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


Buy To Let may work better if landlords allow pets - claim

It’s a controversial view but a respected buy to let mortgage monitor suggests that landlords may be more successful if they allow pets.

The independent Moneyfacts service admits there are some disadvantages.

Landlords may have to take out additional insurance, although it says they can mitigate this by pet-proofing the home, such as removing rugs and expensive furniture from the property. 


“As well as this, landlords should keep in mind that tenants are normally obliged to return the property in the same state in which it was initially rented, as such tenants should pay for any damage their pet causes or the money can be removed from their deposit.”

However, it suggests that in hard-nosed financial terms, allowing pets may outweigh the disadvantages: it gives three ways this could be the case.

Firstly allowing pets means a property is advertised to a wider audience - pet and non-pet owners, potentially reducing void periods. 

Secondly, it seems like that allowing pets may encourage good tenants to stay in the property for longer, especially if finding a new rental property is a struggle.

And thirdly, in appropriate sized properties, allowing pets may encourage families - who in turn are likely to stay longer and may be seen as more reliable tenants than some singletons. 


Moneyfacts adds that the pandemic period has seen a boom in pet ownership, but government statistics estimate that just seven per cent of private rental properties are advertised as pet-friendly. 

Earlier this year the government introduced a revised Model Tenancy Agreement that makes it easier for tenants with well-behaved pets to find rented accommodation - however, this agreement is voluntary and it is widely thought relatively few agents and landlords use it.

Want to comment on this story? If so...if any post is considered to victimise, harass, degrade or intimidate an individual or group of individuals on any basis, then the post may be deleted and the individual immediately banned from posting in future.

  • icon

    Better leave it vacant or raise it to the ground. What are they talking about if we let them keep pets. We have had the pets already in the past so we know from hard earned experience the damage and costs, so we my all about if. Please don’t mention Insurance Its costing me thousands already not to mention the huge tax premium penalty of 12% for taking out Insurance, instead of encouraging LL to Insure their Property.

  • icon

    Clearly written by someone who has never let property to someone with pets. I suggest you only write on subjects you know something about.

  • icon

    As an experienced landlord over more years than I care to remember, I have always allowed pets (some breeds of dogs excluded). The deposit is set higher, but generally you get a good quality of tenant and I have yet to have a problem.


    But we are no longer allowed to set the deposit higher. 5 weeks rent (as allowed) goes no where near covering the damage we have had when saying yes to pets (dogs it has to be said. I have not had a problem with cats)

  • icon

    “As well as this, landlords should keep in mind that tenants are normally obliged to return the property in the same state in which it was initially rented"

    This person is clearly not a landlord.

    Also how can I be more successful if I allow pets when I get at least 10 people wanting to view within 24 hours.

    Theodor Cable

    No tenant will ever return the property in the condition it was handed to at the start of a tenancy.

  • icon

    Mr Johns, how can you set the deposit higher ? A nice youngish polish lady rented my property with two kids. No kids have moved in but up to 6 dogs have. The garden is trashed and now she wont let me into the property. No tenent has ever asked for permission to bring dogs or cats, they just do.


    Hi Edwin,
    As I said, I may have been fortunate in that I have never had a problem with pets., and as you say, some have done afterwards and that is a difficult one. The tenant is in breach, but if they are looking after the property and paying the rent, we are all guilty of turning a blind eye. I am all for leaving the position as status quo and it should be an individual landlords discretion to allow pets, but at present I will continue to do so. Best we have had (and still have ) is 19 years with 3 dogs in that period. Always pays on time and has never been a problem. Worst, single professional man who worked for one of the big four banks. Within weeks, had many complaints from the neighbours and the rent stopped flowing within months. Knew all the tricks to delay leaving, but clever enough in that all he left with was a bad reference. As I was never asked for one in the future, he even had that even covered. In this game, I think it is some we win, some we lose, but as long as the gains are significantly above the loses, I am happy

    Theodor Cable

    Yoy need to alter your contract and have a clause about no pets....of any kind.

    Even in some cases humans should also be banned form the contract along with thier disgusting animals. They all cause the same damage ana stinks and smells and filth.

  • icon

    Here some feedback for Moneyfacts claim
    ‘landlords may be more successful if they allow pets’
    ‘Tenants may be more successful if they don’t have pets to begin with until they have their own property’
    Also a dog is for life a tenancy isnt

  • icon

    The bottom line is as LLs we do everything we can to reduce the chances of a bad tenant or damage to our property. Unfortunately for the many good tenants out there who have or would like pets, accepting pets increases the risks and so many LLs choose not to.

  • icon

    Good for you Ken, you are clearly an exception as this forum would suggest.

    In my experience pets = disaster. Been down that route many times and there is no way to make it financially viable for the tenant or the landlord. Its simply ignorant (or political) to suggests otherwise.

  • George Dawes

    Nothing quite as annoying and sad as a yapping dog left in the house while the selfish owners are out of the house - and no garden for the poor animal who's probably in distress

  • icon

    That’s a nice looking Terrier on the Coir Home Mat not a bit like the Pit-bull dog my Tenants had. When gas Engineer came to service the Boiler he was scared stiff, Tenant said he won’t touch you then dog snarled, Engineer promptly dropped his steel tool box on the floor and exited, its just hassle as well as safety, (Tenants doing drugs love those dogs).


    I don't do dangerous dogs, they are weapons not pets and are owned by that sort of person


Please login to comment

MovePal MovePal MovePal
sign up