Official Report search · Parliament Workbench

Chamber

Meeting of the Parliament 04 June 2013

04 Jun 2013 · S4 · Meeting of the Parliament

Item of business

Private Rentals (Deposits)

Johnstone, Alex Con North East Scotland Watch on SPTV

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to such an important debate, and I congratulate Patrick Harvie on securing it and bringing the issue to the chamber.

The private rented sector plays an increasingly important part in providing much-needed housing. It is perhaps best at delivering housing for an increasingly mobile population, who for many reasons require flexibility in how they seek and keep a home. The figures speak for themselves, with 49 per cent of tenants in the private rented sector having been at their current address for less than a year and a further 25 per cent for less than two years.

The sector is a growth industry. It has doubled in the past 10 years but, in reality, it remains smaller than it was as recently as 1979. To put the issue into further perspective, the sector is 50 per cent smaller than it was in 1945. I want the private rented sector to continue to grow and to make a positive contribution to the safe and sustainable communities in which we all want to live.

In my view, the vast majority of those who are involved in the sector are responsible and professional and they wish to provide a good service. I was therefore extremely disappointed when I recently read a press release from Shelter that, in effect, damned the whole industry with pejorative terms such as “Wild West”, “flagrant disregard for the law” and “cowboy letting agents”.

The fact is that organisations that represent the private rented sector have for some time been open to the introduction of the kind of regulation that protects private landlords and tenants. However, those with whom I have discussed the issue are concerned that, so far, the proposals are not cohesive. Local authorities lack the resources to police the landlord registration scheme effectively and not enough action is taken when rogue or non-compliant landlords are uncovered.

I have had a number of complaints about delays in returning deposits but, ironically, they were not from tenants complaining about landlords; instead, they were from landlords who have used the kind of approved schemes that we have been discussing. Although those issues might be resolved over time, organisations that I met today highlighted that, at present, when there is disagreement between tenant and landlord over a deposit, the process can take up to 109 days to resolve whereas, in the past, a landlord might have been in a position simply to hand over a cheque to a tenant at the end of a tenancy.

In my experience, the private rented sector is as keen as any other interested party to address the issues that are raised in the motion. I cannot help but feel that there is much to be gained by more fully engaging with landlords and doing so in a positive and constructive manner. I believe that that would result in a much more effective system that would proactively root out rogue landlords. That opportunity undoubtedly exists.

As we proceed with proposals for further regulation, I ask the minister to consider that, with housing regulation and with regulation more widely, it is too easy to look at the effectiveness of regulation and decide that, where we would like the situation to be improved, we should tighten up the regulation. However, the problem is that, when that happens, those who are compliant with regulation find themselves dealing with a bigger burden and those who previously chose to be non-compliant remain so. In my view, the issue is therefore primarily one of enforcement. The good landlords are already doing what we want them to do and the bad landlords are not. The law as it stands could be applied to everyone.