Consultation on Affordable Rented Housing: Analysis of Consultation Responses

5 Proposal 4: Living Rooms / Overcrowding

Proposal 4: Change the law to stop living rooms being considered as rooms available for sleeping in

5.1 The law currently states that a house is overcrowded if it fails either of two tests - the room standard and the space standard. A room is considered to be available as sleeping accommodation if it is normally used either as a bedroom or as a living room. The Scottish Government does not believe it is acceptable to consider living rooms suitable for use as bedrooms, but is also concerned about how changing the law might affect future demand for housing. Housing professionals from the social rented sector have told the Scottish Government that they would not allocate a house if they knew the living room would be used as sleeping accommodation. The proposed changes may therefore have only limited effect on social housing, but may be more significant for the private rented sector. Therefore, the Scottish Government has sought to gather views on:

THE SCOTTISH GOVERNMENT'S PROPOSALS - PROPOSAL 4
(Source: Consultation Document Page 16)

• changing the legal definition of overcrowding to stop living rooms being counted as sleeping accommodation

5.2 An analysis of the responses provided to proposal 4 is set out below.

Views on the Proposal (Q15)

5.3 The vast majority of respondents who answered this question - over 80% - agreed with proposal number 4 that living rooms should not be counted as available for sleeping in. Just over 10% felt that they should be counted as being available for sleeping in. This issue was not explored during the regional events, although the majority of respondents via Facebook also felt that living rooms should not be counted as available for sleeping in.

5.4 The table below breaks down the 193 responses to this question via written questionnaires by respondent type.

5.5 Of those who answered the question, the proportion of other groups, individuals and landlord representative groups who felt that living rooms should be counted was higher than landlords and tenant groups. However, the vast majority of all respondent types felt that living rooms should not be counted as being available for sleeping in, thereby agreeing with the proposal.

Benefits (Q16)

5.6 The consultation asked respondents to consider the potential benefits of implementing the above proposal. Responses were primarily split between two themes. These are as follows, with the percentages referring to the proportion of the 237 written responses:

• A significant proportion of respondents felt that this proposal would go some way to alleviating the issue of overcrowding (and subsequent issues related to social wellbeing, privacy, and health and safety), (about 38% of respondents);
• Some respondents felt that the proposal would bring the statutory provision into line with common practice amongst social landlords and will help to modernise and simplify the definition of overcrowding (about 12% of respondents).

5.7 Just fewer than 10% of respondents suggested other benefits. This included: better management of housing stock for landlords; quicker re-housing for those currently living in overcrowded accommodation; and more sustainable tenancies. Around 26% of respondents did not provide an answer, 4% did not know and 6% felt that the implementation of this proposal would provide no benefits.

Problems (Q17)

5.8 Potential problems relating to this proposal are based around three themes. These are as follows, with the percentages referring to the proportion of the 237 written responses:

• The strain on the housing stock/increased waiting lists (about 20% of respondents). Many people's living conditions will be classed as "over-crowded" and they will be subsequently forced to seek suitable accommodation. This will undoubtedly create an increased demand for larger housing; in many areas, there simply isn't enough;
• Impacts on other housing sectors (about 18% of respondents). Respondents noted that the proposal could be detrimental to the private rented sector in particular, given the historical practice of landlords. If rental income streams are reduced, it may discourage landlords from letting and could potentially impact on overall supply of housing stock;
• A lack of clarity (about 4% of respondents). Respondents noted that there has been no clarification in certain areas, for instance regarding the status of bedsits and studio flats.

5.9 Around 19% of respondents suggested other issues, including some who questioned whether the proposal would actually have any effect (given that the proposal is attempting to introduce something that is already common practice amongst social landlords). Others have suggested resource implications for landlords in re-assessing (and subsequently re-housing) those that are deemed to be living in over-crowded housing.

5.10 Around 27% of respondents did not provide an answer and around 11% felt that there were no problems with the proposal.

Actions to overcome problems (Q18)

5.11 Respondents were asked to suggest actions which could be taken in order to alleviate the above problems. The suggestions are as follows, with the percentages referring to the proportion of the 237 written responses:

• Increase housing stock (about 16% of respondents). Some respondents suggested increasing resources from the Government to enable social landlords to provide more affordable housing to meet demand; and
• Further consultation (about 4% of respondents). Some respondents felt the most appropriate course of action would be to consult with tenants in order to gauge the potential impacts. Similarly, respondents suggested that if the proposal is to be implemented without consultation, then it should at least be done so on a trial basis.

5.12 A variety of other actions were cited which could be taken to alleviate any potential issues with the proposal. Other responses suggested included: implementing "housing exchange" schemes for those willing to downsize; restricting the scope of the proposal to social rented landlords only; discounting bedsits and studio flats within the scope of the proposal; and allowing a certain level of flexibility with regards to the overall implementation of the proposal.

5.13 Around 41% of respondents did not provide an answer, whilst 9% were unsure and 2% felt that no actions could or should be taken.

Private Rented Sector

5.14 In addition to the responses highlighted above, a number of respondents felt that this proposal would be a greater issue for the private rented sector. The majority of these did not expand on the implications of this for the private rented sector, although a number stated that it was difficult to assess the extent of the implications for the private rented sector and that it may be hard to enforce. Some implications suggested included the potential improvements that it would bring to the sector and how it may lead to a reduction in the prices charged by landlords who currently advertise a living room as a bedroom. Some suggested that it may be beneficial to consult further with private sector landlords on this issue.