Renters’ Rights Bill

Lord Howard of Rising Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 4th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Howard of Rising (Con)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as an owner of rented property. The last Government introduced a Bill to reform the rental market; it was a rotten idea then, and it is a rotten idea today. Although I believe it is extremely well intentioned, it will undoubtedly do more harm than good. I am constantly amazed by the belief of Governments, in the face of evidence and common sense, that they can improve things by intervening in a market that works. Last week, I quoted the late Milton Friedman:

“If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in five years there’d be a shortage of sand”.


If this Bill is enacted, then, in five years, there will be an even greater shortage of rented accommodation than there is at present—that is, if anything more than a token market remains.

Landlords are already creaking under the weight of tax and bureaucracy, and the rental market is shrinking. Rented accommodation will always be needed, as a number of noble Lords have pointed out, but the policies the Government are proposing will result in a further reduction of the amount of rented property available. Decreasing supply coupled with the increasing demand will serve only to push up costs for new tenants.

The Government’s tortuous manoeuvring around rent controls will not work. Under the Bill, any tenant who disagrees with a rent increase can go to a tribunal. At that tribunal, rent can only be reduced: it can never be increased beyond the landlord’s proposal, however modest that proposal may have been. It is a win-only bet for the tenant. Even if a proposed rent increase is ruled acceptable, the tenant does not have to start paying it until the tribunal has concluded. Who knows how long that could take? At best, the tenant gets a rent reduction, at worst a delayed rent increase. Why would every tenant not appeal on every possible occasion? The tribunals will be swamped and the delays will become unreasonable.

There is another problem with rent tribunals. The tribunals’ job is to determine what the market rent should be and to ensure that rent increases do not exceed it. If rents never go above an existing market rate, the market rate will not change; it will stay exactly the same. To state the obvious, landlords let their premises in return for rent. To create a situation where the return on investment is static because the rent never goes up, but costs go up, can result only in a reduced supply of rental accommodation.

In Berlin, in 2020, they introduced a law to maintain rents at 2019 levels for five years. Because of that law, the number of new rental properties coming on to the market fell by almost half and the scheme ended after less than two years. Similar legislation in Scotland has resulted in a significant reduction in rental stock and the highest rent increases in the United Kingdom. In Ireland, because of the shortage of rental accommodation, foreign students ended up sleeping in tents. The evidence of the harm that can be done by Governments trying to interfere in the market stares us in the face.

There are many problems in the Bill and I have commented on only one of them so far. To burden landlords with some of the other suggestions in the Bill will only accelerate the landlords’ exodus from the market. As my noble friend Lady Scott said, around 90% of landlords are individuals, of whom nearly half own only one property. Many of them will not have the resources to cope with the Government’s new demands. I remind the Government that landlords already have considerable overheads to maintain their properties: gas safety test certificates are needed every year; electrical installation condition reports are required for each new letting, or every five years; energy performance certificates are obligatory; and the demands of what they must achieve increase every year. Landlords are legally required to vet their tenants, and tenants can complain to their local authority if rules are not complied with.

Those are some of the costs of bureaucracy that landlords face already. The Bill makes the burdens worse. Demands will include limiting deposits to one month’s rent. The existing five weeks in no way covers the damage caused by a bad tenant. Landlords will not be able to refuse pets, despite the almost inevitable damage. I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Black, that I have never refused a pet, and they have invariably cost me money way over and beyond any deposit. I will never refuse one either, by the way.

Fixed-term tenancies are to be abolished, even where they are in the interest of both parties, such as the majority of student accommodation. The threshold needed to be breached for eviction for anti-social behaviour or rental arrears is being raised. Up to now, the ability to use Section 21 ensured that tenants behaved in a neighbourly manner.

There will be much to deal with in Committee. I will spare your Lordships any more today.

