Peers are set to discuss the final amendments to the Renters’ Rights Bill tomorrow (14 October) as it enters its concluding phase.
Additional revisions were introduced over the weekend, but no significant alterations are anticipated.
The Bill will continue to move between the House of Lords and the House of Commons until all outstanding amendment disagreements are settled.
Pet damage deposit
One of the main topics being revisited by Peers is whether landlords should be permitted to request a separate pet damage deposit.
Previously, the House of Lords voted in favour of an amendment allowing landlords to collect an additional pet deposit of up to three weeks’ rent, on top of the existing deposit cap. However, the government rejected this proposal, maintaining that the Tenant Fees Act 2019 already offers sufficient protection.
Housing Minister Matthew Pennycook explained that the amendment would allow landlords to require an extra deposit, equivalent to three weeks’ rent, as a condition for approving a tenant’s request to keep a pet. He added that the government could not support this change, as it would cost the average tenant in England over £900 — an amount considered unaffordable for many and far higher than the typical £300 deduction for pet-related damage.
Local authorities to meet the criminal, rather than the civil, standard of proof
Another significant group of proposals, known as Lords Amendments 26 and 27, seeks to raise the standard of proof required for local authorities when enforcing penalties related to rental discrimination and rental bidding.
If approved, these amendments would mean councils must meet the criminal standard of proof—beyond reasonable doubt—rather than the lower civil standard of proof, which is based on the balance of probabilities.
The government has already rejected these changes, with 404 MPs voting against and 98 supporting the amendments.
During an earlier debate, Housing Minister Matthew Pennycook stated that the government believes the civil standard of proof remains appropriate, as it aligns with existing legislation such as the Equality Act 2010. He argued that requiring local authorities to meet the higher criminal standard would make enforcement “extremely challenging” and too resource-heavy, particularly since the conduct in question does not lead to a criminal offence.
A separate amendment being revisited proposes creating a new possession ground, which would allow landlords to reclaim their property to accommodate a carer for themselves or a family member.
However, the government has once again opposed this change, cautioning that it could be open to misuse.
In its response, the Commons stated in the amendments-in-lieu paper that there is “insufficient justification for enabling possession to be sought to accommodate carers.”
Commons has the authority to override the Lords
Peers are once again urging the government to reconsider Amendments 18 and 19, which propose reducing the restriction period on re-letting or re-marketing a property under possession ground 1A from 12 months to six.
At present, the Renters’ Rights Bill requires landlords who evict tenants to sell their property to wait a full year before they can re-let if the sale falls through. Amendment 19 would make an exception for shared owners, allowing them to avoid this waiting period.
Housing Minister Matthew Pennycook has previously rejected this proposal, cautioning that it could “undermine protections for the small subset of tenants who happen to rent a sublet home from a shared owner.”
Peers will also debate other proposed changes, including housing provisions for agricultural workers and a requirement for the government to produce an annual report on the Decent Homes Standard for Ministry of Defence accommodation in England.
If the Lords and Commons fail to reach an agreement after tomorrow’s discussions, the Commons ultimately holds the power to overrule the Lords and implement the government’s preferred version of the Bill.
Download NOW
4 Simple Steps To Becoming Wealthy Through Property