The head of a major industry service supplier insists the Renters Reform Bill provision making it easier for tenants to keep pets is “good news”.
Sam Reynolds, the chief executive of Zero Deposit - a deposit alternative service - says: “A pet is a huge commitment and it’s one that should be carefully considered regardless of your living status. For many tenants, the cost of renting is already substantial and so they really need to be confident that they can afford the additional outgoings of pet food, insurance and the often inevitable vet bills.
“The good news is that while pet-friendly rentals may be hard to come by, there are changes being made to make renting with a pet more widely accessible.
“It’s important to remember that while a rental property is your home, it’s also someone else's investment and so you should be rightfully prepared to cover the cost of any damages caused. Many landlords may understandably be apprehensive about pets within their rental property, but in many cases, a clear and upfront line of communication is the best plan of action for tenants when considering introducing a pet to their home.”
Reynolds’ comments come on the back of research conducted for his company showing that just nine per cent of all rental properties currently available across England are listed as pet-friendly - that’s just over 8,000 out of some 94,000 rental properties.
The South West has 15 per cent, with the South East on 11 per cent and East of England on 10 per cent.
But it’s London that boasts the highest total number of pet-friendly rentals. Of the 8,343 pet-friendly properties currently available to tenants across the nation, 3,439 are found within the capital, accounting for 41 per cent of all pet-friendly rentals across England.
The current asking rent for a pet-friendly rental property is £1,719 per month. That’s £281, or 20 per cent more per month than a non pet-friendly rental property.
At the moment the government’s model tenancy agreement states that a tenant must seek the prior written consent of the landlord should they wish to keep pets or other animals at the property.
Changes were made to the model contract in 2021 to alter the default position of landlords to consent for pets to encourage the removal of a blanket ban. A landlord can then object to the request in writing within 28 days for ‘good reason’ but must not unreasonably withhold or delay their written request from a tenant without considering the request on its own merits.
Under the controversial Renters Reform Bill, expected to be law next year, it will be an implied term of an assured tenancy that a tenant may keep a pet with the landlord’s consent unless the landlord reasonably refuses.
Pet owners will, however, be required to have pet insurance to cover the cost of any damages incurred as a result of having a pet in their rental property.
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.
-400x310-min.jpeg)
.jpg)
%20(002).png)
.png)
Join the conversation
Jump to latest comment and add your reply
Interpreting the article it indicates larger more expensive properties are more likely to be advertised as pet friendly. Or in other words pet friendly properties are more likely to be available for higher earning middle class tenants.
£1719 a month is way more than LHA pretty much everywhere.
Obviously it makes sense that landlords are unwilling to allow pets in small, high density properties if only out of consideration for the neighbours.
I was interested to hear yesterday that one of the local retirement developments that advertises itself as pet friendly only means for pets that exist at the time the tenant first moves in. Apparently they won't allow the tenant to get a replacement pet in the future. Maybe that's the kind of compromise that would work for more of us? A fully trained adult pet is very different to a puppy or kitten.
I would go a bit further than only older pets. Only dead pets allowed provided professionally stuffed!
It’s not good news any of it. Scrap the stupid devious unnecessary Bill now which has already tripled rough sleepers in London to 10’000 but more important to house the Animals.
Its all outside interfering busybodies doing as much damage as possible to PRS.
Its opening the floodgates the Landlords permission should not be unreasonably withheld as if they are going to take a blind bit of notice of the Landlord when to law has changed and his position further undermined.
Keep them in your high rise B2R Flats, no license necessary, no landlord only Tenant rules apply to the cladded monsters with 3 sq m of balcony @ approx £2k rent per month for a one bed Flat, you’ll have something else to worry about.
Sam Reynolds has had too much Christmas pudding. What has this got to do with his company?
How are we going to evidence smell on the check-in/check-out?
We will not be able to say NO 🆘🆘🤷♂️🤷♂️, the rot has already set in.
I think it's very BAD news for tenants! With so few rentals available, anyone with a pet goes straight to the back of the queue for many LLs.
And how exactly will landlords or their agents police tenants to ensure that they not only buy pet insurance prior to signing the AST but also that they do not then cancel the policy within 14 days and get their money back?
We all know the answer 😱 The government do not care.
When pets and pet smells are loved by everyone, then pets may not be a problem!
Until then they are!
I still dont understand why people in the press think this is a sea change in practicality, the landlord can still refuse for a tenant to have a pet, so what has changed? Nothing is more accessible Sam, you have imagined it.
Is this like a Jedi mind trick perhaps, where if enough people say the law is changing and pets will be allowed as standard that we all start believing it?
