A pet campaigner has warned that it will be a travesty if the government fails to overturn a House of Lords decision to reject plans for pet insurance.
Peers rejected the amendment in the Renters’ Rights Bill due to concerns that it would cost tenants £150 a year. However, Jen Berezai (main image), founder of campaign group AdvoCATS, says they failed to consult the insurance sector which had been developing policies.
Speaking on Notts TV, she explained: “They were suddenly concerned it might cost the tenant £150 a year or more, which is an awful lot less than current tenants are paying in pet rent to landlords who will allow pets.
"Then they seemed to be saying they were concerned the insurance industry wasn’t ready, without consulting any insurance experts within the private rental sector. Companies have been working on policies and products to bring to market specifically around this new law and now we’re in limbo land.”
Berezai said the Tenant Fees Act – which capped the maximum deposit landlords can request at five weeks’ worth of rent, thereby eliminating the previous pet deposits - resulted in a 20% drop in pet friendly landlords in the first year.
The House of Lords’ vote on an amendment for the provision of up to three weeks’ worth of rent as a pet damage deposit, was unrealistic, she added. “With the average rent in the country being £270 a week, that’s an extra £800 that a tenant is going to have to find up front, together with five weeks’ deposit. If they’re worried about affordability, the sums simply don’t add up.”
AdvoCATS hopes it can convince MPs to reinstate the insurance amendment through a social media campaign and will present results to the Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government after the summer recess.
Image: Notts TV
Tags:
Comments