Labour is right – tenants should be allowed to keep pets
Responding to the news that the Labour party wants tenants to have the legal right to keep a pet in their properties, the University of Kent housing law expert Professor Helen Carr comments that ‘perhaps it was clumsy to introduce this policy proposal in the way that it has, but it should not be written off.
‘Labour’s promise to introduce a default right for all tenants to be able to keep a pet has attracted some derision. The argument from the left is that, in a housing crisis, there are far more important reforms that are necessary, such as ending no-fault evictions, restricting rent increases or increasing the supply of affordable housing.
‘The perspective of the right is that landlords should be allowed to determine how their property is occupied and be able to avoid any additional costs that may be incurred as a result of pet ownership.
‘However both housing activists and landlords should perhaps pause for thought before writing off Labour’s proposals as ‘barmy’. There have been three significant social shifts over the last thirty years or so that are relevant.
‘First an increasing proportion of people are living in the private rented sector and living there for longer periods, with a substantial proportion of these never able to own their own home.
‘Second there has been a change in the composition of households, there are now more single person households and couples without children. Third the level of pet ownership has increased exponentially. According to Turtle Creek, up to 44% of UK households are pet owners, that’s 12 million pets!
‘Sociologists have a number of explanations for this; pets provide the companionship, the security even the love that we all crave, and perhaps particularly those living on their own. They enable us to feel connected in world that is increasing virtual, disembodied and dehumanised. For some of us pets are a status symbol, demonstrating our spending power – its notable that even during the recession spending on pets did not fall.
‘For others pets are treated as part of the family or as their only family. Whatever one thinks about these trends, there is no denying that Labour’s proposals speak to a large section of the electorate and should be taken seriously. Many households contain pets, and if the private rented sector is to provide long term homes for people then pets should be allowed.
‘This is an issue that resonates around the developed world – in Australia for instance it is suggested (by Tenants Victoria) that evictions in breach of a no pets clause may well be illegal and there is a move to ban such clauses from standard agreements.
‘There is another argument. Many people, because they are unwilling to be without their pets, are reluctant to move, even when different accommodation may well better serve their needs. So a homeless young man refuses to take up a place in a hostel because of a no pets rule, or an elderly person won’t go into a care home because they do not want to be parted from their pet. So reforming our attitudes to pet ownership could well help with the redistribution of housing space that should be a social priority.
‘At the moment no pets clauses in rental agreements are exercises of power, either by social landlords who want to control the lifestyles of their tenants, or by private landlords who place the preservation of their property ahead of the social needs of their tenants.
‘The starting point should be quite different, it should be the welfare of the animal. No-one should be allowed to keep a pet in accommodation which causes it to suffer. And that should be tenure neutral. A horse should not live in a high rise tower whether the flat is rented or owner occupied.
‘If the animal won’t suffer from its living arrangements, then the pet should be tolerated by the landlord, although its owner should perhaps be required to enter into some sort of financial arrangement so that any damage caused to the property by the pet can be repaired. So perhaps it was clumsy of Labour to introduce this policy proposal in the way that it has, but it should not be written off; it’s a policy that speaks to how we live now, and what it means to be human.
Professor Helen Carr, of Kent Law School, is an expert in the fields of housing, social welfare and public law. She has written of the importance of animals for homeless people in ‘Caring at the Borders of the Human: Companion animals and the homeless’ in the book ReValuing Care: Cycles and Connections (Routledge).
Shared by: University of Kent – S.Fleming@universityofkent.vuelio.co.uk
You May Also Enjoy
Economic uncertainty tops agents’ worries in 2026
Strategies to Boost Estate Agent Networking
Why now is actually a great time to be a landlord
Modest house price growth may offset easing mortgage costs for home buyers this year
More than 428 homes repossessed every month
