Two Months After the Renters' Rights Act, 7 in 10 Rental Listings Still Say No to Pets
We analysed 15,522 live rental listings across 41 UK cities to measure pet-friendly availability.
Findings (9 sections)
Key figures
- 30.0% of listings accept pets (our sample, OpenRent) OpenRent listings, 2026
- 14.8% lowest city: Derby (37 of 250 listings) OpenRent listings, 2026
- 45% of renters plan to get a pet post-Act YouGov / Battersea
15,522 listings · 41 cities · June–July 2026
The finding: the barrier to renting with a pet is not cost. It is that the properties do not exist.
Background
On 1 May 2026, the Renters' Rights Act came into force in England. Among its provisions, tenants gained the statutory right to request to keep a pet in their rental home. Landlords can no longer impose blanket "no pets" clauses and cannot unreasonably refuse a request. The change affects approximately 11 million private renters in England.
The legislation arrives as pet ownership in the UK has reached its highest recorded level. According to the PDSA's 2025 PAW Report, 54% of UK households now own a pet, up sharply since before the pandemic. The UK dog population hit a record 11.1 million in 2025. At the same time, private renting has shifted from a transitional phase to a long-term reality for millions of households, meaning more people are looking to keep pets in rental properties for longer periods than at any point in modern history.
The collision between these trends is the context for this analysis. We examined 15,522 live rental listings across 41 UK cities to measure what pet-friendly supply actually looks like, and what happens to rent when landlords say yes.
Pet-Friendly Availability by City
Across our sample, 30.0% of OpenRent listings accept pets, but this varies from 14.8% in Derby to 43.3% in Luton. OpenRent is a direct landlord-to-tenant platform, which skews more pet-friendly than the agent-listed market; Inventory Base estimates just 5.9% of all English rentals are advertised as pet-friendly. Either way, the supply is thin, and about to face a demand surge.
Fewer than one in three listings accept pets in most cities
Share of OpenRent listings flagged "Pets allowed", 41 UK cities, lowest to highest.
- Lowest city (Derby)
- England
- Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland
Show the data table (41 cities)
| City | Pet-friendly % | Pet-friendly | Total listings |
|---|---|---|---|
| Derby | 14.8% | 37 | 250 |
| Plymouth | 15.1% | 14 | 93 |
| Exeter | 17.4% | 12 | 69 |
| Birmingham | 18.5% | 133 | 717 |
| Swansea (Wales) | 19.6% | 33 | 168 |
| York | 20.0% | 13 | 65 |
| Bournemouth | 20.2% | 54 | 267 |
| Leeds | 20.4% | 78 | 382 |
| Dundee (Scotland) | 22.7% | 22 | 97 |
| Leicester | 23.2% | 81 | 349 |
| Liverpool | 23.6% | 106 | 450 |
| Stoke-on-Trent | 25.1% | 65 | 259 |
| Wolverhampton | 25.2% | 34 | 135 |
| Nottingham | 25.4% | 107 | 422 |
| Coventry | 26.4% | 88 | 333 |
| Bristol | 26.7% | 123 | 460 |
| Ipswich | 26.9% | 21 | 78 |
| Edinburgh (Scotland) | 27.3% | 56 | 205 |
| Reading | 27.4% | 61 | 223 |
| Peterborough | 27.7% | 44 | 159 |
| Cardiff (Wales) | 27.9% | 51 | 183 |
| Portsmouth | 28.4% | 64 | 225 |
| Manchester | 28.6% | 221 | 772 |
| Northampton | 28.6% | 56 | 196 |
| Norwich | 29.5% | 43 | 146 |
| Blackpool | 29.8% | 28 | 94 |
| Southampton | 29.9% | 69 | 231 |
| Glasgow (Scotland) | 30.1% | 116 | 386 |
| Cambridge | 30.2% | 79 | 262 |
| Huddersfield | 31.1% | 33 | 106 |
| Oxford | 32.1% | 75 | 234 |
| Sheffield | 32.7% | 86 | 263 |
| Belfast (NI) | 34.0% | 18 | 53 |
| London | 34.3% | 2,030 | 5,923 |
| Milton Keynes | 35.0% | 42 | 120 |
| Newcastle upon Tyne | 36.4% | 87 | 239 |
| Aberdeen (Scotland) | 40.6% | 80 | 197 |
| Brighton | 40.7% | 92 | 226 |
| Sunderland | 42.7% | 44 | 103 |
| Middlesbrough | 43.0% | 61 | 142 |
| Luton | 43.3% | 104 | 240 |
Source: Ranking Atlas analysis of 15,522 OpenRent listings, 24 June 2026.
