Tenants keeping pets at the property

This area changed materially on 1 May 2026. Under the Renters’ Rights Act 2025, a tenant with a qualifying private assured tenancy has a statutory right to request permission to keep a pet. The request must be in writing and describe the pet. A landlord must not unreasonably refuse consent and must normally respond in writing within 28 days, subject to limited extensions. The older discussion below about blanket pet bans and the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 is therefore no longer the main legal framework; consumer terms are now principally governed by the Consumer Rights Act 2015 alongside the new statutory pet provisions.

This blog derives from a specific question about a dog being kept at a property in breach of a clause in the agreement that was blanket ban on keeping any pets. However, because this is a common clause in tenancy agreements it’s a subject of general interest to many landlords and agents. It also touches on the wider issue of unfair terms in tenancy agreements and how the courts will deal with them in practice.

Current position and historic unfair-terms guidance

The Office of Fair Trading published very useful guidance on unfair terms in tenancy agreements (click here to see the guidance). It indicates that they would consider a blanket ban on pets to be unreasonable unless it is moderated by a clause that the landlord’s consent won’t be unreasonably withheld. What that means in practice is that, if the tenant went ahead and got a pet without landlord’s consent it would give the landlord the right to bring a claim for possession (after serving a s.8 notice) for breach of the tenancy agreement. However, if the clause in question is a blanket ban on pets, the tenant could challenge that clause for unfairness under the historic Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 (UTCCR), now superseded for consumer contracts by the Consumer Rights Act 2015. A judge then has to consider whether the term is unfair. The legal test is whether a “term which has not been individually negotiated shall be regarded as unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes significant imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer.” The Court’s Approach

Many would argue that a no pets clause does not cause a significant imbalance to the detriment of the consumer if they take the property on a short term let knowing that it has a no pets clause. However, the OFT and European legislation takes a different view.

Although the OFT guidance is just that, i.e. guidance, not a digest of previously decided cases, it is nevertheless very persuasive when an individual clause is challenged at court. There is, therefore, a high probability that, if the tenant did challenge the fairness of the clause, the court would find in their favour.

When a clause is found to be unfair under the regulations it is struck out of the contract. It would follow that a claim for possession brought on that clause would have to fail.

That said, in our experience of thousands of possession claims, it is exceptionally rare for anyone to defend a possession claim on the basis that the clause in the contract relied on is contrary to the UTCCR. The other difficulty a landlord has in bringing a claim for breach of this clause is that, even if the court is satisfied that the clause is broken, it doesn’t follow that a judge will automatically grant a possession order in favour of the landlord. The court has discretion and it’s quite likely that a judge would find that merely breaching the clause by having a pet is not sufficient on its own to justify a possession order being made. Instead, a judge can award damages for breach of contract and that’s a more likely outcome unless the pet was causing significant damage to the property. The amount of damages (i.e. compensation) a court would order a case like this is likely to be relatively small, e.g. limited to the cost of professional cleaning of the property to remove the smell and an award for any particular items that need to be repaired or replaced such as scratched doors, chewed furniture etc.

Individually Negotiated Clauses

The court’s power to strike out terms under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations relates to standard terms and not core terms (e.g. the amount of the rent, the description of the property, the length of the term) or individually negotiated clauses. Therefore, if it’s an important issue for a landlord or if, for example you had a term in your insurance or a restrictive covenant in a leasehold property that prohibits pets then it is perfectly acceptable to include a similar clause to that effect in your tenancy agreement provided it is individually negotiated. In practice what that means is specifically bringing it to the attention of the tenant before they sign the agreement (in writing so you have evidence), and preferably with an explanation as to why you are including a clause so that the reason, and therefore the fairness, is established in advance.

Useful UK legal and solicitor links

• Legislation.gov.uk: Renters Rights Act 2025, section 11
• GOV.UK: Assured periodic tenancies and pets
• Osbornes Law: Renters Rights Act 2025 guide

This article provides general information only and is not a substitute for legal or tax advice on a specific case.