The mistakes that cost landlords money

1. Not recognising the request

There are no magic words. An email saying a therapist thinks a dog would help, asking whether the no-pets rule can be waived, is a request and the clock starts there. Most failures in this area begin with a request nobody logged.

2. Silence

Unexplained delay can amount to a constructive denial, and it is the worst available option because it produces a refusal with no reason on the record. Acknowledge in writing the same week even if the decision takes longer.

3. Asking for the diagnosis

The single most common substantive error. You are entitled to two facts: that a disability exists and that the animal is needed because of it. Asking for more is itself evidence of an improper process.

4. Demanding certification or training records

None exist for an emotional support animal. Asking for something that cannot be produced, and then refusing because it was not produced, is a refusal that will not survive being read.

5. Refusing on the breed

Breed lists are pet policies. A refusal has to rest on an individualised assessment of the actual animal. A local ordinance banning the breed is a different and much stronger objection; your insurer excluding it is an argument that needs evidence behind it.

6. The pet addendum

7. Proceeding while a request is unanswered

Serving notice, levying fines or beginning proceedings over an animal while a properly made accommodation request sits undecided converts a strong position into an indefensible one.

8. Reading the 2026 rescission as permission

HUD narrowed how HUD enforces one statute. The Fair Housing Act is unchanged, the private right of action with its fee-shifting provision is unchanged, and state law is now where the enforcement energy sits. A blanket policy adopted on the strength of the headline is the most expensive mistake available this year.