« Previous | Contents | Next »
Listen
CHAPTER 5: GENERAL RESPONSES
In addition to the comments received on the specific consultation questions, some respondents comments on landlord registration in general. These comments are summarised below.
Impact of Registration
In general, responses from landlord, tenant and other interested organisations, were broadly supportive of the Scottish Government's aims to raise standards in the 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.
The SRPBA said:
'The Association applauds the Scottish Government for making successful delivery of the scheme a priority, and for recognising the need for change and improvement. However, the SRPBA believes that the current scheme requires more than good practice and a small number of legislative changes to make it more efficient and effective and reduce administrative complexity. The Association urges the SG to closely monitor the impact of the changes and take action to repel or drastically amend the legislation if no quantifiable improvements to the sector can be identified within the next 12 to 18 months' (LR101).
This was echoed in the response from Shelter:
'It is timely to be revisiting the regulations on the operation of landlord registration…We are disappointed, however, that the opportunity is not being taken to review the impact of registration, particularly the impact on standards in the private rented sector'. (LR105)
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.
Shelter said:
'We see many examples where local authorities and their partners aren't acting to protect tenants or send a clear message to rogue landlords'. (LR105)
The SRPBA echoed this saying:
'The Association continues to believe that landlord registration in its current form has done little to improve the quality of the private rented sector' and that 'bad landlords' remain 'unregistered and undetected'. (LR101)
There was also a suggestion that landlord registration may not be the best way of protecting tenants from poor management and that this should be assessed as part of a wider review of landlord registration. As part of this wider review, Shelter suggested that consideration should be given to the introduction of a Letting Code and called on the Government to outline a timetable for doing this.
A minority of landlords and agents questioned the need for landlord registration. In particular, a small number of landlords with only one property felt they should not be required to register and pay a fee.
Application process
A number of responses from landlords and agents referred to the level of paperwork attached to the application process, even when an application had been completed online. One respondent commented that 'the undertakings (completed online) are repeated in paper form. This seems unnecessary'. (LR103). There were calls for a reduction in duplication of effort across local authorities, and a standardisation of practices nationally. A number of respondents questioned the need for landlords to be assessed as fit and proper in multiple authorities if property was let in multiple areas. These respondents asked for the system to be reviewed so that only one application was required.
The level of information requested on the application form was criticised by a small number of landlords. In particular, one landlord stated that their name and home address should not be available publicly, and that their criminal record should not be required to be disclosed.
« Previous | Contents | Next »