Member

Amendment 128, also tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, seeks to introduce an additional pet damage deposit. While I recognise the additional security this could provide to landlords, I have to resist his amendment for two key reasons. First, it would place a financial burden on tenants, particularly those on lower incomes who already struggle to raise a standard tenancy deposit. Adding another upfront cost would make securing a home harder, disproportionately impacting those in financial difficulty. Secondly, it could create unnecessary administrative complexity for deposit protection schemes, increasing costs and making the system harder to navigate for both landlords and tenants. The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, pointed out that, in the evidence of the University of Huddersfield’s research, the incidence of pet damage is relatively low. We need to think about that in this case as well. The Bill strikes the right balance by allowing tenants to obtain pet damage insurance instead, providing landlords with reassurance while avoiding those potentially very large upfront costs.