Personally, neither do I, and I've allowed tenants to put up picture hooks, shelves and paint as long as they're not dark colours, but no tenant has ever put the property back to the way it was whenever they took it on, especially as they can claim fair wear and tear.
But why would a few picture hooks and a wall of say, pale yellow in a kitchen, put off a potential renter? That's the bit I don't get. I've moved into places that have colour schemes in rooms and picture hooks on the walls already - great I can hang some pictures, but I've had to live with the colour schemes in the other rooms because I'm not allowed to decorate at all. My DD lived in a blue bedroom for a year because it was that way when we moved in from the LL buying it. Not a massive deal, but it was to an 8 year old, and no posters allowed on the walls. After a year I asked to redecorate and was told no, the house was for sale anyway! Oh right well thanks for telling me, not like it affects me or anything is it! He admitted he didn't want to tell me until he had viewings because I might move out and leave him in the lurch. Perfectly acceptable to leave me in the lurch trying to find somewhere quick to move to though! Oh but it's the LLs right to sell when he wants. He also tried to keep part of my deposit for the back door that broke shortly after we moved in, that I reported, and that he failed to fix - it was old, it should have been replaced before I moved in really, but tbh we needed somewhere pretty fast as the LL before had already sold up, and I had a month. Those are the types of choices renters face.
A property is a tenants home, I agree completely, but when tenants want to be able to do things like have a dog, which will automatically mean the carpets need replacing when they leave, there could be scratches on doors or whatever and none of the costs of fixing those things will be down to the tenant because of fair wear and tear, then it makes sense for the LL to say no
Why are LLs only finding these things after they've moved? I've had a mixed bag when it comes to renting and inspections, with one never bothering and then texting me 3 weeks after I moved to say it wasn't clean enough and he was keeping my deposit - which he didn't manage to because I had proof. To the one who let himself in claiming he'd sent a text, to one through an LA that used to email me (every couple of months) at 5pm saying they were coming at 5pm the next day, and it was a condition of my tenancy. They didn't care if I was at work and couldn't rearrange at such short notice, I just got hassle. But the point is, I have no problems with my home being inspected to make sure it's ok, and I'd expect anything to be addressed then. As long as it's done properly and not dumped on me and I'm given hassle for not being able to be available. Why are these things only being found when people moved out? Why aren't they being picked up and addressed on inspections if it's so paramount that the house be kept perfect for the next tenant? Much easier to deal with people while they're there surely?
If I knew that I could take a bigger, non refundable deposit to allow animals, and I knew that any costs of damage would be covered by the tenant even if it cost more than the deposit, if I wouldn't have to fight to keep any deposit and it was expected that tenants return a property in the same state it was taken on, then I'd be able to afford to be a lot more flexible about pets. But ultimately, because the law fails good landlords, its good tenants that suffer.
When you say about fighting for the deposit etc, that's because poor LLs have ripped off good tenants, so the deposit protection scheme was put into place, which sometimes means that good LLs are suffering because of the bad ones. The same reasoning that you're giving for good tenants suffering because of bad ones.
And has the new legislation prevented 'pet deposits'? I am now in social housing but I have as recently as a couple of years ago paid extra for having a dog.
I also don't understand why a dog living in the property automatically means changing carpets either. I regularly clean my carpets and always have with having dogs, and I always do when leaving a property, regardless of having a dog or not. In fact it works out cheaper to save up a bit and just get someone in for me (several reasons) my dogs also don't pee/poo everywhere, and I hoover so there's not dog hair everywhere. And when my DD totally ruined her bedroom carpet with foundation fecking teens! I informed the LL straight away, she laughed and said if it didn't come out, she'd keep the cost of a like for like (minus the fact it was a fairly old carpet anyway) from my deposit, or I could replace it myself with a similar priced one to what she would keep. (She advised the former though, because she'd had teens!)