Annex A – Tabular results at all questions
Annex tables are numbered to match the questions and do not correspond to table numbering within the body of the report.
Table Q3: If you are a landlord, how many properties do you have available for rent (including those currently occupied by tenants)?
| Landlord group |
Number of properties |
| 1 |
2-4 |
5-10 |
11-20 |
21-50 |
51-100 |
100+ |
500+ |
Total answering |
| PRS landlord |
1389 |
970 |
340 |
112 |
41 |
15 |
12 |
3 |
2882 |
| 48% |
34% |
12% |
4% |
1% |
1% |
0% |
0% |
|
| PRS landlord organisation |
26 |
31 |
16 |
11 |
10 |
9 |
29 |
18 |
150 |
| 17% |
21% |
11% |
7% |
7% |
6% |
19% |
12% |
|
| SRS landlord |
30 |
23 |
4 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
12 |
71 |
| 42% |
32% |
6% |
1% |
1% |
0% |
0% |
17% |
|
| SRS landlord organisation |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
8 |
14 |
| 7% |
0% |
7% |
0% |
14% |
7% |
7% |
57% |
|
| Total |
1446 |
1024 |
361 |
124 |
54 |
25 |
42 |
41 |
3117 |
| % of those answering |
46% |
33% |
12% |
4% |
2% |
1% |
1% |
1% |
|
Table Q4: If you are a tenant, what type of tenancy do you have?
| Tenant group |
Tenancy type |
| Private Residential Tenancy |
Assured Tenancy |
Short Assured Tenancy |
Regulated Tenancy |
Scottish Secure Tenancy |
Short Scottish Secure Tenancy |
Don't know |
Total |
| PRS tenant |
1717 |
59 |
85 |
20 |
1 |
1 |
10 |
1893 |
| 91% |
3% |
4% |
1% |
0% |
0% |
1% |
|
| SRS tenant |
2 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
239 |
18 |
2 |
263 |
| 1% |
0% |
0% |
0% |
91% |
7% |
1% |
|
| None of the above |
11 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
48 |
62 |
| 18% |
2% |
2% |
0% |
2% |
0% |
77% |
|
| None selected |
98 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
20% |
2 |
128 |
250 |
| 39% |
0% |
0% |
0% |
8% |
1% |
51% |
|
Table Q5: Where is your property (or properties) primarily located? (Please tick all that apply)
| Respondent group |
Council area |
| Aberdeen City |
Aberdeen-shire |
Angus |
Argyll and Bute |
City of Edinburgh |
Clackmann-shire |
Comhairle nan Eileen Siar |
Dumfries and Galloway |
| PRS landlord |
140 |
56 |
28 |
29 |
1030 |
17 |
3 |
45 |
| PRS landlord organisation |
23 |
7 |
10 |
2 |
76 |
4 |
|
7 |
| SRS landlord |
3 |
4 |
2 |
2 |
24 |
2 |
|
3 |
| SRS landlord organisation |
2 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
5 |
1 |
|
|
| PRS tenant |
16 |
1 |
4 |
1 |
776 |
1 |
|
2 |
| PRS tenant organisation |
1 |
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
| SRS tenant |
3 |
2 |
|
2 |
57 |
2 |
|
|
| SRS tenant organisation |
|
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
| None of the above |
14 |
8 |
2 |
8 |
288 |
8 |
2 |
5 |
| None selected |
2 |
1 |
|
2 |
58 |
|
|
1 |
| Total |
204 |
80 |
48 |
47 |
2318 |
35 |
5 |
63 |
| 3% |
1% |
1% |
1% |
31% |
0% |
0% |
1% |
| Respondent group |
Dundee City |
East Ayrshire |
East Dunbarton-shire |
East Lothian |
East Renfrew-shire |
Falkirk |
Fife |
Glasgow City |
| PRS landlord |
76 |
33 |
38 |
71 |
34 |
47 |
141 |
1019 |
| PRS landlord organisation |
16 |
9 |
3 |
15 |
12 |
7 |
17 |
74 |
| SRS landlord |
1 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
2 |
2 |
7 |
19 |
| SRS landlord organisation |
2 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
|
1 |
2 |
5 |
| PRS tenant |
26 |
4 |
4 |
2 |
5 |
2 |
14 |
768 |
| PRS tenant organisation |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
1 |
| SRS tenant |
3 |
|
1 |
1 |
|
1 |
4 |
128 |
| SRS tenant organisation |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2 |
| None of the above |
12 |
5 |
13 |
11 |
9 |
9 |
11 |
346 |
| None selected |
4 |
|
|
1 |
|
1 |
1 |
177 |
| Total |
140 |
56 |
64 |
107 |
62 |
70 |
197 |
2539 |
| 2% |
1% |
1% |
1% |
1% |
1% |
3% |
34% |
| Respondent group |
Inverclyde |
Midlothian |
North Ayrshire |
North Lanarkshire |
Orkney Islands |
Perth and Kinross |
Renfrew-shire |
Shetland Islands |
| PRS landlord |
17 |
124 |
39 |
76 |
2 |
37 |
81 |
|
| PRS landlord organisation |
6 |
20 |
8 |
6 |
|
12 |
16 |
|
| SRS landlord |
3 |
5 |
3 |
6 |
|
3 |
8 |
|
| SRS landlord organisation |
2 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
|
2 |
1 |
|
| PRS tenant |
|
9 |
1 |
7 |
3 |
13 |
20 |
1 |
| PRS tenant organisation |
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
| SRS tenant |
|
1 |
2 |
4 |
2 |
|
7 |
|
| SRS tenant organisation |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| None of the above |
5 |
13 |
5 |
32 |
4 |
14 |
11 |
2 |
| None selected |
|
3 |
|
|
|
|
3 |
|
| Total |
33 |
177 |
60 |
134 |
11 |
81 |
148 |
3 |
| 0% |
2% |
1% |
2% |
0% |
1% |
2% |
0% |
| Respondent group |
Scottish Borders |
South Ayrshire |
South Lanarkshire |
Stirling |
The Highland Council |
The Moray Council |
West Dunbarton-shire |
West Lothian |
| PRS landlord |
55 |
20 |
101 |
58 |
71 |
22 |
22 |
55 |
| PRS landlord organisation |
8 |
8 |
14 |
11 |
11 |
1 |
5 |
10 |
| SRS landlord |
1 |
3 |
5 |
1 |
1 |
3 |
3 |
2 |
| SRS landlord organisation |
1 |
2 |
2 |
1 |
|
|
1 |
1 |
| PRS tenant |
8 |
4 |
19 |
21 |
12 |
1 |
1 |
4 |
| PRS tenant organisation |
|
3 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
| SRS tenant |
3 |
1 |
12 |
2 |
3 |
|
1 |
|
| SRS tenant organisation |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| None of the above |
7 |
6 |
36 |
13 |
21 |
6 |
8 |
8 |
| None selected |
1 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
|
3 |
3 |
2 |
| Total |
84 |
48 |
191 |
109 |
119 |
36 |
44 |
82 |
|
1% |
1% |
3% |
1% |
2% |
0% |
1% |
1% |
Table Q5(Alternative): Where is your property (or properties) primarily located?
| Landlord group |
Number of local authority areas where landlord has a property |
| 0 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
10 |
11+ |
Total |
| PRS landlord |
7 |
2366 |
408 |
75 |
20 |
13 |
3 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
2893 |
| 0% |
82% |
14% |
3% |
1% |
0% |
0% |
0% |
0% |
0% |
0% |
0% |
|
| PRS landlord organisation |
7 |
124 |
29 |
19 |
7 |
1 |
1 |
4 |
3 |
0 |
2 |
4 |
201 |
| 3% |
62% |
14% |
9% |
3% |
0% |
0% |
2% |
1% |
0% |
1% |
2% |
|
| SRS landlord |
0 |
57 |
10 |
4 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
73 |
| 0% |
78% |
14% |
5% |
0% |
0% |
0% |
0% |
0% |
0% |
0% |
3% |
|
| SRS landlord organisation |
2 |
9 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
15 |
| 13% |
60% |
0% |
7% |
0% |
0% |
7% |
0% |
7% |
0% |
0% |
7% |
|
| Total |
16 |
2499 |
437 |
95 |
27 |
14 |
5 |
4 |
4 |
0 |
2 |
6 |
3109 |
| % of those answering |
1% |
80% |
14% |
3% |
1% |
0% |
0% |
0% |
0% |
0% |
0% |
0% |
|
Table Q6: Do you think rent control should be introduced on a local basis, where assessment shows that there is a need, or should rent control be universally applied across Scotland?
| Respondent group |
Rent control should be universally applied across Scotland |
Rent control should be introduced on a local basis where assessment shows there is a need |
Total answering |
| PRS landlord |
358 |
2203 |
2561 |
| 14% |
86% |
|
| PRS landlord organisation |
18 |
167 |
185 |
| 10% |
90% |
|
| SRS landlord |
10 |
52 |
62 |
| 16% |
84% |
|
| SRS landlord organisation |
3 |
11 |
14 |
| 21% |
79% |
|
| PRS tenant |
1839 |
58 |
1897 |
| 97% |
3% |
|
| PRS tenant organisation |
2 |
11 |
13 |
| 15% |
85% |
|
| SRS tenant |
251 |
8 |
259 |
| 97% |
3% |
|
| SRS tenant organisation |
4 |
1 |
5 |
| 80% |
20% |
|
| None of the above |
893 |
73 |
966 |
| 92% |
8% |
|
| None selected |
285 |
9 |
294 |
| 97% |
3% |
|
| Total |
3663 |
2593 |
6256 |
| % of those answering |
59% |
41% |
|
Table Q7: Where restrictions on rent increases are being applied, do you think those restrictions should apply to:
| Respondent group |
Both sitting tenants and in-between tenancies? |
Sitting tenants only? |
Total answering |
| PRS landlord |
315 |
2380 |
2695 |
| 12% |
88% |
|
| PRS landlord organisation |
23 |
170 |
193 |
| 12% |
88% |
|
| SRS landlord |
17 |
48 |
65 |
| 26% |
74% |
|
| SRS landlord organisation |
8 |
6 |
14 |
| 57% |
43% |
|
| PRS tenant |
1868 |
29 |
1897 |
| 98% |
2% |
|
| PRS tenant organisation |
5 |
8 |
13 |
| 38% |
62% |
|
| SRS tenant |
258 |
1 |
259 |
| 100% |
0% |
|
| SRS tenant organisation |
4 |
1 |
5 |
| 80% |
20% |
|
| None of the above |
907 |
65 |
972 |
| 93% |
7% |
|
| None selected |
286 |
10 |
296 |
| 97% |
3% |
|
| Total |
3691 |
2718 |
6409 |
| % of those answering |
58% |
42% |
|
Table Q8: Do you agree 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?
| Respondent group |
Agree |
Disagree |
Total answering |
| PRS landlord |
1691 |
1079 |
2770 |
| 61% |
39% |
|
| PRS landlord organisation |
131 |
69 |
200 |
| 66% |
35% |
|
| SRS landlord |
33 |
35 |
68 |
| 49% |
51% |
|
| SRS landlord organisation |
10 |
3 |
13 |
| 77% |
23% |
|
| PRS tenant |
1818 |
87 |
1905 |
| 95% |
5% |
|
| PRS tenant organisation |
11 |
2 |
13 |
| 85% |
15% |
|
| SRS tenant |
255 |
4 |
259 |
| 98% |
2% |
|
| SRS tenant organisation |
4 |
1 |
5 |
| 80% |
20% |
|
| None of the above |
922 |
49 |
971 |
| 95% |
5% |
|
| None selected |
293 |
2 |
295 |
| 99% |
1% |
|
| Total |
5168 |
1331 |
6499 |
| % of those answering |
80% |
20% |
|
Table Q9: Which of the following types of tenancy should be classed as “new to market” and therefore exempt from rent control when the first rent is set? (You can select more than one answer.)
| Respondent group |
The first tenancy of a property which has not been let as a principal home before |
The first tenancy of a property following it being purchased with vacant possession by the current landlord |
The first tenancy of a property which has been empty for a prolonged period |
The first private residential tenancy of a property where the previous tenancy was a regulated tenancy under the Rent (Scotland) Act 1984 |
None of the above |
Total choosing at least one option |
| PRS landlord |
1979 |
1885 |
1888 |
1610 |
629 |
2791 |
| 71% |
68% |
68% |
58% |
23% |
|
| PRS landlord organisation |
147 |
148 |
143 |
130 |
37 |
197 |
| 75% |
75% |
73% |
66% |
19% |
|
| SRS landlord |
39 |
36 |
35 |
31 |
24 |
68 |
| 57% |
53% |
51% |
46% |
35% |
|
| SRS landlord organisation |
9 |
7 |
7 |
5 |
3 |
13 |
| 69% |
54% |
54% |
38% |
23% |
|
| PRS tenant |
87 |
61 |
68 |
47 |
1810 |
1902 |
| 5% |
3% |
4% |
2% |
95% |
|
| PRS tenant organisation |
10 |
10 |
11 |
10 |
2 |
13 |
| 77% |
77% |
85% |
77% |
15% |
|
| SRS tenant |
4 |
2 |
2 |
0 |
253 |
258 |
| 2% |
1% |
1% |
0% |
98% |
|
| SRS tenant organisation |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
3 |
4 |
| 0% |
0% |
0% |
25% |
75% |
|
| None of the above |
69 |
62 |
63 |
55 |
896 |
972 |
| 7% |
6% |
6% |
6% |
92% |
|
| None selected |
6 |
7 |
7 |
6 |
287 |
295 |
| 2% |
2% |
2% |
2% |
97% |
|
| Total |
2350 |
2218 |
2224 |
1895 |
3944 |
6513 |
| % of those choosing at least one option |
36% |
34% |
34% |
29% |
61% |
|
Table Q10(a): It is proposed that any rent control area will be in place for a fixed time period. To what extent do you agree with the following statements?
