Pets, Children and Deposits: What Landlords Can and Cannot Charge For

Having pets or children does not give your landlord a blank cheque to deduct from your deposit. The law draws clear lines between damage and normal use, and recent legislation has strengthened tenant protections significantly.

The Tenant Fees Act 2019 and Pets

The Tenant Fees Act 2019 banned most letting fees, including blanket "pet fees" or "pet deposits." A landlord can request a higher deposit (up to 5 weeks' rent) when permitting pets, but they cannot charge a separate non-refundable fee — see our guide to letting agent fees for more on banned charges. Any deduction at the end of the tenancy must relate to actual, evidenced damage — not simply the presence of an animal.

What Counts as Pet Damage?

According to TDS adjudication guidance, valid pet damage includes: scratched doors or skirting boards beyond fair wear, stained or damaged carpets specifically caused by the pet, persistent odours that require professional treatment, and damage to garden areas (dug-up lawns, damaged fencing). However, slight carpet wear, minor marks on walls, and general dirt are not pet damage — they are normal wear and tear that happens with or without pets.

Children and Fair Wear

There is no legal basis for charging more because a tenant has children. Marks on walls, worn carpets, and scuffed floors are all considered fair wear and tear. Shelter is clear that a landlord cannot charge for damage that is simply the result of normal family life. If a landlord tries to claim for "extra cleaning" or "extra wear" because of children, this is almost certainly unfair — read more about challenging cleaning charges.

The Renters' Reform Bill

The Renters' Reform Bill has further strengthened the right to keep pets in rental properties. Under the new framework, landlords cannot unreasonably refuse a pet request, and tenants can challenge refusals. This makes it even more important that any pet-related deductions are specifically evidenced and relate to actual damage, not simply the fact that a pet was in the property.