A company claims over 500,000 renters have had a request to keep a pet denied by their landlord – and the firm says this was “without a fair reason why”.
Go Compare pet insurance claims a survey it commissioned earlier this year suggests 16% of renters have been denied the chance to keep a pet at home in the past, due to landlord preference. And it claims this is equal to around 743,000 households.
More than three-quarters (79%) of tenants who had a pet request rejected felt that their landlord’s decision was unreasonable, which it says equates to 590,592 households across the country.
It adds that some of the most common reasons landlords deny pet requests include concerns about damage to their property, risk of nuisance or noise to neighbours, the property not being suitable for a certain pet, and increased insurance costs.
Under the forthcoming Renters Rights Bill, likely to pass into law in the coming weeks, landlords will be unable to unreasonably deny a tenant’s request for a pet.
When asked if they would consider getting a pet once the rules change, just over two-fifths (42%) of renters who previously had a request denied or have not made a request for a pet said they would like to.Close to a quarter (23%) of these included renters who don’t currently own any pets.
A Go Compare spokesperson says: “As a nation of animal lovers, it’s a shame that so many renters feel that their landlords have unfairly dismissed their claims to keep a pet at home.
“When it takes effect, the Renters Rights Bill should make this process much easier for tenants, because it will mean that landlords need to provide a fair reason why if they want to deny this request from a tenant. Plus, renters will be able to challenge this decision if they think it was unreasonable.
“If your landlord does refuse, without providing a good reason, you have the right to escalate your complaint if you can’t reach an agreement with them. You can take your case to the Private Rented Sector Ombudsman, or, as a final option, you could take your landlord to court.”
This article is taken from Landlord Today