(a) Rent control areas should only last for a fixed amount of time. They can only be extended if a new assessment shows they are still needed.
| Respondent group |
Strongly agree |
Agree |
Neither agree nor disagree |
Disagree |
Strongly disagree |
Total answering |
| PRS landlord |
2106 |
373 |
118 |
66 |
174 |
2837 |
| 74% |
13% |
4% |
2% |
6% |
|
| PRS landlord organisation |
153 |
19 |
10 |
8 |
9 |
199 |
| 77% |
10% |
5% |
4% |
5% |
|
| SRS landlord |
44 |
8 |
4 |
2 |
8 |
66 |
| 67% |
12% |
6% |
3% |
12% |
|
| SRS landlord organisation |
10 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
2 |
14 |
| 71% |
7% |
7% |
0% |
14% |
|
| PRS tenant |
56 |
15 |
10 |
33 |
1788 |
1902 |
| 3% |
1% |
1% |
2% |
94% |
|
| PRS tenant organisation |
8 |
2 |
0 |
2 |
1 |
13 |
| 62% |
15% |
0% |
15% |
8% |
|
| SRS tenant |
2 |
4 |
2 |
4 |
246 |
258 |
| 1% |
2% |
1% |
2% |
95% |
|
| SRS tenant organisation |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
4 |
| 25% |
25% |
0% |
25% |
25% |
|
| None of the above |
58 |
15 |
8 |
14 |
875 |
970 |
| 6% |
2% |
1% |
1% |
90% |
|
| None selected |
9 |
3 |
0 |
0 |
284 |
296 |
| 3% |
1% |
0% |
0% |
96% |
|
| Total |
2447 |
441 |
153 |
130 |
3388 |
6559 |
| % of those answering |
37% |
7% |
2% |
2% |
52% |
|
Table Q10(b): The duration of rent control areas should be flexible, and able to be extended beyond the designated time period, permitting indefinite continuation where required.
| Respondent group |
Strongly agree |
Agree |
Neither agree nor disagree |
Disagree |
Strongly disagree |
Total answering |
| PRS landlord |
123 |
200 |
182 |
376 |
1912 |
2793 |
| 4% |
7% |
7% |
13% |
68% |
|
| PRS landlord organisation |
9 |
12 |
14 |
26 |
136 |
197 |
| 5% |
6% |
7% |
13% |
69% |
|
| SRS landlord |
5 |
8 |
6 |
6 |
41 |
66 |
| 8% |
12% |
9% |
9% |
62% |
|
| SRS landlord organisation |
2 |
2 |
1 |
4 |
5 |
14 |
| 14% |
14% |
7% |
29% |
36% |
|
| PRS tenant |
1790 |
50 |
14 |
8 |
41 |
1903 |
| 94% |
3% |
1% |
0% |
2% |
|
| PRS tenant organisation |
6 |
4 |
0 |
0 |
3 |
13 |
| 46% |
31% |
0% |
0% |
23% |
|
| SRS tenant |
249 |
4 |
1 |
3 |
1 |
258 |
| 97% |
2% |
0% |
1% |
0% |
|
| SRS tenant organisation |
2 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
3 |
| 67% |
0% |
0% |
33% |
0% |
|
| None of the above |
875 |
15 |
8 |
22 |
49 |
969 |
| 90% |
2% |
1% |
2% |
5% |
|
| None selected |
287 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
7 |
296 |
| 97% |
0% |
0% |
0% |
2% |
|
| Total |
3348 |
295 |
227 |
447 |
2195 |
6512 |
| % of those answering |
51% |
5% |
3% |
7% |
34% |
|
Table Q10(c): There should not be a time limit on the duration of rent control areas and any decision to end rent control would be based upon a new assessment indicating they are no longer necessary.
| Respondent group |
Strongly agree |
Agree |
Neither agree nor disagree |
Disagree |
Strongly disagree |
Total answering |
| PRS landlord |
282 |
233 |
186 |
287 |
1790 |
2778 |
| 10% |
8% |
7% |
10% |
64% |
|
| PRS landlord organisation |
21 |
20 |
13 |
15 |
128 |
197 |
| 11% |
10% |
7% |
8% |
65% |
|
| SRS landlord |
17 |
10 |
1 |
10 |
29 |
67 |
| 25% |
15% |
1% |
15% |
43% |
|
| SRS landlord organisation |
2 |
2 |
0 |
4 |
6 |
14 |
| 14% |
14% |
0% |
29% |
43% |
|
| PRS tenant |
1821 |
31 |
7 |
6 |
36 |
1901 |
| 96% |
2% |
0% |
0% |
2% |
|
| PRS tenant organisation |
1 |
3 |
1 |
3 |
5 |
13 |
| 8% |
23% |
8% |
23% |
38% |
|
| SRS tenant |
247 |
1 |
2 |
2 |
5 |
257 |
| 96% |
0% |
1% |
1% |
2% |
|
| SRS tenant organisation |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
4 |
| 25% |
25% |
0% |
25% |
25% |
|
| None of the above |
889 |
14 |
7 |
16 |
44 |
970 |
| 92% |
1% |
1% |
2% |
5% |
|
| None selected |
287 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
7 |
295 |
| 97% |
0% |
0% |
0% |
2% |
|
| Total |
3568 |
315 |
217 |
345 |
2051 |
6496 |
| % of those answering |
55% |
5% |
3% |
5% |
32% |
|
Table Q11: Where an area is designated as a rent control area, do you agree that if there are changes in local circumstances there should be a re-assessment before the fixed time period ends so that the designation could be brought to an end earlier than the fixed period?
| Respondent group |
Yes |
No |
Total answering |
| PRS landlord |
2565 |
243 |
2808 |
| 91% |
9% |
|
| PRS landlord organisation |
180 |
19 |
199 |
| 90% |
10% |
|
| SRS landlord |
55 |
13 |
68 |
| 81% |
19% |
|
| SRS landlord organisation |
12 |
1 |
13 |
| 92% |
8% |
|
| PRS tenant |
85 |
1817 |
1902 |
| 4% |
96% |
|
| PRS tenant organisation |
7 |
6 |
13 |
| 54% |
46% |
|
| SRS tenant |
8 |
249 |
257 |
| 3% |
97% |
|
| SRS tenant organisation |
3 |
2 |
5 |
| 60% |
40% |
|
| None of the above |
84 |
889 |
973 |
| 9% |
91% |
|
| None selected |
11 |
285 |
296 |
| 4% |
96% |
|
| Total |
3010 |
3524 |
6534 |
| % of those answering |
46% |
54% |
|
Table Q12: If rent control areas are put in place for fixed time periods, which time period would you consider to be most appropriate?
| Respondent group |
1 year |
2 years |
3 years |
4 years |
5 years |
More than 5 years |
Total answering |
| PRS landlord |
2309 |
258 |
120 |
4 |
39 |
23 |
2753 |
| 84% |
9% |
4% |
0% |
1% |
1% |
|
| PRS landlord organisation |
173 |
17 |
3 |
0 |
3 |
0 |
196 |
| 88% |
9% |
2% |
0% |
2% |
0% |
|
| SRS landlord |
58 |
4 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
3 |
67 |
| 87% |
6% |
1% |
0% |
1% |
4% |
|
| SRS landlord organisation |
7 |
2 |
5 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
14 |
| 50% |
14% |
36% |
0% |
0% |
0% |
|
| PRS tenant |
32 |
18 |
17 |
3 |
39 |
1793 |
1902 |
| 2% |
1% |
1% |
0% |
2% |
94% |
|
| PRS tenant organisation |
6 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
3 |
2 |
13 |
| 46% |
15% |
0% |
0% |
23% |
15% |
|
| SRS tenant |
2 |
3 |
4 |
0 |
2 |
248 |
259 |
| 1% |
1% |
2% |
0% |
1% |
96% |
|
| SRS tenant organisation |
2 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
1 |
5 |
| 40% |
0% |
0% |
0% |
40% |
20% |
|
| None of the above |
67 |
9 |
9 |
2 |
11 |
874 |
972 |
| 7% |
1% |
1% |
0% |
1% |
90% |
|
| None selected |
9 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
284 |
296 |
| 3% |
0% |
0% |
0% |
0% |
96% |
|
| Total |
2665 |
314 |
160 |
9 |
101 |
3228 |
6477 |
| % of those answering |
41% |
5% |
2% |
0% |
2% |
50% |
|
Table Q13: Where Scottish Ministers intend to introduce rent control to an area, should there be a duty to consult with landlord groups, tenant groups and local authorities in the local area before introducing rent control to that area?
| Respondent group |
Yes, there should be a duty to consult |
No, there should not be a duty to consult |
Total answering |
| PRS landlord |
2811 |
47 |
2858 |
| 98% |
2% |
|
| PRS landlord organisation |
196 |
4 |
200 |
| 98% |
2% |
|
| SRS landlord |
70 |
1 |
71 |
| 99% |
1% |
|
| SRS landlord organisation |
14 |
0 |
14 |
| 100% |
0% |
|
| PRS tenant |
1855 |
46 |
1901 |
| 98% |
2% |
|
| PRS tenant organisation |
11 |
1 |
12 |
| 92% |
8% |
|
| SRS tenant |
253 |
4 |
257 |
| 98% |
2% |
|
| SRS tenant organisation |
5 |
0 |
5 |
| 100% |
0% |
|
| None of the above |
962 |
16 |
978 |
| 98% |
2% |
|
| None selected |
296 |
0 |
296 |
| 100% |
0% |
|
| Total |
6473 |
119 |
6592 |
| % of those answering |
98% |
2% |
|
Table Q14: Should there be a mechanism that allows landlords to increase the rent above the annual rent cap in cases where they have not previously raised the rent for the let property when they were permitted to do so i.e. if the landlord chooses not to increase rent for a period of years then they would be allowed to increase it by an amount above the cap at the next rent increase?
| Respondent group |
Yes, there should be a mechanism to take these cases into account |
No, there should not be a mechanism to take these cases into account |
Total answering |
| PRS landlord |
2764 |
92 |
2856 |
| 97% |
3% |
|
| PRS landlord organisation |
192 |
7 |
199 |
| 96% |
4% |
|
| SRS landlord |
65 |
5 |
70 |
| 93% |
7% |
|
| SRS landlord organisation |
9 |
5 |
14 |
| 64% |
36% |
|
| PRS tenant |
69 |
1835 |
1904 |
| 4% |
96% |
|
| PRS tenant organisation |
7 |
6 |
13 |
| 54% |
46% |
|
| SRS tenant |
4 |
254 |
258 |
| 2% |
98% |
|
| SRS tenant organisation |
1 |
4 |
5 |
| 20% |
80% |
|
| None of the above |
88 |
887 |
975 |
| 9% |
91% |
|
| None selected |
10 |
286 |
296 |
| 3% |
97% |
|
| Total |
3209 |
3381 |
6590 |
| % of those answering |
49% |
51% |
|
Table Q15: If there was a mechanism that allows landlords to increase the rent above the annual rent cap in cases where they have not previously raised the rent for the let property when they were permitted to do so, should this only apply to the first rent increase after a rent control area comes into force or to any rent increase while a rent control area is in force?
| Respondent group |
It should only apply to the first rent increase after a rent control area comes into force |
It should apply to any rent increase while a rent control area is in force |
Total answering |
| PRS landlord |
569 |
2252 |
2821 |
| 20% |
80% |
|
| PRS landlord organisation |
34 |
162 |
196 |
| 17% |
83% |
|
| SRS landlord |
22 |
46 |
68 |
| 32% |
68% |
|
| SRS landlord organisation |
9 |
4 |
13 |
| 69% |
31% |
|
| PRS tenant |
1826 |
73 |
1899 |
| 96% |
4% |
|
| PRS tenant organisation |
5 |
8 |
13 |
| 38% |
62% |
|
| SRS tenant |
251 |
7 |
258 |
| 97% |
3% |
|
| SRS tenant organisation |
3 |
1 |
4 |
| 75% |
25% |
|
| None of the above |
900 |
69 |
969 |
| 93% |
7% |
|
| None selected |
286 |
10 |
296 |
| 97% |
3% |
|
| Total |
3905 |
2632 |
6537 |
| % of those answering |
60% |
40% |
|
Table Q16: Do you think 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?
| Respondent group |
Yes, there should be a mechanism to take these cases into account |
No, there should not be a mechanism to take these cases into account |
Total answering |
| PRS landlord |
2796 |
58 |
2854 |
| 98% |
2% |
|
| PRS landlord organisation |
195 |
5 |
200 |
| 98% |
3% |
|
| SRS landlord |
62 |
7 |
69 |
| 90% |
10% |
|
| SRS landlord organisation |
12 |
2 |
14 |
| 86% |
14% |
|
| PRS tenant |
90 |
1813 |
1903 |
| 5% |
95% |
|
| PRS tenant organisation |
11 |
2 |
13 |
| 85% |
15% |
|
| SRS tenant |
4 |
254 |
258 |
| 2% |
98% |
|
| SRS tenant organisation |
2 |
3 |
5 |
| 40% |
60% |
|
| None of the above |
94 |
882 |
976 |
| 10% |
90% |
|
| None selected |
11 |
285 |
296 |
| 4% |
96% |
|
| Total |
3277 |
3311 |
6588 |
| % of those answering |
50% |
50% |
|
Table Q17: If there were to be a mechanism to allow landlords to raise the rent above the rent cap on a case-by case basis, which of the following circumstances do you think this should apply to? You can select more than one answer.
