Seòmar agus comataidhean

Thank you. Does anyone else have comments or reflections on how to increase compliance or whether there is a need for a clearer point of action for checking whether conditions are being met?

The Royal Town Planning Institute has asked that NPF4 be made a dynamic document that would reflect and reference new advice and guidance. Do witnesses support that suggestion, and do they have any suggestions about how that could work in practice, particularly given that amendments to NPF4 are subject to parliamentary scrutiny and procedure?

Like you, I have had constituents get in touch and raise some pretty serious issues with factors. I am aware of many situations in which factors are simply stonewalling constituents, who are still having to pay the monthly fee.

Like Mark Griffin, constituents have raised the timescales that are involved. It can seem like an awfully long time to get a conclusion through the First-Tier Tribunal, and the factor, even if found to have breached the code, seems to be able to get back to what it is doing or join another factor board and start again pretty quickly. When it comes to consulting, you mentioned stakeholders and MSPs. Will my constituents also get the opportunity to feed into the review?

Does the cabinet secretary recognise that, in many situations, the person who is seeking to rent a property would already have a cat or dog and that they may have to leave them with a family member, or perhaps in a cattery or dog kennel? They would be in limbo while they were waiting to hear from the landlord.

Amendment 250 modifies the 2016 act to give local authorities and registered social landlords first refusal on purchasing a property when a landlord evicts a tenant for the reason of intent to sell. Amendment 141 adds using intent to sell as a reason for eviction and then not selling the property to the list of wrongful eviction reasons. That would be triggered if the property is not sold within a year. We know full well that the reason is misused. There may be legitimate reasons for a sale to be held up or for a council or social landlord not to want to buy the property but, as it stands and given that we are trying to crack down on unfair evictions, it is too easy for landlords to use intention to sell as a reason for eviction, with no checks or balances on whether that claim is being made in good faith.

I have a lot of sympathy for Maggie Chapman’s amendments on winter evictions and notice periods. We have to remember that evictions can be a matter of life and death, and they can certainly quickly become life changing. The current law and the bill as introduced do not give that enough recognition. We recognise the landlord’s right to sell up or move into their property, or to let a family member move in, but if eviction might risk the life of a tenant, as well as their right to a safe and secure home, the balance of rights must come down on the side of protecting the tenant.

I move amendment 522.

On that point, I wonder whether the work that the cabinet secretary is considering around data collection in relation to another part of the bill might help to highlight that inconsistency. If we are getting the data from landlords that I have suggested, it would be much easier to spot when the ground of intent to sell is being used but the property is let out for a different rent further down the line.

As somebody who lives with a cat and has struggled to find landlords who are happy with that, I am really excited about the fact that the bill will strengthen the rights of tenants to keep pets. My amendments simply seek to provide that certainty to tenants as soon as possible.

Amendment 523 seeks to change the period in which landlords must respond to a request to keep a pet from 42 to 28 days. Having spoken with the cabinet secretary about that and explored the likelihood that forcing an answer before the landlord has had a chance to take everything into account might lead to an unnecessary no, I understand that there are debates about what is the best time frame. On that basis, I will not move the amendment. I am happy to rethink the matter before stage 3, to ensure that the balance is in the right place.

Some of my other amendments, along with those of Maggie Chapman, remove reference to assumed refusal in the bill, as we both believe that a non-response should be considered to be consent.

On amendment 522, I am aware that, in a later group, we will discuss property factors—one of many reasons why I am concerned about the burden that might be placed on the First-tier Tribunal. Where it is clear that a tenant has or can comply with reasonable conditions for keeping a pet and the landlord has not refused the request but has simply failed to give consent, I do not believe that it would be a good use of anyone’s time for the tenant to have to challenge the default refusal through a tribunal, while others are waiting to hear back from the tribunal on unreasonable conditions.

I also believe that, unless there are considerable, reasonable reasons why a tenant cannot keep a pet or why the property is simply not suitable for that pet, there is no good reason for the landlord to make such a refusal, and the tenant should be very clear as to why a refusal has been made in any circumstance.

I will withdraw amendment 522, but I remain concerned about some of the aspects raised in the amendments that Maggie Chapman and I have lodged. I have concerns about the period of time in which people could be waiting in limbo and the ability of tenants to dispute the reasons that they have been given for not allowing them to have a pet. I believe that it is much more difficult if no reason is given and there is simply a default refusal. I am also concerned about what would happen when the person who is waiting in limbo relies on their animal to perform daily tasks.

Amendment 522, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendment 259 moved—[Maggie Chapman].

Have you given any consideration to doing it the other way round and maintaining proportionality by moving the regional element on to the constituency, given that the winner of a constituency puts the same amount on to the divisor for a party as a previous list seat does?