Seòmar agus comataidhean

We have heard clearly from the cabinet secretary and other members that this is a common problem across Scotland. As the convener said, a quarter of properties across Scotland have some kind of factoring arrangement. The difficulty that has arisen is that, where home owners are not getting the level of service that they expect—where they are paying for an entirely substandard service—the customer service is deplorable to the point that, in response to complaints, home owners are either stonewalled and met with silence or factoring companies, acknowledging the power imbalance, just say, “Well, there’s nothing you can do about it”. That is a direct quotation that constituents with a bad experience of factoring arrangements have heard from poorly performing factoring companies, which know that, in legal terms, it is so hard for residents to remove a factor that they just do not care. It cannot be fair that a factoring company can give up a contract and have an alternative factor appointed with no consultation or even awareness on the part of residents who pay for it.

Pam Duncan-Glancy raised an example in Cambuslang, where the first time that residents found out that a new factoring company had been appointed to maintain the common areas was when they received their first bill from that company. It cannot be fair that the factoring companies can be changed with no limit, but residents need to get together, hold a public meeting, and get agreement through a vote of more than 50 per cent of residents before a factor sits up and take notice.

I do not intend to press amendment 507 at this point, but I plan to bring a suite of amendments at stage 3. I hope that the Government has heard loud and clear from members around the table the real desire for change to factoring arrangements. The status quo is simply not an option. Residents have waited for a long time for change from the Government, but it has not been forthcoming. I therefore hope to work with the Government between stages 2 and 3 to give residents a more solid list of the changes that we would like to see to support them.

I seek the committee’s agreement to withdraw amendment 507.

Amendment 507, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendment 387 moved—[Shirley-Anne Somerville]—and agreed to.

Amendment 508 not moved.

Amendments 388 to 392 moved—[Shirley-Anne Somerville]—and agreed to.

Amendments 509 to 512, 415, 513, 504 to 506, 514 and 476 not moved.

Section 51 agreed to.

After section 51

Amendment 408 would allow for

“the interest of the joint tenant”

under a private residential tenancy to

“be assigned to another joint tenant”

before the day on which they provide the landlord a notice outlining that they wish the tenancy to come to an end. However, under those circumstances, the tenancy

“must remain on the same terms as the existing tenancy”,

which would, I hope, allow for more flexibility for people in shared tenancies and, potentially, for easier and smoother transitions between tenancies.

I move amendment 408.

Did the initial consultation not make it explicit that it would not be aiming to achieve full cost recovery?

I appreciate the point about the public finance manual and public finances in general. However, do you accept that, if you consult on the principle that you are not seeking full cost recovery and then lay regulations that, as you have just said, seek full cost recovery, there is a disparity? There is clearly an issue with the consultation and how the Government has set out the principles of what it intends to do.

Amendments 268 and 269 would require Scottish ministers to review grounds for eviction under schedule 3 to the Private Housing (Tenancies) (Scotland) Act 2016 within 12 months of the bill coming into force. From analysing the case load of the First-tier Tribunal for Scotland, listening to the submissions of organisations that act on behalf of tenants and observing the outcomes of changes that were made to schedule 3 of the 2016 act and the emergency legislation that was made during the pandemic, it is clear that at least some of the grounds for eviction mean that the balance of rights in such cases is tilted unfairly away from tenants. While the grounds remain discretionary, the opportunity will exist for unscrupulous landlords to take advantage of the imbalance to unfairly evict tenants.

Although I am in favour of much of the thrust of part 2 of the bill, which will tighten up the circumstances under which eviction should be allowed, there is further to go in ensuring that the balance of rights is fair. That is why I support all the amendments in this group that will make it more difficult to allow unfair evictions.

My amendment 268 would allow the Government to review the structure under which such unfairness can take place. The amendment deals with the cause of the imbalance, while the rest of the bill attempts to mitigate the effects of that. We have all heard stories about tenants who, having been told that the landlord intends to put the property on the market, found that, after they were evicted, the property was put back up for rent, often at a higher price. All my amendments in this part of the bill seek to ensure that the balance of rights is re-weighted towards tenants, while still allowing landlords the ability to end a tenancy when there is a legitimate need to do so.