| Respondent group |
Improvements to the quality of fixtures and fittings (beyond cosmetic changes such as painting the walls) e.g. new kitchen, upgrades to appliances etc |
Improvements to the energy efficiency of the property such as heating systems, or insulation |
Where the landlord’s costs incurred in letting the property have increased |
Total choosing at least one option |
| PRS landlord |
2658 |
2646 |
2539 |
2844 |
| 93% |
93% |
89% |
|
| PRS landlord organisation |
188 |
186 |
190 |
199 |
| 94% |
93% |
95% |
|
| SRS landlord |
56 |
59 |
60 |
69 |
| 81% |
86% |
87% |
|
| SRS landlord organisation |
12 |
12 |
11 |
14 |
| 86% |
86% |
79% |
|
| PRS tenant |
1832 |
1854 |
45 |
1873 |
| 98% |
99% |
2% |
|
| PRS tenant organisation |
12 |
12 |
6 |
13 |
| 92% |
92% |
46% |
|
| SRS tenant |
249 |
251 |
5 |
257 |
| 97% |
98% |
2% |
|
| SRS tenant organisation |
3 |
3 |
1 |
4 |
| 75% |
75% |
25% |
|
| None of the above |
950 |
957 |
75 |
968 |
| 98% |
99% |
8% |
|
| None selected |
296 |
296 |
11 |
296 |
| 100% |
100% |
4% |
|
| Total |
6256 |
6276 |
2943 |
6537 |
| % of those choosing at least one option |
96% |
96% |
45% |
|
Table Q18: We propose to introduce a route by which tenants in a rent control area can verify that any proposed rent increase is in line with the rent cap. This could cover cases where the tenant believes their landlord may be proposing to increase the rent by more than the amount allowed. Do you agree with this proposal?
| Respondent group |
Yes, there should be a route by which tenants can check whether a proposed rent increase is allowed under the rent cap |
No, I don't think it is necessary to have a route by which tenants can check whether a proposed rent increase is allowed under the rent cap |
Total answering |
| PRS landlord |
1936 |
887 |
2823 |
| 69% |
31% |
|
| PRS landlord organisation |
141 |
57 |
198 |
| 71% |
29% |
|
| SRS landlord |
43 |
25 |
68 |
| 63% |
37% |
|
| SRS landlord organisation |
13 |
1 |
14 |
| 93% |
7% |
|
| PRS tenant |
1881 |
21 |
1902 |
| 99% |
1% |
|
| PRS tenant organisation |
13 |
0 |
13 |
| 100% |
0% |
|
| SRS tenant |
259 |
0 |
259 |
| 100% |
0% |
|
| SRS tenant organisation |
4 |
1 |
5 |
| 80% |
20% |
|
| None of the above |
947 |
25 |
972 |
| 97% |
3% |
|
| None selected |
294 |
2 |
296 |
| 99% |
1% |
|
| Total |
5531 |
1019 |
6550 |
| % of those answering |
84% |
16% |
|
Table Q19: Do you consider that any of the categories of housing below should be considered for exemption from rent controls?
| Respondent group |
Rented property offered for social good where rents are controlled below market level |
Purpose-built accommodation for rent, providing professionally managed privately rented accommodation at scale ('Build to Rent') |
Both of these categories of housing should be exempt from rent controls |
No categories of housing should be exempt from rent controls |
Total answering |
| PRS landlord |
850 |
82 |
625 |
1121 |
2678 |
| 32% |
3% |
23% |
42% |
|
| PRS landlord organisation |
51 |
7 |
67 |
73 |
198 |
| 26% |
4% |
34% |
37% |
|
| SRS landlord |
19 |
6 |
24 |
16 |
65 |
| 29% |
9% |
37% |
25% |
|
| SRS landlord organisation |
7 |
0 |
5 |
2 |
14 |
| 50% |
0% |
36% |
14% |
|
| PRS tenant |
28 |
2 |
17 |
1852 |
1899 |
| 1% |
0% |
1% |
98% |
|
| PRS tenant organisation |
6 |
0 |
3 |
4 |
13 |
| 46% |
0% |
23% |
31% |
|
| SRS tenant |
3 |
0 |
0 |
256 |
259 |
| 1% |
0% |
0% |
99% |
|
| SRS tenant organisation |
2 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
4 |
| 50% |
0% |
0% |
50% |
|
| None of the above |
21 |
5 |
42 |
909 |
977 |
| 2% |
1% |
4% |
93% |
|
| None selected |
4 |
0 |
3 |
289 |
296 |
| 1% |
0% |
1% |
98% |
|
| Total |
991 |
102 |
786 |
4524 |
6403 |
| % of those answering |
15% |
2% |
12% |
71% |
31% |
Table Q20: Given PRTs were introduced in Scotland more than five years ago, should consideration be given to setting a future date by which remaining assured and short assured tenancies should be phased out?
| Respondent group |
Yes, consideration should be given to setting a future date by which remaining assured and short assured tenancies should be phased out. |
No, consideration should not be given to setting a future date by which remaining assured and short assured tenancies should be phased out. |
Total answering |
| PRS landlord |
1150 |
1594 |
2744 |
| 42% |
58% |
|
| PRS landlord organisation |
83 |
116 |
199 |
| 42% |
58% |
|
| SRS landlord |
34 |
34 |
68 |
| 50% |
50% |
|
| SRS landlord organisation |
6 |
8 |
14 |
| 43% |
57% |
|
| PRS tenant |
1866 |
36 |
1902 |
| 98% |
2% |
|
| PRS tenant organisation |
8 |
5 |
13 |
| 62% |
38% |
|
| SRS tenant |
254 |
4 |
258 |
| 98% |
2% |
|
| SRS tenant organisation |
3 |
1 |
4 |
| 75% |
25% |
|
| None of the above |
914 |
58 |
972 |
| 94% |
6% |
|
| None selected |
287 |
9 |
296 |
| 97% |
3% |
|
| Total |
4605 |
1865 |
6550 |
| % of those answering |
71% |
29% |
|
Table Q21: Do you agree that the notice period which the departing joint tenant must give to the other joint tenants should be 2 months?
| Respondent group |
Yes, 2 months is an appropriate notice period |
No, the notice period should be longer |
No, the notice period should be shorter |
Total answering |
| PRS landlord |
2115 |
293 |
386 |
2794 |
| 76% |
10% |
14% |
|
| PRS landlord organisation |
148 |
21 |
32 |
201 |
| 74% |
10% |
16% |
|
| SRS landlord |
42 |
8 |
17 |
67 |
| 63% |
12% |
25% |
|
| SRS landlord organisation |
9 |
0 |
5 |
14 |
| 64% |
0% |
36% |
|
| PRS tenant |
1839 |
27 |
34 |
1900 |
| 97% |
1% |
2% |
|
| PRS tenant organisation |
11 |
1 |
1 |
13 |
| 85% |
8% |
8% |
|
| SRS tenant |
251 |
1 |
6 |
258 |
| 97% |
0% |
2% |
|
| SRS tenant organisation |
4 |
0 |
0 |
4 |
| 100% |
0% |
0% |
|
| None of the above |
933 |
18 |
21 |
972 |
| 96% |
2% |
2% |
|
| None selected |
293 |
1 |
1 |
295 |
| 99% |
0% |
0% |
|
| Total |
5645 |
370 |
503 |
6518 |
| % of those answering |
87% |
6% |
8% |
|
Table Q22: Do you agree that some small changes (for example putting up pictures and posters) should not require consent?
| Respondent group |
Yes |
No |
Total answering |
| PRS landlord |
1416 |
1441 |
2857 |
| 50% |
50% |
|
| PRS landlord organisation |
102 |
99 |
201 |
| 51% |
49% |
|
| SRS landlord |
33 |
34 |
67 |
| 49% |
51% |
|
| SRS landlord organisation |
11 |
3 |
14 |
| 79% |
21% |
|
| PRS tenant |
1879 |
25 |
1904 |
| 99% |
1% |
|
| PRS tenant organisation |
7 |
6 |
13 |
| 54% |
46% |
|
| SRS tenant |
259 |
0 |
259 |
| 100% |
0% |
|
| SRS tenant organisation |
3 |
1 |
4 |
| 75% |
25% |
|
| None of the above |
945 |
28 |
973 |
| 97% |
3% |
|
| None selected |
289 |
7 |
296 |
| 98% |
2% |
|
| Total |
4944 |
1644 |
6588 |
| % of those answering |
75% |
25% |
|
Table Q23: Do you agree that other bigger changes (for example painting walls and installing wall shelves) can be requested and not unreasonably refused?
| Respondent group |
Yes |
No |
Total answering |
| PRS landlord |
1090 |
1766 |
2856 |
| 38% |
62% |
|
| PRS landlord organisation |
90 |
110 |
200 |
| 45% |
55% |
|
| SRS landlord |
34 |
35 |
69 |
| 49% |
51% |
|
| SRS landlord organisation |
10 |
4 |
14 |
| 71% |
29% |
|
| PRS tenant |
1875 |
29 |
1904 |
| 98% |
2% |
|
| PRS tenant organisation |
9 |
4 |
13 |
| 69% |
31% |
|
| SRS tenant |
259 |
0 |
259 |
| 100% |
0% |
|
| SRS tenant organisation |
3 |
1 |
4 |
| 75% |
25% |
|
| None of the above |
940 |
32 |
972 |
| 97% |
3% |
|
| None selected |
287 |
8 |
295 |
| 97% |
3% |
|
| Total |
4597 |
1989 |
6586 |
| % of those answering |
70% |
30% |
|
Table Q24: How long should landlords have to respond to a request for a change that cannot be unreasonably refused?
| Respondent group |
20 working days |
30 working days |
40 working days |
More than 40 working days |
Total answering |
| PRS landlord |
703 |
1489 |
233 |
399 |
2824 |
| 25% |
53% |
8% |
14% |
|
| PRS landlord organisation |
56 |
108 |
10 |
26 |
200 |
| 28% |
54% |
5% |
13% |
|
| SRS landlord |
24 |
28 |
2 |
14 |
68 |
| 35% |
41% |
3% |
21% |
|
| SRS landlord organisation |
6 |
8 |
0 |
0 |
14 |
| 43% |
57% |
0% |
0% |
|
| PRS tenant |
1848 |
38 |
6 |
10 |
1902 |
| 97% |
2% |
0% |
1% |
|
| PRS tenant organisation |
5 |
8 |
0 |
0 |
13 |
| 38% |
62% |
0% |
0% |
|
| SRS tenant |
257 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
259 |
| 99% |
1% |
0% |
0% |
|
| SRS tenant organisation |
2 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
4 |
| 50% |
50% |
0% |
0% |
|
| None of the above |
911 |
44 |
4 |
12 |
971 |
| 94% |
5% |
0% |
1% |
|
| None selected |
286 |
10 |
0 |
0 |
296 |
| 97% |
3% |
0% |
0% |
|
| Total |
4098 |
1737 |
255 |
461 |
6551 |
| % of those answering |
63% |
27% |
4% |
7% |
|
Table Q25: How long should the tenant have lived in the let property before they can request bigger changes that cannot be unreasonably refused?
| Respondent group |
No minimum time |
3 months |
6 months |
9 months |
12 months |
Total answering |
| PRS landlord |
175 |
115 |
298 |
55 |
2142 |
2785 |
| 6% |
4% |
11% |
2% |
77% |
|
| PRS landlord organisation |
29 |
6 |
18 |
3 |
144 |
200 |
| 15% |
3% |
9% |
2% |
72% |
|
| SRS landlord |
5 |
5 |
9 |
0 |
48 |
67 |
| 7% |
7% |
13% |
0% |
72% |
|
| SRS landlord organisation |
7 |
1 |
3 |
0 |
3 |
14 |
| 50% |
7% |
21% |
0% |
21% |
|
| PRS tenant |
69 |
1755 |
26 |
5 |
47 |
1902 |
| 4% |
92% |
1% |
0% |
2% |
|
| PRS tenant organisation |
1 |
5 |
2 |
0 |
5 |
13 |
| 8% |
38% |
15% |
0% |
38% |
|
| SRS tenant |
8 |
245 |
1 |
0 |
5 |
259 |
| 3% |
95% |
0% |
0% |
2% |
|
| SRS tenant organisation |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
2 |
4 |
| 25% |
0% |
25% |
0% |
50% |
|
| None of the above |
27 |
867 |
22 |
4 |
50 |
970 |
| 3% |
89% |
2% |
0% |
5% |
|
| None selected |
1 |
285 |
1 |
0 |
9 |
296 |
| 0% |
96% |
0% |
0% |
3% |
|
| Total |
323 |
3284 |
381 |
67 |
2455 |
6510 |
| 5% |
50% |
6% |
1% |
38% |
|
Table Q26: Do you agree that private tenants should have a right to request and not be unreasonably refused to keep a pet?
| Respondent group |
Yes |
No |
Total answering |
| PRS landlord |
706 |
2163 |
2869 |
| 25% |
75% |
|
| PRS landlord organisation |
65 |
136 |
201 |
| 32% |
68% |
|
| SRS landlord |
26 |
44 |
70 |
| 37% |
63% |
|
| SRS landlord organisation |
12 |
2 |
14 |
| 86% |
14% |
|
| PRS tenant |
1861 |
44 |
1905 |
| 98% |
2% |
|
| PRS tenant organisation |
7 |
6 |
13 |
| 54% |
46% |
|
| SRS tenant |
257 |
1 |
258 |
| 100% |
0% |
|
| SRS tenant organisation |
3 |
1 |
4 |
| 75% |
25% |
|
| None of the above |
939 |
38 |
977 |
| 96% |
4% |
|
| None selected |
285 |
11 |
296 |
| 96% |
4% |
|
| Total |
4161 |
2446 |
6607 |
| % of those answering |
63% |
37% |
|
Table Q27: How long should private landlords have to respond to a request to keep a pet?
