LinkedIn
Burges Salmon on Twitter
As the Renters’ Rights Bill proceeds through Parliament, this is one of a number of articles we are publishing looking at the proposed changes. The article primarily focuses on reform of the English private rented sector, however the anti-discrimination provisions protecting tenants with children or in receipt of benefits will also apply in Scotland and Wales.
An aim of the Renters’ Rights Bill is to provide better protection for renters, especially those who may face difficulties securing a tenancy because they are families with children, who have pets, or receive Universal Credit.
Under the Bill:
- landlords can’t outright refuse to consider families
- landlords can still refuse pets under certain circumstances (for example if the property really isn’t suitable) but the process is intended to be fairer and more transparent.
- existing renters will also be able to request permission for a pet, and landlords can’t just say no without a good reason.
- landlords will be banned from outright refusing tenants simply because they are in receipt of Universal Credit
Practically, what difference is this likely to make?
The Bill has provided a number of interesting headlines. However, some of the changes may not be as meaningful as the headlines suggest. The biggest practical difference when it comes to renters with families or in receipt of benefits will be:
- prohibition of blanket bans on benefits recipients in property advertisements
- invalidation of clauses in mortgages or superior leases that ban letting to tenants with children or in receipt of benefits – so landlords aren’t stopped from letting to families or tenants receiving benefits by the terms of a “buy to let” mortgage for example.
Ultimately, landlords will still be able to choose the tenant that they believe is the best choice. That might not be the prospective tenant in receipt of benefits or with small children or large pets at the time of letting, especially if they have multiple applicants or the property is small.
The government has said that it envisages giving local councils enforcement powers so they can levy fines in the event of breach. While that should avoid overt discrimination in advertising, landlords that really don’t want to let to families or benefit recipients are likely to find more subtle ways to opt for other tenants. That more subtle discrimination is far harder to prove and is unlikely to be realistically penalised.
What about pets?
The strongest practical provisions relate to pets. These should make a practical difference quite quickly – landlords will not be able to unreasonably refuse a request for consent to keep a pet. Complaints relating to pet refusal can be escalated to the new Private Rented Sector Ombudsman for free – or could be taken to court.
How is the landlord protected if a pet causes damage?
Caps on the amount of deposit that can be held by the landlord look set to remain in place at a maximum of five weeks rent so an increased deposit isn’t permissible. However, the Bill envisages that it will be reasonable to require pet owning tenants to carry insurance or to cover the cost of insurance held by the landlord.
Items in this series:
Residential tenancy changes proposed by the Renters' Rights Bill, Maddie Dunn (burges-salmon.com)
unknownx500
