The Renters\u2019 Rights Bill has been amended so tenants keeping pets will have to pay an extra deposit to cover any damage.<\/p>\n
The deposit will be an additional three weeks\u2019 rent, after the House of Lords backed an amendment to the bill.<\/p>\n
Previously there was a requirement for tenants to take out insurance to cover damage, however Lord de Clifford \u2013 who is also director of a veterinary practice \u2013 proposed the pet damage deposit instead.<\/p>\n
David Smith, property litigation partner at Spector Constant & Williams, said: \u201cThe House of Lords\u2019 decision to reject the removal of a dedicated protection for pet-related damage is a welcome and sensible intervention.<\/p>\n
\u201cWhile encouraging pet ownership is important, it must be balanced against the legitimate interests of landlords in preserving their property.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
\u201cThe existing five-week cap on deposits was never designed to account for the additional risks pets can introduce.<\/p>\n
\u201cReplacing the now-abandoned insurance requirement with a modest, refundable pet deposit strikes a fair compromise, offering landlords reassurance while still supporting responsible pet ownership.<\/p>\n
\u201cSadly, this amendment while a pragmatic recognition of the realities of property management, is not supported by the government and, like others pushed through by the Lords is extremely unlikely to survive into the final bill.\u201d<\/p>\n
In the House Lord Deben said he was perplexed at the UK government\u2019s flip flopping on whether it\u2019s necessary for tenants with pets to have insurance.<\/p>\n