Renters’ Rights Bill

Lord Howard of Rising Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 28th April 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Howard of Rising (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as an owner of a rental property. I shall speak to Amendments 99 and 103 in this group, both of which would go towards preventing the situation where it has become almost mandatory for a tenant to take any increase to a tribunal. As that has been pointed out by the noble Lords, Lord Carrington and Lord Cromwell, I will spare your Lordships the repetition of those arguments, but it would be silly for a tenant not to take any proposed increase to a tribunal. Under present proposals, there is no risk or disadvantage to the tenant. The very worst that can happen to the tenant is that an increase, if agreed, is postponed until such time as it has been dealt with by the tribunal.

Amendment 99 proposes that any increase agreed by the tribunal could be implemented from the date when the increase was due to take effect. That would remove some of the incentive to automatically apply for reviews.

As has been mentioned, according to government statistics, there are 4.9 million private rented homes in England. Some of those will have an annual rent review, for some it will be less frequent, but, if one takes a conservative average of, say, three-year rent reviews for each dwelling, that would mean over 1.6 million possible applications to the rent tribunal per annum. I think every three years is an exaggeration—it is much more likely to be more frequent—but let us assume that we take the three years, and that one-third of the people who have received increases in rent do not apply to the tribunal. By my conservative calculation, that leaves 1 million applicants to the tribunal. How are His Majesty’s Government planning to deal with that? Could the Minister tell the Committee the number of challenges taken to the tribunal in the last period for which the information is available? What is the present delay or wait time for applications to the tribunal being heard?

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, I have added my name to Amendment 99 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, which, as my noble friend Lord Howard of Rising explained, would ensure that, if there was an unsuccessful challenge to a rent tribunal on a rent increase, the increased rent would become payable on the date proposed by the landlord.

Before turning to that amendment, I will say that I have some sympathy with Amendment 87 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf, which proposes an alternative means of filtering appeals before they reach the tribunal by enabling the tenants first to check with the VOA whether their challenge has any prospect of success. However, many of the arguments that the noble Baroness used are equally applicable to Amendment 99.

Turning to Amendment 99, what Clause 8 proposes is exactly the opposite of what happens at the moment, and what indeed has been the case since the Housing Act 1988. At the moment, if a landlord serves a Section 13 increase on the tenant, giving a month’s notice, the tenant can appeal. But, if the tribunal decides the rent should be increased, the increase is payable from the date given on the Section 13 notice. That is the position at the moment, which the Government propose to overturn. The CAB website gives advice to a tenant on this subject, saying that

“it’s probably best to save money towards your rent increase if it’s due to start before the tribunal makes a decision. That way, you won’t have to find a large sum of money if your rent is increased”.

It goes on to make the point that it can take up to 10 weeks for the tribunal to make a decision.

I agree with what has been said. I do not see how this proposal, as it stands, can possibly survive. As many noble Lords have pointed out, from the tenant’s point of view they have nothing to lose by appealing against any increase. The rent cannot be put up, and the increase is not effective until it has been endorsed by the courts.

No satisfactory reasons have been given for this, so I looked in Hansard to see what happened in the other place. The Minister, Matthew Pennycook, said on 29 October last year:

“Tenants should not be thrust into debt simply for enforcing their rights”.


But the relevant right of the tenant is to appeal against an unfair rent increase. There should be no additional right to the tenant if that appeal is subsequently lost, but that is what is proposed.

My honourable friend Jerome Mayhew intervened in the Minister’s speech. He said:

“The Minister says that it would be unfair on the tenant to have a significant increase in rent and a backlog after the determination of the tribunal, but that is rent that ought properly to have belonged to the landlord and has been unjustifiably denied them for the period of the process. Why is it fair for the landlord to be denied a just rent as a result of the delay in the process, yet it is for some reason not fair for the tenant?”


The Minister then in effect conceded the case:

“The hon. Gentleman is right that if the tribunal determines that the rent increase is reasonable, a landlord may have missed out on a short period of the rent increase—not the whole rent, but the rent increase”.


It is not “may have missed out” but will have missed out and, as we have heard, not for “a short period” but potentially for a very long period.

The Minister then sought to defend the position:

“I will be very clear about this: we took the view that it was better that tenants were not, by facing the prospect of significant arrears, disincentivised from taking any cases to tribunal to challenge what could be, on a number of occasions, completely unreasonable within-tenancy rent increases”.


