Charles Amos studied Political Theory at the University of Oxford and writes The Musing Individualist Substack.
The Renters’ Rights Bill is full of provisions which strip landlords of their property rights; one of the worst is to allow tenants the near unilateral right to have a pet. This simply amounts to legalising trespass by livestock and anyone with the slightest respect for private property must be opposed to it. Disregarding the violation of rights though, the provision is likely to disadvantage many tenants due to higher rents arising from a restricted supply of rental properties arising from increased costs due to pets.
Private property should be respected, even if its violation increases the total amount of public happiness. If a person owns a large garden which many dog walkers like to use as a shortcut to stay in exclusively picturesque surroundings, their trespassing remains wrong even if the homeowner is only slightly bothered. Analogously, allowing dogs into a landlord’s properties without his free consent is trespass too and remains wrong, even if tenants really enjoy their dogs’ company and the landlord isn’t too bothered. The Renter’s Rights Bill – which only allows landlords to turn down tenants’ pet requests with “good reason” – legalises livestock trespass because the landlords cannot always freely turn down the pets: It must be rejected for this reason.
Does not public policy stand or fall at the altar of public happiness though? No. Individuals have rights, including to private property, because they are not mere means to be used to forward an allegedly greater goal, e.g. public happiness. Rather, individuals properly pursue their own goals in life with their own legitimately acquired holdings. Permitting the moulding of private property according to public happiness is simply implausible, allowing as it does for theft, vandalism and trespass, provided enough people enjoy the bounty. Of course, theft, vandalism and trespass against landlords, e.g. the Renter’s Rights Bill, may be popular, but popularity is no more a warrant for state action than two wolves and a lamb is in voting on what to have for lunch.
The socialists in power, however, have scant regard for private property – so what can be said to them? Well, permitting cats and dogs is likely to reduce the supply of rental properties due to increased costs from pet damages, thus pushing up rents for tenants. This is why only 9 per cent of rentals today are pet friendly. Already 21 per cent of landlords are thinking of selling a part of their portfolio due to the bill. Pet damage can be very bad: in Lincolnshire a landlord discovered £8,000 of damage to his property after 14 mastiffs were housed in two of its bedrooms with dog faeces everywhere. Labour ministers have said situations like the above are unlikely to be a big problem because landlords will be allowed to require pet insurance of their tenants, plus, they’ll likely point to the fact 76 per cent of landlords report no pet-related damages.
Perhaps landlords would be better off by allowing more pets into their properties, but this still doesn’t warrant forcing livestock into their housing. I can’t put a cat into an old lady’s home even if I am sure she’ll come to love it. Nevertheless, landlords aren’t always making mistakes in their current refusals. Whilst the vast majority of tenants with pets will be fine, there will always be a minority of dog owners, Harry-and-Paul-like, who will cause huge problems. Sure, they’ll present pet insurance on day one, but very quickly they’ll stop paying it, run up a huge list of damages, and, then, when the landlord tries to kick them out and recoup the costs, simply fail to pay anything. Dogs barking can also reduce rental yields for landlords of multiple abutting houses (and irritate neighbours, too).
As a result of the expected costs of pets being a lot higher than the median cost of pets, many landlords rationally decide to ban them altogether. And if the landlord takes out the pet insurance himself, which doesn’t stop constant dog barking, he faces yet another administrative burden and inconvenience. An alternative could be to take a pet deposit and, insofar as this avoids the pitfalls of unreliable tenants, maybe landlords should look into it more. Unfortunately, Labour ministers have decided to ban pet deposits in the Renters’ Rights Bill, meaning pet cost will have to be recouped from all tenants; people who lie about pets will never pay up for their damages and will likely get away Scott-free too. Yet again, landlords are screwed over by a Left-wing government that sees them as little better than parasites.
The Renters’ Rights Bill legalises the trespass of livestock into a landlord’s houses and must be opposed for this reason. The fact it might improve the happiness of tenants is irrelevant. Plus, by increasing costs and inconvenience to landlords, it is likely to restrict the supply of rental properties which will only push up rents. The slightest respect for private property and knowledge of economics calls for this bill to be opposed outright.
The post Charles Amos: The Renters’ Rights Bill legalises trespass by livestock – and it must be opposed appeared first on Conservative Home.
Click this link for the original source of this article.
Author: Charles Amos
This content is courtesy of, and owned and copyrighted by, http://www.conservativehome.com and its author. This content is made available by use of the public RSS feed offered by the host site and is used for educational purposes only. If you are the author or represent the host site and would like this content removed now and in the future, please contact USSANews.com using the email address in the Contact page found in the website menu.