| Respondent group |
20 working days |
30 working days |
40 working days |
More than 40 working days |
Total answering |
| PRS landlord |
652 |
1291 |
202 |
622 |
2767 |
| 24% |
47% |
7% |
22% |
|
| PRS landlord organisation |
50 |
101 |
8 |
39 |
198 |
| 25% |
51% |
4% |
20% |
|
| SRS landlord |
24 |
27 |
3 |
13 |
67 |
| 36% |
40% |
4% |
19% |
|
| SRS landlord organisation |
6 |
6 |
1 |
0 |
13 |
| 46% |
46% |
8% |
0% |
|
| PRS tenant |
1836 |
40 |
11 |
15 |
1902 |
| 97% |
2% |
1% |
1% |
|
| PRS tenant organisation |
5 |
8 |
0 |
0 |
13 |
| 38% |
62% |
0% |
0% |
|
| SRS tenant |
256 |
3 |
0 |
0 |
259 |
| 99% |
1% |
0% |
0% |
|
| SRS tenant organisation |
1 |
2 |
1 |
0 |
4 |
| 25% |
50% |
25% |
0% |
|
| None of the above |
916 |
38 |
3 |
15 |
972 |
| 94% |
4% |
0% |
2% |
|
| None selected |
285 |
8 |
0 |
2 |
295 |
| 97% |
3% |
0% |
1% |
|
| Total |
4031 |
1524 |
229 |
706 |
6490 |
| % of those answering |
62% |
23% |
4% |
11% |
|
Table Q28(a): Unclaimed tenancy deposits in the Private Rented Sector – to what extend do you agree with the following uses of the funds?
(a) The prevention of homelessness from the private rented sector.
| Respondent group |
Strongly agree |
Agree |
Neither agree nor disagree |
Disagree |
Strongly disagree |
Total answering |
| PRS landlord |
1137 |
587 |
550 |
105 |
407 |
2778 |
| 41% |
21% |
20% |
4% |
15% |
|
| PRS landlord organisation |
94 |
36 |
37 |
6 |
21 |
197 |
| 48% |
19% |
19% |
3% |
11% |
|
| SRS landlord |
28 |
16 |
9 |
1 |
14 |
67 |
| 41% |
24% |
13% |
1% |
21% |
|
| SRS landlord organisation |
12 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
14 |
| 86% |
0% |
7% |
0% |
7% |
|
| PRS tenant |
1849 |
27 |
11 |
1 |
14 |
1901 |
| 97% |
1% |
1% |
0% |
1% |
|
| PRS tenant organisation |
10 |
2 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
13 |
| 77% |
15% |
8% |
0% |
0% |
|
| SRS tenant |
249 |
7 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
257 |
| 97% |
3% |
0% |
0% |
0% |
|
| SRS tenant organisation |
2 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
4 |
| 50% |
25% |
0% |
25% |
0% |
|
| None of the above |
918 |
22 |
17 |
2 |
11 |
970 |
| 95% |
2% |
2% |
0% |
1% |
|
| None selected |
291 |
1 |
4 |
0 |
0 |
295 |
| 98% |
0% |
1% |
0% |
0% |
|
| Total |
4590 |
699 |
631 |
117 |
468 |
6505 |
| % of those answering |
71% |
11% |
10% |
2% |
7% |
|
Table Q28(b): Advice, information and assistance to private tenants
| Respondent group |
Strongly agree |
Agree |
Neither agree nor disagree |
Disagree |
Strongly disagree |
Total answering |
| PRS landlord |
359 |
560 |
732 |
205 |
869 |
2725 |
| 13% |
21% |
27% |
8% |
32% |
|
| PRS landlord organisation |
26 |
39 |
43 |
12 |
69 |
189 |
| 14% |
21% |
23% |
6% |
37% |
|
| SRS landlord |
12 |
16 |
17 |
2 |
18 |
65 |
| 18% |
25% |
26% |
3% |
28% |
|
| SRS landlord organisation |
7 |
2 |
2 |
0 |
3 |
14 |
| 50% |
14% |
14% |
0% |
21% |
|
| PRS tenant |
1794 |
52 |
27 |
5 |
22 |
1900 |
| 94% |
3% |
1% |
0% |
1% |
|
| PRS tenant organisation |
6 |
3 |
0 |
0 |
4 |
13 |
| 46% |
23% |
0% |
0% |
31% |
|
| SRS tenant |
248 |
7 |
2 |
1 |
0 |
258 |
| 96% |
3% |
1% |
0% |
0% |
|
| SRS tenant organisation |
1 |
3 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
4 |
| 25% |
75% |
0% |
0% |
0% |
|
| None of the above |
895 |
25 |
24 |
6 |
19 |
969 |
| 92% |
3% |
2% |
1% |
2% |
|
| None selected |
284 |
3 |
3 |
1 |
4 |
295 |
| 96% |
1% |
1% |
0% |
1% |
|
| Total |
3632 |
710 |
850 |
232 |
1008 |
6432 |
| % of those answering |
56% |
11% |
13% |
4% |
16% |
|
Table Q28(c): Funding to persons or bodies that can assist private tenants to address barriers to the private rented sector and support access to private rented housing
| Respondent group |
Strongly agree |
Agree |
Neither agree nor disagree |
Disagree |
Strongly disagree |
Total answering |
| PRS landlord |
281 |
501 |
777 |
237 |
925 |
2721 |
| 10% |
18% |
29% |
9% |
34% |
|
| PRS landlord organisation |
18 |
37 |
55 |
12 |
69 |
191 |
| 9% |
19% |
29% |
6% |
36% |
|
| SRS landlord |
6 |
13 |
21 |
6 |
20 |
66 |
| 9% |
20% |
32% |
9% |
30% |
|
| SRS landlord organisation |
4 |
3 |
4 |
0 |
3 |
14 |
| 29% |
21% |
29% |
0% |
21% |
|
| PRS tenant |
70 |
49 |
1685 |
10 |
23 |
1837 |
| 4% |
3% |
92% |
1% |
1% |
|
| PRS tenant organisation |
5 |
2 |
2 |
0 |
4 |
13 |
| 38% |
15% |
15% |
0% |
31% |
|
| SRS tenant |
5 |
10 |
243 |
0 |
0 |
258 |
| 2% |
4% |
94% |
0% |
0% |
|
| SRS tenant organisation |
1 |
2 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
4 |
| 25% |
50% |
0% |
25% |
0% |
|
| None of the above |
36 |
26 |
878 |
4 |
24 |
968 |
| 4% |
3% |
91% |
0% |
2% |
|
| None selected |
0 |
0 |
291 |
2 |
3 |
296 |
| 0% |
0% |
98% |
1% |
1% |
|
| Total |
426 |
643 |
3956 |
272 |
1071 |
6368 |
| % of those answering |
7% |
10% |
62% |
4% |
17% |
|
Table Q28(d): Activities that support private tenant participation and the representation of tenants’ interests at a local and national level
| Respondent group |
Strongly agree |
Agree |
Neither agree nor disagree |
Disagree |
Strongly disagree |
Total answering |
| PRS landlord |
177 |
323 |
862 |
300 |
1042 |
2704 |
| 7% |
12% |
32% |
11% |
39% |
|
| PRS landlord organisation |
8 |
23 |
58 |
23 |
78 |
190 |
| 4% |
12% |
31% |
12% |
41% |
|
| SRS landlord |
6 |
12 |
19 |
9 |
19 |
65 |
| 9% |
18% |
29% |
14% |
29% |
|
| SRS landlord organisation |
2 |
3 |
5 |
0 |
4 |
14 |
| 14% |
21% |
36% |
0% |
29% |
|
| PRS tenant |
79 |
57 |
1731 |
11 |
24 |
1902 |
| 4% |
3% |
91% |
1% |
1% |
|
| PRS tenant organisation |
0 |
3 |
2 |
3 |
5 |
13 |
| 0% |
23% |
15% |
23% |
38% |
|
| SRS tenant |
7 |
11 |
239 |
1 |
0 |
258 |
| 3% |
4% |
93% |
0% |
0% |
|
| SRS tenant organisation |
1 |
2 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
4 |
| 25% |
50% |
0% |
25% |
0% |
|
| None of the above |
30 |
23 |
874 |
10 |
26 |
963 |
| 3% |
2% |
91% |
1% |
3% |
|
| None selected |
0 |
1 |
290 |
2 |
3 |
296 |
| 0% |
0% |
98% |
1% |
1% |
|
| Total |
310 |
458 |
4080 |
360 |
1201 |
6409 |
| % of those answering |
5% |
7% |
64% |
6% |
19% |
|
Table Q28(e): Assisting private tenants to exercise their rights
| Respondent group |
Strongly agree |
Agree |
Neither agree nor disagree |
Disagree |
Strongly disagree |
Total answering |
| PRS landlord |
190 |
351 |
774 |
307 |
1090 |
2712 |
| 7% |
13% |
29% |
11% |
40% |
|
| PRS landlord organisation |
7 |
19 |
57 |
16 |
89 |
188 |
| 4% |
10% |
30% |
9% |
47% |
|
| SRS landlord |
10 |
11 |
18 |
5 |
21 |
65 |
| 15% |
17% |
28% |
8% |
32% |
|
| SRS landlord organisation |
5 |
2 |
4 |
0 |
3 |
14 |
| 36% |
14% |
29% |
0% |
21% |
|
| PRS tenant |
1812 |
49 |
13 |
5 |
25 |
1904 |
| 95% |
3% |
1% |
0% |
1% |
|
| PRS tenant organisation |
6 |
2 |
1 |
0 |
4 |
13 |
| 46% |
15% |
8% |
0% |
31% |
|
| SRS tenant |
251 |
7 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
258 |
| 97% |
3% |
0% |
0% |
0% |
|
| SRS tenant organisation |
1 |
2 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
4 |
| 25% |
50% |
0% |
25% |
0% |
|
| None of the above |
890 |
21 |
22 |
6 |
27 |
966 |
| 92% |
2% |
2% |
1% |
3% |
|
| None selected |
285 |
2 |
3 |
1 |
5 |
296 |
| 96% |
1% |
1% |
0% |
2% |
|
| Total |
3457 |
466 |
892 |
341 |
1264 |
6420 |
| % of those answering |
54% |
7% |
14% |
5% |
20% |
|
Table Q29: Do you agree 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? Please note, this proposal will not apply to cases of antisocial or criminal behaviour.
| Respondent group |
Strongly agree |
Agree |
Neither agree nor disagree |
Disagree |
Strongly disagree |
Total answering |
| PRS landlord |
150 |
368 |
414 |
402 |
1509 |
2843 |
| 5% |
13% |
15% |
14% |
53% |
|
| PRS landlord organisation |
5 |
19 |
28 |
30 |
117 |
199 |
| 3% |
10% |
14% |
15% |
59% |
|
| SRS landlord |
4 |
11 |
10 |
10 |
34 |
69 |
| 6% |
16% |
14% |
14% |
49% |
|
| SRS landlord organisation |
1 |
4 |
0 |
2 |
7 |
14 |
| 7% |
29% |
0% |
14% |
50% |
|
| PRS tenant |
1824 |
35 |
20 |
5 |
21 |
1905 |
| 96% |
2% |
1% |
0% |
1% |
|
| PRS tenant organisation |
5 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
4 |
13 |
| 38% |
8% |
8% |
15% |
31% |
|
| SRS tenant |
251 |
7 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
259 |
| 97% |
3% |
0% |
0% |
0% |
|
| SRS tenant organisation |
1 |
2 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
4 |
| 25% |
50% |
0% |
25% |
0% |
|
| None of the above |
887 |
25 |
8 |
13 |
40 |
973 |
| 91% |
3% |
1% |
1% |
4% |
|
| None selected |
285 |
1 |
3 |
2 |
5 |
296 |
| 96% |
0% |
1% |
1% |
2% |
|
| Total |
3413 |
473 |
485 |
467 |
1737 |
6575 |
| % of those answering |
52% |
7% |
7% |
7% |
26% |
|
Table Q30: Do you agree that social housing tenants should have a right to request to keep a pet and not be unreasonably refused?
| Respondent group |
Yes |
No |
Total answering |
| PRS landlord |
836 |
1200 |
2036 |
| 41% |
59% |
|
| PRS landlord organisation |
63 |
67 |
130 |
| 48% |
52% |
|
| SRS landlord |
31 |
34 |
65 |
| 48% |
52% |
|
| SRS landlord organisation |
10 |
3 |
13 |
| 77% |
23% |
|
| PRS tenant |
1859 |
33 |
1892 |
| 98% |
2% |
|
| PRS tenant organisation |
8 |
1 |
9 |
| 89% |
11% |
|
| SRS tenant |
263 |
1 |
264 |
| 100% |
0% |
|
| SRS tenant organisation |
4 |
1 |
5 |
| 80% |
20% |
|
| None of the above |
935 |
26 |
961 |
| 97% |
3% |
|
| None selected |
286 |
4 |
290 |
| 99% |
1% |
|
| Total |
4295 |
1370 |
5666 |
| % of those answering |
76% |
24% |
|
Table Q31: 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.
