Renters’ Rights Bill

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer Excerpts

Monday 7th July 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer]

47: Clause 11, page 18, line 9, at end insert—
“(5A) The circumstances in which it is unreasonable for a superior landlord to refuse consent through the landlord include, but are not limited to, the following—(a) a superior landlord’s personal opinion of a tenant;(b) a superior landlord’s personal opinion of pets or specific species;(c) a generalised fear of damage to the property;(d) a pre-emptive fear of complaints from neighbours relating to noise, fouling or anti-social behaviour caused by the animal;(e) a superior landlord’s experience with a previous tenant about pets;(f) generalised or unsubstantiated animal welfare concerns.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment sets out examples of when it is unreasonable for a superior landlord to refuse consent, providing clearer guidance and limiting arbitrary or prejudiced refusals.

[Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (LD)]

My Lords, I start by declaring an interest: I own a dog that is subject to approval by a superior landlord of the flat in which we live. It has that approval.

In Committee, the Minister laid out the Government’s commitment to enabling many more tenants to have pets in rented properties, which is, of course, very welcome. However, in her reply to my Committee stage amendment, which was similar to this amendment, she made the point that the Government did not want to include superior landlords among landlords who could unreasonably refuse the right to keep a pet. The superior landlord owns the head lease under which another landlord may come. She gave two main reasons: first, that there are practical challenges involved in engaging with superior landlords, and secondly, that in many cases the superior landlord is not based in the UK or is a complex ownership structure and requiring the superior landlord to give reasons for refusal for a pet might involve the tenant and/or the landlord in lengthy and costly processes that might make the obligation difficult to realise in practice.

The fact is that most superior landlords are very quick to contact tenants when there is something they do not want to happen or there is an issue about money, so I do not accept how difficult it is to engage with them. The Minister may give me some examples. The fact that they are based overseas or have a complex ownership structure is simply not a good reason. The Minister kindly said she would come back to me after she had looked at the quantum involved, and I wonder whether she has found that out now as I have not heard anything.

The Minister went on to say that my amendment was “not proportionate or necessary”. In fact, it is necessary, given that there are about 24,000 property management companies and the average size of portfolio is about 193 units. That would equal about 4.5 million units altogether, and the bigger superior landlords often manage about 144,000 properties. That is an awful lot of tenants to whom this very good clause of the Bill would not apply. On whether it is proportionate given the size of the tenant base who, without my amendment, will not benefit from Clause 12, I believe it is necessary and desirable that, when we legislate, we are as fair and equitable as possible.

Since Committee, I have noticed warnings going out from people who represent superior landlords. I shall quote a couple. Nockolds writes:

“One proposal introduced by the Bill is that Landlords must not unreasonably refuse pets at a rental property. In assessing what is ‘reasonable’ in these circumstances, it is likely to be justified for the Landlord to refuse a pet if the superior lease does not allow pets. If you do not want pets to be kept in your buildings, this may be a sensible clause to introduce”.


That is what is going to happen. Superior landlords will all just introduce clauses, even if they do not have them now, to preclude pets, so there could be an unintended consequence without my amendment. John D Wood & Co goes into the matter:

“Under What Grounds Can a Landlord Reject a Pet?...acceptable reasons may include … Superior Landlord Refusal”.


There is a real issue here that, without including superior landlords in the Bill, the Minister will find that Clause 12 was a nice idea that does not work in practice.

In Committee, the Minister rightly said that the Government want tenants to have the right to own a pet. We do not give superior landlords a free pass to discriminate in any other way, and we should not do so in this case. I hope the Minister will agree. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

We need to continue to look at the evidence, and to look at the response to the letter that I will write to social landlords. We will then take further action, as necessary and if it is needed, in future legislation.

[Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (LD)]

My Lords, I thank everybody who has contributed to this debate and thank the Minister for her reply. I found very helpful her response to the amendment from the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull—which we do support—saying that she will write to ensure clarity and consistency.

I had a slight dread when the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, got to his feet, because I thought it would be something really tricky, which of course it was. On the circumstances in which superior landlords can have an opinion on specific pets, I am trying to include superior landlords in the same way as the Bill already includes landlords. I understand the issues the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, raised, but they are for direct landlords, not superior landlords, and we debated those very fully in Committee. It is people with portfolios of hundreds of flats having a blanket refusal—or not—I am concerned about. The noble Lord talked about a simple detached home in the countryside.

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

We can bandy around the distinction regarding the superior landlord with the offshore pension fund and hundreds of thousands of dwellings, but what about the small charity that owns a listed building held in trust for possibly hundreds of years? It surely must be entitled to its head leaseholder laying down certain provisions. It is not just about a common or garden large house in the countryside versus a flat; there have to be guardrails. Does the noble Baroness not understand that, as well-meaning as her amendment is, she has failed, I regret to say, to consider some of those narrow points and therefore it is incomplete? I find myself having huge sympathy for the Minister on this one; the amendment is incomplete.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (LD)]

I am still struggling to understand why the noble Lord is referring to something that is much more about direct landlords. It is not bandying terms around; there is a specific legal definition of a superior landlord, and that is the only group my amendment is talking about. It is not talking about individual landlords.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, for her comments, which were indeed more welcoming. I hope the Minister will consider some guidance to superior landlords too to address this situation. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 47 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

I remind the Minister that the majority of landlords are private individuals with just one or two properties. They are already finding it difficult enough to manage their properties, which is why they are a fast-disappearing breed. Driving them to extinction will only accelerate the demise of the rented sector, to the disadvantage of landlords and those seeking a property to rent.

[Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (LD)]

My Lords, I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, brought forward Amendment 53A, because it is enabling us to have this very interesting debate. We are talking about the cost of pets, but actually you could transpose the words “children” or “elderly incontinent”, because those two groups equally have very difficult problems. They can damage carpets—if anyone has had children in a house, they will know that they can inflict an awful lot more damage than pets. Unfortunately, the elderly and the disabled can often be equally as damaging.

The noble Lord, Lord Trees, mentioned that pets have fleas, which is very true. However, if you let your property to people who travel a lot, there is the risk that they might bring bedbugs back, which are much harder and more costly to get rid of than fleas.

Although I understand the reason for the noble Lord’s amendment, we do not support it. We think the Government have struck the right balance with their Amendment 49, which we will support.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 53A. However, I ask the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, to deal with one point when he replies. There appears to be no requirement in the amendment that the landlord must be acting reasonably in demanding a deposit. It is easy to understand and entirely reasonable that the landlord may require a deposit if the tenant wishes to keep dogs, but it would not be reasonable to demand a deposit if the tenant wishes to keep a goldfish. It is easy to understand the idea that there is no harm done because the deposit will be returned at the end of the tenancy, but the requirement of the deposit may well inhibit the tenant from being able to have the goldfish and the companionship that it gives.