Renters’ Rights Act sparks rise in pet ownership

Reply to the comment left by Elo at 18/08/2026 – 16:30
Standard landlord insurance policies generally exclude damage caused by tenants’ pets. So scratches, chewed fixtures, or stained carpets are not automatically covered. I have known dogs to rip kitchens apart, chew stairs, chew off the tops of radiator valves; some of them do thousands of pounds worth of damage. The damage is high impact when it occurs, like a house-fire or a flood, but we can easily insure against fire and flood. Some cats attack carpets to sharpen their claws although some dogs do it as well.

To protect a property, landlords CAN purchase pet damage insurance or add-on protection to their existing policy, which covers unexpected and accidental damage caused by domestic pets:

https://www.totallandlordinsurance.co.uk/pet-damage-protection

But the problem is that there is an increased cost, the Labour Renters Rights Act doesn’t clearly say that landlords can raise rents to cover the costs (although it is the only reasonable thing to agree if standard household insurance won’t cover damage caused by pets) and instead, landlords risk being taken to a tribunal if they say no. But Labour refused to publish the results of their justice impact test on the courts:

https://www.property118.com/government-withholds-renters-rights-bill-court-impact-study/

You would have thought that labour MPs ought to have been able to work out how much impact this would have. All that they had to do was look at Compare the Market, Moneysupermarket or GoCompare. They agonised for years over their Renters Rights Act…..not exactly rocket-science is it?

So the majority of renters who DON’T own a pet are now going to have to bear the costs of the lifestyle decisions of those renters who DO own a pet…. all that landlords can do in response to the Labour Renters Rights Act and its ‘anti-discrimination’ clauses is to put rents up for everybody.

Reply to the comment left by John Hole at 18/08/2026 – 09:49
Agree in advance a fixed sum per room per event. Example: Rodents takes chunks from a tv aeriel lead, dog scratches look letter box, claw marks on door, cat uses carpet as scratch stand. Agree £200 per event. Hall, staircase and landing is three rooms, potentially £600 repeatable. It would act as disincentive. Also, have clause ” No dog or cat allowed unsupervised”. How about “Pers are reasonably refused on the basis of prior experience and significant damage / costs”. In this crazy world, I have read for one let property “Two tenants maximum”. The detached house has 4 beds and 2 bathrooms.

I can envisage Battersea dogs and cats home having to build another wing to accommodate abandoned animals when reality dawns and some starry-eyed tenants cannot pay vet bills and other expenses associated with owning a pet.
Having experience good and very very bad tenant pet owners I hope I will never again have a tenant who requests a pet unless it is a goldfish.

If the property in question is a house with a garden, then that is one thing but if in a block of flats then the lease very probably prohibits dogs from being kept.

Reply to the comment left by Stella at 18/08/2026 – 22:48
I have experienced lots of bad pet owners but in my experience tenants with lots of unsupervised children do far more damage and cost far more than pets.

Reply to the comment left by Beaver at 19/08/2026 – 11:21
People have to have children otherwise the world does not go on.

The difficulty with pets is that you do not know about any smells until the tenant has moved out.

Some will say they had the carpets professionally cleaned which may well be the case, but that does not always get rid of the smell.

Reply to the comment left by Fergus Wilson at 19/08/2026 – 11:55
People do have to have children, that’s true. And families with children are more likely to have pets:

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12177977/

Whilst in many cases having a child may not be a choice, having a pet is a lifestyle decision…a choice. However, in my experience as a landlord, tenants with lots of children cost far more than tenants with pets; the tenants with children AND pets cost even more.

Reply to the comment left by Fergus Wilson at 19/08/2026 – 11:55
Leave the pets to the owners to rear and specify a maximum of two tenants and one pet to be discussed for suitability. Just one rodent will mean chewed cables if its left unattended.