Housing (Scotland) Bill consultation: interim partial analysis

Introduction

Background

This report presents an analysis of responses to the first 15 questions included in a public consultation on the use of powers in the Housing (Scotland) Bill (the Bill) which was launched on 23 April and ran until 18 July 2025.

The Bill has completed Stages 1 and 2 of the parliamentary process and now moves to Stage 3 where MSPs can propose further amendments to the Bill that will be debated. Following this final stage of the parliamentary process, and subject to Royal Assent, the measures outlined in this consultation would be set out in regulations, which would also be subject to parliamentary approval.

The consultation sought views on how powers within the Bill could be used to exempt certain types of properties from rent control, circumstances where rents could be increased above the level of any introduced rent cap and clarify how joint tenancies in the private sector are ended.

The consultation has been brought forward during the parliamentary process so that the Scottish Government can give early consideration to the regulations required, with a view to bringing these forward at the earliest possible opportunity, in order to give clarity around the operation of the Bill.

Reasons for early publication

To allow for early consideration of responses covering some of the issues that received most focus when the Bill went through Stage 2 in the Scottish Parliament, this report covers the first 15 questions set out in the consultation. These questions relate to the issue of possible exemptions from rent control. This partial analysis has been published in advance of the full analysis report, in order to inform the ongoing Housing (Scotland) Bill development process and the Stage 3 debates on the Bill.

It should be noted that the analysis of questions 1-15 in this report is not reflective of the relative importance of the other questions in the consultation, which will also be analysed and considered as part of the ongoing legislative development work around rent controls.

A full report, which will also include analysis of the remaining 23 questions (including questions about properties subject to modified rent control area restrictions and questions on ending joint tenancies in the private rented sector), will be published when the full analysis is complete.

Although the analysis presented here is based on an analysis of all consultation responses received in relation to the questions covered, readers should be aware that, due to the timescales involved, this is an initial analysis and write up of these sections only. For this reason, findings may be subject to further revision and quality assurance and may be subject to change in the final reporting. This interim report will be included as an annex to the full report when this is published.

The full report will also include summary analysis from online information and consultation sessions with tenants living in Mid-Market and Private Rented Sector homes. These sessions were organised and run on behalf of the Scottish Government by The Tenants Information Service (TIS) and Tenant Participation Advisory Service (Scotland) (TPAS).

Profile of responses

A total of 4,784 valid responses were received.^[1] Of these, 636 were standard responses submitted primarily through the Scottish Government’s Citizen Space portal and 4,148 were responses to a campaign organised by Living Rent. These campaign responses were all submitted through the Citizen Space portal and all contained identical answers at closed questions and comments at open questions.

Of the 636 standard responses, 121 were from groups or organisations and 515 from individual members of the public.^[2]

Group respondents were allocated to one of eight groups by the analysis team. A breakdown of the number of responses received by respondent type is set out below, and a full list of group respondents appended to this report as Annex 1.

Private landlord, letting agent or their representative bodies were the largest single group, with 45 respondents. However, analysis of the comments made by the Individual respondents suggests that some private landlords may have submitted their response as an Individual. It is not possible to definitively identify the proportion of individual responses that come from different groups (for example tenants and landlords) as this was not asked for directly. However, around 1 in 5 of the Individual respondents identified themselves as being a private landlord. Overall, therefore, around 1 in 3 of the 515 standard respondents (around 115 Individual respondents and most of the Private landlord, letting agent or their representative bodies respondents), are private landlords.

A small number of individual respondents identified themselves directly as tenants in their qualitative comments (14 respondents referenced being a tenant), and 386 did not explicitly identify themselves as either tenant or private landlord.

Table 1: Respondents by type

Total organisations: 121

Advice organisation and third sector: 13

Developer or investor: 17

Local authority: 15

Private landlord, letting agent or their representative bodies: 45

Professional or representative body: 8

Public body: 3

Social landlord or their representative bodies: 12

Tenant, community group or union: 8

Total organisations: 121

Individuals: 515

All standard respondents: 636

Campaign respondents: 4148

All respondents: 4784

Analysis and reporting

The report presents a question-by-question analysis of answers to both the closed and open questions. At the closed questions, the figures presented use variable bases (i.e. totals and percentages are calculated based on only those respondents who answered the question).

