Rented sector reform: landlord and tenant engagement questionnaire - analysis report

Executive Summary

This summary sets out key findings from the analysis of responses to a digital questionnaire asking private and social rented sector landlords and tenants questions on rental sector reform to inform development of legislation to deliver A New Deal for Tenants through a Housing Bill.

Background

In December 2021, the Scottish Government opened a public consultation on proposals to deliver A New Deal for Tenants. The consultation invited views on a wide range of topics including rent controls, personalisation of a rented home and reforms to the evictions process. Having sought views on the broad principles proposed under A New Deal for Tenants, the Scottish Government has gone on to engage further with both landlords and tenants to shape the legislative changes to be introduced through a Housing Bill in this parliamentary session.

This report presents analysis of a further, very targeted consultation exercise, carried out by questionnaire, that will further inform the development of the Housing Bill. The questionnaire style approach was used to help focus on the policy options under consideration, rather than revisiting issues already covered in the previous consultation.

The questionnaire

The questionnaire opened on 29 September and closed on 27 October 2023. It asked 36 closed questions, the first six of which asked for biographical information. The remaining 30 questions sought respondents’ views on a range of issues, including rent controls, ending joint tenancies, flexibility to personalise a home, keeping pets and greater protections during the evictions process.

It is important to note that the views of respondents do not necessarily represent those of the wider population of interest. As with any engagement exercise, the questionnaire respondents are a self-selecting sample, and individuals and organisations who have a keen interest in any given topic, who hold strong views, and who have the capacity to respond are more likely to take part.

It should also be noted that the available routes for disseminating information about the questionnaire may have had an impact on the profile of respondents. For example, a link to the questionnaire was included in an email sent directly to all landlords on the Scottish Landlord Register, but there was no equivalent route for sharing information with tenants. This may explain, at least partly, the relatively high proportion of respondents taking a landlord perspective.

Given the dissemination routes available, the self-selecting nature of the sample and the low numbers of respondents in some groups (both in relative and absolute terms), the results set out in this report should be seen as indicative rather than significant. This applies particularly in terms of the proportions of each respondent group (presented as percentages for the purposes of this report).

In addition to the questionnaire, the Scottish Government explored interest in holding discussion groups for stakeholders but there was limited interest; two discussion groups were held, one with the PRS Stakeholder Engagement Group^[1] and the other with members of Propertymark.^[2]

General feedback on the questionnaire

As noted above, the questionnaire asked closed questions only. This was raised as a concern by some of those attending the stakeholder discussion groups, including those coming from both a landlord and a tenant perspective. In summary, the concerns included that the closed question only format did not allow for a nuanced response and did not allow stakeholders to provide further information or commentary.

Profile of questionnaire respondents

In total 6,650 questionnaire responses were available for analysis.^[3] The largest groups were PRS landlords, with 44% of respondents, and PRS tenants, with 29% of respondents. Other points to note are that:

• 48% of all respondents came from the four groups with a landlord perspective (PRS landlord, PRS landlord organisation, SRS landlord and SRS landlord organisation).
• 33% of all respondents came from the four groups with a tenant perspective (PRS tenant, PRS tenant organisation, SRS tenant and SRS tenant organisation).

Landlord respondents were asked about how many properties they have available for rent and most reported having small portfolios rather than being larger, professional landlords or landlord organisations. The largest group, 46% of those responding to the questionnaire, reported that they own one rental property and a further 33% that they own 2-4 rental properties.

Topics covered by the questionnaire

Rent control

Respondents were divided on a number of the issues covered in the rent control section:

• 59% of those answering thought that rent control should be universally applied across Scotland and 41% that it should be introduced on a local basis where assessment shows there is a need. PRS and SRS tenants tended to favour the universal approach, and PRS landlords and landlord organisations generally supported rent control being introduced on a local basis.
• Where restrictions on rent increases are being applied, 58% of those answering thought they should apply to both sitting tenants and in between tenancies, while the remaining 42% thought they should apply to sitting tenants only. PRS and SRS tenants tended to favour restrictions applying to both sitting tenants and in-between tenancies, while PRS landlords and landlord organisations in particular supported restrictions for sitting tenants only.

However, a clear majority, 80% of those answering the question, agreed that, if rent controls in a rent control area apply both within and between tenancies, the first rent increase in a tenancy should be possible at any point after the start of the tenancy, provided that at least 12 months has passed since the rent was last increased during the previous tenancy.

In relation to the time period for rent control areas, a small majority strongly disagreed that rent controls should only last for a fixed amount of time (52%), and small majorities strongly agreed that the duration of rent control areas should be flexible (51%) and that there should not be a time limit on the duration of rent control areas (55%).

If rent control areas are put in place for fixed time periods, 50% of respondents answering the question considered that a time period of more than 5 years would be most appropriate while, at the other end of the spectrum, 41% favoured a 1-year period. Relatively few respondents favoured a period of 2, 3, 4 or 5 years.

