Pets have long been a problem with rented property.

Tenants want, and often need, the benefits, in particular mental health benefits, that having a pet can bring.

Landlords, on the other hand, are worried about pet damage and being unable to recover the cost of repair and rectification works.

They are also worried about delays in reletting the property due to having to deal with pet-related damage and carrying out deep cleaning so the property can safely be returned to any prospective tenants with pet allergies. Which can also impact their income.

As a result of landlord negativity about pets, very few landlords allow them.

Apparently, only 7% of rental properties are advertised as being ‘pet friendly’ and the Battersea Dogs & Cats Home reports that around three in four renters are affected by landlord negative pet policies.

However, landlords are going to have to change their attitude once the Renters Rights Bill becomes law.

Changes in the Renters Rights Bill

The relevant clauses in the bill are 10 and 11, which will amend the Housing Act 1988 and the Tenant Fees Act 2019, respectively.

These apply to tenancies regulated by the act (which will be assured tenancies as assured shorthold tenancies are to be abolished) that are not social tenancies.

The clause starts off by making it an implied term of tenancies regulated by the act that tenants can keep a pet if

• They ask permission in the proper way, and
• The landlord consents – which consent the landlord must not refuse ‘unreasonably’

The procedure to follow:

There is then set out a procedure to be followed (as the bill is currently drafted):

• The tenant must request permission to keep a pet in writing, giving details of the specific pet they want to keep. So, the act does not provide for general permission to keep animals at the property, it must be a specific pet.
• The landlord must, in most cases, give or refuse permission in writing on or before the 28th day after the tenants’ request
• The landlord, though, during this period, may request further information from the tenant about the pet
• If the tenant fails to provide this information, then his request will lapse and the landlord does not have to do anything about it.
• If the information is provided, then the landlord can delay his decision until 7 days after the information was provided
• If the landlord’s head-lease requires him to obtain permission, he must write to his superior landlord during the 28 day period and can delay responding to the tenant until 7 days after he has heard back from his landlord.
• The landlord and tenant can also agree that the landlord can delay giving permission until a date agreed between them,

So that’s the process.

The bill goes on to say that:

• The fact that the tenant does not actually own the pet does not affect the need for the tenant to ask permission for it to be kept at the property.

So tenants can’t say “its nothing to do with me gov, that dog belongs to my brother” if the dog is clearly spending all its time at the property. They must ask for permission and will be in breach of their tenancy agreement if they don’t.

Does the bill give any reasonable reasons for refusing permission?

The act only considers the situation where the landlord holds the property under a lease. So:

• If the lease prohibits pets, then the landlord (A) must refuse permission. He will risk forfeiture of his lease if he doesn’t.
• If the lease requires A to request permission, then he must do this within the 28 day period.
• A can delay responding to the tenant until the 7th day after he has heard back from his landlord (B)
• If B refuses permission, then A can (and indeed must) in turn, refuse permission to his tenant.

Apart from this, the bill does not give any help to landlords as to what a reasonable reason for refusal would be.

Insurance

One of the objections to pets normally raised by landlords is the cost of pet damage to their property. The bill deals with this by making it an implied condition that landlords can require tenants, as a condition of their consent:

• To take out and pay for insurance covering the risk of pet damage ‘ to a level that is reasonable having regard to the pet and the dwelling-house in question’, or
• Pay the landlords reasonable costs of either taking out this insurance themselves or any increase in the premium of their existing insurance of extending the cover to include the pet damage.

The act goes on to say that

• If they don’t tell the landlord the pet is no longer at the property, then they will remain responsible for the insurance cost, and
• They may also be responsible for any excess payable by the landlord under his insurance (for example, if he has to make a claim).

The bill then provides for the Tenant Fees Act 2019 to be amended accordingly to allow this.

However, there are still question marks regarding this. For example,

• If it is the tenant who is responsible for paying the premiums, will the landlord be notified if the payments are not made?
• If the insurance cover lapses will this be a ground for possession?

What is a pet?

The final thing the bill does (or will do) is insert a new definition of a ‘pet’ into the Housing Act.  A pet being an animal kept mainly for

(a) personal interest,
(b) companionship,
(c) ornamental purposes (presumably fish in tanks), or
any combination of paragraphs (a) to (c);

This, however, leaves out working animals. For example:

• Sniffer dogs
• Regimental dogs and goats (who usually have an official rank in the army, a salary and a uniform)
• Therapy animals – such as dogs, alpacas and horses who attend at old people’s homes and hospitals to help people’s mental health, and
• Assistance dogs (although these are covered under the Equality Act).

