-
14/7/25 8:13 pm
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
The Government has been accused of waging a war of ‘revenge’ against private buy-to-let investors for ‘being landlords’.
The comments were made during last night’s sometimes emotional debate in parliament over the final sticking points within the Renters’ Rights Bill including pets damage but also evictions, shared ownership ‘landlords’, student accommodation and landlord prosecutions for non-compliance.
Lords urged the Government to remember that landlords need some sort of mechanism to recoup pet damage costs, but to little avail.
Labour housing minister Baroness Taylor claimed that the standard five-week deposit is sufficient to cover pet damage, and that if that proves not to be the case, Ministers will later amend the Tenant Fees Act to allow for higher or additional deposits for pets.
During the debate Conservative peer Baroness Scott highlighted how Propertymark research recently showed that 85% of landlords had reported pet damage as an issue.
“Allowing landlords and agents to collect a deposit of one to three weeks’ rent is a reasonable and balanced step,” she said.
There was also an emotional debate around the new restrictions within the bill that will prevent a landlord remarketing their property to rent for 12 months after evicting tenants, with several Lords calling it both punitive and disproportionate and proposing a six month period instead.
The peer sponsoring the amendment, Lord Cromwell, went further saying it smacked of a ‘renters’ revenge’ on landlords including on those who had been good landlords in the past.
The other key amendment urged the Government to reconsider the Bill’s exclusion of one and two-bedroom or smaller student accommodation. At the moment it only covers HMOs or larger shared student houses – but this was rejected.
One other area where the housing minister in the Lords, Baroness Taylor, agreed to compromise also was the thorny issue of whether councils should meet a civil or criminal standard of proof when seeking to prosecute rogue landlords or letting agents, with a fudge agreed.
The Bill will now return to the Commons and, if the sticking points can be ironed out there quicly, go to Royal Assent very soon.
David Smith (pictured), Property Litigation Partner at Spector Constant & Williams, says: “The Government’s decision to reject the proposal for a separate pet damage deposit is disappointing but unsurprising. The original Lords amendment recognised a genuine gap in protection for landlords that has now been left unaddressed.
“While the drive to make renting more pet-friendly is understandable, removing both the dedicated insurance requirement and the option of an additional deposit leaves landlords exposed to potential losses that cannot easily be recovered under the existing five-week cap.
“A modest, refundable pet deposit would have struck a sensible balance between encouraging responsible pet ownership and protecting property owners from avoidable risk. As it stands, landlords will need to rely on clear tenancy agreements and robust referencing to manage the additional liabilities that pets inevitably bring.
"In addition, a fresh push to cut the time landlords would be barred from re-letting a property after taking possession to sell it from 12 months to six was defeated by 215 votes to 204, with a majority of 11.
“In my view it was the most useful amendment because it stopped properties that had been taken out of the market to sell, but had not then sold, from sitting empty when they are desperately needed to house people.”
Tags:
Comments