Propertymark – Government must understand the cost of pets to Landlords

Propertymark – Government must understand the cost of pets to Landlords

16:08 PM, 5th July 2022, About 2 years ago 21

Text Size

Propertymark has conducted a joint online survey with the NRLA, LandlordZone and pets charity AdvoCATS indicating how common pet damage is and how difficult the costs are to recover in the PRS. Click here

Out of 537 respondents (this would be skewed due to the nature of the survey) 85.3% of landlords had incurred damage by pets. This is a similar percentage to damage by the tenants themselves, but the extent of the damage is much greater and the cost harder to recover due to the limitations imposed by the tenants fees ban. Only 57% of landlords were able to recoup the cost of pet damage.

The group is campaigning for an addition to the List of Permitted Payments giving landlords the option to request a financially capped pet deposit or stipulate that pet damage insurance must be held by any tenant wanting to keep a pet or pets.

Timothy Douglas Head of Policy and Campaigns for Propertymark said: “The data from this research backs up what Propertymark and others have been warning for some time, that the unintended consequences of the Tenant Fees Act have reduced the appetite for many landlords to take on the greater risk of damage.

“With the demand for pet-friendly homes continuing to increase, the UK Government must now understand the costs involved for landlords and implement rules that support the sector to take on greater risk in order to support more people to rent with pets.”

NRLA Policy Manager James Wood said: “With many landlords unable to recover damage caused by pets, it is no surprise that landlords generally prefer to let to tenants without pets. Particularly those with smaller portfolios who are not able to absorb the losses caused by damage.

“If the UK Government is to increase the supply of pet-friendly homes then it is vital that landlords and agents have confidence they can recover the cost of repairs. Amending the Tenant Fees Act to permit pet insurance or pet deposits would provide this confidence and give tenants with pets more options in the private rented sector.”


Share This Article


Comments

Ian Narbeth

Become a Member

If you login or become a member you can view this members profile, comments, posts and send them messages!

Sign Up

9:49 AM, 11th July 2022, About 2 years ago

Reply to the comment left by Dylan Morris at 09/07/2022 - 08:38Hi Dylan, you raise some very good points.
The "legal" answer is that most residential leases include a clause saying that other leases will be in similar terms (i.e. if there is a prohibition against pets in one lease, then all other leases will do). A second clause should say that the landlord will, at the request (and it may be at the cost) of the tenant that the landlord will enforce the tenant covenants in other leases.
That only gets the tenant in your example so far. By the time she is aware of the dog, consent may have been given and the landlord may be indifferent to your flat-owner's problems. She then has the option of bringing a claim and being met with the defence that the Renters Reform Bill over-rode the restriction in the lease and that it was reasonable, indeed necessary, for consent to be given. The dog-fearing tenant may therefore end up substantially out of pocket.
In their zeal to grab headlines I very much doubt that anybody in the ex-Minister's department has thought through the implications.

Leave Comments

In order to post comments you will need to Sign In or Sign Up for a FREE Membership

or

Don't have an account? Sign Up

Landlord Automated Assistant Read More