Private Rentals (Deposits)
The final item of business is a members’ business debate on motion S4M-06681, in the name of Patrick Harvie, on protecting tenants’ deposits. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament expresses deep concern for what it considers the many private sector tenants in Scotland who remain at risk of unfairly losing their rental deposits; notes reports in the Evening Times that most private landlords in Scotland are not yet complying with the legal requirement to lodge their tenants’ deposits with an approved deposit scheme, despite the deadline for compliance having passed on 15 May 2013; further notes the concern expressed about this issue by the Glasgow Central Citizens’ Advice Bureau, which has been receiving new clients every day seeking help in recovering deposits and which has described the issue as the biggest facing young people in the city; would welcome an end to exploitative and unscrupulous practices in the private rented sector and believes that this is vital if tenants are to have confidence in taking on tenancies, and considers that the forthcoming housing bill provides the opportunity for measures, including the regulation of letting agents, that will safeguard the interests of tenants.
17:02
I put on record my thanks to the 27 MSPs who have added their names in support of the motion, representing four political parties and independents who represent many parts of Scotland, recognising that the issue affects many of our constituents across the country. I am also grateful to the Evening Times for raising awareness of the issue in its recent coverage. I hope that members will agree that public awareness of the operation of the tenancy deposit scheme is crucial, both among landlords and tenants, and that we must make far greater progress on that. I also thank the organisations that have issued briefings, including the National Union of Students, Citizens Advice Scotland, Shelter and the Edinburgh Solicitors Property Centre.
I also thank Glasgow Central citizens advice bureau for its work and for welcoming me for a visit yesterday to see their offices. During that visit I saw huge ranks of casework sat on their shelves. I was given to reflect on how one of those case files would have been mine a good number of years ago. Like a lot of people, I spent a period in the private rented sector—I spent around 10 years as a private rented sector tenant. On one occasion, which was just after I had moved back to Scotland from university, a particularly unpleasant landlord in Glasgow decided that he was not going to give me any paperwork, contract or even a letter to indicate that I had a tenancy. Therefore, I was not able to apply for housing benefit when I lost a job. That situation ultimately resulted in my having to call the police when he sent round a squad of boys to start removing doors and furniture and whatever they could to harass me and other tenants out of the flat.
In that instance, I was one of the lucky individuals—I had somewhere to go because I was able to fall back on the support of family. It would be so easy for many people to experience a much more vulnerable situation than the one that I found myself in. However, that situation reminds me how valuable the work is that citizens advice bureaux around the country and many other advice agencies do to help people avoid such situations.
Like other members, I have recently had queries in my in-box about the deposit schemes. The requirement for deposits to be lodged with an approved scheme is an important step forward and we should be pleased that it has happened. However, there are problems with the implementation and awareness of any new system like this.
One constituent in Glasgow contacted me recently. Living on the south side of Glasgow, she had sought assurances from her letting agent in March that her deposit had been lodged with an approved scheme, and she was told in person and through the firm’s website that it had. On checking with the scheme, she was told that there was no record of that letting agent working with the scheme or of any dealings whatever. The agency has since failed to offer a reason for making false assurances, or to pass my constituent details of her landlord so that she can establish whether the agency alone was responsible for those actions or whether the landlord was also responsible. She is still concerned for the other tenants that might be in a similar position. The letting agency disputes some aspects of that account but members will be only too aware of the circumstances of many tenants around the country who might not even be aware that they have the right to ask these questions.
I have received information from a citizens advice bureau about a particular client who asked her letting agent if the deposit was being paid into a scheme. The letting agent informed the client that she had in fact paid an advanced rent, not a deposit, and that the agent would take money away from that advanced rent for any repairs that were needed at the end of the tenancy. That was a clear attempt to get around the scheme by calling the deposit an advanced rent instead of a deposit.
Another client is concerned that he might not get back the full value of his £750 deposit. The landlord said that she would get her sister to check the flat and decide on a bit of an ad hoc basis how much money would be paid back. No information was provided about compliance with the deposit scheme. In this case, as soon as the client started asking questions, the landlord started sending out notes about fairly arbitrary increases in rent. Again, that is another clear attempt to get round the scheme by getting unco-operative or unruly in order to get awkward questions from tenants simply to go away.
