The debate over pets in rented accommodation has reached a significant turning point in the House of Lords.
Despite the government’s earlier stance that tenants should not be treated as second-class citizens and should have the right to keep pets, Peers have backed a move seen as a win for landlords.
The amendment centres around the issue of pet damage deposits, which has long been a point of tension between landlords and tenants.
Previously, the government had made headlines for performing a U-turn on requiring tenants to take out pet damage insurance.
During discussions at the second debate of the Report stage of the Renters’ Rights Bill, Labour Peers argued that such insurance was unnecessary.
They claimed that forcing tenants to take out insurance would only add to the cost of renting and place an unfair burden on pet owners.
However, the issue didn’t end there. The House of Lords found itself deeply divided over how best to protect both landlords and tenants.
In a closely watched vote, members ultimately decided to support an amendment that would allow landlords to request a separate pet damage deposit.
Under this amendment, landlords can now take an additional deposit of up to three weeks’ rent.
This extra deposit sits above the existing deposit cap set out in current legislation.
To apply this separate deposit fairly, it must be made clear in writing that permission to keep a pet is conditional upon payment of the additional deposit.
This decision is being described as a significant victory for landlords who have long expressed concern about the risk of damage caused by pets in rental properties.
Supporters of the amendment argue that it strikes a fair balance, ensuring landlords have financial protection while allowing tenants to keep pets.
It also addresses landlord worries that the current deposit cap often isn’t enough to cover the potential extra wear and tear from pets.
The passing of this amendment highlights the ongoing debate over pets in rented homes and how best to support tenants while safeguarding landlords’ interests.
Amendment helps to support landlords
During the second debate on the Renters’ Rights Bill, Lord De Clifford introduced Amendment 53A, which proposes that landlords be allowed to take a separate pet damage deposit.
He explained that this new measure is designed to address concerns raised by landlords who are worried about being required to accept pets under the updated legislation.
Under the Renters’ Rights Bill, landlords can no longer unreasonably refuse a tenant’s request to keep a pet. This shift has led some landlords to rethink whether they wish to stay in the private rented sector at all.
Lord De Clifford’s amendment aims to provide landlords with a level of reassurance, making it easier for them to remain in the market despite these new requirements.
He emphasised the practical benefit of a refundable deposit, saying: “The benefit of the deposit in this amendment is that, if they respect the property and maintain it, the deposit is returned to them at the end.”
This stands in contrast to the earlier idea of mandatory pet insurance, where tenants would pay an annual premium that they could never recover, even if there was no claim.
Lord De Clifford acknowledged that the proposal would add an extra cost to tenants, which is an understandable concern in the current rental climate.
However, he argued that it provides landlords with essential protection, especially now that they can no longer refuse pets as easily as before.
He pointed out that without this safeguard, some landlords might be tempted to move away from the long-term rental market altogether.
Instead, they could choose to switch to holiday lets or short-term rentals, such as Airbnb, where they can charge additional fees for pets.
Others might even decide to sell up entirely, further reducing the availability of long-term rental properties.
Lord De Clifford explained that his amendment was not about discouraging pet ownership but about finding a fair compromise that keeps landlords engaged in the sector.
He noted that for many landlords, the concern about pet damage is very real, and this deposit could help balance the risks they now face.
Ultimately, his aim is to help maintain choice and supply in the private rented sector, ensuring that landlords are not driven out by new obligations.
The amendment reflects an attempt to support landlords while recognising tenants’ growing desire to keep pets in their rented homes.
Lord De Clifford’s amendment was passed
However, Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, who serves as the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, argued that Amendment 53A is not the best solution to the issue.
She explained that while she completely understands the motivation behind the amendment—which is to offer landlords extra protection against damage that pets might cause—she believes it isn’t necessary in practice.
Baroness Taylor highlighted that the current system already provides safeguards for landlords through standard tenancy deposits.
