Ministers ditch pet insurance rules for renters

The government has shelved plans to allow landlords in England to require their tenants to take out special insurance if they own pets.

The measure was proposed alongside stronger legal rights for tenants to keep animals in the Renters' Rights Bill announced last autumn.

But Labour ministers have now ditched the idea, arguing that appropriate insurance products may not become widely available quickly enough.

The change was confirmed on Monday night, with the government amending its own legislation in the House of Lords.

It prompted Tory peers to back a plan to make tenants pay an extra 'pet deposit' instead - setting up a fresh battle for when the bill returns to the Commons.

Peers voted narrowly to approve an additional amendment that would allow landlords to charge up to three weeks' rent as a returnable deposit, to cover potential damage caused by pets during a tenancy.

The move passed by 206 votes to 198, after the Conservatives teamed up with a group of crossbench peers to defeat the government and the Liberal Democrats, who voted against the proposal.

Tory shadow housing minister Baroness Scott of Bybrook said the "additional risks" posed by pets exceeded traditional deposits paid by tenants, which have been capped at five weeks' rent since 2019.

She added it would give landlords an "essential route to recoup costs" now that the insurance requirement has been ditched.

However, the three-week pet deposit idea is almost certain to be overturned when MPs vote on the Lords' changes in the coming weeks, given the Labour government's huge majority in the House of Commons.

The original version of the bill would have granted landlords new powers to require private tenants to take out pet damage insurance, or recoup "reasonable costs" from the tenant for obtaining such insurance themselves.

It was meant to sit alongside strengthened rights for renters, under which landlords will need a reasonable justification to deny prospective tenants the right to live with their pets.

When the draft law was introduced, Housing Secretary Angela Rayner told MPs the insurance requirement would ensure "landlords are protected" as renters' rights were expanded.

But speaking on Monday, Housing Minister Baroness Taylor of Stevenage said it was now being dropped after feedback from insurers.

"Although our view was that a new market will develop for insurance products, following further engagement with the sector we now accept that this may not happen at the scale necessary," she told peers.

"We do not want to leave tenants in a position where they are unable to comply with impractical conditions that a landlord may place on the tenant as part of their pet consent".

She said that, following evidence given during scrutiny on the bill, ministers now believed traditional deposits were enough to sufficiently protect landlords.

But ministers would consider introducing bigger deposit fees if costs from pet damage "frequently" exceeded deposit amounts, she added.

The decision to drop the insurance requirement has been made as the bill nears the end of its passage through Parliament, in its final stage in the House of Lords.

The NRLA, which represents landlords, has called the move a "shoddy and outrageous way to make law" that will force their members to "shoulder even greater risks" when letting out property.

But the change has been backed by the Renters' Reform Coalition, a campaign group, which has argued the requirement for additional insurance is unnecessary.

The group told the BBC it also opposed the idea of a three-week pet deposit, arguing it "could rule out pet ownership for many renters".

"Three in four landlords don't experience pet damage at all, and when it happens the average cost is much lower than three weeks' worth of rent," added spokesman Paul Shanks.

Sign up for our Politics Essential newsletter to keep up with the inner workings of Westminster and beyond.