Hansard

I put on record my thanks to the 27 MSPs who have added their names in support of the motion, representing four political parties and independents who represent many parts of Scotland, recognising that the issue affects many of our constituents across the country. I am also grateful to the Evening Times for raising awareness of the issue in its recent coverage. I hope that members will agree that public awareness of the operation of the tenancy deposit scheme is crucial, both among landlords and tenants, and that we must make far greater progress on that. I also thank the organisations that have issued briefings, including the National Union of Students, Citizens Advice Scotland, Shelter and the Edinburgh Solicitors Property Centre.

I also thank Glasgow Central citizens advice bureau for its work and for welcoming me for a visit yesterday to see their offices. During that visit I saw huge ranks of casework sat on their shelves. I was given to reflect on how one of those case files would have been mine a good number of years ago. Like a lot of people, I spent a period in the private rented sector—I spent around 10 years as a private rented sector tenant. On one occasion, which was just after I had moved back to Scotland from university, a particularly unpleasant landlord in Glasgow decided that he was not going to give me any paperwork, contract or even a letter to indicate that I had a tenancy. Therefore, I was not able to apply for housing benefit when I lost a job. That situation ultimately resulted in my having to call the police when he sent round a squad of boys to start removing doors and furniture and whatever they could to harass me and other tenants out of the flat.

In that instance, I was one of the lucky individuals—I had somewhere to go because I was able to fall back on the support of family. It would be so easy for many people to experience a much more vulnerable situation than the one that I found myself in. However, that situation reminds me how valuable the work is that citizens advice bureaux around the country and many other advice agencies do to help people avoid such situations.

Like other members, I have recently had queries in my in-box about the deposit schemes. The requirement for deposits to be lodged with an approved scheme is an important step forward and we should be pleased that it has happened. However, there are problems with the implementation and awareness of any new system like this.

One constituent in Glasgow contacted me recently. Living on the south side of Glasgow, she had sought assurances from her letting agent in March that her deposit had been lodged with an approved scheme, and she was told in person and through the firm’s website that it had. On checking with the scheme, she was told that there was no record of that letting agent working with the scheme or of any dealings whatever. The agency has since failed to offer a reason for making false assurances, or to pass my constituent details of her landlord so that she can establish whether the agency alone was responsible for those actions or whether the landlord was also responsible. She is still concerned for the other tenants that might be in a similar position. The letting agency disputes some aspects of that account but members will be only too aware of the circumstances of many tenants around the country who might not even be aware that they have the right to ask these questions.

I have received information from a citizens advice bureau about a particular client who asked her letting agent if the deposit was being paid into a scheme. The letting agent informed the client that she had in fact paid an advanced rent, not a deposit, and that the agent would take money away from that advanced rent for any repairs that were needed at the end of the tenancy. That was a clear attempt to get around the scheme by calling the deposit an advanced rent instead of a deposit.

Another client is concerned that he might not get back the full value of his £750 deposit. The landlord said that she would get her sister to check the flat and decide on a bit of an ad hoc basis how much money would be paid back. No information was provided about compliance with the deposit scheme. In this case, as soon as the client started asking questions, the landlord started sending out notes about fairly arbitrary increases in rent. Again, that is another clear attempt to get round the scheme by getting unco-operative or unruly in order to get awkward questions from tenants simply to go away.

I also have a verbal account of a client who had been told by their former landlord that their deposit would be returned only once a new tenant had been found for the property, because the landlord simply did not have the money. That is indicative of the apparent view of some landlords and letting agents that a deposit is not really a deposit but a wee bonus to their income when they get a new tenant, which they have very little intention of handing back.

Tenants simply cannot afford to have their resources treated in that way. Very few of them can stump up the extra month’s rent for a new deposit when they move flat in the knowledge that their previous deposit might come back to them only after a long delay, if ever.

Members across the spectrum will acknowledge that the role of the private rented sector is important. It is needed. It is particularly important in some areas of the country, and it needs to be viable for landlords. However, it also needs to operate with a basic respect for the rights of tenants. Good-quality landlords and letting agents, who understand that they are not simply raking in cash from their properties but are selling a service to paying customers and have a duty to ensure that it is a high-quality service, have nothing to fear from proper regulation of the industry.

As my motion mentions, we are expecting legislation. The Government has indicated that it is open to the regulation of letting agents and mentioned that in its recently published strategy. We could consider other measures for inclusion in a bill and I encourage the minister and other members to consider stronger regulation of landlords such as management standards, which some Scottish National Party members supported when they were in Opposition and I debated the issue during the passage of a previous housing bill. We should also consider greater protection from unlawful eviction and harassment, such as a local authority power to prosecute. The end of short assured tenancies, as Shelter Scotland has suggested, would ensure that private sector tenants have a bit of security in a place that they can call home rather than knowing that they could be out in a matter of a month.

Presiding Officer, I know that I have gone slightly over time so perhaps I will mention one or two other issues if they come up and if there is an appropriate opportunity for an intervention. For the moment, I thank members for having supported the motion.

17:10