Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee 20 May 2025
One of my hopes for the bill is that it raises tenants’ awareness of their rights significantly. As Emma Roddick has already alluded to, there is a lot of opacity and people are not sure where they stand. Too often, renters do not know their rights, they do not know where to get the right information and they do not know how to challenge landlords who contravene those rights.
Under the bill as drafted, tenants would have a mere 21 days in which to challenge a rent increase. If they do not act within those three weeks, an illegal increase would then be unchallengeable. That cannot be right. Tenants—perhaps thousands of them—who have busy lives, might not have time to research their rights and might not even be aware of those rights, and if they do not make a challenge in those three weeks, they will be ripped off by landlords, with the stamp of approval of the Scottish Government and the bill. I hardly need to say that I do not think that that is acceptable. Until we get to a position in which tenants know their rights and are fully supported, we need to offer some flexibility. My amendments 161, 162, 201 and 202 do that by increasing the limit from three weeks to one year.
I have not simply invented that figure. It comes directly from the Social Security (Scotland) Act 2018, which allows those with a good reason not to have challenged a decision on their payment sooner to challenge it for up to a year. There is therefore congruence with other legislation that the Parliament has passed.
My other set of amendments in the group addresses concerns that were raised by Living Rent. At the moment, renters who challenge rent can end up with the rent officer raising the rent beyond that which is being asked by the landlord. That acts as a serious disincentive to challenging an unreasonable rent notice and might explain why there are so few challenges to rent service Scotland. My amendments 497, 498, and 499 would resolve that anomaly and offer discretion to the rent officer to take into account quality, energy efficiency and other relevant standards when considering a rent challenge.
Amendments 238, 239, and 240 would introduce a £10,000 fine if the landlord has levied an increase beyond that which is allowed under rent control provisions. That is absolutely crucial. At the current level of £1,000, landlords might take a calculated risk that, if they can raise rents more than is allowed, the amount that will be gained might be more than that £1,000. A fine of £10,000 would offer a genuine disincentive. We cannot allow landlords to chance their arm or write off fines as simply a cost of doing business.
Emma Roddick’s amendments 139 and 140 also try to create, through the fines system, a financial incentive for landlords not to challenge illegal increases. The fines are less strong, but I support the principle behind the amendments.
Amendments 399 and 400, from the Government, would lengthen the timescale for challenging rent increases in areas that are not rent controlled. That is welcome, but a nine-day increase is minimal and not sufficient, and I ask the cabinet secretary to consider bringing back a much stronger version at stage 3.