But what the Minister described as “significant arrears” were sums which actually a tribunal will have deemed to be fair, and which current advice from the CAB is that tenants should make provision for. The argument the Minister uses is at odds, as I have said, with the position at the moment.

The Minister’s case was further weakened by a subsequent intervention. Again, my colleague Jerome Mayhew asked:

“I understand that the Government’s intention is that tenants should not go to the tribunal unless they are clear that the asked-for rent is too high, but what prevents them from gaming the system, as we discussed?”


In reply, the Minister said:

“What I would say to the hon. Gentleman—I will expand upon my argument in due course—is that I think he underestimates how difficult it is to take a case to the tribunal”.


In a spare moment over the weekend, I put into Google, “How do I appeal against my rent increase?”. Up came the answer: use form Rents 1 on the GOV.UK website. I downloaded the form. You can appeal, free and online. All credit to the noble Lord, Lord Maude of Horsham, and others for simplifying and digitising government forms. You fill in your name, address and contact details, the name and address of the landlord or agent, the amount of rent you are paying, when the tenancy began and the details of the property. You add a copy of the Section 13 notice from the landlord increasing the rent and a copy of the tenancy agreement, and send it off online to the nearest tribunal regional office. I estimate that it would take about 10 minutes. The tribunal will then ask you what type of hearing you want. Most tribunals for rent increases are based on the evidence you send—they are paper hearings—so there is no need for an appellant to do anything more than I have described.

I hope the Minister will not repeat what her colleague said in another place:

“However, I think the hon. Gentleman underestimates the onerous nature of taking a case to tribunal. It will not be as simple as the tenant deciding on a whim one day that they can do that, and that it is a no-lose situation, but I recognise the incentives at play on both sides”.—[Official Report, Commons, Renters’ Rights Bill Committee, 29/10/24; cols. 145-46.]


It is not onerous, and it is no lose. What is onerous is the pressure on the tribunals. I urge the Minister to reflect on the many amendments to this clause and, in her reply, indicate a willingness to think again.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Howard of Rising (Con)]

My Lords, I support the amendments in this group in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, to which I have added my name. I endorse what she said just now when she spoke to the amendments.

When I spoke to the fourth group, I pointed out that, as presently drafted, the Bill will, at a conservative estimate, give rise to 1 million applications per annum to the rent tribunals. Other noble Lords have commented on the problems which will occur. The rent tribunals will be overwhelmed. With the delay for any rent increase, this will amount to a de facto rent control, with a corresponding and inevitable loss of rental accommodation when landlords disappear from the market as they cease to be able to cope with the ever-rising costs, not least the cost of increasing regulation.

I spoke at Second Reading to the problems in Berlin, where rent controls had to be abandoned owing to the lack of rental accommodation. These amendments would help introduce some realism into the system, so that applications to the rent tribunals are for genuine reasons and not merely because it would be silly not to go to the rent tribunal when there is no risk and a possible gain.

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

I had thought that there would be a few more speakers than that, but hey.

I wish I could be half as certain about what is going to happen in the future as some noble Lords here—they must have a crystal ball hidden somewhere. I feel this Bill is almost an act of faith. It is quite obvious that we believe that it is going to do good things and that Armageddon will not happen. However, the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, argued her case very well and sincerely, and likewise she believes that. At the moment, neither side really knows what is going to happen. To use the cliché: only time will tell.

The problem with so many amendments being regrouped is that we are into groundhog day, so I will be brief. As previously stated, we do not support amendments that would disincentivise tenants challenging rent rises and feel that most of these amendments fall into that category. The Bill is about a power balance between the tenant and the landlord, and is a genuine attempt to redress that balance. A lot of the amendments and statements made by some noble Lords want to maintain the status quo; for us on these Benches, that is an imbalance. We are just going to have to disagree about that.

The noble Baroness referred to the realities of the housing market. Our interpretation is that landlords can charge whatever they want—whatever the market will sustain—and we do not believe that that is right. In doing so, I genuinely believe we are creating an underclass of people who will never be able to fit into the private rented sector. That is perhaps an argument for another day.

