Pet deposits risk undermining the government's support for pet-owning renters
The Renters’ Rights Bill was set to unlock millions of homes for pet owners, but a new amendment on pet deposits risks pricing tenants out of pet ownership
Through our Pet Friendly Properties campaign, Battersea has long advocated that landlords should not unreasonably refuse requests from responsible tenants to keep pets. The Renters’ Rights Bill will enshrine this in law, aiming to remove some of the barriers that renters face to enjoying the many social and health benefits of pet ownership. However, a new amendment on pet deposits undermines this aim, especially for renters on lower incomes.
The Renters’ Rights Bill will be back in the House of Commons on 8 September for the Consideration of Amendments. The government must commit to opposing this amendment so that the bill can fulfil its potential for pets and renters, and not risk excluding large groups of the population from the joy of pets.
Renting and pet homelessness
Having to give up a pet because of housing issues is a unique type of heartbreak, but housing issues remain one of the most common reasons for dogs and cats being relinquished to Battersea. Strengthening pet-friendly provisions in rental agreements could significantly reduce the number of pets made homeless in the UK. It would also enable more animals in rescues to be rehomed. Battersea is based in an area where over half of all households rent. Increasing the availability of pet-friendly rental properties would mean lots more people would be able to rehome a dog or cat from us.
Battersea, alongside our partner Mars Petcare, wants to achieve long-lasting, societal change around pets and renting, because we believe that everyone should have the choice to experience the joy of pet ownership, no matter where they live. With its clauses allowing renters to request pets and preventing landlords from unreasonable refusal, the Renters’ Rights Bill was considered a major milestone in securing more pet-friendly homes for renters.
Now, this is under threat.
A new barrier
In July, the House of Lords passed an amendment introducing pet deposits. This development is a significant economic penalty for tenants with pets. The change would allow landlords to request pet deposits of up to three weeks’ rent, on top of the existing five-week standard deposit. Based on the ONS average rent in England as of May 2025 (£1,394), this equates to an additional £906 cost upfront, creating a substantial financial burden for tenants.
Amid the ongoing cost-of-living crisis, many tenants are already struggling to afford the standard rental deposit, let alone an additional one. Data shows that one in four tenants have had to borrow money from friends or family to cover the current cost of standard rental deposits, while nearly a third have resorted to using their long-term savings. In this context, the proposed changes risk undermining the government’s well-intentioned goal of unlocking millions of homes for pet owners. Rather than improving access, the bill could end up excluding many tenants from pet ownership altogether due to unaffordable upfront costs.
Pet deposits lack both affordability and consistency. Tenants in higher-cost areas, such as London, will face significantly steeper upfront costs, with pet deposits potentially exceeding £1,000. This effectively creates a postcode lottery, where a tenant’s ability to own a pet is determined not by their responsibility or preparedness, but by the local rental market and their financial situation. It introduces a new layer of financial inequality into the rental system, undermining the bill’s original aim of making pet ownership more accessible.
Removing financial barriers
Advocates of pet deposits argue they are needed to cover the risk of damage from pets. However, Battersea research carried out with the Universities of Huddersfield, Sheffield Hallam and Brunel, shows that damage is not an inevitable outcome of owning a pet – 76 per cent of landlords report no pet-related damage at the end of the rental period. In instances where damage had occurred, this averaged £300 in costs to repair, an amount that could be covered by current standard deposit schemes.
Battersea and Mars Petcare are therefore strongly urging MPs to reject the amendment on pet deposits during the Consideration of Amendments. If left unchanged, tenants will be excluded not by legal restrictions, but by financial barriers – nullifying the bill’s positive intentions entirely. While tenants may legally be granted the right to request a pet, in practice, many simply won’t be able to afford it.
