Official Report search · Parliament Workbench

Committee

Infrastructure and Capital Investment Committee 10 February 2016

10 Feb 2016 · S4 · Infrastructure and Capital Investment Committee

Item of business

Private Housing (Tenancies) (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2

Burgess, Margaret SNP Cunninghame South Watch on SPTV

I will speak first to my amendment 84. A tenant will be able to end a tenancy by giving notice to the landlord. There is a concern that this flexible path to termination might be exploited by unscrupulous landlords to reintroduce the no-fault eviction ground by the back door. A landlord might insist that notice be given as a condition of granting a tenancy, so that, six months after it begins, the tenancy ends without the landlord having to get an eviction order. To tackle that problem, amendment 84 will allow tenants to dispute the validity of a notice they have given on the basis that they were coerced into giving it or gave it when they were in the weak negotiating position of trying to secure a tenancy. If a landlord gives a tenant notice to leave, section 40 dictates when the tenancy ends but the parties might want it to end earlier. The bill already allows for that, because, under section 38, the tenant can give notice to end the tenancy on a day of his or her choosing and the landlord can accept that by waiving the notice period. Amendment 86 simply adds a flag to section 40, so that nobody overlooks that route to ending the tenancy earlier than section 40 would. Section 38 provides that a tenancy comes to an end on the day that is specified in the tenant’s notice to his or her landlord. Amendments 161 and 162 provide that the tenancy could end on the day that is specified in the notice or on the day on which the tenant ceases to occupy the let property—whichever date is later. The effect of the amendments is that, if a tenant notified his or her landlord in writing that they were moving out on 30 January but he or she remained in the property until 14 February, the tenancy would come to an end on 14 February. If we accept the amendments, we will end up with a messy position in cases in which the landlord has already granted a new tenancy to someone else on the basis of the current tenant having given notice. There would then be two people who had competing rights to live in the property at the same time. The bill’s provisions are clear. Once the date of notice that has been given by the tenant passes, his or her tenancy is at an end. If he or she stayed on, they could be ejected as having no right to occupy. The simple fact is that the tenancy is ended, so the tenant has no right to be there. I therefore ask members not to support amendments 161 and 162. The default notice period to be given by tenants to landlords when ending a private residential tenancy is currently set at 28 days when the tenancy has lasted for six months or less and 56 days when the tenancy has lasted for six months or more. Amendment 163 would remove the second limb of that so that the period would be 28 days in every case. The original intention was that tenants who had been in a property for longer would be required to give a longer notice period. Likewise, landlords will be required to give tenants longer notice if the tenant has been in the tenancy for more than six months, except when the eviction is because of the tenant’s conduct. I listened carefully to all the evidence that was presented to the committee and note that some tenants might need to end their tenancy within four weeks—for example, to take up a social tenancy. I would not want to disadvantage tenants simply because they have been in their tenancy for more than six months. I am, therefore, minded to endorse that change to the default minimum notice period to be given by tenants, and I urge the committee to support that. Section 40 provides that, when the tenant has received a notice to leave from the landlord and moves out without requiring the landlord to obtain an eviction order, the tenancy comes to an end on the later of either the day that the tenant ceases to occupy the property or the day specified in the notice to leave. Amendments 164 and 165 provide that a tenancy can come to an end on the day on which the tenant notifies the landlord in writing that he or she has ceased to occupy the property or the day on which the tenant ceases to occupy the property if that day is later than the date specified in the notice to leave. That would not assist the parties, and I am not entirely sure what Alex Johnstone is trying to achieve. It would overcomplicate a relatively simple process for consensual termination at the landlord’s instigation, so I cannot support the amendments. Amendment 166 would apply sections 22, 23 and 23A of the Rent (Scotland) Act 1984 to the private residential tenancy. However, those sections will apply as a matter of law and nothing more needs to be done to achieve that. That is not limited to specific tenancy types. It is also not quite the case that the landlord would need to comply with a particular set of rules; rather, there are provisions that apply. I therefore urge Mr Stewart not to move amendment 166. I recognise that it might be helpful to revisit the use of the term “court proceedings” in section 23 of the 1984 act. I do not think that amendment 167 necessarily addresses what we need to do in that regard, but I welcome the point that Mr Stewart has raised. I ask him not to move the amendment on the understanding that we will look into the matter and take steps to address it through a consequential modification if that is required. Accordingly, I ask the committee to support my amendments. I ask Alex Johnstone not to press amendment 161 and David Stewart not to move his amendments. I support Patrick Harvie’s amendment 163.

Search Hansard contributions

Infrastructure and Capital Investment Committee 10 February 2016

In the same item of business