Renters’ Rights Bill

Lord Black of Brentwood 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.