Renters’ Rights Bill

Earl of Kinnoull Excerpts

Monday 7th July 2025 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 48, which stands in my name. I declare my interests both as a landlord for my own part, to a small extent—all for properties in Scotland—and as trustee, in particular for the Blair Charitable Trust, all properties of which are also in Scotland.

At the earlier stages of the Bill, it was reflected by a number of noble Lords that pets promoted well-being among tenants; that is something with which I very much agree. I am looking at the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, who made a very good speech on this point at an earlier stage.

The thrust of this Bill is that there is a presumption that pets should be allowed in rented property. There are two protections for landlords. First, they can say no if it is reasonable to do so; we have just been hearing about some things that might not be so reasonable. Secondly, there is a protection for landlords, at least currently in the Bill, of deposits and insurance. However, social housing is not included in the Bill; indeed, it is specifically excluded. That seems to me very unfair.

I am grateful to the Minister and her Bill team, some members of which I can see sitting in the Box. They have been very generous with their time; we have been over this topic a number of times in the Minister’s meeting room upstairs. It seems to me that people in social housing are in many ways the people who most need the sense of well-being that a pet brings. I would be very keen that we make that change.

In the meeting—I do not want to steal any of the Minister’s thunder—a number of points were made to me about this area, and I must say that I have been brought along with those. I would be very grateful if the Minister could tell the House everything that she told me. I think that would be helpful to everyone on this amendment.

[Lord Trees (CB)]

I rise to support Amendment 48 in the name of my noble friends Lord Kinnoull and Lord de Clifford. It is a short amendment but, hopefully, could have a long impact. It would allow tenants in social housing some of the benefits with regard to keeping a pet that this Bill will provide for tenants in private properties. Tenants seeking social housing may not be in a position to buy their own property; if they did, they would have no problem with keeping a pet and they would have all the positives to which my noble friend Lord Kinnoull alluded in relation to well-being and health benefits. Instead, the Bill denies them those rights, which are enjoyed by tenants in the private rental market. I am curious to understand the Government’s explanation for this.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, and the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, for their amendments on pets and for their continued engagement on these issues, which has been incredibly helpful. I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate: the noble Lords, Lord Trees, Lord Pannick, Lord de Clifford and Lord Fuller, and the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes. I have heard the passion of noble Lords on the issue of keeping pets. I hope there is overall support for the aim of the Bill to make it easier for tenants to keep pets but to get the balance right between tenants and landlords.

Amendment 47 seeks to set out a list of circumstances in which it would be considered unreasonable for a superior landlord to refuse consent for a tenant to keep a pet. These include personal opinions, general fears of damage or complaints and previous negative experiences with other tenants. While I completely understand the intention of the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, to provide clarity and guard against unfair refusals, I must respectfully say that I do not believe the amendment is needed. Our letter in response to the noble Baroness’s questions in Committee was sent on 15 May. I am really sorry if she has not had that letter, but I will make sure it gets sent out to her again today.

We do not believe it is appropriate or practical to draw superior landlords into the day-to-day running of the tenancy. Requiring them to engage directly in case-by-case decisions about pets risks creating serious administrative burdens. We believe it could also lead to complex and costly delays in decision-making, particularly where superior landlords are difficult to identify and contact or are located overseas. The noble Baroness cited experiences where they have responded quickly, but I know from personal experience of having tenants trying to contact superior landlords that it can be a very complex business.

That said, we intend to publish guidance alongside the Bill to assist landlords in understanding what might constitute a reasonable refusal by an individual’s immediate landlord. This will help ensure clarity, without locking specific examples into primary legislation. For these reasons, I hope the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, will consider withdrawing the amendment and not pressing for a Division.

My Lords, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, for tabling Amendment 48 and discussing this important issue further following Committee. Like the noble Earl, this issue is very close to my heart, and I absolutely would not want to see a two-tier approach. It is right that requests from tenants across all sectors to keep pets be considered fairly, especially given the valuable role pets play in people’s lives. Whether they be corgis, or the veritable zoo quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, pets can provide a great deal of comfort and company to those who wish to keep them.

Following Committee, my officials have explored the issue further. I can confirm that many social landlords already set out and publish their policies on pets in their tenancy agreements, allowing tenants to keep pets where appropriate. We have not been able to find any significant evidence that social tenants requesting a pet are not having their requests considered fairly. Although tenants in social housing do not generally experience the same barriers to keeping a pet as those in the private rented sector, I recognise that it is important to have clarity and consistency across sectors. Therefore, I intend to write to social landlords to ensure that they are fairly considering tenants’ rights to request a pet, and to share existing best practice in this area.

However, for the reasons I have set out, I do not I believe it is proportionate or necessary to add further provisions to the Bill regarding a social housing tenant’s right to request a pet. As the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, pointed out, even if legislation were required, this Bill is not the right vehicle for it as it would create inconsistent rules within the social rented sector. That is because the provisions in the Bill would apply only to tenants of registered providers who grant assured tenancies and not to the majority of local authority tenants, who are granted secure tenancies. Given the current approaches taken by landlords in the social rented sector, the lack of evidence of issues warranting further regulation, the additional engagement by my officials and my undertaking to continue to monitor this—and if there does seem to be a need, we will look at that if we bring forward future legislation—I hope the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, will consider withdrawing his amendment.

