Renters’ Rights Bill faces delays as Lords prepare for crucial debate
10 months ago | 7 comments
Renters’ Rights Bill amendment dishes up a ‘dog’s dinner’ for landlords – NRLA
12:01 AM, 26th June 2025, 10 months ago
25
Labour’s proposed amendment to the Renters’ Rights Bill has stirred controversy by placing the financial burden of pet-related property damage squarely on landlords.
The changes, set to be debated in the House of Lords next week during the Bill’s Report stage, reverse earlier plans that allowed landlords to mandate pet insurance for tenants.
Previously, the Housing Secretary championed the insurance requirement, stating it would ensure ‘no one is left unfairly out of pocket’.
However, the new rules eliminate this provision, while still expecting landlords to accept tenants with pets unless they can provide a compelling reason to refuse.
That means pet disputes will be resolved in future by courts or the proposed private rented sector Ombudsman.
‘Shoddy and outrageous’ lawmaking
The National Residential Landlords Association (NRLA) has slammed the changes, warning they could restrict housing options for pet-owning tenants.
Its chief executive, Ben Beadle, said: “This is a shoddy and outrageous way to make law.
“Ministers keep talking about how the Bill works for responsible landlords and yet they seem incapable of speaking to those representing them.”
He added: “Yet again the government simply expects responsible landlords to shoulder even greater risks without any consultation about the likely impact.
“It comes on top of plans which allow tenants to build higher levels of rent arrears, expect landlords to shoulder the cost of delays to an already sclerotic courts system, and make it harder for tenants with poor or no credit ratings to demonstrate their ability to sustain a tenancy.
“Whilst the government might say that they are fighting their corner it is tenants who will lose out as landlords become more risk averse.”
Tags:
landlord insurance pets, pet damage landlord laws, rental reforms UK, renters rights, renters rights bill, tenant pet rules, UK Housing Policy
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
or
Related Articles
Labour warned that Renters’ Rights Bill reforms are ‘unworkable’
10 months ago | 7 comments
Renters’ Rights Bill could lock out vulnerable tenants from the PRS
10 months ago | 11 comments
Member Since October 2020 - Comments: 1137
11:51 AM, 26th June 2025, About 10 months ago
Four quick comments:
As far as I am aware, there is nothing in the RRB about landlords having to accept smokers.
Landlords will still be able to lawfully reject applicants with pets. The Bill is only concerned with requests for a pet after the tenancy begins.
It will be for the courts to decide whether landlord allergies is sufficient reason for an outright pet ban, but I doubt that will happen. There may be some narrow specific rulings in the case of the most severe allergies, but nothing that will benefit the wider landlord population.
I am interested to see how the firms offering deposit replacement schemes, such as Reposit react to this latest amendment. Without separate pet insurance it will presumably make the chances of a regular deposit claim much higher and change the parameters of their business model.
Member Since July 2019 - Comments: 14
11:56 AM, 26th June 2025, About 10 months ago
Reply to the comment left by Londonlandlord at 26/06/2025 – 11:32Is it right that a Landlord is responsible for
Pet damage, caused by a ‘tenants dog? Smoking damage caused by tenants smoking?
Malicious/deliberate damage caused to the fabric of the property by the tenant?
Unpaid utility bills?
Neighbourhood nuisance, resulting in the downgrading of the value of the property for them and for me?
Loss of rent caused by all the above but not exclusively so?
Loss of rent caused by tenants who abandoned their tenancies?
This is what I have experienced, several times over!
On ALL of these occasions I have only ever been able to retain some of their deposit and on occasions none of it. It has nowhere near covered the huge financial losses to me, risking my future.
I have many years of experience in letting out property and have been there, seen it, done it and let me tell you, it has become an unsustainable business for many because of increased legislation that heavily favours tenants and punishes ordinary responsible landlords. In my opinion, the PRS is now heading for extinction.
What do you think about ‘balance’ now?
Member Since June 2021 - Comments: 15
2:41 PM, 26th June 2025, About 10 months ago
Reply to the comment left by Phil Hayward at 26/06/2025 – 11:56
Of course not. Landlords’ rights must not be subsumed by tenants rights. Nor vv.
Member Since May 2014 - Comments: 145
8:31 AM, 28th June 2025, About 10 months ago
Reply to the comment left by Crouchender at 26/06/2025 – 06:56
Absolutely correct, NRLA suddenly want to be seen as powerful campainers now that its too late. Their attitude has always been “Oh we don’t want to upset the Government as they would then not allow us to the negotiating table” Not one march or public expression of protest has been organised.
Member Since January 2023 - Comments: 317
8:50 AM, 28th June 2025, About 10 months ago
Reply to the comment left by Jim at 28/06/2025 – 08:31
There is no negotiation so what was the point of even appearing at committee stage. They should have rattled cages.
NRLA don’t want to spook the LLs too much (to exit PRS) as the revenue stream will drop. Plus they will/want to make a bucket load of cash from LLs RR ‘ACT’ training courses marketed as to the help avoid £40,000 fines from red tape/over regulation. I do hope REFORM deregulate (get rid of selective licencing- Dodgy LLs never sign up for these anyway) the market in their council areas to show how PRS should function correctly.