Hi, all.
Our lease agreement says: “The Lessee shall not keep in the flat or any part thereof any dog or other animal or bird or pet without the written consent of the Lessor, which shall be revocable by notice in writing.”
How does it go with the coming changes? Will these Lease Terms will become automatically illegal? If not, can the LL withhold the “written consent”?
Sorry if it has been discussed before.
If a tenant requested a pet you would need to seek consent from the freeholder/managing agent as per the term in your lease. If they refuse, you would have a reasonable basis to decline your tenants request.
Hi, David. Thanks for that. Does it mean that if T brought a pet without asking permission, it will be a ground for evicting them? Is this even enforceable? Does it come under anti-social behaviour?
The current RRB doesn’t include any specific ground covering a tenant bypassing the rules and bringing a pet in. Likewise if they follow the rules but cancel or do not renew the pet insurance you can insist on. In theory, you can use one of the other grounds such as 14 ASB or 12 Other breaches of the tenancy, but anyone that has attempted to use discretionary grounds knows that in practice this is unlikely to be successful. Judges will weigh the harm to the landlord against making the tenant homeless and I can’t see many awarding possession to the landlord just because the tenant has a pet. This is another area of the RRB that has not been properly thought through, or perhaps it has and the policy makers just don’t care.
There we go… (20 characters).
If the tenant breached the contract in this way when your lease forbids pets, you would have a stronger case for eviction on discretionary grounds.
Most ex-council leasehold properties where the freehold is still with the council have a clause in the leasehold not allowing pets. It’s a valuable get out of jail card. And I say this as a dog owning landlord who loves dogs!
The renters rights changes don’t really matter since keeping a pet has already been upheld as a human rights issue (right to a family life)
The government guidance is below, but it applies to both the landlord and the leasor so even if your lease forbids pets, that position would not be upheld if unreasonable… Can I keep a labrador… Probably. Can I keep a monkey… Unlikely
A Tenant must seek the prior written consent of the Landlord should they wish to keep pets or other animals at the Property. A Landlord must not unreasonably withhold or delay a written request from a Tenant without considering the request on its own merits. The Landlord should accept such a request where they are satisfied the Tenant is a responsible pet owner and the pet is of a kind that is suitable in relation to the nature of the premises at which it will be kept. Consent is deemed to be granted unless the written request is turned down by a Landlord with good reason in writing within 28 days of receiving the request.
What if a landlord deems it unreasonable to keep a dog contained and unsupervised all day while owners goto work?
To me, that’s unreasonable and I would consider owners to be totally irresponsible.
to me to say a pet makes a family is pathetic . Children, men and women make a family. Some people care more about animals than humans
@Colin3 I don’t disagree, but if they are prepared to let a convicted pedophile stay in the UK because he doesn’t have friends and his son doesn’t like the food in his home country…
@Mark10… Unfortunately what you think is reasonable doesn’t count. You can’t ascribe your values to your tenants. A tribunal would decide what is reasonable and each case has to be considered on its own merits. That means that if one person in a block of 100 flats wants a dog, you can’t take into account that the other 99 flats don’t want dogs in the building and that was understood when they moved in as justification to refuse
I would argue that my example falls under the following three reasons that the governments guidelines which accompanies its Model tenancy agreement, deems as reasonable grounds for refusal of tenant having a dog:
Property Damage or Maintenance Risks
• There are concerns that the dog may cause significant damage to the property.
• The property has features (e.g., expensive flooring) that may be at risk.
Excessive Noise or Nuisance
• If the dog’s presence is likely to disturb neighbours through barking or other behaviour.
Tenant’s Ability to Care for the Dog
• If there are concerns that the tenant may not be capable of caring for the dog appropriately.
In particular item 5, where if tenants arnt at home then they are unable to look after the dog.
I realise of course this might not mean a thing by the time RRB becomes an act.
Replied to Chris. But then read his other replies and decided not to waste my breath.
Looks like more people from Tenants’ Right Charities are getting active here. They also spread a lot of misinformation. And all seem to suffer from anger issues )))
No Tim… Im not for one minute on the tenant’s side. I’m just telling you what the law IS CURRENTLY, not what you might like it to be.
And for the record, I’m a Landlord, and a Freeholder, and a Director of a Management Company which holds the headlease on a building with 300 flats.
Don’t shoot the messenger but do check your facts
#3 is out because the landlord can require the tenant to have pet insurance (although we all know as with deposits, that may not cover any damage)
#4 is only your opinion and you can only act on it IF it happens… The tenants might play loud music and cause a nuisance that way. We have had a couple of people in our building where we have had to allow them to keep dogs… In both cases it was less than ideal, but we get more complaints of neighbours smoking cannabis than we do with the dogs.
#5 again that’s your standards. It isn’t illegal to leave a pet at home all day so that would not be grounds for refusal.
Personally I think keeping a cat in a high rise building is even worse, but we have had that too and it hasn’t been a problem
Im not aware of anything in the Human Rights Act relating to pets. Could you provide a reference.
Your paragraph about what a tenant should do relates to consumer rights and unfair contract terms rather than human rights. However, my understanding is that if a landlord properly considers a tenants request, they can refuse without sanction.
If you think there is a reference to pets in the HRA, you don’t understand how the law works. It’s like this
Tenant - Can I have a Dog?
You: No
Tenant: I don’t care, I’ve got one.
Now you have to accept it, or try to evict him.
You can’t evict him without a Court order, and the Court WILL NOT grant you that order without a very good reason, and “damage it might cause” or because “you think it might cause a nuisance” or you “don’t agree with leaving it home alone all day” is not going to do it.
The tenant will go to his doctor and say he has anxiety. He will say that a dog would calm him, but his landlord won’t let him have one. The Doctor will write a letter saying being allowed to keep a pet would be good for the tenant’s mental health (I think there have been studies that say keeping a pet is good for everyone’s mental health!). I have had this twice.
At this point, you have lost the case. It is most likely to be a claim under Article 8: Respect for your private and family life, or Article 14: Protection from discrimination
This is from the Telegraph 15/03/25 - The Court of Appeal ruled that an Iranian who is an illegal immigrant and supported Islamic State and is a threat to National Security could not be deported and has been allowed to leave a detention centre after judges found that being confined was “bad for his mental health”.
Do you REALLY think you have a chance at stopping someone from keeping a pet???
In the last 10 years I have litigated and had hearings both in the County Court and First-tier Property Tribunal probably 100 times. I have never lost a case. That’s not because I’m good, it’s because I’m selective!
If you want to reject a tenant keeping a pet, you’re going to need a much better reason than anything suggested so far!
Landlord has severe allergy to pet hair?
That might do. But you would probably need to evidence that by medical history, and it would only apply if you were living with the tenant in some kind of flat share.
However, if it was a flat share, the tenant has much less rights since they won’t have the exclusive use of the home so they probably don’t have the rights to ask to keep a pet anyway (don’t really know much about this area as none of mine are shared or HMOs)
Its an interesting question though… If you had a HMO and a tenant who was severely allergic to peanuts, could they stop you from renting to someone else who insisted on eating PB & J… I honestly don’t know 
Utter nonsence. S21 is the no fault eviction notice. Landlords dont have to give a reason and if the notice is valid and properly served, the court has no choice but to award possession.
As Ive already written, the RRB is a game changer and the loss of s21 may mean that landlords struggle to evict tenants who bring pets in illegally.