Pet requests remain rare for landlords
12:01 AM, 5th August 2026, 3 weeks ago
1
For most landlords, the new Renters’ Rights Act pet request rules have produced little interest as 93% say they have not received a single formal approach.
However, 58% of tenants say whether a property permits pets is important when deciding where to live, according to LRG’s Summer 2026 Lettings Report.
The findings are based on responses from 717 landlords and 860 tenants across England and Wales following the introduction of pet request rules on 1 May.
Only 6% of landlords surveyed have approved a request, while 0.8% have one under consideration and fewer than 0.3% have refused permission.
Real tenant pet demand
The chief lettings officer of Leaders, which is part of LRG, said: “The formal requests are coming in slowly, and that is to be expected at this early stage.
“But the demand is real, and the legal framework is now in place.”
She added: “What the data shows is that most landlords are not opposed to pets in principle – they want practical reassurance that their property will be looked after.
“That is exactly where agents can add value: helping landlords put the right conditions in place, supporting tenants through the request process, and making sure both sides understand what the new rules actually mean.”
Request to keep a pet
Rightmove recorded a 54% annual fall in searches filtered specifically for pet-friendly properties during May, followed by a 52% drop in June.
However, pets remained the most searched-for rent property keyword in both months.
Under the new framework, tenants can ask to keep a pet at any property rather than limiting their search to homes advertised as pet friendly.
Nearly three in 10 tenants surveyed already own an animal and another 19% are considering getting one or plan to do so within the next 12 months.
Before the legislation took effect, 32% said a landlord’s pet policy had affected them.
This included 15% who decided against getting an animal they wanted and 12% who lost out on a property because they had one.
Pets are important
For 34% of tenants questioned by LRG, permission to keep a pet is essential and they would only consider a property where one was allowed.
Another 24% described it as very or somewhat important, while 42% said it played no part in their decision.
Landlords were also asked what would make them more confident about approving a request.
A professional cleaning requirement at the end of the tenancy was selected by 31%, while 28% favoured pet damage insurance paid for by the tenant.
Another 28% said nothing would change their position.
Pet damage to home
Research commissioned by Battersea, involving more than 2,000 landlords and 1,000 tenants, found that 76% of landlords reported no pet-related damage when a tenancy ended.
Where damage was recorded, the average cost was £300.
Non-pet damage caused by tenants without animals averaged £775.
Pet owners also reported longer stays with half remaining in their previous home for more than three years, compared with 31% of tenants without pets.
Tags:
landlord pet requests, Landlord responsibilities, pet damage insurance, pet-friendly properties, Renters’ Rights Act pets, tenants with pets
Comments
Have Your Say
Every day, landlords who want to influence policy and share real-world experience add their voice here. Your perspective helps keep the debate balanced.
Not a member yet? Join In Seconds
Login with
or
Previous Article
Buy to let remortgaging hits record highNext Article
UK house price growth slows to 1.8%Related Articles
Unauthorised pets in rental property?
2 months ago | 6 comments
How the tenancy pet trap leaves landlords financially exposed
2 months ago | 15 comments
Member Since May 2018 - Comments: 2453
12:32 PM, 5th August 2026, About 3 weeks ago
Landlords can get hung up on the issue of pets. I have experienced tenants who had a single dog that resulted in me having to spend more time cleaning up after the tenancy, so I do know that pets can increase costs. However, this site just reported figures on average net worth in UK:
https://moneyweek.com/personal-finance/average-net-worth-by-age-uk
And what these figures show are that average net worth peaks between 65 and 74.
The Labour Renters Rights Act is a terrible piece of legislation that contains some provisions that are stupid. One of them is the fact that rent increases are limited to one year to market rent and the landlord cannot take an offer of more than any advertised rent: This means that IF a landlord advertises a new let then the landlord or the landlord’s agent must always advertise high, and agents have changed their advice from years ago to hold rents down a bit to minimise the risk of void periods,: Instead, now because of the Act they must always maximise the rent. I.e. the Labour Renters Rights Act pushes rents up because it is pushing advertised rents up and these affect market rents.
Another terrible piece of the Labour Renters Rights Act is that it stops landlords from taking payment upfront. Historically, some pensioners (those on benefits) could not pass referencing or satisfy the income requirements but did have savings, and the way agents got around this was to take rent payments up front. Now, the Labour Renters Rights Act stops a landlord from taking payment upfront even if the tenant offers it; bizarrely, the Labour Renters Rights Act contains a provision not to discriminate against benefits tenants, but prohibiting upfront payments actually discriminates against pensioners on benefits with savings. You can get around this by including evidence of savings rather than just income when screening tenants for affordability and in fact, unless you request evidence of savings as part of the affordability criteria you would be discriminating against benefits tenants on pensions.
Because of the Labour Renters Rights Act every landlord now has to advertise high IF the landlord advertises (notices on a property don’t count). As well as prohibiting you from discriminating against benefits tenants it also prohibits you from discriminating against families with children. But if I had to choose my ideal tenant it would not be the family with 3-4 children. On the basis of my own experience the ideal tenant would be the retired couple with two state pensions, plus either savings or two to three private pensions on top. If these retired people had a small dog I wouldn’t care about this and I would choose the pensioners over the family with four children because in my experience families with children do FAR more damage than pets, they cost FAR more, and it is very difficult to get the evidence of abuse or neglect; typically the families say “I didn’t see what happened” and “its wear and tear in’t it?” and they wave their arms around and dismiss the damage, leaving you to pay for it.
In fact, just as a decade ago my agent advised me to hold rent down a bit to minimise the risk of void periods but now advises putting the rent up, were it not for the Labour Renters Rights Act I would be tempted to drop the rent a bit from the advertised rent for the retired people with the dog in order to encourage them to stay longer: But in reality I cannot do this under the Labour Renters Rights Act because the Labour Renters Rights Act prohibits you from discriminating against families with children. So what this means is advertise very high and don’t offer any discounts.
The Labour Renters Rights Act, overall, is an exceptionally stupid piece of legislation: It is government that is putting rents up.
PS: The bottom line is that CHILDREN do far more damage and cost far more than PETS but the Labour Renters Rights Act prohibits you from offering a discount to people without children.