Peers to debate final amendments to Renters’ Rights Bill tomorrow

For a landlord to refuse a tenant on the grounds of large dog that perhaps with the right owner does number 1 and two in the flat and showers the furniture with pea marking their territory is only consider £300 damage! and failure to accept the tenant and dog will be a criminal matter!
The Prime Minister Scammer gets dressed free himself and his family and be provided with glasses and other extras as well as most of the secretaries of state by Lord Ali. What does this lord get in return for his investment?
Of course, Stammer is not the only Prime Minister to do so. Cameron was employing fraudulently claiming wages for a family member, like other primer ministers and a large collection of the legislators and this abuse and theft by a highly paid MP’s was never a criminal matter and as small landlord who try’s to protect his property by not selecting a tenant with a large dog, as in his judgement the damage will not be sufficient with a £300 deposit (Could lose 2 months rent alone to get rid of the stench) or because the tenant cannot insure the dog because the Government thinks that is not necessary, his actions in order to protect his/her property can be deemed as a criminal matter is not just beyond reason but fairness and honesty by the highly privileged unelected lords

Why bother with these articles about the Lords and RRB? We know, and the Lords know, the government is intransigent in this matter.

Housing Minister Matthew Pennycook continues to display his ignorance of logic and landlording.
He said: “The amendment to allow landlords to require an additional deposit, equivalent to three weeks’ rent, as a condition of consent to a tenant’s request to keep a pet. We cannot support this amendment. Requiring a further three weeks’ deposit would cost the average tenant in England over £900.
“Such sums would be unaffordable for many tenants and would greatly exceed the average deposit deduction for pet damage of £300.”
The word average is thoroughly misleading. Yes, if you add up all the deductions across the country for pet damage and divide by the number of tenancies (or even those tenancies where there is a claim for pet damage) the average deduction may be £300. So what? By definition, if the average is £300, half of deductions exceed £300. As a basic knowledge of statistics will teach you, the lowest deduction is £0 but the highest is not £600 or even £900 but potentially thousands.
Even on Mr Pennycook’s ignorant analysis, a pet deposit of £300 would be reasonable. The fact that £300 is less than the average tenancy deposit is also irrelevant. If a 5 week deposit is acceptable for the risk of breaches of the tenancy such as non-payment of rent and damage, then an increase in risk – having a pet- merits an increase in deposit.

Amend the amendments! It’s hard to keep up but many of the regulations in the RRB already exist. E.g. the ‘ decent homes act already exists as the health and safety HHRSR. The only difference is under RRB councils can enter property without LLs permission whereas under HHRSR they have to get LLs permission first?? The biggest change is S21 going!

Reply to the comment left by Ian Narbeth at 13/10/2025 – 12:59
We let to a ‘friend’ for a year and she had a very large, old, infirm dog. We knew it ponged from visiting her previous home, but she assured us it wouldn’t go upstairs. The house did pong after she left and the professional carpet cleaning (twice) didn’t remove all the stains. Rather than replace the carpets (£3,000 10 years ago), we’ve taken the opportunity to re-let to a family with a (very small) dog, but on the understanding they would cover the costs of any damage. The new tenant is happy with the arrangement.

Reply to the comment left by NewYorkie at 13/10/2025 – 14:27
You were lucky to find a tenant who would accept the property in its damaged condition. You might easily have had a void and might have had to replace the carpets to attract new tenants. I expect 2 lots of professional cleaning cost the better part of £200.

What a clown Pennycook is. Has he any idea what carpets cost nowadays? These are the items most likely to suffer from pet damage – soiling, clawing, fleas. Does he even realise that private landlords almost always provide these yet Social homes providers don’t?

Utterly imbecilic logic to prevent private landlords from charging ANY extra for the extra risk of pet damage and a shameful lack of focus when those who qualify for Social housing (ie not able to afford market rents) are expected to carpet (and often decorate) their new rental property which is totally beyond the resources of many in that position. And of course there is no risk of pet damage to carpets for local council and social landlords when they haven’t provided them in the first instance! (apart from floor coverings in kitchen and bathroom which are mandatory).

Is the eviction for ASB related to the civil or criminal law – it seems we still have no guidelines on our rights in this instance (perhaps we have none!)

Reply to the comment left by Ian Narbeth at 13/10/2025 – 17:43
We would have replaced the carpets, but the tenant came along quickly and our house was perfect for them, with nothing else available. The dog pong had gone, and we redecorated, so it was a win/win.

If the House of Commons feel it reasonable for a landlord to be stopped from re-letting for 12 months if a genuine sale falls through, it is also reasonable for the landlord to expect not to pay Council Tax during this period as they are being forced into a situation they have no control over.

Don’t get me started on pet deposits, I paid £300 for replacement flooring in a small bathroom so a lounge carpet that has been ruined is likely to run up to between £600-£800 i would think. Landlords will continue to choose tenants without pets and it would be very hard to prove a rejection based on pet ownership.
I feel really sorry for tenants on the pet side of things as we all enjoy the company of pets and once you have a pet, you wouldn’t get rid of it when you have to move, although sadly some don’t have a choice.