| Respondent group |
Strongly agree |
Agree |
Neither agree nor disagree |
Disagree |
Strongly disagree |
Total answering |
| PRS landlord |
176 |
364 |
436 |
285 |
756 |
2017 |
| 9% |
18% |
22% |
14% |
37% |
|
| PRS landlord organisation |
8 |
20 |
26 |
28 |
49 |
131 |
| 6% |
15% |
20% |
21% |
37% |
|
| SRS landlord |
4 |
15 |
11 |
11 |
24 |
65 |
| 6% |
23% |
17% |
17% |
37% |
|
| SRS landlord organisation |
1 |
5 |
0 |
2 |
5 |
13 |
| 8% |
38% |
0% |
15% |
38% |
|
| PRS tenant |
1829 |
30 |
15 |
4 |
15 |
1893 |
| 97% |
2% |
1% |
0% |
1% |
|
| PRS tenant organisation |
4 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
9 |
| 44% |
11% |
22% |
11% |
11% |
|
| SRS tenant |
255 |
7 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
264 |
| 97% |
3% |
0% |
0% |
0% |
|
| SRS tenant organisation |
3 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
5 |
| 60% |
20% |
0% |
20% |
0% |
|
| None of the above |
892 |
25 |
7 |
10 |
25 |
959 |
| 93% |
3% |
1% |
1% |
3% |
|
| None selected |
285 |
1 |
3 |
0 |
1 |
290 |
| 98% |
0% |
1% |
0% |
0% |
|
| Total |
3457 |
469 |
501 |
343 |
876 |
5646 |
| % of those answering |
61% |
8% |
9% |
6% |
16% |
|
Table Q32: We are looking 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. Do you agree with this proposal?
| Respondent group |
Yes |
No |
Total answering |
| PRS landlord |
1141 |
846 |
1987 |
| 57% |
43% |
|
| PRS landlord organisation |
75 |
55 |
130 |
| 58% |
42% |
|
| SRS landlord |
34 |
30 |
64 |
| 53% |
47% |
|
| SRS landlord organisation |
9 |
3 |
12 |
| 75% |
25% |
|
| PRS tenant |
1878 |
15 |
1893 |
| 99% |
1% |
|
| PRS tenant organisation |
8 |
1 |
9 |
| 89% |
11% |
|
| SRS tenant |
263 |
1 |
264 |
| 100% |
0% |
|
| SRS tenant organisation |
4 |
1 |
5 |
| 80% |
20% |
|
| None of the above |
942 |
20 |
962 |
| 98% |
2% |
|
| None selected |
290 |
1 |
291 |
| 100% |
0% |
|
| Total |
4644 |
973 |
5617 |
| % of those answering |
83% |
17% |
|
Table Q33(a): Please rank the proposals in terms of which you feel will bring the most overall benefit to landlords, from most beneficial to least beneficial, with 1 indicating most beneficial and 7 indicating least beneficial
(a) Rent control
| Respondent group |
most beneficial |
Ranking |
least beneficial |
Total answering |
| 1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
| PRS landlord |
262 |
88 |
110 |
122 |
163 |
200 |
1373 |
2318 |
| 11% |
4% |
5% |
5% |
7% |
9% |
59% |
|
| PRS landlord organisation |
17 |
2 |
5 |
8 |
4 |
11 |
107 |
154 |
| 11% |
1% |
3% |
5% |
3% |
7% |
69% |
|
| SRS landlord |
7 |
|
2 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
35 |
56 |
| 13% |
0% |
4% |
7% |
7% |
7% |
63% |
|
| SRS landlord organisation |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
6 |
9 |
| 11% |
11% |
11% |
0% |
0% |
0% |
67% |
|
| PRS tenant |
73 |
7 |
10 |
14 |
14 |
7 |
53 |
178 |
| 41% |
4% |
6% |
8% |
8% |
4% |
30% |
|
| PRS tenant organisation |
4 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
7 |
| 57% |
0% |
14% |
0% |
0% |
14% |
14% |
|
| SRS tenant |
12 |
2 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
5 |
23 |
| 52% |
9% |
9% |
4% |
4% |
0% |
22% |
|
| SRS tenant organisation |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
4 |
| 25% |
0% |
0% |
25% |
0% |
0% |
50% |
|
| None of the above |
24 |
2 |
4 |
5 |
5 |
4 |
57 |
101 |
| 24% |
2% |
4% |
5% |
5% |
4% |
56% |
|
| None selected |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
3 |
6 |
| 0% |
17% |
17% |
0% |
17% |
0% |
50% |
|
| Total |
401 |
103 |
136 |
155 |
192 |
227 |
1642 |
2856 |
| % of those answering |
14% |
4% |
5% |
5% |
7% |
8% |
57% |
|
Table Q33(b): Changes to rules around ending joint tenancies
| Respondent group |
most beneficial |
Ranking |
least beneficial |
Total answering |
| 1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
| PRS landlord |
437 |
387 |
416 |
397 |
205 |
375 |
46 |
2263 |
| 19% |
17% |
18% |
18% |
9% |
17% |
2% |
|
| PRS landlord organisation |
28 |
29 |
27 |
22 |
18 |
23 |
3 |
150 |
| 19% |
19% |
18% |
15% |
12% |
15% |
2% |
|
| SRS landlord |
7 |
9 |
11 |
11 |
2 |
13 |
1 |
54 |
| 13% |
17% |
20% |
20% |
4% |
24% |
2% |
|
| SRS landlord organisation |
1 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
9 |
| 11% |
22% |
22% |
22% |
22% |
0% |
0% |
|
| PRS tenant |
30 |
55 |
21 |
22 |
13 |
23 |
12 |
176 |
| 17% |
31% |
12% |
13% |
7% |
13% |
7% |
|
| PRS tenant organisation |
0 |
1 |
4 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
7 |
| 0% |
14% |
57% |
29% |
0% |
0% |
0% |
|
| SRS tenant |
2 |
9 |
3 |
5 |
1 |
3 |
0 |
23 |
| 9% |
39% |
13% |
22% |
4% |
13% |
0% |
|
| SRS tenant organisation |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
4 |
| 25% |
25% |
25% |
0% |
25% |
0% |
0% |
|
| None of the above |
13 |
23 |
12 |
21 |
10 |
18 |
0 |
97 |
| 13% |
24% |
12% |
22% |
10% |
19% |
0% |
|
| None selected |
1 |
0 |
1 |
3 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
6 |
| 17% |
0% |
17% |
50% |
0% |
17% |
0% |
|
| Total |
520 |
516 |
498 |
485 |
252 |
456 |
62 |
2789 |
| % of those answering |
19% |
19% |
18% |
17% |
9% |
16% |
2% |
|
Table Q33(c): Greater flexibility to personalise a home
| Respondent group |
most beneficial |
Ranking |
least beneficial |
Total answering |
| 1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
| PRS landlord |
146 |
292 |
351 |
436 |
536 |
387 |
113 |
2261 |
| 6% |
13% |
16% |
19% |
24% |
17% |
5% |
|
| PRS landlord organisation |
21 |
12 |
28 |
27 |
36 |
20 |
6 |
150 |
| 14% |
8% |
19% |
18% |
24% |
13% |
4% |
|
| SRS landlord |
2 |
6 |
8 |
7 |
18 |
10 |
3 |
54 |
| 4% |
11% |
15% |
13% |
33% |
19% |
6% |
|
| SRS landlord organisation |
0 |
0 |
2 |
4 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
8 |
| 0% |
0% |
25% |
50% |
25% |
0% |
0% |
|
| PRS tenant |
10 |
27 |
30 |
22 |
31 |
47 |
6 |
173 |
| 6% |
16% |
17% |
13% |
18% |
27% |
3% |
|
| PRS tenant organisation |
0 |
2 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
3 |
7 |
| 0% |
29% |
14% |
0% |
0% |
14% |
43% |
|
| SRS tenant |
3 |
2 |
8 |
0 |
4 |
4 |
2 |
23 |
| 13% |
9% |
35% |
0% |
17% |
17% |
9% |
|
| SRS tenant organisation |
0 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
4 |
| 0% |
0% |
50% |
0% |
25% |
25% |
0% |
|
| None of the above |
11 |
9 |
16 |
16 |
23 |
16 |
5 |
96 |
| 11% |
9% |
17% |
17% |
24% |
17% |
5% |
|
| None selected |
0 |
0 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
5 |
| 0% |
0% |
40% |
20% |
20% |
0% |
20% |
|
| Total |
193 |
350 |
448 |
513 |
652 |
486 |
139 |
2781 |
| % of those answering |
7% |
13% |
16% |
18% |
23% |
17% |
5% |
|
Table Q33(d): The right to request to keep a pet and to not be unreasonably refused
| Respondent group |
most beneficial |
Ranking |
least beneficial |
Total answering |
| 1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
| PRS landlord |
76 |
191 |
281 |
470 |
552 |
428 |
233 |
2231 |
| 3% |
9% |
13% |
21% |
25% |
19% |
10% |
|
| PRS landlord organisation |
4 |
32 |
24 |
34 |
29 |
14 |
12 |
149 |
| 3% |
21% |
16% |
23% |
19% |
9% |
8% |
|
| SRS landlord |
6 |
5 |
2 |
15 |
14 |
7 |
2 |
51 |
| 12% |
10% |
4% |
29% |
27% |
14% |
4% |
|
| SRS landlord organisation |
0 |
2 |
2 |
1 |
2 |
2 |
0 |
9 |
| 0% |
22% |
22% |
11% |
22% |
22% |
0 |
|
| PRS tenant |
6 |
18 |
25 |
32 |
44 |
25 |
24 |
174 |
| 3% |
10% |
14% |
18% |
25% |
14% |
14% |
|
| PRS tenant organisation |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
0 |
7 |
| 0% |
0% |
14% |
14% |
29% |
43% |
0% |
|
| SRS tenant |
0 |
4 |
2 |
6 |
3 |
4 |
3 |
22 |
| 0% |
18% |
9% |
27% |
14% |
18% |
14% |
|
| SRS tenant organisation |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
0 |
4 |
| 0% |
0% |
0% |
25% |
50% |
25% |
0% |
|
| None of the above |
4 |
16 |
16 |
21 |
18 |
17 |
4 |
96 |
| 4% |
17% |
17% |
22% |
19% |
18% |
4% |
|
| None selected |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
5 |
| 0% |
0% |
0% |
20% |
20% |
40% |
20% |
|
| Total |
96 |
268 |
353 |
582 |
667 |
503 |
279 |
2748 |
| % of those answering |
3% |
10% |
13% |
21% |
24% |
18% |
10% |
|
Table Q33(e): Proposed use of unclaimed tenancy deposits
| Respondent group |
most beneficial |
Ranking |
least beneficial |
Total answering |
| 1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
| PRS landlord |
527 |
462 |
430 |
251 |
225 |
189 |
137 |
2221 |
| 24% |
21% |
19% |
11% |
10% |
9% |
6% |
|
| PRS landlord organisation |
29 |
28 |
24 |
32 |
22 |
9 |
5 |
149 |
| 19% |
19% |
16% |
21% |
15% |
6% |
3% |
|
| SRS landlord |
10 |
11 |
12 |
8 |
2 |
6 |
2 |
51 |
| 20% |
22% |
24% |
16% |
4% |
12% |
4% |
|
| SRS landlord organisation |
4 |
1 |
|
|
2 |
1 |
|
8 |
| 50% |
13% |
0% |
0% |
25% |
13% |
0% |
|
| PRS tenant |
16 |
23 |
24 |
23 |
21 |
21 |
45 |
173 |
| 9% |
13% |
14% |
13% |
12% |
12% |
26% |
|
| PRS tenant organisation |
|
1 |
|
|
5 |
|
1 |
7 |
| 0% |
14% |
0% |
0% |
71% |
0% |
14% |
|
| SRS tenant |
2 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
4 |
5 |
8 |
23 |
| 9% |
4% |
9% |
4% |
17% |
22% |
35% |
|
| SRS tenant organisation |
|
1 |
|
1 |
|
1 |
1 |
4 |
| 0% |
25% |
0% |
25% |
0% |
25% |
25% |
|
| None of the above |
18 |
13 |
14 |
10 |
17 |
9 |
14 |
95 |
| 19% |
14% |
15% |
11% |
18% |
9% |
15% |
|
| None selected |
2 |
3 |
|
|
|
|
|
5 |
| 40% |
60% |
0% |
0% |
0% |
0% |
0% |
|
| Total |
608 |
544 |
506 |
326 |
298 |
