Official Report search · Parliament Workbench

Chamber

Plenary, 18 Jun 2008

18 Jun 2008 · S3 · Plenary

Item of business

Tenancy Deposit Protection Scheme

Pringle, Mike LD Edinburgh South Watch on SPTV

I congratulate Claire Baker on securing this worthwhile debate.

As several members have remarked, everyone has an anecdote about someone whose rent deposit was withheld. Other members, like me, may have dealt with individual cases in their constituencies.

We have heard about the landlord accreditation scheme. I was recently approached by a group of students who were with an accredited landlord who refused to repay their deposit. It took a letter from me—sadly—to resolve the situation, but why did I have to write? My own constituency has a large student population, and commonly it is students—who often already are burdened financially by the costs accrued from attending university—who are hardest hit by the unjust retention of a deposit.

I recently wrote to all the Scottish universities, and almost certainly to most of those who are represented in the public gallery today and to other stakeholders, regarding the issue. Of course, they all had stories to tell. Opinion was unanimous: the unjustified withholding of tenants' rent deposits is a serious problem.

I am sure that many of the members who are in the chamber will have taken the time to consider the NUS report "Brick by Brick: the state of student housing in Scotland 2007", many of the figures in which are truly startling: 25 percent of students surveyed reported the unfair withholding of their deposits. That amounts to hundreds of thousands of pounds every year, and if repeated across the entire rental sector it could run into millions.

The 2001 survey that led to the introduction of a mandatory scheme in England stated that 21 per cent of private tenants across the sector had had a deposit withheld unfairly. There is no reason whatsoever to believe that the figure is any different in Scotland. Indeed, as the private rental sector has expanded significantly since 2001, the problems might be even more widespread. Richard Simpson talked about the situation 40 years ago—I bet it is much greater now.

There are several well-documented problems with the current system, and neither landlord nor tenant is adequately protected. Currently, the only recourse for tenants if there is a dispute over the withholding of a rent deposit—if they do not have an MSP—is the small claims court, where the average fee for the recovery of a £750 deposit is around £44. If the landlord disputes the claim, a hearing is required, which can be daunting, particularly for young people, students and the vulnerable. It can take months to get a judgment and appeals can cost hundreds of pounds. The average Scottish student can ill afford to spend that time and money. It is also worth noting that delays might cause particular problems for students from other parts of the United Kingdom and overseas, who might have to return home and simply do not have the time to fight a court case to get their deposit back.

In the past, the main barrier to the introduction of a mandatory scheme in Scotland was the lack of a dedicated body of figures to support the widespread anecdotal evidence. Now, however, with the release of the NUS report, we finally have a solid basis on which to build the case for a scheme. The current situation is unnecessary and unsustainable, and the benefits of the scheme in England are self-evident. I hope that the Scottish Government will use the Housing (Scotland) Act 2006 to introduce a mandatory tenancy deposit scheme. I hope that the minister will give us some positive guidance on whether he will do that in the near future.