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.”
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
Member Since September 2023 - Comments: 157
6:32 PM, 16th October 2025, About 6 months ago
I neither let out or rent a property. But I still follow the changes closely.
They continue to miss the point, it’s not tenant Vs landlord, it should be able providing a suitable home, for the circumstances.
Responsible pet owners are always happy to offer deposits and insurance.
Students need fixed terms, so that properties are available in time for the next academic year.
Intentional students are hard to chase, those with poor credit but have cash on hand, are to risky, so not allowing up front rent is an issue.
HMOs pose their own unique challenges.
Leaving houses empty that can’t be sold isn’t going to work, what if you try to sell and the market stales, or you can’t accept less than a certain amount. What about insurance when not occupied. There are better ways.
I don’t disagree to ban bidding wars, but most of the measures added don’t help anyone. It’s just encouraging landlords to not rent.
Member Since August 2023 - Comments: 3
7:34 AM, 17th October 2025, About 6 months ago
This is outrages against landlords, it male me wonder if any of the government or the house of Lords has any common sense or a taste of reality living.
In recent years I have sold several properties because the properties are mine. I should be the one who decides I don’t want pets in my properties. I have a pet allergy and future tenants may too. So I would have to fumigate a house after a tenant. If I was to continue with the last few properties then I will keep them to a high standard that draws higher rent and leaves the poor end tenants no hope in affording it. But the likelihood is I will sell and get rid of them I don’t need this crap anymore
Member Since October 2025 - Comments: 1
8:21 AM, 17th October 2025, About 6 months ago
Reply to the comment left by William Adams at 07:34
I have never heard of a vendor fumigating their property in readiness for the vendee to move in, but am happy to be corrected. Would a property need to be fumigated if a tenant had for example a nut or gluten allergy? I wonder how Outwoods Primary School in Warwickshire manages the fumigating thing with their resident cat having free rein of the school?https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy4j82850l5o.amp
Member Since May 2015 - Comments: 2188 - Articles: 2
8:35 AM, 17th October 2025, About 6 months ago
Reply to the comment left by William Adams at 07:34
I have upgraded all my properties so that the rent is far out of reach of the benefit tenants i used to house. I do not discriminate against benefit tenants, for that would be illegal, all are welcome to apply, but none can afford my properties. It is the government that is discriminating against benefit tenants but not giving them sufficient funds.
Member Since October 2024 - Comments: 185
7:20 PM, 19th October 2025, About 6 months ago
Reply to the comment left by Jennifer Adams at 16/10/2025 – 07:41
If you rent before the 12 months are up there will be a very heavy fine. How would it be policed and enforced? The double council tax is paid by the landlord for 12 motnhs while it is empty. Once let, you would notify the council. Or rent it out and continue to pay the double council tax until the tenants leave or agree with the tenants to allow them CT free months until the 12 months are completed. Bear in mind monitoring by council, HMRC, Ombudsman and landlord database are all future options when nothing will go unnoticed.
Member Since October 2024 - Comments: 185
7:24 PM, 19th October 2025, About 6 months ago
Reply to the comment left by TheMaluka at 17/10/2025 – 08:35
Even if the rent is high, some UC people do apply and tell the agent or me that the UC will pay. One of them said to provide a draft tenancy agreement for the council to check it out and then they will agree to pay the rent.
Even when my property is advertised as an HMO, UC people have applied and I had to say to come as a group and it is suitable for students.
Member Since October 2024 - Comments: 185
7:44 PM, 19th October 2025, About 6 months ago
I have started to sell properties in 2018 and want to sell 4 within the next 6 months with tenants or without the tenants.
One empty property is just sold to the owner/occupier and he has got the mortgage offer a week ago so I hope it will complete within the next 4 to 6 weeks. Another tenanted property I would like to sell within the next 3 months. 2 more, next spring. Some others to sell in about 2 years time when the fixed rate completes. I have properties that are not bothering me as regards management and maintenance of them too much, so I may keep 3 to 4 of them for about 4 to 7 years.
Member Since October 2024 - Comments: 185
7:57 PM, 19th October 2025, About 6 months ago
Reply to the comment left by William Adams at 17/10/2025 – 07:34
It is outrageous but the government does not have any money. They spent too much in Hose of Commons and House of Lords with all the heavy expenses and upkeep of their London home and the council tax that we pay on their behalf.
All the civil servants we pay and their pay rises last year and the expenses.
They are after revenue from landlords as generally people dont like landlords so they are targeted in all the money they can get hold of by way of HMRC, counil tax, database, ombudsman, eviction through court and bailiff. All heavy costs to the landlords until they sell and pay huge CGT. Let the prices of property go down or force landlord to sell at very suppressed prices to their tenants or the council. This is how government wishes to increase their rental stock without paying market rates.
We know how dismal it will be for the next 3 to 4 years. I beleive even peple who voted for labour will be depressed. Labour believes they would continue getting the tenants to vote them. But it will get horrific for the tenants. Some will not bother to vote at all. We need a change of government who understand governing, investment, businesses, risk taking various people take ot gain something. Government tak no risk, if they do and make mistakes, just raise taxes so they are ok.
Member Since May 2018 - Comments: 1996
4:43 PM, 20th October 2025, About 6 months ago
Reply to the comment left by Jonathan Willis at 16/10/2025 – 18:32
Accepting an offer higher than the advertised rent isn’t a “bidding war”.
If you or your agent advertise your property for a certain PCM rent and end up with 20 applicants then the benefits tenants don’t satisfy the affordability/risk criteria so they never make it near the front of the queue. If you are then left with half a dozen applicants and not much to choose between them but one of them offers a higher rent and looks as though he/she is committed to looking after the property, then today there is nothing in law stopping you from taking the higher offer.
In fact, if you take the higher offer and the tenant looks like a good prospect as a long-term tenant then that higher offer might persuade you to invest more in the property. Upgrade something, put in a cat-flap, take out a carpet and put in laminate flooring to make it more dog-friendly etc.
If the government bans taking an offer of a higher PCM rent then the only sensible thing for a landlord or agent to do is to advertise very high and see which of the tenants (a) comes closest to this advertised rent (b) looks as though they can afford it (c) looks as though they can and will look after the property (d) looks as though they will get on with the neighbours.
So the effect of this particular bit of the RRB is that it will push advertised rents up and push market rents up. And this is contrary to what this government wants to do. But then, this government does say one thing and do something else.
Member Since September 2023 - Comments: 157
8:08 PM, 20th October 2025, About 6 months ago
Reply to the comment left by Beaver at 20/10/2025 – 16:43
That’s a really interesting take on it. I do find alot of the changes is going to result in the law of unintended consequences. I can see it already that rents are priced high so those on benefits can never meet the affordability requirements.
In my view the government spent years building up the private rental sector rather than social housing, and now they are spending a few years tearing it down without a replacement. So prices will go up.
My concern with the bidding wars was more around how houses are sold, everyone puts in a blind bid, hoping to be top even if they stretch the budget. I only really have the news articles and forum posts to provide details. I remember seeing the long queues of prospective tenants queuing for one place as demand outstripped supply.