Pet charity warns Renters’ Rights Act falls short after pet damage insurance removed

A pet charity has condemned the Renters’ Rights Act, warning it could reduce the number of pet-friendly landlords.

AdvoCATS welcomed the legislation but cautioned that “it’s no giant leap for petkind,” saying the removal of pet damage insurance from the final version of the Act undermines its potential impact.

The Act, which received Royal Assent this week, gives tenants the right to request a pet, and landlords cannot unreasonably refuse permission.

Government dropped insurance provision

In the original Renters’ (Reform) Bill introduced by the Conservative government, landlords were allowed to require pet damage insurance.

This was carried over to the Renters’ Rights Bill, with then Housing Secretary Angela Rayner supporting the insurance measure, saying it would ensure “no one is left unfairly out of pocket.”

However, the government later dropped this provision while still expecting landlords to accept tenants with pets unless they can provide a strong reason to refuse.

AdvoCATS’ push to reinstate the amendment failed after Peers in the House of Lords rejected a proposal to allow landlords to take a separate pet damage deposit of up to three weeks’ rent on top of the existing deposit cap. Peers voted 239 to 192 against it, arguing it would be “unaffordable for tenants.”

Pet damage insurance offered a practical, affordable and budget-friendly solution

Jen Berezai, founder of AdvoCATS, says the removal of pet damage insurance is “bitterly disappointing,” describing it as a common-sense measure that should have remained in the Act.

She said: “Pet damage insurance offered a practical, affordable and budget-friendly solution to tenants wanting to rent with pets, which was also popular with landlords wary of potential damage costs.

“We were bitterly disappointed that such a common-sense way of persuading more landlords to be pet-friendly was taken off the bill.”

She adds: “The government have said they are “confident the existing deposit arrangement will be enough to cover pet damage”, yet in the same breath, claim they removed the insurance provision due to lack of products available and an industry not ready for “enquiries at scale”. Well, which one is it?

“Because we know the products are out there, and we know the industry is ready, yet during a meeting with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government last month, my offer to provide contacts for more information was not taken up.

“The Renters Rights Act is a step forward for tenants with pets, but it’s no giant leap for petkind. Think of it as like being touted a satisfying three-course meal, but ending up with a packet of crisps, a Pot Noodle and an ice lolly.”