I also have a verbal account of a client who had been told by their former landlord that their deposit would be returned only once a new tenant had been found for the property, because the landlord simply did not have the money. That is indicative of the apparent view of some landlords and letting agents that a deposit is not really a deposit but a wee bonus to their income when they get a new tenant, which they have very little intention of handing back.
Tenants simply cannot afford to have their resources treated in that way. Very few of them can stump up the extra month’s rent for a new deposit when they move flat in the knowledge that their previous deposit might come back to them only after a long delay, if ever.
Members across the spectrum will acknowledge that the role of the private rented sector is important. It is needed. It is particularly important in some areas of the country, and it needs to be viable for landlords. However, it also needs to operate with a basic respect for the rights of tenants. Good-quality landlords and letting agents, who understand that they are not simply raking in cash from their properties but are selling a service to paying customers and have a duty to ensure that it is a high-quality service, have nothing to fear from proper regulation of the industry.
As my motion mentions, we are expecting legislation. The Government has indicated that it is open to the regulation of letting agents and mentioned that in its recently published strategy. We could consider other measures for inclusion in a bill and I encourage the minister and other members to consider stronger regulation of landlords such as management standards, which some Scottish National Party members supported when they were in Opposition and I debated the issue during the passage of a previous housing bill. We should also consider greater protection from unlawful eviction and harassment, such as a local authority power to prosecute. The end of short assured tenancies, as Shelter Scotland has suggested, would ensure that private sector tenants have a bit of security in a place that they can call home rather than knowing that they could be out in a matter of a month.
Presiding Officer, I know that I have gone slightly over time so perhaps I will mention one or two other issues if they come up and if there is an appropriate opportunity for an intervention. For the moment, I thank members for having supported the motion.
17:10
I welcome the opportunity to contribute to such an important debate, and I congratulate Patrick Harvie on securing it and bringing the issue to the chamber.
The private rented sector plays an increasingly important part in providing much-needed housing. It is perhaps best at delivering housing for an increasingly mobile population, who for many reasons require flexibility in how they seek and keep a home. The figures speak for themselves, with 49 per cent of tenants in the private rented sector having been at their current address for less than a year and a further 25 per cent for less than two years.
The sector is a growth industry. It has doubled in the past 10 years but, in reality, it remains smaller than it was as recently as 1979. To put the issue into further perspective, the sector is 50 per cent smaller than it was in 1945. I want the private rented sector to continue to grow and to make a positive contribution to the safe and sustainable communities in which we all want to live.
In my view, the vast majority of those who are involved in the sector are responsible and professional and they wish to provide a good service. I was therefore extremely disappointed when I recently read a press release from Shelter that, in effect, damned the whole industry with pejorative terms such as “Wild West”, “flagrant disregard for the law” and “cowboy letting agents”.
The fact is that organisations that represent the private rented sector have for some time been open to the introduction of the kind of regulation that protects private landlords and tenants. However, those with whom I have discussed the issue are concerned that, so far, the proposals are not cohesive. Local authorities lack the resources to police the landlord registration scheme effectively and not enough action is taken when rogue or non-compliant landlords are uncovered.
I have had a number of complaints about delays in returning deposits but, ironically, they were not from tenants complaining about landlords; instead, they were from landlords who have used the kind of approved schemes that we have been discussing. Although those issues might be resolved over time, organisations that I met today highlighted that, at present, when there is disagreement between tenant and landlord over a deposit, the process can take up to 109 days to resolve whereas, in the past, a landlord might have been in a position simply to hand over a cheque to a tenant at the end of a tenancy.
In my experience, the private rented sector is as keen as any other interested party to address the issues that are raised in the motion. I cannot help but feel that there is much to be gained by more fully engaging with landlords and doing so in a positive and constructive manner. I believe that that would result in a much more effective system that would proactively root out rogue landlords. That opportunity undoubtedly exists.
