By using this website, you agree to our use of cookies to enhance your experience.
Graham Awards


Allowing pets makes commercial sense for landlords - claim

Yet another lettings agency says the private rental sector would be wise to encourage tenants with pets.

Earlier this week it was Carter Jonas and now Intus Lettings has come out in favour of change.

A survey of 500 UK landlords by Intus revealed that the most common reasons for not allowing pets include fear of damage, bad smells and the fact that many leaseholds ban animals in properties.


The subject has become controversial this year with the issue of the government’s new Model Tenancy Agreement in January. 

The agreement - not widely used by landlords or agents - now has a default position of landlords being expected to allow pets.

Hope McKendrick, head of lettings at Intus, says: “Under the new [tenancy agreement] landlords in England can no longer put a blanket ban on pets within their properties and responsible tenants with well-behaved pets will be able to secure leases more easily through a new standard tenancy agreement.

“The decision has been the topic of much debate since the announcement, but the fact is that being pet friendly can make properties more appealing and encourages loyalty among tenants. 

“Of course, there are considerations for landlords to make in terms of protecting their property and many options have been discussed in parliament, including higher deposits, referencing for pets and specific insurance.”


Intus’ research found that 55 per cent of landlords support the change, 24 per cent strongly support and just 18 per cent oppose it.

McKendrick goes on: “When the government revealed the changes, it stated just seven per cent of private landlords currently advertise pet friendly properties, which is incredible when you consider that almost 80 per cent of landlords are supportive of the updated agreement. 

“As long as tenants remain respectful to their landlords, I’ve no doubt that the decision to take a more flexible approach to pets will benefit all parties. 

“It makes commercial sense to landlords.”

Want to comment on this story? Our focus is on providing a platform for you to share your insights and views and we welcome contributions.
If any post is considered to victimise, harass, degrade or intimidate an individual or group of individuals, then the post may be deleted and the individual immediately banned from posting in future.
Please help us by reporting comments you consider to be unduly offensive so we can review and take action if necessary. Thank you.

  • George Dawes

    No , it doesn't

    It's a vote catcher that's all

  • icon

    Another agency telling landlords how to operate their own businesses, another agency to avoid, our decision and our's alone.

  • Theodor Cable

    No cats, dogs or anything alive or moving are allowed except maybe only very nice human beings, and many of them are not allowed as well.


    Lol! Tell me Theodor my friend, with this view, why on earth do you want to be a landlord at all?

    Theodor Cable


    I like some tenants, just not all.

    And certainly no animals. And of course, we all know some tenants albeit human who also act like animals.

    And I do not want them in my properties...EVER!

  • icon

    No freedom of choice everything forced upon us. I have had suffered the consequences and continuing.

  • James B

    Must be some commercial benefit for these agents to go against the interests of their fee paying clients ? Dangerous game jumping on the landlords bashing wagon for an agent


    I dont think they are acting against the interests of their clients. At the end of the day its about serving a market if you feel you want to. The people who ultimately pay are the tenants through the rent and other now 'hidden' fees etc. I think landlords and tenants should be free to negotiate. However, if you chose not to have tenants with pets you may be doing yourself out of a loyal and well-paying long-term tenant... just saying, there are two sides to each story.

  • Judith Stokes

    I am just clearing a property where the dog ruled. Run in from the muddy garden shake, spatters the wall, skirting and muddy paws on carpet. Ok this is just one tenant bad experience.
    Unfortunately I won't allow dogs in now. I'm repainting, new carpets etc and have a dog running in with muddy paws on a brand new carpet! No thank you.
    These properties have more paint and carpets refurbs than my own house!


    This is just one side of the story. As a tenant with dogs and a qualified dog trainer, I think that there is no such thing as a bad dog, only a bad owner. I have lived in my current tenancy for nearly eight years now and no problems with the dogs, they are calm and we clean our home well. It's always about the people. I have seen pet-free homes much worse than you describe.



    Since landlords own the property, only our side counts.

    Pet owners can choose to have pets in their own property but we choose for our properties.

  • icon

    As a life-long private tenant (with no allergies) I would not knowingly rent a property which had previously allowed pets or smoking. The odours linger for years, in walls, carpets etc. Dogs and cats often foul the floors and the hairs shed are never fully captured with a vacuum cleaner.
    Cats wander and foul other people's gardens.
    I also ban pets and smokers in a property I own, indoors and in the garden so no visitors with animals either.
    People go out and sometimes leave dogs whining and barking thus annoying neighbours. They get bathed in a bath which is used primarily for people and hairs shed clog up pipework.
    I rent unfurnished but for those landlords who have furnished property, think of the furniture, marks, smells and ruined outdoor lawn areas used by pets and smokers.
    No, never and imagine the cost of a really deep professional clean after each tenant. Would they pay?
    I don't stay in holiday lets or hotels which allow pets or smoking either


    Sounds like you dont like pets. That is fine. It should be left up to the landlord and tenant to decide between them whether pets are permitted, not the government IMHO.

