Direct threat and substantial damage
For landlords
The two grounds landlords most want to rely on, and most often misapply.
What direct threat means
A significant risk of substantial harm to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated or reduced by another reasonable accommodation. Every word in that does work. A significant risk, not a possible one. Substantial harm, not inconvenience. And only where nothing else would reduce it.
The assessment must be individualised and based on objective evidence about this animal conduct: a bite history, documented aggression, incidents in the building. A breed, a size, a reputation or a general unease is not objective evidence and a refusal resting on one will not survive scrutiny.
Substantial property damage
Same structure. Substantial physical damage to the property that cannot be reduced by another accommodation, assessed on evidence about this animal rather than about animals generally. Ordinary wear, or the possibility of damage that every animal carries, is not it, and you already have a remedy for actual damage at the end of the tenancy.
Reducing rather than refusing
The statute asks whether another accommodation would reduce the risk, so consider it and record that you did. Muzzling in shared spaces, a specific route through the building, restrictions on unattended time, a behaviour plan with a deadline. A provider who explored an alternative and documented why it would not work is in a far stronger position than one who went straight to no.
After an incident
- Record it immediately: date, time, what happened, who saw it, any injury.
- Write to the tenant describing the incident and what you require.
- Give a chance to address it where the incident is not severe.
- Escalate on a record rather than on an impression. Most removal demands fail because the file contains complaints rather than facts.
Common questions
- The dog growled at a neighbour. Is that a direct threat?
- On its own, almost certainly not. It is something to record and address. A significant risk of substantial harm needs more behind it than one incident of that kind.
- My insurer excludes the breed. Is that enough?
- It is the start of an undue burden argument, not the end of one. Establish whether cover is genuinely unavailable and what an alternative would cost before relying on it.