The Renters’ Rights Act has inserted a new Section 16A into the Housing Act 1988, which means that there is now an implied term in all assured tenancies that a tenant can keep a pet.
However, tenants must follow the statutory process and the landlord can turn down a request if they have a good reason.
This promises to be a big change as, according to 2024 data from Zoopla, only 7% of rental properties are advertised as suitable for pets.
In this blog post, I explain what landlords and tenants alike need to know about this new implied right for tenants, including the process tenants need to follow, and when it is likely to be reasonable for landlords to turn down a request.
If you’re looking for more guidance, my bestselling book, The Good Landlord Handbook, takes you through each stage of the tenancy cycle, with the rules in the Renters’ Rights Act fully integrated.
If you have questions, you can ask me at twice-monthly livestreams in my membership, The Independent Landlord Hub.
>> Related Post: How to reduce the risk of pet damage
>> Useful Resource: Free Model Pet Policy for Landlords in England
The new implied right for tenants to keep pets at a glance
- The process for tenant to ask landlord for consent to keep pet
- What is the definition of a “pet” in the Renters’ Rights Act?
- What are reasonable grounds for a landlord to refuse consent for a pet?
- What can tenants do if landlords turn down a request without a good reason?
- What the Renters’ Rights Act says about insurance against pet damage
- Do prospective tenants have the right to rent with a pet?
- Can landlords withdraw consent for an aggressive pet?
- What can landlords do to reduce the chance of pet damage?
The process for tenant to ask landlord for consent to keep pet
The implied right for tenants to keep a pet is not absolute, and is subject to following the procedure set out in Section 11 of the Renters’ Rights Act, and the landlord not having a good reason to turn down the request.
This is the process that a tenant need to follow if they would like to keep a pet, now the Renters’ Rights Act has come into force:
- The tenant must apply in writing to the landlord with a description of the pet for which consent is sought.
- The landlord must either give or refuse consent in writing within 28 days of the date of the request.
- The landlord may ask for further information if it’s reasonable, and the deadline for responding will be 7 days after the tenant provides the information to the landlord. If the tenant doesn’t provide the information, the landlord doesn’t need to give or refuse consent.
- If the landlord needs consent of a “superior landlord” (for instance, if they are a leaseholder and need the permission of the freeholder) and they apply for consent within 28 days of the tenant’s request, they can delay giving or refusing consent until 7 days following consent or refusal from the superior landlord.
What is the definition of a “pet” in the Renters’ Rights Act?
The definition of “pet” in the Renters’ Rights Act has caused much amusement. It is defined as “an animal kept by a person mainly for (a) personal interest, (b) companionship, (c) ornamental purposes” or any combination.
The first thing to point out is that it must be an “animal”. This very broad, and is not restricted to mammals. Section 1(1) of the Animal Welfare Act 2006 defines animal as a “vertebrate other than man”. Vertebrates include mammals, birds, fish, reptiles and amphibians.
The definition of pets is very wide, and as well as the usual cats and dogs, it extends to snakes, goldfish, budgies, parrots, chickens, rabbits, and even goats.
However, tenants don’t have the right to keep all pets; just those that the landlord does not have a good reason to refuse.
Whilst it might be reasonable to turn down a request for bantam hens for a property with a small garden, it might be appropriate for a house with a large garden in the countryside! (Yes, hens can be pets. I had very tame pet hens when I was growing up in New Zealand!)
What are reasonable grounds for a landlord to refuse consent for a pet?
There will be no one sized fits all list of reasonable grounds, and landlords need to consider requests on their merits on a case by case basis.
Here is my common sense approach to what is likely to be considered reasonable grounds to refuse a request:
- The Renters’ Rights Act specifically states that a landlord of leasehold property (eg a flat) may refuse a request if the lease prohibits it or if the freeholder or other superior landlord refuses to give consent, provided that they have taken “reasonable steps” to obtain that consent.
- The type of pet is not appropriate for the property, eg Great Dane in a studio flat.
- The number of pets is too high for the property, eg 3 dogs in a small flat.
- The landlord has reasonable concerns about the welfare of the pet, eg a request to keep a dog when the tenants do not work from home and/or the dog will be left for more than 4 hours a day on a regular basis.
- The landlord has good reason to believe the tenant will not be a responsible pet owner, eg after failing a home visit by an appropriate organisation.
- The landlord has an allergy to the pet in question.
- An HMO, unless it is a joint tenancy and all tenants agree to keeping the pet.
