Official Report search · Parliament Workbench

Chamber

Plenary, 18 Jun 2008

18 Jun 2008 · S3 · Plenary

Item of business

Tenancy Deposit Protection Scheme

Tolson, Jim LD Dunfermline West Watch on SPTV

I congratulate Claire Baker on securing this debate on a tenant deposit protection scheme, which I am sure that most of us would agree is an important subject. My colleague Robert Brown has quite rightly outlined the plight of many university students. However, as the Liberal Democrat housing spokesperson, I am all too aware that it is not only students who are increasingly facing these problems but many people on low and moderate incomes who privately rent their homes.

I am not suggesting that all private landlords are unscrupulous or are likely to withhold deposits unfairly—far from it—but, as in many walks of life, it is the few who flout the rules who give the whole a bad image. I am sure that we could all think of examples of that.

I am grateful to the Association of Residential Letting Agents for clarifying the point about the bad apple in the barrel. However, despite outlining the benefits of a compulsory deposit scheme from the perspective of its members, it wrongly chastises all local authorities for their handling of the landlord accreditation and registration scheme, which was introduced by the previous Executive.

I have spoken directly with many constituents and with staff here in the Scottish Parliament who have had their deposits unfairly withheld and have had charges made for items far in excess of the reasonable replacement cost. That might not prevent people on a modest income from putting down a deposit on another property, but, for far too many people on a low income, that could mean the difference between continuing to have a roof over their head or not.

The deposits that are held on an individual tenancy can be several hundred pounds, and the impact of the loss of that money when a tenant moves can be catastrophic for many. According to Shelter Scotland, an estimated £50 million is currently held in deposits by private landlords in Scotland. If the figures from Citizens Advice Scotland are accurate, that figure is closer to £75 million.

Currently, the only route by which tenants who have had their deposits unfairly withheld can seek redress is through the small claims court. However, even that form of justice is totally impractical for people who are moving out of the area when they leave their tenancy—for example, people who are moving to another job, or students who have reached the end of a term or a course.

After many years of giving landlords an opportunity voluntarily to adopt more professional standards with regard to the service that they provide to their tenants, the previous Scottish Executive rightly introduced a compulsory landlord accreditation and registration scheme. That shows that, in some instances, we can reach a point at which only compulsion can provide the protection that individuals and families need.

For whatever reason, in the past few years there seems to have been a significant rise in complaints about many private landlords withholding deposits unfairly, and it is now clear that legislative action similar to that which was taken by the previous Executive in relation to the landlord accreditation and registration scheme is required.

The Liberal Democrats believe that the minister must follow the lead of other countries and introduce a compulsory tenant deposit scheme, which could be done under existing housing legislation. Further, if the Government is to salvage any credibility with Scotland's students, the minister must move to implement the best scheme possible—one that not only protects our students and low-paid residents in rented accommodation, but provides landlords with a clear settlement where, at the moment, no such clarity exists.