Landlords hold back on pets as Renters’ Rights Act limits refusals

Landlords are making only limited moves towards pet-friendly letting, despite a major legal change due to take effect from 1 May. New industry data shows that most buy-to-let investors are holding back ahead of the Renters’ Rights Act, which will give tenants stronger rights to request a pet and restrict how landlords can respond.

Just 8.2% of rental listings in England currently advertise as pet-friendly, according to fresh analysis from inspection software firm Inventory Base. That figure is up only 0.6 percentage points since January 2025, suggesting minimal behavioural change among landlords as the reforms approach.

Pet-friendly rentals and landlord supply trends
Inventory Base’s review of live listings highlights wide regional variation, but little national momentum. The North East remains the most pet-friendly region, with 11.5% of rental properties allowing pets. It has also recorded the strongest annual increase, up 2.6 percentage points year on year.

By contrast, the East Midlands is the least accommodating area for tenants with animals. Just 5.6% of listings there are pet-friendly, and it is the only region to see a fall in availability, down 0.5 percentage points over the past year.

Siân Hemming-Metcalfe, operations director at Inventory Base, said the numbers point to caution rather than resistance. “Despite the Renters’ Rights Act significantly strengthening tenants’ ability to keep pets, this data shows that landlords are yet to meaningfully adapt, with pet-friendly listings increasing only marginally,” she said.

From a supply perspective, landlords appear to be waiting for clarity on how the rules will operate in practice before changing letting strategies.

Renters’ Rights Act impact on landlords with pets
From 1 May, private renters will have a legal right to request permission to keep a pet. This right will become an implied term in all assured tenancies, even where agreements are silent on animals. Landlords will be expected to consider requests reasonably and will no longer be able to charge additional rent or fees specifically for pet ownership.

At the same time, the proposed abolition of Section 21 will make it harder for landlords to regain possession where disputes arise, increasing the perceived risk attached to pets for some investors.

Hemming-Metcalfe noted that many landlords have not yet adjusted to this new balance of rights and obligations. “This suggests many are either taking a wait-and-see approach or have not fully prepared for the changes ahead,” she said. “As the Act makes it harder to refuse pet requests or regain possession where pets are kept, landlords now need to prepare for the fact that more and more tenants are going to be pet owners.”

The government has indicated that landlords will still be able to refuse pets on reasonable grounds, such as property suitability, but the burden of justification will be higher than under the current system.

Managing pet risk in buy-to-let properties
For landlords concerned about damage or long-term wear, industry bodies including the NRLA and Propertymark have consistently advised a focus on risk management rather than blanket bans. Detailed inventories, professional check-ins and clear clauses on tenant responsibilities are increasingly seen as essential tools.

Hemming-Metcalfe recommends regular inspections backed by robust evidence. Proper documentation, she argues, gives landlords greater confidence when agreeing to pets and a stronger position if disputes arise at the end of a tenancy.

For many investors, the question is less about ideology and more about control. With pet premiums banned and possession routes narrowing, the commercial case for pets will depend on how effectively landlords can protect their assets within the new legal framework.

Opinion
The data suggests landlords are not ignoring the Renters’ Rights Act, but neither are they rushing to embrace it. As with previous regulatory shifts, most appear to be waiting for test cases and clearer guidance before changing course. The risk is that late preparation leaves investors exposed when tenant behaviour changes faster than government policy.