Victory for landlords as Lords back pet deposit amendment

Is a guarantor still going to be limited to 6 month as was originally in the bill or are we going to be able to take a guarantor that lasts until the tenant leaves?

The extra 3 weeks pet deposit seems to be a good compromise. Pet insurance was always going to be problematic.

The current 5 weeks deposit is considered to be appropriate for human damage, it certainly doesn’t extend to cover pet damage. Whether 5 weeks is sufficient for human damage depends on the human. Most tenants get back their full deposit as they are house trained, considerate people. If their pets are as house trained as they are there won’t be many deposit deductions. Tenants who aren’t house trained are more likely to have unruly pets and it is questionable if 8 weeks deposit will be anywhere close to covering the damage caused by both people and animals.

What will the situation be if a tenant acquires a pet without requesting permission mid tenancy?

‘Baroness Taylor added that where pets cause damage, it is usually minor.’, really, one small kitten has claws on all four feet, claws and new leather sofas are not a good mix, should I have sent you the bill Baroness?

Guarantors are a mechanism I’ve never actually used, too often they aren’t financially viable. However, with the advent of the imposition of no advance rent they are set to become vital, I have a multi year long tenancy just ending where a recently qualified, still vastly underpaid, young solicitor was fully paid for by their parents, taking them as a guarantor in future would secure continuing viability. Why do we tolerate these people pontificating on matters if which they have no experience, thank god they don’t fly aeroplanes.

Reply to the comment left by moneymanager at 08/07/2025 – 10:47
If the damage is minor, the (suggested but not yet agreed) pet deposit should cover it. Anything more and I’ll send the bill to Baroness Taylor.

Reply to the comment left by moneymanager at 08/07/2025 – 10:56
…but still no good in your example if the guarantor expires after 6 months

“Baroness Taylor added that where pets cause damage, it is usually minor.
She said: “Where there is damage, the cost is around £300, which is perfectly within the scope of the normal deposit. We are content that landlords would be suitably protected against the cost of pet damage through existing tenancy deposits.””
In a typical year, damage caused to a particular property by any insured risk is minor or non-existent. Does that mean we don’t need to cover against catastrophes? Obviously not.
Her figure of £300 is plucked out of thin air. Even if it is an average figure (and I doubt that can be demonstrated as there is no register of pet damage) what if an animal scratches woodwork all over the house so that it needs redecorating? What if a tom cat sprays the wall paper (which I know from experience smells terrible and does not just wash out) so that one or more rooms need the old paper stripped and new applied?
Baroness Taylor’s argument seems to be: A deposit of 5 weeks’ rent is sufficient to protect a landlord against breaches of the tenancy if the tenant has no pets. If the tenant has pets then an additional deposit of zero pounds is sufficient because the average pet damage claim is less than five weeks’ rent.. Financial illiteracy of the highest order. She should recuse herself from Parliament on the grounds of incompetence..
Landlords should take both the extra deposit and take out their own pet insurance.

Baroness Taylor has clearly never been a landlord. What about where the outgoing tenant doesn’t pay the last months rent, knowing full well their deposit will be withheld due to their, or their pets damage? And £300, when did she last buy a carpet to replace one torn to shreds by a cat?

This Govt and Renters Groups are proper thick. Now anyone that’s been renting houses out longer than about 8 years knows this is EXACTLY what used to happen.
We used to take higher deposit and if pet did no damage, tenant got full deposit back. How hard was that? Easy and it worked. Till renters groups and MP’s wrecked it. So we stopped taking pets.
Some notes below

Jan2025
You wanted Pet deposits banned.
Cause we’d want £100 more in case dog did damage.
End of tenancy, dog did no damage, tenant got all deposit back.
2019 you banned higher pet deposits cause some tenants didn’t like it when dog did damage & didn’t get their deposit back.
We stopped taking pets.
2024 MP stood up in Parliament and called for Pet deposits to be reinstated cause tenants with pets couldn’t get accommodation.
You couldn’t make this up.