The time has come to review the grounds for eviction so that the Government can properly consider them in the light of the time that has passed and the experience that has been gained of the application of the grounds since the 2016 act and the subsequent amendments to the schedule came into force.

I take on board the Government’s commitment to undertaking the review and the fact that the timescale of 12 months might be overly prescriptive in relation to consulting on and providing a full perspective of the changes that are required, so I do not intend to move amendments 268 and 269.

Amendment 502 would prevent landlords from evicting tenants under no-fault circumstances for 12 months after they have carried out work as a result of a grant made under the ECO4 scheme. A 2023 Scottish Government report estimated that, by March 2024, nearly half of all households in the private rented sector would be living in fuel poverty. The ECO4 grants are part of the UK Government’s strategy to meet carbon emissions targets and reduce the impact of the cost of living crisis. The focus is on households that are deemed to live in fuel poverty. Grants are means tested to the tenant’s income; there is no relation to the landlord’s situation. If a landlord receives a grant to make improvements to the energy performance of the home, the decision has been taken to award the grant because of the financial circumstances of the tenant and not those of the landlord.

The tenant in question, having been the reason why the landlord got the grant and having been inconvenienced by the work that was carried out in their home, should be given more protection from eviction, so that they get the intended benefits of the improvement to the property, rather than the landlord being able to evict them and then, as is often the case, re-let the property at a higher price due to the improvements, which were funded by the Government because of the circumstances of the tenant.

I appreciate the points that the cabinet secretary makes, so I do not intend to move the amendment at this stage. However, there is a gap in the legislation on how we deal with that, whether that be at a UK or Scottish level. I am happy to have further discussions to iron out the anomaly of a landlord getting funding to improve a property on the basis of a tenant’s circumstances and then evicting them to re-let it.

Amendment 417 addresses a gap in the current landlord registration framework under the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Act 2004. As it stands, the act requires registration of those who own and lease residential property, but it does not clearly capture those who rent a property and sublet it to others. The amendment clarifies that individuals who rent or sublease properties—who, in practice, are landlords—must also register. The amendment would ensure that intermediate landlords could no longer operate outside the regulatory regime, thereby avoiding scrutiny, safety checks and compliance obligations.

That is particularly relevant in cases of rent-to-rent schemes, in which someone rents a flat and then re-lets it to others at a profit, without the necessary oversight. Tenants in such arrangements are especially vulnerable. Amendment 417 would strengthen tenant protections, close a legal grey area and ensure consistency and accountability across all rental arrangements.

Amendment 418 seeks to improve the transparency of the landlord register by requiring the inclusion of key property information. Specifically, it would ensure that the register included the rent charged, the size of the property—including the number of bedrooms and floor levels and the floor area—the maximum number of occupants and, where relevant, the current number of occupants for each property.

That would be a crucial step forward, because it would give local authorities a clear picture of what the private rented sector looked like in their area and would enable better enforcement of overcrowding provisions, rent controls and property standards. It would also enhance the value of the landlord register to tenants, who should have the right to know basic details about the homes that they are considering, especially rent levels and occupancy conditions. Amendment 418 would modernise the register and ensure that it reflected the real conditions of the housing market.

Amendment 419 proposes to reduce the duration of a landlord’s registration under the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Act 2004 from three years to one year. The current three-year cycle allows too much time to pass before registration is reviewed, during which time property standards may deteriorate, landlord circumstances may change or breaches may occur without any follow-up. A yearly cycle would strengthen transparency, keep records current and support better enforcement by local authorities.

Amendment 419 would ensure that information relating to monthly rent was kept up to date and would bring that information into line with the frequency with which landlords outwith rent control areas are currently able to increase monthly rents for private rented tenancies. The amendment is not about increasing bureaucracy; it is about raising standards and closing gaps that allow neglect or non-compliance to persist unchecked for a number of years.