The Minister has perhaps already answered Amendment 105, but I am quite happy to hear it again, given that I agree with the noble Baroness that such a review is important and necessary.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for her amendments on rent regulation. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Howard, and the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, for their comments.

As I set out earlier, the Bill will empower private rented sector tenants to challenge unreasonable rent amounts. This is a central aim of the Government’s reform agenda and reflects our manifesto commitment. The tribunal will not be able to increase rent beyond what the landlord initially proposed. This will prevent unscrupulous landlords—let us face it, most of them are good, but there are some unscrupulous ones—using rent increases as a back door means of eviction, while ensuring rents can be increased to reflect market rates.

We are clear that tenants should submit an application to the tribunal only where they believe a rent increase is above market rates. In the first instance, we strongly encourage landlords and tenants to communicate early about what adjustments to rent are sustainable for both parties. We need to think about possible triage arrangements if there is no agreement between them.

We anticipate that our reforms will lead to some increases in cases, but, as I have already stated, we are working closely with the judiciary to ensure the tribunal has the capacity to deal with cases. In the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber), work is progressing to increase capacity, as well as on reviewing resourcing and working practices in readiness for any increase in demand. I am not sure if it will be 1 million applications, as the noble Lord, Lord Howard, said, but we anticipate that there will be some increase initially, until the way that this works drives down demand in the future—which I think it will. This is part of our wider work to make sure the justice system is prepared for the changes to case loads and procedures which will be required for our reforms.

As now, tenants will be able to challenge the rent payable in the first six months of a tenancy if it is above market rate at the First-tier Tribunal. The tribunal can determine the open market rent only to be lower than or the same as the tenancy rent itself. The tribunal will not be able to increase the rent above the amount originally proposed by the landlord. We see this as a rebalancing mechanism, as the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, said.

Amendment 92 seeks to allow the tribunal to determine the open market rent to be higher than that originally proposed by the landlord. We believe that limiting the tribunal to determine a rent to be either the same as the landlord themselves proposes or an amount lower than this is fair to both parties. If landlords have agreed a rent that they consider to be acceptable at the beginning of the tenancy, they should have no fear of a challenge at tribunal.

I turn to Amendment 93. This Bill enables a tenant during the first six months of a tenancy to challenge the rent payable. It is an important provision that should stop a minority of unscrupulous landlords exploiting tenants desperate to find a new home. It strengthens our ban on rental bidding, ensuring that any landlords who seek to charge over the odds can be challenged. When a tenant challenges their rent, the Bill states that the start date of the new rent determined by the tribunal

“must not be earlier than the date of the application”.

This reflects Section 22 of the Housing Act 1988, where a similar provision already exists to allow backdating of a determination where a tenant has challenged an excessive rent.

Amendment 93 would prevent a tribunal backdating the determination of the new rent payable to the date of the tenant’s application. It would mean that the new rent could take effect only from the date of the tribunal’s determination. I understand that the purpose of this is to ensure that the landlord will not have to repay the difference in rents back to the tenant. The Government encourage landlords and tenants to communicate early about what rents are sustainable for both parties. The Bill levels the playing field to enable a more equitable discussion about levels of rent before anything comes to the tribunal. To be clear, the aim of this is to prevent as many cases as possible ending up in court action.

In our view, the noble Baroness’s amendment would limit the ability of tenants in the first six months of an above-market tenancy to get justice for the period that the case is in the courts. It would also increase the risk that landlords would seek to exploit desperate tenants by extracting above-market rents. I am really concerned about that, because one of the key principles of the Bill is to stop that happening.

[Lord Howard of Rising (Con)]

Perhaps the Minister can help me: if you can never put the rent above market rates, how does it ever change? You can never put it up—you can only ever put it down—so it can never go up and will only ever drop. That seems a bit of a conundrum.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

No—you can put the rent up to market rates.

[Lord Howard of Rising (Con)]

That is the point. If you put it up to market rates, it can never go above market rates, so market rates can never increase. They will always stay static, and in 10 years they will be exactly the same.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

Market rates are usually driven by demand, not by what happens in the courts, so I do not think that will be the case.

