Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer:

Moved by Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer

47: Clause 11, page 18, line 9, at end insert—“(5A) The circumstances in which it is unreasonable for a superior landlord to refuse consent through the landlord include, but are not limited to, the following—(a) a superior landlord’s personal opinion of a tenant;(b) a superior landlord’s personal opinion of pets or specific species;(c) a generalised fear of damage to the property;(d) a pre-emptive fear of complaints from neighbours relating to noise, fouling or anti-social behaviour caused by the animal;(e) a superior landlord’s experience with a previous tenant about pets;(f) generalised or unsubstantiated animal welfare concerns.”Member’s explanatory statementThis Amendment sets out examples of when it is unreasonable for a superior landlord to refuse consent, providing clearer guidance and limiting arbitrary or prejudiced refusals.

My Lords, I start by declaring an interest: I own a dog that is subject to approval by a superior landlord of the flat in which we live. It has that approval.

In Committee, the Minister laid out the Government’s commitment to enabling many more tenants to have pets in rented properties, which is, of course, very welcome. However, in her reply to my Committee stage Amendment, which was similar to this amendment, she made the point that the Government did not want to include superior landlords among landlords who could unreasonably refuse the right to keep a pet. The superior landlord owns the head lease under which another landlord may come. She gave two main reasons: first, that there are practical challenges involved in engaging with superior landlords, and secondly, that in many cases the superior landlord is not based in the UK or is a complex ownership structure and requiring the superior landlord to give reasons for refusal for a pet might involve the tenant and/or the landlord in lengthy and costly processes that might make the obligation difficult to realise in practice.

The fact is that most superior landlords are very quick to contact tenants when there is something they do not want to happen or there is an issue about money, so I do not accept how difficult it is to engage with them. The Minister may give me some examples. The fact that they are based overseas or have a complex ownership structure is simply not a good reason. The Minister kindly said she would come back to me after she had looked at the quantum involved, and I wonder whether she has found that out now as I have not heard anything.

The Minister went on to say that my amendment was “not proportionate or necessary”. In fact, it is necessary, given that there are about 24,000 property management companies and the average size of portfolio is about 193 units. That would equal about 4.5 million units altogether, and the bigger superior landlords often manage about 144,000 properties. That is an awful lot of tenants to whom this very good Clause of the Bill would not apply. On whether it is proportionate given the size of the tenant base who, without my amendment, will not benefit from Clause 12, I believe it is necessary and desirable that, when we legislate, we are as fair and equitable as possible.

Since Committee, I have noticed warnings going out from people who represent superior landlords. I shall quote a couple. Nockolds writes:

“One proposal introduced by the Bill is that Landlords must not unreasonably refuse pets at a rental property. In assessing what is ‘reasonable’ in these circumstances, it is likely to be justified for the Landlord to refuse a pet if the superior lease does not allow pets. If you do not want pets to be kept in your buildings, this may be a sensible clause to introduce”.

That is what is going to happen. Superior landlords will all just introduce clauses, even if they do not have them now, to preclude pets, so there could be an unintended consequence without my amendment. John D Wood & Co goes into the matter:

“Under What Grounds Can a Landlord Reject a Pet?...acceptable reasons may include … Superior Landlord Refusal”.

There is a real issue here that, without including superior landlords in the Bill, the Minister will find that Clause 12 was a nice idea that does not work in practice.

In Committee, the Minister rightly said that the Government want tenants to have the right to own a pet. We do not give superior landlords a free pass to discriminate in any other way, and we should not do so in this case. I hope the Minister will agree. I beg to move.

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 48, which stands in my name. I declare my interests both as a landlord for my own part, to a small extent—all for properties in Scotland—and as trustee, in particular for the Blair Charitable Trust, all properties of which are also in Scotland.

At the earlier stages of the Bill, it was reflected by a number of noble Lords that pets promoted well-being among tenants; that is something with which I very much agree. I am looking at the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, who made a very good speech on this point at an earlier stage.

The thrust of this Bill is that there is a presumption that pets should be allowed in rented property. There are two protections for landlords. First, they can say no if it is reasonable to do so; we have just been hearing about some things that might not be so reasonable. Secondly, there is a protection for landlords, at least currently in the Bill, of deposits and insurance. However, social housing is not included in the Bill; indeed, it is specifically excluded. That seems to me very unfair.

I am grateful to the Minister and her Bill team, some members of which I can see sitting in the Box. They have been very generous with their time; we have been over this topic a number of times in the Minister’s meeting room upstairs. It seems to me that people in social housing are in many ways the people who most need the sense of well-being that a pet brings. I would be very keen that we make that change.

