Renters’ Rights Bill

Lord Pannick Excerpts

Monday 7th July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Fookes (Con)]

My Lords, I too am anxious to have a better explanation. To me, the Bill seems very unfair, as it introduces two classes of people, one of whom will be disadvantaged at the same time as others are advantaged. It is one step forward and another one or two steps back. I hope that the Minister will be able to give sufficiently strong reasons why this should not happen to make me content, but I am not holding my breath.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, I declare an interest. My wife is the landlord of a number of rented properties. My reason for rising is to invite the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, when she comes to reply, to clarify something that puzzles me about her Amendment 47. It says:

“The circumstances in which it is unreasonable for a superior landlord to refuse consent through the landlord include … a superior landlord’s personal opinion of … specific species”.


I ask her whether this means that the superior landlord would be prohibited from saying that he or she does not think it is reasonable or appropriate for the tenant to keep as pets rats, skunks or tigers.

[Lord de Clifford (CB)]

My Lords, I speak today in support of Amendment 48 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and supported by the noble Lord, Lord Trees. I declare my interest with regards to pets, as I own a share of a veterinary practice that cares for pets and I have my own dog. We welcome the Government’s support of a tenant’s right to request to keep pets. Although social housing is not the main focus of this Bill, surely it is fair and reasonable for all tenants to have the same rights to request to keep a pet, regardless of the type of landlord that they rent from, whether it is a private company or a social landlord. As I have said previously on this amendment, it also makes it fair to all landlords. Surely private landlords should not be the only landlords to have to accept pets in their property. I hope that the Minister can find a positive solution today to this issue and that all tenants have the opportunity to keep pets in their homes.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, once again I declare my interest, in that I am a landlord.

I support Amendment 53A most strongly, but I wonder if I might dwell on the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller. Looking around this Chamber, I see that most of us travel a lot as part of our duties in this House if we live outside of London. I am sure my wife would be the first to complain if I brought bedbugs back to our family home.

Drawing on my experience as both a landlord and a managing agent, I know the cost of the Bill will be that the additional costs of damage, wear and tear, fluff, cleanliness, pest control and all those other little things—as enumerated most ably by the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford—will, particularly in blocks of flats, be borne by those tenants who do not keep pets. I do not think that is right. Quite simply, keeping a pet is an add-on to a tenancy and the additional cost should be borne by those who bring the pets with them.

There are lots of examples of where things can go wrong and I will give an example, from my own lived experience, of a tenant who declared that he did not own any pets at all. In due course, he brought his two large dogs to the property, where he left them while he went to work. By and by, it became clear that my house was being used as a kennel. Not only were the neighbours disturbed by the barking all day and all night but, by the time the tenant had stopped paying rent and I had taken proceedings, £15,000-worth of damage had been caused. When he finally left, I discovered the most foul-smelling and revolting scene: one bedroom had been used as a doggy lavatory for weeks. It would have been even worse had the proposals to stop repossession action been extended from eight to 13 weeks.

This was a gross case, in every respect, although I was lucky to get an insurance claim because the sum of money was so large. But that is not what we are talking about generally in this Bill. We are not concerned about granny who may be infirm, as the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, implied, chewing the table leg or eating the carpet. We are thinking of the middling bit, where it is above and beyond the three weeks. I agree with my noble friend Lord Howard that the additional three weeks is not enough, but I accept that we have to fight the battles we can win. If that is as good as we can get, it is a proportionate compromise that I am prepared to accept.

Several noble Lords mentioned—and I agree—that if the pet does not cause any damage, the tenant gets the deposit back in full, with interest. I place on the record that in the statutory deposit protection schemes, interest is not normally paid. The deposit goes in and the costs of interest are retained by the deposit scheme, presumably to defray their costs of operating the system and its administration. I would not want those watching this outside the Chamber to think that we are now going to introduce the requirement to pay interest if the landlord does not accept that.

I listened carefully to what the Minister said about the Government’s ability to increase the deposit through the Tenant Fees Act 2019, but I think we should accept here and now—and Amendment 53 implies this—that there are additional costs and risks to keeping pets, and it is obvious that we should not necessarily wait. Let us have those provisions within the Tenant Fees Act 2019 introduced immediately, but proportionately, so the goldfish is not charged at the same rate as the Newfie—that would not be sensible—particularly in cases where there is furnished accommodation. Then we can have a good compromise that everybody can live with.

Finally, I do not want to repeat this at length, but I believe that if we can come to that arrangement, having that deposit benefits the tenant because at least they get it back, whereas in the case of buying an insurance policy—not that these policies exist, as the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, said—that would be an absolute cost because they would pay whether there was damage or not. I strongly support Amendment 53 and if the noble Earl is minded to test the opinion of the House, I will follow him through the Lobby.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Pannick]

58: Clause 14, page 23, line 22, at end insert “, or
(iii) the dwelling house has been demonstrably available for purchase on the open market at a fair price for not less than six months and the landlord has not had any suitable offers to purchase the dwelling house.(1A) For the purposes of subsection (1)(b)(iii), the previous tenant or local authority retain the right for the courts to require evidence and to decide whether genuine attempts have been made to market and sell the property at a reasonable price and no offers at or above that price have been refused.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment proposes a 6, rather than a 12, month prohibition on renting out an unsold property to make it impossible for a landlord to benefit financially by falsely claiming to be selling a property in order to require a tenant to vacate. The amendment includes evidential safeguards to ensure sale attempts are genuine and to support greater availability of property for rent.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Cromwell has asked me to apologise to the House on his behalf, as he is unable to be here today. Amendment 58, tabled in his name, was debated last Tuesday.

I remind the House that the Bill says that, if a landlord asks a tenant to leave on the grounds that the landlord is selling the property but the property then fails to sell, which happens in about one-third of cases, the landlord will then, in all such cases, be prohibited from renting out the property for another 12 months. Amendment 58 seeks to reduce that period to six months, which would mitigate what is an unjustifiably penal provision of the Bill, which damages both landlords and prospective tenants. With the agreement of my noble friend Lord Cromwell, I wish to test the opinion of the House.