Your questions answered: Pet provisions in the Renters’ Rights Bill

The Renters’ Rights Bill is not yet law in England but is reaching the end of its journey through parliament.

This series examines the evolution of certain proposals and clarifies the current position for both landlords and renters. Missed our last article on Selling a rented property under the Renters’ Rights Bill? Check it out, here. 

Next up, we look at the key changes to renters’ ability to request a pet in a property.  

The original pet-related proposals 

When first proposed, the Renters Rights’ Bill included provisions that allowed renters the right to request to keep a pet in their rental property, which could not unreasonably be refused. Under these proposals, landlords would have been able to require pet insurance as a condition of consent, ensuring any potential damage would be covered. Owing to concerns around insurance availability and market limitations, this was dropped and subsequently an amendment was tabled in the House of Lords introducing a pet deposit of up to three weeks’ rent.  

What has changed? 

The government rejected proposals that would have allowed landlords to charge a pet deposit, and it is unlikely pet insurance will be brought back into discussions. The governments rationale included concerns that any requests for additional deposits would be unaffordable for renters.  

The current position 

Following these changes, the current situation for landlords and renters regarding pets in rental properties is as follows: 

• Renters retain the right to request permission to keep a pet 

• Landlords cannot unreasonably refuse these requests 

• Landlords cannot require renters to take out pet insurance as a condition of consent 

• Charging additional “pet rent” is not permitted under the revised proposals 

What does this mean for landlords? 

For landlords, these changes mean adjusting property management strategies. While they cannot mandate pet insurance or charge pet-specific fees, landlords can still: 

• Include reasonable conditions in tenancy agreements regarding pet ownership 

• Request that damage beyond normal wear and tear be addressed at the renter’s expense 

• Refuse pet requests where there are legitimate reasons (such as in properties where pets would be impractical or unsafe, or would breach a head lease) 

What does this mean for renters? 

For renters, the withdrawal of pet insurance requirements and pet deposits removes a potential financial barrier to pet ownership. However, renters should note: 

• They would still need to request permission to keep pets 

• They would remain responsible for any damage caused by their pets 

• Voluntary pet insurance may still be advisable to cover potential damages 

• A landlord may be able to reasonably refuse the request to keep a pet