Whilst the U-turn over pet ownership in the Renter’s Rights Bill (RRB) ownership may temporarily protect landlords from the cost of pet-related damage, it leaves major questions unanswered, warns Inventory Base.

Although the RRB is going to put an end to blanket ‘no pets’ clauses on rented homes, there remains general agreement that landlords still need protection against the potential cost of repairing damage caused by pets, which has led to a search for a workable solution. 

Sián Hemming-Metcalfe, Operations Director at Inventory Base, said: "This latest U-turn on pet insurance highlights just how complex the balancing act is between tenants’ rights and landlord protections. The Renter’s Rights Bill aims to create a more inclusive rental sector—and rightly so—but without clear safeguards for landlords, particularly when it comes to pet-related damage, we risk creating uncertainty and conflict on both sides.

"Most landlords aren’t anti-pet—they’re anti-risk without recourse. That’s why the focus now must shift toward building a framework that’s practical, enforceable, and based on how the rental sector actually works today. We need consistent rules, a reliable mechanism for assessing pet-related damage, and clarity on who sets those standards. This is where inventory professionals, deposit schemes, and regulators must collaborate closely. 

"Pets can absolutely be part of a successful tenancy, but trust and protection must go both ways. We need to use this moment not just to remove blanket bans, but to replace them with a smarter, more responsible system that works for everyone."

It was initially suggested that landlords should be able to insist tenants obtain pet insurance, however, during parliamentary debate, it was decided that tenants should not be expected to pay for pet insurance, leaving landlords exposed to covering the costs of any damage.