In the meeting—I do not want to steal any of the Minister’s thunder—a number of points were made to me about this area, and I must say that I have been brought along with those. I would be very grateful if the Minister could tell the House everything that she told me. I think that would be helpful to everyone on this amendment.

I rise to support Amendment 48 in the name of my noble friends Lord Kinnoull and Lord de Clifford. It is a short amendment but, hopefully, could have a long impact. It would allow tenants in social housing some of the benefits with regard to keeping a pet that this Bill will provide for tenants in private properties. Tenants seeking social housing may not be in a position to buy their own property; if they did, they would have no problem with keeping a pet and they would have all the positives to which my noble friend Lord Kinnoull alluded in relation to well-being and health benefits. Instead, the Bill denies them those rights, which are enjoyed by tenants in the private rental market. I am curious to understand the Government’s explanation for this.

My Lords, I too am anxious to have a better explanation. To me, the Bill seems very unfair, as it introduces two classes of people, one of whom will be disadvantaged at the same time as others are advantaged. It is one step forward and another one or two steps back. I hope that the Minister will be able to give sufficiently strong reasons why this should not happen to make me content, but I am not holding my breath.

My Lords, I declare an interest. My wife is the landlord of a number of rented properties. My reason for rising is to invite the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, when she comes to reply, to clarify something that puzzles me about her Amendment 47. It says:

“The circumstances in which it is unreasonable for a superior landlord to refuse consent through the landlord include … a superior landlord’s personal opinion of … specific species”.

I ask her whether this means that the superior landlord would be prohibited from saying that he or she does not think it is reasonable or appropriate for the tenant to keep as pets rats, skunks or tigers.

My Lords, I speak today in support of Amendment 48 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and supported by the noble Lord, Lord Trees. I declare my interest with regards to pets, as I own a share of a veterinary practice that cares for pets and I have my own dog. We welcome the Government’s support of a tenant’s right to request to keep pets. Although social housing is not the main focus of this Bill, surely it is fair and reasonable for all tenants to have the same rights to request to keep a pet, regardless of the type of landlord that they rent from, whether it is a private company or a social landlord. As I have said previously on this amendment, it also makes it fair to all landlords. Surely private landlords should not be the only landlords to have to accept pets in their property. I hope that the Minister can find a positive solution today to this issue and that all tenants have the opportunity to keep pets in their homes.

My Lords, I shall speak on Amendment 47 in the name of the noble Baroness, Baroness Miller. I speak as a landlord of rental properties in Norwich, as declared in the register. Naturally, we should consider the rights of people who own companion animals, but that must go hand in hand with the rights of a landlord who may be concerned about damage to his property and the rights of neighbouring residents who may have to deal with the consequence of noise, mess, smell, and so forth. Once again, there is a balance to be struck, but this amendment strikes the wrong balance.

It is obvious that keeping a pet elevates the risk of damage, especially in the case of furnished accommodation. This Bill contemplates that all tenancies are the same, but there are different sorts of properties and in furnished accommodation the consequences of damage are greater. It fails to recognise the reality of different types of accommodation, whether they be period or listed or of some historic or archaeological merit making the building incompatible with pets. There are often circumstances, particularly in blocks of flats, where there are communal amenities—for example, common courtyards or gardens, often where children play. All these are different to the detached rented home in the countryside where there is much more space. This Bill contemplates a one-size-fits-all approach, regardless of all the different types of properties one may wish to tenant, whether they be furnished, unfurnished, in the countryside, or flats.

It is reasonable for a landlord to refuse to allow a large dog in a small flat where there is no outside space. Confined animals do not just chew, although they do. They bark and upset the neighbours, and the needs of neighbours must be considered. This Bill is all about the tenant, and I can understand that that is important, but it is to the exclusion of any other stakeholder, and that cannot be right. The landlord must make the judgment and take into account whether the applicant, perhaps a night-shift worker with a large dog, is suitable for his property. I will concede that there is a world of difference between the different types of pets: goldfish, spiders, dogs, cats and ferrets—may I be the first to introduce a Second Reading having just heard the First Reading of that particular Bill? Let us make those distinctions with the chewing variety. By just calling them pets, we are denying the obvious distinction between two legs, four legs, 100 legs, no legs, fishy ones with scales and so forth. There are different types of animal contained within this catch-all. That cannot make sense.

The one point where I agree with Amendment 47 is in proposed new paragraph (a), where it says that the landlord should not form predisposed opinions of the tenant. I agree with that, but not in the way you might think. I once had the chief executive of a county council as a tenant. Her cat ate my sofa. The white polyester fluff was everywhere. I did not know where the cat ended and the sofa began. These things happen, but my point is: however well-heeled or fragrant that tenant might have been, she had no control over the pet whatever. It is important that we consider that it is the pet which potentially does the damage, and not the tenant, because that lady worked long hours and travelled widely. She was not there. The chewing cat was incompatible with her lifestyle, and my furnished apartment took the consequences.