As we proceed with proposals for further regulation, I ask the minister to consider that, with housing regulation and with regulation more widely, it is too easy to look at the effectiveness of regulation and decide that, where we would like the situation to be improved, we should tighten up the regulation. However, the problem is that, when that happens, those who are compliant with regulation find themselves dealing with a bigger burden and those who previously chose to be non-compliant remain so. In my view, the issue is therefore primarily one of enforcement. The good landlords are already doing what we want them to do and the bad landlords are not. The law as it stands could be applied to everyone.
Will Alex Johnstone give way?
I am actually over my time and should be stopping. However, I am sure that the opportunity will come along.
Effective enforcement can do a great deal more than simply pile more regulation on those who are already complying with the regulation that we have.
Mr Johnstone has advised me that he has to leave the debate early because he has parliamentary business to attend to.
17:15
I am delighted to contribute to this debate on the subject of protecting tenants’ deposits. I thank Patrick Harvie for recognising the growing importance of the issue surrounding the private rented sector, and I congratulate him on securing time in the chamber to consider the implementation of the new tenancy deposit schemes in greater detail.
Protecting the deposits of tenants in privately rented accommodation is an issue that I am sure the majority of members in the chamber have dealt with in their constituencies or regions. They will be aware that private landlords throughout the country have benefited from the difficulties faced by first-time buyers, the unintended consequences of the bedroom tax and the devastating reality of high unemployment. That combination of factors means that the size of the private rented sector has doubled in the past 10 years and that it now accounts for 12 per cent of all housing stock.
I am aware of several tenants in my region, often young ones, whose deposits have been unfairly retained for a highly questionable justification and often with no explanation at all. That is why I welcome the introduction of the tenancy deposit schemes and the legal requirement to register deposits in one of three approved schemes. However, I am profoundly concerned that, since the introduction of the requirement, only half of all deposits have been registered.
Citizens Advice Scotland has considered that failure in some detail. It highlighted that 55 per cent of tenants are completely unaware that their landlords are legally required to register deposits, despite the fact that it is the tenants who are required to take action if the landlords have not registered their deposits in one of the compulsory schemes. Furthermore, Citizens Advice Scotland confirmed that nearly 30 per cent of all housing inquiries are concerned with the private rented sector and, specifically, the unfair retention of deposits by landlords.
The Scottish Government must recognise the scale of the challenge that it faces in achieving compliance with the deposit schemes, and it must provide the additional resource that will be necessary to achieve the principal aim of ensuring that tenants’ deposits are not withheld by unscrupulous landlords.
In response to my recent question S4W-15152, the Scottish Government failed to commit to any changes in the way in which it enforces the deposit schemes or the support that it awards to charities such as Citizens Advice Scotland that are on the front line in the battle to protect vulnerable tenants from exploitation.
Citizens Advice Scotland, Shelter Scotland and the NUS Scotland have all recognised that the Scottish Government must do more to make tenants and landlords aware of the tenancy deposit schemes. Those organisations understand that the system is currently unworkable and that too many landlords are still avoiding their responsibilities to those who rent their properties.
I urge the Scottish Government to re-examine the difficulties in the implementation of the three tenancy deposit schemes and to work with organisations such as Citizens Advice Scotland to ensure that the private rented sector is free from the questionable practices of exploitative landlords.
17:19
I welcome the chance to debate the matter because, in my constituency, 41 per cent of households now live in the private rented sector. I do not know what the figure was in 1999, but the doubling of the sector has clearly had a particular effect on Edinburgh Central.
As the estimates are updated each year, Edinburgh Central usually exchanges with Glasgow Kelvin the accolade of having the highest concentration of private rented households. Interestingly, it also exchanges with Edinburgh Southern the accolade of the most expensive street for house prices, which perhaps shows how much of an upstairs-downstairs area it can be.
When an area has such a concentration of private rented households, it is not just the tenants who are affected by issues such as tenants’ deposits and landlord-tenant relations; entire neighbourhoods are affected. Neighbourhoods in central Edinburgh have had their very nature changed because of large-scale transitions in tenure.
The end of the motion points to the regulation of letting agents and of the sector, which is a proposal that I strongly endorse. The current system is straining under the weight of regulation in enforcing not just the deposit scheme but things that have been around for longer, such as landlord registration and the period within which the private rented housing panel should resolve cases.
