Government boosts court capacity as Renters’ Rights Act drives court demand

The Labour government refused to publish the results of its court impact assessment which means that the Labour Renters Rights Act did not get proper public scrutiny by either the opposition or the press:

https://www.property118.com/government-refuses-to-reveal-renters-rights-bill-court-impact-assessment/

Tribunals now don’t just have to deal with repossessions: They also have to deal with rent increases and requests to have a ‘pet’ whilst only obliging the tenant to provide a ‘description’ of the pet and only giving landlords 28 days plus another possible 7 days to assess the risk of that request.

Reply to the comment left by Beaver at 20/08/2026 – 10:29
The courts are overwhelmed!

This should have been done BEFORE the changes were made with a clear timeframe and success criteria

Reply to the comment left by JB at 20/08/2026 – 10:47
The courts are in absolute chaos!

Reply to the comment left by Fergus Wilson at 10:39
Most landlords are not qualified to assess the risk presented by an animal on the basis of a description from a tenant within 28 days (plus another 5 and no more) of a request from a tenant, before risking being taken to a rent tribunal under the Labour Renters Rights Act; this Act effectively gives tenants the right to a pet and the landlord risks being taken to a tribunal if the landlord says no to a request to have something the tenant describes as a pet. But rent tribunals are ALSO not qualified to assess the risks presented by animals (not even dogs), or to assess whether these animals are pets or something else.
The legal definition of a guard dog is defined in legislation. There is a reasonable summary of that here:
https://www.safeandsecurerollershutters.co.uk/news/can-i-have-guard-dogs-on-my-property/
The legislation on guard dogs bans certain breeds; but even alsations, staffordshire bull terriers, dobermans, rottweilers and rhodesian ridgebacks are used effectively as guard dogs, whether or not their use fits the definition of the legislation. And many cross-breeds of staffordshire bull terriers, american pit bulls or XL bully dogs are very effective as guard dogs, even if the owner says that they are a pet in their description.
The owner of an animal (an animal is a chattel) and the keeper of an animal (the person responsible for the animal) are different in law and animal law is really complex; rent tribunals are definitely not competent to deal with it and probably never will be competent.
But many people keep dogs for security even if they do not fit the legal definition of guard dog and this is general common knowledge because dogs are territorial. If you approach a car with a slightly open window and there is a dog in the car the dog will give you a warning bark; if you stick your hand through the window the dog will probably attack you and you might lose a digit, or the use of your hand. Even a small dog can take your finger off. There are approximately 3,000 attacks dog attacks per year on postmen and parliament is presently debating this:
https://edm.parliament.uk/early-day-motion/45730
The trades unions have also expressed serious concerns about these attacks: Unfortunately, when the Labour government ended no fault evictions with their Labour Renters Rights Act the government took away all powers that landlords had to deal with antisocial behaviour, such as attacks on postmen, excessive barking and other antisocial behaviour. Antisocial behaviour caused by pets is tenant antisocial behaviour.
The only powers that landlords have left are the right for them (or their agents) to carry out a landlord’s inspection having given 24 hours notice; but landlords and their agents cannot safely do this if there is an unknown dog guarding the premises, whether or not this pet is legally a guard dog; a dog in a premises is going to guard the premises anyway…..dogs don’t know anything about legislation…they are dogs with teeth and claws. They understand TERRITORY and that territory may be invaded by a postman, a council worker, a landlord, or a landlords agent.
Given the additional, totally unnecessary burden that the Labour government has placed on rent tribunals with the Labour Renters Rights Act the government needs to make it 100% clear to tribunals that:
1. Keeping a pet without prior written permission from landlord is itself antisocial behaviour and reason for immediate repossession under the Act because of the severe risk of antisocial behaviour caused by unknown animals.
2. Following a request from a tenant, whether in writing or not, landlords are free to increase the rent above market rent or to any value agreed between landlord and tenant and also (a) require the tenant to secure appropriate insurance covering both 3rd parties and property damage, and/or (b) cover any additional costs and risks the landlord may face including but not limited to increases in insurance.
The courts are already overwhelmed by the Labour Renters Rights Act. The Labour government is having to pour extra resources into the courts because of the unnecessary requirements in the Act and the only thing that landlords can do as a consequence is, either:
(a) withdraw their properties from the market (thereby forcing up rents).
(b) dramatically increase rents and collect far more tenant personal data
Because of the Labour Renters Rights Act landlords do not even have a choice any more; they only have two choices, a dilemma.
Pets are a responsibility, not a right: Labour has already dramatically increased the burden on the courts with this disastrous piece of legislation: Keeping a pet without prior written permission should be immediate grounds for repossession at a tribunal.

Reply to the comment left by Beaver at 20/08/2026 – 11:37
while the legislation regarding animals might be complex, the RRA has made it clear that the person making a request to have an animal on the premises is the tenant named in the APT (meaning they will be both the owner and keeper of the animal). By default of the action of requesting permission from the LL means they are stating they will be the person responsible for the animal.

Reply to the comment left by Reluctant Landlord at 12:09
Anybody who has any real experience of dealing with animals will tell you that the irresponsible pet owners create most of the risk and cause most of the damage. When there is a problem…a sheep attack…an attack on a postman or other unionised worker such as a council employee…an attack on a child resulting in severe disfigurement…the death of somebody elses animal such as a cat….then the person who you THINK has ownership of the animal suddenly DOES NOT have ownership of it. They say things like …I was just looking after it…it was the dogs fault not mine…it is my friends dog…it was my girlfriends dog…how do you know it was me?…how do you know it was mine?
There is a legal requirement for all dogs to be microchipped:
https://www.gov.uk/get-your-dog-cat-microchipped
The named tenant who you THINK may be the owner of the animal may not be the KEEPER of the animal.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1971/22/section/6/enacted
The named tenant or tenants need to be defined in the tenancy agreement as keepers of the animal(s) such that the responsibility is unambiguous and clear, and the tenancy agreement also needs to make it clear that antisocial behaviour, such as excessive barking, attacks on property, or attacks on other animals is tenant antisocial behaviour.

where are they going to find an additional 1000 judges then???

At County Court level you will find many courtrooms empty because few wants to be a District Judge that day!

Reply to the comment left by Fergus Wilson at 20/08/2026 – 22:38
And I doubt they work seven days. In fact, if they are public sector employees they may not even be working 5 days.