Renters’ Rights Bill

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 6th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (LD)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendments 119 and 126 in my name, to which the noble Lord, Lord Black of Brentwood, has added his name. The provisions of my two amendments simply mirror the provisions that are in Amendments 118 and 125, so that they will apply to superior landlords as well as landlords. A superior landlord is a person who, for example, owns the block of flats and has a greater interest in the tenants than does the immediate landlord. I declare an interest as I have been affected twice recently by the superior landlord being in a position to deny any pet ownership.

I fully agree with the excellent introduction to this issue from the noble Lord, Lord Black of Brentwood, and all the points that he made, but, if this provision is not added to the Bill, I fear it will completely undermine the Government’s very good intentions, which we support, in bringing forward Clause 12, because the position of the superior landlord will almost always override that of the landlord.

The interests that I quote I will give as examples. The first was from when, during Covid, I rented out my flat. The family who rented it wanted to adopt a cat. The rules applying to the block of flats state that pets may not be kept, so although I as a landlord was happy that this family adopted a cat, the superior landlord rules for the block forbade it. More recently, this year, my husband and I have bought a flat, but even as owners we are subject to a rule that the superior landlord has to give permission for a pet. This means a lot of uncertainty for the vendor and for us, while the superior landlord decided whether we could keep our 15 year-old dog.

If the Government succeed in changing the position for renters, they must also address the issue of superior landlords and their ability to block any pet ownership. If the Government do not address this, the likelihood is that the good intentions behind this clause will fail because of the legal limitations for subtenants. Usually, they do not have a direct contractual relationship—that is, in legalese, no privity of contract—with the superior landlord, unless there is a direct agreement. This can mean that enforcing rights or obligations becomes very difficult if the issue lies with the superior landlord rather than with the immediate landlord.

I look forward to hearing the Minister’s reply to this issue, because I fear that, otherwise, as I said, the good intentions of Clause 12 will be totally undermined.

[Lord Howard of Rising (Con)]

My Lords, I am not quite sure what the Minister said earlier, but I would like to declare interest as an owner of rented property.

I shall speak to Amendments 120, 122 and 123 in my name in this group. All these amendments seek to highlight where pets could be unsuitable in a rented property. Although, as I have already said earlier during this Committee, as a landlord I have never refused a pet, a blank cheque for pets is not practical. Amendment 120 would allow landlords to reasonably refuse their consent to a pet if the allergies from that pet would have a negative impact on the landlord’s employees, their managing agents or other related persons, including future tenants. For those who suffer with allergies, this is a very serious matter and can have a debilitating effect, and it is not always possible to remove allergens through standard cleaning. We have all read and heard about the allergies from peanuts et cetera that can kill; well, the allergies from pets are not so serious, but they are very serious for people who suffer.

Amendment 122 would allow landlords to reasonably refuse their consent to a pet if they reasonably believe it is unsuitable for the property, may cause a nuisance to neighbours or may damage the property or place an unreasonable burden on its upkeep. Wooden floors get scratched and carpets get stained—if they are still there —when pets are involved, so flooring almost always needs to be replaced when a tenancy ends. Some may consider this reasonable wear and tear, and others may not, but it is certainly a much greater cost when there have been pets in a property, and it is an important factor to consider. Not every landlord is in a position always to replace everything every time there is a new tenancy. Of course, some pets are capable of causing more damage than others, and some properties are easier to upkeep than others. I think there should be some leniency and some leeway for landlords who know their properties to make a judgment on this.