There have been incremental changes that everyone has welcomed, but in each case they have come with a great challenge as regards enforcement. The tenant information pack for all tenants is most welcome, but we do not know whether there has been 100 per cent take-up, and I am already seeing casework involving letting agents who are finding—shall we say—creative ways to get round the law on premiums. The strategy for the private rented sector sets out three suggestions on the regulation of letting agents, at which we must look carefully, because there is a danger of minimal compliance with a lot of rules.
We should not forget that the populations that we are talking about are very hard to reach. In Edinburgh, we are talking about migrants, young people and people who used to be homeless and who are housed temporarily in the private rented sector. I often find that students have access to the best advice through their student associations and that it is the other large groups—in population terms—who encounter the problems.
Such people have a very odd relationship with landlords if difficulties come up. There are few relationships that we can think of that are like the landlord-tenant relationship: landlords have such power. The bad landlords will view as assets properties that all the groups that I have mentioned view as homes. Should a tenant want to make a challenge, the difficulties in seeing things through to a resolution include the turnover of tenants, which means that a tenant might well have moved on to a different let by the time that the PRHP can rule. It is also difficult to engage lawyers, especially in Edinburgh, where most of the lawyers represent landlords, which means that they cannot take on tenants’ cases because of a conflict of interest. There is also the fear of blacklisting—people worry that, if they complain about one landlord, they will find it harder to get their next let.
I welcome the motion, which focuses on tenancy deposits and looks at the wider sector. In addition, I very much welcome the private rented sector strategy, which wisely focuses on improving the operation of measures that have been inherited from previous Administrations, such as landlord registration and the PRHP. I welcome the idea of the online information hub, but, although that will benefit greatly some groups of private tenants such as young people, it will not reach them all. At all times, we must keep the hard-to-reach groups at the forefront of our minds.
Other issues that the strategy addresses include the regulation of letting agents and giving consideration to housing standards; after all, the private rented sector is almost at the bottom of the league when it comes to energy efficiency. It also invites consideration of the suitability of a new tenancy system, which I know that Shelter has argued for. That might go a long way towards turning flats and other properties that some might regard as assets truly into homes.
17:23
I, too, congratulate Patrick Harvie on securing the debate, as the failure of many landlords to comply with the regulations by the required date last month is a matter of considerable concern.
The Housing (Scotland) Act 2006 gave ministers the power to introduce regulations that would establish tenancy deposit schemes. A Scottish Government review in 2009 found that a significant majority of tenants in the private sector had deposits partially or totally withheld at the end of their tenancy, and that in around three quarters of those cases that was done unfairly. There was evidence that quite a lot of that was going on. Such evidence has been presented to us in the briefings that we have received from CAS and the NUS and, as Patrick Harvie suggested, many of us know from personal or constituents’ experience that such practice goes on.
For example, my eldest son has rented a number of properties in the Leith area over the past four years. He has had to fight to get his deposit back when moving from one flat to another. He has heard excuses about having to send in cleaners when, in fact, the property was considerably cleaner when he left than it was when he moved in. On two occasions, he has faced problems in finding out from the letting agent who the landlord was: once when his boiler blew up and, on another occasion, when the pipes froze due to being inadequately insulated. Tenants can face a lot of problems with trying to find out who their landlord is.
The 2010 consultation on the introduction of the regulations found widespread support from most people—other than from private landlords and letting agents—for the introduction of the tenancy deposit scheme. Landlords are now required to do a number of things. They are required to register the deposit with a tenancy deposit scheme within 30 days of the beginning of a new tenancy or by 15 May for existing tenancies. They are also required to provide the tenant with certain information about the deposit—the kind of information that we would reasonably expect tenants to get from a landlord: the amount of the deposit; when it was received; the address of the property; a statement confirming that the landlord is registered with the local authority; and the name of the tenancy deposit scheme with which the money has been registered and the conditions under which it can be retained. Those are fairly simple bits of information.
The problem lies not so much with the regulations but with awareness and enforcement. Tenants can indeed receive up to three times their deposit in compensation if their landlord does not comply with the regulations. However, that requires a tenant to know their entitlement and to be prepared to take their landlord to the sheriff court for non-compliance, and it requires landlords to know their obligations and what the consequences could be of not conforming to them.
