The Renters’ Rights Bill – House of Lords Committee Stage – summary of days 4, 5, 6 and 7.

• 22 May 2025
• Views

After a whopping 30 hours of debate between 22 April and 15 May 2025, the House of Lords Committee Stage of the Renters’ Rights Bill has finally concluded. Over 300 proposed changes were discussed, with only a small number being agreed to. Whatever side of the fence you are on, it is clear that the Lords have put a lot of time into discussing such an important issue, and the debate has been very lively at times. 

The Bill now proceeds to the Report Stage where the House of Lords will review and debate the amendments made at Committee Stage. It may still be some time until the Bill receives Royal Assent but, assuming there are no large amendments, it could come in as early as the end of the summer.  In this summary we consider some key amendments agreed to (or discussed) by the Lords between 6 and 15 May 2025.

Pets 

Lord Black presented a powerful case for why renters in the private sector should be allowed to keep pets. He put forward statistics on how pets help the NHS by improving the physical and mental health of their owners. He also claimed that the second most common reason that pets are relinquished to Battersea Dogs and Cats Home is housing issues. 

The Bill already provides that landlords will not be able to unreasonably without consent for pets, however Lord Black felt that there were still too many loopholes.

“As it stands, I fear that there are loopholes in the Bill and that landlords will have too much room to deny most requests, risking a serious and unnecessary burden on tenants, the ombudsman and, ultimately, the courts. The amendments I have tabled will provide certainty for tenants and clarity for landlords, and will ensure that the Bill is not a missed opportunity to unlock thousands of homes for pet owners across the country.”

As a result, he proposed that the Bill should include specific instances where a landlord could not refuse consent for a pet, and that landlords shouldn’t be able to withdraw consent once given.

Lord Howard then proposed an opposing view. He said that grounds should be specifically set out in the Bill to show when it might be reasonable for a landlord to refuse consent 

“Nevertheless, as the Bill stands, I am not clear whether a landlord would be free to make a judgment, which most noble Lords would agree would be very sensible, that a Great Dane could not be housed in a studio flat, or that 50 cats could not be kept in a small terraced house.”

There was a mixed response to both proposals, with a number of Lords raising concerns about the types of pets people have and what effect they may have on other tenants or wildlife (most notably the Earl of Caithness referring to cats as “killers”). There was, however, support on each side of the House for the Bill to be clearer when it comes to acceptable reasons for landlords to withhold consent.

Baroness Taylor concluded, however, that the government would be providing guidance to give examples of when it may be reasonable for a landlord to refuse consent, which would support both landlords and tenants without restricting flexibility in the legislation. She also expressed concern that including reasons to withhold consent in the Bill would significantly broaden the scope upon which landlords could refuse consent and thus fly in the face of the legislation’s aim as regards pets. 

On the point of being able to withdraw consent, Baroness Taylor said:

“I reassure noble Lords that when a landlord gives permission for a tenant to have a pet, that consent is binding and cannot be revoked, with the exception of the very rare occasion when that becomes an anti-social behaviour issue, which it might. Apart from that, it cannot be revoked. That is because, once permission is given, it forms an implied term of the tenancy agreement. This is an unwritten contractual term that tenants can rely on, as it is legally binding.”

Validity of section 21 notices once the Bill come into force 

Landlords will be relieved to see that Baroness Taylor proposed changes to the Bill on the government’s behalf (which are therefore likely to be included in the legislation) which clarify that if possession proceedings based on a section 21 notice have been sent to court i.e. the landlord has requested that the Court issue possession proceedings, this will be enough for the section 21 notice to remain valid until proceedings have concluded. The amendment was immediately agreed with seemingly no objections, perhaps due to the fact that this was the seventh day of debate and as Lord Cromwell said:

“At the risk of being struck by lightning: on the seventh day, the Lord rested. Let us hope we all get some rest soon.”

This is good news for landlords as it is almost impossible to know when a court will issue proceedings, and this could have caused many section 21 notices to be rendered invalid. 

Commencement

Lord Bird proposed amending the Bill so the majority of it came into force as soon as it reached Royal Assent. As currently drafted, it provides for the implementation date to be confirmed via secondary legislation which will give the property sector sufficient notice.

He said: 

“No-fault evictions are currently at an eight-year-high. Since the previous Government pledged to end no-fault evictions in 2019, 1 million renters have been served a Section 21 eviction notice. Over 100,000 households have been threatened with homelessness due to one of these evictions. Any delays in ending Section 21 will lead to more renters facing an unwanted move, potentially causing hardship and, in some cases, homelessness.”

These points have been at the core of the debate as to whether to eradicate section 21 notices. Whilst it is now clear that the government will be going ahead with abolishing assured shorthold tenancies, the question still remains as to how quickly that change should be made.  

Many of the Lords had something to say on this point, whether for or against the legalisation coming into force immediately upon Royal Assent, and the debate got quite political. The Liberal Democrats said that Labour promised in their manifesto that it would abolish section 21 notices “immediately” which, the Lib Dems claimed, they were not doing with the clause drafted as it currently was. However, Lord Hacking went the opposite way, suggesting that existing tenancies should not be affected for 6 months after the Bill is passed, and that new tenancies should not be affected for 12 months. This was seemingly due to conversations he had had with estate agents on the practicalities of the change to periodic tenancies.

“In this modern age, these things have to be set up with software and the like, which is why I am asking my noble friend the Minister to give more time. All that has been asked of me, which I am now asking of noble Lords and, more directly, the Minister, is this: can we have more time, so that all the right procedures are set up and it does not end up being a scrambled egg?”

Baroness Scott went further, and said that the removal of section 21 should not go ahead until the Lord Chancellor has published their assessment of the operation of the possession process and the Secretary of State was satisfied that the Courts have sufficient capacity.

My colleague, Sarah Heatley, previously reported on the debate regarding whether the Bill should be brought in before the government has been able to assess the impact it would have on an already failing court system. The consensus, however, seems to be that a review as to how the courts are bearing up can be done post the Bill coming into force. 

After all that, despite lively debate, the amendments proposed in relation to the commencement of the new legislation were not agreed, and the drafting around this aspect remains as it was.

Honourable mentions

There were too many topics debated to report on here. However, I wanted to mention a few which weren’t such big ticket items, but are nonetheless interesting:

• Tenants should not be able to give notice earlier than 4 months into a tenancy, giving a minimum term of 6 months – not agreed as the Government refused to create any sort of fixed term tenancy.  
• S.11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (landlord repairing obligations) should not apply to existing assured tenancies of a fixed term of 7 years or more – agreed, repairing obligations will continue to be governed by the tenancy.
• Extending decent homes standards to homelessness temporary accommodation, accommodation used by service families, asylum accommodation and mobile homes – not agreed, the Lords seems concerned with the risk to supply in respect of temporary accommodation for the homeless. The other types of accommodation were not debated. 
• Clarifying the duties of the police and local authorities to step in when an illegal eviction has taken place – not agreed, the government would need to put in place guidelines for police and make sure that they weren’t putting too much pressure on them. Baroness Taylor did say that she would meet with some other Lords to discuss and make sure that the existing guidance to these bodies does what it is supposed to do.