These deposits are capped at five weeks’ rent for most tenancies where the annual rent is below £50,000, and rise to six weeks’ rent for tenancies where the rent exceeds £50,000 per year.
She stressed that these existing deposit limits should be sufficient to cover typical pet-related damages that landlords may encounter.
Speaking further, Baroness Taylor pointed out that, in reality, the type of damage pets cause tends to be relatively minor rather than extensive.
She noted that the average cost of damage caused by pets is usually around £300. According to her, this amount is comfortably within the amount landlords can claim back from a standard deposit.
Because of this, the government’s view is that landlords are already adequately protected against pet damage and that introducing a separate pet deposit would place an unnecessary financial burden on tenants.
Despite the government’s reservations and the points raised by Baroness Taylor, Members of the House of Lords decided to support Lord de Clifford’s amendment.
This vote means that, at least for now, the proposal to allow landlords to collect an additional deposit specifically for pet-related damage has moved one step closer to becoming law.
However, it’s important to remember that this is not the final stage in the legislative process.
Before it can become part of the final legislation, the amendment must still go through the House of Commons, where it could face further debate, amendments or even rejection.
For now, though, the passing of the amendment by the Lords represents a notable win for landlords who are concerned about the impact of being required to accept pets.
It reflects a wider debate about balancing tenant rights with landlords’ need for reassurance, especially when it comes to protecting properties from unexpected costs.
In the coming weeks, attention will likely turn to how MPs in the Commons respond to this amendment and whether they see the merit in adding extra protection for landlords through a separate pet deposit.
The outcome in the Commons will ultimately decide if this measure becomes part of the new Renters’ Rights Bill.
Guarantor amendment is a blunt instrument
Here’s a rewritten version in British English, expanded into multiple paragraphs so it reads naturally and avoids looking copied:
Elsewhere during the debate, Baroness Kennedy of Cradley introduced an amendment aimed at limiting landlords’ power to insist on a guarantor from prospective tenants.
She argued that requests for guarantors had become far too common, creating a significant hurdle for many renters trying to secure housing.
During her remarks, Baroness Kennedy highlighted recent figures from Generation Rent, which showed that nearly 30% of renters who moved during 2023–24 had been asked to provide a guarantor.
She also pointed to further research carried out by Shelter and YouGov, which found that over 100,000 private renters each year are unable to rent a property because they cannot provide a guarantor.
Baroness Kennedy explained that this practice was locking many out of the private rental market, turning what should be a simple process into an often insurmountable obstacle.
However, Lord Fuller from the Conservatives criticised the proposal, describing it as a “blunt instrument” that could lead to unintended consequences.
He acknowledged that routinely requiring a guarantor is excessive in many cases and welcomed parts of the Bill aimed at addressing this.
Yet, Lord Fuller argued that the amendment as drafted would ultimately harm those it sought to protect, as guarantors sometimes make it possible for otherwise “unrentable” people to secure accommodation.
He stressed that without this option, some individuals could end up stuck in temporary housing or bed and breakfasts, rather than moving into proper rental homes.
Lord Fuller summed up his opposition by saying: “There is nothing fair about keeping people in bed and breakfasts if they could, via a guarantor, be housed. I cannot support this amendment.”
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage echoed these concerns, warning that the amendment might end up doing “more harm than good” rather than offering real protection to tenants.
She suggested that the amendment could backfire by narrowing housing options for those with the least choice to begin with.
Following these arguments against it, Baroness Kennedy chose to withdraw her amendment rather than push it to a vote.
Although the proposal did not move forward, the debate brought attention to the complex balance between protecting tenants and ensuring landlords can manage risk.
The discussion also underscored the wider challenge policymakers face: making the private rented sector fairer while avoiding unintended negative impacts on vulnerable renters.
As the Renters’ Rights Bill continues its journey through Parliament, questions around guarantors, affordability and tenant protection remain central to the wider conversation about housing reform in the UK.
Download NOW
4 Simple Steps To Becoming Wealthy Through Property