In my fourth article on the new Rent Reform Bill, I round up the flagship new proposals designed to make life better in the rented sector.

Thus, I was alive at a time before the outlawing of amoral for rent signs in windows expressing which demographics were not welcome. Over the years, the use of primary legislation to erase any form of discrimination has evolved, and this Bill proposes a further step in that progression.

Thus, the proposed rules would prohibit landlords from imposing a blanket ban on renting to tenants who are on benefits or who have children.

There is little to say on the first proposal, save that this is only likely to impact the tertiary rental sector as benefits will only be sufficient to meet the rent and living expenses at the lower end of the rental spectrum.

On the second, I wonder if the Bill will stretch to also prohibit landlords insisting on higher rent deposits from those with children to cover the cost of the little perishers running around smashing stuff. Or will the market react by raising deposits across portfolios? If everyone must pay a higher deposit, then there is no discrimination is there? Of course, this possible increase in upfront cost could well mostly impact those with families who may be less able to afford it.

The Bill then puts forward the highly popular plan to enable tenants the right to request permission to keep a pet. Landlords will no longer be able to refuse such requests unreasonably.

Borrowing from the world of commercial leases which, in turn, borrow from statute, where permissions are required, they are generally phrased to state that landlord’s permission cannot be withheld unreasonably or delayed. If landlords can respond whenever they want, then such a law would have little point.

In terms of what is reasonable, will the soon-to-be-swamped First-tier Tribunal be the final arbiter for cases where landlord and tenant disagree? And in the time it will take to make that determination, is the landlord prohibited from renting the property to someone else?

One landlord condition I think could be reasonable is if the landlord requires the tenant to pay, as part of an increased deposit, the reasonable cost of a deep clean after they leave. Not all prospective successor tenants are happy living in a place formerly populated by a moggy or mutt. And some people are seriously allergic to them.

The legislation also allows landlords to require tenants to take out pet insurance (is child insurance also available?) to cover any potential damage caused by their furry friends.

This is an area of law that is becoming increasingly complex with the introduction of new protections for renters, the safest way to navigate these new challenges is with an experienced guide. Luke Weldon is a Partner at Carbon Law Partners specialising in real estate and commercial issues. You can contact him on 07816 755 372 or luke.weldon@carbonlawpartners.com.

The contents of this article does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon. Always consult a legal professional before taking any action.