« Previous | Contents | Next »
Listen
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
BACKGROUND
On the 18 th of July 2008, the Scottish Government launched a consultation on amendments to regulations made under Section 8 of the Antisocial Behaviour etc. (Scotland) Act 2004 ('the Act'). The consultation was open for responses until 10 th October 2008.
Under Section 8 of the Act, since 30 April 2006, all owners of privately rented housing in Scotland have been required to apply for registration with the local authority(s) in which they let property. The aims of landlord registration are to raise standards of accommodation and management and assure private tenants that their landlord is a fit and proper person to let property.
The consultation was divided into 3 main sections, seeking views on:
- The Private Landlord Registration (Information and Fees) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2008
- The Private Landlord Registration (Modification) (Scotland) Order 2008
- The Private Landlord Registration (Advice and Assistance) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2008
and hereafter known as the Fee Regulations, the Exemption Regulations and the Advice and Assistance Regulations.
This report represents an analysis of responses to the consultation. Its findings will be used to inform changes to the secondary legislation underpinning the landlord registration scheme.
OVERVIEW OF CONSULTEES
A total of 141 responses to the consultation were received. Of these, 103 responses were from landlords/agents, 24 responses were from local authorities with the remainder coming from housing organisations (7), landlord organisations (2), tenant/student organisations (2), other bodies (2) and 1 Trust.
OVERVIEW OF RESPONSES
The Fee Regulations
Views were sought in relation to the fee regulations and 7 closed questions were asked in the consultation paper.
There was broad agreement to the majority of the proposals; however there was no clear consensus on the change to the consecutive area discount and the online discount.
Question 1. Do you agree that a flat discount rate of 60% should be applied to applications made simultaneously online to more than 1 local authority? If not, what should the level of discount be?
60% of respondents were in agreement that a flat rate discount of 60% should be applied to applications made simultaneously online to more than one local authority. However there were concerns that a discount of 60% would create an anomaly whereby when an application is submitted to two local authorities a landlord/agent would pay less than when applying to one. In addition some local authorities raised concerns about the loss of fees resulting from the removal of the concept of a lead authority.
Question 2. Do you agree that the discount for accredited landlords should be removed?
48% of respondents agreed that the 100% discount for accredited landlord should be removed. Some local authorities stated that as a fit and proper person test still has to be carried out, it is not appropriate for accredited landlords to receive a discount.
Question 3. Do you agree that the charities discount is increased from 80% to 100%?
72% of respondents agreed to the charities discount being increased from 80% to 100%
Question 4. Do you agree that the on line discount should be increased from 10% to 20%?
72% of respondents agreed with the proposal to increase the online discount from 10% to 20%. However, some concerns were raised by a number of local authorities about the impact this would have on fee income and their ability to fund the scheme if the discount was increased.
Question 5. Do you agree with the proposal to remove the discount for single property agents?
50% of respondents agreed to the proposal to remove the discount for single property agents including a number of local authorities who thought that the discount causes confusion amongst landlords.
Question 6. Do you support the proposal to extend the family discount to all joint owners? Do you foresee any unintended consequences of extending this discount?
69% of respondents agreed to the proposal to extend the family discount to all joint owners and saw no unintended consequences.
Question 7. Do you agree that members of an unincorporated trust, other than the "lead member" should receive a 100% discount on the application fee for landlord registration?
67% of respondents agreed that members of an unincorporated trust, other than the "lead member" should receive a 100% discount on the application fee for landlord registration. Some local authorities stated that this proposal is covered by the proposal to extend the joint owner discount at question 6.
The Exemption Regulations
Views were sought in relation to the exemption regulations and 2 closed questions were asked in the consultation paper.
Question 8. Do you agree that houses held by an insolvency practitioner should be exempt from registration for 6 months?
69% of respondents were in agreement with the proposal that houses held by an insolvency practitioner should be exempt from registration for 6 months as this is in line with the exemption already provided to executors and creditors.
Question 9. Do you agree that the exemption for resident landlords should be reconsidered by Ministers? Do you have any evidence to underpin your view?
There was no clear consensus on the proposal that the exemption for resident landlords should be reconsidered by Ministers. Some local authorities stated that any evidence of problems with resident landlords is anecdotal and any review should not take place until reliable evidence is produced.
The Advice and Assistance Regulations
Views were sought in relation to the advice and assistance regulations and 1 closed question was asked in the consultation paper.
Question 10. Do you support the proposal to extend the current advice and assistance regulations to require local authorities to provide advice to tenants where they discover their landlord is not registered but they believe they should be?
74% of respondents agreed with the proposal to extend the current advice and assistance regulations to require local authorities to provide advice to tenants where they discover their landlord is not registered but they believe they should be. Many local authorities stated that this was common practice already. Some landlord organisations had concerns with the quality of advice and assistance provided by some local authorities to landlords generally.
General Points
In general, responses from landlord, tenant and other interested organisations, were broadly supportive of the Scottish Government's aims to raise standards in the private rented sector ( PRS) through landlord registration. However, there was a call for the delivery of the scheme to be improved so that it is more efficient and effective generally.
There was a suggestion from two large tenant and landlord organisations that the amendments to the legislation do not go far enough and a more wide reaching review of landlord registration may be needed. In addition, there was a suggestion that the negative aspects of registration, such as problems in administration and delays in processing applications, outweigh the positive aspects of registration such as improved engagement with the sector. This was a suggestion that this is leading to negative feelings from landlords.
Concerns were also raised regarding the effectiveness of landlord registration on tackling poor management and property standards. Some questions were raised regarding local authority enforcement and the priority that is given to tackling poor landlord behaviour. There were suggestions that local authorities are failing to enforce the scheme and that the scheme is therefore having limited impact on raising standards in the PRS.
« Previous | Contents | Next »