Lords clash over power to refuse pets in Renters’ Rights Bill debate

Members of the House of Lords blast loopholes in the Renters’ Rights Bill that let landlords refuse pets.

While some Lords criticised the bill for not going far enough to protect renters with pets, others urged caution, saying there needs to be a fair balance between landlords and tenants, and that the law should not become “an open door for tenants to have a pet.”

This was the fifth debate in the bill’s committee stage, with two more debates scheduled for next week.

Too many loopholes

Lord Black of Brentwood, from the Conservatives, says England is “a nation of pet lovers” and more needs to be done to help renters with pets.

He claims there are “too many loopholes” in the Bill which will create uncertainty for tenants with pets.

He told the debate: “I fear that there are loopholes in the Bill and that landlords will have too much room to deny most requests, risking a serious and unnecessary burden on tenants, the ombudsman and, ultimately, the courts.

“The Bill as drafted does not include a specific provision stating that, once consent to keep a pet is granted, it will remain for the duration of the tenancy. This will cause obvious anxiety and uncertainty for pet owners.”

He adds: “At the moment, the Bill rightly aims to end the blanket ban on pets in rental properties, providing tenants with the right to request to live with a pet. It does so by preventing landlords from ‘unreasonably’ refusing such a request.

“But, again, that imports a troubling degree of uncertainty into the system and gives far too much latitude for a landlord to deny a request. The provision allows landlords to reject a tenant’s request simply based on personal preferences, such as a dislike of dogs or concerns about noise, for instance, without needing to provide any clear justification or evidence to support their refusal.”

Best determined on a case-by-case basis

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, emphasised that pet requests should be handled on a case-by-case basis.

She said: “The question of whether it is reasonable for a tenant to have a pet in a rented property is, as I said before, best determined on a case-by-case basis. In most instances, this will be agreed on between the landlord and the tenant. As I said, there will be guidance available on this.

“Where disputes arise, they can be appropriately resolved by the ombudsman or the courts, which will be better placed to consider the individual facts of each case. It is also important to note that landlords will always retain the ability to refuse permission where a superior lease prohibits pets. This ensures that landlords are not placed in a position where they are forced to breach their own legal obligations.

“Given these safeguards, I do not believe it is necessary to introduce additional legislative provisions that could add unnecessary rigidity to what should remain a flexible, case-by-case approach.”

Needs to be a balance

However, the Earl of Caithness warned that there needs to be a balance.

He said: “There needs to be a balance, there cannot just be an open door for tenants to have a pet as and when they want, however badly or well that pet behaves.”

The Earl pointed to the environmental damage caused by cats, who kill millions of birds each year.

He told the debate: “Cats have many assets, but let them out of a house and loose, they are killers. They kill between 160 million and 270 million animals every year, a quarter of those being birds.

Amendment 124A to the Renters’ Rights Bill, proposed by Lord Leicester, would allow landlords to reject cats in areas within a mile of locations protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, such as woodlands.

The Earl emphasised that cats can roam up to 1,400 meters, roughly a mile, and says nature must be protected.

He said: “It is entirely reasonable to encourage landlords to say yes, but equally, it is entirely reasonable to allow them to say no in certain circumstances. Nature in this country needs not only protecting but encouraging.

“One of the small ways to encourage nature is to say no to a tenant having a cat in an area that is very close to or part of a national nature reserve. That is the right step: protection of nature rather than the will of an individual.”

Not fair to tenants

However, Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, rejected the amendment and said a “blanket provision” was not necessary.

She said: “The government fully recognise the importance of protecting biodiversity and environmentally sensitive wildlife areas.

“However, we do not believe that such a blanket provision is necessary or proportionate in the context of this legislation. Nor is it fair on tenants, given that there is no similar restriction imposed on homeowners in such environmentally sensitive areas.”

You can watch Baroness Taylor of Stevenage’s full response to Amendment 124A below

Share This Article