Today I wrote an email to Baroness Taylor, the Lords Housing Minister ahead of the final report stage of the Renters' Rights Bill, scheduled to take place on the 15th July 2025. I my email (below) I have highlighted the concerns of landlords following the withdrawal of the mandatory insurance requirement in the event of a landlord granting permission for a pet, and asked the Baroness to support Amendment 51, which permits the landlord to charge a "pet deposit" to protect against any damage that may be caused by a pet.

I would encourage all landlords to also contact Baroness Taylor whose contact details are on the link below, with a view of raising their concerns regarding the lack of protection for landlords in a bill that is supposed to bring fairness to the industry.

https://members.parliament.uk/...

Dear Lady,

I write to you as a letting agent with over 25 years of experience in the private rented sector to express my serious concerns regarding the Government's decision to remove the mandatory requirement for tenants to hold insurance when granted permission by their landlord to keep a pet. This change undermines a vital element of landlord protection and threatens to diminish the willingness of landlords to accept pets in rental properties, contrary to the spirit of recent reforms.

As someone who has worked closely with both landlords and tenants for more than two decades, I understand the practical implications of the current legislative framework. The introduction of the Tenant Fees Act, with its five-week deposit cap, did not account for the unique risks posed by pet ownership. In the majority of tenancy deposit disputes I have encountered, the need for deductions arises either from unpaid rent or property damage. Where a tenant defaults on rent (often 4+ weeks), virtually the entire capped deposit is consumed, leaving inadequate funds, often only one week’s worth, to cover any physical damage caused, including damage caused by pets.

This lack of proper financial protection creates a deeply unfair risk imbalance. It penalises responsible landlords, disincentivises pet ownership, and introduces tension into what should be a clear and fair process. It is precisely for this reason that Amendment 51 is vitally important. This amendment offers a practical route to restore balance by enabling a means of additional protection when pets are permitted, without breaching the deposit cap, either through optional insurance or alternative means of securing coverage.

Contrary to the Government’s current stance, there are major insurance providers actively willing to offer specific pet-related coverage for tenancies. These policies would be low-cost for tenants and offer landlords reassurance that any damage beyond normal wear and tear would be remedied without dispute. This model would, in fact, be more equitable and efficient than increasing deposits, especially for lower-income tenants, and would avoid the administrative and legal burdens associated with deposit disputes.

The concern among landlords is not rooted in opposition to pets, as often portrayed. Prior to the Tenant Fees Act, many landlords happily accepted pets when they were permitted to hold an increased deposit. Since the cap, however, the number of landlords willing to accept pets has noticeably declined. If the Government now seeks to compel landlords to accept pets without offering any practical form of protection, then disputes will inevitably rise, and with them, the burden on the tribunal system. This outcome not only runs contrary to the policy's intention but will also cost the Government more in dispute resolution and enforcement.

I urge you to support and advocate for Amendment 51. It represents a balanced and realistic approach that will give both landlords and tenants the confidence and flexibility they need to embrace pet ownership in rented accommodation. Without it, the Government’s well-meaning reforms risk falling short of their objectives and worsening conditions in the private rented sector.

Thank you for your attention and consideration.