We analysed 15,522 live rental listings across 41 UK cities to measure pet-friendly availability. The finding: the barrier to renting with a pet is not cost. It is that the properties do not exist.
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.
What the Act does and doesn’t do: The Renters’ Rights Act grants a right to request a pet, not a right to a pet-friendly home. Landlords must consider each request individually and can still refuse on reasonable grounds (property damage risk, lease restrictions, property unsuitability). The Act changes the negotiation, but it does not create supply. That distinction is central to our findings.
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.
| 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% | 2030 | 5923 |
| 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 |
The demand side: 45% of renters say they plan to get a pet now the Act has passed (YouGov/Battersea). 743,000 renter households have previously been refused a pet by their landlord (Go Compare). In cities like Derby (14.8%), Birmingham (18.5%), Bournemouth (20.2%), the available pet-friendly stock is nowhere near ready for this wave.
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.
Why the gap exists: Pet-friendly listings skew toward larger properties (houses, detached, 3+ beds) in pricier cities: the kind of landlord who has the space and confidence to accept animals. Smaller flats and shared houses, which dominate the no-pets pool, are cheaper regardless of pet policy. The £450 gap is a proxy for property size and location, not a surcharge for owning a dog.
When we control for city, property type, and bedroom count, the pet premium shrinks to near zero.
Bottom line: There is no meaningful “pet tax” on rent. When you compare a 2-bed flat in Manchester that allows pets with a 2-bed flat in Manchester that doesn’t, the rents are essentially the same. The barrier to renting with a pet is not cost. The properties simply do not exist..
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.
| 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 | 2030 | 3893 |
| 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 |
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.
Behind the numbers are real people forced to choose between their home and their pet, or unable to get one at all.
Scotland operates under different tenancy law. Private residential tenancies have had stronger tenant protections since 2017. In Scotland, the raw pet premium barely exists.
In Scotland, where tenants already had stronger protections, the pet premium is essentially zero, and in Glasgow, pet-friendly listings are actually cheaper. This suggests England’s raw gap may partly reflect landlord caution under the old regime, and could narrow as the Renters’ Rights Act beds in.
Full city-level dataset: availability rates, median rents, sample sizes, and raw gaps for all 41 cities.
Download CSV