Amendment 420 seeks to impose a new duty on the Scottish ministers to collate and publish rent data drawn from local authority landlord registers. It would require the Scottish ministers to prepare and publish statistics that would be based on the information collated on rent levels in the register, and to break it down by local authority area. That would be a vital step towards transparency and accountability in the housing market, and it would allow local authorities to use the information from an area to consider whether a rent control zone was necessary.

Amendment 421 would introduce a new duty on the Scottish ministers to promote the use of the landlord register to support tenants. It would require the Government to take steps to raise awareness of the register and to ensure that it was actively used to help tenants to understand their rights, to verify landlord registration and to seek redress where necessary. The Scottish Government should use the data gathered in the Scottish landlord register to encourage and support local authorities to communicate with private tenants on their rights via their details as recorded in the register. The amendment would place an obligation on the Scottish Government to ensure that tenants had information about their rights and responsibilities as tenants of rented properties in Scotland.

Amendment 455, which seeks to amend part 8 of the 2004 act, would ensure that the landlord register was accessible and searchable, and it would place obligations on the Scottish Government to enable that. It would require there to be a central, searchable interface, which would make it easier for tenants to access information. In placing that obligation on the Scottish ministers, the amendment would provide consistency and would ensure that local authorities did not face additional expenses. It would support transparency and empower tenants to verify the legitimacy of the landlord or letting agent before signing a lease.

Amendment 488 seeks to improve the landlord registration system significantly, by requiring those who register to provide detailed standardised information about the properties that they let, including information on property classification, number of rooms, heating systems, energy performance certificate—EPC—ratings, past repairs, safety features, accessibility adaptations and known hazards, such as damp or flooding. It also covers compliance with legal standards, such as the repairing standard and electrical installation condition report—EICR—certification, along with clarity on shared spaces and insurance cover.

Amendment 488 would turn the landlord register into a genuinely useful resource for tenants. It would allow councils to make informed choices, it would target enforcement, and it would help national policy makers to address housing quality and climate goals. The data in question would not be burdensome to collect—we are talking about information that responsible landlords already have. The information that would be collected would form part of the information to be shown as part of a home report for any prospective buyer. The proposal supports transparency and balances the need to provide genuinely useful information with the need not to overburden landlords.

Taken as a package, all the amendments in the group speak to what I see as a significant failing of the landlord register as it stands. They provide a real opportunity to amend and update the information that we collect and to gather the data that the committee has spoken about, and has said that we would require, almost every year of the session.

I look forward to hearing the Government’s response to my proposals and—regardless of whether it supports the amendments—hearing about how we can ensure that the landlord register collects the crucial information that we, as legislators, and the Government need in order to make policy decisions and to support tenants to make informed choices about the tenancy agreements that they enter.

I move amendment 417.

On the point about cost recovery, is the level of fees in the new system designed to cover full cost recovery?

Some of the evidence that we have received from stakeholders suggests that the introduction of fees for planning appeals and reviews favour the more well-resourced developers. What is the Government’s take on that? Do the fees deny an appeals process to some developers, particularly small and medium-sized enterprise developers? There has been a contraction in the number of SME developers across the country, but they are key, particularly when it comes to rural and brownfield development. When the Government carried out the business and regulatory impact assessment on the instrument, what assessment was made of the impact on SME developers?

I am not opposed to conditions being attached to the grant. I am not aware of the legal discussions that have gone on in relation to that scheme or whether there are difficulties between reserved and devolved competencies with regard to the laws on housing evictions and other areas. As I said, I am happy to have a discussion with the Scottish Government on the legal interaction between reserved and devolved competencies. I am happy to not move the amendment, to leave that to a further discussion and to come back at stage 3, potentially.

I turn to the amendments in the name of my colleague Katy Clark. Amendment 409 aims to strengthen the criminal law relating to unlawful eviction and the action that can be taken against the worst landlords, particularly repeat offenders.

