Dogs, Fences and Liability: What Landlords Need to Know Now

I recently held a training webinar for Landlord Law members, which was mainly an opportunity for them to ask questions.

Quite a few of these were about pets, in particular about garden fencing and escaping dogs!

They provide an interesting example of the sort of problems courts and (in due course) the Ombudsman are going to have to deal with, once the Renters Rights Act 2025 has come into force.

The first question was:

Regarding new requirements to consider requests for a pet. If the garden does not have adequate fencing to keep a dog in the curtilage of the property, is that a justifiable reason for saying no to a dog?

My comment was that landlords should try to ‘pet-proof’ properties before renting them out, as it was going to be harder to prevent tenants from keeping pets in the post Renters Rights Act world.

This should, in my view, include the garden and garden fence, as you and your tenants will not want pet dogs escaping and neighbour complaints about this.

Incidentally, I note that one of the most popular breeds of dog in the UK at the moment is the miniature dachshund. Which, being small and low, would no doubt find it quite easy to escape through small holes in fencing.

The second question:

Tessa, regarding new requirements to consider requests for a pet. The council has told us that enforcement doesn’t extend to garden fences.

Refusals to allow a pet can, after 1 May 2026, be challenged in the Court (under the provisions of the Renters’ Rights Act (see s11 and s16B(5)). When the new Ombudsman scheme comes on board, tenants will also be able to complain to the Ombudsman.

My answer to this question was, what is going to be the likely response of a Judge or an Ombudsman (in the event of a challenge by the tenant) if you say to them:

“I am refusing permission for this dog as the garden fence is defective and the animal could escape. I have not repaired the fence as I am not obligated to do this under my statutory repairing obligations in section 11 of the Landlord & Tenant Act 1985.”

My feeling is that the Judge/Ombudsman would not be impressed with this response!

I suspect that they would either expect the landlord to put the fence in repair themselves, or make it a condition of granting permission that the tenants carry out improvements to the fence before the pet is brought into the property to live.

We then had a comment on this:

I think that the landlord should put the fence into a pet-proof condition, but charge the tenant for the costs.

My response at the time was that this could be a breach of the Tenant Fees Act. On reflection, this might be allowable as it would be a condition of allowing the pet.

The third question:

What if it isn’t your fence (the badly maintained fence question earlier)? Or if it is a shared fence with next door?

This was a bit of a poser, as the landlord does not have the right to repair or replace a fence which does not belong to him, or require tenants to do so.

I think what landlords would probably be expected to do, is speak to the neighbour about it. The neighbour might be willing to do the repair work, particularly if they could otherwise be faced with escaping dogs (for example) digging up their prized Daliahs.

Alternatively, they may be willing to allow the landlord or the tenant to carry out work to make the fence escape-proof.

For example, I can’t see how the neighbour could object to either the landlord or his tenant nailing a bit of wood over a hole in a fence which is otherwise in good condition.

However, this is the sort of situation that judges and the Ombudsman are going to face after 1 May.

What about liability for damage done by the escaping dog?

We didn’t discuss this on the training session, but it is a question that needs to be asked.

There is a very old case called Rylands v. Fletcher, which is about property owners being liable if something ‘escapes’ from their land onto someone else’s land and causes damage. I suspect it could apply to damage done by escaping pet dogs.

I discussed Rylands v. Fletcher in the context of neighbours from hell in an old post from 2011.

I don’t know for sure what the answer is, but my feeling is that it could be that

• If the landlord deliberately allowed tenants to have a dog, knowing that the garden was not secure against the dog escaping, they might well be liable under Rylands v. Fletcher.
• However, if the landlord ensured that the garden was escape-proof at the time of letting and it was the tenants who had failed to maintain it properly during their tenancy, it would probably be the tenants who were liable.

Which, if that is correct, would mean that my instinctive response to the initial question, that the landlords should make sure the fences are in good condition before letting the property, would be in the landlord’s best interests.

And finally

At the moment, we have only been told of four acceptable reasons for refusing a pet:

• That the landlord’s lease prohibits pets
• That the property is genuinely unsuitable for the specific pet concerned
• That other tenants are allergic, and
• That the pet is illegal, for example, under the Dangerous Dogs Act.

There are many, many other situations where we simply do not know what ‘the answer’ is.

In my answers above, I was just guessing, based on my instincts for what a Judge or Ombudsman would be likely to find fair.  I could be wrong.

For example, from the questions above, we have the following debatable legal issues

• Is it reasonable for a landlord to refuse permission for a dog on the basis of his defective garden fence and the likelihood of the dog escaping?
• Can the landlord use the fact that he is not obligated to keep fences in repair under his repairing obligations as a reason for refusing to repair the fence, and then refuse permission for the dog because of the likelihood of it escaping?
• What if the fence is not owned by the landlord?
• If the landlord requires the tenant to repair the fence as a condition of consent, does this breach the Tenant Fees Act 2019?
• Will the case of Rylands v. Fletcher apply if damage is done to neighbouring properties by an escaping dog?

What are your views?

Click for more of my posts on the Renters Rights Act.