Chamber and committees

I appreciate the cabinet secretary’s comments that the timescale might be restrictive, but residents who have been experiencing unsatisfactory factors have had a Government commitment previously. There have not been any updates to the voluntary code or legislation since 2013. How long should we expect that work to take before recommendations are seen and felt by residents?

We have heard clearly from the cabinet secretary and other members that this is a common problem across Scotland. As the convener said, a quarter of properties across Scotland have some kind of factoring arrangement. The difficulty that has arisen is that, where home owners are not getting the level of service that they expect—where they are paying for an entirely substandard service—the customer service is deplorable to the point that, in response to complaints, home owners are either stonewalled and met with silence or factoring companies, acknowledging the power imbalance, just say, “Well, there’s nothing you can do about it”. That is a direct quotation that constituents with a bad experience of factoring arrangements have heard from poorly performing factoring companies, which know that, in legal terms, it is so hard for residents to remove a factor that they just do not care. It cannot be fair that a factoring company can give up a contract and have an alternative factor appointed with no consultation or even awareness on the part of residents who pay for it.

Pam Duncan-Glancy raised an example in Cambuslang, where the first time that residents found out that a new factoring company had been appointed to maintain the common areas was when they received their first bill from that company. It cannot be fair that the factoring companies can be changed with no limit, but residents need to get together, hold a public meeting, and get agreement through a vote of more than 50 per cent of residents before a factor sits up and take notice.

I do not intend to press amendment 507 at this point, but I plan to bring a suite of amendments at stage 3. I hope that the Government has heard loud and clear from members around the table the real desire for change to factoring arrangements. The status quo is simply not an option. Residents have waited for a long time for change from the Government, but it has not been forthcoming. I therefore hope to work with the Government between stages 2 and 3 to give residents a more solid list of the changes that we would like to see to support them.

I seek the committee’s agreement to withdraw amendment 507.

Amendment 507, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendment 387 moved—[Shirley-Anne Somerville]—and agreed to.

Amendment 508 not moved.

Amendments 388 to 392 moved—[Shirley-Anne Somerville]—and agreed to.

Amendments 509 to 512, 415, 513, 504 to 506, 514 and 476 not moved.

Section 51 agreed to.

After section 51

Amendments 456 and 423 work together to make a small practical change to how RSLs are required to give notice of rent increases to tenants. If agreed to, the amendments would allow notices to be delivered by normal post as well as by hand, email or tracked mail. Currently, associations are obligated to use tracked mail, email or hand delivery in order to meet the existing legal requirements under the Housing (Scotland) Act 2001. Housing associations agree that hand delivery of notices is unnecessarily resource intensive and wasteful, that email delivery does not offer a guarantee that all tenants would receive a notice, and that tracked mail is too expensive.

In Scotland, existing legislation sets out that documents can be delivered only in one of three ways: personal delivery, delivered through a method of post that can be recorded, or delivery by agreed electronic transmission. However, the general law can be overruled by the specific terms of a statute, so I am confident that my amendments are legally competent. My amendments would allow landlords to deliver notices by different delivery methods, as they state that standard post can be used without any legal implications, which would lessen the burden on RSLs to comply with housing legislation and would allow them more time to support tenants in other ways and deliver a strong supply of housing in Scotland.

Amendments 457 and 457A would ensure that, when their current accommodation does not meet families’ needs, social landlords cannot prevent them from moving to more suitable accommodation because they have outstanding house arrears and housing-related debts. The amendments do not prevent debt recovery action. In many cases, people who are on low incomes and in unsuitable accommodation can be trapped in a cycle of debt. If they are in social housing, the opportunity to move to more suitable accommodation can be denied by the organisation if they have built up arrears. That can leave families trapped in debt and in housing that is either too big, not safe or overcrowded.