Amendment 123 follows on from this and seeks to exclude pets which are inappropriate or disproportionate in size or number. I realise there will be difficulties in defining this. Are five Dobermann pinschers more or less suitable than 25 fox-terriers? Nevertheless, as the Bill stands, I am not clear whether a landlord would be free to make a judgment, which most noble Lords would agree would be very sensible, that a Great Dane could not be housed in a studio flat, or that 50 cats could not be kept in a small terraced house. Given the difficulties, will the Minister consider making it clear that the landlord has, or should have, discretion to make sensible decisions for the benefits of residents, neighbours and the pets themselves?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Northbrook (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interests as a landlord of private property. It is becoming clear that the Bill will be a beanfeast for lawyers in the area of landlord-tenant disputes. As my noble friend Lord Dobbs implied, it could well happen with regard to landlord-tenant disputes over pets. My noble friend Lord Howard’s amendment is eminently sensible, and his points about overriding current legislation are very important, as are those on insurance problems in this area.

[Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (LD)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, was as entertaining as ever in speaking to his amendment. But none of us was here in 1990—here in your Lordships’ House, I mean; obviously, we were around. In 1990, this discussion took place on the definition of a pet under the Environmental Protection Act, which chose not to define a pet specifically. Instead, it focused on the nuisances and environmental harms, regardless of the type of animal. That approach was probably safer because, obviously, for some people a praying mantis could be a pet, and it is certainly a very ornamental creature when you look at it closely—as would be a butterfly.

I have a lot of sympathy with the Government, and I think that we should stick with the idea of companionship, which is in the Bill. But the Environmental Protection Act offers a lesson from that time, one concerned with the effects of an animal’s presence or behaviour and not with whether the animal is defined as a pet. I do not feel very strongly about this issue, but that lesson is there should the Government choose to take it.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords who took part in this engaging debate. I thank particularly my noble friend Lord Howard of Rising for moving Amendment 121, and my noble friend Lord Dobbs—as always, he has such a wonderful way of speaking in this Chamber. I cannot add much more to what he said. He is absolutely right.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Black of Brentwood (Con)]

That is probably a bridge we ought to cross when we come to it.

[Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (LD)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Black, quoted from the University of Huddersfield’s excellent research, The Financial Impact of Pet Ownership in Rental Properties, which I have read in detail. One of the most surprising things is that there is more non-pet-related damage to properties from non-pet owners, which averaged at £215, than there is pet-related damage from pet owners. But perhaps the more relevant thing to this particular debate is that when there was damage: the tenant’s deposit fully covered the cost 38% of the time; the repair costs exceeded the deposit and the tenant covered the additional costs 18% of the time; and the repair costs exceeded the deposit and were covered by insurance 13% of the time—which is surprising given what the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, told us. So, more than 60% of the time, there was no problem at all. Only in a very small percentage of the time did the landlord find themselves out of pocket. The overall findings from this study were that it is a much-exaggerated fear rather than an actual problem.

[Lord Trees (CB)]

My Lords, I support Amendments 127, 128 and 129 in the name of my noble friend Lord Kinnoull and others. With regard to pets, the main purpose of the Bill is to make it more likely that landlords will accept tenants with pets. That is its purpose, surely, and it is an objective that I fully support, as a veterinarian, particularly for elderly and lonely people, as well as others. The benefits of pet ownership are very well known, with a strong evidence basis. Amendments 127, 128 and 129 would ensure that the purpose of the Bill with regard to pets is not confounded by unintended consequences. The current reality—and we cannot ignore realities, as the noble Lord, Lord Black, does—is that 40% of landlords are currently unwilling to accept tenants with pets.

Another survey that the noble Lord, Lord Black, quoted showed that 27% of landlords who do accept tenants with pets—that is, one-quarter—have experienced problems. So, in order to boost the market for pet-friendly rentals, it is important that landlords are assured that, were there to be negative effects due to pets, there is adequate legal recompense. The Bill recognises this, and the solution it proposes is that the landlord can require a tenant to provide appropriate insurance. But the problem, clearly articulated by my noble friend Lord Kinnoull, who is, of course, an expert in insurance, is that it appears extremely unlikely that there will be a product on the market which a tenant could buy to insure against the problem—relatively unlikely, perhaps —of damage. If that were the case, as my noble friend started to explain, a landlord could debar a tenant by the simple act of requiring that they provide insurance to cover pet damage, their failure to find which would legitimately allow a landlord to bar them access with a pet to rental accommodation. So it would conflict with the objective of the Bill.

