7 months ago | 17 comments
The Renters’ Rights Bill will return to Parliament on the 14th of October in the final stage before it becomes law.
The bill will once again enter the Lords in the ‘ping pong stage’, where it will go back and forth between the Lords and Commons to resolve any remaining disagreements on amendments.
This means the bill will not become law before the party conference, and no major changes are expected to it.
Members of the House of Lords can make further amendments, but MPs in the Commons previously rejected all of them.
During the last debate on the bill, one of the amendments discussed was a proposal giving landlords the right to require pet damage insurance.
Under the Renters’ Rights Bill, tenants will have the right to keep pets in rental properties, with landlords only able to refuse if they can provide a valid reason.
Peers also voted to accept an amendment allowing landlords to take a separate pet damage deposit of up to three weeks’ rent on top of the usual deposit cap. The government, however, rejected this, arguing that the Tenant Fees Act 2019 already provides sufficient protection.
Under the Renters’ Rights Bill, if a landlord evicts a tenant to sell a property but the sale falls through, they are currently barred from re-letting it for 12 months.
Peers voted 213 to 209 in favour of Lord Cromwell’s amendment, which would have reduced this period to six months. The government, however, rejected the amendment, meaning landlords remain barred from re-letting for the full 12 months if a sale falls through.
Allison Thompson, national lettings managing director at LRG, claims the rejections of amendments show the Labour government are unwilling to make concessions.
She said: “The government’s rejection of key Lords amendments sends a clear message. They are holding firm on the core structure of the Renters’ Rights Bill but are unwilling to make concessions that would have brought much-needed clarity and balance. Proposals to widen the student exemption, allow a higher deposit for pet-related damage, or shorten the 12-month re-let restriction were all dismissed, despite being proportionate and carefully considered.
“These were not attempts to weaken tenant protections. They were pragmatic solutions that reflected the day-to-day realities faced by landlords and agents. Instead, the bill now moves forward with some unresolved tensions, particularly around the practical enforcement of new tenancy terms, the viability of keeping pets, and the risks of re-letting delays after a failed sale. As always, it will be agents on the ground who are left to navigate these challenges and support landlords through the transition.”
The abolition of Section 21 and the end of fixed-term tenancies remain in place and will take effect immediately once the bill gains Royal Assent. The Ombudsman and Private Rented Sector Database will follow later, after a transition period to allow the private rented sector to adjust.
The length of this period is not yet known, and secondary legislation will be required for many of its provisions to take effect.
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
7 months ago | 17 comments
7 months ago | 7 comments
7 months ago | 3 comments
Sorry. You must be logged in to view this form.
Member Since February 2018 - Comments: 627
12:56 AM, 22nd September 2025, About 7 months ago
Reply to the comment left by Tiger at 21/09/2025 – 23:33
Forgive me, but perhaps English is not you first language and perhaps you come from a country were private property and the rule of law actually still mean something, we appear to be being ruled by executive dictat, in former times we’d have called it communism.
Member Since February 2018 - Comments: 627
1:06 PM, 22nd September 2025, About 7 months ago
Reply to the comment left by moneymanager at 22/09/2025 – 00:52
“couldn’t”
Member Since September 2018 - Comments: 3504 - Articles: 5
4:16 PM, 22nd September 2025, About 7 months ago
Reply to the comment left by moneymanager at 19/09/2025 – 17:31
agree. Like everything else though IF a tenant decides to ignore the refusal, the only option will be S8.
The S8 ground will be on breach of tenancy and disregarding the reasonable refusal that the LL advised the T of – not that pet damage may or may not have occurred thereafter. The LL will have to act quickly.
Member Since August 2025 - Comments: 41
10:55 AM, 26th September 2025, About 6 months ago
If the government do not listen to landlords whom spent tremendous amount of money to update then rent to any one looking to rent with no choice to restrict animals or eviction then it will be the goverment whome have to house the tenants . May i ask where? Answer to this be social housing with more burden on economy and no or reduced income from rental sector plus if the tenant cannot keep up with payments they only have to fall back on social security. With the powers they’re bringing in then the government will also be not able tocevict them where to bad tenants be anit all lottery for life. At the end of the day not all tenants or landlords are bad and generally do not get evicted by landlords . The removal of section 21 the goverment is only providing a ticket to for bad tenants to establish already suffering uncontrolled law into further
decline. Not good for any Government.
Joe
Member Since September 2018 - Comments: 3504 - Articles: 5
12:48 PM, 26th September 2025, About 6 months ago
Reply to the comment left by DPT at 19/09/2025 – 21:38
by giving permission for a pet, a formal amendment to the TA would be expected/required. This request is something that has come AFTER the terms of the TA were originally agreed (especially of no pets were stated)
In this case by default of the type of request made, the effect would be that the occupancy of the property would also change. (similar to a the pet being a PO). The tenants responsibilities would increase and so would the LL risk of damage (the pet owner is the only person that can be held responsible for their pets action/behaviour)
If the rent cannot be increased, nor a separate deposit taken to mitigate against this ADDITIONAL potential risk, then the requirement of a guarantor in this instance would be a very reasonable thing to request to enable permission to be given.