Peers reject amendments to Renters’ Rights Bill as Royal Assent looms

Despite last-minute attempts to add more amendments to the Renters’ Rights Bill, Peers failed to make any changes to the legislation.

Peers rejected an amendment to allow landlords to take a separate pet damage deposit of up to three weeks’ rent on top of the usual deposit cap.

The government has not yet confirmed when the Bill will return to Parliament for final approval, but Royal Assent is expected soon.

Pet damage deposit rejected

Peers voted 239 to 192 to reject the pet damage deposit clause, claiming it would be “unaffordable for tenants.”

Baroness Scott of Bybrook pointed out that the government had previously championed a pet damage insurance requirement, with the former Housing Secretary Angela Rayner saying it would ensure “no one is left unfairly out of pocket.”

However, the government later scrapped this provision while still expecting landlords to accept tenants with pets unless they can provide a compelling reason to refuse.

Baroness Scott said the government had failed to put anything in its place and that the pet damage deposit clause would have provided a “fair balance.”

She said during the debate: “Allowing an additional deposit of one to three weeks’ rent is therefore a reasonable and balanced step that protects tenants’ rights while recognising the realities faced by landlords, particularly small landlords. Landlords are not always wealthy investors.

“Many, as we have said many times on this Bill, are ordinary people for whom a second property represents their pension or their life savings. If a property requires major cleaning or repair, those costs can be prohibitive, and in some cases could drive properties out of the rental market altogether.”

She pointed to evidence from Propertymark which shows that 85.3% of landlords and agents have incurred damage to their properties by pets, while 57% reported being unable to recoup pet-related damage costs.

Despite Peers pushing for the pet damage deposit amendment, it ultimately failed, with 239 voting against.

Ground 4A possession rejected for one to two-bedroom student rental properties

Elsewhere during the debate Peers rejected Amendment 53A, which would have expanded Ground 4A so that it also applied to one and two-bedroom properties let to students rather than just HMOs with three or more tenants.

Baroness Scott said the amendment would help the student rental market.

She said: “Extending this ground would maintain essential stability in the market, ensuring that students arriving each autumn are not left without somewhere to live. Without it, landlords may be unable to gain possession in time for the new academic year, reducing availability, pushing up rents and increasing uncertainty.”

However, Peers rejected this amendment by 212 to 169.

More rejected amendments

Peers also rejected Amendment 18 to the Renters’ Rights Bill, which would have required landlords who evict tenants to sell a property,  but whose sale then falls through, to wait 12 months before re-letting it.

Lord Cromwell tabled an amendment that would have required landlords to show evidence of genuine efforts to sell the property and would have reduced the waiting period to six months.

He said: “The Bill punishes any landlord who serves notice on a tenant because the landlord is selling the property but the property then fails to sell. They are not allowed to re-let it for 12 months. The property must stand empty and unrented for that 12 months. The amendment does not quibble with that punitive intention of the Bill.

“It accepts that, in order to prevent a few bad landlords trying to abuse the system, all property belonging to all landlords that fails to sell will stand empty and be impossible to live in for anyone seeking rental accommodation. The amendment simply sets that punitive period at six months and requires the landlord to furnish proof to a court of a genuine and reasonable, including reasonable pricing, attempt to sell the property during that time.”

However, this amendment was defeated by 215 votes to 204 and will not form part of the final version of the Bill.

Other rejected amendments included one that would have created a new ground for possession allowing landlords to regain their property to house a carer for themselves or a family member, and another that would have required local authorities to apply the criminal standard of proof when imposing penalties for rental discrimination and rental bidding breaches.

Instead, Peers agreed to strengthen guidance while maintaining the civil standard of proof.

Industry reaction

William Reeve, CEO at Goodlord, comments:  “Despite rumours that they would dig their heels in, the House of Lords has clearly run out of steam. Once again, demand amongst the Lords for both a pet deposit scheme and changes to Ground 4A sparked much debate, but ultimately the Government won out and these amendments won’t become part of the final bill. With all votes for the outstanding amendments going in the Government’s direction, the process of ‘ping pong’ comes to an end and the bill will move towards Royal Assent following final approval in the Commons.

“This brings to a close years of speculation, u-turns and false starts. We are now hurtling towards these new rules becoming a reality. Worryingly, a large proportion of agents still aren’t ready for it: according to our latest industry analysis, sole operator agents are the least ready, with just 4% describing themselves as “very prepared”.

“Only around a quarter of agencies with 2-10 staff members feel well prepared for the changes, while less than half (47%) of agencies with 11 or more staff members say they are completely ready. But they can no longer bury their heads in the sand – the rubber is truly about to hit the road.”