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


Landlords benefit from pets allowed in properties - new survey

Research conducted by the Dogs Trust and Cats Protection apparently shows that landlords are split on the subject of pets in lets.

Some 46 per cent say they allow pets and 54 per cent not.

The same research reveals that, in over a third of cases where cats or dogs have not been allowed by a private landlord, the landlord did not proactively decide this based on the individual tenants or pets, but either followed advice or a used a standard ‘no pets’ tenancy template.


The Dogs Trust and Cats Protection claims that allowing pets in rental properties is not just good for the tenants; there are advantages to landlords too as it could increase the length of time tenants choose to rent a property. 

The organisation claims that 26 per cent of tenants would stay longer in a property if they were allowed to keep a pet.

Under the Renters Reform Bill landlords will no longer be able to unreasonably withhold consent when a tenant requests to have a pet in their home, with the tenant able to challenge unfair decisions through a new Ombudsman.

Owen Sharp, Chief Executive of Dogs Trust, says: “The new measures introduced today are a potential gamechanger for responsible dog owners who rent.

“Dogs Trust has been campaigning on this subject for many years as we believe that the joy of pet ownership shouldn’t be exclusive to homeowners, but open to private and social renters as well.  

“For too long, people living in rented accommodation have not able to enjoy the benefits and companionship of a pet just because of the type of housing they live in. 

“We’re receiving hundreds of calls each week from desperate owners forced to rehome their dogs due to a lack of pet friendly accommodation. 

“The measures announced as part of the Renters (Reform) Bill will mean that many more dogs can stay living with their loving families. This is great news for both owners and for the animal welfare sector alike.”

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.

  • David Lester

    With current and future governments proposing to introduce some form of Tenants reform Bill I feel that a very important point is possibly going to slip under the radar. The main talking point is Section 21 and rightfully so, however some of the implications can be prevented if the Landlords business plan is correct, i.e. rent in advance, Guarantors, regular inspections etc. The point on enforcing Landlords to accept pets could be if we are not careful even more damaging and cost us all in time, money, and resources!
    Below I have brainstormed my thoughts on some of the problems with being forced to allow pets, there will be those within the industry who read the content and belittle it as they know better, however my objective is to get Landlords talking about the topic before it is too late!
    Landlords and pets.
    1. Landlords are a business not a charity, full utilisation to properties is our objective, any distraction preventing this being met is unacceptable, this includes working for nothing by searching for tradesmen, handling insurance claims, and downtime when the property is without a paying Tenant.
    2. For a landlord who does not want to allow pets, there is no foreseen benefit permitting a Tenant to have a pet in their property. There is only extra “wear and tear”, extra time organising replacement carpets etc, Tradesmen, Insurance claims, Deposit disputes, i.e., absolutely no benefits.
    3. Damage to interior of house, skirting boards, doorways, doors, requiring repairing painting etc, problems, deposit, insurance, betterment, “wear and tear”, Tenant leaves and Landlord left to resolve the problems, whilst losing money on rental and time finding tradesmen.
    4. Flees , excrement etc in carpet curtains and soft furnishings, only way to completely remove would be replacement, who pays? Insurance Company, Deposit, then disputes on betterment etc.
    5. Damage to garden, lawns garden beds, this will take time and specialist trades people to repair, unacceptable presentation for new Tenants which could be used as a reason to pay reduced rent.
    6. Smell inside house, in carpets, curtains etc, where should the compensation be proportioned and who pays for the Landlords time and resources, only total replacement will resolve these problems, who pays and compensation landlord for time and losses?
    7. Clawing carpets, thereafter, dispute on “wear and tear” deposit, or Insurance claim, then the argument on proportioning betterment.
    8. Extra down time between Tenants due to insurance claim process, repairs, and cleaning, who will compensate for this time?
    9. Pet hair throughout house, normal “professional cleaning” cannot guarantee to fully remove all hair, problem, where does the Landlord seek the extra to ensure complete cleaning, the Deposit, or the Insurance and who pays for their time?
    10. Informing future Tenants that pets were housed previously, Allergies, Asthma, and other breathing aliments, reduced marketplace, reduced rental income etc.
    11. Noise nuisance to neighbours and pets using their gardens a Toilets.
    12. Insufficient insurance as purchased by Tenant, cheapness!
    13. Delay in reletting due to Insurance claim and agreeing with Assessors on cost of compensation for damage.
    14. Loss of rental income, interest etc waiting for payment from any insurer and who pays the difference.
    15. Time finding Tradesmen tot carryout rectification work, who pays?
    16. Pets being left in house, alone all-day uncontrolled damage.
    17. Deposit is not sufficient to cover potential damage, loss recovery and to compensate for time to seek, research and organise replacement goods, Tradesmen to repair, fit or install.
    18. How is it possible to the Tenant to insure something they do not own?
    19. Who sets the level of cover for the insurance policy, Government. Shelter, Landlords and who is the arbiter on such cover?
    20. Pet Insurance which is paid for by Tenant will be the cheapest possible and will not fully indemnify the Landlord.
    21. Insurance practices by nature of their business will make all endeavours to mitigate their losses, therefore in a claim situation they will require multiple quotes, examine damage, and then decide price for compensation. This price will usually be less than the cost to fully indemnify the Landlord and will not include compensation for time spent finding Tradesmen, shopping etc and loss of rental income.
    22. A further major problem is the “grey area” between claiming on either the Deposit or the Insurance.
    23. If Landlord is not fully indemnified, can they take the Tenant to court?
    24. If a Tenant signs a contract which states no pets, is it not a breach of contract for them to house a pet? If this is the case then the entire contract is null and void
    25. What are the punitive penalties that can be bestowed onto a landlord?
    26. If the Government whatever colour wants to house pets, why don’t they buy their own properties?
    27. If Landlords had an association that would represent the majority and be a force to be reckoned with, as Shelter is to the Tenants, we would be able to shape current and future legislation.
    Unless we as Landlords can be 100% guaranteed that we will suffer no financial losses or wasted time we should not permit pets in our properties.


