Renters’ Rights Bill

Lord Marlesford Excerpts

Tuesday 6th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I thank the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for their amendments relating to pet insurance and deposits. The noble Lords, Lord Black, Lord Trees, Lord de Clifford and Lord Truscott, and the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, have all contributed to the debate.

Turning first to the amendments tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, I thank the noble Earl very much for his constructive engagement with me and my officials in the department in recent months. The benefit of the noble Earl’s expertise in this area has been very valuable and very much appreciated, so I am grateful to him.

Amendment 127 seeks to remove the requirement for tenants to obtain pet damage insurance. While I completely understand the concerns behind the amendment, respectfully, I disagree with its approach. One of the key barriers to renting with pets is landlords’ concerns over potential property damage, as the noble Lord, Lord Trees, outlined. Requiring tenants to have pet damage insurance provides landlords with the reassurance they need and helps foster a more positive attitude towards pet ownership in rental properties—that is the balance between rights and responsibilities that the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, mentioned. Removing this requirement risks undermining the balance of ensuring that tenants have a fair opportunity to rent with pets, while also protecting landlords from unnecessary financial risk.

It is also important to note that we are seeing some signs that insurance products designed specifically for pet-related damage are emerging in response to the Bill—not just from Anguilla, as I think the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, said. As the noble Lord, Lord Black, said, these products will develop, meaning that tenants should have viable options available. This requirement is therefore both reasonable and practical, ensuring responsible pet ownership without placing an undue burden on either tenants or landlords. I emphasise in response to the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull—

[Lord Marlesford (Con)]

I will just raise one very simple point, which I thought the Minister was going to deal with. I declare my interests as a Suffolk farmer with houses to let. I am unclear, not being a lawyer: in terms of the liability of a tenant whose premises, or the premises which they occupy, are damaged during a tenancy, is there a distinction between the liability for something that they have done and for something that a pet has done? If there is not a distinction, then presumably the landlord does not have to worry too much about how the damage was done. All that is at stake is what the damage is and what it is going to cost to remedy it.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford. The distinction in this case is just trying to encourage landlords who have previously been fairly resistant to tenants keeping pets that they are able to give that concession to pet owners.

In response to the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, I emphasise that we continue to engage with the insurance industry, and we remain open to further information about the market and views on how it might develop. I apologise that the noble Lord, Lord Trees, has not yet had a written response to his query about assistance dogs. I will follow that up and get a response for him.

In terms of the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Truscott, I want to clarify a point I made in my previous speech. Landlords cannot withdraw their consent to keep a pet in case of anti-social behaviour. However, there are other steps they can take. Landlords can seek to evict anti-social tenants for a broad range of anti-social behaviours under ground 14, which could include behaviour related to noisy, disruptive or aggressive pets.

Landlords can also contact their local council’s anti-social behaviour team and the police if behaviour persists, which can culminate in anti-social behaviour injunctions being granted by the courts. In that instance, that could then ban the tenant in question from keeping a pet. The incident that the noble Lord, Lord Truscott, described was really frightening, and I understand why he would have concerns about that. I hope the action I have described helps to respond to his points.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

We will be amending the Tenant Fees Act so that landlords will be able to require the tenant to obtain insurance to cover the risk of property damage caused by a pet. Landlords will be able to require tenants to have that insurance.

[Lord Marlesford (Con)]

The Minister has again referred to my point that we need to change the Tenant Fees Act. Is she saying there is in law a difference in liability for damage done to a rental property by the tenant or their pet? We know that, if they get struck by lightning, it is not their fault, but do they not have a liability for any damage done as a result of their tenancy anyway? In which case, why does any of this matter?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I have already answered the noble Lord’s question: the idea of this specific pet insurance is to encourage landlords to accept tenants with pets. That is what the clause is there to do: to try to incentivise and encourage landlords to accept pets as part of the tenancy.