In relation to mechanisms for increasing rent above a cap, respondents were relatively evenly divided with 51% thinking there should not be a mechanism (including most PRS and SRS tenants) and 49% thinking there should (including most PRS and SRS landlords). Respondents were also evenly divided on whether there should be a mechanism to allow landlords to raise the rent above the rent cap, on a case-by-case basis, in certain circumstances such as where there have been improvements to the let property.

Ending a joint tenancy

The Scottish Government is exploring the introduction of a new approach to deal with circumstances where it is not possible for joint tenants to agree to end a joint tenancy. A substantial majority of respondents, 87% of those answering the question, agreed that the notice period which the departing joint tenant must give to the other joint tenants should be 2 months. A clear majority in all groups agreed with the proposal, although at a lower level for PRS landlord and PRS landlord organisations, at 76% and 74% respectively.

Greater flexibility to personalise a home

A majority of respondents, 75% of those answering the question, agreed that some small changes (for example putting up pictures and posters) should not require consent. While a substantial majority of PRS and SRS tenants agreed with the proposal, PRS and SRS landlords were evenly divided on this issue.

A majority of respondents, 70% of those answering the question, also agreed that other bigger changes can be requested and not unreasonably refused. Although a substantial majority of PRS and SRS tenants agreed, a majority of PRS landlords disagreed.

In relation to how long landlords should have to respond to a request for a change that cannot be unreasonably refused, a majority of respondents, 63% of those answering the question, favoured 20 working days. A substantial majority of PRS and SRS tenants, and those in ‘None of the above’ and ‘None selected’ groups, chose the 20 working days option, with support ranging from 94% to 99%.

Of the remaining respondents, 27% favoured 30 working days, 4% favoured 40 working days and 7% more than 40 working days. Those favouring the 30 working days option included small majorities from the PRS landlord, PRS landlord organisation and SRS landlord organisation groups, at 53%, 54% and 57% respectively.

Although the overall level of support was not high, 14% of PRS landlords and 21% of SRS landlords thought that landlords should have more than 40 working days to respond to a request for a change.

Respondents were most likely to think a tenant should have lived in the let property for 3 months before they can request bigger changes that cannot be unreasonably refused (50% of all respondents answering the question). A substantial majority of PRS and SRS tenants, and those in the ‘None of the above’ and ‘None selected’ groups, preferred this option; with support ranging from 89% to 96%.

The next most frequently chosen option was 12 months, selected by 38%, with a majority of PRS landlords, PRS landlord organisations and SRS landlords preferring this option (with support at 77%, 72% and 72% respectively).

Keeping a pet – private rented sector

A majority of respondents, 63% of those answering the question, agreed that private tenants should have a right to request to keep a pet and should not be unreasonably refused. A substantial majority of PRS tenants supported the introduction of the right, while a majority of PRS landlords did not.

In relation to how long landlords should have to respond to a request to keep a pet, 62% of those answering the question favoured 20 working days. A substantial majority of PRS and SRS tenants, and those in the ‘None of the above’ and ‘None selected’ groups, chose the 20 working days option, with support ranging from 94% to 99%.

Of the remaining respondents, 23% favoured 30 working days, 4% favoured 40 working days and 11% more than 40 working days. Those favouring the 30 working days option included small majorities from the PRS landlord organisation and PRS tenant organisation groups, at 51% and 62% respectively. The 30 working days option was also supported by 47% of PRS landlords and 40% of SRS landlords.

Unclaimed tenancy deposits

Respondents were asked about five potential uses for any unclaimed deposits that have been transferred to the Scottish Government. Overall, respondents were most likely to strongly agree that any unclaimed funds should be used on the prevention of homelessness from the PRS. A majority also strongly agreed or agreed with providing advice, information and assistance to private tenants and with assisting private tenants to exercise their rights.

Greater protections during the eviction process

A majority (59% of those answering the question) either strongly agreed or agreed that, in the private sector, the Tribunal should be required to consider whether it is reasonable to delay the enforcement of an eviction at any time of year. This rose to 98% of PRS tenants. However, 67% of PRS landlords either disagreed or strongly disagreed.

Social Rented Sector proposals

A majority of respondents, 76% of those answering the question, agreed that social housing tenants should have a right to request to keep a pet and not be unreasonably refused. While 100% of SRS tenants supported the introduction of the right, a small majority of SRS landlords did not.

In relation to greater protections during the eviction process, a majority (69%) either strongly agreed or agreed that, in the social sector, the court should be required to consider whether it is reasonable to delay the enforcement of an eviction at any time of year. This rose to 100% of SRS tenants. However, a small majority of SRS landlords, 54% of those answering the question, either disagreed or strongly disagreed.

A substantial majority of respondents, 83% of those answering the question, agreed with the proposal to amend social housing pre-action requirements. A majority of respondents in all groups agreed, although there was considerable variation in the level of that agreement. At one end of the spectrum, all SRS tenants agreed. In contrast, only 53% of SRS landlords agreed although the level of agreement was higher among SRS landlord organisations, at 75%.