    Apart from that it's a good idea..🤣


    Well I just read the Conclusion.... I agree.

  • icon

    To be honest this bothers me more than the loss of section 21. The largest financial hits we have taken so far have been down to pet damage - one chewer on skirting and pee soaked laminate floor, one pee and fleas in carpets and the current one, damage to flooring and foul smell throughout the house. How does one evidence smell on a section 8 petition? And the extra mortgage payments we will need to pay as we can't market the house until the tenant is out and the house fully cleaned?

  • icon

    At the end of the day tenants will pay for it.


    Robert I can’t see tenants paying for any detrimental damage to the property. Via a pet. Unless u increase the rent in order to have it in the bank for when they or he/ she leaves.


    Yes, all rents will have to go up to cover future extra costs of having pets.

  • icon

    In my experience tenants with pets don't stay as long as other tenants.
    I have one property where I allow pets which I bought in 2019. It's now got it's 4th set of tenants.
    First ones had a dog. Due to the doggy smell when they left I targeted dog owners for the next tenancy in the hope they were nose blind.
    Second ones had a dog. Due to doggy smell when they left (after professional carpet cleaning with pet neutralising cleaning solution) I had problems with finding anyone who was likely to pass referencing so finished up with a self employed single dad who failed referencing. He was actually great at paying rent and had a real fondness for air fresheners and deep cleaning.
    I currently have a young couple with two guinea pigs in there. The guinea pigs have a huge cage in the second bedroom and the flat currently looks and smells good.

    Maybe the way forward with this whole allowing pets idea is that they need to be the type that lives in a cage and has their own bedroom?

  • icon

    The problem with pets especially dogs and to a lesser extent cats they will 100% cause damage to the property, NO IFS NO BUTS, All potential pet owners say to me my dog or cat is house trained and has no issues, Only to find when they leave there are claw marks on the doors poo stains on the carpet, chewed corners that you have to renew but due to betterment rules you can't claim, the tenant suraptisiasly tried to clean up, hairs lodged in the fibers of the carpet that are impossible to clean as the hairs became interwoven with into the fabric of the carpet and unless one spends a week with tweezers on hands and knees you just can't get rid of all hairs with any professional vacuuming team.
    The issue is that the landlord has just got half an hour to an hours window opportunity to record all these damages at check out, which I have found it to be so difficult, even when its in front of you ,its so eazy to miss 30% of damage only to see it two to three days later when its too late and tenants have become very good at hiding things, behind posters on walls or under floor mats, dim lighting, clawed doors nearly impossible to spot unless getting down on hands and knees looking at the door base from different angles to catch the light.
    Iv had brand new carpets destroyed with poo and a stupid tenant who took it upon to srub and self-clean destroying the carpet and me not noticing until after check out as it was in a corner less lit area of the room. and tthe your left with a bill as the carpet may be a few years old but in perfect condition but the dps says is past it usefulness or it betterment so the idiot landlord needs to fork out for a new carpet, If the landlord misses anything at check out then tough luck!! too late for us to be left picking up the bills.
    Days of our time running after these issues we give for free, how about Mr . GOVE working for free.
    So there is an easy solution pets are allowed, but at check out for every pet hair found lodged in the corners or fibers of the carpet a 2 Pound charge will be levied, or if the landlord decides the whole carpet to be ripped out and replaced with a new one as there are tenants who are allergic to pets or just do not want the residual smell that comes with them, especially dogs (there is no denying this only a non dog owner can smell this , its like asking a smoker if he can smell cigarette smoke when entering a room the two days after). A completed professional disinfection of all the premises.
    The government is again making new regulations, all this will need to be paid for, the tenant complains, rightly, about unaffordable rents well guess what, the rents are about to rise again to pay for all the extra work the government is shoveing onto the landlords so as to appease tenant who is just unwittingly shooting themselves in the foot.
    so when a tenant complains of increasing rents .
    complain to the government that over the last 40 years they have forced the landlord to pay for gas safety certification, EPC, certification electrical, Deposit protection service and in turn we having to carry out detailed report before na after a tenant leaves. risk assessment for legionnaires, smoke alarms, co 2 alarms, no fees in contracts, right to rent investigations, the list goes on and on and on.
    Well done Mr tenant, Generation Rent you have just now managed through your winging to the government to raise your rents over 20 times over the years , at the end of the day the tenant will pay there is nothing free in this life, like or lump it.
    If a tenant buys their own home and becomes a homeowner then why arnt all these regulations forced upon them as homeowners, no alarm no co2 gas safe electrical epcs, list goes on and on.
    it is 10xs cheaper to run my own home than it is to run my tenant's home, Iif you want to live in a hotel you pay hotel prices this is what is now happening.
    I hardly ver used to raise my rent maybe once every 3 to 5 years and by a small margin, now I will be raising my rent by the maximum allowed by the government at every opportunity just so I'm not penalized and stuck with a low rent that I not allowed to raise to the market levels.
    Great job Generation Rent.