    Theodor Cable

    It is the decision of the LL only.

  • George Dawes

    Make note , don’t use Carter jonas or Intus Lettings - ever

    Talk about shooting yourself in the foot - or should that be paw ?

    Theodor Cable

    I wil lnever use them, for sure.
    I rather hope they see this and realise how dim they are.


    I would use them, for the reasons that as a pet owner, I would like to welcome other RESPONSIBLE pet owners to become my tenants. I would also use them as a tenant for the reason. They are marketing to a niche just like those who will not allow pets to be in their properties. Remember, however thin you slice it, there are always two sides...

  • Theodor Cable

    Why would it benefit me to have animals in my properties......
    It always leaves me with some kind of costs that I do not need.

    These Letting Agents seem to look at just profit for them, with no thought of the consequences for their Clients......

    The devil cash rules them over everything else......

    It would be interesting to see if they would agree to pay for any animal damage if they really believe what they say is true!!!!!!

    I rather think I know what their answer would be?

    Let's see if they are brave enough to answer that question?

    So, Mr. Hope McKendrick, Head of Lettings at Intus, will you answer this? Let's see if you have the ball#.

  • icon

    They are clearly not landlords themselves (another reason not to use them) as they have obviously not experienced a property after a smelly pet.

  • icon

    These people don't live in the real world.

    I had a tenant move a huge Alsatian into a small 2 bed terrace. Went to work all day and left the dog to howl and **** all the neighbours off. When she left the property kitchen cupboard doors were scratched and chewed. All internal doors badly scratched, carpets scratched up around doors. She did a moonlight owing me last two months rent. So cost me 8k to put right.

    I've had carpets ruined by cats, moved in on the quiet. Pretty much every tenant has refused to pay for deep cleaning carpets and flea treatments.

    Had a nice tenant leave one of my properties because despite our best efforts we couldn't get rid of a flea problem quick enough for her.

    I am violently allergic to cats and dogs. I can't be in a room with one for more than a few minutes. Yet I'm expected to take a pet so I can no longer enter my property EVER. Deep cleaning is not enough. All carpets would have to go. I am actually asked on a regular basis by people with allergies if I can guarantee no pets have been in my houses.


    Pet owners need to understand how harmful their animals might be to future tenants.

    They should buy their own property before buying any animal to live with them. Landlords shouldn't be asked to subsidise the keeping of any animal in properties designed for human occupants and future tenants have a right to a home with no risk of making them ill.

    Surely disability laws should protect landlords and future tenants from the harm caused by unwelcome animals in a property not owned by the animal's owners.


    This is an example of 'niche' servicing. By keeping your tenancies pet-free you are serving those who are allergic. I think we should also recognise that there are people who do want to keep pets who should also be accommodated by other landlords. Its about balance, understanding and tolerance.


    People living with allergies have no choice but people living with animals choose to do so and choose to blight the lives of future allergic tenants.

    I choose to protect future tenants by banning animals in my properties.

    Dead animals cooked medium rare with a nice claret are allowed so I am not imposing a blanket ban on all animals.


    My son, a former game keeper, goes out in the dark of night deer stroking, a nice piece of venison goes down a treat with that claret.



    Send some up to Scotland and I'll send down some of our famous beverage ( Irn Bru).

  • Matthew Payne

    What has become ridiculous about this debate over the past few months is that the pro pet lobbyists and politicians keep coming forward to have their say, and not one has yet had the courage to even attempt to address the elephant in the room - namely who is going to pay to remedy pet dilaps that are absolutely guaranteed with a cat or dog. Mainly I think as they are trying to have us focus on damage as opposed to cleanliness, ergo not all pets create “damage” which they don't, but all animals do have the hygiene standards of animals, and that's the bit they don’t want to talk about.

    So, I feel the need to spell out the bleedin’ obvious in the hope someone will respond. If you get a cat or a dog, and I have had many of both, you do so accepting that your home will suffer, flooring, carpets, furniture, cupboards, doors etc etc will become scratched and soiled. Even so-called well-behaved animals with “respectful” owners cause hundreds of pounds of cleaning and redecorating as a minimum. There is no avoiding it, their hygiene standards are that of animals, not humans, hence the name.