241 |
213 |
2736 |
| % of those answering |
22% |
20% |
18% |
12% |
11% |
9% |
8% |
|
Table Q33(f): Greater protections during the eviction process
| Respondent group |
most beneficial |
Ranking |
least beneficial |
Total answering |
| 1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
| PRS landlord |
144 |
370 |
276 |
315 |
370 |
510 |
212 |
2197 |
| 7% |
17% |
13% |
14% |
17% |
23% |
10% |
|
| PRS landlord organisation |
5 |
19 |
16 |
14 |
21 |
60 |
11 |
146 |
| 3% |
13% |
11% |
10% |
14% |
41% |
8% |
|
| SRS landlord |
2 |
13 |
7 |
5 |
7 |
12 |
5 |
51 |
| 4% |
25% |
14% |
10% |
14% |
24% |
10% |
|
| SRS landlord organisation |
|
|
|
|
|
6 |
2 |
8 |
| 0% |
0% |
0% |
0% |
0% |
75% |
25% |
|
| PRS tenant |
11 |
30 |
35 |
26 |
26 |
35 |
11 |
174 |
| 6% |
17% |
20% |
15% |
15% |
20% |
6% |
|
| PRS tenant organisation |
1 |
3 |
|
1 |
|
1 |
1 |
7 |
| 14% |
43% |
0% |
14% |
0% |
14% |
14% |
|
| SRS tenant |
3 |
1 |
4 |
6 |
3 |
5 |
|
22 |
| 14% |
5% |
18% |
27% |
14% |
23% |
0% |
|
| SRS tenant organisation |
2 |
|
|
1 |
|
1 |
|
4 |
| 50% |
0% |
0% |
25% |
0% |
25% |
0% |
|
| None of the above |
5 |
20 |
20 |
6 |
15 |
21 |
5 |
92 |
| 5% |
22% |
22% |
7% |
16% |
23% |
5% |
|
| None selected |
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
1 |
2 |
|
6 |
| 17% |
17% |
17% |
0% |
17% |
33% |
0% |
|
| Total |
174 |
457 |
359 |
374 |
443 |
653 |
247 |
2707 |
| % of those answering |
6% |
17% |
13% |
14% |
16% |
24% |
9% |
|
Table Q33(g): Amendment to social housing pre-action requirements to reflect the potential impact of domestic abuse
| Respondent group |
most beneficial |
Ranking |
least beneficial |
Total answering |
| 1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
| PRS landlord |
582 |
404 |
344 |
249 |
206 |
184 |
171 |
2140 |
| 27% |
19% |
16% |
12% |
10% |
9% |
8% |
|
| PRS landlord organisation |
39 |
28 |
22 |
14 |
19 |
13 |
9 |
144 |
| 27% |
19% |
15% |
10% |
13% |
9% |
6% |
|
| SRS landlord |
19 |
8 |
10 |
3 |
5 |
1 |
5 |
51 |
| 37% |
16% |
20% |
6% |
10% |
2% |
10% |
|
| SRS landlord organisation |
2 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
1 |
8 |
| 25% |
25% |
13% |
13% |
13% |
0% |
13% |
|
| PRS tenant |
29 |
15 |
29 |
36 |
25 |
15 |
26 |
175 |
| 17% |
9% |
17% |
21% |
14% |
9% |
15% |
|
| PRS tenant organisation |
2 |
|
|
3 |
|
1 |
1 |
7 |
| 29% |
0% |
0% |
43% |
0% |
14% |
14% |
|
| SRS tenant |
1 |
4 |
2 |
4 |
6 |
1 |
4 |
22 |
| 5% |
18% |
9% |
18% |
27% |
5% |
18% |
|
| SRS tenant organisation |
|
2 |
1 |
|
|
|
1 |
4 |
| 0% |
50% |
25% |
0% |
0% |
0% |
25% |
|
| None of the above |
18 |
13 |
14 |
16 |
9 |
10 |
14 |
94 |
| 19% |
14% |
15% |
17% |
10% |
11% |
15% |
|
| None selected |
2 |
1 |
1 |
|
1 |
|
1 |
6 |
| 33% |
17% |
17% |
0% |
17% |
0% |
17% |
|
| Total |
694 |
477 |
424 |
326 |
272 |
225 |
233 |
2651 |
| % of those answering |
26% |
18% |
16% |
12% |
10% |
8% |
9% |
|
Table Q34(a): Please rank the proposals in terms of which you feel will bring the most overall benefit to tenants, from most beneficial to least beneficial, with 1 indicating most beneficial and 7 indicating least beneficial
(a) Rent control
| Respondent group |
most beneficial |
Ranking |
least beneficial |
Total answering |
| 1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
| PRS landlord |
1045 |
138 |
125 |
141 |
97 |
87 |
499 |
2132 |
| 49% |
6% |
6% |
7% |
5% |
4% |
23% |
|
| PRS landlord organisation |
49 |
3 |
12 |
8 |
3 |
6 |
63 |
144 |
| 34% |
2% |
8% |
6% |
2% |
4% |
44% |
|
| SRS landlord |
24 |
5 |
2 |
4 |
2 |
1 |
16 |
54 |
| 44% |
9% |
4% |
7% |
4% |
2% |
30% |
|
| SRS landlord organisation |
4 |
2 |
|
1 |
|
|
2 |
9 |
| 44% |
22% |
0% |
11% |
0% |
0% |
22% |
|
| PRS tenant |
1859 |
4 |
2 |
6 |
2 |
1 |
15 |
1889 |
| 98% |
0% |
0% |
0% |
0% |
0% |
1% |
|
| PRS tenant organisation |
5 |
1 |
1 |
|
|
|
1 |
8 |
| 63% |
13% |
13% |
0% |
0% |
0% |
13% |
|
| SRS tenant |
258 |
2 |
|
|
|
1 |
1 |
262 |
| 98% |
1% |
0% |
0% |
0% |
0% |
0% |
|
| SRS tenant organisation |
5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
5 |
| 100% |
0% |
0% |
0% |
0% |
0% |
0% |
|
| None of the above |
909 |
7 |
3 |
5 |
1 |
3 |
23 |
951 |
| 96% |
1% |
0% |
1% |
0% |
0% |
2% |
|
| None selected |
287 |
|
1 |
|
1 |
1 |
|
290 |
| 99% |
0% |
0% |
0% |
0% |
0% |
0% |
|
| Total |
4445 |
162 |
146 |
165 |
106 |
100 |
620 |
5744 |
| % of those answering |
77% |
3% |
3% |
3% |
2% |
2% |
11% |
|
Table Q34(b): Changes to rules around ending joint tenancies
| Respondent group |
most beneficial |
Ranking |
least beneficial |
Total answering |
| 1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
| PRS landlord |
216 |
519 |
327 |
305 |
235 |
321 |
151 |
2074 |
| 10% |
25% |
16% |
15% |
11% |
15% |
7% |
|
| PRS landlord organisation |
13 |
34 |
26 |
22 |
12 |
25 |
10 |
142 |
| 9% |
24% |
18% |
15% |
8% |
18% |
7% |
|
| SRS landlord |
6 |
14 |
7 |
8 |
5 |
8 |
5 |
53 |
| 11% |
26% |
13% |
15% |
9% |
15% |
9% |
|
| SRS landlord organisation |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
2 |
1 |
9 |
| 11% |
11% |
11% |
11% |
22% |
22% |
11% |
|
| PRS tenant |
7 |
1761 |
18 |
35 |
20 |
25 |
21 |
1887 |
| 0% |
93% |
1% |
2% |
1% |
1% |
1% |
|
| PRS tenant organisation |
|
4 |
2 |
1 |
|
1 |
|
8 |
| 0% |
50% |
25% |
13% |
0% |
13% |
0% |
|
| SRS tenant |
|
244 |
2 |
4 |
3 |
7 |
2 |
262 |
| 0% |
93% |
1% |
2% |
1% |
3% |
1% |
|
| SRS tenant organisation |
|
|
1 |
1 |
|
2 |
1 |
5 |
| 0% |
0% |
20% |
20% |
0% |
40% |
20% |
|
| None of the above |
11 |
866 |
18 |
10 |
18 |
16 |
8 |
947 |
| 1% |
91% |
2% |
1% |
2% |
2% |
1% |
|
| None selected |
|
287 |
|
1 |
1 |
|
1 |
290 |
| 0% |
99% |
0% |
0% |
0% |
0% |
0% |
|
| Total |
254 |
3730 |
402 |
388 |
296 |
407 |
200 |
5677 |
| % of those answering |
4% |
66% |
7% |
7% |
5% |
7% |
4% |
|
Table Q34(c): Greater flexibility to personalise a home
| Respondent group |
most beneficial |
Ranking |
least beneficial |
Total answering |
| 1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
| PRS landlord |
181 |
366 |
470 |
329 |
355 |
264 |
113 |
2078 |
| 9% |
18% |
23% |
16% |
17% |
13% |
5% |
|
| PRS landlord organisation |
28 |
24 |
25 |
18 |
23 |
19 |
2 |
139 |
| 20% |
17% |
18% |
13% |
17% |
14% |
1% |
|
| SRS landlord |
3 |
10 |
9 |
6 |
12 |
10 |
3 |
53 |
| 6% |
19% |
17% |
11% |
23% |
19% |
6% |
|
| SRS landlord organisation |
2 |
1 |
5 |
|
1 |
1 |
|
10 |
| 20% |
10% |
50% |
0% |
10% |
10% |
0% |
|
| PRS tenant |
7 |
21 |
44 |
27 |
32 |
1739 |
15 |
1885 |
| 0% |
1% |
2% |
1% |
2% |
92% |
1% |
|
| PRS tenant organisation |
1 |
|
3 |
1 |
|
2 |
1 |
8 |
| 13% |
0% |
38% |
13% |
0% |
25% |
13% |
|
| SRS tenant |
1 |
6 |
6 |
2 |
8 |
238 |
1 |
262 |
| 0% |
2% |
2% |
1% |
3% |
91% |
0% |
|
| SRS tenant organisation |
|
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
1 |
1 |
5 |
| 0% |
20% |
20% |
20% |
0% |
20% |
20% |
|
| None of the above |
6 |
18 |
22 |
14 |
39 |
844 |
5 |
948 |
| 1% |
2% |
2% |
1% |
4% |
89% |
1% |
|
| None selected |
|
1 |
4 |
|
1 |
284 |
|
290 |
| 0% |
0% |
1% |
0% |
0% |
98% |
0% |
|
| Total |
229 |
448 |
589 |
398 |
471 |
3402 |
141 |
5678 |
| % of those answering |
4% |
8% |
10% |
7% |
8% |
60% |
2% |
|
Table Q34(d): The right to request to keep a pet and to not be unreasonably refused
| Respondent group |
most beneficial |
Ranking |
least beneficial |
Total answering |
| 1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
| PRS landlord |
71 |
225 |
326 |
536 |
373 |
337 |
199 |
2067 |
| 3% |
11% |
16% |
26% |
18% |
16% |
10% |
|
| PRS landlord organisation |
5 |
24 |
25 |
42 |
26 |
10 |
9 |
141 |
| 4% |
17% |
18% |
30% |
18% |
7% |
6% |
|
| SRS landlord |
3 |
5 |
8 |
15 |
12 |
5 |
5 |
53 |
| 6% |
9% |
15% |
28% |
23% |
9% |
9% |
|
| SRS landlord organisation |
|
1 |
1 |
4 |
2 |
2 |
|
10 |
| 0% |
10% |
10% |
40% |
20% |
20% |
0% |
|
| PRS tenant |
|
17 |
34 |
36 |
1729 |
38 |
31 |
1885 |
| 0% |
1% |
2% |
2% |
92% |
2% |
2% |
|
| PRS tenant organisation |
|
1 |
|
3 |
4 |
|
|
8 |
| 0% |
13% |
0% |
38% |
50% |
0% |
0% |
|
| SRS tenant |
1 |
1 |
5 |
6 |
241 |
5 |
3 |
262 |
| 0% |
0% |
2% |
2% |
92% |
2% |
1% |
|
| SRS tenant organisation |
|
1 |
1 |
|
2 |
1 |
|
5 |
| 0% |
20% |
20% |
0% |
40% |
20% |
0% |
|
| None of the above |
2 |
11 |
15 |
31 |
847 |
35 |
6 |
947 |
| 0% |
1% |
2% |
3% |
89% |
4% |
1% |
|
| None selected |
1 |
|
|
2 |
283 |
2 |
2 |
290 |
| 0% |
0% |
0% |
1% |
98% |
1% |
1% |
|
| Total |
83 |
286 |
415 |
675 |
3519 |
435 |
255 |
5668 |
| % of those answering |
1% |
5% |
7% |
12% |
62% |
8% |
4% |
|
Table Q34(e): Proposed use of unclaimed tenancy deposits
| Respondent group |
most beneficial |
Ranking |
least beneficial |
Total answering |
| 1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
| PRS landlord |
155 |
166 |
209 |
213 |
364 |
318 |
627 |
2052 |
| 8% |
8% |
10% |
10% |
18% |
15% |
31% |
|
| PRS landlord organisation |
10 |
16 |
21 |
15 |
22 |
29 |
26 |
139 |
| 7% |
12% |
15% |
11% |
16% |
21% |
19% |
|
| SRS landlord |
3 |
4 |
13 |
4 |
10 |
7 |
12 |
53 |
| 6% |
8% |
25% |
8% |
19% |
13% |
23% |
|
| SRS landlord organisation |
1 |
|
1 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
4 |
10 |
| 10% |
0% |
10% |
20% |
10% |
10% |
40% |
|
| PRS tenant |
|
11 |
17 |
18 |
36 |
28 |
1775 |
1885 |
| 0% |
1% |
1% |
1% |
2% |
1% |
94% |
|
| PRS tenant organisation |
|
|
|
2 |
1 |
3 |
2 |
8 |
| 0% |
0% |
0% |
25% |
13% |
38% |
