Peers Reject Renters' Rights Bill Amendments

The House of Lords has refused a series of late-stage amendments to the Renters’ Rights Bill, including proposals around pet damage deposits, student tenancy grounds, and re-letting limits. With these changes vetoed, the Bill will return to the Commons for final approval before being passed for Royal Assent — likely very soon.

Pet damage deposit amendment fails

One of the most closely watched proposals was a measure to allow landlords to charge an additional pet damage deposit of one to three weeks’ rent, separate from the existing five-week (or six-week) deposit cap. Peers voted 239 to 192 to reject the amendment, citing concerns that such a move would be “unaffordable for tenants.”

Baroness Scott of Bybrook, who supported the change, reminded the chamber that the government had earlier backed a pet damage insurance requirement — a scheme later dropped — and argued that the amendment would have offered a “fair balance” between landlord risk and tenant protection. She pointed to data from Propertymark indicating that 85.3% of landlords and agents have experienced pet damage, with 57% unable to recover those costs.

The government defended the rejection, arguing that the average deduction for pet damage is only about £300 and that the proposed deposit would exceed what is reasonable. It also noted that the Bill retains delegated powers under the Tenant Fees Act to allow for higher deposits in certain cases, should evidence emerge.

Student tenancies and re-letting controls also knocked back

Peers also turned down Amendment 53A, which would have extended Ground 4A possession rights to one- and two-bedroom student tenancies, beyond large HMOs. The amendment was defeated 212 to 169. Supporters warned that without this change, landlords might struggle to regain student lets in time for academic turnover, leading to fewer available properties and higher rents.

Another proposal, Amendment 18, sought to reduce the minimum waiting period before a landlord can re-let a property after a failed sale from 12 months to 6 months, and to require proof of genuine efforts to sell. This was rejected by 215 to 204 votes.

Peers also dismissed amendments that would have introduced a grounds provision for landlords to repossess a property to house a carer, and ones that would have required local authorities to use the criminal standard of proof in enforcement cases. Instead, Peers agreed to strengthen guidance while maintaining the civil standard of proof.

Reaction and what comes next

Industry voices were swift in response. William Reeve, CEO of Goodlord, noted that the Lords appeared to have exhausted momentum:

“Once again demand among the Lords for both a pet deposit scheme and changes to Ground 4A sparked much debate, but ultimately the Government won out … With all votes for the outstanding amendments going in the Government’s direction, the process of ‘ping pong’ comes to an end and the Bill will move towards Royal Assent following final approval in the Commons.”

He also warned of widespread unpreparedness in the sector: sole-operator agencies reportedly remain the least ready, with only 4% describing themselves as “very prepared,” while less than half of larger agencies say they are completely ready.

With the Lords now done, the Bill returns to the Commons for a final sign-off before Royal Assent can be granted. According to the NRLA, Peers have rejected the key amendments, putting the Bill on track to become law imminently. Once Royal Assent is secured, implementation may follow swiftly, beginning the transition to the new tenancy regime.

For landlords and agents, the window to adapt is narrowing. The final text now appears largely settled, leaving operational readiness — in areas such as notice procedures, evidential standards, and risk management — as the next frontier in this transformative reform.