Pictures of household pets; a mouse, a dog, a cat and a lizard

Category: renters reform bill

The government has responded to a report from the Animal Sentience Committee (ASC) regarding their views on pet welfare, which confirms that tenants will be allowed multiple pets in rental properties, amongst other provisions.

Within the Private Rental Sector (PRS) there is a great deal of concern from landlords over tenants having pets, due to the potential for damage to a property.

With tightening legislation around deposits, it became difficult for landlords to mitigate this risk by reserving a larger deposit, where tenants had pets in the household.

Renters Reform Bill provisions around pets

The Renters Reform Bill (RRB) seeks to address this issue, but clarity on the subject was required which has now been published and responded to by the government.

Initial guidance was given in the RRB, supporting pet ownership, by:

  • requiring landlords to fully consider all requests from tenants to keep pets and not to unreasonably withhold consent;
  • amending the Tenant Fees Act 2019 to provide that landlords can require insurance covering pet damage as a condition of granting consent;
  • setting a maximum timeframe for the landlord to respond to any requests made by the tenant so that the tenant is not kept waiting for too long for a decision;

And that:

  • tenants will be able to escalate a complaint about unreasonable decisions by the landlord to the PRS Ombudsman or through the courts

The ASC report and recommendations on tenant’s pets

In their recommendations, the ASC have asked the government to liaise with “a wider range of animal welfare organisations to ensure the needs of all pets (not only dogs and cats).” They reference including advice from “Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA), local authority welfare inspectors and animal rescue and rehoming centres.”

The committee also recommends that tenants are allowed to request more than one pet within their household, to support animals that are inherently social and require company for their wellbeing, and to stop re-homing of pets being necessary at the start of a tenancy.

The ASC also acknowledge that the changes allowing pets in rental homes more readily are likely to increase the pet population. As a result, they have stipulated dialogue with welfare and rehoming organisations is important to the process.

Point by point, the government responded to five key recommendations which stipulated that:

1) Landlord guidance on what would be considered reasonable, from the perspective of animal welfare, should be drawn up with help from a wider range of organisations, beyond those who just deal with dogs and cats.

The government has agreed to this and has “initiated dialogue with a range of relevant stakeholders such as animal welfare organisations which focus on less common pets (such as reptiles, amphibians, birds etc)”. The government is also turning to the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) “to ensure that the bill is consistent with the government’s wider policy objectives on animal welfare and the environment”.

2) Guidance documentation should allow tenants to request that more than one pet can live at their rental property, to ensure the welfare of ‘certain social animals’.

The government has stated that the RRB was always intended to mean that tenants could request and keep more than one pet, “if it is reasonable to do so”. It was also acknowledged that this may be the best outcome for some animals too.

3) Existing pets should be considered for their welfare and to avoid disruption and the risk of re-homing at the start of a tenancy.

The government stated that the RRB stipulates that landlords must not unreasonably refuse a pet in a rental property and that that stance should apply for over the entire tenancy period.

As an acknowledgment of landlord concerns around damage from pets, the government response also included this extract:

Allowing landlords to require, or charge for, insurance covering pet damage will provide reassurance for landlords that the cost of any damage caused by pets will be covered by the tenant and lead to a more pet friendly PRS. As a result, we expect that over time, landlords will be less likely to reject prospective tenants simply because they have pets.

4) Further consultation with the RSPCA and other stakeholders regarding animal welfare and animal rehoming are necessary, because by allowing tenants to keep pets there will likely be an increase in issues and challenges that need to be dealt with effectively.

In their response, the government named Battersea Dogs and Cats Home, Dogs Trust, Cats Protection and Defra and as organisations they had been working with. They confirmed this will continue and widen, to include stakeholders the ASC recommends, including the RSPCA.

5) Training should be given to the Ombudsman relating to the redress scheme, given that future claims would likely involve animal welfare and disputes, as to whether a landlord has reasonably or unreasonably refused tenant requests to keep pets.

Here the government stated they will ensure the PRS Ombudsman:

…has the skills and knowledge to handle complaints and disputes between tenants and landlords in a fair and effective manner. We are exploring training for the Ombudsman on a range of topics that are relevant to the Renters (Reform) Bill, such as the new pets’ measures, and the private rented sector in general.

Common reasons landlords refuse pets, according to government website Moneyhelper, include:

  1. Property damage
  2. Insurance add-on costs for pet damage
  3. The pet being unsuitable for the property type
  4. Irresponsible pet owners
  5. The risk of flea and tick infestations
  6. Freeholder rules preventing pets

Under the RRB points 1, 2 and 5 appear to have been addressed with the facility for landlords to insist on insurance, or to be able to charge for insurance to cover damage costs. But the stress and inconvenience of resolving any issues - or interruptions to a property being able to be let, may yet be a problem.

If the landlord is being reasonable in their assessment of property suitability, then point3 and 6 should resolve these issues.

Nonetheless point 4 may remain an unknown quantity and difficult to resolve.

For landlords who have had bad experiences with tenants pets, being forced to accept pets in their property will likely still be a prospect met with strong concerns. Hopefully the steps outlined above will mitigate them.

You can read the full government response here.