[The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)]

I am very grateful for what the Minister has said all round. Before she sits down, I wonder if I could push her just a little more. I think she is saying that there will inevitably be a suitable Bill on social housing at some point, and that it will be the Government’s policy to bring forward at that stage an amendment similar to this, so that there will be a legal necessity for social housing to offer availability of pets on the same basis as this Bill.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

The Bill certainly provides some well-needed protection to the tenant, but it also needs to strike a balance for landlords. I believe these extra three weeks’ worth of deposit provide some protection. It may be a struggle for tenants to find. I thank the Minister for her comments regarding her proposals, but I am not sure they quite meet what this deposit would do. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response, as this is an important matter for landlords and pet-owning tenants and would improve the Bill.

[The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)]

My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendment 53A. Getting the balance right between landlords and tenants is something that was stressed by a number of speakers on the previous group of amendments, including the Minister. The Bill really amounts to a presumption that tenants can keep pets, on the one hand, and protection for landlords, on the other hand, in the shape of a deposit and insurance. Insurance is going to fall away because it was not available and would have entailed a high cost. Even if such insurance had been available, the loss ratio would not have represented good value for tenants. Good tenants would have lost all their money, whereas, as the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, has pointed out, you can get your deposit back with interest at the end. I feel that a deposit is a very good way to go, and that is why I tabled Amendment 51. I was disappointed that the appearance of Amendment 49 was going to kill Amendment 51 by way of pre-emption. That is why Amendment 53A is a very good idea.

Pets damage buildings. We heard a lot about this in Committee, and the noble Lord, Lord Trees, may say something to remind us of all the unseen things that pets bring into the home. I am afraid that I feel that the survey by the academics at the University of Huddersfield is a rogue thing; it does not accord with my experience at all—and the Blair Charitable Trust is a reasonably sized landlord all round. Pets do damage things, but a deposit is a very fair way of adjusting the balance between the two people.

In Scotland, that deposit is set at two months. Here, if the correct level of deposit is five weeks and we add the risk of a pet on top of that, which was going to be taken out by the insurance as originally proposed in the Bill, it seems to me not to be a good balance that there should be no increase in the level of deposit protection. In the original Amendment 51, I had set the additional protection at three weeks because I considered eight weeks very similar to two months and I felt that having some symmetry between Scotland and England on this point was a good idea. I also felt, through experience, that Scotland, with two months of deposit, was okay, and that the balance between tenants and landlords was okay where pets were concerned. I feel that Amendment 53A has a tremendous amount of merit.

One of the points made to me is that Amendment 53A would add a lot of expense to tenants in the amount of deposit they would have to put up. I was just totting up how much our own two dogs cost to look after in a year, and it is a lot. Even though they probably eat better than some dogs, the dog food, inevitable visits to the vets—we do not buy insurance but it would amount to roughly the same as insurance is a pooling scheme—and all the various other things one has to do, such as finding someone to look after them if you go away on holiday, cost many hundreds of pounds a year. There is also the initial cost. I am talking about dogs, but it would be same for other pets. The website Pets4Homes has 1,625 dogs on it today, which cost between £400 and £3,000. Many people who have pets are engaging in something that is reasonably costly anyway, so asking them to provide another three weeks of security is perfectly fair and proportionate—especially if, having looked after the property well, they get back not only the interest on it but the money itself at the end. I am very pro Amendment 53A.

[Lord Trees (CB)]

My Lords, I too will speak to Amendment 53A, but first I thank the Minister and her team for their Amendment 49 and the consequential amendments, which will improve this Bill substantially. I thank her for the helpful letter about assistance dogs, which is a matter I raised in Committee and at Second Reading.

I support Amendment 53A. As many have said, it is extremely important that landlords are willing to accept tenants with pets—an objective with which all noble Lords would concur. This amendment would further that objective, and I think it is quite significant.

The costs incurred occasionally—it is only very occasionally but it happens—can be substantial. It goes way beyond a gnawed chair leg or a bit of wallpaper off the wall. As has been alluded to, if one has deposition of potential allergens in a property or a flea infestation, a real deep clean can cost hundreds if not almost thousands of pounds. Those costs inevitably fall on the landlord at the minute and are a considerable potential disincentive.

We have heard the figures from Huddersfield. Another figure is that 75% of landlords did not have a problem with pets. That means that 25% of landlords accepting pets have had some degree of problem. I note that 40% of landlords do not accept pets at all.

The deposit suggested in the amendment is proportionate and extremely important to assure landlords that, if there were to be negative results from a pet, they would get acceptable recompense. As the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, has pointed out, the deposit costs nothing if there has been no problem. It is returned fully, with interest, to the tenant. As he also pointed out, keeping a pet, particularly a dog—we are probably mainly concerned with what dogs can do—is a major financial responsibility and should not be undertaken by people who could not afford to put up a deposit of the size suggested. I support this amendment.