Select committee: Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee
Recommendation 29
Fifth Report - Reforming the Private Rented Sector
Published 9 Feb 2023
Paragraph 149
Addressed to Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee Reforming the Private Rented Sector All items in this report Report on parliament.uk ↗ Inquiry on parliament.uk ↗
Recommendation (the committee's words)
The proposal to make it easier for landlords to allow pets by making pet insurance a permitted payment under the Tenant Fees Act 2019 is a sensible and proportionate measure that could make a meaningful difference. On the other hand, the proposal to make it illegal for landlords to unreasonably withhold consent from those who request permission to have a pet seems impractical, even if a satisfactory definition of “unreasonably withholding consent” could be produced. We recommend that the Government abandon their promise to legislate to make it illegal to unreasonably withhold consent when a tenant requests permission to have a pet. If it cannot accept this recommendation, it should set out in response to this report what would constitute “unreasonably withholding consent” and explain in what circumstances it would be acceptable to force landlords to accept pets, especially where those landlords have had previous negative experiences of tenants with pets.
From: Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, Fifth Report - Reforming the Private Rented Sector (HC 624), paragraph 149, 9 February 2023
Government response
The government responded to the whole report on 20 October 2023 (deadline 9 April 2023).
Summary written by Accountability Index from the government's response. It is not the government's own words.The government welcomes "the thrust of the report" and accepts or reflects the Committee's aims in several areas, but declines a number of recommendations, including on student tenancies, a Housing Court and rent review clauses.
- On antisocial behaviour, it "fully agree[s] with the intent" of the recommendation but proposes a different approach: it will lower the threshold for Ground 14 and maintain judicial discretion instead of making the ground mandatory.
- On courts, it says "We do not agree that introducing a Housing Court is the best way", and it "would not be practical" to prioritise rent arrears cases. It will not proceed with the abolition of section 21 "until reforms to the justice system are in place".
- It does not support retaining fixed terms for students, saying it "would unfairly lock students into contracts". It will instead introduce a new ground for possession to facilitate the yearly cycle of student tenancies.
- On enforcement funding, it will ensure that "where necessary" new costs to local authorities "are fully funded", in accordance with the New Burdens Doctrine. It has "no current plans to criminalise non-payment of a civil penalty".