After Christmas a Private Member’s Bill in will go through its second reading in parliament, which aims to restrict the right of landlords or their agents to include ‘no pets’ policies in the UK.
Whether or not this bill comes to anything I’m pleased the issue is being highlighted, because in my time as a renter I’ve always found it strange how hostile some landlords are towards their tenants having pets.
As a landlord surely you want your tenants to be in a strong place mentally, and the likes of dogs and cats in particular have such a positive impact on issues like stress, anxiety and loneliness. It’s no wonder more people acquired pets during the pandemic.
It seems to me a tenant with mental health problems is broadly riskier for landlords – their decision-making is more likely to be impaired when it comes to allowing their rent to fall into arrears or the property falling into disrepair.
I get that landlords may see their properties experience more wear and tear if they allow their tenants to have pets, but surely that’s why you charge a deposit or last month’s rent in advance – so you can deduct money to pay for any repairs once they move out.
Even if you are nervous about pets in your properties, the least you could do is have a conversation about it, rather than having a blanket ‘no pets’ policy.
After all, there’s a big difference between a dog owner having a cavalier and a rottweiler, in terms of their potential for noise and destruction, though of course it depends on how well they’re trained in both cases.
People can be irresponsible tenants whether or not they have pets – some pets can mirror their owner. I’d argue that somebody who lets their pet cause damage would be quite likely to be irresponsible even without an animal.
Considering the close-minded nature of some policies, it’s no wonder that 78% of landlords have caught their tenant lying about keeping a pet.
Tenants aren’t daft.
They know that if they only stuck to properties labelled pet-friendly they would be unable to rent from a large proportion of landlords, while some would try to charge them higher rents, which seems over the top in my mind.
Of course, not every property is suitable for pets. If you have a dog for example it’s generally best to live somewhere with some green space nearby, while it seems cruel to keep large animals in one room in a house etcetera.
These nuances are something to look at.
The bill proposes that tenants be allowed to have pets only if the property is suitable, while they also need to demonstrate that they are “responsible owners” with a checklist of conditions. They need a vet’s confirmation of vaccinations, spaying or neutering, while they would need to demonstrate that the animal is free of parasites and has been properly trained.
These conditions should hopefully prevent issues arising from landlords having to accept pets in their properties, where it doesn’t make sense.
In sum however, I think there is a lot of weight to this government bill, as more landlords should be understanding about pets in the UK and beyond.
Just because somebody is a tenant and not an owner why shouldn’t they have the freedom to own a pet?
Having an animal doesn’t make somebody a bad tenant by default – it never did.
Ryan Bembridge, Editor, PropertyWire