Unaffordable, overcrowded and substandard housing conditions have an adverse impact on people’s ability to cope, physically and mentally, and on wider family wellbeing, and that can exacerbate the cycle of debt. Urgent and compassionate reforms to public debt management and recovery, including rent and housing arrears, are required to tackle child poverty, support families, uphold children’s rights and ensure that every child and family has the opportunity to thrive. We need to promote compassionate and supportive debt management approaches. It is imperative that public bodies and housing associations develop debt recovery policies that recognise the impact of domestic and economic abuse to prevent victims/survivors from being pursued for debt coerced in their name as a result of abuse.

My amendments will work to prevent families from being denied more suitable accommodation as a result of built-up arrears. They will create greater protections for families that are affected by domestic abuse and ensure greater consistency with statutory human rights, children’s rights duties, and equally safe commitments for protecting women and children from the impact of violence and abuse.

I accept that local authorities should be able to pursue arrears, but I do not believe that that is best done by preventing families from accessing more suitable accommodation when it becomes available.

Amendments 456 and 423 work together to make a small practical change to how RSLs are required to give notice of rent increases to tenants. If agreed to, the amendments would allow notices to be delivered by normal post as well as by hand, email or tracked mail. Currently, associations are obligated to use tracked mail, email or hand delivery in order to meet the existing legal requirements under the Housing (Scotland) Act 2001. Housing associations agree that hand delivery of notices is unnecessarily resource intensive and wasteful, that email delivery does not offer a guarantee that all tenants would receive a notice, and that tracked mail is too expensive.

In Scotland, existing legislation sets out that documents can be delivered only in one of three ways: personal delivery, delivered through a method of post that can be recorded, or delivery by agreed electronic transmission. However, the general law can be overruled by the specific terms of a statute, so I am confident that my amendments are legally competent. My amendments would allow landlords to deliver notices by different delivery methods, as they state that standard post can be used without any legal implications, which would lessen the burden on RSLs to comply with housing legislation and would allow them more time to support tenants in other ways and deliver a strong supply of housing in Scotland.

Amendments 457 and 457A would ensure that, when their current accommodation does not meet families’ needs, social landlords cannot prevent them from moving to more suitable accommodation because they have outstanding house arrears and housing-related debts. The amendments do not prevent debt recovery action. In many cases, people who are on low incomes and in unsuitable accommodation can be trapped in a cycle of debt. If they are in social housing, the opportunity to move to more suitable accommodation can be denied by the organisation if they have built up arrears. That can leave families trapped in debt and in housing that is either too big, not safe or overcrowded.

Unaffordable, overcrowded and substandard housing conditions have an adverse impact on people’s ability to cope, physically and mentally, and on wider family wellbeing, and that can exacerbate the cycle of debt. Urgent and compassionate reforms to public debt management and recovery, including rent and housing arrears, are required to tackle child poverty, support families, uphold children’s rights and ensure that every child and family has the opportunity to thrive. We need to promote compassionate and supportive debt management approaches. It is imperative that public bodies and housing associations develop debt recovery policies that recognise the impact of domestic and economic abuse to prevent victims/survivors from being pursued for debt coerced in their name as a result of abuse.

My amendments will work to prevent families from being denied more suitable accommodation as a result of built-up arrears. They will create greater protections for families that are affected by domestic abuse and ensure greater consistency with statutory human rights, children’s rights duties, and equally safe commitments for protecting women and children from the impact of violence and abuse.

I accept that local authorities should be able to pursue arrears, but I do not believe that that is best done by preventing families from accessing more suitable accommodation when it becomes available.

Amendment 417 addresses a gap in the current landlord registration framework under the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Act 2004. As it stands, the act requires registration of those who own and lease residential property, but it does not clearly capture those who rent a property and sublet it to others. The amendment clarifies that individuals who rent or sublease properties—who, in practice, are landlords—must also register. The amendment would ensure that intermediate landlords could no longer operate outside the regulatory regime, thereby avoiding scrutiny, safety checks and compliance obligations.

That is particularly relevant in cases of rent-to-rent schemes, in which someone rents a flat and then re-lets it to others at a profit, without the necessary oversight. Tenants in such arrangements are especially vulnerable. Amendment 417 would strengthen tenant protections, close a legal grey area and ensure consistency and accountability across all rental arrangements.