On Amendment 95, for too long tenants have been afraid to challenge an unreasonable rent increase for the fear that the rent can be raised beyond what the landlord has asked for. The Bill will reform how the tribunal works to ensure that tenants feel confident in challenging poor practice and can enforce their rights. The tribunal will not be able to increase rent beyond what the landlord initially proposed. That strikes the right balance between empowering tenants to challenge unreasonable rent increases and ensuring that landlords can increase to the market rent.

Amendment 95 would require the tribunal to backdate a rent increase to the date of the rent increase notice, except where this is likely to cause undue hardship to the tenant. This amendment would punish the most vulnerable tenants who may already be struggling financially. Therefore, to ensure tenants are not unexpectedly thrust into debt, it is right that the new rent amount would take effect no earlier than the date of the tribunal determination. This will give tenants the time to prepare for any changes to their rent and seek independent advice on how best to manage their finances. For the sake of clarity, I repeat that the tenant will continue to pay the rent that they were paying before—it is the increase in the rent that is being challenged through this process.

Turning to Amendment 102, I reiterate that applying to the tribunal should be a last resort for a tenant. Good landlords and tenants will discuss what rent is sustainable for both parties but, if they cannot come to an agreement, a tenant has the right to challenge a rent increase at tribunal. As I have said, for too long tenants have been afraid to do that. I note, too, that the Opposition once supported our position on this matter. Their original White Paper said the tribunal will no longer have the power to increase the rent above the amount the landlord asked for. It is regrettable that they now disagree with themselves and want to make it easier for tenants to be evicted by the backdoor.

Renters’ Rights Bill

Lord Howard of Rising 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 ---

Moved by

[Lord Howard of Rising]

121: Clause 12, page 19, line 36, at end insert—
“(5A) Where a landlord has given their consent under subsection (1) they may withdraw their consent at any time if they become aware that the pet in question is a dangerous wild animal under the Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976 or in breach of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to enable landlords to refuse pets on the grounds that they are a dangerous wild animal.

[Lord Howard of Rising (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 121 seeks to probe and address the inadequate definition of “pet” in the Bill, which has already been mentioned by a number of noble Lords during this debate. Part 1, Chapter 1, Clause 12(2) inserts the following definition into Section 45(1) of the Housing Act 1988:

“‘pet’ means an animal kept by a person mainly for … personal interest … companionship … ornamental purposes … or any combination”

of those. My Amendment 121 seeks to probe whether pets that are considered dangerous and/or wild animals under the Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976 or the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 should be counted as pets. This might sound like common sense, but I am not convinced that, under the current drafting of the Bill, landlords would not be forced to consider giving consent for unsuitable and, in this case, dangerous animals. These Acts already govern the keeping of dangerous animals, but it is good practice to ensure legal consistency, and it is not clear how they will interact with the Bill before us today.

For example, the Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976 requires accommodation to be

“suitable as regards construction, size, temperature, lighting, ventilation, drainage and cleanliness”.

If a landlord’s property happens to fit the definition in that legislation, does that mean that an animal included therein would be considered a pet by the definition of this Bill? As we will hear in the next group, damage insurance is problematical, as it is for standard pets. Will any insurance provider give cover for the damage that could be caused by a dangerous animal? If the fact that an animal is dangerous and wild, or falls outside the definition of a pet, can be a reasonable ground for refusal, would it not be simpler to make that explicit by reference to an existing definition and list already in legislation? Why should landlords be required to make independent assessments to justify their refusal?

The Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 is another example. It bans the keeping of specific breeds without an exemption certificate and creates offences for dogs that are out of control or that cause injury or death. Again, it is unclear how this existing legislation interacts with the Bill. If the owner of a banned breed has an exemption certificate, would a landlord be able to refuse the animal in their property? Likewise, if a dog had been deemed dangerously out of control or had injured someone, what risk would this pose to the landlord, their property agents and others who need access? What risk would be considered acceptable, if any?

I hope that the Minister can answer these questions and clarify this matter. If she needs to write to me on any of them, I would be very happy to receive her letter, but I would like to be reassured that this amendment and others we will debate today are being considered as they should be. I beg to move.