In its briefing, the ESPC said that the Government should take action to raise awareness of the regulations among tenants and landlords. It could also be argued that the Government needs to facilitate the enforcement of the regulations, because, as Marco Biagi said, many of the private sector tenants are young and might not feel comfortable about threatening their landlord with court action if he or she does not provide the necessary information within 30 days of the start of the tenancy, or asking their landlord whether their existing deposit was lodged in a tenancy deposit scheme by 15 May this year.
Of course, we do not know the reasons why so many landlords have not complied. It may be due to ignorance on their part, but it might be that some landlords and letting agencies are simply chancing their arms and ignoring the legislation, as they do not believe that they will be caught. In answer to a question from me on 22 May, the minister indicated that local authorities have the power to take action when there is evidence of non-compliance with tenancy deposit legislation, and that that could be taken into account during landlord registration. I would therefore welcome further detail regarding how local authorities can access information. Would it be through tenants providing evidence of a lack of compliance?
As Alex Johnstone stated, there is some concern about the success of landlord registration. I have certainly heard that the legislation is not always adequately complied with or enforced. Indeed, as with any other offence, the knowledge that offenders are likely to be caught and punished acts as a considerable deterrent.
17:28
I congratulate Patrick Harvie on lodging an important motion on protection of tenants’ deposits. It has become an increasingly important issue over the past 10 years as the number of people in the private rented sector has doubled, and it will become even more important in the next 10 years, as many more people will use the private rented sector, either from choice or from necessity. Of course, many of those people are living on the edge of poverty, if not in poverty, so security about their deposit is important for them.
We have heard many examples of malpractice; briefings for the debate give more examples, and the one from Citizens Advice Scotland is particularly good in that regard. We should pay tribute to CAS for the great work that it does in this area. However, I notice that, in a recent report, it highlighted that a substantial number of cases have come to it—especially from younger tenants—in which there have been distressing accounts of landlords who have made unreasonable requests for payment relating to general wear and tear. Often, those cases involve entire deposits going unrepaid due to on-going disputes.
It was that kind of case and misuse of the system that led to the legislation on tenancy deposit schemes in the Housing (Scotland), Act 2006, which was—if I may be permitted to mention the fact—piloted through Parliament by Johann Lamont and me. Of course, the scheme was implemented only in 2012. There is no doubt that the scheme can work well. In principle, it is an excellent system that protects the rights of tenants and avoids the sometimes complex legal cases that have, on occasion, resulted from disputes over deposits.
However, the fact of the matter is that many thousands of landlords have not registered. In a sense, that is the main reason for this debate. What can be done about that? First, tenants must be aware of their rights—in particular, the right to report their landlord’s not having enrolled in one of the three schemes. Safe Deposits Scotland tells us that 55 per cent of tenants are not aware that money from deposits must, by law, be placed in a tenancy deposit scheme. It seems that there are some problems around practical implementation. It is not even clear—perhaps the minister can tell us in her closing speech—to whom, precisely, tenants are supposed to report their landlord.
It also concerns me that tenants cannot find out whether their landlord is registered in a tenancy deposit scheme before they take on a tenancy. That would be useful information for a prospective tenant and might well influence their decision whether to take on a tenancy.
We clearly have to focus on landlords, as well. I assume that they are all aware of the law, but some may plead ignorance. Perhaps a short high-profile campaign by the Scottish Government would remove any doubts about that. I imagine, however, that landlords are all aware of the law—the key issue seems to be enforcement. What is to happen if a tenant has reported their landlord to whomever they should report the landlord? There should be strict sanctions on the landlord. I suggest that landlords’ registration could be removed if they fail to register with a scheme, or registration with a landlord scheme could be dependent on registration with a tenancy deposit scheme. I would like the landlord registration scheme to be linked better to the tenancy deposit arrangements.
Of course, other issues are mentioned in the motion, including regulation of letting agents. Illegal fees are being charged. Two weeks ago, we heard about another issue in the private rented sector in relation to electrical safety. On all those issues, we must take a hard line against rogue agencies and private landlords who abuse the system and their tenants. We would do an immense disservice to many families and individuals—who might rent privately through necessity or choice—if we do not take a tough line.
