The new ‘pets in lets’ rules brought in by the Renters’ Rights Act are a perfect example of how the power balance between landlords and tenants has been altered radically by Labour, but not necessarily for the better.
Following the legislation becoming law on May 1st, anyone renting out property within the private rented sector must now be careful how they behave when dealing with tenants requesting they live with a pet.
Landlords cannot refuse requests except in a few limited cases, including when pets in lets are restricted by head leases, for example.
This is a shame because what used to be an informal arrangement between tenants and landlords has now been turned into new red tape; landlords who don’t follow the rules and unreasonably refuse a request will be drawn into protracted mediation overseen by the new ombudsman for tenants, should the tenant/s choose to launch a complaint.
Informal approach better
My view on this is that the former informal approach will, in the long run, prove to have been more effective in managing the relationship between landlord and tenant than the new rules.
Why? Because while many campaigning organisations have quoted data from Rightmove and other portals showing that just 5% of rental properties say ‘pets allowed’, in practice, a significant majority of landlords allow pets with some requiring a ‘pet deposit’ to cover any damage by the animals to sofas, carpets and other furniture.
Instead, the Renters’ Rights Act gives tenants a right to have a pet through the back door, as most letting agents and landlords will not be able to ‘reasonably refuse’ requests in a blanket manner. Also, the Act prevents landlords or agents requesting protection, be it either an extra pet deposit or that tenants take out pet damage insurance or asking that tenants pay for professional cleaning at the end of the tenancy to get rid of pet smells and fur.
Pet insurance
Requiring pet insurance had been on the cards for landlords, but after some terrible political horse-trading in the Lords earlier this year, it was inexplicably ditched.
This will mean that tenants whose pets damage a property will not have to reimburse their landlord when they move out and, if the damage exceeds the original deposit, leave the landlord out of pocket.
Balance of power
This swings the power balance too much toward the tenant – a problem with much of the Renters’ Rights Act overall – and treats landlords as if they are offering a public service rather than a commercial one.
More worryingly, the new pet rules are already making it more difficult for both tenants and landlords to agree on pets and, as Jen Berezai, who runs advice service AdvoCATS, has said this week, many landlords and tenants simply have “no idea where they stand”. This is already leading to an increase in disputes.
Inexplicable decision
It would have been much better if landlords had been allowed to require tenants to take out pet damage insurance, but for reasons that few people, including me, can fathom, this was considered unfair on tenants – even though, as AdvoCATS itself says, many tenants have in the past voluntarily offered to take it out (and can still now). Sense would not appear to have prevailed.