My repeated notes on this:

Gees, how simple was it when we could just charge higher deposit for Pet owners and those that did no damage got all money back. So so simple.
No better insurance than the tenants own money.
Now look what Shelter and Generation rent and the Govt have done. Made it MUCH MUCH worse for tenants yet again.
My text below I’ve done before.

Landlords: pets are okay if you pay for extra insurance to cover any damage.
Gov: in that case we will make it illegal to charge extra insurance.
LLs: well then we will have to slightly increase deposits for those with pets.
Gov: in that case we will cap deposits at 5 weeks rent.
LLs: okay well we can’t really allow pets anymore then.
Gov: in that case we will force you to take tenants with pets.
LLs: well then we have no choice but to increase rent across the board even for tenants without pets.
Gov: oh.
Tenants: why is rent so high??

Unbelievable isn’t it. If the tenant was allowed to pay a higher deposit to cover potential pet damage. And if the pet caused no damage, tenant gets deposit back, job done.
That way only those that caused damage, ie. 10% would pay for THEIR OWN DAMAGE.
The way Govt have it now is, EVERYONE loses. And now this horrendous reaction of pets now losing their lives.
U would think the Govt and Councils would actually talk to us on ground level to ask what we think. As they ALWAYS get it wrong and us in the actual job get it right cause we doing it day in. day out.

We all know what happened with scrapping Pet deposits and we told em it would happen. Now ALL pet owners pay more rent whereas before, if no damage, no charge. Now an unfair charge on every pet owner. And they’ve got Shelter and the others to thank for that.
Again this shows Govt interference trying to appease voters, the renters thinks Whey Hey Great! Whereas we know they end up worse off.

We told em this was gonna happen.
If they let Landlords charge a riskier higher deposit just as insurance companies charge more for more risk, then let’s say 9 out of 10 pets caused no damage. They’d all get their deposits back. And the 1 out of 10 who did cause damage, they’d be the only one that paid. So all pet owners get houses, 90% get their deposit back. And only the 1 that caused the damage would pay.
As it is now, cause Shelter supported banning higher deposits, Landlords are now charging more rent to ALL pet owners, so ALL pet owners lose. All pet owners pay.
They trying to stop this. So what’s gonna happen and is happening? Landlords are just refusing ALL pets. So ALL pet owners suffer. When in reality, it’s only 10% that cause the damage.
Landlords know how to rent houses out. Govt doesn’t.
I’ve had £1000 stairs chewed apart by dogs. It’s not nice.

And I used to take ALL pet owners. I don’t now cause of this Govt interference.

Before the Pet Owner knew straightaway they wasn’t having it. Now they get messed about & get told We looking at all applications, when in reality the agent or Landlord ain’t taking them. That’s what’s happening now with DWP UC.

Link to the above https://docs.google.com/document/d/1u54ouYTdNr7WaCPYW18Q_tZdlJr8-VwSUJpE0IcPf5k/edit?usp=drivesdk

Some of my notes on pets below if anyone wishes to use anything out of it. And don’t shoot me down, I used to take ANY PETS.

I used to take any pet. Till a dog did £1000 damage to stairs. Chewed em apart. Govt made it even worse for tenants going forward. When before all they had to do was pay higher deposit which got returned if no damage. Landlord wins. Tenants that cause no damage wins. How hard is that?
Oh I see, that’s too simple for Govt and Shelter UK to realise. I’ve heard of dogs having to be put down now cause Landlords refusing em point blank cause not allowed to charge higher deposit. How come nearly every word Landlord says will happen does happen. Please authorities work with us.
Every time u hurt the Landlord, u hurt the tenant.

Reply to the comment left by Mick Roberts at 08/07/2025 – 14:37
Fair points Mick. I’d like to see the legislation to check it is not either/or, either the 3 weeks’ extra rent or the pet insurance. I want the option of both.