The Renters’ Rights Act has changed the conversation around pets in rented properties. For insurance brokers, the reforms provide an opportunity to help landlord clients understand both their responsibilities and the potential financial exposure created by pet damage.
The key message is one of balance. Tenants have greater rights to request a pet, but landlords can still refuse where there are reasonable grounds. Tenants also remain responsible for damage caused by their pets. What landlords cannot do is simply transfer the cost of insuring that risk back to the tenant.
With landlord insurance policies taking different approaches to pet damage, brokers have an important role in identifying whether clients are already protected or whether a genuine gap in cover exists.
A right to request - not an automatic right to keep a pet
Since 1 May 2026, tenants under most private assured tenancies in England have had a statutory right to request permission to keep a pet.
The landlord must consider the request and cannot unreasonably refuse it. However, this does not give tenants an unrestricted right to keep any animal in any property.
A tenant should make their request in writing and provide a description of the pet. The landlord will generally have 28 days to respond.
The important question is therefore what constitutes a reasonable refusal.
Government guidance provides some useful examples. Refusal might be reasonable if the property is unsuitable for the particular animal, another person living at the property has an allergy, the animal is illegal to own or there are legitimate restrictions imposed by a superior landlord or freeholder.
By contrast, a blanket objection to pets is much harder to justify. Simply disliking pets, having experienced pet damage in the past or having a general concern that an animal might cause damage is unlikely, on its own, to be sufficient.
For landlords and agents, this means considering the individual circumstances: the type and size of pet, the property, the number of animals and any relevant lease restrictions.
Keeping a written record of the request, the information considered and the reasons for the decision is also sensible.
An early example of the rules in practice
There is not yet a body of published case law defining exactly where the boundary of “reasonable refusal” will sit, but early disputes are already illustrating some of the practical issues.
LandlordZONE recently reported a case supported by pet advocacy charity AdvoCATS involving a tenant who wanted to keep her cat, Marshy, in a one-bedroom flat. The landlord had initially indicated that one-bedroom properties were too small for pets.
After the tenant sought advice and submitted a more detailed request, permission was granted but conditions were initially attached requiring the tenant to obtain pet damage insurance and use a specified professional cleaner at the end of the tenancy. AdvoCATS supported the tenant with challenge to those conditions and the tenant was subsequently given permission without them.
The example did not result in a court judgment and therefore doesn’t establish a legal precedent. It does though demonstrate the potential problems with blanket assumptions about property suitability and with attempting to make the tenant fund insurance as a condition of accepting a pet.
It also highlights how much uncertainty remains as landlords, agents and tenants adapt to the new regime.
Who pays for pet damage insurance?
This is an important distinction for insurance brokers.
Earlier versions of the rental reform proposals contemplated allowing landlords to require insurance against pet damage. That provision did not make it into the final legislation.
Under the Tenant Fees Act framework, a landlord or letting agent cannot require a tenant to purchase insurance or reimburse the landlord for the cost of an insurance policy as a condition of the tenancy.
A tenant may, of course, choose to buy suitable insurance themselves, but it cannot be imposed as a condition.
The landlord can though choose to purchase and pay for their own insurance protection.
For brokers, conversations about pets should now form part of the landlord’s own property risk management.
What happens if the pet causes damage?
The Renters’ Rights Act does not remove the tenant’s responsibility for damage caused by their pet.
Where appropriate, a landlord may seek recovery from the tenancy deposit for evidenced damage at the end of the tenancy.
The difficulty is that deposits are finite and may also be needed for rent arrears, cleaning or unrelated property damage.
Pet-related repairs can become expensive. Scratched flooring, damaged carpets, chewed doors and skirting boards, damaged fitted units and fouling can potentially leave the landlord with costs exceeding the amount available from the deposit.
This is where insurance becomes relevant – but brokers should first establish whether the client’s existing policy already responds.
Is pet damage already covered?
There is no single market approach to pet damage.
Some landlord and property owners’ policies now include an element of pet damage as standard. Others may offer it as an extra, while some continue to exclude damage caused by domestic animals or provide much narrower accidental damage protection.
That makes a policy review more important than automatically recommending additional insurance.
Useful questions for brokers include:
- Does the existing policy cover damage caused by a tenant’s pet?
- Is cover provided for both buildings and landlord contents?
- Are fixtures, fittings, carpets and flooring adequately protected?
- Does the definition of insured damage encompass scratching, chewing or fouling?
- What limits and excesses apply?
- Are there exclusions for gradual damage or wear and tear?
- Could the tenancy deposit realistically meet the remaining uninsured exposure?
If comprehensive protection is already included, additional insurance could simply duplicate existing cover.
If it isn’t, there may be a genuine protection gap.
Insurance doesn't replace good property management
Insurance is only one element of managing the risk.
A detailed inventory and photographic record at the beginning of the tenancy can help establish the property’s condition before a pet moves in. Regular inspections can identify emerging problems.
Landlords should also document pet requests and consent clearly, including details of the pet concerned.
From an insurance perspective, brokers should encourage clients to understand the claims conditions of whichever policy they select. Requirements around inventories, inspections, evidence of damage and use of the tenancy deposit can vary between products.
A growing conversation for brokers
The new pet provisions are still in their infancy and further clarity is likely to emerge as disputes are considered and, eventually, cases reach the courts.
In the meantime, brokers can add considerable value by helping landlords separate three different issues.
First, the legal question: can the landlord reasonably refuse this particular pet?
Second, the property management question: how can the landlord reduce the likelihood and severity of damage?
Third, the insurance question: if damage occurs, what protection does the landlord already have and where are the gaps?
Keeping those questions separate helps avoid insurance being treated as a reason to refuse a pet or, conversely, assuming that accepting pets means landlords simply have to accept the additional financial risk.
Closing the protection gap
Where a broker’s review identifies that a landlord’s existing policy does not provide adequate pet damage protection, specialist landlord-funded insurance can provide another option.
Alps offers the ‘Not For Lions Landlords Insurance’ policy, designed to provide additional protection where an existing landlord policy leaves an identifiable gap. The policy can be sold as an add-on or on a standalone basis and rates have recently been reduced, making the cover more affordable for landlords who require it.
The objective isn’t to duplicate protection already provided elsewhere. It is to give brokers an additional solution where their client’s existing insurance and tenancy deposit may leave them exposed.
If you would like details of the new reduced rates or would like to discuss offering ‘Not For Lions’ to your landlord clients, please contact the Alps team.