Alistair Lexden speaks in the Lords from time to time about issues relating to animal welfare. On 6 and 12 May he supported amendments, moved by Lord Black of Brentwood, to the Government’s Renters’ Rights Biil, designed to strengthen provisions in it which will give tenants in private rented property the right to request a pet, which landlords will not be able to refuse unreasonably. But “unreasonably” is a vague term, which will give rise to disputes. Clarification is needed, as he argued on 6 May.
I am always glad to support my noble friend Lord Black, with whom I have worked closely on many subjects over many years.
Long ago when we were in the Conservative Research Department during a general election campaign, we circulated a briefing note to the Party’s candidates telling them what they would need to do to win the support of animals, great and small, if these marvellous creatures had the vote.
I cannot remember if we included rights for pets in rented property. It would have been a grave lapse if we had omitted them.
My noble friend’s amendments do not contain a hint of criticism of the Government’s proposals relating to pets.
They seek to make the good relevant elements of this Bill even better.
The amendments have two objectives: to strengthen the legal protection that the Bill confers on pets, and to increase the well-being of people in rented accommodation who want to keep and cherish a pet.
These two objectives are intertwined. All the research carried out by the wonderful charities devoted to the welfare of pets shows that their owners in rented property not only enjoy greater contentment, but lead healthier, better disciplined lives.
The upshot is that tenants who keep pets are likely to seek longer-term tenancies, which benefits landlords by increasing rental income security.
Surely we should, through this Bill, do all that is possible to prevent responsible people in rented housing being denied unreasonably the opportunity to have a pet or pets, which those who own their homes enjoy automatically, particularly at a time when successive Governments have failed to ensure the provision of sufficient new housing for private ownership.
It is a sad and deeply regrettable fact that a significant proportion of landlords are resolutely opposed to the presence of pets on their properties.
A 2021 survey by YouGov, on behalf of those excellent charities the Dogs Trust and Cats Protection, found that a third of private landlords who currently refuse to allow pets in their properties are not prepared to reconsider their opposition. They must be expected to go to all possible lengths to try and flout the pet ownership provisions of this Bill.
Nothing could illustrate more clearly the need for stronger legal protection than the Bill currently provides. This could be achieved through my noble friend’s amendment to define more firmly and tightly the circumstances in which a request to have a pet in rented property could be rejected.
In the absence of a more precise definition of what would constitute acceptable grounds for a landlord’s refusal, disputes will proliferate.
A lack of clarity and certainty in the law always leads to acute problems, as we have seen in various contexts recently. Opaque law cannot be not satisfactory law.
On 12 May he supported further amendments to remove the discriminiation which pet owners face when they apply for a tenancy in the first place. He said:
The principle underlying these proposed changes to the legislation is simple: fairness in the rental market must apply at the very first stage of the process, which is when an application is made for a tenancy,
As my noble friend has pointed out, the Bill rightly prohibits pre-tenancy discrimination against those with children or in receipt of benefits. Similar protections should be extended to those who own pets, who at the moment face rejection of an application for a tenancy on that one ground alone.
The amendments do not compel landlords to accept pets unconditionally.They simply introduce fairness by ensuring that applications cannot be dismissed out of hand because a pet in involved.
We must bear in mind the terrible position in which the absence of fairness places pet owners. The heartbreak of being forced to choose between a home and a companion animal is one that no tenant should have to make.
In reply, the Lords Minister in charge of the Bill said that “we will be providing guidance alongside the Bill” about the circumstances in which “ it may be reasonable for a landlord to refuse or withdraw their consent to a tenant’s request to keep a pet.” This will help, but it will not give tenants as much protection as they deserve.
