Only 5.9% of rental properties across England are listed as pet friendly — just 5,839 out of approximately 98,964 properties. For landlords and tenants, that is about to matter much more because the blanket “no pets” approach is no longer a simple way to refuse a tenant’s request.

From 1 May 2026, tenants in England have a stronger right to request permission to keep a pet in their rented home under the Renters’ Rights Act 2025. In this edition of The Landlord’s Brief, we explain the rules for pets in rental properties, the 28-day response deadline, what counts as a reasonable refusal, and an important piece of misinformation about pet insurance that landlords need to know is wrong.

The Act implies into all private sector APTs a right for the tenant to keep a pet at the property with the landlord's consent, which is not to be unreasonably withheld. This is not an automatic right to have a pet without asking — it's a right to have your request properly considered rather than refused by default.

A tenant can ask to keep a pet at the property, but the request must be made in writing and should include a description of the pet. Landlords should assess the request based on the individual property and the specific animal involved, rather than applying a blanket "no pets" approach.

The blanket ban is specifically what's now illegal. Since 1 May 2026, a landlord can no longer rely on a blanket pet ban without considering an individual request on its merits. If your tenancy agreement still contains a flat "no pets" clause, it's unenforceable — but that doesn't mean every request must be granted. It means every request must be genuinely considered.

In most cases, a landlord must reply in writing within 28 days of receiving the tenant's request. Silence is not a safe option — an unanswered request risks being treated as a breach of the Act in the same way an unreasonable refusal would.

The extension mechanism: that timescale can be extended in some situations — if the landlord reasonably asks for more information about the pet within the first 28 days, they can delay their final decision until 7 days after the tenant provides that information.

This gives you a legitimate route to more time without simply ignoring the deadline. If a tenant's request is vague — "I'd like to keep a dog" with no further detail — writing back within the 28 days asking for the breed, size, age and any relevant history resets your response clock to 7 days after they answer.

This is the part that requires genuine judgement, not a formula. Reasonable refusals include a superior lease or freeholder that bans pets, or a property genuinely unsuitable for the animal. A blanket "no pets" rule, or a vague worry about possible damage, is not enough.

Legitimate grounds for refusal:

Not legitimate grounds:

Landlords should note that failing to respond within the required timescales, or refusing without a clearly documented and reasonable justification, may amount to a breach of the Act. The word "documented" matters — the same pattern this newsletter keeps returning to. A refusal you can explain clearly in writing, tied to specific facts about the property or animal, is defensible. A refusal based on general discomfort is not.

Here's a piece of misinformation worth correcting directly, because it's circulating in some landlord guidance online: some sources claim landlords can require tenants to take out pet damage insurance as a condition of consent. This is incorrect.

The clause that would have let landlords require tenants to take out (or pay for) pet-damage insurance was removed before the Act passed. Pet insurance is not a permitted payment. Landlords cannot make insurance a condition of consent or charge tenants for it — that would be a prohibited payment under the Tenant Fees Act 2019.

A tenant may choose to buy insurance voluntarily, but it should not be made compulsory as a condition of consent.

If you see guidance — including from some letting industry sources — suggesting you can require pet insurance as a condition of granting consent, that guidance is out of date or simply wrong. The provision was proposed during the bill's development and specifically dropped before Royal Assent.

With compulsory insurance off the table, your protection against genuine pet damage runs through the existing deposit framework, not a new mechanism.

GOV.UK guidance says a landlord can choose to keep money from the tenancy deposit to cover repair costs caused by pet damage, provided they do not recover the same loss twice. As with any tenancy, the normal deposit rules continue to apply, and the Tenant Fees Act guidance for England still limits the maximum tenancy deposit by reference to the annual rent.

This connects directly to Edition 16 on deposit protection. Pet damage is treated exactly like any other tenant-caused damage at the end of a tenancy — assessed against the inventory, evidenced with photographs, and deducted from the deposit through the normal scheme process if the tenant disputes it. The deposit cap — five weeks' rent for most tenancies — hasn't changed to accommodate pets specifically, so your existing evidence discipline from move-in inventory through to check-out is what actually protects you, not a special insurance requirement.

If you feel that your landlord has unreasonably refused your request, you can contact the Private Rented Sector Ombudsman or take the case to court. The Ombudsman or court will make the final decision based on the evidence provided by you and your landlord.

This is where the documentation point becomes concrete. A refusal decision that reaches the Ombudsman — covered in Edition 25 — will be judged on your written reasoning and the evidence behind it. A landlord who can produce a specific, property-linked justification is in a fundamentally stronger position than one who can only offer a general objection after the fact.

Given how few properties are currently listed as pet-friendly against how many tenants are likely to test this right, having a clear process before requests start arriving is worth the hour it takes.

What a sensible process looks like:

✅ Remove blanket "no pets" clauses from template agreements — they're unenforceable from 1 May 2026 and create a false sense of protection.

✅ Respond to every written pet request within 28 days — silence risks being treated as a breach.

✅ Ask for more detail early if the request is vague — extends your deadline to 7 days after they respond.

✅ Only refuse for genuine, documented reasons — a superior lease restriction or specific property/animal unsuitability. Not a general preference.

✅ Never require pet insurance as a condition of consent — this was dropped from the Act and doing so is a prohibited payment breach.

✅ Rely on your existing deposit process for pet damage protection — assessed against the inventory like any other damage, within the normal deposit cap.

✅ Write down every refusal reason at the time — this is your defence if the tenant escalates to the Ombudsman or court.

✅ Check your own lease for superior restrictions before responding — if pets are banned above you, that's your genuine ground, but document that you sought consent promptly.

The pet request right doesn't force landlords to accept every animal — it forces landlords to actually engage with every request rather than defaulting to no. The properties that will struggle with this change are those with genuinely unsuitable conditions for pets and no clear process for explaining why. The properties that will navigate it easily are those with a simple, documented, property-specific process for every request that comes in.

With under 6% of properties currently marketed as pet-friendly against a growing tenant demand for exactly that, landlords who build a fair, defensible pet-request process may find themselves with a genuine competitive advantage in a market where most competitors are still relying on a policy that no longer legally works.

Track pet requests, response dates, decisions and reasoning across your portfolio — the documented process the Ombudsman will expect to see if a refusal is ever challenged.

£19 one-time, instant access 👉 uklandlordproperty.gumroad.com/l/oahbhl

Also on Etsy 👉 tlbtemplates.etsy.com

Coming up next edition — Ground 1 and Ground 1A: selling up or moving in, and the new restrictions on re-letting.

The Landlords Brief is published for UK landlords. Subscribe free at thelandlordsbrief.co.uk. This newsletter is for general information only and does not constitute legal or financial advice.