25% |
|
| SRS tenant |
|
|
1 |
3 |
1 |
7 |
250 |
262 |
| 0% |
0% |
0% |
1% |
0% |
3% |
95% |
|
| SRS tenant organisation |
|
1 |
|
1 |
2 |
|
1 |
5 |
| 0% |
20% |
0% |
20% |
40% |
0% |
20% |
|
| None of the above |
5 |
5 |
12 |
10 |
24 |
12 |
879 |
947 |
| 1% |
1% |
1% |
1% |
3% |
1% |
93% |
|
| None selected |
1 |
|
|
|
3 |
1 |
285 |
290 |
| 0% |
0% |
0% |
0% |
1% |
0% |
98% |
|
| Total |
175 |
203 |
274 |
268 |
464 |
406 |
3861 |
5651 |
| % of those answering |
3% |
4% |
5% |
5% |
8% |
7% |
68% |
|
Table Q34(f): Greater protections during the eviction process
| Respondent group |
most beneficial |
Ranking |
least beneficial |
Total answering |
| 1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
| PRS landlord |
115 |
441 |
349 |
307 |
361 |
377 |
97 |
2047 |
| 6% |
22% |
17% |
15% |
18% |
18% |
5% |
|
| PRS landlord organisation |
12 |
26 |
21 |
10 |
32 |
29 |
9 |
139 |
| 9% |
19% |
15% |
7% |
23% |
21% |
6% |
|
| SRS landlord |
3 |
12 |
11 |
6 |
6 |
12 |
2 |
52 |
| 6% |
23% |
21% |
12% |
12% |
23% |
4% |
|
| SRS landlord organisation |
1 |
4 |
|
|
1 |
3 |
|
9 |
| 11% |
44% |
0% |
0% |
11% |
33% |
0% |
|
| PRS tenant |
2 |
56 |
1742 |
36 |
25 |
20 |
4 |
1885 |
| 0% |
3% |
92% |
2% |
1% |
1% |
0% |
|
| PRS tenant organisation |
2 |
1 |
|
1 |
|
1 |
3 |
8 |
| 25% |
13% |
0% |
13% |
0% |
13% |
38% |
|
| SRS tenant |
1 |
6 |
243 |
4 |
5 |
3 |
|
262 |
| 0% |
2% |
93% |
2% |
2% |
1% |
0% |
|
| SRS tenant organisation |
|
2 |
1 |
|
1 |
1 |
|
5 |
| 0% |
40% |
20% |
0% |
20% |
20% |
0% |
|
| None of the above |
10 |
31 |
862 |
13 |
8 |
19 |
4 |
947 |
| 1% |
3% |
91% |
1% |
1% |
2% |
0% |
|
| None selected |
1 |
2 |
285 |
1 |
|
1 |
|
290 |
| 0% |
1% |
98% |
0% |
0% |
0% |
0% |
|
| Total |
147 |
581 |
3514 |
378 |
439 |
466 |
119 |
5644 |
| % of those answering |
3% |
10% |
62% |
7% |
8% |
8% |
2% |
|
Table Q34(g): Amendment to social housing pre-action requirements to reflect the potential impact of domestic abuse
| Respondent group |
most beneficial |
Ranking |
least beneficial |
Total answering |
| 1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
| PRS landlord |
310 |
230 |
277 |
245 |
269 |
345 |
343 |
2019 |
| 15% |
11% |
14% |
12% |
13% |
17% |
17% |
|
| PRS landlord organisation |
24 |
14 |
11 |
25 |
21 |
20 |
24 |
139 |
| 17% |
10% |
8% |
18% |
15% |
14% |
17% |
|
| SRS landlord |
12 |
4 |
4 |
11 |
6 |
8 |
7 |
52 |
| 23% |
8% |
8% |
21% |
12% |
15% |
13% |
|
| SRS landlord organisation |
1 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
2 |
|
2 |
9 |
| 11% |
11% |
22% |
11% |
22% |
0% |
22% |
|
| PRS tenant |
12 |
16 |
29 |
1729 |
40 |
33 |
26 |
1885 |
| 1% |
1% |
2% |
92% |
2% |
2% |
1% |
|
| PRS tenant organisation |
|
1 |
2 |
|
3 |
1 |
1 |
8 |
| 0% |
13% |
25% |
0% |
38% |
13% |
13% |
|
| SRS tenant |
1 |
3 |
5 |
243 |
4 |
1 |
5 |
262 |
| 0% |
1% |
2% |
93% |
2% |
0% |
2% |
|
| SRS tenant organisation |
|
|
1 |
2 |
|
|
2 |
5 |
| 0% |
0% |
20% |
40% |
0% |
0% |
40% |
|
| None of the above |
6 |
9 |
16 |
866 |
11 |
19 |
22 |
949 |
| 1% |
1% |
2% |
91% |
1% |
2% |
2% |
|
| None selected |
|
|
|
286 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
290 |
| 0% |
0% |
0% |
99% |
0% |
0% |
1% |
|
| Total |
366 |
278 |
347 |
3408 |
357 |
428 |
434 |
5618 |
| % of those answering |
7% |
5% |
6% |
61% |
6% |
8% |
8% |
|
Table Q35(a): Thinking of the financial impacts, please rank the proposals with regard to the potential impact for landlords, from most beneficial to least beneficial, with 1 indicating most beneficial and 6 indicating least beneficial
(a) Rent control
| Respondent group |
most beneficial |
Ranking |
least beneficial |
Total answering |
| 1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
| PRS landlord |
320 |
73 |
101 |
94 |
144 |
1519 |
2251 |
| 14% |
3% |
4% |
4% |
6% |
67% |
|
| PRS landlord organisation |
21 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
110 |
149 |
| 14% |
2% |
3% |
3% |
4% |
74% |
|
| SRS landlord |
12 |
1 |
2 |
|
2 |
37 |
54 |
| 22% |
2% |
4% |
0% |
4% |
69% |
|
| SRS landlord organisation |
1 |
|
|
|
1 |
7 |
9 |
| 11% |
0% |
0% |
0% |
11% |
78% |
|
| PRS tenant |
48 |
6 |
19 |
8 |
9 |
69 |
159 |
| 30% |
4% |
12% |
5% |
6% |
43% |
|
| PRS tenant organisation |
|
1 |
|
1 |
1 |
4 |
7 |
| 0% |
14% |
0% |
14% |
14% |
57% |
|
| SRS tenant |
13 |
3 |
|
2 |
|
5 |
23 |
| 57% |
13% |
0% |
9% |
0% |
22% |
|
| SRS tenant organisation |
2 |
|
|
|
|
2 |
4 |
| 50% |
0% |
0% |
0% |
0% |
50% |
|
| None of the above |
21 |
6 |
|
9 |
5 |
58 |
99 |
| 21% |
6% |
0% |
9% |
5% |
59% |
|
| None selected |
1 |
1 |
2 |
|
|
2 |
6 |
| 17% |
17% |
33% |
0% |
0% |
33% |
|
| Total |
439 |
94 |
128 |
119 |
168 |
1813 |
2761 |
| % of those answering |
16% |
3% |
5% |
4% |
6% |
66% |
|
Table Q35(b): Changes to rules around ending joint tenancies
| Respondent group |
most beneficial |
Ranking |
least beneficial |
Total answering |
| 1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
| PRS landlord |
536 |
514 |
388 |
276 |
381 |
63 |
2158 |
| 25% |
24% |
18% |
13% |
18% |
3% |
|
| PRS landlord organisation |
32 |
34 |
28 |
16 |
31 |
3 |
144 |
| 22% |
24% |
19% |
11% |
22% |
2% |
|
| SRS landlord |
9 |
14 |
7 |
6 |
15 |
1 |
52 |
| 17% |
27% |
13% |
12% |
29% |
2% |
|
| SRS landlord organisation |
3 |
|
2 |
3 |
|
|
8 |
| 38% |
0% |
25% |
38% |
0% |
0% |
|
| PRS tenant |
31 |
52 |
23 |
20 |
24 |
7 |
157 |
| 20% |
33% |
15% |
13% |
15% |
4% |
|
| PRS tenant organisation |
3 |
|
|
1 |
2 |
1 |
7 |
| 43% |
0% |
0% |
14% |
29% |
14% |
|
| SRS tenant |
2 |
6 |
7 |
3 |
4 |
1 |
23 |
| 9% |
26% |
30% |
13% |
17% |
4% |
|
| SRS tenant organisation |
|
|
2 |
|
1 |
1 |
4 |
| 0% |
0% |
50% |
0% |
25% |
25% |
|
| None of the above |
22 |
25 |
13 |
15 |
16 |
3 |
94 |
| 23% |
27% |
14% |
16% |
17% |
3% |
|
| None selected |
|
1 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
6 |
| 0% |
17% |
33% |
17% |
17% |
17% |
|
| Total |
638 |
646 |
472 |
341 |
475 |
81 |
2653 |
| % of those answering |
24% |
24% |
18% |
13% |
18% |
3% |
|
Table Q35(c): Greater flexibility to personalise a home
| Respondent group |
most beneficial |
Ranking |
least beneficial |
Total answering |
| 1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
| PRS landlord |
233 |
452 |
470 |
550 |
367 |
88 |
2160 |
| 11% |
21% |
22% |
25% |
17% |
4% |
|
| PRS landlord organisation |
21 |
27 |
37 |
37 |
16 |
5 |
143 |
| 15% |
19% |
26% |
26% |
11% |
3% |
|
| SRS landlord |
6 |
9 |
10 |
14 |
11 |
1 |
51 |
| 12% |
18% |
20% |
27% |
22% |
2% |
|
| SRS landlord organisation |
2 |
3 |
2 |
|
2 |
|
9 |
| 22% |
33% |
22% |
0% |
22% |
0% |
|
| PRS tenant |
29 |
30 |
21 |
29 |
16 |
31 |
156 |
| 19% |
19% |
13% |
19% |
10% |
20% |
|
| PRS tenant organisation |
2 |
1 |
|
4 |
|
|
7 |
| 29% |
14% |
0% |
57% |
0% |
0% |
|
| SRS tenant |
7 |
|
5 |
3 |
4 |
4 |
23 |
| 30% |
0% |
22% |
13% |
17% |
17% |
|
| SRS tenant organisation |
1 |
1 |
|
2 |
|
|
4 |
| 25% |
25% |
0% |
50% |
0% |
0% |
|
| None of the above |
8 |
24 |
21 |
20 |
12 |
7 |
92 |
| 9% |
26% |
23% |
22% |
13% |
8% |
|
| None selected |
|
|
1 |
2 |
3 |
|
6 |
| 0% |
0% |
17% |
33% |
50% |
0% |
|
| Total |
309 |
547 |
567 |
661 |
431 |
136 |
2651 |
| % of those answering |
12% |
21% |
21% |
25% |
16% |
5% |
|
Table Q35(d): The right to request to keep a pet and to not be unreasonably refused
| Respondent group |
most beneficial |
Ranking |
least beneficial |
Total answering |
| 1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
| PRS landlord |
132 |
336 |
548 |
588 |
381 |
168 |
2153 |
| 6% |
16% |
25% |
27% |
18% |
8% |
|
| PRS landlord organisation |
5 |
40 |
43 |
33 |
15 |
4 |
140 |
| 4% |
29% |
31% |
24% |
11% |
3% |
|
| SRS landlord |
4 |
10 |
14 |
13 |
7 |
4 |
52 |
| 8% |
19% |
27% |
25% |
13% |
8% |
|
| SRS landlord organisation |
2 |
3 |
3 |
|
1 |
|
9 |
| 22% |
33% |
33% |
0% |
11% |
0% |
|
| PRS tenant |
11 |
23 |
43 |
24 |
38 |
17 |
156 |
| 7% |
15% |
28% |
15% |
24% |
11% |
|
| PRS tenant organisation |
1 |
1 |
4 |
|
1 |
|
7 |
| 14% |
14% |
57% |
0% |
14% |
0% |
|
| SRS tenant |
1 |
6 |
1 |
5 |
3 |
7 |
23 |
| 4% |
26% |
4% |
22% |
13% |
30% |
|
| SRS tenant organisation |
|
2 |
1 |
1 |
|
|
4 |
| 0% |
50% |
25% |
25% |
0% |
0% |
|
| None of the above |
9 |
10 |
22 |
25 |
17 |
9 |
92 |
| 10% |
11% |
24% |
27% |
18% |
10% |
|
| None selected |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
2 |
6 |
| 17% |
17% |
17% |
17% |
0% |
33% |
|
| Total |
166 |
432 |
680 |
690 |
463 |
211 |
2642 |
| % of those answering |
6% |
16% |
26% |
26% |
18% |
8% |
|
Table Q35(e): Greater protections during the eviction process
| Respondent group |
most beneficial |
Ranking |
least beneficial |
Total answering |
| 1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
| PRS landlord |
146 |
414 |
346 |
338 |
711 |
185 |
2140 |
| 7% |
19% |
16% |
16% |
33% |
9% |
|
| PRS landlord organisation |
7 |
25 |
11 |
24 |
61 |
13 |
141 |
| 5% |
18% |
8% |
17% |
43% |
9% |
|
| SRS landlord |
5 |
13 |
7 |
11 |
13 |
2 |
51 |
| 10% |
25% |
14% |
22% |
25% |
4% |
|
| SRS landlord organisation |
|
|
|
2 |
5 |
2 |
9 |
| 0% |
0% |
0% |
22% |
56% |
22% |
|
| PRS tenant |
9 |
31 |
30 |
31 |
46 |
10 |
157 |
| 6% |
20% |
19% |
20% |
29% |
6% |
|
| PRS tenant organisation |
|
1 |
1 |
|
3 |
2 |
7 |
| 0% |
14% |
14% |
0% |
43% |
29% |
|
| SRS tenant |
|
7 |
5 |
2 |
7 |
1 |
22 |
| 0% |
32% |
23% |
9% |
32% |
5% |
|
