The Renters' Rights Bill: The Finish Line is in Sight

The Renters' Rights Bill is currently in the ping pong phase in Parliament. This means that amendments are passing between the House of Commons and the House of Lords. On 8 September 2025, the House of Commons rejected some of the House of Lords' amendments and gave reasons. For more details of those debates, please see our Quick Read: The final stages of the Renters' Rights Bill.

The Bill returned to the House of Lords on 14 October 2025 to consider the Commons' reasons for rejection and prompted a lively 2-hour, 15-minute debate.

The main issues debated were as follows:

• The inclusion of a pet damage deposit — when the Bill was originally introduced, the Government confirmed that landlords could insist that tenants obtain insurance against any damage caused by a pet at the property, as a condition of the grant of consent to permit the tenant to have a pet. However, there were no suitable insurance products available and the insurance market suggested that the risk profile negated such products being introduced. During its passage through the Lords, an amendment was proposed to allow landlords to request up to three weeks' deposit against pet damage. However, that amendment was rejected by the Government. A further amendment was debated on 14 October to allow a landlord to request between one and three weeks' rent as a pet damage deposit in addition to the usual five weeks' rent for a tenant's deposit. The proposal was rejected. The Government referred to its existing powers in the Tenant Fees Act 2019 to vary the maximum amount of deposit payable by a tenant above five weeks' rent where there was a pet. They are not proposing to do this but have indicated that they will keep this under review. They are concerned that any pet damage deposit in addition to a tenant's deposit will mean fewer pets are permitted in properties as tenants may encounter financial difficulties with paying an additional pet damage deposit. The point was also made that a landlord could claim compensation from a tenant where their pet caused damage which exceeded the equivalent of five weeks' rent.
   
• The standard of proof for a local authority to establish in order to impose penalties on a landlord who does not comply with the provisions of the Bill. The Lords suggested that it should be the criminal standard of proof which is beyond reasonable doubt. However, the Government was adamant that it should be on the balance of probabilities. An amendment to increase it to the criminal standard was rejected.
   
• The Bill contains provisions so that if a landlord relies on grounds 1 (landlord or family member to move into property) or 1A (landlord to sell property) to obtain possession, they cannot re-let it for a period of 12 months. This means that if a sale falls through in the first 6 months, they still need to wait a further 6 months before re-letting. The Lords had amended the Bill to reduce the restricted period to 6 months when a landlord has advertised the property for sale and no suitable offers have been received within 6 months. However, the House of Commons rejected this amendment requiring the restricted period to stand at 12 months. The Government are concerned that reducing the restricted period would allow a Section 21 process “through the backdoor”. The debates included a discussion about whether a landlord can sell a property subject to tenancy. However, there was no mention of property values with versus without a sitting tenant. It was accepted that the restricted period should remain at 12 months in all cases and the exemption was rejected.
   
• Shared ownership leases should not be subject to the restricted period of 12 months where obtaining possession on grounds that the landlord wishes to sell the property. Further amendments were proposed which were accepted by the Lords for a shared ownership landlord to be able to serve notice on the tenant of the existence of the shared ownership lease and the restricted period would not apply if the landlord obtained possession because they intended to sell the property. This amendment will go back to the House of Commons.
   
• An amendment in the Lords removed the words “HMO” from the new ground of possession (ground 4A) against students where a property is required to be let to another group of full-time students. The Government was concerned that this could mean the ground would apply to two postgraduate students in a two-bedroom flat. Accordingly, the amendment was rejected and ground 4A is only available where a HMO property is let to students.
   
• A new ground for possession to allow carers to seek possession where they are caring for a nearby relative was rejected.

The Minutes confirm that the Bill will now return to the House of Commons. However, the number of issues in dispute has greatly been reduced and the only amendment for consideration appears to be the shared ownership amendment. Accordingly, Royal Assent seems to be imminent for the Bill. The big question is what commencement date the Government will set once the Bill receives Royal Assent. This wasn't covered in the debates on 14 October, so further detail is awaited from the Government on its proposals for commencement and stakeholders in the private rented sector will await further developments on this aspect.

We continue to track developments on our Essential Residential Hub and timeline: The Evolution of the Private Rented Sector. Please contact Lauren Fraser, Laura Bushaway or your usual Charles Russell Speechlys contact if you have any queries.