Consultation on a New Tenancy for the Private Sector: Analysis of Consultation Responses

1 Introduction

1.1 This report presents an analysis of responses to the Scottish Government's consultation on the new tenancy for the private sector.

Background to the consultation

1.2 In 2013 a Private Rented Sector (PRS) Tenancy Review Group was tasked with examining how suitable and effective the current private rented sector system was, and considering whether changes in the law were needed.

1.3 The Review Group produced a report for Ministers in May 2014. The report's main recommendation was 'that the current tenancy for the Private Rented Sector, the Short Assured Tenancy and the Assured Tenancy, be replaced by a new private tenancy that covers all future PRS lets'.

1.4 The consultation paper sets out the Scottish Government's proposal for a new private tenancy system. As the consultation paper notes, the overall aim of the proposed new system is to improve security of tenure for tenants, while giving suitable safeguards for landlords, lenders and investors. The paper further notes the Scottish Government's commitment to developing a new system that strikes a fair balance between the interests of tenants and landlords, and supports a professionally-run sector that is managed for the long-term benefit of landlords and lenders, as well as tenants.

1.5 The consultation also explored issues related to rents in the PRS. As rent setting currently forms part of the existing Assured Tenancy regime, the Scottish Government wanted to explore how this might operate in the proposed new system.

1.6 The consultation asked 20 questions and ran from the 6 October to the 28 December 2014.

Overview of written responses

1.7 The final number of responses included within the analysis was 2,543. Of these 561 were standard responses^[1] and 1,982 were campaign responses.

1.8 A profile of standard respondents by type is set out in Table 1 below^[2]. A list of the organisations that submitted a response to the consultation is included as Annex 1 to this report.

Table 1: Responses Received by Type of Respondent

1.9 The three campaigns were as follows:

Campaign 1: This campaign was connected with an estate and lettings agency company with branches across Scotland. A total of 29 responses were received, with the standard consultation response form used. The format of the response followed the consultation form, with a combination of answers to the Yes/No questions followed by explanatory comments.

Campaign 2: This campaign appeared to have connections to the lettings agency industry and private landlords, although many of the responses were submitted by individuals. A total of 45 responses were received, with the standard consultation response form used. The format of the response followed the consultation form, with a combination of answers to the Yes/No questions followed by explanatory comments.

Campaign 3: This was the Living Rent Campaign. A total of 1,908 responses were received, 1,208 on postcards and 700 as signatories to an E-Petition. Both the postcards and the E-Petition offered support for a short, standard statement which called on the Scottish Government to bring rents under control, protect tenants from eviction and provide flexibility and security.

Private tenant focus groups

1.10 In addition to undertaking an analysis of written responses to the consultation, Craigforth was also commissioned to gather views on the proposals from a number of private sector tenants. The Scottish Government was aware that tenants might not be aware of, or be less likely to respond to, the consultation than other groups and wished to ensure that the tenant perspective was also available to them. A copy of the facilitator's script for the focus groups is appended to this report as Annex 2.

1.11 A purposive sampling approach was used, in which the research participants and the areas in which fieldwork is conducted are selected in order to achieve a sample that has the particular features or characteristics required. Participants came from a range of household types, including working and non-working households, households containing children and older households or households which included someone with a disability. Around 1 in 3 of the participants took part in Craigforth's 2014 qualitative research study with private sector tenants and landlords for the Scottish Government^[3]. The remaining participants were recruited through social media or through contacts of members of the research team.

1.12 Focus groups were held in the Aberdeen, Edinburgh, Falkirk, Glasgow, Paisley, Scottish Borders and Stirlingshire areas in December 2014. A total of 35 private tenants participated.

Structure of the report

1.13 The remainder of this report presents a question-by-question analysis of responses given at each of the questions set out in the consultation document.

1.14 The results from the 'Yes/No' questions contained within the written consultation are presented in tabular form. Please note that a small number of respondents did not make their submission on the consultation questionnaire, but submitted their comments in a statement-style format. When these responses contained clear answers to one or more of the 'Yes/No' questions these have been recorded. The remaining content was analysed qualitatively under the most directly relevant consultation question.

1.15 Where the issue covered at a question was also discussed at the focus groups, this has been noted and the main findings included within the qualitative analysis at that question. Given the scale of the response to the consultation (both in terms of number of responses received but also the length of some comments made), the analysis generally presents a broad overview of the range of opinions expressed.

1.16 Other points to note about the analysis of further comments made are:

• In a small number of instances (particularly at Question 1) the further comments did not appear to match the answer given to the Yes/No question, suggesting the question may have been misinterpreted. However, the number of responses where this may have been the case was not sufficient to have any significant impact on the overall balance of opinion.
• There were also occasions on which either proposals or questions appeared to have been open to interpretation. This applied particularly in relation to the maximum length of tenancy (at Question 3b) but also to a lesser extent at some other questions.
• There was some variation in the overall approach taken by respondents in their comments on the proposal: while some tended to address each of the individual proposals as part of a whole package of proposals that would make up the new tenancy regime, others tended to address each proposal as a single change to the current tenancy regime. Those who took the former approach sometimes caveated their agreement or disagreement based on whether or not certain of the other proposals (particularly that relating to the no-fault ground) were to be included.