Why searches for pet friendly rental properties have collapsed
Renters have all but stopped hunting for pet friendly rental properties, and it is not because they have stopped wanting pets. It is because they no longer believe they need to look.
Searches on Rightmove for rentals allowing pets fell by 54 per cent in May and 52 per cent in June compared with the same months a year earlier, according to figures shared with Property Portfolio Investor. The decline had been building through the year as the Renters’ Rights Act’s pet provisions drew closer, then accelerated once they took effect in England in May.
For landlords, the figures mark the moment a marketing feature became a legal obligation.
The filter has stopped mattering
Pets remain the most searched-for term on the portal, ahead of gardens, garages and furnishings. But the lead at the top is narrowing, which suggests tenants are no longer filtering for something they assume now comes as standard.
That assumption is where the trouble starts. Landlords in England cannot unreasonably refuse a request to keep a pet, but the right created by the Act is to a fair hearing, not to a guaranteed yes.
“Landlords must consider requests fairly and cannot unreasonably refuse them, but they can still decline where there is a valid reason,” said Megan Eighteen, immediate past president of lettings agents’ trade body ARLA Propertymark. She said there was plenty of “potential for misunderstanding” among tenants about pet-friendly properties.
Grounds still recognised in England include another tenant’s allergy, a property too small for a large pet or several pets, an illegal animal, or a leaseholder landlord whose freeholder prohibits pets. Government guidance for landlords on pet requests sets out how requests must be handled and the deadlines that apply.
Pets are surfacing later in the letting process
The practical consequence is that the conversation has moved. Marc von Grundherr, director of agency Benham and Reeves, said some tenants have disclosed a pet only after signing the tenancy agreement, while others have been discovered during property inspections.
“The reality is that tenants now understand the balance of power has shifted. Landlords can no longer rely on a blanket ‘no pets’ policy to deter applications and should instead expect conversations around pet ownership to arise much later in the letting process,” he said.
Late disclosure is an argument for tighter record keeping. Landlords already building lifecycle evidence through routine property inspections are far better placed to separate pet damage from fair wear and tear when a deposit is contested.
Russell Hunt, founder of Pets Lets, which matches clients with pet-friendly rentals, said landlords were still finding excuses to refuse tenants with pets even under the new rules. He argues for pet CVs and closer attention to individual circumstances, pointing out that older dogs tend to be calmer and sleep more, rather than ruling out large or multiple animals outright. Hunt lives with a Basset Beagle cross called Biscuit and three teenagers, who he jokes are more disruptive than the dog.
The costs landlords cannot pass on
Landlord bodies accept the case for companionship. Their objection is to who carries the bill when it arrives.
“Many landlords have legitimate concerns about the risk that some irresponsible pet owners pose to rental properties, or that some owners may try to keep pets in properties that are not appropriate for animals,” said Chris Norris, chief policy officer at the National Residential Landlords Association.
He listed three gaps: no power to compel tenants to take out insurance, no legal right to request an additional deposit, and a burden of costs should a pet damage the property. The NRLA’s guidance on refusing pet requests sets out where a refusal is likely to stand up.
Who pays for pet cover was fought over throughout the Bill’s passage, including an amendment that would have forced landlords to pay for pet damage insurance, and landlords lost the argument on additional deposits despite Propertymark’s wins in the House of Lords.
Nor can the cost be recovered through the rent roll. Lesley Horton, the UK’s chief property ombudsman, said landlords should not be levying pet surcharges, as these fall outside permitted fees for matters such as late payments or lost key replacements. A landlord may, however, make deductions from the tenancy deposit at the end of the tenancy for proven pet-related damage.
What this means for investors
Pet ownership is now a condition of the market rather than a concession, and the collapse in searches is the clearest evidence yet that tenants have priced that in faster than landlords have.
The portfolios that cope best will treat it as process rather than principle: forensic inventories, dated inspection records, a documented route for handling written requests inside the statutory window, and budgeting that assumes the deposit is the only recovery mechanism available.
Blanket refusals have gone. Selectivity, properly evidenced, has not.