Let us move on. The Bill contemplates that the tenant with a pet has that pet at the outset, but neither the Bill nor the amendment adequately takes into account the possibility of a tenant who may acquire a pet during the tenancy or somehow mendaciously mislead as to the nature of an existing pet or even hide it away altogether. When we are considering pets—this is probably a bit too late because that is in Clause 4, which was done last week—we have to contemplate that wilful misdescription amounts to a breach of contract.

I have no intent to be overbearing or heavy-handed, but these are examples where the rights of the tenant must coexist with their neighbours. At the moment I have a case of a tenant who repeatedly allows his small dog to urinate against the wall in the communal courtyard. That is damaging the brickwork, which is for my account, and is really unpleasant for the kids because it is the only place for them to securely play away from the traffic that passes outside, and that is really not fair on everybody.

I have mentioned the distinction between the goldfish and the Staffordshire terrier and between the spider and the snake. While I am not scared of spiders or snakes, some are. One of the clauses in the Bill is about predispositions towards certain sorts of animals. Scaredness is a different sort of cat completely, the scaredy-cat. It is right and proper that people with a predisposition against those sorts of animals are protected.

I regret to say that the noble Baroness’s amendment is well meaning but does not live in the real world between the differences of location, different properties, different furnishings, different types of animal—fur or feather—and the neighbours. These examples are not grounded in prejudice; they are grounded in the balanced welfare of all residents, and the landlord has a role to arbitrate to everyone’s benefit. I am afraid I cannot support Amendment 47. I make no comment on Amendment 48.

My Lords, I support Amendment 48 from the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, not because he is the Convenor of the Cross Benches, although that could be a bonus point, but for three reasons. First, my family have never kept a pet, but why should I be part of a legislature that would deny somebody seeking consent to keep a pet simply because they live in social housing? To me, that is clear discrimination. It cannot be right that you would say, “Because you’re in social housing, you cannot request the consent of the landlord”. It is their right to ask for consent. That is not to say that it would give an automatic right to the social housing person to keep a pet.

Secondly, we are constantly told that this wonderful nation and the other three are nations of pet lovers. Do we want to say that somebody in social housing cannot be a pet lover? Who would want to say that?

The third reason is our beloved Majesty, the late Queen Elizabeth II. Do your Lordships remember when there was somebody who was going through a lot of trauma and she invited that gentleman to come and spend time with one of her corgis? Noble Lords will remember that the person said, “This has put my trauma in perspective”.

Those who want to keep pets because they live in social housing, and because they are animal lovers, should be given the same right as others to request consent.

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate, in particular the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, for his thoughtful and balanced Amendment 48. This Bill must work for renters, but it must also work for landlords. We have discussed pets at length throughout the stages of the Bill and there is no denying that pets provide vital companionship, comfort and emotional support for many. It is therefore no surprise that this issue has attracted considerable interest across the House.

However, we recognise that this is not a Bill about social housing; it is focused rightly on the private rented sector. The frameworks, obligations and operational realities governing social housing are distinct, and we believe they are better addressed through the appropriate legislative and regulatory channels. That said, we fully support the principle behind the noble Earl’s amendment and hope the Minister will take this issue forward. There is a clear opportunity to work with housing associations and local authorities to ensure that fair, proportionate and compassionate policies can be delivered in this space.

Turning to Amendment 47, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, we understand the intention to provide clearer guidance on what might constitute an unreasonable refusal by a superior landlord. With all legislation, clarity is of the utmost importance. However, we have some reservations about the breadth and subjectivity of the language proposed. Terms such as “generalised fear” and “personal opinion” may prove difficult to define or enforce in practice. We are not unsympathetic to the spirit of the amendment, but we believe that further refinement would be required to ensure legal certainty and maintain a workable balance of interests.

As we take the Bill forward, we must not lose sight of its core objective: to deliver a rental market that is fair, functional and fit for the future. Tenants deserve security and dignity in their homes, but landlords also deserve clarity and confidence in the law.

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, and the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, for their amendments on pets and for their continued engagement on these issues, which has been incredibly helpful. I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate: the noble Lords, Lord Trees, Lord Pannick, Lord de Clifford and Lord Fuller, and the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes. I have heard the passion of noble Lords on the issue of keeping pets. I hope there is overall support for the aim of the Bill to make it easier for tenants to keep pets but to get the balance right between tenants and landlords.

