LandlordZONE recently reported on what could become one of the first real tests of the Renters’ Rights Act pet provisions after a tenant successfully challenged her landlord’s refusal to allow a cat in a one-bedroom flat.
The case attracted significant attention because it appears to confirm that broad concerns about suitability, potential damage or personal preferences may no longer be enough to justify saying no.
The article ‘Purrmission granted: Marshy the cat helps test pet rights‘ also highlighted that landlords cannot impose conditions designed to discourage pet ownership, reinforcing the principle that tenants are increasingly entitled to make decisions about how they live in a property they call home.
While tenant groups welcomed the outcome as a victory for renters, many landlords reacted very differently, arguing that yet another decision about what happens inside their own property has effectively been taken out of their hands and asking a rather obvious question:
“If I’m paying the mortgage, paying the insurance, paying for the repairs and carrying all of the risk, why don’t I get a say in what risks are and aren’t allowed in my own property?“
For years, the narrative has been that landlords simply don’t like pets. That has never really been true.
Many landlords have happily accepted cats, dogs and other animals where they trusted the tenant and felt confident the property would be looked after. And before MPs started calling for landlords to be held more responsible for Anti Social Behaviour of their tenants. The problem was never the pet itself. The problem was always the uncertainty about the owner and their accountability for any damage caused by the pet.
Because anyone who has spent time in the sector knows that while some pets are barely noticeable, others can leave thousands of pounds worth of damage behind.
Scratched doors. Destroyed carpets. Chewed skirting boards. Damaged gardens. Odours that require extensive cleaning and redecoration. Annoyed neighbours.
Most landlords can tell at least one horror story.
Yet under the new rules, landlords are increasingly finding that their option to make judgement calls on the risks pets hold is being taken away from them.
While landlords can advertise their properties as being unsuitable for pets or simply state their intention as “No Pets” to deter applicants from people who might want to keep a pet; as soon as an applicant becomes a tenant, they can ask to keep a pet and the landlord cannot just say no, regardless of what was said during the application process.
The decision of whether the tenant can keep pets is then taken out of the landlord’s hands and only “good reasons” will be considered in the decision.
Former agreements do not constitute as “good reason”, nor does any a blanket rule, such as “the flat’s too small”. Reasons must relate the size and nature of the animal to the particular property.
They cannot relate to the landlord’s previous experience of a pet being unsuitable for the same property, nor automatically to a landlord’s serious allergy to pet hair etc – even if it directly affects the landlords ability to carry out regular inspections of the property.
In this case, the tenant requested the free help of a pet charity who, in their own words, helped the tenant “win” permission to keep a cat in her home after “explaining” the new rules to her landlord.
Landlords now need a very good reason to say no rather than having the right or discretion to say yes, and it represents a fundamental shift in thinking: the power to manage risk has moved from those providing the homes to those occupying them and their interests are supported by free legal help to challenge landlords.
Responsibility for the consequences, however, remains exactly where it always was.
Not the government. Not the campaign groups. Not the charities or organisations that win cases for tenants. Not the politicians who draft the legislation. The landlord.
The case also determined that a landlord cannot even use conditional acceptance either – e.g. they cannot require a tenant to take out pet insurance and cannot be reimbursed for the cost of pet insurance if they take it out themselves. If they do, it will be a breach of the Tenant Fees Act. Likewise, it is not permitted to insist on professional cleaning through a landlord-approved contractor at the end of the tenancy under the Tenant Fees Act 2019.
If a pet causes damage beyond fair wear and tear, it is the landlord who has to organise repairs, manage disputes and often fund the work upfront. If the tenant leaves without sufficient funds to cover the damage, it is the landlord who picks up the bill.
That is why many landlords have never viewed pet ownership as a rights issue. They view it as a risk assessment exercise. Pets increase the risk of damage.
As well as the usual cats and dogs, the definition of a pet extends to snakes, goldfish, budgies, parrots, chickens, rabbits, rats, reptiles, amphibians, spiders and even goats, to name but a few.
A well-behaved pet may present very little risk at all. A poorly controlled pet can create thousands of pounds worth of damage and be a health hazard to others.
A suitable tenant will treat their home with the same care as a homeowner. Unfortunately, not all tenants are the same. The difficulty is that this legislation increasingly appears to treat them as though they are. With no meaningful requirement for tenants to demonstrate they can cover the cost of pet-related damage, the Government has effectively given tenants the right to keep pets while expecting landlords to absorb the financial consequences if the experiment goes wrong.
Likewise, checks to ensure the tenant is sufficiently responsible to have a pet appear to focus solely on the care they will show to the pet, with little to no provision for assurances or any reminder about the care they should also show to the landlord’s property and other people’s interests.
Those making the judgement are free to decide that a pet should be allowed, but there appears to be no obligation to revisit that assessment if circumstances change and no accountability if the decision later proves to have been misplaced.
The landlord, meanwhile, remains responsible for dealing with the consequences. All while the landlord’s ability to react to any problem – including nuisance pets – is reduced.
Under the Renters’ Rights Act, there is no mechanism for landlords to withdraw their consent to keep a pet in case of anti-social behaviour and landlords concerned by complaints from neighbours or an owner’s attitude/practice would have to prove the case in a court of law to take action against the pet/owner. Presumably without free help from a charity working on behalf of landlords’ interests or legal obligations.
At the same time, we have MPs asking parliament whether the government was taking steps “to make private landlords responsible for dealing with anti-social behaviour caused by their tenants”.
And presumably, that of their pets too?
What happens if a landlord is pressured by the Police, the Council or neighbours to serve an Anti Social Behaviour notice? Will they be given help to collect the type of evidence they need to win in court? And to serve the notice correctly?
Because any landlord who uses a ground for possession despite not believing that a court would order the possession, could face a penalty of up to £40,000 if the tenant leaves within four months without an order for possession being made. In addition to fines around the way the notice is served etc.
And what about the on-the-spot fines of £7,000 landlords can face for any hazard found in a property under new health and safety rules. Will that apply to health hazards – such as cats walking on food surfaces or unkempt litter trays – caused by other people’s pets in a HMO? Who will be held responsible for the decisions made by other people?
Perhaps the most telling sign of landlord sentiment about what is happening in the market itself.
Despite years of campaigning for more pet-friendly housing, the number of pet-friendly rental properties has reportedly fallen sharply.
When landlords feel they are being forced into accepting risks they are uncomfortable with, many simply leave the market altogether or become more selective about who they rent to.
Neither outcome helps the majority of tenants.
If keeping up with the latest landlord rules or protecting your own interests is starting to feel like herding cats, perhaps it’s time to stop chasing them? Stop defending your position and just start planning your exit. Like the thousands of landlords who have already had enough of battling systems that feel like they’re skewed against them.
Landlord Sales Agency can help you to take back control to protect your assets from unacceptable risks.