Propertymark has issued fresh guidance on pet-friendly tenancies after highlighting research in which 76% of landlords who let to pet owners reported no pet-related damage.
The trade body’s guide, published on 24 September, also cites a 2024 University of Huddersfield study in which almost three quarters of landlords reported no extra wear and tear and 84% said they had received no noise or neighbour complaints.
The evidence gives landlords a more useful starting point than a blanket yes or no. A pet can still be unsuitable for a particular flat, lease or shared house, but the survey suggests that sensible property-specific checks may manage the risk better than an automatic refusal.
Pet damage costs need putting in context
Among respondents who had experienced pet damage, the average cost was £300 per tenancy. The study compared this with average non-pet-related damage of £775 reported by landlords who did not let to pet owners. It also found that tenants with pets stayed around five months longer on average than tenants without them.
Those figures do not guarantee a lower-cost tenancy. They do point to a practical case for better records, clear consent and a careful inventory rather than treating pets as a single, uniform risk.
This follows Residential Landlord’s report on the fall in pet-friendly rental searches after the Renters’ Rights Act switch. A guide based on actual tenancy evidence is timely because the new regime makes the quality of a landlord’s reason for refusing a request more important.
Checks before agreeing a pet request
Propertymark advises agents and landlords to consider the animal and the home rather than apply a blanket rule. The questions include whether there is enough appropriate space, whether a lease or headlease restricts pets, and whether an HMO has arrangements that make consent unsuitable.
A pet CV can cover age, breed, behaviour, training, vaccinations and references from a previous landlord or vet. The guide also recommends clear written terms, a detailed inventory, regular inspections and a check-out report. Its full guidance on pet-friendly tenancies notes that landlords can require the property to be returned in the same condition, allowing for fair wear and tear, but cannot require a tenant to fund professional cleaning or flea treatment.
Landlords should still record the decision and the property-specific reason for it. Residential Landlord previously covered the reduction in pet-friendly listings before the Act took effect; a sound inspection trail is more valuable now than a broad policy statement.
That record should cover the request received, lease checks, the condition of the home at the start of the tenancy and any agreed arrangements for access. It should not be used to invent conditions that the law does not allow. The point is to make a fair, evidence-based decision and to be able to explain it later if the decision is challenged. It is also a useful way to prevent a small issue becoming an argument at check-out. A short, agreed written record gives both parties a practical reference during the tenancy.
Opinion
Pet requests should not be waved through without thought, especially in flats with restrictive leases or shared homes. Equally, the available evidence weakens the case for a reflexive ban. A clear written decision, a good inventory and regular checks are a stronger defence than an outdated blanket policy.