Amendment 418 seeks to improve the transparency of the landlord register by requiring the inclusion of key property information. Specifically, it would ensure that the register included the rent charged, the size of the property—including the number of bedrooms and floor levels and the floor area—the maximum number of occupants and, where relevant, the current number of occupants for each property.

That would be a crucial step forward, because it would give local authorities a clear picture of what the private rented sector looked like in their area and would enable better enforcement of overcrowding provisions, rent controls and property standards. It would also enhance the value of the landlord register to tenants, who should have the right to know basic details about the homes that they are considering, especially rent levels and occupancy conditions. Amendment 418 would modernise the register and ensure that it reflected the real conditions of the housing market.

Amendment 419 proposes to reduce the duration of a landlord’s registration under the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Act 2004 from three years to one year. The current three-year cycle allows too much time to pass before registration is reviewed, during which time property standards may deteriorate, landlord circumstances may change or breaches may occur without any follow-up. A yearly cycle would strengthen transparency, keep records current and support better enforcement by local authorities.

Amendment 419 would ensure that information relating to monthly rent was kept up to date and would bring that information into line with the frequency with which landlords outwith rent control areas are currently able to increase monthly rents for private rented tenancies. The amendment is not about increasing bureaucracy; it is about raising standards and closing gaps that allow neglect or non-compliance to persist unchecked for a number of years.

Amendment 420 seeks to impose a new duty on the Scottish ministers to collate and publish rent data drawn from local authority landlord registers. It would require the Scottish ministers to prepare and publish statistics that would be based on the information collated on rent levels in the register, and to break it down by local authority area. That would be a vital step towards transparency and accountability in the housing market, and it would allow local authorities to use the information from an area to consider whether a rent control zone was necessary.

Amendment 421 would introduce a new duty on the Scottish ministers to promote the use of the landlord register to support tenants. It would require the Government to take steps to raise awareness of the register and to ensure that it was actively used to help tenants to understand their rights, to verify landlord registration and to seek redress where necessary. The Scottish Government should use the data gathered in the Scottish landlord register to encourage and support local authorities to communicate with private tenants on their rights via their details as recorded in the register. The amendment would place an obligation on the Scottish Government to ensure that tenants had information about their rights and responsibilities as tenants of rented properties in Scotland.

Amendment 455, which seeks to amend part 8 of the 2004 act, would ensure that the landlord register was accessible and searchable, and it would place obligations on the Scottish Government to enable that. It would require there to be a central, searchable interface, which would make it easier for tenants to access information. In placing that obligation on the Scottish ministers, the amendment would provide consistency and would ensure that local authorities did not face additional expenses. It would support transparency and empower tenants to verify the legitimacy of the landlord or letting agent before signing a lease.

Amendment 488 seeks to improve the landlord registration system significantly, by requiring those who register to provide detailed standardised information about the properties that they let, including information on property classification, number of rooms, heating systems, energy performance certificate—EPC—ratings, past repairs, safety features, accessibility adaptations and known hazards, such as damp or flooding. It also covers compliance with legal standards, such as the repairing standard and electrical installation condition report—EICR—certification, along with clarity on shared spaces and insurance cover.

Amendment 488 would turn the landlord register into a genuinely useful resource for tenants. It would allow councils to make informed choices, it would target enforcement, and it would help national policy makers to address housing quality and climate goals. The data in question would not be burdensome to collect—we are talking about information that responsible landlords already have. The information that would be collected would form part of the information to be shown as part of a home report for any prospective buyer. The proposal supports transparency and balances the need to provide genuinely useful information with the need not to overburden landlords.

Taken as a package, all the amendments in the group speak to what I see as a significant failing of the landlord register as it stands. They provide a real opportunity to amend and update the information that we collect and to gather the data that the committee has spoken about, and has said that we would require, almost every year of the session.

I look forward to hearing the Government’s response to my proposals and—regardless of whether it supports the amendments—hearing about how we can ensure that the landlord register collects the crucial information that we, as legislators, and the Government need in order to make policy decisions and to support tenants to make informed choices about the tenancy agreements that they enter.

I move amendment 417.