Amendment 127 would remove that possibility. Instead, Amendment 128 would allow an increased deposit arrangement to enable landlords to permit pets, confident in the knowledge that, in the unlikely event of damage, it will be covered by the deposit. Amendments 128 and 129 would ensure that the level of recompense is likely to adequately cover relatively costly measures, such as deep cleaning to remove allergens, referred to earlier, or the elimination of infestation with fleas, which can be a significant problem if it occurs and expensive to remove. I would love to say more about fleas—they are remarkable creatures that can jump amazing distances compared to their size—but I am aware of the constraints on repeating Second Reading speeches, so I will not. I also make the point that a deposit is likely to be a fairer and more acceptable arrangement to a tenant than paying for an insurance policy, because obviously there is no cost unless there has been a problem.

To conclude on these three amendments, I strongly support them and I think they would make it more likely that landlords could be persuaded to offer their property for rent to tenants with a pet than any alternative. I shall just make an additional point that I did raise at Second Reading but which is pertinent to this issue and has wider implications, and that is on assistance dogs. We know that having a pet is very valuable to many people’s physical and mental health, but the case of assistance dogs is very special. These are incredibly valuable animals that can alert to medical emergencies of all sorts, as well as providing physical support for disabled people, hearing support and other things. Yet assistance dogs are not actually officially recognised—there is no list or register of them—and I understand that people with assistance dogs sometimes have problems finding rental accommodation. I raised this at Second Reading, but I hope the noble Baroness will excuse me mentioning it again. She said she would discuss it with officials, and I ask her to consider that again. I strongly support Amendments 127, 128 and 129.

Renters’ Rights Bill

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 14th May 2025 Lords Chamber

I am very grateful to my noble friend the Minister and her officials for discussing this issue with us and explaining the legal problems. But, of course, the explanation does not in itself remedy the injustice. The need for legal protection to deter unhealthy and substandard conditions and environments is at least as pressing in the case of amenity blocks as in rented caravan homes. Current provisions in mobile homes legislation do not allow for legal aid to bring a recalcitrant landlord to court; the only recourse is a First-tier Tribunal, which is not accessible to most residents of caravan sites. Nor is there an ombudsman scheme, as there is for other homes. The decent homes standard and the proposals for the application of Awaab’s Law are just as necessary and relevant, but the inhabitants of traditional Gypsy and Traveller sites are denied them in respect of an essential part of their home: the amenity block. This, too, is unequal treatment. That is why this amendment mandates a review of the real-life implications of the exclusion of Gypsies and Travellers living in mobile homes on a site from the protections available to other citizens. I hope my noble friend the Minister agrees.

[Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (LD)]

My Lords, I have added my name to Amendments 262 and 271. I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, for tabling them and for his excellent introduction, which explained the lamentable situation we have arrived at whereby people living on boats continually fall through the cracks between housing and what is now known as Defra. I will go a little bit into the history, so that the Minister will perhaps appreciate the need for action now.

Those with permanent moorings have some protection, although the cost of mooring fees and licences is an issue. I am especially concerned with those who do not have a permanent mooring and are classified as continuous cruisers, which means they can stay for a maximum of only 14 days in one place. This situation dates from the British Waterways Act 1995, when Parliament removed the need for boat dwellers to have a home mooring.

The Canal & River Trust, which is now responsible for our waterways, has embarked on a review by an independent commission. It says that the review will seek to implement any reforms, including any legislative changes, as soon as possible after its conclusion. Your Lordships may feel that that is a good way forward, but the problem is that housing is not reflected anywhere in the Canal & River Trust’s main purposes: waterways management, maintenance, environmental protection, and generating income to support its work, which might include development along the riverbanks. Your Lordships can see that nowhere is it tasked with looking after the rights of boat dwellers to a safe and secure home situation. All this amendment is asking the Minister to do is to ensure that this group of boat dwellers be considered within the scope and implications of the Bill. Defra formed a working group in 2017 to try to resolve some of these issues, but that was inconclusive.

