Navigating pet rights under the Renters’ Rights Bill
9 months ago | 10 comments
Tenant group claims pet deposit amendment will price out renters
12:01 AM, 18th July 2025, 9 months ago
9
Generation Rent claims that the pet deposit amendment will force tenants to pay landlords more than £1,000 in upfront costs.
Members of the House of Lords voted for an amendment in the Renters’ Rights Bill to accept an amendment allowing landlords to take a separate pet damage deposit of up to three weeks’ rent above the usual deposit cap.
Writing in The Big Issue, Ben Twomey, chief executive of Generation Rent, claims this amendment will cause harm to tenants.
Sting in the tail
Previously, the government performed a U-turn on pet damage insurance, placing the financial burden directly on landlords. During the second debate of the Report Stage, Labour Peers argued that “pet insurance was not needed.”
Lord De Clifford tabled Amendment 53A to the Renters’ Rights Bill, which would allow landlords to take a separate pet damage deposit of up to three weeks’ rent.
However, Generation Rent claim the amendment would increase upfront costs for renters.
Mr Twomey told The Big Issue: “The law was debated by the House of Lords last week and came out the other side with a sting in the tail.
“Peers voted to amend it to enable landlords to charge an extra three weeks’ deposit for renters with pets. For the average renter, this would amount to a new £1,103 upfront cost, alongside the typical five weeks’ deposit and the eye-watering costs of moving home. Every time rents rise in future, this upfront cost for new tenants would also rise with them.”
Government should resist this amendment
Mr Twomey adds: “The minister, Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, said in the debate this week that the government is content that existing deposits are enough to cover typical pet damages.
“Research supports that position, so there really is no reason for renters to be plundered for more and more cash based on unfounded landlord fears or whims, especially as one of the aims of the Renters’ Rights Bill is to reduce the upfront costs of renting.
“The government can and should resist this amendment, which passed in the Lords by just eight votes. If just four peers had changed their minds to back pet-owning renters, we wouldn’t even need to be talking about it.”
Deposit is returned
However, Mr Twomey fails to mention that the amendment allows renters to get their deposit back, provided there is no pet-related damage.
Lord De Clifford told the debate: “The benefit of the deposit in this amendment is that, if they respect the property and maintain it, the deposit is returned to them at the end, whereas the initial proposal for pet insurance was money never to be returned, regardless of whether a claim was made or not.
“For some landlords, the right to have a pet is making them reconsider whether to continue to let in the private rented sector or choose to do short-term holiday lets or Airbnbs, where they can charge for pets, or even sell the property. This amendment only helps to support landlords to remain in the private rented sector.”
As previously reported on Property118, the introduction of caps and restrictions on tenancy deposits under the Tenant Fees Act means landlords in England can no longer request higher deposits for tenants with pets, making it harder for pet owners to find a place to live.
Tags:
generation rent, landlord pet deposit, pet damage deposit, pet deposit amendment, renters rights bill
Comments
Have Your Say
Every day, landlords who want to influence policy and share real-world experience add their voice here. Your perspective helps keep the debate balanced.
Not a member yet? Join In Seconds
Login with
or
Related Articles
Victory for landlords as Lords back pet deposit amendment
9 months ago | 17 comments
Industry body pushes back on pet insurance U-turn
9 months ago | 6 comments
Member Since September 2018 - Comments: 3508 - Articles: 5
9:30 AM, 18th July 2025, About 9 months ago
my argument will always be …it’s a deposit. in other words fully refundable if there are no damages. Like hiring a car, a vax carpet cleaner,….etc
Look at it another way..
If the tenants CHOOSES to have a pet after a tenancy agreement is signed it’s because they want a pet (very rarely its a necessity), along with that should be an understanding that they WILL be adding and additional risk for potential damage. It may or may not happen, but that’s not the point. There is some financial assurance there for the person taking the risk – the LL.
On fair balance therefore it is only right that the tenant is given the sensible ability to self mitigate.
As there is a ban on a LL being able to accept any such offer of mitigation – deposit or other mechanism, then this makes it impossible for the LL to agree to the request.
Member Since June 2015 - Comments: 330
10:02 AM, 18th July 2025, About 9 months ago
If a tenant can’t afford a bigger deposit they certainly can’t afford a pet. Pet food and vet bills are a hefty expense.
Member Since April 2018 - Comments: 365
10:14 AM, 18th July 2025, About 9 months ago
Tenants will just deny they have pets to avoid this cost, which will mean constant inspections, denials, hassle, eviction, by which time your property will be destroyed.
Member Since June 2022 - Comments: 11
10:46 AM, 18th July 2025, About 9 months ago
Tenants with pets (of any kind) are not welcome in my rental properties. I have had to fund the clean-up from irresponsible pet owners previously and I will not do it again. It was extremely time consuming and costly which taught me an important lesson. As a result of that experience when looking for new tenants I take time to select the most suitable – and that will exclude applicants with pets.
It annoys me that many of the Lords, Ladies, MP’s and charities etc give little consideration to other people’s property when debating the issue of pets. Too much emphasis on the tenants ’wants’ or dare I say ‘mental health’ and very little on the landlord.
Member Since August 2021 - Comments: 4
10:49 AM, 18th July 2025, About 9 months ago
What a lovely picture showing 3 cute little dogs with sunglasses on in the main picture. This is obviously Generation Rents take on what the majority of pets (dogs) look like. Well let me tell you it really isn’t, what about the like of Pit Bulls, German Shepards, Staffs, Huskies, the list could go on, why not show these breeds in the picture? I’ll tell you why because they don’t want to show the other side, the dangerous side, the aggressive side, the destructive side. There’s always 2 sides to each story.
Member Since November 2024 - Comments: 81
12:20 PM, 18th July 2025, About 9 months ago
Reply to the comment left by Loggolad at 18/07/2025 – 10:49and here is Mr Twomey posing with a (friend’s) German Shepard in the Big Issue (last photo in the article) – https://www.bigissue.com/opinion/renters-pet-generation-rent/#:~:text=Peers%20voted%20to%20amend%20it,watering%20costs%20of%20moving%20home.
Member Since October 2023 - Comments: 201
2:13 PM, 18th July 2025, About 9 months ago
Heaven forbid those responsible will be held accountable for the damage they cause.
What is the world coming to.
I had a tenant whose dog destroyed two (brand new) carpets. I’m not sure 3 weeks rent deposit would have covered it.
He had already wiped out the existing deposit, with other damages he did.
Member Since January 2015 - Comments: 1435 - Articles: 1
4:16 PM, 18th July 2025, About 9 months ago
I still don’t want pets. And I wont have pets. End of.
Member Since September 2018 - Comments: 3508 - Articles: 5
4:54 PM, 18th July 2025, About 9 months ago
Reply to the comment left by Judith Wordsworth at 18/07/2025 – 16:16
see the Doc and get a certificate to say you have allergies to pet fur etc. If you self manage and therefore do inspections – there’s your reasonable excuse.
Either that or give your contracted maintenance guy a bottle of wine to write you a letter to say he will not go into properties with pets because of safety issues.
Job done.