Landlords offered pet damage insurance ahead of Renters’ Rights Bill

“It’s an important product for landlords, providing protection and peace of mind at a level affordable to most tenants.”

This presumes the policy HAS to be taken out by the tenant therefore and so the tenant must have to prove to the insurer this is financially viable for the tenant to afford the premium? That presumes the insurer will be doing a credit/financial check?

If the tenant fails referencing then the LL has reasonable grounds to refuse pet request.

£5,000 per period of insurance - not period of contract? Any who says £5k will be enough? Dog/cat damage can be far in excess of this....

What happens after the first year, when tenant cannot afford to carry the insurance on (loss of job for instance and loss of income?), yet Bonzo the Mastiff /Fluffy the poodle remain in the property?

NO COVER that's what!

Presumably that in itself wont be a ground for possession because the permission for a pet in the property has already been agreed, so possibly leaving the landlord with a trashed property, and nothing more than a 5 week deposit to (hopefully) claim off ONCE the tenant has left?

Reply to the comment left by LL Minion at 08/01/2025 - 09:09No the way I read this it’s an “add on product” to the landlords existing building and contents policy. So the landlord is simply increasing his/her existing cover to include any potential pet damage. Why it says a level affordable to the tenant is a complete mystery ? Any claim will go against the landlord and no doubt increase the premium in future years. I haven’t heard yet of a policy that a tenant can take out themselves.

Reply to the comment left by Dylan Morris at 08/01/2025 - 10:30
Yes the policy needs to be in the tenants name. Although even if this is the case will any claim go against the property address and increase future premiums for all insurance at the same address regardless who’s name is on the policy. With the way insurance companies seem to operate, my guess is it’s highly likely. Insurance is not really worth the paper it’s written on except for legal compliance because of the increased premiums regardless of who’s at fault. Same for vehicle insurance.

We recently took back two properties when the tenant had kept a dog. They hadnt asked just acquired one. In both cases the dogs had not been properly let out and their urine had soaked under timber engineered floor and held above the membrane. Five thousand doesnt begin to cover the cost which was incurred as a result of dogs where the owner did not look after them properly

£120 seems to be quite a high premium for a very low amount of cover. A destructive animal can easily cause far more than £5000 worth of damage.

Who should be taking out the insurance, landlord or tenant? It's not our animal and the tenant is responsible for returning the property in a decent condition so theoretically it's their responsibility. However, it's our property that needs to be restored to a lettable condition.

Who would the claim count against? Losing a no claims discount for a portfolio landlord could cost far more than £5000 in increased premiums across all their other policies.

Reply to the comment left by Dylan Morris at 08/01/2025 - 10:30
I re-read the post and yes it seem you are correct. If this is the case then how is this possible for a LL to insure against a risk that he has no ownership of or indeed any control over? Maybe why this is why it seems there is a capped £5K total claim cap per 'period of insurance'?

Seems to me that if this is as it states, then the £120 per month would simply be put on the rent for the tenant to pay??
How many tenants are going to agree to that - and how many could actually afford it? - surely then the LL would need to re-assess the financial ability of the tenant to make sure they could pay this as it would be treated as part of the actual rent?

If the charge for the premium is able to be charged to the tenant SEPARATE to the rent then again this is something that may have an effect on rent affordability as it would have to be deemed a permanent outgoing that the tenant would have to pay. Is the rent then affordable on paper with this extra outgoing?

Who the hell wants to be in the position where the tenant CAN afford the pet cover but then decides to pay that an not the rent????

This kind of pet insurance is fraught with problems. It doesnt make sense for it to be purchased by the tenant or in their name as they then have control of both the quality of the product chosen and the claims process, which it will not be in their interest to authorise.

An even bigger problem is that as things stand, landlords will have no real option to evict if the tenant refuses to pay after the first year.

There’s no way any kind of pet insurance is going to work. I don’t know of a single insurance company that will issue a policy to a tenant for the potential damage their pet will cause. Not a single insurance company. If anybody can name one then please let us all know.
It’s about as workable as Gove’s “lifetime deposits”. Whatever happened to that one ? 😂

Let’s assume the insurance actually pays out when there is a damage claim.

All I read is rent will increase by at least £10 a month. Add on all the other RRB and as we all know rents are going north for all tenants per or no pet.

I'm still not taking pets. Less so now.