It’s not clear whether these animals will be covered by the procedure and time limits set out above.

Are landlords right to be worried about all this?

The fact that they are going to have to allow pets is one of the things which is causing landlords to worry about their future once the bill is made law. It may also be a contributory factor for some landlords selling up and leaving the sector.

But are they right to be worried about pet damage?

An interesting new report from the University of Huddersfield, ‘The financial impact of pet ownership in rental properties’, commissioned by Battersea Dogs & Cats Home, has now thrown doubt on this.

The report sets out the various positive things which flow from tenant pet ownership:

• Longer tenancies,
• lower vacancy rates,
• lower marketing costs,
• higher rental income,
• stronger community ties,
• improved wellbeing (of the tenants), and
• improved landlord/tenant interactions

They then identified the costs as

• Pet-related damage,
• complaints and noise,
• additional management time, and
• higher insurance premiums

Under the bill, insurance premiums will be paid by the tenants, so that won’t be a problem. What about the other items?

The report found that, on balance, landlords were actually better off if they rented to tenants with pets.

In fact, it seems that most pets do not cause damage, which results in significant costs to landlords –

• 76% reported no damage and
• 73% did not see any increase in wear and tear due to the pets.
• 84% did not have to deal with complaints from neighbours

For the few landlords who did report damage, it tended to be minor or of moderate severity.

Overall, they found that there was more damage from tenants without pets than from tenants with pets!

So, according to the report, landlords are no worse off by allowing tenants to keep a pet. Indeed, they suggest that landlords are likely to be better off.  As their tenants will stay longer and there will be better landlord / tenant relationships.

On a personal note:

We have recently adopted a dog, and apart from scratching the floor a bit, he has not caused any damage to the fabric of our house.  Despite the fact that he is in the destructive adolescent puppy stage.

Damage has mainly been confined to things like my padded headphones and my husband’s glasses case. He also objects strongly to newspapers, which, given half a chance, he shreds to bits. No doubt, he feels that our time would be better spent playing with him or giving him a belly rub (to which he is addicted).

So our experience bears out the report’s findings.

What could a reasonable reason for refusal be?

As it looks as if landlords’ fears of extensive property damage are (in the main) misplaced and, in any event, will be covered by the deposit and/or insurance, what reasons could a landlord reasonably give to refuse permission for a pet?

The copper-bottomed cast iron reason is that it is prohibited by the landlord’s headlease.  But this will in the main, only apply to some flats.

Other reasonable reasons could include:

• The property is (genuinely) unsuitable for the pet concerned. For example, a small top-floor flat with no lift for an older dog with mobility issues.
• Other tenants, neighbours or indeed the landlord, are allergic.
• Other tenants (in particular in an HMO) have been consulted, and they have objected
• The particular pet has a history of poor behaviour
• Other tenants or, indeed, neighbours do shift work and are worried about daytime barking.

But, reasonability will normally depend on the actual facts of the property and the pet concerned.

Insofar as dogs barking is concerned, this usually happens if they are left alone for long periods. So this is also something landlords should check.

If the tenant is going to be leaving their dog alone all day while they are out at work, it could be reasonable to make permission conditional upon employing a dog walker or sitter to spend time with the dog so barking is less likely to occur.  Plus, it will be much better for the dog.

Generally, landlords need to reference the pet carefully as well as the tenant, as this will normally throw up any issues that would justify refusing permission. We have guidance on this in our (open access) Landlord Law article on letting to tenants with pets.

The new Landlords Redress Scheme

Compliance with all these new rules is made more likely due to the fact that the bill also provides for an Ombudsman and a new landlord’s redress scheme to enforce them.

We are told that the Ombudsman’s orders will be enforceable by the courts as if they were a court order, and non-compliance will also be a ground for tenants applying for a Rent Repayment Order.

As Rent Repayment Orders are due to be increased to up to 2 years worth of rent (which tenants can enforce by withholding future rent) this is going to be a substantial check on landlords’ rights to withhold permission unreasonably.

Particularly as landlords will no longer have the right to evict tenants under section 21.

So landlords need to be really careful how they deal with applications to keep a pet. I would advise careful referencing of the pet, meeting it with its owner, and (if possible) visiting the pet in its existing home to check that it is not badly damaged!

And finally

Landlords will have to come to terms with the fact that in the majority of cases, they will have no alternative but to consent to tenants keeping a pet – provided the pet is suitable and well-behaved.