Tenants’ rights must be protected, which is why I am happy to support the motion in Patrick Harvie’s name.
17:32
I congratulate Patrick Harvie on bringing the issue to the chamber. My first job out of university was as a welfare adviser at Edinburgh University Students Association. Day in and day out I dealt with students complaining about their landlords. A huge amount of that time was spent advising students about their rights as tenants and what to expect. I could tell members countless stories about students’ experiences, such as a £15 fee for a light bulb that was not replaced and a £5 fee for the egg cup that never existed—small things that constantly irritated, combined with bigger issues around deposits and failure to get them back.
In many ways, landlords were chancing their arm. They would take just enough off the deposit for the student not to complain any further because it was not worth their while to go to court or to complain any further; landlords could slice £100 to £150 off a deposit without having to worry about the tenants taking it any further.
There is a great deal of ignorance in the student community about their rights as tenants. We set up a service for students—they could take their lease to the advice place where we worked and get it checked before they signed it so that we could highlight the terms and conditions that they were signing up to. Few people used that service—few people knew that it existed, as important as the work that we were doing was.
We were able to do some serious work in respect of bad landlords who were operating in Edinburgh at the time. One particular company had a third of the market share of all private rented flats in Edinburgh back in 2004-05. It had a particularly bad record in how it dealt with students. I see Marco Biagi nodding—I think that he knows which company I am talking about, although I am not brave enough to name it in the chamber. However, we managed to mobilise students by empowering them about their rights and empowering them about their options to come together and take on that company. We ran a campaign specifically against that letting agent and we forced it to change its ways.
That campaign turned into a pilot of the landlord accreditation scheme in Edinburgh. We had good practice by landlords recognised with a charter and with a badge that they could wear to say that they were good landlords. We then got the EUSA to accept adverts only from accredited landlords. Suddenly, the bad landlords were unable to advertise to students. We used the power of the students coming together collectively and organising to effect change and to make things better for them.
I acknowledge that the private rented sector is not just for students. As Marco Biagi said, in Edinburgh, in particular, we are talking about a very diverse mix of people including a lot of young professionals, migrants and people moving out of homelessness into private rented sector accommodation.
I remember legislation that was designed in Parliament to protect tenants being used against the very people whom it was supposed to protect. In 2006, we were still campaigning against housing in multiple occupation quotas when people in local authorities were trying to use the legislation that was designed to protect tenants to limit the number of properties in Edinburgh in which young people could live. That just forced up rents for people who could least afford to pay.
We must ensure that, when we create new systems, they do not have unintended consequences that increase the amount of money that people have to pay, or which damage their rights. I am already hearing cases of people having to pay holding fees as well as deposits, so landlords are working their way around the legislation in different ways.
Ten years on, things are better. We have a tenancy deposit scheme, but there are other challenges. As other members have mentioned, the private rented sector has doubled in size in the past 10 years, so we perhaps need to think about how housing here will evolve in the future. Many people do not want to own a home, but want secure tenure that does not involve ownership. When can we, in this chamber, think about long-term leases whereby people can have access to a flat that is theirs for a long period without living in fear of being turfed out? In Edinburgh, people often sign a six-month lease that then rolls on for two or three months until the landlord kicks them out in July so that they can lease the flat out for festival rents and then re-market it in September. The landlord wins, time and again.
Perhaps we can think about new and creative ways of allowing people to have long leases and continue to rent, so that they can enjoy the fabulous city of Edinburgh as they want, without being exploited by landlords.
17:37
I, too, thank Patrick Harvie for bringing the issue to the chamber for debate. It is clearly important to all of us. I have listened carefully to what has been said and I will respond to some of the points that members made.
I share the concerns for tenants who are treated unfairly when the time comes to lodge or return deposits. That is why the Scottish Government introduced tenancy deposit schemes. So far, the uptake has been strong, although that might not be how it is portrayed. The final deadline for all existing deposits to be lodged with one of the three schemes was 15 May 2013 and, by that time, 146,300 deposits with a value of £93.75 million had been lodged with the approved schemes.