What can tenants do if landlords turn down a request without a good reason?
If a tenant believes that their landlord has unreasonably refused their request for a pet, they will be able to appeal against a refusal by escalating a complaint to the Private Rented Sector Ombudsman (once launched) or by taking the case to court.
As the Ombudsman will be free, it’s likely that’s what most tenants will do. Both parties will be able to submit evidence to the Ombudsman.
The judge or Ombudsman will then consider the evidence and decide what is right on the merits of the case.
What the Renters’ Rights Act says about insurance against pet damage
The Renters’ Rights Bill originally contained a clause that would insert an implied term into every tenancy that the tenant must comply with a request by the landlord to take out insurance against the risk of pet damage themselves or to reimburse the landlord for their reasonable costs of taking out the insurance.
If the landlord took out the insurance, they would have been able charge the tenant for the reasonable cost.
The Bill introduced an exception to the Tenant Fees Act 2019 for these costs and they were to have been permitted payments under the TFA.
However, this was removed from the Bill by the government in the Report Stage, and is not in the final version of the Act.
This means that a landlord cannot require a tenant to take out pet insurance and cannot be reimbursed for the cost of pet insurance. If they do, it will be a breach of the Tenant Fees Act.
Do prospective tenants have the right to rent with a pet?
No. The right to request permission to keep a pet in the Renters’ Rights Act only covers “tenants”, and not prospective tenants or applicants.
This means that landlords can still turn down applicants who wish to let a property on the grounds they have a pet. They can continue to have “No Pets” on adverts and listings (in contrast to “No DSS” and “No Kids”, which will be banned as constituting rental discrimination).
That said, as soon as they move in, tenants will be able to ask to keep a pet. In my view it’s far better for landlords to say they will accept reasonable pets, make themselves comfortable that the person is a responsible pet owner, and set expectations in a Pet Policy.
Organisations such as AdvoCATS in the East Midlands will independently check tenants, assess pets and behaviour/breed traits, and obtain vet references which demonstrate that the pet has appropriate healthcare. Here is a redacted example of a Tenant Check by AdvoCATS.
Can landlords withdraw consent for an aggressive pet?
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.
However, in the Committee Stage of the House of Lords, government Minister, Baroness Taylor advised that there are other steps that landlords will be able to take: “Landlords can seek to evict anti-social tenants for a broad range of anti-social behaviours under ground 14, which could include behaviour related to noisy, disruptive or aggressive pets. Landlords can also contact their local council’s anti-social behaviour team and the police if behaviour persists, which can culminate in anti-social behaviour injunctions being granted by the courts. In that instance, that could then ban the tenant in question from keeping a pet”.
Landlords might also be able to use Ground 12 (breach of tenancy agreement), if the tenant breaches the Pet Policy if incorporated into the tenancy agreement, eg by leaving a dog along for extended periods, causing a nuisance to neighbours. The judge would have the discretion to decide whether or not it’s reasonable to evict the tenant in the circumstances.
>> Related Post: How the new Section 8 Grounds for Possession will work in Renters’ Rights Act
What can landlords do to reduce the chance of pet damage?
Now the Renters’ Rights Act has come into effect, landlords need to accept pets, unless they have a good reason to turn down the request.
Pets do increase the risk of damage, but this is a risk that can be successfully managed, by carefully assessing the suitability of the pet for the property, giving permission for one particular named pet and not all pets, and having a Pet Policy.
You can read more about how to reduce the risk of pet damage in the Related Post below.
>> Related Post: How landlords can reduce the risk of pet damage
>> Useful Resource: Model Pet Policy for Landlords in England
* As an Amazon Associate and a Waterstones affiliate, I earn from qualifying purchases
Do tenants include long leaseholders, dealing with freeholders, in respect of this right to a pet?
The Renters’ Rights Bill doesn’t apply to long leases which were at least 21 years when granted (and there are transition arrangements for current leases over over 7 years). If a tenant is in a leasehold property that they rent from a leaseholder, the right to have a pet will be subject to the lease and any consent from the freeholder.
As a solicitor (and solicitor advocate in Scotland), I fundamentally disagree about the distinction between a ‘prospective tenant’ and tenant, and compliance with the Renters’ Rights Bill of advertising “no pets allowed’. This makes a complete and utter farce of the Bill, and, is clearly not the intention. What is the point of a landlord advertising a property with such a restriction? Given, the new tenant can apply to keep pets, which, as you state, cannot be unreasonably refused.
