Among the amendments rejected were provisions that would have allowed landlords to request an additional deposit from tenants who wish to keep pets, and a clause enabling landlords to reclaim their property in order to accommodate a carer—either for themselves or for a dependent family member.
A spokesperson for a London chain of Estate and Residential agents, said: “Matthew Pennycook has justified rejecting the majority of Lords’ amendments by suggesting that landlords would exploit any concessions to behave poorly. This narrative is both unfair and inaccurate.
“The vast majority of landlords are honest, hard-working individuals who operate in an ethically sound manner and provide a vital service to millions of tenants.
“Demonising them is not only misleading, it risks further destabilising the rental market at a time when supply is already critically short – so it’s extremely disappointing to see landlords used as a scapegoat to prevent the necessary changes required to balance the Bill.”
A spokesperson in charge of Mergers and Acquisitions for a property management platform stated:
“Even before this Bill has been implemented we’re already seeing a rise in landlord repossessions, driven by a lack of trust in the court system and a desire to regain control of their portfolios before these changes come into effect.
“With only minor amendments made to the Bill and the abolition of Section 21 evictions set to go ahead, this trend is only likely to intensify, putting even greater strain on the courts and leaving many more tenants without a roof over their head.
“It underlines the unintended consequences of pushing through sweeping reforms without properly considering the realities of the rental market.”
One amendment to the Renters’ Rights Bill has been accepted, offering a lifeline to farming communities facing labour shortages. The change, introduced by the House of Lords, ensures that farmers can reclaim accommodation for incoming agricultural workers—whether they are directly employed or self-employed.
Under the original draft of the Bill, only employed workers qualified for such housing provisions, potentially leaving farms unable to house vital self-employed staff. This posed a particular challenge for rural businesses reliant on flexible labour arrangements.
The National Farmers’ Union successfully argued that the legislation must reflect the evolving nature of agricultural work. They highlighted roles such as self-employed share-farmers, shepherds, and dairy relief workers—positions increasingly common in the sector. By broadening the grounds for possession, the amendment acknowledges modern employment practices and helps safeguard the operational needs of UK farms.
Once the amendment was passed, Pennycook said: “We believe this small technical change will support the government’s clear intention of ensuring that the agricultural sector can continue to function effectively without compromising wider security of tenure, and I pleased that both Lord Carrington and the National Farmers’ Union had indicated their support for these changes.”