Renters’ Rights Bill

Lord de Clifford Excerpts

Tuesday 14th October 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord de Clifford]

At end insert “, and do propose Amendment 11B in lieu—

11B: Clause 11, page 19, line 28, at end insert—
“16D Pet damage deposit
(1) It is an implied term of every assured tenancy to which section 16A applies that if, at the time of consenting to the tenant keeping a pet, the landlord informs the tenant in writing that the payment of an additional pet damage deposit by the tenant is a condition of the consent, then the tenant must comply with that condition.
(2) The additional pet damage deposit under subsection (1)—
(a) can be used to make good pet damage,
(b) must be of equivalent value to a minimum of one weeks of rent and a maximum of three weeks of rent, depending on the nature of the pet, at the landlord's discretion acting reasonably,
(c) cannot be subject to the limits for deposits in tenancy agreements, and
(d) is subject to the rules governing deposits in tenancy agreements, for purposes of monies handled.””

[Lord de Clifford (CB)]

My Lords, first, I thank the Minister for her opening remarks. Your Lordships should please note my interest in the register that I work for and am a shareholder in a veterinary business that cares for many pets. I also have the privilege of being a dog owner for many years.

My updated amendment seeks to provide protection and reassurance to landlords and give tenants much more opportunity to find a rentable property that allows pets. The Government quite rightly included in the Bill the right of tenants to request landlords to allow pets, as currently there is a limited number of properties available.

At the commencement of the Bill, the Government wished to support landlords with a change with regards to the financial risk that pets may cause damage to a property during a tenancy. This proposed solution was an insurance policy which provided a level of cover. The proposal was supported by many housing and pet charities. Due to the risk profile of this type of cover, the insurance market could not provide the appropriate policies. As a result, the Government withdrew the proposal from the Bill. That risk still exists. The tenant’s five-week deposit covers the risk that tenants may cause damage to a property. Housing a pet is an additional risk and therefore asking for an extra amount of deposit is surely not unreasonable.

One of the Government’s objections to the amendment, as already stated by the Minister, was the increase in the deposit, and I acknowledge that this is an issue that exists for some. We have considered this in updating and reducing the number of weeks’ deposit required to a minimum of one week and in an obligation on landlords to be reasonable when asking for the amount of deposit considered and the nature of the pet or number of pets.

The Government said that the five-week deposit will cover the damage of pets. They used figures from the University of Huddersfield survey provided to the Battersea Dogs & Cats Home, which say 76% of landlords have no issue with pets. That leaves 24% of landlords with issues; that is not a small number and the summary does not define what those pet issues are. The report did quote that the average cost of pet-related damage was about £300 per tenancy. I believe the average weekly rent is about £300, as mentioned in the passage of the Bill, so one weeks’ rent would cover the damage.

It may be that if a pet damages a property, a good tenant will repair it. Sadly, not all tenants are the same, just like we have a range of good and bad landlords. If a tenant has a pet that causes some damage and it is not repaired, is it not likely that, if there are other damages, they will not be repaired? That is what the five-week deposit will cover, and an additional pet deposit could cover the pet damage.

There is good evidence that tenants with pets tend to stay longer, and many take care of their properties to a high standard. One conclusion would be that these tenants stay in certain properties for longer due to the lack of supply of alternative rental properties—which, happily, the Bill wishes to address—but we need to support landlords with this change. By supporting this amendment, we will be supporting landlords and making the process of more landlords accepting pets without objection a far greater reality, as they will have the protection of an additional deposit. It will, I hope, also encourage existing landlords to stay in the private rental sector market and potentially encourage new landlords to choose long-term tenancies over short-term holiday and Airbnb lets, so maintaining supply of rental properties.

A table in the University of Huddersfield report asks landlords whether different policies or incentives would encourage them to consider pet owners as tenants in the future. Some 53% asked said that having a tenant with insurance cover for pet damage would help. Sadly, this is not available. Some 51% said that allowing landlords to charge for a deep clean would help; this would be covered by a pet deposit. Some 43% said that allowing landlords to be allowed to hold a pet deposit would help them, and this is what this amendment does.

Pets provide so much to us human beings in companionship and health benefits and provide friendship and support at difficult times. When owning a pet, we have a responsibility to maintain their welfare and health. This is both a time commitment and a financial commitment for the owners. If someone is a potential tenant with a pet, an additional deposit for a property should be thought of as part of that financial commitment.

I hope my revised amendment will find some support with your Lordships today, and that we can find a balance between landlords and tenants to increase the supply of pet-friendly accommodation. I beg to move.

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

My Lords, I welcome Amendments 39B and 39C in particular—on my behalf and on behalf of our most able leader on this Bill team, my noble friend Lady Thornhill. We are absolutely delighted that military housing is going to be held to the same legal standard as the private rentals in the Bill. Putting this on a statutory footing fulfils the wishes of this Government and the campaigning work by some of my colleagues, particularly in the Commons: MPs Gideon Amos and Helen Morgan, to name but two. I thank Adam Bull in our Whips’ Office, who has been working very hard on this over the recess.

