Despite final efforts to introduce additional amendments to the Renters’ Rights Bill, members of the House of Lords were unable to make any alterations to the proposed legislation.
One of the rejected proposals sought to let landlords request a separate pet damage deposit, allowing them to charge up to three weeks’ rent in addition to the existing deposit limit.
The government has not yet provided an official date for the Bill’s return to Parliament for final approval, although it is widely anticipated that Royal Assent will be granted in the near future.
Pet damage deposit rejected
Peers voted 239 to 192 against the proposed pet damage deposit amendment, arguing that the measure would place an additional financial burden on tenants.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook reminded the House that the government had previously supported the idea of mandatory pet damage insurance, a policy introduced under former Housing Secretary Angela Rayner to ensure that “no one is left unfairly out of pocket.” However, this proposal was later dropped, even though landlords are still expected to accept tenants with pets unless there are strong reasons not to.
Baroness Scott criticised the government for failing to provide an alternative solution, saying the proposed clause would have offered a “fair balance” between the needs of tenants and landlords.
During the debate, she argued that allowing an extra deposit equivalent to one to three weeks’ rent would have been a sensible approach—one that safeguarded tenant rights while acknowledging the financial pressures faced by many landlords, especially smaller ones. She noted that a large proportion of landlords are not large-scale investors but individuals relying on rental income as part of their pension or savings. The high costs of repairs or cleaning, she added, could make it unviable for some to continue renting out properties.
Citing data from Propertymark, Baroness Scott highlighted that 85.3% of landlords and agents have experienced property damage caused by pets, while 57% were unable to recover the costs.
Despite the strong arguments in favour, the House of Lords ultimately rejected the amendment, with 239 votes against it.
Ground 4A possession rejected for one to two-bedroom student rental properties
During the same session, Peers also voted down Amendment 53A, which aimed to widen Ground 4A to include one- and two-bedroom student lets, rather than limiting it to HMOs with three or more occupants.
Baroness Scott argued that this amendment would have provided much-needed stability in the student housing market. She explained that by extending the provision, landlords would be able to regain possession of properties in time for the start of each academic year, helping to ensure that students have access to suitable accommodation when they return to university.
According to Baroness Scott, failing to expand Ground 4A could lead to fewer available student rentals, higher rents, and greater uncertainty for both tenants and landlords.
Despite these concerns, the House of Lords voted 212 to 169 against the proposed amendment.
More rejected amendments
Peers also voted against Amendment 18 to the Renters’ Rights Bill, which proposed that landlords evicting tenants to sell their property—but whose sale later collapses—should wait 12 months before being allowed to rent it out again.
Lord Cromwell introduced a revised version of the amendment that sought to shorten the waiting period to six months and require landlords to present proof of genuine attempts to sell, including evidence of reasonable pricing and marketing efforts.
He argued that while the Bill’s intent to prevent landlords from abusing the “selling” ground for eviction was understandable, the current 12-month restriction was unnecessarily harsh. According to him, it forces properties to remain vacant even when landlords have made sincere efforts to sell, ultimately reducing the number of available homes for rent.
Lord Cromwell explained that his amendment did not challenge the Bill’s aim of stopping bad practice but aimed to strike a fairer balance between deterring misuse and preventing avoidable property vacancies.
Despite his reasoning, the amendment was narrowly defeated by 215 votes to 204, meaning the 12-month rule remains unchanged in the Bill.
Peers also dismissed other proposed amendments, including one that would have allowed landlords to reclaim their property to house a carer for themselves or a family member.
Another rejected proposal sought to require local councils to apply the criminal standard of proof when penalising landlords for rental discrimination or breaches related to rent bidding.
Instead, the House of Lords agreed to keep the civil standard of proof while enhancing official guidance to ensure fair and consistent enforcement.
Industry reaction
William Reeve, Chief Executive of Goodlord, remarked that despite earlier speculation that the House of Lords might resist, it appears they have reached the end of the road. He noted that while there was significant debate around the proposed pet deposit scheme and adjustments to Ground 4A, the Government ultimately prevailed, meaning neither amendment will be included in the final version of the Renters’ Rights Bill. With all remaining votes going in the Government’s favour, the legislative “ping pong” process has now concluded, and the Bill is set to proceed to the Commons for final approval before receiving Royal Assent.
Reeve described this as the culmination of years of uncertainty, delays, and policy reversals, signalling that the long-discussed rental reforms are now on the brink of becoming law. However, he expressed concern that many letting agents are still unprepared for the incoming changes.
Goodlord’s recent data shows that single-operator agencies are the least ready, with only 4% saying they feel “very prepared.” Among slightly larger agencies with two to ten employees, just one in four consider themselves ready, while fewer than half (47%) of agencies with over eleven staff feel fully equipped to handle the new regulations.
Reeve cautioned that the time for hesitation has passed, warning that agents must act quickly to adapt, as the new rules are now inevitable and will soon be enforced.
Download NOW
4 Simple Steps To Becoming Wealthy Through Property