The Renters’ Rights Bill: Commons challenge Lords’ practicalities
As the Renters’ Rights Bill (“the Bill”) enters the final throes of its parliamentary journey, the "ping-pong" process between the respective houses has begun. There are now very few points remaining in dispute as both sides hurry to bring in much-anticipated legislation and secure some achievements for a government, which, over a year into its term, has failed to deliver on much of its manifesto promises. Nonetheless, concerns remain over a collapsing court service and the broader impact on the residential property market. This article explores the key areas where the Commons have disagreed with the Lords and the rationale behind both sides.
Pet Damage Deposits
Initially, the Bill proposed that tenants could request permission to keep pets and landlords could not unreasonably refuse. However, the landlord could reasonably ask the tenant to have pet insurance to cover damage to the property. However, the House of Lords removed the requirement for insurance as such products are not generally available in the market (pet insurance generally covers the pet, i.e. veterinary bills, and not damage caused by the pet). Although some dissenting voices assured that the insurance industry would catch up, it was agreed that removing the insurance provisions would prevent landlords from rejecting the request or insisting on insurance which would be costly or impossible for tenants to obtain. As an alternative, the Lords proposed an additional deposit to cover damages. This has now been rejected by the House of Commons on the basis that the usual deposit taken by landlords at the beginning of the tenancy would provide sufficient cover.
Perhaps what is more obviously lacking is a provision for the landlord to withdraw consent if circumstance change, for example if keeping the pet is proving a risk to health and safety or the animal is dangerous or being mistreated. Is it to be construed that once granted the consent must stay in place? What happens if a landlord grants consent but subsequently sells the property subject to the tenancy? The proposed legislation is vague on these issues.
Property Sale Exceptions
The Bill introduces new grounds for possession, including for the purpose of selling the property. To ensure this ground was not abused, the Bill included a prohibition on the landlord marketing the property for let, letting the property on a new tenancy agreement or allowing a person to occupy the property under licence for money. This prohibition is for a period of 12 months. The amendment, put forward by the House of Lords, sought to reduce this to six months. The proposal underscores the reality that a landlord may change their mind if the property has been on the market for six months and not found a buyer. The prolonged period may lead to financial hardship for the landlord and also contribute to empty properties in the community. Nonetheless, the House of Commons has rejected the amendment, and the restricted period remains 12 months.
Shared Ownership and Agricultural Workers
The Lords advocated for exemptions for shared ownership leaseholders and a broader definition of agricultural workers, including self-employed individuals. The Commons rejected both, favouring uniform application and tighter definitions. However, the Lords’ proposals were rooted in concerns that the Bill’s current scope may inadvertently penalise legitimate housing arrangements and rural employment models.
Standard of Proof
The Lords recommended applying the criminal standard of “beyond reasonable doubt” for financial penalties, aiming to protect landlords from unjust sanctions. The Commons retained the civil standard of “balance of probabilities,” citing enforcement efficiency. This divergence reflects a fundamental tension between administrative practicality and procedural fairness.
Ministry of Defence Housing
The Lords proposed exempting service family accommodation from certain provisions, recognising the unique nature of military housing. The Commons rejected this, citing public funding implications. While the Commons’ stance is fiscally cautious, the Lords’ concern highlights the need for tailored solutions in specialised housing contexts.
Carers
Amendments seeking to extend protections granted to student house-shares for the benefit of carers were dismissed by the Commons. The Lords’ proposals, though rejected, reflect a broader concern that the Bill may not adequately address the diversity of modern housing needs.
Conclusion
The Commons’ response to the Lords’ amendments demonstrates a clear preference for legislative consistency and enforceability. Yet, the Lords’ interventions serve as a reminder that law must also be workable in practice. As the Bill continues its passage, concerns remain that the final legislation will fail to strike a fair balance between clarity, fairness, and real-world applicability.
