Victory for landlords as Lords back pet deposit amendment

Despite the government claiming “tenants are not second-class citizens and deserve to keep pets,” an amendment for a separate pet damage deposit has been approved in a victory for landlords.

Previously, the government performed a U-turn over pet damage insurance, and Labour Peers during the second debate of the Report stage claimed “pet insurance was not needed.”

However, in a clash of views during the second debate of the Report stage of the Renters’ Rights Bill, members of the House of Lords voted to accept an amendment allowing landlords to take a separate pet damage deposit of up to three weeks’ rent above the usual deposit cap.

This applies if consent for a pet is given in writing and the condition is made clear.

Amendment helps to support landlords

During the second debate, Lord De Clifford’s Amendment 53A allows for landlords to take a separate pet damage deposit.

He argues that many landlords have reconsidered their position due to the changes in the Renters’ Rights Bill, which prevent them from unreasonably refusing pets, but his amendment will help support landlords to remain in the private rented sector.

He said: “The benefit of the deposit in this amendment is that, if they respect the property and maintain it, the deposit is returned to them at the end, whereas the initial proposal for pet insurance was money never to be returned, regardless of whether a claim was made or not. I know this amendment will add a burden to tenants, but it also provides a small amount of protection to landlords, who are now having to accept pets when in many circumstances they currently do not.

“For some landlords, the right to have a pet is making them reconsider whether to continue to let in the private rented sector or choose to do short-term holiday lets or Airbnbs, where they can charge for pets, or even sell the property. This amendment only helps to support landlords to remain in the private rented sector.”

Lord De Clifford’s amendment was passed

However, Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, claims Amendment 53A is not the right approach.

She said: “I understand fully the intention of Amendment 53A, with the aim to ensure that landlords are protected from potential damages caused by pets.

“However, we are content that existing deposits, which are capped at five weeks’ rent for typical tenancies where the annual rent is less than £50,000, or six weeks’ rent for tenancies over £50,000 per annum, are enough to cover typical pet damages.”

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 win for landlords, Lord de Clifford’s amendment was passed by Members of the House of Lords, despite government opposition. However, the amendment still requires approval from the House of Commons before it can become part of the final legislation.

Guarantor amendment is a blunt instrument

Elsewhere during the debate, Baroness Kennedy of Cradley tried to pass an amendment to restrict the landlord’s ability to require a guarantor.

Baroness Kennedy claims guarantor requests by landlords were “overused”.

She told the debate: “Guarantors have become a significant barrier to housing for many. Recent data from Generation Rent shows that almost 30% of renters who moved in 2023-24 were asked to provide a guarantor.

“A further survey by Shelter and YouGov showed that over 100,000 private renters per year are blocked from renting a home in the private rented sector due to a guarantor request they cannot fulfil.”

Lord Fuller from the Conservatives pointed out the amendment was a “blunt instrument”.

He said: “It is well-meaning, but I am afraid it is a blunt instrument full of unintended consequences. I do not deny that to require a guarantor for most tenancies is disproportionate and unnecessary, and the Bill makes welcome provisions to regularise what has become standard practice for the most part.

“In considering Amendment 61, I ask noble Lords: in what universe can this misdirected, misguided and counterproductive amendment help those with the quietest voices get a roof over their heads? Providing a guarantor is the way in which the unrentable can rent, and there is nothing fair about keeping people in bed and breakfasts if they could, via a guarantor, be housed. I cannot support this amendment.”

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage also said the amendment would do “more harm than good” and the amendment was withdrawn from the bill.