The Sticker Shock: Why Pet-Friendly Looks Expensive
At first glance, the data looks alarming: pet-friendly listings carry a national median rent of £1,500/mo versus £1,050 for no-pets listings. But this is a selection effect, not a pet tax.
| Listings | Median rent | Listings (n) |
|---|---|---|
| Pet-friendly listings | £1,500 | 4,661 |
| No-pets listings | £1,050 | 10,861 |
Source: Ranking Atlas analysis of 15,522 OpenRent listings, 24 June 2026.
The Real Premium: Almost Nothing
When we control for city, property type, and bedroom count, the pet premium shrinks to near zero.
| Method | Premium | Detail |
|---|---|---|
| OLS regression controlling for city, property type, bedrooms, and all features | +£76/mo | R² = 53.7%, n = 13,298 |
| Controlled pair matching: same city, same type, same beds | −£7/mo | 228 matched groups, 3,277 pairs |
Source: Ranking Atlas analysis of 13,298 OpenRent listings with complete property type and bedroom data.
Raw Rent Gap by City
The uncontrolled median gap by city. These figures reflect the mix of property types available with and without pets, not a like-for-like premium. English cities with a minimum of 30 listings on each side are shown.
Pet-friendly listings post higher raw medians in every city shown
Median monthly rent, pet-friendly (gold) against no-pets (navy). Gap labels at the right of each pair.
- Pet-friendly
- No pets
Source: Ranking Atlas analysis of OpenRent listings, 24 June 2026. The full table follows.
| City | With pets | Without | Raw gap | n (with) | n (without) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Milton Keynes | £1,925 | £1,113 | +£813 | 42 | 78 |
| Northampton | £1,525 | £862 | +£663 | 56 | 140 |
| Brighton | £1,950 | £1,350 | +£600 | 92 | 134 |
| London | £2,250 | £1,700 | +£550 | 2,030 | 3,893 |
| Bristol | £1,800 | £1,275 | +£525 | 123 | 337 |
| Oxford | £1,650 | £1,200 | +£450 | 75 | 159 |
| Portsmouth | £1,200 | £758 | +£441 | 64 | 161 |
| Norwich | £1,350 | £930 | +£420 | 43 | 103 |
| Coventry | £992 | £680 | +£312 | 88 | 245 |
| Birmingham | £1,100 | £795 | +£305 | 133 | 584 |
| Leicester | £1,100 | £795 | +£305 | 81 | 268 |
| Sheffield | £997 | £695 | +£302 | 86 | 177 |
| Derby | £995 | £695 | +£300 | 37 | 213 |
| Cambridge | £1,750 | £1,450 | +£300 | 79 | 183 |
| Manchester | £1,395 | £1,100 | +£295 | 221 | 551 |
| Stoke-on-Trent | £895 | £600 | +£295 | 65 | 194 |
| Bournemouth | £1,225 | £950 | +£275 | 54 | 213 |
| Peterborough | £1,075 | £823 | +£252 | 44 | 115 |
| Reading | £1,500 | £1,275 | +£225 | 61 | 162 |
| Wolverhampton | £950 | £735 | +£215 | 34 | 101 |
| Nottingham | £995 | £795 | +£200 | 107 | 315 |
| Luton | £1,050 | £850 | +£200 | 104 | 136 |
| Leeds | £1,117 | £943 | +£174 | 78 | 304 |
| Middlesbrough | £695 | £542 | +£153 | 61 | 81 |
| Newcastle upon Tyne | £900 | £780 | +£120 | 87 | 152 |
| Southampton | £1,050 | £935 | +£115 | 69 | 162 |
| Liverpool | £900 | £789 | +£112 | 106 | 344 |
| Huddersfield | £750 | £646 | +£104 | 33 | 73 |
| Sunderland | £700 | £600 | +£100 | 44 | 59 |
Source: England only. Minimum 30 listings per side. Gap is raw median difference reflecting property mix, not a controlled premium. Welsh cities (Cardiff, Swansea) are excluded. The Renters' Rights Act applies to England only; Wales has separate renting legislation.
