Renters' Rights Bill U-turn on pet damage insurance mandate a retrograde step for landlords and tenants

Landlords will still need to mitigate increased risk of pet damage

The last-minute government amendment to the Renters’ Rights Bill, proposing the removal of mandating pet damage insurance is a retrograde step for tenants and landlords alike.

A clear and controversially late U-turn places the increased risks and cost of pet damage squarely on the shoulders of landlords and could, potentially, with

another proposed amendment, see tenants facing higher deposits.

The requirement for pet damage insurance has been part of the reforms since the beginning so why the government should decide, at this late stage, to pull the plug is baffling.

Not only will landlords face further financial risk, but one of the proposed amendments to increase the tenant’s deposit to address damage, means they will also face increased costs when compared to an insurance premium. Not to mention, the inevitable increase in disputes and use of the deposit adjudication system to remedy matters. Where is the balance and fairness that the government heralded the reforms would bring the PRS?

Whatever, the outcome, there will continue to be a need for landlords to mitigate the increased risks of pet damage. Our ‘Not for Lions’ pet damage cover focuses on addressing the gap in the landlord insurance market for a responsive and relevant product. It provides landlords with a dedicated, accessible, and affordable cover that will provide them with much-needed peace of mind.