Planned amendments to the Renters’ Rights Bill are causing concern among landlords, particularly regarding the issue of tenants with pets. Under the new proposals, landlords will be forced to assume full responsibility for any damage caused by animals in their rental properties.
The government has announced that it will reverse earlier plans which would have allowed landlords to insist that tenants with pets hold appropriate insurance cover. These changes are set to be discussed during the Bill’s Report Stage in the House of Lords, scheduled for next week.
This move marks a significant shift from previous government messaging. Housing Secretary Angela Rayner had initially argued that allowing landlords to require pet insurance from tenants would provide a fair balance. Her earlier position was that such a measure would help ensure no party was left “unfairly out of pocket” should a pet cause damage to a rental property.
However, the revised approach means landlords will no longer have any formal right to ask for this insurance. At the same time, there will remain a presumption that landlords should agree to tenants having pets, unless they have a valid reason not to do so.
Where disputes arise, it will be up to the courts or the planned Private Rented Sector Ombudsman to determine whether a landlord’s refusal to accept a pet is justified. This introduces a layer of uncertainty for landlords who are already facing a number of regulatory challenges.
The National Residential Landlords Association (NRLA) has voiced strong opposition to the proposed changes. The organisation warns that removing the ability to require pet insurance could unintentionally make it more difficult for renters with pets to secure accommodation.
Ben Beadle, the NRLA’s Chief Executive, described the move as both “shoddy” and “outrageous.” He criticised the government for failing to properly consult with landlord representatives before putting forward the amendment. According to Beadle, ministers continue to claim the Bill is fair to responsible landlords, but their actions suggest otherwise.
He went on to argue that these changes are yet another example of the government placing additional burdens on landlords without providing adequate safeguards. Beadle pointed out that responsible landlords are being asked to take on increased financial and legal risk with no meaningful input into the legislation that will impact them directly.
These concerns come amid other controversial aspects of the Renters’ Rights Bill. Landlords are already worried about proposals that would allow tenants to accrue higher levels of rent arrears before eviction proceedings can begin. There are also growing fears that the courts are not equipped to deal with the volume of cases that may result from the new rules.
In addition, the Bill could make it more difficult for tenants with poor or no credit histories to prove they can reliably maintain a tenancy. This places further strain on landlords who are expected to absorb the risk of taking on tenants without adequate financial vetting options.
The proposed pet insurance amendment, though seemingly minor, is emblematic of wider frustrations within the sector. Many landlords feel that the government is failing to recognise the practical realities of managing rental properties and is instead pursuing reforms that prioritise renters at the expense of property owners.
As the Renters’ Rights Bill continues its passage through Parliament, the outcome of the upcoming House of Lords debate could prove pivotal. For now, however, landlords remain wary of a legislative approach they feel increasingly disregards their rights and interests.
Although the government insists that it is standing firm and advocating for renters, the reality on the ground may be quite different.
As proposed changes to legislation increase the responsibilities and financial risks for landlords, many are expected to become more cautious in who they rent to and under what terms. This shift in attitude could lead to fewer rental properties being made available, particularly for tenants with pets or those viewed as higher risk.
In the end, it’s tenants who are likely to bear the brunt of these changes, as greater landlord hesitation may reduce choice and access across the rental market.
Download NOW
4 Simple Steps To Becoming Wealthy Through Property