Seòmar agus comataidhean

Would the tribunal also take into account the fact that a tenant had, perhaps for no good reason, failed to engage?

Does anyone else want to come in on that? If not, I will move on.

Some of the written evidence in response to the Parliament’s call for views suggests that the impact of the pre-action protocol is going to be quite limited, because there is no duty on the landlord to comply with it. Is it not the case that landlords would be ill advised not to comply with the protocol, because of the consideration that will be given to their participation in it when it comes to any process that follows?

I see lots of nodding heads, so I will not pursue the point. Can I—

I apologise, convener.

Finally, we keep talking about this issue in relation to landlord participation. After everything that I have read on this, I am still a little bit unclear whether there is any expectation of tenant participation in the process. We are told that a landlord’s failure to engage in it will be a consideration for the tribunal. Are we of the view that it would be a consideration against the tenant if they failed to engage? Does anyone have a view on that?

This question is probably best directed to John Blackwood to start with. What evidence, if any, is there of the effect of the temporary introduction of the pre-action protocol? Has it led to a reduction in rent arrears or prevented applications for evictions being made to the tribunal?

I seek some clarity on a point that I raised with the previous panel. The matter is not clear in anything that I have read. When sitting and making a judgment in a case, is the tribunal’s discretion sufficient when, say, a landlord has fully followed, or has sought fully to follow, the pre-action protocol, but the tenant has ignored all approaches, and there were no reasonable grounds for that? I am not talking about the sorts of circumstances that you touched on. Would the tribunal have discretion to take into account the fact that the tenant had not engaged with attempts to find a resolution?

Does anybody else want to come in on that question?

You are right to say that John Blackwood of the Scottish Association of Landlords was quite positive about the protocol. However, he suggested that the SAL would be keen to have dialogue on refinement of the protocol, on some of the detail and on how it is presented. Would you be open to that?

With regard to your point about people being unsure, perhaps the very existence of the protocol focuses minds.

With regard to resolving neighbourhood disputes and providing adequate tenancy support where it is needed, is the current reporting mechanism—the self-assessment, if you like—robust enough to ensure that what is being recorded is accurate?