    They don’t have arms or fingers, or any sense of what is clean or dirty, they are unable to clean themselves, and their owners don’t wash them more than a couple of times every summer, if at all. They have claws, that are designed to rip things apart when they hunt. They dont disappear now we have chosen to try and domesticate a previously wild animal. Just because you give them a collar, a cute name, and claim they make you happy, doesn't change any of that. If a human adopted the same standards of cleanliness, social services would be called, and no doubt all of the “pro pet let’s not talk about whose paying for it all” brigade would publicly denigrate anyone for living in such squalor.

    So, with that in mind let’s look at these agents latest compelling contribution towards addressing the issue.

    “As long as tenants remain respectful to their landlords, I’ve no doubt that the decision to take a more flexible approach to pets will benefit all parties. It makes commercial sense to landlords.”

    (Hand over face emoji)


    Also, in the answer to your question "who is going to pay for damage remediation?" Here is a tremendous market opportunity for an insurance product, (premium paid by the tenant) that pays out in the event of a serious dilapidation/ neglect by the tenant).

    Theodor Cable


    You know that tenants will not keep an annual animal insurance going....And you willl sitll end up paying a lot of money when your tenants finally leave.

    Theodor Cable

    Excellent. Well expressed and so true.

  • icon

    As a former Landlord and a current tenant with dogs, I think we need to address each letting on its individual merits. Everyone views the situation from their own world view and makes a judgement accordingly. I have always lived with dogs and I am not allergic to them either, those who are do need to be considered. However, basing a policy on what might happen in the future is not a good one either. Its difficult to come to a consensus. The best way forward is for dialogue and both landlord and tenant to come to an agreement. I am happy to pay a higher rent to cover the costs of cleaning etc. Both parties need to be considered. I am respectful of a landlord who doesnt want to have tenants with pets (the same as those who dont want to take smokers or those who do drugs I would assume!). But we do need to have an open dialogue not just become judgemental negatively to either side. Also I dont think that government should interfere in this at all.

    Matthew Payne

    Its a bit late for that Julian, the tenant fees act created this problem, we had a perfectly workable solutiuon for both sides before then, and its not just about the deposit, the government even admonished tenants from any contractual cleaning costs and check out which is ridiculous, pets or no pets. So I agree a tenant should be able to be considered with a pet, judged each case in hand, provided there is appropriate remedy for landlords on dilaps and cleanliness, the government didnt need to get involved.

    I cant see the insurance policy working if its not the tenant who is held responsible with skin in the game. They pay their £100 premium after which their interest ends, whatever the condition of the property. I can see underwriting it difficult and make a successful claim by a landlord even harder.


    I consider every request to allow pets before choosing a different tenant who has put his priorities right and decided not to live with or like animals

  • Theodor Cable

    The worry is if the Govt. pass a bill that says it is compulsory for LL to allow animals in their properties.

    In that case, there will surely be trouble ahead.

  • George Dawes

    I can see trouble ahead full stop

  • Trevor Cooper

    Of course letting agents (who do not offer a management service) promote lets for pets - they haven't got to deal with the problems when it goes wrong!

  • icon

    It’s very simple fellow LL’s just take the Tenant with Pet application, grin say you will consider along with the other applicants and store in the round file. Have a little chortle to yourselves and remind yourselves the pantomime this business has become


    We don't have to give any reasons for our choice of tenant, just a sorry you were unlucky this time.


    Out of curiosity-What happens if a tenant subsequently gets an animal/pet, without LL’s written permission.
    LL can’t use a pet as grounds of eviction, and will end up facing the cost of courts for property damage related eviction etc.
    Example- My previous tenant rent contract was agreed for 3 people (1 adult, 2 children), brought 2 (1 adult & 1 child) subsequently 2 weeks after moving, making the house overcrowded, tactics to get a council house by getting bailiffs order (apparently a common tactics used by Brazilian Portuguese tenants) costing me thousands in eviction alongside council threats related stress.
    Tenants will likely use/be advised to use the same tactics by councils/agents/CAB/Shelter etc, to sign a tenancy contract first-bring pets later.
    If anyone has faced this-or has suggestions to help LL’s avoid the cost/stress of rogue tenants bringing in pets after the tenancy starts-please share the wisdom.

    Q is: How to evict a tenant who brings pet/s after a tenancy starts? Thanks.

  • icon

    Apart from pets there are so many reasons for refusing Tenants the let, mainly due to new Government rules preventing you from giving them the accommodation even when you want to. Plus further restrictions placed on LL & his Property preventing him from letting which is main reason so many properties are vacant, then they complain about what they themselves have caused.

  • icon

    Andrew, it takes a good buck shot to bring down one of them and 2 good men to carry, you know the drill cut & trim a pole from wood tie front legs together and back legs ditto pass the pole through and up on your shoulders, we’d survive in the wild, what would City folks do without the benefit system and their lap top.

  • George Dawes

    Matthew is quite brilliant .


Please login to comment

MovePal MovePal MovePal
sign up