The Human Cost
Behind the numbers are real people forced to choose between their home and their pet, or unable to get one at all.
The human cost in figures
- 40% of renters have been unable to get a pet due to housing restrictions YouGov / Battersea Dogs & Cats Home
- 19% of those refused by a landlord were forced to give up their pet YouGov / Battersea Dogs & Cats Home
- 1,000+ cats taken in by Cats Protection in 2024 because landlords refused them Cats Protection
- 15% of Dogs Trust handover enquiries cite accommodation issues Dogs Trust
- 45% of renters say they are likely to get a pet now the Act has passed YouGov / Battersea
- 26% of tenants would stay longer if their landlord allowed pets Cats Protection
Scotland: A Natural Comparison
Scotland operates under different tenancy law. Private residential tenancies have had stronger tenant protections since 2017. In Scotland, the raw pet premium barely exists.
| City | Raw gap | Pet-friendly vs no-pets | n | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Glasgow | −£195 | £1,200 vs £1,395 | 116/270 | Pet-friendly is cheaper |
| Edinburgh | +£38 | £1,533 vs £1,495 | 56/149 | Negligible gap |
| Aberdeen | +£12 | £712 vs £700 | 80/117 | Negligible gap |
Source: Ranking Atlas analysis of OpenRent listings, 24 June 2026.
Download the Data
Full city-level dataset: availability rates, median rents, sample sizes, and raw gaps for all 41 cities.
pet-premium-data.csv
Availability rates, median rents, sample sizes and raw gaps, 41 cities.
Methodology
Data collection
- 15,522 publicly displayed rental listings on OpenRent.co.uk across 41 cities in England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland, observed and recorded on 24 June 2026
- Detail data (features, EPC, deposit, pet-friendly status) recorded from individual listing pages for all 15,522 listings
- Pet-friendly status determined by the "Pets allowed" flag on each listing
- Sample: 4,661 pet-friendly listings vs 10,861 non-pet-friendly
- Regression and controlled pair matching used 13,298 listings with complete property type and bedroom data; listings missing these fields were excluded from those analyses only
Platform note
- OpenRent is a direct landlord-to-tenant platform. Its 30.0% pet-friendly rate is substantially higher than the 5.9% reported by Inventory Base across all English rentals (which includes agent-listed stock on Rightmove, Zoopla, etc.). Direct-to-tenant landlords may be more willing to accept pets. These findings should not be extrapolated to the entire rental market without this caveat.
- For a parallel open-data analysis of UK housing policy, our study of land values around HS2 stations applies the same methodology of measuring outcomes against a national baseline using HM Land Registry transaction data.
- OpenRent listing data is © OpenRent. Figures in this study are Ranking Atlas's aggregated analysis of publicly displayed information. This study is not affiliated with or endorsed by OpenRent.
Analysis methods
- Raw premium: Median rent comparison between pet-friendly and non-pet-friendly listings. Cities require a minimum of 30 listings on each side to be reported in the city table.
- OLS regression: Multivariate model controlling for city, property type, bedroom count, and all listing features simultaneously (R² = 53.7%, n = 13,298). Pets-allowed coefficient: +£76/mo.
- Controlled pair matching: Listings grouped by city + property type + bedrooms. Median rent compared within each matched group (minimum 3 listings per side), weighted by group size. 228 matched groups, 3,277 listing pairs. Result: −£7/mo.
Scope
- The Renters' Rights Act applies to England only. Scottish cities (Glasgow, Edinburgh, Aberdeen) are included as a comparison group under different tenancy law. Welsh (Cardiff, Swansea) and Northern Irish (Belfast) cities appear in the availability table but are excluded from the England rent-gap analysis.
External sources
- Pet ownership: PDSA PAW Report 2025 (54% of UK households, 11.1m dogs)
- Renter refusal data: YouGov/Battersea survey; Go Compare pet insurance survey (743k households refused)
- Rescue intake: Cats Protection (1,000+ cats, 2024); Dogs Trust (15% of enquiries cite housing)
- Market-wide pet-friendly proportion: Inventory Base (5.9% of English rentals)
- Landlord vs tenant perception: Dogs Trust / Cats Protection joint research
For a different cut of this data, additional regional or demographic breakouts, or methodology questions, contact contact@ranking-atlas.com.