Freedom of information requests from the Legal Services Agency to the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service revealed that, of the 153 complaints that it received of unlawful eviction in the five years to 31 March 2018, COPFS proceeded against only 56 to 59 people. Such proceedings resulted in a minimum of three and a maximum of 12 convictions annually. At the time of a 2020 publication by the Legal Services Agency, the First-tier Tribunal had made an award of damages for unlawful eviction only once in its entire history.

Amendment 409 seeks to tighten the legal provisions against unlawful evictions by amending the Private Housing (Tenancies) (Scotland) Act 2016 to create a wrongful termination offence that criminalises the act of misleading

“a tenant into ceasing to occupy a let property.”

That allows for a defence where an individual had not intentionally misled the tribunal or the tenant.

An individual who is guilty of that offence on a summary conviction would be liable to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or to a six-month maximum custodial sentence, or to both. If convicted on indictment, the individual would be liable to a fine or to imprisonment for a maximum two-year term, or to both. The amendment is an attempt to strengthen the penalties in the most extreme cases.

On amendments 413 and 414, further to the previous amendment, amendment 413 also seeks to strengthen deterrence against unscrupulous actions by landlords by setting higher penalties under a “wrongful-termination order”. The amendment would increase the maximum penalty for wrongful termination. It also seeks to increase the cumulative total that the tribunal may require landlords to pay from six months to 36 months.

Amendment 414 relates to eviction orders for occupied properties on the grounds of sale, only for landlords to later seemingly abandon those plans to sell. Research from Generation Rent in 2022 found that, despite tenancy reforms, nearly a third of private landlords who evicted tenants in order to sell their property failed to sell the home more than a year later, with 9 per cent of cases of tenants who were evicted on grounds of sale seeing the home simply sold to another landlord who then re-let the property. Therefore, amendment 414 would add protections on property sale, restricting landlords from letting or attempting to let the property in question within 12 months of an eviction order being granted.

That covers the amendments in my name and Katy Clark’s name, but I want to touch briefly on the amendments in the name of Meghan Gallacher that relate to protections due to terminal illness. I support the work that Meghan Gallacher, the cabinet secretary and Marie Curie have done in that area and hope that we can reach a consensus and strengthen protection for those who are terminally ill and their families.

I also want to touch briefly on the issues raised by Willie Rennie, Fulton MacGregor and Meghan Gallacher on the use of properties that are held by religious organisations. In general, I agree with Maggie Chapman that the organisations that hold such properties should not dictate how easy it is to evict. However, if that leads to those properties lying empty, especially when they are the large, family-sized properties that we are crying out for, it would be helpful for the Government to look at how to allow those organisations to let such properties and relieve that pressure, with the assurance that they can bring them back into use for a minister, a priest or any other employee.

I appreciate the cabinet secretary’s support in principle for the intention behind my amendment 417 and the Government’s on-going dialogue and engagement with Scottish Land & Estates to work towards making potential changes at stage 3. I therefore seek permission to withdraw amendment 417 in order to allow those discussions to continue.

On Maggie Chapman’s point about amendment 419, I realise that there would be an increased burden if we were to switch from a three-year to a one-year cycle of registration, but we need to balance outdated rent levels and outdated registrations. Some landlords stop being landlords but do not withdraw from the register; they simply allow their registration to lapse, potentially up to three years later. The concern is that there might be compliance gaps lasting up to three years, and the burden of annual registration needs to be balanced against the live information that could be gathered annually.

My amendments in the group are data driven, and I am reassured by the cabinet secretary’s comment that there will be a separate engagement exercise on data that we will be able to lean on for policy making. I still think that there is a potential gap with regard to the rights of a prospective tenant compared with the rights of a prospective house buyer, who will have far more information at their fingertips to allow them to assess decisions, so I might well come back to that issue at stage 3.

Amendment 417, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendments 418 and 488 not moved.

Amendment 454 moved—[Ross Greer].