For years, one of the most common questions landlords have asked is simple:
“Can I refuse pets?”
Under the Renters’ Rights Act, that question has become a little more complicated.
The new legislation introduces significant changes to how landlords must handle pet requests from tenants. While the headlines have led some landlords to believe they’ll have no choice but to accept every animal that comes their way, the reality is far more balanced.
Understanding how the new rules work will be crucial for landlords looking to stay compliant while still protecting their property and investment.
What has actually changed?
Under the new rules, tenants have the right to request permission to keep a pet.
Landlords can still refuse, but only where there is a reasonable justification for doing so.
The key difference is that a blanket “no pets” policy is no longer likely to be sufficient on its own. Instead, landlords must consider each request individually and provide a written response.
How pet requests should work
The process is designed to be formal and documented.
Tenants should submit a written request explaining:
- The type of pet
- Its size and requirements
- Any relevant information about how it will be cared for
Landlords then have 28 days to provide a written response.
If permission is granted, that permission generally remains in place for the duration of the tenancy.
If permission is refused, the landlord must explain why.
This means landlords need to be able to justify their decision if challenged later.
When can a landlord reasonably refuse?
This is where things become less clear-cut.
The legislation doesn’t provide an exhaustive list of acceptable reasons for refusal, which means there will inevitably be areas of interpretation as the new rules develop.
However, several examples are already recognised.
A refusal may be considered reasonable where:
The property is unsuitable
A very large dog in a small studio apartment may present legitimate welfare and practicality concerns.
The legislation specifically recognises that property size can be relevant when assessing whether a particular pet is suitable.
Another occupier would be affected
Where allergies or similar health issues would affect other residents, refusal may be justified.
Leasehold restrictions apply
If a superior lease prohibits pets, or permission is refused by a freeholder or management company, landlords may be able to refuse the request.
Reasons that are unlikely to be enough
Simply disliking pets probably won’t be sufficient.
Similarly, general concerns about:
- Future re-letting difficulties
- Potential property damage
- Personal preference
are unlikely to meet the threshold of a reasonable refusal on their own.
That’s one reason why landlords should ensure every decision is properly documented and supported by genuine evidence.
Can landlords charge extra?
This is another area generating plenty of questions.
Under the new framework:
- Landlords cannot charge a pet fee
- Landlords cannot take a larger tenancy deposit specifically because of a pet
- Landlords cannot require tenants to purchase pet insurance
However, landlords can still pursue tenants for damage caused by pets, including deductions from deposits where appropriate evidence exists.
Landlords may also choose to obtain their own insurance products if they feel additional protection is necessary.
What does this mean in practice?
For many landlords, perhaps less than they initially feared.
The reality is that thousands of landlords have successfully let properties to responsible pet owners for many years.
In fact, pet-owning tenants often stay longer because suitable rental properties can be harder to find.
Longer tenancies generally mean:
- Lower void periods
- Reduced re-letting costs
- Greater stability of income
Many landlords already view these benefits positively.
The biggest challenge is uncertainty
Our biggest observation isn’t necessarily the principle of allowing pets.
It’s the lack of clarity around where the line between reasonable and unreasonable refusal sits.
As with many areas of new legislation, the practical interpretation will likely evolve through Ombudsman decisions, guidance and court rulings over time.
Until then, landlords should proceed carefully.
The best approach for landlords
The safest strategy is likely to be:
- Consider every request individually
- Respond within the required timescales
- Keep detailed written records
- Document reasons for any refusal
- Seek professional advice where necessary
Above all, avoid making decisions based purely on assumptions or preferences.
As founding members of the Ethical Agent Network and members of its advisory panel, we believe good property management is built on clarity, communication and fairness. The new pet rules undoubtedly represent a significant change, but for landlords who stay informed, keep good records and follow the process properly, they need not become a major source of concern.
The rules may be new, but good landlording hasn’t changed. Clear communication, sensible decision-making and professional management remain as important as ever.
Article by Andrew Overman | Partner | Location Location East
