for tenants, stressing that insurance remains the cheapest option.

She said: “This is actually the cheapest of all the ways to encourage pet-friendly landlords: the industry average for pet rent, when charged, is £25 per pet per month, although a survey just published by The Lettings Hub found over half the tenants were paying over £50 per month. That is equal to £300 – £600 per pet extra rent per year, and takes longer to build up any meaningful funds for a landlord.

“An insurance policy however, is per address and offers four-figure cover straight away. Moreover, an insurance policy allows for the possibility of a no-claims history, invaluable when a move is needed. The insurance policy offers a low-cost, budget-friendly option for a tenant and peace of mind for a landlord.”

Ms Berezai added that despite concerns over how the insurance industry would handle pet damage insurance, the sector is ready, with many insurers, including Total Landlord Insurance, launching pet damage policies for landlords ahead of the Renters’ Rights Bill.