For decades, finding pet-friendly rental accommodation in England has been a significant barrier for millions of tenants. The blanket "no pets" clause became standard across the private rented sector, forcing responsible pet owners to choose between their homes and their animals.
The Renters' Rights Act 2026 fundamentally changes this dynamic. From May 1st, tenants will have a statutory right to request permission to keep a pet, and landlords will no longer be able to issue blanket refusals without justification.
This chapter examines how the new framework operates, what constitutes reasonable grounds for refusal, and how pet insurance fits into the equation.
Prior to the Act, an estimated 70% of private landlords imposed blanket "no pets" policies on their rental properties. This often had nothing to do with the specific tenant, property, or animal in question: it was simply standard practice.
The Act makes such blanket prohibitions unenforceable.
Landlords can no longer include clauses in tenancy agreements that automatically prohibit pets. Any such clause inserted after May 1st, 2026 will be considered void and unenforceable in law.
This doesn't mean tenants have an automatic right to keep any animal they choose. What it does mean is that each request must be considered on its individual merits, rather than being dismissed out of hand.
The new framework establishes a formal process for pet requests:
The tenant submits a written request to keep a specific pet (or pets), providing reasonable details about the animal including species, breed, size, and age where applicable.
The landlord has 28 days to respond. This timeframe is fixed in the legislation to prevent indefinite delays.
Three possible outcomes exist: The landlord can grant consent, grant consent with reasonable conditions attached, or refuse on specific reasonable grounds.
If the landlord fails to respond within 28 days, consent is deemed to have been granted. This automatic consent provision prevents landlords from simply ignoring requests.
The Act doesn't provide an exhaustive list of what makes a refusal reasonable or unreasonable: this will inevitably be tested through case law over time. However, certain principles are already clear.
Property-specific factors may constitute reasonable grounds for refusal. A landlord managing a small studio flat could reasonably refuse a request to keep a large dog. A property with no outdoor space might reasonably be considered unsuitable for certain breeds with high exercise requirements.
Building restrictions can also provide reasonable grounds. If the property is a leasehold flat and the head lease prohibits pets, the landlord cannot grant permission they don't have the authority to give. Similarly, properties in buildings with specific insurance requirements that exclude animals may have legitimate reasons for refusal.
Evidence of damage or nuisance from previous tenancies with the same tenant could potentially constitute reasonable grounds, though landlords would need to provide documentation.
What clearly won't constitute reasonable grounds is vague concern about hypothetical damage, general dislike of animals, or maintaining a blanket policy across a portfolio.
The burden of proof sits with the landlord. If a refusal is challenged, they must demonstrate that their reasoning was both rational and proportionate to the specific circumstances.
One of the most significant elements of the new framework is the requirement for pet damage insurance as a condition of consent.
Landlords can require tenants to purchase and maintain insurance that covers damage caused by pets to the landlord's property and furnishings. This must be a reasonable requirement: landlords cannot demand coverage levels that are disproportionate or commercially unavailable.
This shifts the risk calculation substantially. Previously, many landlords refused pets because they bore all the financial risk of any damage. Now, that risk can be transferred to an insurance policy.
The insurance requirement serves both parties. Tenants gain access to properties they would previously have been excluded from. Landlords gain financial protection without needing to increase deposits (which are now capped at five weeks' rent under the Act).
Several insurers have already launched products specifically designed for this market, with annual premiums typically ranging from £50 to £150 depending on the type and number of animals.
It's crucial to understand that landlords cannot charge additional deposits for pets. The Act maintains the deposit cap at five weeks' rent regardless of whether pets are present.
This was a deliberate policy choice. The government's view is that pet damage insurance provides sufficient financial protection, and allowing higher deposits for pet owners would create a two-tier system that undermines the Act's purpose.
Some landlords have expressed concern about this provision, particularly for larger animals. The counter-argument is that proper insurance coverage, combined with routine property inspections, provides better protection than a deposit that might not cover significant damage anyway.
The Act also addresses the broader question of how tenants can make rental properties feel like home through minor alterations and personalisation.
Tenants now have the right to request permission for minor alterations such as painting walls, installing shelving, or fitting pet flaps. As with pets, landlords cannot unreasonably refuse such requests.
What constitutes a "minor alteration" isn't rigidly defined, but the principle is clear: changes that can be easily reversed or that don't affect the property's structure or safety systems fall into this category.
For pet-related modifications specifically, common requests include:
Landlords can attach conditions to their consent, such as requiring professional installation or that alterations be removed and the property returned to its original state at the end of the tenancy.
The key change is that consent cannot be withheld simply because the landlord prefers the property unchanged. There must be a legitimate property-related reason for refusal.
Both parties should maintain clear written records throughout this process.
Tenants should:
Landlords should:
This documentation becomes crucial if disputes arise. The new Private Rented Sector Ombudsman will have jurisdiction over pet-related disputes, and both parties will need evidence of their compliance with the Act.
If a landlord unreasonably refuses a pet request or attempts to charge additional fees, tenants have several routes for recourse.
The first step is typically the landlord's own complaint procedure, then escalation to their membership body if they belong to one.
The Private Rented Sector Ombudsman provides an accessible route for resolving disputes without court action. The Ombudsman can order landlords to reconsider decisions, remove unfair clauses from agreements, and award compensation where appropriate.
In serious cases, local authority enforcement teams can take action against landlords who systematically breach the Act's provisions. Penalties include fines and potential banning orders for the most serious offenders.
The pet provisions of the Renters' Rights Act represent a significant cultural shift in the English rental market.
An estimated 12 million households in the UK include pets. Making rental accommodation accessible to responsible pet owners doesn't just benefit tenants: it expands landlords' potential tenant pool and can improve retention rates, as tenants with pets often struggle to find alternative accommodation and therefore stay longer.
The insurance-based approach provides a practical solution to genuine concerns about property damage while removing arbitrary barriers that served neither party well.
As with all major legislative changes, implementation will reveal practical challenges and edge cases that weren't fully anticipated. The framework is designed to be flexible enough to accommodate reasonable concerns while ending discrimination against pet owners as a class.
The coming months will test how the system works in practice: but the principle is clear. Responsible pet ownership and responsible renting are no longer mutually exclusive in England under The Renters' Rights Act 2026.
Let Tech Solutions Ltd is an Appointed Representative of George Stubbs Insurance Services Ltd, which is authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority.