However, so long as they do this and permission is confined to appropriate situations, it looks as if fears of extensive pet damage and poor pet behaviour are (in the main) misplaced.

Indeed, they may find that allowing pets is financially beneficial.

However, when pets are allowed, landlords are strongly advised to amend their tenancy agreements to provide suitable clauses. For example:

• That the tenant cares for the pet properly
• That the animal is (if appropriate) microchipped, and treated regularly for fleas
• That the pet is (if appropriate) regularly vaccinated
• That dogs are not left alone for longer than 4 hours
• And so on.

We have had a pet permission and tenancy amendment form for many years for our Landlord Law members but a copy can be purchased online.

If you have any thoughts on or comments about this post, feel free to comment below.

The post What’s new for pets in rented properties under the Renters Rights Bill? appeared first on The Landlord Law Blog.

Landlord Law Newsround brings you all the latest housing news and more.

Official – over 55’s are fastest growing tenants

Paragon Bank has carried out research and has claimed that the number of over 55 year olds now renting has grown by 66% in the last decade to 492,000.

Those aged over 65 are close behind, with a 33% increase to 433,000.

They claim that there has been a reduction in the number of younger people renting. Those renting between 25-34 years old has fallen by 9% to 1.45 million.

Paragon’s managing director, Louisa Sedgwick says

Given the ageing demographic of the UK, we would expect this trend to continue, so landlords need to be mindful of the needs of more mature tenant groups and adapt their approach to suit their needs.

She adds that these statistics have ‘broad implications for the sector and policymakers’.

As expected, there has been a demand for more accessible rental properties as the demographics change to older renters. Leader Romans Group has stated this week that 40% of renters are now seeking homes without stairs, non-slip floors, handrails, wider doors and walk-in showers.

The portals are also now including ‘accessible features’ as part of their searches.

You can read more here.

Rent arrears concern continues to grow

Google has shown an uplift of 8.6% of ‘rent arrears’ searches, according to Zero Deposits data over the past three months. This could be down to the uncertainty of the Renters Rights Bill and what the tenants’ rights will be, but evidence also shows that it is also down to tenants struggling financially and wanting to know how they stand legally.

The Renters Rights Bill has seen an increase of 340% in Google searches from both landlords and tenants seeking to find out how it will impact them when it comes into force mid next year.

Sam Reynolds Chief Exec of Zero Deposits, said

An increased interest in rent arrears is a potentially worrying sign and could indicate that more existing tenants are struggling to manage the high cost of renting, whilst landlords are also concerned about the protection in place to ensure they maintain a consistent stream of rental income.

With many changes due to come into force with the new bill, it is hardly surprising that there is a lot of interest in how it will affect both renters and landlords.

Overcrowded HMO hit with massive fine

Newham Council’s Environmental Health Officers have successfully brought a rogue HMO landlord to justice and cour,t resulting in a massive £60,000 fine, where the landlord had families living in dangerously overcrowded accommodation that was infested with mice.

Mr Ilyas Patel was also told to pay additional costs, bringing the total fine to over £63,977. When council officers inspected the property back in 2023, they found five rooms occupied by four unrelated families with small children, all 13 occupants were sharing one kitchen and bathroom. Tenants were paying £600-£750 pm rent.

Newham council is one of the few councils that proactively goes out looking for hidden HMOs rather than waiting for tenants to raise complaints and fear retaliation from their landlord. Their spokesperson said

This verdict sends a strong message to landlords and managing agents that overcrowded, unsafe, and unlicensed properties will not be accepted in Newham.

Well done to Newham Council.

Landlords morale drops with impending changes

Savills claims in its recently carried out research that 73% of landlords are feeling less confident as we end this year due to the Renters Rights Bill, abolishment of section 21 and the unknown costs in making their properties more energy and EPC efficient.

Over half of landlords, 57%, have ‘significant concern’ regarding the increase in notice period for rent arrears (notice going to four months) and the added delay in getting possession.

41% of landlords are worried over energy efficiency upgrade work, all private rented housing must be at an EPC C by 2030. Costs for making houses more energy vary considerably, along with what landlords are prepared to pay.

You can read more here.

Snippets

City council slammed for ‘double standards’ over HMO licensing
Judge orders landlord to pay back tenants £44,000
Landlord selling up is fuelling the homelessness crisis – NRLA
HMRC campaigns for landlords to get on board with Making Tax Digital

See also our Quick News Updates on Landlord Law

Newsround is taking a break over the Christmas period and will be back again in the new year

The post Landlord Law Newsround #369 appeared first on The Landlord Law Blog.