Rented sector reform: landlord and tenant engagement questionnaire - analysis of email responses

Views on other themes covered in the questionnaire

Ending assured and short assured tenancies

Comments in support of phasing out Assured and Short Assured tenancies generally focused on a lack of clarity and it not making sense for tenants to have different legal rights, putting some at a disadvantage. If these tenancies are being ended, it was suggested that:

• The Scottish Government should review the scope and flexibility of the Private Rented Tenancy (PRT) in order to support certain employment practices.
• Special consideration must be given to any changes to contracts in terms of rent and that, with respect to of rent levels, a change to a PRT should not be classed as a new tenancy.

However, there was also a view that, even if it is possible to phase out Assured and Short Assured tenancies, this appears to be an unnecessary proposal and designed purely to sweep up tenancy agreements that have terms that might exempt them from the forthcoming legislation.

Ending a joint tenancy

Reasons given for being broadly supportive of the proposed changes included that they are positive steps towards helping support tenants and sustain tenancies. For example, it was reported that, from a homeless prevention perspective, two-months notice would allow services time to assist the remaining tenant to stay in the home.

However, there was a concern that there is no consideration for remaining tenants, notably regarding the right to swap tenants in. It was suggested that remaining tenants should have a ‘first right’ to swap in a tenant with landlords having to accept it, unless they can justify why. There were also some concerns about whether the proposed two-month period would be practical; an example given was that a joint tenant wishing to leave to relocate for employment purposes may not have the funds to pay for a move while continuing to pay rent in their existing tenancy if their joint tenant(s) do not agree to the termination of the joint tenancy.

An alternative perspective was that, rather than a set notice period, the timescales should be negotiated by all parties before the commencement of the tenancy in order to strike the right balance between flexibility and security of tenure for all. Other suggestions included that tenancies where all occupiers are students should be on a fixed term lease.

Finally, concern was noted that the questionnaire and paper do not refer to the proposals from the initial New Deal for Tenants consultation regarding protections for tenants experiencing domestic abuse in the PRS; it was hoped that measures are to be included but are simply not being consulted on at this time. It was stressed that specific consideration must be given for those who need to flee a tenancy due to domestic abuse or commercial sexual exploitation reasons; this should apply to both the notice period and rent liability.

Greater flexibility to personalise a home

In addition to some general comments that the proposals seem reasonable, email respondents made a number of suggestions as to how any changes could be taken forward. These included that:

• There will need to be clear guidance on different categories of changes and what “reasonable” changes would and should not require consent.
• Any penalties should be proportionate to the cost of remedial works.
• Given that they tend to be for different timeframes, the approach should differentiate between furnished and unfurnished lettings.

Concerns or queries raised included that there may be issues in applying a greater deposit as suggested if, for example, the landlord had already required the maximum two months’ deposit allowed; it is not clear whether an additional deposit would be separate and therefore require an update to legislation.

Although most of those commenting on personalisation supported the overall direction of the proposals, they generally saw it as unnecessary to put this right of request into law; it was reported that tenants can already ask to make changes and undertake them with the landlord’s consent, which is usually granted on the basis that the property is returned to its original condition at the end of the tenancy, notwithstanding fair wear and tear.

Keeping a pet

It was noted that the Model Scottish Secure Tenancy, which sets out the rights and responsibilities for social rented tenants, includes a clause on keeping pets; it was suggested that an aligned approach would seem reasonable. Other comments included that any proposals should take account of the type of pet, its welfare, the location of the property, the nature and occupancy of neighbouring dwellings and the nature of businesses operating around the subject property. Other suggestions included that:

• Definitions of “pet” and the relevant guidance must be clear.
• Any provision should give landlords appropriate recourse in the event that the pet is causing nuisance or damage.
• The Scottish Government should work with the insurance industry to deliver policies that cover the most common forms of pet damage at affordable prices.

There was also a query about how any measures would be enforced and what the resource implications would be.

Greater protections during the eviction process

Points made by those noting they did not agree with greater protections being introduced for the PRS included that they are not necessary as the Tribunal already can and does delay evictions when they consider it necessary in a particular case. It was also noted that existing protections are in place within the social rented sector to ensure court/eviction action is used as a last resort, with the focus very much being on prevention.

An alternative perspective was that any measures that create greater breathing space for tenants are a good first step, alongside measures to help people sustain their tenancies and avoid becoming homeless. There was a call for such measures to be further supported by reviewing eviction grounds and by providing greater support and better rules for tenants to contest the abuse of grounds for evictions.

Pre-action requirements in the Social Rented Sector

This proposal was described as a simple step to reduce the enormous stress and anxiety that victims of domestic violence are already facing.

However, there was also a concern that that proposals to consider financial abuse in pre-action protocols may increase risk to victim/survivors; it was suggested that such cases need a sensitive and trauma informed approach, including support from specialist agencies such as Women’s Aid, to ensure that victims/survivors are not put in further risk. There was a view that a new or specific pre-action requirement relating to domestic abuse is not needed, as there are already robust processes in place for social rented landlords dealing with rent arrears.