Only 2% of available rental properties in the UK are explicitly advertised as being open to pets – with the situation appearing to worsen because of the tenancy fees ban.
Research by referencing firm HomeLet using listings on Zoopla shows that London has the most pet-friendly rental stock available, with 8.4% of listings saying that pets will be accepted.
The next most pet-friendly cities are Aberdeen, Liverpool and Manchester, but they are a long way behind London, with only 3.8%, 3.3% and 2.6% of available residential letting properties accepting pets.
Cardiff and Leeds are the least pet-friendly, with only 0.3% of available rentals accepting pets.
Rob Wishart, group data manager at HomeLet, said: “Since the introduction of the Tenants Fees Act, deposits in England are now capped by law to a maximum of five weeks rent.
“Landlords who have previously agreed to allow pets based on a higher deposit, in case of damage, or a clause to deep clean at the end of tenancy, are no longer legally allowed to do so, so this may reduce the number of landlords who are willing to accept pets, but as it was only introduced this month it’s too early to say.”
Zoopla itself said in March that rental properties that allow pets are in high demand. The word ‘pet’ is the third most searched term on the site, after ‘parking’ and ‘furnished’.
Prior to the ban, the Dogs Trust said that its research showed that 78% of pet owners have in the past experienced difficulties in finding rental accommodation. Could this situation have now worsened?
We would be interested in the views of agents.
PS: As this is ‘bring your dog to work’ day, we would be delighted to receive pictures of agents’ best friends enjoying your office environment. Email ros@propertyindustryeye.com
PS some more: Look what happened to Ed Mead this week!
Comments (8)
suck it up tenants
Those in ivory towers wouldn’t listen, knew better …. what a joke. Wait till Sec 21 is officially confirmed disappearing … you haven’t seen anything ….. meltdown.
Ive just had a landlord turn down a potential tenant with a dog purely because we couldn’t take a larger deposit, ironically the tenant offered to give a larger deposit but i had to refuse.
You could up the rent to deal with that. Landlord wins long term and your fee would have been stronger.
Understandably the tenant wasn’t happy with it as he was planning on staying a while. Happy to give an extra couple of weeks deposit as they know the dog and were confident they would get it back, not happy to pay increased rent indefinitely.
Fairly confident that wasn’t the intent of the legislation either.
Well the impact is not only on pets, tenant rents are already on the move upwards as landlords are refusing any changes or amendments to a tenancy because they dont want to be saddled with the costs, so of course theirs only one way around it, if the tenant wants a change they’ll have to pay with an increased rent that will ultimately cost them more than the fees they’d have paid prior to the ban. So we get paid anyway and reap the benefit of more money on the management role for the same commission point. Who said the fee ban was a bad idea??
Amendments to a tenancy at the tenants request are a permitted payment under the legislation.
£50 (which is silly) or as it states the reasonable costs for making the change.
At no point would the landlord have to fork out a payment if a tenant wanted to make a change, they either pay the cost for the change or they don’t make the change.
I see it a fair option to increase the rent if the tenant has a pet and the landlord is happy to accept this, at the end of the day the money is actually in the landlords back pocket for good in this scenario not a deposit that has to be given back.
And that last comment just makes you sound like your out for your own gain and who gives a toss about anyone but my commission and profits, which is half the problem why the fee ban was implemented. i am going to charge both sides of the coin for this and see what I can get away with. A fair charging structure for tenants would have been a better option as an out right ban has just brought hostility and negativity into the whole process.
The likelihood of this happening was brought to light during the so called consultation and Government decided it knows best (as they always do) and it is no surprise the result. This is what was wanted by tenants and so call Housing Charities so please do not complain after the event. The result of legislation has consequences and come home to roost at some point – as it will when the S21 aboilition happens. Don’t blame landlords blame those who introduced and lobbied for the legislation.