Half of all tenants who want to rent a home with their pet would be prepared to take out specialist insurance to cover their landlord against damage, a leading campaigner has revealed.

Jennifer Berezai of AdvoCATS has researched an in-depth report into whether there is an appetite among financial firms and tenants to embrace insurance as the ‘silver bullet’ to settle the pet debate within the sector once and for all.

Quoting a YouGov polled completed just a few weeks ago, Berezai says 53% of pet owners, including 57% among dog owners and 55% among cat owners respectively, indicated that they would be willing to pay for specialised pet insurance, if priced reasonably to them and required by a landlord.

Berezai says there are several insurers currently interested in this kind of product but whose policies are either lightly marketed, limited in scope or in the case of Just Landlords, yet to be launched.

These include Endsleigh, the Alan Boswell Group, Just Landlords, One Broker and My Urban Jungle

One other insurance provider, Hamilton Fraser, is also considering a move into this market once its insurance partners have been consulted.

“As a specialist insurance broker we recognise that landlords may need added protection in the event of damage caused by pets whether this be by additional insurance cover or legislation being amended to allow pet deposits,” says spokesperson Terri Dune.

Commenting on MP Andrew Rosindell’s attempts to get a bill through parliament that would establish a tenant’s right to have a pet, Berezai (pictured below) says: “The absolute cornerstone of the bill is responsible pet ownership, so as you would a car or a business, taking out appropriate insurance against pet damage to a property you don’t own can only help underline responsibility.

berezei pets

“Enshrining the right for a landlord to request that such a policy is held in order to allow pets in their property in law – by amending the Tenant Fees Act to make this a Permitted Payment – will go a very long way to achieving the ultimate goal of #APetInEveryHome.”


  1. They say they would, they’d tell you they had, but in the majority of cases they wouldn’t bother . And even if production of a cover note were needed most would quickly cancel . Sorry very cynical but in my experience if it costs money and it can be avoided this is what people do.

  2. None of the tenants I’ve had who have had pets have had insurance to protect MY property, so would tenants really take out insurance? I can tell you now that no, they wouldn’t. And what can a landlord do about it if they get insurance and then cancel it within 14 days? I’d love to know!

    Tenants’ pets have cost me thousand of pounds. All my properties are advertised as ‘no pets’.

    Whilst I do feel sorry for tenants who have pets and are looking for a property I am no longer prepared to clear up the mess and repair the damage.

    • Would it be sensible to consider ruling out pets such as dogs and cats by default in flats/appartments where the tenants can’t usually just let the animal outside easily or have cat flap. Also, many flats/apartment buildings, especially older buildings have poor sound insulation so not good to have dogs barking even inside the flat and certainly not in the common areas.

      I think landlords should have the choice whether to accept pets and perhaps cats/dogs and larger pets that require outside space for ‘recreation’ should be allowed only in houses (with LL express agreement only).
      However my preference is no pets- even small caged animals such as rabbits/guinea pigs/mice/gerbals/birds can cause damage if allowed by irresponsible owner/tenants and there are too many ‘entitled’ and feckless tenants that don’t even read tenancy agreements. If Government continues to remove the power for landlords to have sufficient control over tenants, then rents will rise to reflect the increased risk or landlords will simply refuse to consider whole swathes of tenant classes and accept professionals only. i.e. if you haven’t got a Masters degree you won’t be considered!

    • How a separate insurance or deposit for pets would help or work!

      Sometimes, it is difficult to differentiate between damage caused by tenants or their pets. So what to do you. Do you take pets to court or you ask for their witness statement! Tenants will start blaming pets for any damage that they may cause themselves.

      If tenants would like pets, they take full responsibility of any damage they may cause.

  3. I would be more than happy to house pets as they are less likely to cause extensive property damage and trouble than some tenants.

    Landlords need real protection from property damage caused by some tenants.

    Civil courts are not a sufficient deterrent as many tenants already claim that they have no money in their bank accounts hence they are not that worried even if they go to civil Court.

  4. It would be illegal for a landlord to require a tenant to take out pet insurance. The Tenant Fees Act means that a landlord can’t require a tenant to enter into a contract with anyone as a condition of a tenancy.

    So this is a non-starter without a change in the law. Which would take years.

    • It wouldn’t be a CONDITION.
      However a LL would be perfectly entitled to state that WITHOUT insurance the tenant prospect wouldn’t be considered.

      A prospective tenant is perfectly entitled not to have pet insurance but would know they wouldn’t even bre CONSIDERED.
      Their choice.

      There is no law which forces a LL to consider ANYONE for a tenancy.

      Always LL choice.

      • Unfortunately, this is no longer the case. e.g. it’s not my choice to let to DSS, but as far as the law is concerned I cannot discriminate, and now MP Andrew Rosindell want’s to force landlords to take pets by default.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here