Renters’ Rights Bill

Lord Black of Brentwood Excerpts

Monday 12th May 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Black of Brentwood]

190: After Clause 36, insert the following new Clause—
“Discrimination relating to pets(1) A relevant person must not, in relation to a dwelling that is to be let on an agreement which may give rise to a relevant tenancy—(a) on the basis that a pet would or may live with or visit a person at the dwelling if the dwelling were the person’s home, prevent the person from—(i) enquiring whether the dwelling is available for let,(ii) accessing information about the dwelling,(iii) viewing the dwelling in order to consider whether to seek to rent it, or(iv) entering into a tenancy of the dwelling, or(b) apply a provision, criterion or practice in order to make people who would have a pet live with or visit them at the dwelling, if it were their home, less likely to enter into a tenancy of the dwelling than people who would not.(2) Subsection (1) does not apply if—(a) the relevant person can show that the conduct is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim, or(b) the relevant person can show that the prospective landlord of the dwelling, or a person who would be a superior landlord in relation to the dwelling, is insured under a contract of insurance—(i) to which section 40 does not apply, and(ii) which contains a term which makes provision (however expressed) requiring the insured to prohibit a tenant under a relevant tenancy from having a pet live with them at the dwelling or to restrict the circumstances in which such a tenant may have a pet live with them at the dwelling, and the conduct is a means of preventing the insured from breaching that term.(3) Conduct does not breach the prohibition in subsection (1) if it consists only of—(a) one or more of the following things done by a person who does nothing in relation to the dwelling that is not mentioned in this paragraph—(i) publishing advertisements or disseminating information;(ii) providing a means by which a prospective landlord can communicate directly with a prospective tenant; (iii) providing a means by which a prospective tenant can communicate directly with a prospective landlord, or(b) things of a description, or things done by a person of a description, specified for the purposes of this section in regulations made by the Secretary of State.”

[Lord Black of Brentwood (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak also to my Amendments 192 to 196 and 198, which are also signed by my noble friend Lord Lexden and, with the exception of Amendments 193 and 198, by my noble friend Lady Coffey. I am very grateful to them. Given the hour, and as we are discussing animals, it is right to acknowledge that they are clearly night owls.

The purpose of the amendments is to insert a new clause to extend pre-tenancy discrimination protections to pet owners. In an earlier debate on this Bill in Committee, I set out why this legislation is so important and why pet owners need certainty and clarity about its application. These amendments build on that debate on a further, very specific issue.

Although the current version of the Bill provides protections after tenancy begins for pet owners, requiring landlords to consider pet requests reasonably, I am concerned that these are rendered ineffective if pet owners are excluded before tenancy agreements are even offered. As I have made clear before, I am delighted that the Bill rightly seeks to prevent pre-tenancy discrimination against tenants with children and those who are benefit claimants, but I believe these welcome provisions should also be extended to tenants who already own pets and are seeking a new place to rent. Currently, they are unprotected. Without such a measure, there is a real risk that landlords will automatically disadvantage or reject applicants simply based on the issue of pet ownership.

The truth is that pet ownership is, regrettably, already currently treated as a de facto disqualifier by many landlords. Applicants can be dismissed outright on the sole basis of owning a pet, with no requirement to justify the decision. This renders any post-tenancy pet consent rights in the Bill practically inaccessible for existing pet owners who are moving home, who are barred from progressing past the application stage in the first place.

As the Minister rightly highlighted during our debate last week, the pet provisions in the Bill are fundamentally based on the principle of reasonableness, and that is absolutely right. However, as it stands, a landlord is not technically required to consider in any form a pet-owning applicant and can reject them outright without appropriate safeguards in place. This creates a gap. Although existing tenants may benefit from protection, prospective tenants looking to move may not have the legal support to make a reasonable request to keep a pet at the point of applying for a tenancy. I fear this will continue to result in pet owners facing the heartbreaking decision of having to choose between a home and their pet, as many thousands of homes will remain closed to them.

The proposed clause, with consequential amendments, offers a balanced solution. It does not require landlords to accept pets unconditionally. Instead, it prevents landlords automatically rejecting applications on the grounds of pet ownership while retaining their ability to refuse consent on reasonable grounds after an application has been successful. That seems to me to be the right way to deal with this matter.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Black of Brentwood, for his amendments relating to pets and rental discrimination, and the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, the noble Baronesses, Lady Coffey and Lady Scott, and my noble friend Lady Hayter for their comments on these amendments.

Amendments 190, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196 and 198 would extend the core rental discrimination provisions of Chapter 3 to prospective renters with pets, protecting them from any unfavourable treatment in the letting process. We know that pets bring a huge amount of joy to their owners—even Wilberforce, the snake we heard about the other day—and we are committed to supporting responsible pet ownership in the private rented sector.

However, it is our view that extending our rental discrimination provisions in this manner would not be proportionate, nor is it necessary. The Bill already contains measures to ensure that landlords cannot unreasonably withhold consent when a tenant requests to have a pet in their home. Landlords must consider all requests and provide valid justification if consent is refused. This ensures that tenants are not unfairly prevented from keeping pets while still allowing landlords to consider legitimate concerns such as property suitability lease restrictions—the other day we discussed superior leases, which may have clauses about pets—or potential issues with other residents, as my noble friend Lady Hayter mentioned.

Tenants will be able to escalate unfair decisions to the PRS ombudsman, who will have strong powers to put things right, such as compelling a landlord to take a specific action, issue an apology and award financial compensation. Given that, I kindly ask that the noble Lord consider not pressing his amendments.

[Lord Black of Brentwood (Con)]

I am grateful to all who have taken part in this short debate, particularly my noble friend Lord Lexden, who rightly told us about the heartbreak that can follow when tenants have to choose between a home and a pet, something that happens far too often and which the Bill is determined to diminish. I am also grateful to my noble friend Lady Coffey, who brought to bear her considerable experience and expertise in this area. We should take her comments very seriously.

I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, that of course I understand the issue that arises from allergies; I am unfortunately allergic to pollen and there is little I can do to avoid it. She is right, and that is why we have to strike a balance. As my noble friend Lady Scott said, this is all about balance between the rights of tenants and those of landlords. I believe that these amendments strike that balance, which is why I tabled them.

I am grateful to the Minister for her comments and her understanding. She has been very constructive throughout our Committee discussions on pets, and I thank her for that. When we last discussed these matters in Committee—last week, I think—she talked about some of the guidelines being drawn up to go alongside this legislation when it comes into force. It occurs to me that this might be one of those areas where there could be some form of guidance to landlords that would ameliorate some of the problems. If she would be happy to do so, perhaps she might look at that and talk to the various animal charities concerned; I know they would be happy to help. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 190 withdrawn.