[Lord Dobbs (Con)]

My Lords, what is a pet? That is a central question to everything that we are discussing. Some noble Lords will remember that there once was a parrot—a Norwegian Blue, to be precise—that was very sick. In fact, he was so sick, he was a deceased parrot—at least, that is how his new owner perceived it—and no amount of nailing that dead polly’s feet to the perch could change that. How we miss Monty Python.

Perceptions, rather like recollections, may differ, yet this Bill’s definition of a pet depends almost entirely on perception, and I suspect it is likely to cause quite a few ruffled feathers. Therefore, I have put down two amendments—Amendment 131 and the consequential Amendment 132—to prod and probe a little.

First, as the Chief Whip instructed, I declare my interest as a pet owner. Percy is our rescue cat—a very happy puss that has trained my family exceptionally well. So well that, if ever I were to ask my family who they love more, me or Percy, I would soon be looking for lodgings.

As the Explanatory Notes set out:

“The Bill requires landlords not to unreasonably withhold consent”


for tenants to have pets. Despite the split infinitive, I would have thought that that was the right target area: legislation based on what is reasonable. But the Bill goes further and howls at the moon in trying to define a pet. It does this in a very peculiar manner, by defining a pet not by what it is, but by how it is perceived. It offers three definitions, as my noble friend has already pointed out. A pet is defined as an animal kept, first, for mainly personal interest, secondly, for companionship, and thirdly—it is this that my amendment mostly concerns—mainly for ornamental purposes. That is a definition we should consider getting rid of.

What is a pet kept for ornamental purposes? I will take a calf as an example. Currently, the beautiful pastures around my home in Wylye are filled with any number of calves. They are so cute and cuddly, and my grandchildren always want to take one home. But I think we can agree that a calf is not really a pet; it is a would-be cow. Except, it would seem to fall directly under the Bill’s definition of a pet: first, it is personally interesting to my grandchildren; secondly, it is companionable, particularly so long as one has a bottle of milk handy; and thirdly, it is ornamental. A triple whammy.

I remember Margaret Thatcher once cuddled a calf. I was with her in Suffolk on the election trail in 1979 when she picked up this terrified young animal and embraced it. Did the fact that she found it personally interesting or exceptionally ornamental—and, as it happened, amazingly photogenic—make it a protected pet? Could she have taken it home? Apparently, the Daily Mirror paid the farmer £50 to let it know if the poor thing died before polling day. Can you imagine the headlines? “Maggie Thatcher, calf basher”—but I digress. The problem is that once we try to define what a pet is or is not in the way the Bill attempts, we start with a cat’s cradle of confusion and end up with a dog’s dinner. People nowadays get very protective about their pets, and very litigious; we need to take care.

Traditionally, working animals and pets have been regarded as separate categories, but it is not always clear cut. Take Larry, the Downing Street cat: is he not a working animal that is supposed to keep the place free of vermin? Good luck with that. Ever since the Prime Minister’s claim at his party conference that his main mission in life was to free the sausages—Remember that? It was a magical moment—I suspect that Larry has been working even harder to try to track down all those missing sausages.

However, it is the third category that really has me wondering. Clause 12 defines a pet as an animal that is kept for “mainly … ornamental purposes”. Forgive me, but what on earth does that mean? I am confused. Does it mean, for instance, an XL bully dog? I am told that many owners regard them as extremely attractive. It must be the way they smile, or drool. But does that give a tenant an unequivocal right to keep them? I ask the Minister: does the landlord have no grounds to refuse—even if keeping such animals might well cause fear for others, such their neighbours who have children or who own a small dog or cat? As my noble friend Lord Howard of Rising so eloquently pointed out, one pet owner’s rights can become another pet owner’s nightmare.

I should perhaps whimsically point out that for, the purposes of the discussion, I have decided this week to self-identify as a Chihuahua. So, hand on heart and paw on prostate, I say: these definitions are barking mad. I really do not want to end up as breakfast for next door’s bully dog, no matter how cute he looks.

