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

9: Social Rented Sector proposals

Keeping a pet

The Scottish Government wants all tenants to have the right to request to keep a pet in their property with this request not to be unreasonably refused by the landlord.

In respect of social tenancies, the proposal is that, in the absence of the landlord objecting to a pet request within a specific timescale, consent would be deemed to be approved and the tenant could proceed with keeping a pet.

Question 30 – Do you agree that social housing tenants should have a right to request to keep a pet and not be unreasonably refused?

Responses to Question 30 by respondent type are set out in Table 26 below.

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. The remaining 24% disagreed. A greater proportion of those responding thought that social housing tenants should have this right compared to private tenants; by comparison at Question 26, only 63% of those answering the question agreed.

While all SRS tenants and a majority (77%) of SRS landlord organisations agreed that SRS tenants should have a right to request to keep a pet and not be unreasonably refused, a small majority (52%) of SRS landlords disagreed.

Greater protections during the eviction process

The proposal is that where an eviction order is granted by the Sheriff Court, there would be a requirement for the sheriff to consider whether there should be a delay to the enforcement of that eviction based on the circumstances of the case.

In considering whether a delay would be reasonable, the Scottish Government is looking at setting out factors that the sheriff should take into account when reaching a decision. For example:

• Whether any seasonal pressures apply including but not limited to winter or other relevant circumstances;
• Whether enforcement taking place during a particular period would cause financial hardship or a negative impact on the health or long-term disability of a tenant or a member of the tenant's household;
• These factors considered, whether ordering a delay to enforcement is reasonable.

Question 31 – Do you agree 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? Please note, this proposal would not apply to cases of antisocial behaviour, criminal behaviour and domestic abuse.

Responses to Question 31 are set out in Chart 4 below. Given the focus of the question, the chart compares the results for SRS landlords, SRS tenants and all respondents.

A majority of respondents, 69% of those answering the question, 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 strongly disagreed or disagreed.

Pre-action requirements in the SRS

The proposal is to amend social housing pre-action requirements to require social housing landlords to specifically consider the effect of domestic abuse in the accrual of rent arrears. Where domestic abuse financial control has had an impact on the arrears, social landlords would be required to fully consider further actions that could assist the victim-survivor before eviction action for rent arrears could be taken in court.

Question 32 – Do you agree with the proposal?

Responses to Question 32 respondent type are set out in Table 27 below.

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 were considerable variations in the levels of that agreement.

At one end of the spectrum, a very substantial majority of PRS and SRS tenants, and those in the ‘None of the above’ or ‘None selected’ groups, agreed, with support ranging from 98% to 100%. However, at the other end of the spectrum, only 53% of SRS landlords agreed although the level of agreement was higher among SRS landlord organisations, at 75%.

Further analysis of the SRS landlord and landlord organisations groups suggests that those who reported having larger numbers of properties to rent (and which by extension are most likely to be operating as a SRS landlord) generally agreed with the proposal; 18 of the 20 SRS landlord/landlord organisation respondents who said they had 500+ properties to rent, and who answered the question, agreed with amending the social housing pre-action requirements.