Renters’ Rights Bill

Baroness Scott of Bybrook Excerpts

Tuesday 14th October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Black of Brentwood (Con)]

My Lords, as we have heard, Amendment 11B in the name of the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, seeks to allow landlords to request a pet deposit equivalent to up to three weeks of rent. Like many of the charities involved in the animal welfare sector that have campaigned tirelessly on this issue, I am disappointed that we are having to return to this subject after it was clearly rejected in the other place, having been the subject of intense discussion. Charities including Battersea, Cats Protection and the Dogs Trust strongly support the Government’s position, and so do I. The reason for that is clear. Such an obligation would defeat the very purpose of the pet provisions in this carefully balanced Bill, which are designed to make pet ownership easier for tenants and remove the iniquity that owning a pet is the preserve of the increasingly small number of people who can afford to own their own home. I declare my own interests as the owner of a cat.

Let us be clear: as I said in Committee, for tenants seeking to have a single pet in rented accommodation, there is likely to be only very minimal, if any, damage. The standard security deposit is more than sufficient to cover any damage beyond standard wear and tear, as a survey conducted in 2021 by YouGov on behalf of the Dogs Trust and Cats Protection concluded. In rare circumstances, where damage caused by a pet may exceed the value of the existing security deposit, measures already exist for landlords to seek additional compensation from the tenant. As such, charging an additional pet deposit is unnecessarily and wholly disproportionate.

This costly proposal would put the wonderful aspiration of pet ownership beyond the reach of many. Allowing landlords to require a pet deposit equivalent of up to three weeks’ rent could see tenants forced to find up to an additional £1,500 for a one-bedroom flat in high-rent areas such as London—a figure which is unaffordable for many. It would also introduce an unfair geographical disparity, with those living in cities, where rents are higher, being far worse off compared with those living in rural areas.

Another problem with the addition of a pet deposit is the potential lack of transparency regarding what a landlord decides should constitute pet damage and what constitutes the type of damage that would otherwise be funded by the standard security deposit. Many landlords, I fear, would see this as an extra fund to provide an option to withhold more money simply for standard wear and tear.

The pet provisions in the Bill have been thoroughly and energetically debated, both inside and outside this House. It is clear from all those discussions that the standard security deposit is more than adequate to cover any damage caused by a pet and that this amendment is completely unnecessary. Its only result would be to neuter one of the key planks of this vital legislation, destroying the hopes of so many tenants who dream of having a pet in their home. Today, we should make that dream a reality, so I am afraid that, if the noble Lord presses his Motion, I shall be voting against it.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly on two matters: first, the Ministry of Defence accommodation, and then the pet deposit. On the Ministry of Defence housing, we thank the Government for listening and engaging so constructively on this issue. The concerns raised have been recognised, and the Government’s response has been both proportionate and pragmatic. On these Benches, as ever, we strongly support our service personnel and the vital contribution they make to us and our country, and we are happy to support the Government’s Motion.

Turning to pets, I support the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, on an issue that has filled my inbox and, I know, that of my noble friend Lord Jamieson as well. When the Bill was first introduced, the Government rightly sought to balance the cost of pet-related damage through the requirement of pet insurance. However, as we pointed out repeatedly, and as the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, emphasised, no such insurance product actually existed. Once the Government accepted that fact, the requirement was removed, but nothing was put in its place.

The noble Lord’s amendment would restore that missing balance. It offers a fair and proportionate settlement, ensuring that renters can keep pets in their homes while landlords have reassurance that any pet-related damage can be covered. If there is no damage, the deposit will be returned. Recent research by Propertymark shows that 85.3% of landlords and agents have incurred damage to their properties by pets. Yet more staggeringly, 57% of landlords and agents report being unable to recoup pet-related damage costs.

Allowing an additional deposit of one to three weeks’ rent is therefore a reasonable and balanced step that protects tenants’ rights while recognising the realities faced by landlords, particularly small landlords. Landlords are not always wealthy investors. Many, as we have said many times on this Bill, are ordinary people for whom a second property represents their pension or their life savings. If a property requires major cleaning or repair, those costs can be prohibitive, and in some cases could drive properties out of the rental market altogether. Therefore, if the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, chooses to test the opinion of the House once again, we on these Benches will support him.

Finally, I thank the Government for their constructive engagement and the assurances given in writing and from the Dispatch Box on the standard of proof. Those commitments provide much-needed clarity and reassurance on how this will be applied in practice, and we are grateful for the Minister’s response.

Taken together, we believe that these measures improve the Bill, and make it fairer, more workable and more balanced for tenants and landlords alike.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook]

Leave out from “House” to end and insert “do insist on its Amendment 53”.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I beg to move motion H1 as an amendment to motion H. I speak briefly to two important possession grounds, those concerning students and carers, and I also thank the Minister for her support on the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, which this side of the House supported strongly.

First, on students, as your Lordships know, Amendment 53A sought to expand Ground 4A so that it also applied to one and two-bedroom properties let to students. Extending this ground would maintain essential stability in the market, ensuring that students arriving each autumn are not left without somewhere to live. Without it, landlords may be unable to gain possession in time for the new academic year, reducing availability, pushing up rents and increasing uncertainty. This is not simply about convenience—it is about fairness and inclusion. Many of these smaller homes are occupied by students who need quieter or self-contained accommodation. Often these include those who are neurodiverse and find shared living environments particularly challenging. For them, access to such housing is not a preference, it is a necessity. To exclude these properties from Ground 4A risks creating a two-tier system that leaves the most vulnerable in our society behind. I hope the Minister, and indeed our Liberal Democrat colleagues who once spoke so passionately in defence of students, will reflect very carefully on the points I bring forward.

We have a number of case studies that illustrate the implications of this ill-conceived plan, from Cornwall and Portsmouth to Loughborough. In Portsmouth, a letting agent and Propertymark member reported very high numbers of students renting one and two-bedroom flats, accounting for 20% or 30% of their portfolio—not a small number—and those included many international students. In Loughborough, feedback from another Propertymark agent on student tenancies showed a lower number of HMO lets compared with houses and flats. The evidence flatly contradicts the Government’s claims that one and two-bedroom student properties account for only a small fraction of the market. Regional variations exist, but the pattern is clear. These homes are a substantial and vital component of the student housing sector, and by excluding them from Ground 4A, the Government risk creating a two-tier system both geographically and between students themselves, particularly those with specific or additional needs.

I turn to carers and express my strong support for the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford. As I said on Report, this amendment is tightly drawn and provides flexibility in exceptional circumstances, where a property close to home could be used to care for a loved one, enabling people to live independently and with dignity, rather than entering into the institutional care system. Propertymark has also highlighted a helpful precedent from Wales where, under the Renting Homes (Wales) Act, carers can have succession rights if the tenant they care for dies. While I understand that provision does not apply to landlords’ carers, it does demonstrate that such flexibility is possible in law and can be delivered responsibly.

If the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, chooses to test the opinion of the House, we on these Benches will support him. I also beg to move Motion H1.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I still do not understand why a group of students is not being looked after quite the same as other students. Therefore, I urge the House to support my Motion H1 to send the Bill back to the other place with our concerns for equality in the student housing sector, with housing for students who want, indeed need, small homes. Not every student can either work or live comfortably in an HMO, and not every student can afford specific student accommodation. Therefore, I beg to test the opinion of the House.