The Renters’ Rights Bill is set to give tenants more rights to request a pet, but industry bodies are concerned there won’t be enough protection for landlords.
Today (1st July), the Renters’ Rights Bill enters the Report Stage in the House of Lords, bringing it another step closer to becoming enacted in law. The Report Stage gives members a final opportunity to consider further amendments to the Bill.
The Renters’ Rights Bill has already seen several small changes since it was renamed when Labour came into power, having previously been known as the Renters’ Reform Bill under the Conservatives. The fundamentals of the Bill, however, remain the same.
One of the major changes being put under the spotlight right now is the additional rights that will be given to tenants who want to keep a pet in their property. Under the Bill, landlords must consider all requests for pets, and “cannot unreasonably refuse“.
While landlords will be able to require pet insurance to cover any damage to their property, they will not currently be able to request a larger deposit due to the deposit cap. Although this is an aspect that may be looked at while the Bill is still being considered, industry body Propertymark is calling for a rethink.
Extra deposits for tenants with pets?
Since June 2019, the Tenant Fees Act has meant that landlords can only charge a maximum of five weeks’ deposit to tenants whose total annual rent is less than £50,000, or six weeks’ deposit if the rent is £50,000 or more annually.
This rules out the option of requesting an additional deposit for tenants with pets in order to cover any potential damage caused by the pets. Instead, the Renters’ Rights Bill currently sets out the requirement of pet insurance for tenants who do want to keep pets.
However, according to Propertymark, UK government amendments to remove the pet insurance clause from the Renters’ Rights Bill have been tabled for the Report Stage.
Propertymark has long been campaigning for pet deposits in order to cover the additional risk for landlords – and one amendment being tabled by the Earl of Kinnoull is to require tenants to make an additional ‘pet damage deposit’ equivalent to the value of three week’s rent.
Timothy Douglas, Head of Policy and Campaigns at Propertymark, said: “Without allowing pet deposits, the UK government risk further undermining their efforts to support tenants to rent with pets.
“We know that the Tenant Fees Act 2019 is a barrier to renting with pets with one in five landlords who previously allowed pets no longer doing since the passing of the Act. Furthermore, 57% of landlords and agents said they were unable to recoup the cost of damage caused by pets. Lord Kinnoull’s amendment for an additional pet damage deposit offers a better opportunity to support renters and protect landlords.”
More detail on pet proposals
While the Renters’ Rights Bill is still subject to change, it currently requires landlords to have a “reasonable reason” for refusing a tenant to have a pet. They must consider all requests on a case-by-case basis, rather than having a blanket ban on pets.
The government notes: “Due to the diversity of landlords, tenants, and properties in the private rented sector, it would not be possible to legislate for every situation where a landlord would or would not be able to ‘reasonably’ refuse a pet.”
If a tenant feels a landlord is unreasonably refusing their request, under the Renters’ Rights Bill as it stands they would be able to escalate their complaint to the new Private Rented Sector Ombudsman – or they could take their case to court. Evidence would need to be provided by both parties for a decision to be made.
If a pet does damage a property, under the current form of the Renters’ Rights Bill there will need to be insurance in place, held by the tenant, to over this damage. Money could also be taken from the tenant’s deposit to cover damage.
The government adds: “In the very rare cases where the insurance and deposit do not cover the cost of the damage, a landlord could take the tenant to court to recoup additional funds in line with wider rules in the sector.”
