Controversial measures to deal with so-called retaliatory evictions have been approved by the House of Lords.

A Government amendment to the Deregulation Bill would prevent repossession of a private rental property within six months of a tenant’s written complaint about the condition of a property where the landlord had not given an “adequate response” within 14 days.

Failure to give an “adequate response” would allow the tenant to complain to the local authority which could then serve a notice on the landlord, setting out “a reasonable timescale” for work to be done.

The amendment, moved by Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon, was challenged.

Conservative peer and private landlord Lord Howard of Rising said that a six-months block on being able to serve a Section 21 notice could easily become ten months if the local authority delayed acting on a tenant’s complaint.

He was also worried that a 14-day time limit for a landlord to respond to a request might not be reasonable, given that a landlord could be on holiday. He proposed 28 days.

He also raised concerns about some landlords not having the financial ability to carry out repair work.

He said: “Where I live and rent out properties, a full repair costs on average 16 times the annual rent, and a minor refurbishment five years’ rent, and that does not allow for any tax.”

Another Tory peer and former estate agent, Earl Cathcart, agreed that the 14-day timespan should be lengthened to 28 days.

He said: “We are dealing with, in this instance, the rogue landlords – who we all dislike and who we all want to get out of owning property – but we are also dealing with, possibly, the worst type of tenant, who wants to be obstructive and has the ability to be obstructive.

“When you make laws for those sorts of people, it is very hard to get the balance absolutely right, because the effect percolates up through all the good people. What you do to the very bad affects the good.

“There is a perception that the Government are moving away from the fine balance that has been achieved and are moving more in the direction of the tenant than of the landlord.”

After further debate Lord Howard withdrew the amendment.

Other amendments to the Bill were also agreed, this time concerning tenancy deposits.

One clarifies that where a letting agent has received a deposit on behalf of a landlord, the letting agent’s contact details can be given in the Prescribed Information instead of the landlord’s details.

A second amendment was tabled following the case of Charalambous v Ng 2014, which concerned a landlord who received a tenancy deposit prior to the coming into force of the tenancy deposit legislation in 2007.

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon explained: “The tenancy in question became periodic prior to the date that the tenancy deposit legislation came into force and has continued as such ever since.

“The court ruled that the tenancy deposit legislation should apply to all landlords in this position and that they would therefore need to protect deposits if they wished to rely on the no-fault ground for eviction known as Section 21.

“It was never the intention, either in 2007 or following amendments made to the tenancy deposit legislation in 2012, that it should apply in this way.

“The amendments that we propose will make absolutely clear that, although landlords affected by the judgment will need to protect deposits if they wish to rely on Section 21, they will not be at risk of financial penalties should they fail to protect.”

The Hansard record of the full debate in the Lords together with the wording of the amendments is here