Landlords and agents ‘should be able to ask tenants’ for pet insurance
The NRLA says it fully supports the Government's U-turn allowing landlords to require insurance for pets.
It is the correct policy that tenants should take out insurance to cover any damage caused by pets, the NRLA insists.
The leading landlord association is “positive” about changes in the Renters Reform White Paper outlawing any bans on pets, policy director Chris Norris (pictured) says.
Speaking on the BBC Radio Four’s ‘You and Yours’ programme, Norris said: “I don’t think many landlords are very worried. It is already prohibited to have a blanket ban on pets.
When asked about the cost of insurance he said: “We are talking about an add-on to the contents’ insurance, and shouldn’t be prohibitive.
“This is a relatively small element for landlords – I doubt this is the issue that pushes people over the edge,” he added.
Overturned
A requirement for tenants to have pet insurance was made illegal in 2019, but the government is now overturning that measure.
The white paper says that landlords can require tenants to take pet insurance: “Alongside this, we will make it easier for landlords to accept pets by amending the Tenant Fees Act 2019 to include pet insurance as a permitted payment.
“This means landlords will be able to require pet insurance, so that any damage to their property is covered. We will continue to work with landlords and other groups to encourage a common-sense approach,” the paper says.
Norris added that NRLA supported an end to blanket bans on children and benefit claimants. “We want to see a case-by-case assessment,” he said.
I’m still not taking Benefit tenants & I’m biggest Benefit Landlord in Nottingham.
And here is my notes on Pets:
Gees, how simple was it when we could just charge higher deposit for Pet owners and those that did no damage got all money back. So so simple.
No better insurance than the tenants own money.
Now look what Shelter and Generation rent and the Govt have done. Made it MUCH MUCH worse for tenants yet again.
My text below I’ve done before.
Landlords: pets are okay if you pay for extra insurance to cover any damage.
Gov: in that case we will make it illegal to charge extra insurance.
LLs: well then we will have to slightly increase deposits for those with pets.
Gov: in that case we will cap deposits at 5 weeks rent.
LLs: okay well we can’t really allow pets anymore then.
Gov: in that case we will force you to take tenants with pets.
LLs: well then we have no choice but to increase rent across the board even for tenants without pets.
Gov: oh.
Tenants: why is rent so high??
Unbelievable isn’t it. If the tenant was allowed to pay a higher deposit to cover potential pet damage. And if the pet caused no damage, tenant gets deposit back, job done.
That way only those that caused damage, ie. 10% would pay for THEIR OWN DAMAGE.
The way Govt have it now is, EVERYONE loses. And now this horrendous reaction of pets now losing their lives.
U would think the Govt and Councils would actually talk to us on ground level to ask what we think. As they ALWAYS get it wrong and us in the actual job get it right cause we doing it day in. day out.
We all know what happened with scrapping Pet deposits and we told em it would happen. Now ALL pet owners pay more rent whereas before, if no damage, no charge. Now an unfair charge on every pet owner. And they’ve got Shelter and the others to thank for that.
Again this shows Govt interference trying to appease voters, the renters thinks Whey Hey Great! Whereas we know they end up worse off.
We told em this was gonna happen.
If they let Landlords charge a riskier higher deposit just as insurance companies charge more for more risk, then let’s say 9 out of 10 pets caused no damage. They’d all get their deposits back. And the 1 out of 10 who did cause damage, they’d be the only one that paid. So all pet owners get houses, 90% get their deposit back. And only the 1 that caused the damage would pay.
As it is now, cause Shelter supported banning higher deposits, Landlords are now charging more rent to ALL pet owners, so ALL pet owners lose. All pet owners pay.
They trying to stop this. So what’s gonna happen and is happening? Landlords are just refusing ALL pets. So ALL pet owners suffer. When in reality, it’s only 10% that cause the damage.
Landlords know how to rent houses out. Govt doesn’t.
I’ve had £1000 stairs chewed apart by dogs. It’s not nice.
And I used to take ALL pet owners. I don’t now cause of this Govt interference.
Before the Pet Owner knew straightaway they wasn’t having it. Now they get messed about & get told We looking at all applications, when in reality the agent or Landlord ain’t taking them. That’s what’s happening now with DWP UC.