  • icon

    Dogs Trust say: “The measures announced as part of the Renters (Reform) Bill will mean that many more dogs can stay living with their loving families. This is great news for both owners and for the animal welfare sector alike.”

    BUT when LLDs sell up, due to some or all of the changes being forced upon us, some of those with their dogs will become homeless anyway. They will have less choice of other properties to live in (and higher rents). Even if some of those remaining to rent are forced to allow pets they previously didn't (and it is not going to be all properties that have to allow pets) will those extra homes that are forced to allow pets make up for the loses of rental stock (some of which might currently allow dogs but the LLD sells due to S.21 abolition etc)?

    Possibly not quite the "great news" the Dogs Trust claim.
    Whole package of 'reforms' hasn't been thought through, and those most affected are being ignored by Gove & Co..

  • George Dawes

    Who doesn’t love hearing a dog yap incessantly when their selfish owner goes out every day ?

  • icon

    I like dogs but couldn't eat a whole one.

  • icon

    I simply won’t be ‘told to accept pets’, although I do, but on my terms only.
    Anyone wanting to make an issue about it would find that I just might ‘ sell up’ right under their feet . Consequences :- homeless person AND pet!


    If this comes in as expected, I'd have a 'discussion' with any prospective tenants about the suitability or otherwise of the rental in my view for different types of pets so they know in advance. Which won't be unreasonable as I accept dogs in one large house with garden. Even though I'd prefer not to have to step in the uncleared dog faeces when the several large trees need pruning back every few years (and tenants know in advance I and arborists will be visiting, but don't clear up). At least they've been there long enough that even if the deposit doesn't cover all pet damage, the amount of rent paid should cover a future re-dec. and replacements.

    BTW My latest tenants are because their old landlord was selling up.

    I conduct the viewings, not the agents, and I know MY properties very well. Wonder how many realise the viewing is also thus an interview of them (bit like a job interview but not so one-sided).

    While one could discriminate (illegally on 'protected characteristics') I don't. But as I pointed out to the House of Commons Select Committee looking into the RPS proposals, reducing supply by ill-thought out 'reforms' will only make it easier for the less law-abiding landlords who might do.

    Which about sums it up: proposals intended (supposedly) to help tenants could rebound on the tenants who most need help; negging-off decent LLDS, while helping the less scrupulous ones (likely also to take advantage of shortage of supply and do the most 'greedy' rent rises).

  • icon

    Take all your carpets and Lino out of the house when letting to pet owners. Charge extra £300 pm rent on top to cover the other damage. If everyone did this problem would be minimised.
    Also get them to sign that they will take their old carpets and Lino with them when they leave or……. Just don’t have a pet when on an AST six month lease

  • Alan Bonde

    My Victorian houses are generally without carpets. I have had a policy over last few years of when a carpet is worn out it is not replaced but removed and the wood floors stripped and varnished. The only floor covering I now have are carpets on the stairs and lino, or engineered wood, in the kitchens and bathrooms.
    Tenants are welcome to provide their own rugs which they can go ahead and ruin as much as they want.

  • Suzy OShea

    Dog waste can ruin prepared or restored wooden floors more than it ruins carpeted and lino floors. I don't think removing the floor coverings protecting your floors is a good idea at all.

    Charging an extra £300 a month for a pet is a very good idea.


Please login to comment

MovePal MovePal MovePal
sign up