I thank the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, for her time and patience in discussing this issue and us getting to this very happy mutual agreement. I also thank Minister Pennycook for the time he spared, and the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, who has spent time on this. The noble Lord, Lord Best, and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, have provided wisdom, backing and advice, and I am grateful to them both as well.

At the heart of this issue are those in the military who give the ultimate sacrifice and the families who live with them and stand by them. Let us hope, as a result of this change, that the appalling conditions they have endured so far will change and will be a thing of the past. We are enormously grateful for this change and are looking forward to seeing it introduced.

With regard to the Motion in the name of the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, we have consistently not supported this. We recognise the eloquence of his arguments in this area, but we continue to argue that this will place undue financial pressure on tenants and could be exploited by rogue landlords to impose excessive deposit charges. We believe that tenants, owner-occupiers and social tenants should be viewed on a much more equal footing. This speaks to some of the speeches that both I and my noble friend Lady Thornhill have made. Therefore, we feel we cannot support it, but we are absolutely delighted with the government amendment, and we look forward to its implementation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. I thank again the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, and the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, for their positive approaches throughout the course of the Bill. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Black, for his support—I will come on to some of the points that he raised in a moment—and the noble Baroness, Lady Scott.

I think the responses to this part of the debate are pragmatic. I am afraid that we cannot accept the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford. He mentioned the Government’s change in position on pet insurance. We had an extensive debate, in both your Lordships’ House and the other place. We drew on the expertise of Peers such as the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and the noble Lords, Lord de Clifford and Lord Trees. The Government consulted further with the Association of British Insurers and the British Insurance Brokers’ Association. Following that engagement, we concluded that we were no longer confident that the insurance and underwriting sector would have sufficient or suitable products available for landlords or tenants to purchase.

In view of that, we did not want to leave tenants in a position where they could not comply with conditions set as part of the pet consent granted by their landlord, as that would mean they would not be able to have a pet, which would defeat the object of having pet provisions in the Bill. I am pleased to say that, as the noble Lord, Lord Black, mentioned, Battersea Dogs & Cats Home has indicated its support for the Government’s approach, including the approach of not accepting this amendment. I received just today a letter of very strong support from Dogs Trust and Cats Protection, and another email from Shelter expressing its support and hope that this amendment would not be accepted, because it did not feel that it was in the interest of tenants or their pets. We used the information from the University of Huddersfield as part of our consideration.

It is important to say that, as I noted in my opening speech, we will continue to keep this under review. We have powers to allow for higher deposits for pets, if needed. We are satisfied at the moment that the existing requirement of five weeks’ deposit for typical tenancies is sufficient to cover the risk of any increased damage by pet ownership. I know some landlords are concerned about potential damage that may be caused by pets. Landlords can deduct damage costs from the normal tenancy deposit, as they do now. In rare cases, where the deposit did not cover the cost of the damage, the landlord could take the tenant to the small claims court and bring a money claim to recoup any outstanding amounts, in line with the wider rules in the sector.

We do not want to put tenants in a position where they cannot have a pet because there are no suitable insurance products available or they cannot afford the additional cost of a deposit. We will keep this matter under review, and I hope the noble Lord will consider withdrawing his Motion.

[Lord de Clifford (CB)]

I thank your Lordships for your thoughts and speeches. I am pleased about, and support, the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, being accepted by the Government.

The Minister has not changed her position on my amendment. I understand the comments regarding the deposit scheme. On the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Black of Brentwood, I am just as passionate about allowing more people to have pets. With this amendment, I am trying to encourage landlords not to leave the sector due to tenants having pets. I would like more people to have pets, and I realise how important that is, but there is a balance to be struck with trying to reassure landlords, because they do not accept pets at the present time. There are very few properties on the market that allow them.

This amendment is trying to create a balance. I appreciate that some tenants will struggle to find that deposit, but I believe that, by having it in place, more landlords would be willing to accept pets, and there would be less disruption between landlords and tenants when tenants ask to have pets. On that basis, I would like to test the opinion of the House on my Motion.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Willetts (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly in support of Motion H1 and the powerful points that have just been made by noble friend Lady Scott. The Minister spoke as if one-bedroom and two-bedroom student accommodation would be occupied by families and people who needed deep roots in their university environment, but much of it is also occupied by undergraduate students, who are often on low incomes, because this tends to be the lowest cost accommodation. If academic year tenancies in one-bedroom and two-bedroom accommodation become unviable then there is a real risk that this will act as a constraint on students going to university.

The Minister said that these fears would not be borne out, and I understand the sincerity with which she makes that point. However, we cannot be confident. My regret, looking back over the exchanges we have had as the Bill has progressed through this House, is that we have not heard at any point any kind of undertaking to review or assess year on year whether student accommodation is being affected by this measure. We simply cannot be as confident as she appears to be that these dangers will not arise. Therefore, I strongly support Motion H1.

[Lord de Clifford (CB)]

My Lords, my amendment would extend the grounds of possession to a family in need of providing a full-time carer for a family member. Regarding comments made in the other place, I confirm that I have no direct interest with regard to any property. My interest came only through contact with rural letting agents who have clients who might need a carer themselves or have a family member who does and wish to use their property to house a carer.

