Navigating pet rights under the Renters’ Rights Bill

Perhaps we should just wait until we know what is in the legislation rather than getting up tight about the constant flip flopping proposals.

Allison Thompson, the national lettings managing director at LRG offers advice for landlords to navigate the pet-related provisions of the Bill.

Ms Thompson also adds that landlords should consult a legal or property management expert to deal with the new rules.

Well she would say that wouldn’t she !!!

I had a landlord visit me last night from Sheffield. They have 28 rentals with two currently for sale, the rest to follow. These ridiculous Baroness this , Lord that ,pontificating and grandstanding, spouting out nonsense that they know nothing about,laughable. And all the while landlords are selling.
These time served political flunkies know nothing of the reality of being a landlord.
I’m looking into my crystal ball wondering what the future holds,chaos for the tenants, that’s what.

Why not show a ‘pet’ that is likley to get more contentious.
A snarling whatever, not fully trained and restrained on a harness??,,??

“Ms Thompson says landlords should consider these practical steps:
Update tenancy agreements to include clauses that reflect the requirement to assess pet requests individually”

It makes no difference to add this to the tenancy agreement. If tenants get the right to keep a pet, it’s not our job to advertise it to them.

Reply to the comment left by Rob Thomas at 17/07/2025 – 11:01
interesting to note…in the current Gov own model AST it states ….

A Tenant must seek the prior written consent of the Landlord should they wish to keep pets or other animals at the Property. A Landlord must not unreasonably withhold or delay a written request from a Tenant without considering the request on its own merits. The Landlord should accept such a request where they are satisfied the Tenant is a responsible pet owner and the pet is of a kind that is suitable in relation to the nature of the premises at which it will be kept. Consent is deemed to be granted unless the written request is turned down by a Landlord with good reason in writing within 28 days of receiving the request.

The guidance on this clause says:

Clause C3.5 prohibits a landlord from exercising a blanket ban on pets. A responsible pet owner will be aware of their responsibilities in making best efforts to ensure their pet does not cause a nuisance to neighbouring households or undue damage to the Property. A landlord should take steps to accommodate written requests from responsible tenants with pets. They should only turn down a request in writing within a 28 day period if there is good reason to do so, such as large pets in smaller properties or flats, or otherwise properties where having a pet could be impractical. Landlord consent is therefore the DEFAULT position unless otherwise specified in writing by a landlord. If consent is given on the condition that additional deposit is paid by the tenant, the total deposit must not breach the deposit cap introduced under the Tenant Fees Act 2019 and must be protected in an authorised tenancy deposit scheme.

Note the word I have put in CAPITALS. Having to stipulate what the ‘good reason’ is therefore in response to any request is not a mandatory at the point of replying to a tenant. You can just say no. The LL relies on the default position. it is then up to the T to prove and evidence that the reason is unfair/unjustified. Very difficult if the LL never stated why in the first place….

Reply to the comment left by Rob Thomas at 17/07/2025 – 11:01
also interesting…just found this..

Short-Term Lets:
Flexibility:
Short-term lets, like holiday rentals, often prioritize flexibility and appeal to a wide range of potential guests. This can lead to a simpler approach of prohibiting pets altogether to avoid potential issues and maintain a clean and consistent environment.

Bearing in mind the RRB is going to make every AST a monthly periodic, then by default every tenancy WILL BE legislatively speaking a short term let. A LL would then be able to claim discrimination/lack of legal parity with other providers of short term lets (as above).

My wife – like a good many people – is allergic to most animals and can tell within five minutes if a house has ever had a pet, due to residual lint, which within an hour or so will have her coughing repeatedly and breaking out in blisters.
I run houseshares. How can I let a tenant have a pet, when it might affect a future tenant who is allergic to them? Pet fetishists will say ” get the house professionally cleaned” but the lint is in the carpets, the furniture coverings, in nooks and crevices. Can any cleaner give a 100% guarantee, or even a 10% one, that they will retrieve all the lint?
And this is not counting the scratched furniture, the torn sofa covers, the embedded smell of urine and faeces in the carpets and even wooden floorboards, the fleas in the mattresses, and so on. Three weeks extra deposit doesn’t come anywhere near covering the real-world costs of the damage these animals can do.
This is just another reason to sell up. I am sick to death of all the government meddling, micro-management and sanctimonious hectoring. You want a pet? Well buy your own bloody house! Don’t inflict your animal-bothering on your landlord, your fellow housemates, and future ones!
I suppose a goldfish would be OK, but not the smelly, excreting, fur-shedding and barking ones – and their pets. (Joke!)

As regards short term.contracts, under the RRB HMOs are going to become a nightmare to administer. Where once people had to commit to 6 months, now everyone and their dog on a short term work contract can give you notice as early as the day they move in, because they’re just using the HMO as a cheap alternative to a hotel or AirBnB. The long-suffering landlord will then be faced with another void period, another round of viewings, another set of credit checks, inventory costs and cleaning costs. And the other tenants have a roundabout of short-termers treating the house as casually as they treat hotels.

The first time that a landlord tries to claim possession under s8 grounds 12 or 14 because the tenant just brought in a pet without consent, the whole RRB procedure will be shown to be toothless and a waste of paper.