I have read the Evening Times article about private landlords failing to lodge deposits with one of the approved schemes. I know that not all landlords take a deposit from tenants. However, when we compare the number of deposits lodged with the number of private rented properties registered with local authorities, the suggestion is that some landlords still need to lodge deposits. The Scottish Government will therefore continue to work with the scheme providers and other stakeholders such as Citizens Advice Scotland and Shelter Scotland to encourage compliance with the law.
Would the minister consider ensuring that no landlord has any legal justification for withholding a deposit that has not been lodged with an approved scheme?
Landlords must lodge deposits with an approved scheme—that is why the schemes were set up and those are the rules of the schemes. If a landlord does not do that, the landlord is breaking the law. As I move on, I will cover some of the points that Patrick Harvie made about how the law can be enforced.
I believe that, as Kezia Dugdale and others said, good information and advice can lead to an improvement in consumers’ confidence and in the quality of the service that they receive. Like Patrick Harvie, I think that it was important that the Evening Times highlighted the Glasgow Central CAB’s work. Like Vincent Chudy, the manager of that CAB, I urge all private tenants to check that their deposit has been paid to one of the three approved schemes. All of us who are elected to the Parliament should highlight that at every opportunity.
We encourage tenants to think of themselves as consumers who can raise standards in the sector. That is one reason why we recently introduced the tenant information pack, which provides key information for tenants and landlords in an easy-to-read format and includes information on tenants’ rights to deposit protection. As Marco Biagi mentioned, the launch of the pack is supported by the new Renting Scotland website, which is co-funded by the Scottish Government and Shelter Scotland. The website rentingscotland.org is an industry-wide information hub that offers practical guides for tenants and landlords. I have checked it out and can confirm that it provides key information and—an important point for someone like me—is user friendly and easy to access.
I will answer some of the questions that were asked. Clearly, private landlords have a duty to protect tenants’ deposits under one of the schemes. If the landlord fails to do so, the tenant can apply to the sheriff court to enforce the law and the court has the power to fine the landlord up to three times the amount of the deposit. Local authorities can take such a breach of housing law into account when considering the fit-and-proper-person test for landlord registration and for the licensing of houses in multiple occupation.
Last week, I launched “A Place to Stay, A Place to Call Home”, which is the first strategy since devolution that is solely for the private rented sector. The strategy sets out what further action we will take
“to improve the quality of property management, condition and service”
to deliver a sector that works for tenants and landlords. We want to work with good professional landlords to help them to prosper, but we are also determined to take action against the minority of landlords who damage the image of the sector and our wider communities.
The strategy proposes a more focused regulatory system for the sector. We will identify new ways of targeting tougher enforcement action against the worst landlords using existing legislation. On the point that Malcolm Chisholm made, we will also look at a tie-in between the tenancy deposit scheme and registration. The fit-and-proper-person test can cover a number of things. For example, if someone was illegally evicted and lost access to the property as a result—as can happen—the local authority should look closely at whether the landlord is a fit and proper person to be a landlord. We will look at that kind of tough enforcement action using existing legislation.
We are all interested in the enforcement working. What conversations has the Government had with local authorities on the difficulties and challenges that they need to overcome to achieve successful enforcement?
We have set up a working group. The strategy makes it clear that we will work with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, given that local authorities will need to enforce the strategy. The working group will look at how local authorities use the registration fee, how they operate the scheme in their area and what they check when someone applies to be a landlord or when someone reports something. Often, the first place that people go to is not the sheriff court or a solicitor but the local authority, which must understand that it has an obligation to take some action.
As we have said previously, when regulation is needed, we will take action. As has been mentioned, the strategy sets out our intention to regulate the letting industry, but we want to take the sector on board with us. The strategy has been welcomed by Shelter and the Scottish Association of Landlords, and we want to work with them to get it right. We want to keep the good landlords and letting agents on board, but we will ensure that those who are not performing well are aware that they cannot continue like that.
We know that the private rented sector is growing and that tenure is an issue. The strategy sets out our intention to consult on the tenure regime for the private sector. If it is necessary to regulate on that, we will do so. The sector has an important role to play in delivering the Scottish Government’s vision that all the people of Scotland should live in a high-quality home.
Meeting closed at 17:44.