Landlords urged to move beyond personal opinions on pets

A lawyer has warned landlords and letting agents to focus on asking the right questions about pets rather than relying on their personal feelings.

In a LinkedIn post, David Smith said the “current thinking of landlords and agents in relation to pets is one-dimensional” and needs to become more nuanced.

Under the Renters’ Rights Act, tenants have the right to reasonably request a pet, and landlords cannot unreasonably refuse permission.

Landlords and their agents will give reasons for wanting to say no to pets

Writing on LinkedIn, Mr Smith explains: “Frequently, landlords and their agents will give reasons for wanting to say no to pets that are entirely to do with them and their personal viewpoints on pets.

“For example, people will say to me that they don’t want pets in their property or, more usefully, that they have a potential allergy to pet hair and might want to live in the property again themselves. There also seems to be quite a narrow assumption for most landlords and agents that pets mean cats and dogs, while the definition of pets is not limited in the Renters’ Rights Act.

“Of course, most people have cats and dogs as pets, but there are a lot of other possibilities. There is also the point that cats and dogs are not all the same. There are wide variations in size, exercise needs, allergens and space requirements. The current thinking for a lot of landlords and agents is quite one-dimensional in relation to pets.”

Consider the property and what sort of pet it is likely to be compatible with.

Mr Smith says landlords and letting agents should follow two key steps when considering pet requests.

Mr Smith writes: “Step one is to consider exactly what pet the tenant is after and the key factors associated with that pet that are likely to be linked to the property.

“The second stage is to consider the property and what sort of pet it is likely to be compatible with.

“For example, if I am letting out a large country house with five acres of garden and associated fields then that is likely to be compatible with a very wide range of pets up to and including animals such as sheep or horses and a fairly unlimited range of cats and dogs.

“However, a small terrace house in a city with no garden to speak of is likely to be compatible with a smaller range of pets, which might include fish, small animals such as hamsters, and dogs and cats. Horses are not likely to work out well!”

He adds: “The final step, once a decision has been taken to accept a pet, is to think about mitigating risks. Nothing in the legislation specifies that a landlord cannot apply reasonable conditions to a pet consent, provided that they are reasonable. I would expect that most landlords would want to identify the type and number of pets they are consenting to and may also wish to impose reasonable limits on care to avoid nuisance to neighbours and damage to property.”

Too much focus on how an individual landlord feels about pets in their property

Mr Smith adds that many landlords are currently not asking the right questions when it comes to pet consents.

He said: “There is too much focus on how an individual landlord feels about pets in their property. The proper consideration should involve much more specific questions, which are unconnected to personal opinions and relate to a question of compatibility between pet and property.

“This is a more legally consistent approach and one that is far more likely to come up with an answer that can be justified in court or before a landlord redress scheme.”