Amendment 271 concerns the definition of a dwelling house. In 2016, the Planning and Housing Act placed a duty on local authorities to assess the housing needs of boat dwellers and bargees. However, the Act did not read across to the duties of the Canal & River Trust, in whose gift lie mooring and mooring regulations. As the riverbanks are continually assessed for development or leisure potential, the supply of moorings is constantly under threat. The ability to moor somewhere is obviously essential if a boat is your home. Given the Canal & River Trust’s rule that continuous cruisers cannot stay on any one mooring for more than 14 days, for a boat to remain a home there must be a supply of available moorings.

There is a lot of history to this, but I will not go into all of it because I do not want to detain the House. I simply mention that in 2004, I took part in a debate when the late Baroness Hanham was trying to pass an amendment to address this very issue. My noble friend Lady Hamwee made a very apposite point when she said that for

“the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister to refer the people involved to Defra and for Defra to tell them that it is a matter for the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister leaves us wondering what we can do to get bits of government not just to talk to one another but to find a solution to a very real problem”.—[Official Report,16/9/2004; col.1422.]

That was over 20 years ago. My right honourable friend Vince Cable raised the issue in 2006 when he was MP for Twickenham. He identified one reason why the navigation authorities and regulatory bodies are rather hostile to residential boat owners—the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, touched on this. He said that at best they tolerate them, but they do not see them as integral to canal conservation. So there was a certain amount of prejudice against boat dwellers and Travellers, and I do not believe that has changed.

The Minister who replied to my right honourable friend Vince Cable is now the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, Leader of our House. She said that a working group had been formed and that action in this area had been sought for a number of years. Well, that was 19 years ago and the solution is no nearer, because the department responsible for waterways never considers housing matters for boat dwellers, and the housing department, which has been through many names in time, does not relate to waterways issues. This Bill must break the mould and address this matter now.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, I have an interest to declare, as my family owns land in Cookham with a quarter of a mile of river frontage along the Thames and one of its tributaries, but we have never accommodated houseboats. I have added my name to Amendment 262, so ably spoken to by Lord Cashman, and it is appropriate that houseboats are linked in this group of amendments with mobile homes, about which the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, has just spoken. In both cases, the home is owned or rented by the owner, but the land or water on which it rests is owned by somebody else. This leads to issues of security mentioned by the three previous speakers, as the home—which, as we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, may cost a quarter of a million pounds—has really no value unless it is on land or secured to land. To that extent, there is some comparison with leaseholders, because the flat owner owns the flat, but he does not own the land on which it is based. That is the point that I want to make.

All three tenures—leaseholders, mobile home owners and boat owners—have varying degrees of security. Right at the top of the scale are leaseholders, whose rights have been progressively improved over the last 50 years, and more rights are promised in forthcoming legislation. Lower down the scale are mobile home owners. They have rights; as a Minister, I put on the statute book the Mobile Homes Act 1983. That legislation was then succeeded by other legislation, further improving the rights of mobile home owners. By contrast, houseboat owners are right at the bottom of the list and have very little security. So far, all Governments have refused to make any progress.

I will not repeat the problems facing boat owners that have been so ably mentioned, but I just make this point. In answer to a Question on 17 January, the Minister in the other place said:

“The government recognises that while the occupants of residential boats have the benefit of protection under the Protection from Eviction Act 1977 and wider consumer … legislation, they do not enjoy the same level of … security as those in the private rented sector. We will consider what action might be necessary to provide houseboat residents … with greater security in their homes”.


That is exactly what Amendment 262 does. It asks the Government to review the security of houseboat residents, which the Answer said they are going to do anyway. So, I honestly do not see why the Minister has any reason not to accept this amendment, as it simply is in line with an Answer given by her parliamentary colleague only three months ago.

Renters’ Rights Bill

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer Excerpts

Report stage
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.