On the point about cost recovery, is the level of fees in the new system designed to cover full cost recovery?

Did the initial consultation not make it explicit that it would not be aiming to achieve full cost recovery?

I appreciate the point about the public finance manual and public finances in general. However, do you accept that, if you consult on the principle that you are not seeking full cost recovery and then lay regulations that, as you have just said, seek full cost recovery, there is a disparity? There is clearly an issue with the consultation and how the Government has set out the principles of what it intends to do.

Amendment 408 would allow for

“the interest of the joint tenant”

under a private residential tenancy to

“be assigned to another joint tenant”

before the day on which they provide the landlord a notice outlining that they wish the tenancy to come to an end. However, under those circumstances, the tenancy

“must remain on the same terms as the existing tenancy”,

which would, I hope, allow for more flexibility for people in shared tenancies and, potentially, for easier and smoother transitions between tenancies.

I move amendment 408.

Amendments 268 and 269 would require Scottish ministers to review grounds for eviction under schedule 3 to the Private Housing (Tenancies) (Scotland) Act 2016 within 12 months of the bill coming into force. From analysing the case load of the First-tier Tribunal for Scotland, listening to the submissions of organisations that act on behalf of tenants and observing the outcomes of changes that were made to schedule 3 of the 2016 act and the emergency legislation that was made during the pandemic, it is clear that at least some of the grounds for eviction mean that the balance of rights in such cases is tilted unfairly away from tenants. While the grounds remain discretionary, the opportunity will exist for unscrupulous landlords to take advantage of the imbalance to unfairly evict tenants.

Although I am in favour of much of the thrust of part 2 of the bill, which will tighten up the circumstances under which eviction should be allowed, there is further to go in ensuring that the balance of rights is fair. That is why I support all the amendments in this group that will make it more difficult to allow unfair evictions.

My amendment 268 would allow the Government to review the structure under which such unfairness can take place. The amendment deals with the cause of the imbalance, while the rest of the bill attempts to mitigate the effects of that. We have all heard stories about tenants who, having been told that the landlord intends to put the property on the market, found that, after they were evicted, the property was put back up for rent, often at a higher price. All my amendments in this part of the bill seek to ensure that the balance of rights is re-weighted towards tenants, while still allowing landlords the ability to end a tenancy when there is a legitimate need to do so.

The time has come to review the grounds for eviction so that the Government can properly consider them in the light of the time that has passed and the experience that has been gained of the application of the grounds since the 2016 act and the subsequent amendments to the schedule came into force.

I take on board the Government’s commitment to undertaking the review and the fact that the timescale of 12 months might be overly prescriptive in relation to consulting on and providing a full perspective of the changes that are required, so I do not intend to move amendments 268 and 269.

Amendment 502 would prevent landlords from evicting tenants under no-fault circumstances for 12 months after they have carried out work as a result of a grant made under the ECO4 scheme. A 2023 Scottish Government report estimated that, by March 2024, nearly half of all households in the private rented sector would be living in fuel poverty. The ECO4 grants are part of the UK Government’s strategy to meet carbon emissions targets and reduce the impact of the cost of living crisis. The focus is on households that are deemed to live in fuel poverty. Grants are means tested to the tenant’s income; there is no relation to the landlord’s situation. If a landlord receives a grant to make improvements to the energy performance of the home, the decision has been taken to award the grant because of the financial circumstances of the tenant and not those of the landlord.

The tenant in question, having been the reason why the landlord got the grant and having been inconvenienced by the work that was carried out in their home, should be given more protection from eviction, so that they get the intended benefits of the improvement to the property, rather than the landlord being able to evict them and then, as is often the case, re-let the property at a higher price due to the improvements, which were funded by the Government because of the circumstances of the tenant.

I appreciate the points that the cabinet secretary makes, so I do not intend to move the amendment at this stage. However, there is a gap in the legislation on how we deal with that, whether that be at a UK or Scottish level. I am happy to have further discussions to iron out the anomaly of a landlord getting funding to improve a property on the basis of a tenant’s circumstances and then evicting them to re-let it.