How the tenancy pet trap leaves landlords financially exposed

Property118

How the tenancy pet trap leaves landlords financially exposed

If you want to understand exactly how the Renters’ Rights Act is going to restrict private landlords of control over their own property, look no further than the story this week about a tenant named Ms A and her pet cat, Marshy.

Property118 reports that the tenant wanted a cat in her one-bedroom flat; the landlord initially said no; a charity stepped in, challenged the refusal and the landlord ultimately accepted the request.

For me, this case reveals a new reality for the private rented sector because what campaigners present as a straightforward victory also exposes the imbalance in the protections available to the two parties.

Property size remains relevant, but landlords can no longer rely on a blanket rule. They must relate the size and nature of the animal to the particular property.

The charity involved countered the ‘too small’ reason by stating that ‘sweeping generalisations’ regarding property size are legally non-compliant.

If a tenant requests a pet, you can no longer reply with casual, practical logic.

The moment you type only ‘the flat is too small’ or ‘I don’t think it is suitable’, without explaining why that particular animal is unsuitable for that particular property, you risk an immediate challenge.

A restriction in a superior lease or a documented allergy in a shared home may provide strong grounds, but the legislation does not give landlords a simple checklist of guaranteed exemptions.

Pet tenancy negotiation

The most worrying part of this story, however, is what happened when the landlord tried to negotiate.

Wanting to mitigate their risk, the landlord requested two reasonable conditions: that the tenant purchase pet damage insurance, and that they commit to a professional deep clean at the end of the tenancy.

The charity’s response was that both conditions would amount to prohibited requirements under the Tenant Fees Act.

While early drafts of the Renters’ Rights Act teased landlords with the right to mandate pet insurance, that provision was quietly axed before Royal Assent.

And under the Tenant Fees Act, a landlord cannot ask a tenant to buy a pet insurance policy, impose a separate pet fee or require the tenant to enter into a cleaning contract.

Requiring a prohibited payment can attract a civil penalty of up to £5,000. A further qualifying breach within five years can lead to prosecution or a thumping financial penalty of up to £30,000.

In theory, a landlord can recover reasonable cleaning costs where an inventory and check-out evidence prove an actual loss – but actually recovering the full amount may be a different story, particularly where the damage exceeds the deposit and the tenant has limited means.

Landlords carry the pet risk

Landlords are left relying on a deposit generally capped at five weeks’ rent, which may be nowhere near enough to meet extensive flooring, furnishing or odour damage.

If a cat decides to use the carpets as a scratching post or spray the floorboards, the cost of remediation will demolish that deposit, leaving the landlord to foot the bill.

To me, it looks like the law has shifted a substantial share of the practical financial risk from the pet owner to the property owner, leaving landlords to rely on their own insurance, the limited deposit or a potentially difficult claim against the tenant.

The other shame here is that the Labour government promised to ‘level the playing field’ between landlords and tenants.

We knew that wouldn’t be the case but the one-sided tilt in favour of renters is becoming clearer by the week.

Although landlords retain legal claims for pet damage, those rights may be expensive to enforce and worthless where the tenant has no recoverable assets.

The law has clearly strengthened the tenant’s position without giving the landlord an equivalent, readily usable financial safeguard.

If you own a leasehold property, check your superior lease immediately. The Renters’ Rights Act explicitly protects landlords bound by head-tenancy pet bans.

Just note: if your lease allows pets with freeholder consent, you must actively apply for that consent before you can legally turn your tenant down. Find out where you stand before a request lands.

Beyond that, refusals still stand if you can tie them to the specific animal and property: type, number, welfare or a genuine allergy in a shared building.

Welcome to the new age of being a landlord in the PRS, where the tenant gets the companionship, the charity gets the PR victory, and the landlord gets the repair bill.

Until next time,

The Landlord Crusader

The post How the tenancy pet trap leaves landlords financially exposed appeared first on Property118.

View Full Article: How the tenancy pet trap leaves landlords financially exposed