Press Releases

Landlords cautious over Labour plans for pets in rented homes

Victoria Barker
Written by Victoria Barker

COMMENTING on proposals published today by the Labour Party, which would allow tenants to keep pets as the default positions in rented homes unless there is evidence that the animal is causing a nuisance, David Smith, Policy Director for the Residential Landlords Association said:

“The proposal raises a number of questions which we will work constructively with the Labour Party to address.

“Will landlords be able to charge higher deposits to reflect the increased risks of damage to a property where pets are allowed? Will insurance premiums increase for landlords to reflect the greater risk of allowing pets to be kept as a default position? What happens in shared homes and blocks of flats where one or more of the tenants do not want, or are allergic to, a pet?

“Labour will need to respond positively to all these points if landlords are to have confidence in this suggested policy.”


About the author

Victoria Barker

Victoria Barker

Victoria is the Communications Officer for the RLA.

With a degree in Journalism, she is responsible for producing articles for our Campaigns and News Centre, the weekly E-News newsletter and creating social media content.

Before joining the RLA, Victoria worked in the University of Salford’s press office, and during University she represented Smooth Radio at events across the North West, as a member of the street team.

1 Comment

  • I am appalled at this prospect. I am an animal lover and in fact run a UK charity for disabled dogs. However, a previous tenant had 2 dogs in my property without permission. They stopped paying the rent and as most would know it took a good couple of months or so to get repossession. Upon visiting my home (in the first instant when the tenant was in but would not answer the door) The small but landscaped garden was disgusting. Not one piece of excrement had been cleared in months (we did visits every 4 months) it was a tip and health hazard. Upon finally entering the property, it was horrendous, new carpets had been chewed through, new stair carpet had been chewed through and the wood beneath had been chewed as well as all architrave around doors. Kitchen floor tiles had also been chewed. In addition to the damage and disgusting state the bathroom had been left in which had to be gutted and renewed, the house could not be re-let for months. It cost me thousands of pounds to bring it back to a habitable state and time in lost revenue. This wasn’t my ‘fantastic money spinning business’ but my only source of income. I put a ban on pets after that episode and now again have allowed them back, but upon my vetting both the clients and animals, insisting on a larger Pet deposit and a Pet Policy clause to my AST. It still makes me nervous, but to have this thrust upon me as a landlord, as law would be outrageous. Who would cover the costs should I have a repeat situation ? certainly not any government (deposit didn’t come close and tenant disappeared)

Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.