What this article fails to address is whether current legislation prevents a Landlord unreasonably withholding permission to keep pets – and my view is that the Consumer Rights Act indeed does so indirectly. I have challenged numerous ASTs on that basis, with invariably the landlord unaccepting it is indeed unreasonable where the act applies i.e. where the landlord is acting on what is considered a commercial basis. Thus, the new Bill explicitly enshrines a right that already exists.
In addition to being a lawyer, I am also a landlord, renting six properties – in all I have always allowed pets. Frankly, refusing is utterly prepsosturous and is a huge contributory factor do the inexorable rise in abandoned animals; sadly, I do not believe the general public is aware there is a means of challenging such inequitable contract terms by virtue of the CRA.
As a landlord and lawyer, I welcome all the provisions of the Renters’ Rights Bill, England and Wales significantly trails under jurisdictions, including Scotland, in ‘cleaning up’ and balancing the rent accommodation sector – at the moment, it is biased far too much in the interests of landlords, unsurprisingly given the history of so much English Law being rooted in property law.
I have to say that some of the comments made here are highly particular to Suzi’s personal views rather than a rational consideration of the wider landscape of renters and landlords rights.
I admit to having little experience in the matter, but hopefully this means I can view it with a broad and more open mind, skewed slightly by the prospect of being a potential landlord for at least a short period.
As an onlooker, my preliminary take on the Bill is that in seeking to tackle some issues of fairness and balance in the renter/landlord landscape, the balance has shifted significantly in favour of the tenant, to the extent that is injurious to the whole marketplace and is likely merely to benefit the legal profession rather than addressing the issue of improving the rental market for all parties. The softening of powers to remove a tenant that causes damage and fails to abide by the contract being a case in point.
The Bill also seems to discourage expediency for both renter and landlord where both may wish to have a short term arrangement which suits both parties. Now the new Bill gives a one-sided right to the renter to change their mind and stay for at least an additional 12 months, which seems totally skewed towards the renter.
Why a more simple Bill to protect renters from being evicted under section 21 at the whim of the landlord wouldn’t have been sufficient I can only conjecture!
I am hoping, that being a severe allergy sufferer triggered by many irritants and contaminants including pet fur and dander, and my aim to occupy the premises which, for financial reasons, will need to be rented out short term, will be sufficient justification to refuse thé request for a pet. For the record, I would add I am a pet lover and think they bring a lot of happiness and comfort to many people.
Secondly I believe it is highly spurious to intimate that landlord policies refusing pets is somehow responsible for the massive increase in pet homelessness. Surely this is a case of personal responsibility on those that take on pets rather than the responsibility of a third party who has nothing whatsoever to do with such a decision. This is surely an affront to common sense?
I sit more on the ‘other side of the fence’, representing clients with pets, advising them on all pets & property matters.
I’ve been an estate agent, search agent, am a dog owner and set up Pets Lets in 2019 to address the pets issue.
Nothing much will change with the Renters Rights Bill and pets. The word ‘unreasonable’ leaves landlords lots of ‘loopholes’ which they like and in a competitive rental market and with landlords selling up, 99.9% of the time there is another offer on the table and likely without a pet.
The inability to offer more than 1 month up front is really going to affect pet owners, regardless of the extra 3 week pets deposit.
No pets head leases will not change, which many tenants don’t realise either.
Sadly, I think you will find more tenants ‘sneaking’ in a pet, then once settled, saying you can’t ‘unreasonably’ refuse my pet!
Without Section 21 and ‘busy courts’, what do landlords do?
I’m not a great believer in this bill. It needs more balance rather than swinging from one extreme to the other.
This is all very well. But more consideration needs to be given to neighbours in blocks of flats and how noisy animals destroy their rights to live a peaceful co existence.
I advertise my property as ‘not for pets’ because I suffer an allergic rash and wheezing to cat & dog hair. I need to be able to inspect the property, but more importantly reside at the property between tenants to clean & refurbish.
If I don’t state “no pets” up front, then it will only lead to huge disappointment when I reasonably deny a future request from the tenant.
I also feel I am offering a service to my fellow sufferers who could move in without fear of suffering allergic reaction.
Jane’s comment about noise is also very valid, and also applies to some houses that have been built with thin walls, or in my case, walls with dab-and-dot plasterboard on the party wall which has the effect of amplifying noise from next door like a speaker.
Agee with Keith over Suzi s views . A personal opinion ,majority of animals abandoned because of landlords ? What a load of claptrap. Animals are let go because of higher costs of food , vet bills and so on