Here is what the law says, and what we suggest you put in place.
Updated 19 August 2026
In this article:
Section 11 of the Renters' Rights Act 2025 inserts two new sections into the Housing Act 1988, and the distinction between them is important.
Section 16A creates the right itself. It implies a term into every assured tenancy (since 1 May 2026 that means an APT, or Assured Periodic Tenancy) that a tenant may keep a pet with the landlord's consent, that consent must not be unreasonably refused, and that you must give or refuse consent in writing within 28 days. Because the term is implied by statute, it overrides anything your tenancy agreement says. A "no pets" clause in an existing agreement is now unenforceable on its own. The section applies to every assured tenancy other than a tenancy of social housing within the meaning of Part 2 of the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008.
Section 16B sets out how a request must be made, what counts as keeping a pet, two statutory examples of reasonable refusal, and the remedy available to a tenant. Anyone drafting policies or template letters needs both sections, not just 16A.
If you want the wider picture first, we have a plain-English summary of what the Renters' Rights Act changed for landlords.
The deadlines are short but manageable.
Once the request arrives, diarise the 28 days and reply in writing whatever the outcome.
Under section 16B(1), a tenant keeps a pet if they permit it to live at the property, whether or not they own the animal. Fostering, or housing a partner's or family member's pet, all sit within the same process.
Section 16B(2) does not limit what may be agreed about pets which do not live at the property. Visiting animals remain a matter for the tenancy agreement, so you retain real control there.
The Act defines a pet as an animal kept mainly for personal interest, companionship or ornamental purposes, or any combination of those. That definition is inserted into section 45(1) of the Housing Act 1988.
The Act does not define "animal". Most reach for the Animal Welfare Act 2006 definition of a vertebrate other than a human, which would bring in mammals, birds, fish, reptiles and amphibians. That is a sensible reading, but it is not written into the Renters' Rights Act and it has not been tested.
Either way, breadth of definition does not mean you must say yes to everything. It means each request is judged on its own facts, against your particular property.
Section 16B(4) provides two statutory examples: where keeping the pet would put you in breach of an agreement with a superior landlord, and where a superior landlord's consent is required, you have taken reasonable steps to obtain it, and it has not been given. The subsection says the circumstances "include" those two, so they are a guide rather than a closed list.
Beyond that there is no statutory list, and the National Residential Landlords Association has pressed the government for more clarity. Government guidance for landlords, published in November 2025, together with commentary from Shelter and others, points to the following.
| Likely to be reasonable | Unlikely to be reasonable |
|---|---|
| A superior lease prohibits pets, or the freeholder has refused consent after you took reasonable steps to obtain it. | You do not like animals. |
| The property is not suitable for the animal requested, for example a large dog in a studio flat with no outdoor space. | You had a bad experience with pets in a previous tenancy. |
| The number of pets is disproportionate to the size of the property. | You are worried about damage in general terms, with no evidence relating to this pet. |
| A co-tenant or the landlord has a relevant allergy. | You think a pet might make the property harder to let in future. |
| Credible, evidenced concerns about the animal's welfare in that specific property. | You operate a blanket policy applied without considering the individual request. |
Concerns need to be specific and evidenced.
Section 16B(5) is explicit: in proceedings where a tenant alleges the landlord has breached the implied term created by section 16A, the court may order specific performance of the obligation. In practice that means an order requiring you to permit the pet, and the court can order you to pay the tenant's costs.
The Private Rented Sector Landlord Ombudsman is not available for this yet. The government's implementation roadmap, published on 13 November 2025, places the Ombudsman in Phase 2, after the PRS Database begins rolling out from late 2026. Mandatory landlord membership is expected in 2028, when the Secretary of State is satisfied the service is ready for delivery. For now, the court is the only formal route.
This is the area to get right, because the penalties are significant. There are three things you cannot do.
The Bill originally made it an implied term that a tenant must insure against pet damage, or reimburse the landlord's reasonable costs, treated as permitted payments under the Tenant Fees Act 2019. The government removed it at Report stage in the House of Lords, by Lords amendments 10, 12 and 13, after peers raised concerns that the insurance market would not produce suitable products at the required speed and scale.
An amendment allowing a dedicated pet deposit of up to three weeks' rent outside the Tenant Fees Act cap was tabled and debated, and did not make it into the final Act. The deposit cap is unchanged. Matthew Pennycook did confirm that existing powers would allow ministers to introduce higher deposits for tenancies with pets in future if the evidence supported it.
Section 56 requires a specific rent to be stated in any written advertisement or offer, and prohibits inviting, encouraging or accepting an offer above it. This is a civil penalty enforced by local authorities, not a criminal offence: up to £7,000 for a first breach, with further penalties for a repeat within five years.
So what protection do you actually have
If you want protection against pet damage, the route is your own landlord insurance policy, a thorough inventory and check-in report, and regular inspections. We have written separately on why an independent inventory matters, and it matters more now than it did.
Research commissioned by Battersea Dogs and Cats Home found the average reported cost of pet-related damage was £300 per tenancy, against £775 for damage caused by tenants without pets, and 76% of landlords reported no dog or cat-related damage at all. So pets are not necessarily an expensive problem.
You will see confident claims that "no pets" listings are now unlawful.
The statutory right in section 16A applies to tenants, not to applicants. On a strict reading, and this is Suzanne Smith's view at The Independent Landlord, a landlord can still decline an applicant on the basis of a pet and can still advertise accordingly, in contrast to the express bans on discriminating against benefit claimants and families with children. Others argue that this makes a nonsense of the provision and that refusing to engage with prospective tenants could attract scrutiny under other parts of the Act.
We are more focused on the commercials, and pet-friendly stock is scarce. We think it is better to set out a clear, reasonable pet policy up front and select for responsible owners rather than ban pets altogether. In the spirit of openness, that advice may be coloured by the fact that the writer has four dogs and a cat!
There is no mechanism in the Act for withdrawing consent. If you approve a specific pet, that consent stands.
That is not the same as having no remedy if things go wrong. At Committee stage in the House of Lords, the housing minister Baroness Taylor confirmed that landlords retain the anti-social behaviour route: Ground 14 covers conduct causing or likely to cause nuisance or annoyance, which can include behaviour related to noisy, disruptive or aggressive pets, and local authority anti-social behaviour teams and the police remain available, up to and including injunctions that can bar a tenant from keeping a pet.
Ground 12 covers breach of any obligation of the tenancy other than one related to payment of rent, which is available where a pet policy has been properly incorporated into the agreement. Ground 13 covers deterioration of the dwelling-house or common parts through waste, neglect or default. Ground 15 covers deterioration of furniture provided under the tenancy through ill-treatment. All four sit in Part II of Schedule 2, so they are discretionary: the court must also be satisfied that it is reasonable to make the order.
Two practical consequences. First, grant consent for a named, described pet rather than for pets in general. Second, have a written pet policy that forms part of the tenancy agreement, so that Ground 12 is actually available to you.
If you have a portfolio and would rather someone else ran the process, that sits inside Property Management.
The shift here is less about losing control of your property and more about being asked to exercise that control consistently and to show your working. A reasoned, property-specific, documented decision is, as always, the best place to be.
Legislation
Government
Parliament
Sector
This article is general guidance and not legal advice. Statutory references are to the law in force in England at the time of writing.
Everything we have published on the Renters' Rights Act, including the webinar recordings and the landlord FAQs, sits in one place. Visit the Renters' Rights hub.