The Renter’s Rights Bill & Pets: What’s Changing

The Renters’ Rights Bill introduces some of the biggest shifts in tenant and landlord law in recent years—one of which is how pets are treated in rented accommodation.

Key changes include:

• Right to request a pet: Tenants will have a legal right to request permission from the landlord to keep a pet. Landlords will have to consider these requests.

• No blanket “no-pets” bans: A clause that bans pets across an entire property will no longer be automatically enforceable. Landlords must assess each request on its merits.

• Refusal must be reasonable: If a landlord refuses a pet request, they need a valid, justifiable reason. 

• Timescales for responses: A tenant must put a pet request in writing, with details of the pet. The landlord has 28 days to respond. If additional information is requested, the landlord has then 7 days after getting that info. 

• Pet insurance: Earlier versions allowed landlords to require tenants to take out insurance to cover pet-damage. But there have been amendments and reversals: in some cases the ability to require pet insurance has been dropped.

• Deposits & extra fees: There is discussion (and some amendments passed in the Lords) around allowing a pet deposit—for example, an extra few weeks’ rent as deposit where pet permission is granted. However, there are concerns from tenant groups about unfair upfront costs.

Impacts for Tenants

Pros:

• More opportunities to own or keep pets without having to move or fear eviction just because of a “no pets” rule. This improves quality of life, and for many, keeping a pet is important for wellbeing.

• Less uncertainty about what grounds a landlord can have to refuse—since there must now be reasonableness and written responses.

• Possibility to challenge refusals or delays under the new framework via ombudsman or legal channels.

Potential Challenges:

• Higher upfront cost: If there’s a pet deposit or other charges tied to pet ownership, that might increase the initial cost of moving in.

• Still not guaranteed: Even though landlords must consider requests, they can still refuse for reasonable reasons (size of property, lease restrictions, nuisance, etc.).

• Insurance uncertainty: Because that requirement (or lack thereof) is subject to amendments, there might be inconsistent practice in whether tenants are asked or expected to get pet insurance.

Impacts for Landlords

What Landlords Will Need to Do / Adjust:

• Review tenancy agreements & policies to remove or revise blanket “no pets” clauses, or to clarify how pet-requests are handled.

• Establish a process for handling pet requests: written request, timeline (28 days etc.), what information is required, how decisions/reasons for refusal are given.

• Decide whether to allow pet-deposits / insurance and how much risk they will absorb. Since the requirement for insurance has seen pushback, landlords will need to monitor what ultimately becomes law. 

• Consider property suitability: size, layout, neighbouring tenants (allergies, noise), lease/freeholder restrictions, etc. These will be legitimate reasons for refusal.

Risks and Concerns:

• Damage costs: Pets can cause additional wear and tear—carpets, flooring, alarms, fences, etc. Without insurance or sufficient deposit, these fall to landlords.

• Potential disputes: Over what is “reasonable”, what constitutes pet damage, or whether the landlord has delayed unreasonably, etc. These disputes might end up with ombudsman or courts.

• Higher management load: More vetting of pet-owners, possible check-ups (e.g., references, vet records), perhaps stricter cleaning or condition checks at tenancy end.

• Market implications: Some landlords may decide to exit the market or reduce pet‐friendly properties due to perceived increased risk. There is concern among landlord groups that the changes will push up insurance premiums, or deter investment.

For Tenants:

• When requesting a pet, be detailed: specify the type, size, breed (if applicable), where the pet will stay, how you will manage noise etc., references or vet records if possible.

• Offer to pay an extra deposit or provide pet insurance (if landlord expects it), to help reassure your landlord.

• Get the agreement in writing (“consent for pet”) to avoid disputes.

• Understand what “reasonable refusal” might look like before making a request: lease restrictions, property size, etc.Update all templates to be compliant: tenancy agreements, model clauses, process documents.

• Define what would count as “good reason” to refuse, and ensure you can show evidence if challenged.

• Keep records of all communications about pet requests and any information provided/asked.

• Ensure end-of-tenancy inspections are detailed; use checklists that pick up pet-related wear and tear.

• Consider insurance or pet deposit—but make sure it is proportionate and fair to avoid claims of unfairness.

Overall, the changes promise a fairer framework for tenants wishing to keep pets, giving them new rights while also embedding responsibilities. For landlords, there’s more work ahead in terms of policy revision, risk management, and communications—but also opportunities: pet-owners represent a significant portion of renters, and creating pet-friendly options may be a way to broaden appeal and differentiate properties.

• Animal welfare: One of the motivations behind the Bill is to reduce cases where tenants give up or abandon pets because they cannot find pet-friendly housing

• Housing supply & affordability: The changes may affect where landlords are willing to let to pet owners, and may subtly raise costs (insurance, deposits, cleaning) which might feed indirectly into rents.

• Legal clarity & enforcement: A lot depends on what “reasonable refusal” is defined as in practice, how ombudsman and courts interpret delays or denials, and how uniformly landlords adapt across the sector.

• Transition period: Implementation won’t be instantaneous. Both sides should prepare now, but expect that practices, market reaction, and legal precedent will evolve over time.