Would it not be enough simply to require both tenant and landlord to be reasonable in the specific circumstances? The Minister keeps coming back to the concept of people being reasonable. That is a much stronger concept, it seems to me, than tying ourselves in knots trying to define what a pet is in the ways that the Bill currently attempts.

Our laws should offer clarity, not confusion. But, no matter how hard we try to nail these definitions to the perch, they will make about as much sense as a dead parrot. So their proper place is not in the Bill but in that great parliamentary litter tray in the sky. I request the Minister to go back and have a much closer look at the definition of a pet.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lords, Lord Howard of Rising and Lord Dobbs, for their amendments relating to the definition of a pet. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Northbrook, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Miller and Lady Scott, for their comments on this debate. Even in these two short debates this afternoon, we have seen the benefit that our House can add to legislation, including probing very intensively a definition but also the entertaining nature of the speeches we are privileged to listen to. So I thank the noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, for his entertaining intervention.

Amendment 121 from the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Rising, seeks to allow landlords to withdraw consent for a pet if it is later found to be a dangerous wild animal under the Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976, or in breach of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991. Although I of course fully support the principle that animals posing a serious risk to safety should not be kept in rental properties, this amendment is not necessary. The keeping of dangerous wild animals without a licence is already prohibited under the 1976 Act, and the 1991 Act imposes strict controls on specific dog breeds—I presume that includes the XL bullies that were mentioned by the noble Lord. These laws already provide local authorities with sufficient powers, and we would expect a request for a pet that falls foul of that legislation to give landlords a strong case for refusing consent. Local authorities have the powers to act, and the amendment would therefore duplicate existing protections and introduce unnecessary complexity into the Bill. For these reasons, we do not consider the amendment necessary, and I hope the noble Lord will consider withdrawing it.

Amendment 131, from the noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, seeks to remove the line in Clause 12 that includes keeping animals for “ornamental purposes” within the definition of a pet. Amendment 132 is consequential to Amendment 131. I understand that these are probing amendments, intended to seek clarity on the scope of the term “pet” as used in the Bill. Like the noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, I miss Monty Python—I have watched them over and again, I must admit—but I must respectfully resist these amendments. The line in question, referring to animals kept for ornamental purposes, is a deliberate and important part of the definition. The noble Lord will be pleased to learn that it does not refer to dead parrots, but it ensures that the Bill captures a broad and inclusive understanding of what a pet may be, reflecting the wide range of animals that people may choose to keep in their homes for companionship or decorative enjoyment. I am not sure whether Wilberforce the snake was decorative, ornamental or a pet, but he is obviously now enjoying somebody else’s company than his original owner.

Removing this provision could risk narrowing the scope of the definition, creating legal ambiguity and potentially excluding animals that are commonly accepted as pets, such as fish and birds—live ones. To support implementation, the Government will provide guidance, setting out examples of instances where animals are likely to fall into the definition of a pet. I hope that that will help to ensure consistency and clarity for both tenants and landlords, without placing restrictions on primary legislation. It is important to repeat that landlords are required to agree only to reasonable requests; a calf that may grow into a cow is unlikely to be reasonable in a small flat, for example. For these reasons, I do not consider these amendments necessary, and I hope the noble Lord will consider not pressing them.

[Lord Howard of Rising (Con)]

As my amendment alluded to, the Government’s definition of a pet is very broad and open to debate, although I believe that the Minister’s remarks were helpful. As we have heard from my noble friend Lord Dobbs, the definition could be stretched to the extreme. How is a landlord or tribunal expected to understand its meaning?

To summarise, the definition of a pet in this Bill poses more questions than it answers, and I hope that the Government can offer some much-needed reassurance on this. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 121 withdrawn.

Renters’ Rights Bill

Lord Howard of Rising Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 1st July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 30 in my name. I take the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf of Dulwich, that it is good to have something easy to read. I would say that this amendment is very easy to read: it would amend the Housing Act 1988 so that, when determining rents, tribunals must disregard any improvements funded by government grants for a two-year period.