The amendment has been revised since the Commons debate on 8 September. One of the concerns, as already mentioned by the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, is that the amendment is drawn too widely and open to abuse. The new amendment restricts who the carers can be used for, this being the landlord, their spouse, their child or a child they have legal responsibility for. We have also changed it so that, if the landlord wishes to give notice to a tenant, they must provide evidence with the eviction notice that a full-time carer is required to care for one of those individuals. This significantly tightens the range of the clause and therefore reduces the ability of an unscrupulous landlord to use it wrongly.

I acknowledge, from having spoken with housing charities, that landlords hold the power in the tenant/landlord relationship, and that approaching and challenging a landlord is difficult. With these changes, the onus would now be on the landlord to provide evidence rather than the tenant. The tenant could then go to the appropriate authority to challenge the eviction if no evidence is provided. We are not looking to change in any way the four-month notice period that a landlord would have to give if a family member needed the house.

I acknowledge that these grounds will be used on very few occasions, but when they are used it will be by a family at a very challenging time, when full-time care is required for an immediate family member. Landlords will evict only if they believe they need a carer for a significant amount of time, such as for an elderly person or a child with a long-term illness or disability.

A family that is fortunate enough to be in a position with the appropriate accommodation that meets the criteria of this amendment could, and most likely will, be in a location with limited supply of available or alternative properties, such as rural settings, or a city or town with high demand for rental properties, of which there are currently many. I acknowledge that a tenant needing to leave the property will cause upheaval, stress and potential cost to that family or individual, but surely a family has the right to use what possessions it has to maximise the quality of care for a family member and to support the rest of the family at a time of need.

I look forward to your Lordships’ support on this amendment. If I need to, I may test the opinion of the House.

[Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Lab)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 64B from the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, to create a new possession ground for carers. I know that every noble Lord here appreciates and values the important work that carers do in our communities. It goes without saying that we should take every step possible, every step we reasonably can, to help them in their work. The noble Lord has been thoughtful and very considered throughout these discussions, and clearly has the best interests of carers at heart, as he has again shown.

I understand that this is a difficult issue and appreciate the arguments that landlords who organise their own care are not burdening the state and that they should be able to utilise their properties to do just that. On the other hand, I note that these debates have previously highlighted—as the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, has again today—the difficulty of housing carers, for example in rural communities.

The scarcity of housing in rural areas also raises the counterpoint of the plight of the tenant. These tenants may be the local teacher or work in the post office—long-term members of the community who do not own their own homes. To evict them to house a carer for a landlord who may possibly be in the area for only a couple of years will upend their lives and leave them potentially struggling to remain in the area. It is worth adding that the only way currently to test whether there is a genuine need for a carer is if the tenant challenges their eviction and the landlord has to go to court to obtain a possession order. Unfortunately, I am afraid, experience shows that many tenants will not do that, as they will simply leave without the landlord ever having to prove a carer was really required.

I appreciate that this is very much a balanced argument but, on balance, I am of the view that allowing tenants to be evicted through no fault of their own in order to house carers for landlords is not the right approach, because of the threat and disruption this would cause to tenants and the scope for wider misuse of this ground. As the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, said, we should not underestimate the danger that this could become a loophole for unscrupulous landlords. There are enough of them, as we all know and realise from our experience in the private rented sector, so this could be a real danger.

There are dangers and scope for wider misuse. In my view, therefore, the benefit to a relatively narrow group of landlords should not be allowed to outweigh that disruption, so I hope that the Motion is not moved to a vote.

--- Later in debate ---

Tabled by

[Lord de Clifford]

At end insert “, and do propose Amendment 64B in lieu—

64B: Schedule 1, page 194, line 7, at end insert—
“New ground for possession for property which is required for a carer for the landlord or landlord’s family
24A After Ground 8 insert—
“Ground 8A
The landlord seeking possession requires the dwelling-house for the purpose of housing a person who is a carer for—
(a) the landlord,
(b) the landlord’s spouse, or
(c) the landlord’s child or a child for whom the landlord is the primary guardian,
where the dwelling-house is in sufficiently close proximity to the person requiring care to facilitate emergency callout.
The landlord is responsible for producing evidence to demonstrate that a full-time carer is required for the person specified in paragraphs (a) to (c) above. For the purposes of this Schedule, “carer” means an adult providing personal care or nursing care to another person, who may be under the age of 18, under a voluntary or contracted arrangement.
The Secretary of State may by regulations—
(a) specify the nature of the evidence to be produced by the landlord above, and
(b) amend the definition of carer.”””

[Lord de Clifford (CB)]

I thank your Lordships for your contributions to the debate on this matter. What I drew from it is how much we all value what carers do for all our people in need of care. I look forward to the review by the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, to help the caring market, which is coming out next week.

One of the comments has been that tenants would be evicted if this amendment were accepted, but tenants are being evicted all the time, for lots of different reasons. It is an important matter that people should be able to use their possessions to care for their families, as I said in my speech. However, taking account of the votes today, I will not move my Motion K1.

Motion K1 not moved.