Lords defy Government to back pets deposit plan
The House of Lords passed an amendment put forward by Lord de Clifford requiring tenants to pay three weeks' additional rent if they want to keep a cat or a dog.
The Lords have backed a proposal that could see landlords ask three weeks’ extra deposit for tenants with pets put forward by Lord de Clifford (pictured).
His amendment to the Renters’ Rights Bill was passed by the House of Lords in response to the Government dropping a requirement for pet insurance.
The change still has to be approved by MPs in the House of Commons, which is unlikely without government support, but reveals the frustration felt by many landlords that they cannot mitigate the risk of pet damage.
Not fast enough
Earlier, the Government revealed why it decided not to allow landlords to require tenants with dogs and cats to sign up for pet damage insurance.
Lords’ Housing Minister Baroness Taylor revealed that, following talks with the Association of British Insurers and other industry bodies, it had become clear that pet damage insurance could not be developed fast enough before the Bill becomes law, later this year.
Baroness Taylor also said that the Government was satisfied that five weeks’ rent was a sufficient level of deposit to cover pet damage.
The Lords amendment was proposed by Lord de Clifford (main picture), who is director of a veterinary practice.
Legitimate interests
Now, David Smith, Property Litigation Partner at law firm Spector Constant & Williams, says: “The House of Lords’ decision to reject the removal of a dedicated protection for pet-related damage is a welcome and sensible intervention.
“While encouraging pet ownership is important, it must be balanced against the legitimate interests of landlords in preserving their property.
Replacing the now-abandoned insurance requirement with a modest, refundable pet deposit strikes a fair compromise.”
“The existing five-week cap on deposits was never designed to account for the additional risks pets can introduce,” he says.
“Replacing the now-abandoned insurance requirement with a modest, refundable pet deposit strikes a fair compromise, offering landlords reassurance while still supporting responsible pet ownership.”