| SRS tenant organisation |
|
1 |
|
|
3 |
|
4 |
| 0% |
25% |
0% |
0% |
75% |
0% |
|
| None of the above |
3 |
23 |
15 |
8 |
36 |
7 |
92 |
| 3% |
25% |
16% |
9% |
39% |
8% |
|
| None selected |
|
3 |
|
1 |
2 |
|
6 |
| 0% |
50% |
0% |
17% |
33% |
0% |
|
| Total |
170 |
518 |
415 |
417 |
887 |
222 |
2629 |
| % of those answering |
6% |
20% |
16% |
16% |
34% |
8% |
|
Table Q35(f): Amendment to social housing pre-action requirements to reflect the potential impact of domestic abuse
| Respondent group |
most beneficial |
Ranking |
least beneficial |
Total answering |
| 1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
| PRS landlord |
729 |
332 |
294 |
323 |
194 |
202 |
2074 |
| 35% |
16% |
14% |
16% |
9% |
10% |
|
| PRS landlord organisation |
53 |
13 |
20 |
26 |
13 |
15 |
140 |
| 38% |
9% |
14% |
19% |
9% |
11% |
|
| SRS landlord |
15 |
5 |
11 |
8 |
4 |
9 |
52 |
| 29% |
10% |
21% |
15% |
8% |
17% |
|
| SRS landlord organisation |
1 |
3 |
1 |
4 |
|
|
9 |
| 11% |
33% |
11% |
44% |
0% |
0% |
|
| PRS tenant |
29 |
14 |
21 |
45 |
24 |
24 |
157 |
| 18% |
9% |
13% |
29% |
15% |
15% |
|
| PRS tenant organisation |
1 |
3 |
2 |
1 |
|
|
7 |
| 14% |
43% |
29% |
14% |
0% |
0% |
|
| SRS tenant |
|
1 |
5 |
8 |
4 |
5 |
23 |
| 0% |
4% |
22% |
35% |
17% |
22% |
|
| SRS tenant organisation |
1 |
|
1 |
1 |
|
1 |
4 |
| 25% |
0% |
25% |
25% |
0% |
25% |
|
| None of the above |
28 |
6 |
21 |
16 |
7 |
13 |
91 |
| 31% |
7% |
23% |
18% |
8% |
14% |
|
| None selected |
4 |
|
|
1 |
|
1 |
6 |
| 67% |
0% |
0% |
17% |
0% |
17% |
|
| Total |
861 |
377 |
376 |
433 |
246 |
270 |
2563 |
| % of those answering |
34% |
15% |
15% |
17% |
10% |
11% |
|
Table Q36(a): Thinking of the financial impacts, please rank the proposals with regard to the potential impact for tenants, from most beneficial to least beneficial, with 1 indicating most beneficial and 6 indicating least beneficial
(a) Rent control
| Respondent group |
most beneficial |
Ranking |
least beneficial |
Total answering |
| 1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
| PRS landlord |
1168 |
132 |
123 |
82 |
53 |
469 |
2027 |
| 58% |
7% |
6% |
4% |
3% |
23% |
|
| PRS landlord organisation |
58 |
3 |
8 |
4 |
4 |
63 |
140 |
| 41% |
2% |
6% |
3% |
3% |
45% |
|
| SRS landlord |
42 |
1 |
2 |
|
|
11 |
56 |
| 75% |
2% |
4% |
0% |
0% |
20% |
|
| SRS landlord organisation |
7 |
1 |
|
|
|
2 |
10 |
| 70% |
10% |
0% |
0% |
0% |
20% |
|
| PRS tenant |
1856 |
3 |
4 |
2 |
2 |
19 |
1886 |
| 98% |
0% |
0% |
0% |
0% |
1% |
|
| PRS tenant organisation |
6 |
1 |
|
|
1 |
|
8 |
| 75% |
13% |
0% |
0% |
13% |
0% |
|
| SRS tenant |
256 |
|
|
3 |
|
1 |
260 |
| 98% |
0% |
0% |
1% |
0% |
0% |
|
| SRS tenant organisation |
4 |
|
|
|
|
1 |
5 |
| 80% |
0% |
0% |
0% |
0% |
20% |
|
| None of the above |
915 |
2 |
6 |
4 |
|
23 |
950 |
| 96% |
0% |
1% |
0% |
0% |
2% |
|
| None selected |
287 |
1 |
1 |
|
|
|
289 |
| 99% |
0% |
0% |
0% |
0% |
0% |
|
| Total |
4599 |
144 |
144 |
95 |
60 |
589 |
5631 |
| % of those answering |
82% |
3% |
3% |
2% |
1% |
10% |
|
Table Q36(b): Changes to rules around ending joint tenancies
| Respondent group |
most beneficial |
Ranking |
least beneficial |
Total answering |
| 1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
| PRS landlord |
198 |
633 |
345 |
383 |
259 |
150 |
1968 |
| 10% |
32% |
18% |
19% |
13% |
8% |
|
| PRS landlord organisation |
20 |
47 |
22 |
20 |
21 |
8 |
138 |
| 14% |
34% |
16% |
14% |
15% |
6% |
|
| SRS landlord |
2 |
21 |
10 |
10 |
10 |
1 |
54 |
| 4% |
39% |
19% |
19% |
19% |
2% |
|
| SRS landlord organisation |
|
2 |
4 |
3 |
|
1 |
10 |
| 0% |
20% |
40% |
30% |
0% |
10% |
|
| PRS tenant |
9 |
1767 |
32 |
31 |
20 |
24 |
1883 |
| 0% |
94% |
2% |
2% |
1% |
1% |
|
| PRS tenant organisation |
|
1 |
3 |
2 |
|
1 |
7 |
| 0% |
14% |
43% |
29% |
0% |
14% |
|
| SRS tenant |
|
243 |
8 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
260 |
| 0% |
93% |
3% |
1% |
1% |
1% |
|
| SRS tenant organisation |
|
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
5 |
| 0% |
20% |
20% |
20% |
20% |
20% |
|
| None of the above |
7 |
883 |
14 |
23 |
14 |
6 |
947 |
| 1% |
93% |
1% |
2% |
1% |
1% |
|
| None selected |
|
286 |
1 |
2 |
|
|
289 |
| 0% |
99% |
0% |
1% |
0% |
0% |
|
| Total |
236 |
3884 |
440 |
478 |
328 |
195 |
5561 |
| % of those answering |
4% |
70% |
8% |
9% |
6% |
4% |
|
Table Q36(c): Greater flexibility to personalise a home
| Respondent group |
most beneficial |
Ranking |
least beneficial |
Total answering |
| 1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
| PRS landlord |
107 |
254 |
432 |
391 |
515 |
263 |
1962 |
| 5% |
13% |
22% |
20% |
26% |
13% |
|
| PRS landlord organisation |
21 |
17 |
29 |
31 |
29 |
9 |
136 |
| 15% |
13% |
21% |
23% |
21% |
7% |
|
| SRS landlord |
3 |
4 |
15 |
11 |
10 |
11 |
54 |
| 6% |
7% |
28% |
20% |
19% |
20% |
|
| SRS landlord organisation |
|
1 |
1 |
1 |
5 |
2 |
10 |
| 0% |
10% |
10% |
10% |
50% |
20% |
|
| PRS tenant |
3 |
15 |
27 |
29 |
67 |
1741 |
1882 |
| 0% |
1% |
1% |
2% |
4% |
93% |
|
| PRS tenant organisation |
|
|
1 |
1 |
3 |
2 |
7 |
| 0% |
0% |
14% |
14% |
43% |
29% |
|
| SRS tenant |
1 |
1 |
2 |
4 |
18 |
234 |
260 |
| 0% |
0% |
1% |
2% |
7% |
90% |
|
| SRS tenant organisation |
|
1 |
1 |
|
3 |
|
5 |
| 0% |
20% |
20% |
0% |
60% |
0% |
|
| None of the above |
5 |
9 |
12 |
24 |
32 |
865 |
947 |
| 1% |
1% |
1% |
3% |
3% |
91% |
|
| None selected |
|
|
2 |
1 |
3 |
283 |
289 |
| 0% |
0% |
1% |
0% |
1% |
98% |
|
| Total |
140 |
302 |
522 |
493 |
685 |
3410 |
5552 |
| % of those answering |
3% |
5% |
9% |
9% |
12% |
61% |
|
Table Q36(d): The right to request to keep a pet and to not be unreasonably refused
| Respondent group |
most beneficial |
Ranking |
least beneficial |
Total answering |
| 1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
| PRS landlord |
67 |
171 |
340 |
481 |
468 |
440 |
1967 |
| 3% |
9% |
17% |
24% |
24% |
22% |
|
| PRS landlord organisation |
4 |
26 |
33 |
29 |
22 |
22 |
136 |
| 3% |
19% |
24% |
21% |
16% |
16% |
|
| SRS landlord |
|
5 |
8 |
11 |
18 |
12 |
54 |
| 0% |
9% |
15% |
20% |
33% |
22% |
|
| SRS landlord organisation |
1 |
|
1 |
2 |
3 |
3 |
10 |
| 10% |
0% |
10% |
20% |
30% |
30% |
|
| PRS tenant |
1 |
10 |
31 |
28 |
1746 |
66 |
1882 |
| 0% |
1% |
2% |
1% |
93% |
4% |
|
| PRS tenant organisation |
1 |
|
|
|
3 |
3 |
7 |
| 14% |
0% |
0% |
0% |
43% |
43% |
|
| SRS tenant |
|
3 |
1 |
1 |
236 |
19 |
260 |
| 0% |
1% |
0% |
0% |
91% |
7% |
|
| SRS tenant organisation |
1 |
|
|
1 |
1 |
2 |
5 |
| 20% |
0% |
0% |
20% |
20% |
40% |
|
| None of the above |
2 |
5 |
18 |
12 |
879 |
31 |
947 |
| 0% |
1% |
2% |
1% |
93% |
3% |
|
| None selected |
1 |
|
|
2 |
283 |
3 |
289 |
| 0% |
0% |
0% |
1% |
98% |
1% |
|
| Total |
78 |
220 |
432 |
567 |
3659 |
601 |
5557 |
| % of those answering |
1% |
4% |
8% |
10% |
66% |
11% |
|
Table Q36(e): Greater protections during the eviction process
| Respondent group |
most beneficial |
Ranking |
least beneficial |
Total answering |
| 1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
| PRS landlord |
131 |
573 |
403 |
291 |
452 |
114 |
1964 |
| 7% |
29% |
21% |
15% |
23% |
6% |
|
| PRS landlord organisation |
9 |
30 |
21 |
33 |
38 |
6 |
137 |
| 7% |
22% |
15% |
24% |
28% |
4% |
|
| SRS landlord |
1 |
19 |
13 |
8 |
11 |
1 |
53 |
| 2% |
36% |
25% |
15% |
21% |
2% |
|
| SRS landlord organisation |
1 |
4 |
1 |
3 |
1 |
|
10 |
| 10% |
40% |
10% |
30% |
10% |
0% |
|
| PRS tenant |
5 |
68 |
1742 |
39 |
24 |
5 |
1883 |
| 0% |
4% |
93% |
2% |
1% |
0% |
|
| PRS tenant organisation |
1 |
5 |
2 |
|
|
|
8 |
| 13% |
63% |
25% |
0% |
0% |
0% |
|
| SRS tenant |
3 |
7 |
243 |
5 |
|
1 |
259 |
| 1% |
3% |
94% |
2% |
0% |
0% |
|
| SRS tenant organisation |
|
3 |
|
2 |
|
|
5 |
| 0% |
60% |
0% |
40% |
0% |
0% |
|
| None of the above |
7 |
34 |
873 |
17 |
13 |
2 |
946 |
| 1% |
4% |
92% |
2% |
1% |
0% |
|
| None selected |
|
2 |
284 |
|
3 |
|
289 |
| 0% |
1% |
98% |
0% |
1% |
0% |
|
| Total |
158 |
745 |
3582 |
398 |
542 |
129 |
5554 |
| % of those answering |
3% |
13% |
64% |
7% |
10% |
2% |
|
Table Q36(f)): Amendment to social housing pre-action requirements to reflect the potential impact of domestic abuse
| Respondent group |
most beneficial |
Ranking |
least beneficial |
Total answering |
| 1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
| PRS landlord |
315 |
219 |
333 |
342 |
209 |
501 |
1919 |
| 16% |
11% |
17% |
18% |
11% |
26% |
|
| PRS landlord organisation |
24 |
14 |
25 |
19 |
23 |
29 |
134 |
| 18% |
10% |
19% |
14% |
17% |
22% |
|
| SRS landlord |
6 |
4 |
6 |
14 |
5 |
19 |
54 |
| 11% |
7% |
11% |
26% |
9% |
35% |
|
| SRS landlord organisation |
1 |
2 |
3 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
10 |
| 10% |
20% |
30% |
10% |
10% |
20% |
|
| PRS tenant |
9 |
20 |
47 |
1753 |
23 |
30 |
1882 |
| 0% |
1% |
2% |
93% |
1% |
2% |
|
| PRS tenant organisation |
|
1 |
1 |
4 |
|
1 |
7 |
| 0% |
14% |
14% |
57% |
0% |
14% |
|
| SRS tenant |
|
6 |
6 |
244 |
2 |
2 |
260 |
| 0% |
2% |
2% |
94% |
1% |
1% |
|
| SRS tenant organisation |
|
|
3 |
1 |
|
1 |
5 |
| 0% |
0% |
60% |
20% |
0% |
20% |
|
| None of the above |
10 |
13 |
24 |
867 |
9 |
21 |
944 |
| 1% |
1% |
3% |
92% |
1% |
2% |
|
| None selected |
1 |
|
1 |
284 |
|
3 |
289 |
| 0% |
0% |
0% |
98% |
0% |
1% |
|
| Total |
366 |
279 |
449 |
3529 |
272 |
609 |
5504 |
| % of those answering |
7% |
5% |
8% |
64% |
5% |
11% |
|