Amendment 47 seeks to set out a list of circumstances in which it would be considered unreasonable for a superior landlord to refuse consent for a tenant to keep a pet. These include personal opinions, general fears of damage or complaints and previous negative experiences with other tenants. While I completely understand the intention of the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, to provide clarity and guard against unfair refusals, I must respectfully say that I do not believe the amendment is needed. Our letter in response to the noble Baroness’s questions in Committee was sent on 15 May. I am really sorry if she has not had that letter, but I will make sure it gets sent out to her again today.

We do not believe it is appropriate or practical to draw superior landlords into the day-to-day running of the tenancy. Requiring them to engage directly in case-by-case decisions about pets risks creating serious administrative burdens. We believe it could also lead to complex and costly delays in decision-making, particularly where superior landlords are difficult to identify and contact or are located overseas. The noble Baroness cited experiences where they have responded quickly, but I know from personal experience of having tenants trying to contact superior landlords that it can be a very complex business.

That said, we intend to publish guidance alongside the Bill to assist landlords in understanding what might constitute a reasonable refusal by an individual’s immediate landlord. This will help ensure clarity, without locking specific examples into primary legislation. For these reasons, I hope the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, will consider withdrawing the amendment and not pressing for a Division.

My Lords, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, for tabling Amendment 48 and discussing this important issue further following Committee. Like the noble Earl, this issue is very close to my heart, and I absolutely would not want to see a two-tier approach. It is right that requests from tenants across all sectors to keep pets be considered fairly, especially given the valuable role pets play in people’s lives. Whether they be corgis, or the veritable zoo quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, pets can provide a great deal of comfort and company to those who wish to keep them.

Following Committee, my officials have explored the issue further. I can confirm that many social landlords already set out and publish their policies on pets in their tenancy agreements, allowing tenants to keep pets where appropriate. We have not been able to find any significant evidence that social tenants requesting a pet are not having their requests considered fairly. Although tenants in social housing do not generally experience the same barriers to keeping a pet as those in the private rented sector, I recognise that it is important to have clarity and consistency across sectors. Therefore, I intend to write to social landlords to ensure that they are fairly considering tenants’ rights to request a pet, and to share existing best practice in this area.

However, for the reasons I have set out, I do not I believe it is proportionate or necessary to add further provisions to the Bill regarding a social housing tenant’s right to request a pet. As the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, pointed out, even if legislation were required, this Bill is not the right vehicle for it as it would create inconsistent rules within the social rented sector. That is because the provisions in the Bill would apply only to tenants of registered providers who grant assured tenancies and not to the Majority of local authority tenants, who are granted secure tenancies. Given the current approaches taken by landlords in the social rented sector, the lack of evidence of issues warranting further regulation, the additional engagement by my officials and my undertaking to continue to monitor this—and if there does seem to be a need, we will look at that if we bring forward future legislation—I hope the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, will consider withdrawing his amendment.

I am very grateful for what the Minister has said all round. Before she sits down, I wonder if I could push her just a little more. I think she is saying that there will inevitably be a suitable Bill on social housing at some point, and that it will be the Government’s policy to bring forward at that stage an Amendment similar to this, so that there will be a legal necessity for social housing to offer availability of pets on the same basis as this Bill.

We need to continue to look at the evidence, and to look at the response to the letter that I will write to social landlords. We will then take further action, as necessary and if it is needed, in future legislation.

My Lords, I thank everybody who has contributed to this debate and thank the Minister for her reply. I found very helpful her response to the Amendment from the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull—which we do support—saying that she will write to ensure clarity and consistency.

I had a slight dread when the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, got to his feet, because I thought it would be something really tricky, which of course it was. On the circumstances in which superior landlords can have an opinion on specific pets, I am trying to include superior landlords in the same way as the Bill already includes landlords. I understand the issues the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, raised, but they are for direct landlords, not superior landlords, and we debated those very fully in Committee. It is people with portfolios of hundreds of flats having a blanket refusal—or not—I am concerned about. The noble Lord talked about a simple detached home in the countryside.

We can bandy around the distinction regarding the superior landlord with the offshore pension fund and hundreds of thousands of dwellings, but what about the small charity that owns a listed building held in trust for possibly hundreds of years? It surely must be entitled to its head leaseholder laying down certain provisions. It is not just about a common or garden large house in the countryside versus a flat; there have to be guardrails. Does the noble Baroness not understand that, as well-meaning as her Amendment is, she has failed, I regret to say, to consider some of those narrow points and therefore it is incomplete? I find myself having huge sympathy for the Minister on this one; the amendment is incomplete.

I am still struggling to understand why the noble Lord is referring to something that is much more about direct landlords. It is not bandying terms around; there is a specific legal definition of a superior landlord, and that is the only group my Amendment is talking about. It is not talking about individual landlords.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, for her comments, which were indeed more welcoming. I hope the Minister will consider some guidance to superior landlords too to address this situation. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 47 withdrawn.

Amendment 48 not moved.