"The Renter’s Rights Bill aims to create a more inclusive rental sector, and rightly so, but without clear safeguards for landlords, particularly when it comes to pet-related damage, we risk creating uncertainty and conflict on both sides"
- Siân Hemming-Metcalfe - Inventory Base
The latest U-turn in the Renter’s Rights Bill (RRB) concerning pet ownership offers temporary relief for landlords worried about pet-related damage. However, according to Inventory Base, a property inspection platform, it raises more questions than answers, leaving the rental sector in a state of confusion.
The RRB would prohibit blanket ‘no pets’ clauses in tenancy agreements, requiring landlords to accept pets unless they can provide a valid reason for refusal. While the principle has been broadly welcomed, there is growing concern about how landlords will be protected against damage caused by animals.
One of the early proposals involved requiring tenants to purchase pet insurance. This was later withdrawn during parliamentary debate, leaving landlords without a clear means of financial protection. A new amendment has now been proposed allowing landlords to request a separate pet deposit, capped at three weeks’ rent.
Pet deposit proposal prompts more questions
Despite offering a potential compromise, the amendment’s future remains uncertain. It is still a proposal and has yet to be ratified. Given that several previous solutions have failed to gain traction, there is no guarantee this one will succeed either.
Even if the pet deposit is approved, there is confusion over whether it would be charged in addition to, or taken from, the existing five-week security deposit. If deducted from the existing deposit, it would provide no additional cover for landlords. If added on top, it raises affordability concerns for tenants, especially considering the original cap was introduced to prevent financial overreach.
This ambiguity conflicts with the government’s message of fairness. Tenants, the government says, should not be treated as second-class citizens and should be allowed to keep pets. But if pet ownership becomes dependent on a tenant’s ability to pay a larger deposit, the policy risks excluding lower-income renters.
Another key issue is accountability. It remains unclear who will set and enforce the new rules. Will this fall under the remit of government, deposit protection schemes, ombudsman services, or another authority? How will decisions reflect the practical realities faced by landlords, agents, and tenants?
Inventory Base believes that consistent collaboration is needed between organisations such as Propertymark, the Tenancy Deposit Scheme (TDS), mydeposits, the Deposit Protection Service, ombudsman bodies, and inventory professionals.
These stakeholders must align to ensure that risk is managed effectively, disputes are resolved fairly, and evidence is properly assessed.
Clarity, not confusion, needed for pet-friendly tenancies
Any effort to make pet-friendly tenancies work must be grounded in the day-to-day experiences of the rental sector. That includes understanding how damage is documented and how adjudications are handled.
Rather than pushing through changes without an implementation framework, the sector must establish a practical and credible model that supports tenants while protecting landlords from undue risk.
Inventory Base’s analysis of current listings in England shows just 7.5% of rental properties are currently pet-friendly. Even in the most accommodating region, the North East, only 10.7% of listings allow pets. With a major shift expected under the RRB, landlords will need reliable protection.
Steps landlords can take now
In the absence of final guidance, landlords are being advised to take precautionary steps. These include:
Updating tenancy agreements to align with the incoming legal framework
Creating guidance documents that outline acceptable reasons for refusing pets
Increasing the frequency of property inspections for pet-friendly tenancies
Considering modest rent adjustments to reflect the risk of potential damage
Keeping detailed records of tenant requests, refusals with reasoning, and pet-related property issues
These measures can help landlords remain compliant while maintaining oversight over their properties.
“We need a practical and enforceable framework,” says Inventory Base
“This latest U-turn on pet insurance highlights just how complex the balancing act is between tenants’ rights and landlord protections,” said Sián Hemming-Metcalfe, operations director at Inventory Base. “The Renter’s Rights Bill aims to create a more inclusive rental sector, and rightly so, but without clear safeguards for landlords, particularly when it comes to pet-related damage, we risk creating uncertainty and conflict on both sides.”
“Most landlords aren’t anti-pet, they’re anti-risk without recourse,” Hemming-Metcalfe continued. “That’s why the focus now must shift toward building a framework that’s practical, enforceable, and based on how the rental sector actually works today. We need consistent rules, a reliable mechanism for assessing pet-related damage, and clarity on who sets those standards. This is where inventory professionals, deposit schemes, and regulators must collaborate closely.”
“Pets can absolutely be part of a successful tenancy, but trust and protection must go both ways. We need to use this moment not just to remove blanket bans, but to replace them with a smarter, more responsible system that works for everyone.”
