Local Government and Communities Committee

Meeting date: Wednesday, September 5, 2018

Official Report 763KB pdf

---

Subordinate Legislation

---

Registered Social Landlords (Repayment Charges) (Scotland) Regulations 2018 [Draft]

Agenda item 3 is subordinate legislation. The committee will now take evidence on a draft statutory instrument. I welcome back Kevin Stewart, the Minister for Local Government, Housing and Planning—this is a marathon session for you, minister—who is joined by Simon Roberts, policy manager, housing standards and quality, from the Scottish Government.

The instrument has been laid under the affirmative procedure, which means that the Parliament must approve it before the provisions can come into force. Following this evidence session, under the next agenda item the committee will be invited to consider a motion to approve the instrument. The Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee has reported on the instrument and did not draw it to the Parliament’s attention on any of its reporting grounds.

I invite the minister to make a short opening statement.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak to the motion to approve the regulations.

When we introduced missing share powers for local authorities in the Housing (Scotland) Act 2014, we also introduced a power, subject to consultation, to extend those powers to registered social landlords. There are situations in which a social landlord is the owner of some but not all of the flats in a tenement and requires the co-operation of other owners to carry out essential work to repair and maintain the common parts of the tenement. We know that owners are not always able or willing to co-operate in common works and that that problem can lead to deterioration in the condition of the building, which has a direct impact on the living conditions of the social landlord’s tenants who live there.

Under the existing provisions of the Tenements (Scotland) Act 2004, a registered social landlord has a right, as do other owners, to participate in the majority decision-making process set out in the tenement management scheme. If the RSL owns a majority of the flats or can form a majority with some of the other owners, work to repair or maintain common parts can go ahead, but if an owner cannot or will not pay their share of the costs, the RSL is in the difficult position of using tenants’ money to pay for owners’ shares if its constitution or covenant allows it to do so. Alternatively, of course, it can leave the repairs and maintenance work undone.

The regulations should help in some cases by providing a more effective route to get owners to pay for their share of common works. They allow a registered social landlord to enforce a majority decision by creating a repayment charge, which is a form of security that is recorded in the land register against title deeds. The landlord can seek to recover the charge in instalments from the owner in question over a period of five to 30 years and the security means that the owner will be obliged to pay their share of the cost before they can sell their home to another person.

This is not a solution for every case. It will not help if the landlord cannot get a majority in favour of works or if the value of the owner’s flat is so low that their equity does not cover a charge. However, it will be a useful additional tool for landlords who are looking to repair and maintain buildings in which they have a share.

I am happy to take any questions that members might have.

Why have you introduced the regulations? Is it against a background of social landlords wanting them? If so, what is the scale of the problem that could be addressed by the regulations?

It would be fair to say that there are mixed opinions among registered social landlords about the proposal. Some say that they would use the power and others say that they would never do so. The regulations are intended to give folks the flexibility to use the power if they want to do so.

When we previously discussed the issue of missing shares in the context of local authorities, I said that I would extend the power to registered social landlords, and that is what I am doing. I am not forcing folk to use the power, but I want folks who want to have it to be able to use it.

12:00  

Is there practical evidence of where it would be useful?

We have only to look at what local authorities have done. A number of local authorities are making use of the missing share power and, as I have previously pointed out, a number of them are not. So far, eight local authorities have a missing share policy in place, and seven of them—South Ayrshire Council, Glasgow City Council, the City of Edinburgh Council, Dundee City Council, Aberdeen City Council, East Lothian Council and East Renfrewshire Council—have used the power. Inverclyde Council has put the policy in place, but it has not used the missing share power. I want to give registered social landlords in other places, perhaps where the missing share power has not been used, the ability to use it if they wish to do so.

I call Mr Simpson.

Convener, I just want to make a comment, if that is okay.

You can do so now, but I should note that you will also have an opportunity to do so under item 4, which is the debate on the regulations.

I will make it whenever appropriate.

Why not make it just now?

Okay.

I think that the regulations are important, because, as the minister has said, they give registered social landlords this power. They do not have to use it, but at least they will have it. As everyone in the room should know, there is an issue with the maintenance of tenements; indeed, that is why the Parliament has a tenement maintenance working group, which is working closely with the minister. The new regulations are just part of the picture, but they are an important part. When I made a freedom of information request on the issue to local authorities, I came up with 10 that had used the missing share power. That is still a minority, but at least they have the power. It is important that registered social landlords have it, too, because it is vital that we bring our buildings up to scratch instead of allowing them to deteriorate. I am certainly in favour of the regulations.

I guess that if you had said, “Do you agree, minister?”, it would have become a question.

I welcome Mr Simpson’s comments. The regulations are just another tool in the box that folks can choose to use. I wish that more local authorities were using the missing share power than is currently the case, and we will continue to try to persuade folk. In using it, some local authorities have seen the advantage of it. Quite often, it is not even the use of the power but the threat of using it that can change attitudes. I have seen that happen, and I am sure that others have, too. I am sure that the scenario will be the same if we give RSLs this power. It might move folk towards thinking differently as we move forward, and it might be that the threat of using the power rather than its actual use will make the difference.

Mr Simpson mentioned the cross-party working group, and as I have said in Parliament, I will work closely with it. We all recognise that there is work to be done with regard to repairs in tenement buildings. I do not think that these regulations are the panacea for everything, but they are another tool in the box.

Thank you, minister. As there are no more questions, we move to item 4, which is formal consideration of motion S5M-12905. Only the minister and members may speak in the debate.

Motion moved,

That the Local Government and Communities Committee recommends that the Registered Social Landlords (Repayment Charges) (Scotland) Regulations 2018 [draft] be approved.—[Kevin Stewart]

I should say that there is no requirement to have a debate on the motion, but the opportunity is available for members to make any additional comments.

Minister, would you like to respond to the wealth of points that were made in that dynamic debate?

No, thank you, convener.

Motion agreed to.

I thank the minister and Mr Roberts. The committee will report on the outcome of its consideration of the instrument shortly.

As previously agreed, we now move into private session for agenda item 5.

12:05 Meeting continued in private until 12:25.