Sam Reynolds has no idea in saying "Many landlords may understandably be apprehensive about pets within their rental property, but in many cases, a clear and upfront line of communication is the best plan of action for tenants when considering introducing a pet to their home.”
BUT NO, tenants aren't going to do that: they are likely to wait until they are in and protected by the RRB provisions.
I had tenants requesting pets after they'd moved in, pets they already had, but looked after at home by their parents (where they'd moved out from). They realised I could use S21 if necessary, so didn't try it on. But still caused much damage in less than 1 year.
Other tenants paid extra deposits for 2 dogs, then moved in with 3 dogs (before the deposit cap).
I guess that Sam Reynolds and other pro- pets in lets people haven't had to remove and dispose of years-old dog ur*ne-soaked carpets at the end of a tenancy like I have. [Incidentally which HMRC apparently class as a hobby or pastime as I can't pay myself for doing it.]
I wonder if it would be reasonable under the new regime to only allow pets where there are laminate or other non-carpet floors throughout all of the property- something I wouldn't let out. Though that might be scratched to hell, and pee get into the joints.
I have allowed new tenants to have a small dog in one of my properties and I have indicated to them where it is acceptable for the dog to go.
I also increased the bond to cover this and with a full photographic inventory, I am satisfied as far as I can be with the situation.
Both tenants have good jobs in the NHS and they were the 'best of the bunch' compared with the other applicants, so I was willing to let them have a small pet in the circumstances and they have indicated that they would be interested in buying the property in the near future.
Having had eight puppies over the years I am only too aware of the perils of house training. They are like babies and old men - little control over their bladders!
Adult dogs are a different kettle of fish.
Being of that age to which you refer, yes, one does have a leaky tap.
"Asking rent for a pet-friendly rental property is £1,719 per month. That’s £281, or 20 per cent more per month than a non pet-friendly rental property." Have you seen how much damage a cat can cause? Have you ever added up the cost of your time to put right the damage caused by a cat? The later of course is not covered by an insurance policy.
I have been very lucky having rented to three smalldogs, a small dog and two different cats - all without damage.
I’d be more concerned about having a Tenant friendly house.
I do very occasionally accept pets but on my terms only. Overall It’s a huge risk usually best avoided.
I think ‘ballooning risk’ is now endemic across the PRS in multiple areas of its operation. Efforts to side step the reality of risk in ‘ some legalised nod to woke prejudice’ (ie pets in let’s RRB nonsense) is not going to lead landlords coming forth in droves to welcome a menagerie of messy muppets. Those few that do, would be wise to heavily price in /out their exposure.
Yep, I am the lucky owner of a beautiful golden retriever. Other people’s pets nah, other people’s kids nah.
Agreed, increased risk= increased rent
Only one goldie? We have an adult of six and, having lost the two eldest goldies unexpectedly this year. now have a five month puppy. We do have three other dogs too and an excellent Bissell. We had forgotten about puppy bladder . . .
Our only remaining properties do not allow pets in the Head Lease.
My only concern with pets is the flea problem. If the pet leaves, the fleas don't and are very difficult to eradicate.
The Government seems to be divorced from reality over everything.
While I admit my dogs and cats have had fleas, they are easy treated and disposed of, the fleas that is, not my pets.
I once went, with a female colleague, into a house to value it for sale or rent. They had a lethargic spaniel. As we walked across the floor, the fleas could be seen jumping. On leaving, her legs were covered and, strangely, we both declined the instruction. So unnecessary when flea treatments are easily available and effective. No wonder the spaniel was lethargic.
They can apparently take three months to eliminate as they go through a life cycle even if flea treatments are used.
Adult fleas—the ones you can see—make up only 5% of the population. Eggs can settle in the carpet or furniture. Larvae and pupae prefer dark spaces and might stay in the cracks in the floor, in the carpet, or in the cracks and crannies of a couch.
It would be awful for a tenant to come into a flat and have their legs covered in fleas.
Fleas seem to be more frequent on cats than dogs - perhaps because we bath our dogs. I bought a house where the owner had had two cats. The house was full of fleas on completion. I had to have every carpet ripped out.
My daughter had a flea problem in a flat, no one had ever had a cat there, turns out that while builders were working there a cat came to visit them, that was enough just a simple visit from a friendly cat
We have had that when living in Croydon, a girl came to visit and had one of them Dulux dogs with-in a couple of days the place was crawling with fleas and all over the baby, a Company had to be called in to fumigate the new house.
This is the last day of 2023 good riddance to it, the year Private that landlords were tortured to extinction by a Rogue Housing Secretary deliberately creating the worst Housing Crisis, rough sleepers and unaffordable Rents in living memory.
Simple one word to describe the man “Plank”
Is this Sam Reynold's Ratner/Budweiser moment?
Please login to comment