EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1. In July 2009 the Scottish Government published a consultation on private sector housing issues for possible inclusion in the upcoming draft Housing (Scotland) Bill. The proposals focus on three areas: landlord registration, HMO licensing and powers in the Housing (Scotland) Act 2006 for local authorities to deal with disrepair in privately owned houses.
2. A total of 117 consultation responses were received, 69 of which were submitted by groups or organizations and the remaining 48 by individual members of the public.
3. Overall, there was a broadly positive response to the measures proposed. This was particularly the case among group respondents and applied across both the private, public and third sectors. In particular, local authorities generally welcomed the opportunity to use enhanced powers to respond to their particular local housing context and a range of respondents suggested the proposed measures were in tune with the principles underpinning the Concordat between the Scottish Government and local authorities.
4. However, some respondents suggested that, in many of the areas covered by the consultation, the powers currently held by local authorities are already sufficient but are not always being employed effectively or at all.
Landlord Registration
5. Many respondents noted their broad support for the landlord registration regime, seeing it as key to raising standards across the private rented sector and particularly in tackling issues around poor property condition and management practices still found within parts of the sector.
6. There was strong support for a local authority being able to require persons associated with a property to provide information to help it to carry out its landlord registration functions, although some respondents called for national standardisation and clear definitions of the information required.
7. There were some concerns about placing any requirement on tenants to provide information, especially if non-compliance carried the threat of criminal offence. Some suggested that local authority officers' evidence be accepted in lieu of tenants' evidence. Others called for measures to protect tenants from retaliatory eviction after providing information about their landlord.
8. Most respondents were in favour of increasing the maximum fine for failing to register as a landlord or communicating with another person with a view to entering into a lease or an occupancy arrangement without being registered. There was some consensus among group respondents that a penalty regime which mirrors that for HMO licensing seems appropriate. However, a number of respondents suggested that, rather than increasing the levels of fines, local authorities should use (and be seen to use) their existing powers. Equally, some felt the proposals to be draconian and not in the spirit of the 'light touch' registration regime that was originally proposed.
9. Support for the landlord register containing additional information indicating that an application has been received but not yet processed or approved, and that a landlord has been refused registration or has been de-registered, was strong . A number of respondents saw this as valuable information to inform tenants' choices, although the importance of the information being accurate and current was also raised.
10. While a clear majority supported giving local authorities the power to charge a registered landlord a fee for nominating an agent there tended to be some difference in views between those administering the register i.e. local authorities, and other organisations and individuals. Many local authorities wished to see the introduction of a charging regime which reflects the 'true cost' of administrative processes. Others wished to see charges kept to a minimum and not apply if the agent is already registered in their own right.
Licensing of Houses in Multiple Occupation ( HMOs)
11. The majority of respondents were in favour of expanding the definition of a licensable HMO to cover short term lets in some way, with a clear preference for counting all occupants who have a main residence elsewhere. There were mixed views as to whether holiday lets should be included and some very particular concerns about the potential impact of these provisions on availability of supply for 'one off' cultural and sporting events.
12. Respondents held a broad range of views about whether there is a problem with licensed HMOs operating without planning permission. However, a clear majority agree that planning permission (where it is required) should be a requirement for the granting of an HMO licence and that this should be a mandatory rather than discretionary requirement. By and large, support for the mandatory approach stemmed from the advantages of a 'level playing field' and a consistent approach being taken across Scotland.
13. Most respondents favoured introducing this requirement for both new applications and renewals, although there appeared to be a tension between what is seen as 'fair' (generally that the requirement should apply to all applications) and what would be 'expedient' (to apply to only new applications). There were some particular concerns that requiring planning permission for renewals could threaten the existing supply of private rented accommodation.
Matters Arising from Implementation of Local Authority Powers in the Housing (Scotland) Act 2006
14. There was broad agreement that, where a local authority has to prepare a maintenance plan in default, they should be able to charge the costs to owners; there were concerns that an absence of charges could result in owners being disinclined to take appropriate actions. It was also suggested that sufficiently robust arrangements need to be in place to support cost recovery. Some support for this measure was conditional on charges only being on a cost basis.
15. There was also strong support for giving local authorities powers to charge owners expenses incurred when registering documents relating to maintenance plans; there was a broad consensus that that these powers should apply to all situations in which maintenance documents require to be registered.
16. The majority of group respondents, including 18 out of 24 local authorities, were in favour of allowing local authorities to pay a missing share into a maintenance account in situations where an owner is unwilling to pay. However, there were some concerns that this proposal contradicts the spirit of the Act - namely that owners should take primary responsibility for maintaining their property - and that there are already provisions in place for other owners to pursue the non-paying owners' share.
17. A considerable majority of respondents supported the restoration of the right to appeal against charging orders.
18. There was also strong support from group respondents for allowing, although not obliging, local authorities to pass on the expenses of registering repayment charges and discharge of repayment charges. However, support for this measure was less clear cut among individual respondents.
19. Views were also sought on removing the requirement that Scottish Ministers must approve draft Housing Renewal Area designation orders before they can be made. Most comments were in support of removing the requirement, with some respondents seeing this as in line with the spirit of the Concordat. Some support was based on a perceived need to speed up the process and reduce levels of bureaucracy.
20. Although the number of responses received was relatively low, the proposal to extend the situations under which local authorities can provide assistance under section 71 to include demolition received broad support and all group respondents supported the proposition. Some respondents suggested that this should be restricted to non-financial assistance only. Many others suggested that, while non-financial assistance may be more common, to exclude financial assistance could cause unreasonable delays or hardship.
21. Finally, there was strong support for the specific inclusion of energy efficiency measures in "improvement" and "work" in the 2006 Act.