The amendment, which I feel strongly about, is designed to help renters and the Government. It aims to improve upon a good policy that creates warmer homes and cheaper bills. The climate benefits from the warmer home grant, as do landlords, so why not guarantee that tenants get cheaper bills without a rent rise for a couple of years?

I met the Minister last week. She is very generous with her time, and I was grateful for her comments, but I still do not see the problem with passing the amendment. There are complexities, and the tribunals would have to sort out any details if the property owner added some of their own money along with the taxpayer money, but tribunals make far more difficult calculations every week. I have also heard privately from several people just how difficult it is with tribunals, but that is the sort of thing that must be fixed. They really cannot be allowed to wallow and not be the tribunals that they need to be.

The important thing for me in this amendment is that taxpayer-funded improvements are not used as an excuse to raise rents, and we need the force of law backing that up. Although the guidance is slightly more explicit, it will get ignored and that will discredit a good policy. Generation Rent recently did a poll of renters, asking them about their support for the Government’s policies in this area. There was a net support increase from plus 14% to plus 55% when renters were presented with a scenario where the Government would protect them from rent increases. I do not want to suggest that the Government should be run by opinion polls, but it is wonderful when you can do something that is right, does not cost any extra money and leads to a 41% jump in the popularity of that policy—and also, hopefully, the popularity of the Government.

I had hoped the Government would put this forward as their own idea in some form or another. I have been told privately that it is not nuanced enough, and that is possibly a fault of my nature, but I think it is a good amendment and hope that the Government will give it due attention.

[Lord Howard of Rising (Con)]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 31 to 33 in my name. I declare an interest as a landlord of rented properties.

When I pointed out in Committee that the Bill as drafted would create a conservative 1 million applicants to the rent tribunals, the Minister commented that that was

“unlikely, to say the least”.—[Official Report, 28/4/25; col. 1045.]

In a recent letter from her, recognition was given that there is an inherent uncertainty about the volume of rent challenges. The proposed new delegated power to backdate rent increases acknowledges the potential difficulties. Welcome as that proposal is, it does not start to address the fundamental problem. At best, it will provide some temporary window dressing. The Government might recognise that the system may be overwhelmed, as the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf, pointed out very cogently, but promoting appeals to the rent tribunal in the first place is the crux of the problem when the Bill still provides that the tribunal can only confirm or reduce the rent, not raise it. That creates a no-lose situation for tenants.

Amendment 31 addresses the most fundamental of the structural flaws. It would remove this restriction that the tribunal may only reduce or uphold a proposed rent, not increase it. If a tribunal can only confirm or lower a rent and never raise it, that is a one-way ratchet. As my noble friend Lord Jamieson pointed out, if things can only get better, what possible reason is there not to try it on? There will be no loss, and until and if the Secretary of State regulates to backdate rent increases—and how speedy that will be with two Government departments having to consult over it is noble Lords’ own guess—there will be a decent delay in any increase being implemented. It becomes a virtual necessity for a tenant to challenge.

Amendment 32 would ensure that in the event the tribunal determines that the rent initially agreed was too high, landlords are not retrospectively liable for backdated repayments to tenants of an agreed rent. This is simply a matter of fairness and legal certainty: if a tenant has freely agreed a rent at the outset of a tenancy, it should not be open to the tribunal to rewrite an agreement and impose retrospective liability on the landlord. It would set a worrying precedent.

Renters’ Rights Bill

Lord Howard of Rising Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 7th July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Howard of Rising (Con)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 53A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, spoken to so ably by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull.

While there is considerable improvement in the present five-week deposit limit, there will still be a good number of cases where the damage by pets is more than the cost of the remedial work that needs to be done. For the first time ever, I have just refused a tenancy on the ground that the pets would be inappropriate. The proposed tenants wanted to have three Newfoundland dogs in a two-bedroom property. In Committee, the Minister said that the Bill already permits landlords to refuse their consent on reasonable grounds which are best judged on a case-by-case basis. Would my refusal to have three Newfoundland dogs in a small two-bedroom cottage be reasonable? I doubt that even an eight-week deposit would cover the potential damage, and the present five-week deposit would be nowhere near adequate.