Rental Searches for Pet Friendly Properties Decline Following Legislative Changes

Data from property portal Rightmove reveals a significant decline in rental searches for pet-friendly accommodation following recent legislative amendments that extended tenant rights regarding pet ownership. The figures indicate that searches for properties permitting pets fell by more than 50% during May and June when compared with the corresponding period in the previous year.

Under modifications to the Renters’ Rights Act implemented in May, landlords in England can no longer unreasonably decline requests from tenants wishing to keep pets in rental properties. The substantial reduction in specific pet-related searches suggests that prospective tenants may be altering their approach to securing accommodation that permits animals.

Industry representatives have raised concerns regarding potential misinterpretation of the new regulations. Megan Eighteen, immediate past president of ARLA Propertymark, the trade body representing letting agents, emphasised that whilst landlords must assess requests fairly and cannot unreasonably refuse them, they retain the right to decline where valid justification exists. She noted considerable scope for misunderstanding amongst tenants regarding the scope of pet-friendly provisions.

The Rightmove statistics suggest a strategic shift in tenant behaviour, with fewer individuals proactively filtering for pet-friendly properties during their search process. Whilst pets remain the most frequently searched term overall, surpassing gardens, garages and furnishings, the margin has narrowed considerably. The decline in pet-specific searches intensified throughout the year as the legislative changes approached implementation.

Marc von Grundherr, director at Benham and Reeves, reported instances of tenants disclosing pet ownership only after executing tenancy agreements, with others identified during property inspections. He observed that tenants now recognise the altered balance of power, with landlords no longer able to implement blanket prohibitions on pets and instead anticipating discussions regarding animal ownership occurring later in the letting process.

The current regulatory framework permits landlords to refuse pets under specific circumstances, including situations where another tenant has allergies, where the property is insufficiently sized for large or multiple animals, where the species is prohibited by law, or where a leaseholder is bound by freeholder restrictions on pet ownership.

The legislative amendments have provided relief to some tenants who previously faced difficult choices. Eve Williamson, a 41-year-old former hairdresser from London, was compelled to rehome her American Bulldog prior to the rule changes despite having previously kept a dog in the same property. She described the experience as particularly distressing given the emotional support the animal provided whilst she delivered full-time care to her mother. Khan has since been successfully rehomed, and Williamson expressed satisfaction with the regulatory changes.

Katie Smith, a 29-year-old tenant from Swindon who shares her rental accommodation with two cats, noted that available rental options diminish substantially on property portals when pets feature in search criteria. She advocated for landlords to afford opportunities to responsible pet owners.

Russell Hunt, founder of Pets Lets, a service matching clients with pet-friendly rental properties, reported that landlords continue to identify grounds for refusing prospective tenants with pets despite the new regulations. He suggested that landlords should evaluate each request individually, potentially utilising pet curricula vitae and considering relevant circumstances such as the temperament of older animals rather than implementing categorical exclusions based on size or number.

Landlord representatives acknowledge the significance of companionship that pets provide to tenants whilst highlighting ongoing financial concerns. Chris Norris, chief policy officer at the National Residential Landlords Association, stated that many landlords maintain legitimate apprehensions regarding risks posed by irresponsible pet owners to rental properties, or situations where owners attempt to keep pets in unsuitable accommodation.

Specific issues identified by landlords include the absence of authority to mandate tenant pet insurance, no legal entitlement to request additional deposits, and the burden of costs arising from pet-related property damage. Lesley Horton, the UK’s chief property ombudsman, clarified that landlords should not impose pet surcharges as these fall outside permitted fees for matters such as late payments or key replacement. Landlords may, however, make deductions from tenancy deposits at the conclusion of tenancies for substantiated pet-related damage.