A list of acronyms used in the report is included at Annex 2.

As with any public consultation exercise, it should be noted that the responses to the consultation cannot be considered to be representative of wider public opinion. Respondents are a self-selecting sample, and people or organisations who have a keen interest in the subject, who hold strong views and who have the capacity to respond are much more likely to take part.

Overarching themes relating to rent controls

Chapter 1 of the consultation focused on possible exemptions from rent control provisions for Mid-Market Rent (MMR) and Build to Rent (BtR) properties (Questions 1-15). Chapter 2 asked a number of questions about the circumstances under which a landlord of a property in a rent control area could increase the rent by more than the level of the rent cap (Questions 16-25). It also asked about the processes that should go along with any modifications that might be introduced (Questions 26-31) – analysis of responses to these questions is not included in this partial report, but will be included in the full analysis report which will be published in due course.

Analysis of respondents’ further comments across these questions has identified a number of recurring themes and frequently raised issues, which are summarised below.^[3]

General concerns about the use of a modified rent cap or exemptions

Many respondents, including those supporting the Living Rent campaign, raised concerns about the potential impact of any measures which allowed for rents to be increased above the level of any introduced rent cap in rent control areas.

There were calls, including from Individual respondents, for there to be no possible modifications or exemptions and for the same arrangements to apply across all private rented tenancies.^[4] A Professional or representative body respondent was amongst those concluding that there is a risk of undermining the whole purpose of rent control measures if too many homes are subject to flexibilities, an argument that was often associated with issues relating to clarity and simplicity, and also affordability.

There were many calls for any system of rent controls and caps to be clear and straightforward, and these were often associated with having a single, consistently applied approach across rent control areas. This issue tended to be raised by those who disagreed with landlords being allowed to raise the rent by more than the rent cap where significant improvements to the property are undertaken or where a landlord is letting a property to a tenant at a rent significantly below market rates (the focus of Questions 16 to 23).

The connection was frequently made with existing or prospective tenants having a better understanding of any permissible rent increases and, by extension, being better placed to exercise their rights if required.

Affordability was the other frequently raised issue, with references to private rented sector rents already being unaffordable for many. This was again connected to the original intent behind the legislation and the importance of retaining a clear focus on affordability rather than measures that could result in rents that are currently at the more affordable end of the market rising to the full market rate.

Other concerns, particularly from organisational respondents, related to any rent cap modification system being difficult to administer. It was noted that the consultation suggests two possible approaches: requiring individual landlords to apply to increase rent above the cap or allowing landlords to increase rents without applying for permission and relying on tenants to challenge the increase if they think it is not within the rules. Both options were seen as bringing risks.

Requiring individual landlords to apply to increase rent above the cap was seen as likely to lead to a large volume of applications; there was reference to it not being clear which organisation would be responsible for processing these applications or how this would be resourced.

Relying on tenants to challenge an increase raised concerns about whether tenants would be aware of their rights or have the time, skills and confidence to challenge their landlord. It was reported that the current system provides little practical support for tenants seeking to challenge their landlord and that protections against unlawful evictions are weak.

Suggestions relating to how any approach to modifications could be taken forward included that it should be based on: a clear, evidence-based rationale underpinning the decision to apply any modification; fairness, and whether introducing possible modifications or exempting certain properties or property types would create an advantage or disadvantage for some tenants or landlords; clarity, with clear parameters and definitions that can be easily communicated and robustly enforced; and impact on the wider housing sector, including around supply and quality.

General concerns about introducing rent controls

An alternative perspective was that the rent control provisions are ill conceived and should not be introduced. Individuals and Private landlords, letting agents or their representative bodies were amongst those noting their general opposition to the legislation. This was sometimes connected to a view that the market should dictate rent levels and that it is not reasonable to expect private sector businesses to operate at below market rate.

These respondents tended to go on to support the exemptions proposed and the introduction of possible modifications, taking the view that if rent controls areas are to be an option, then at the very least there should be circumstances under which the standard rent cap should not apply. Further points made included that to do otherwise could or will lead to private landlords exiting the sector and would also discourage further investment into the sector.

With specific refence to the possible exemptions for MMR or BtR properties, there were also Private landlord, letting agent or their representative bodies and Individual respondents who argued that granting an exemption for (predominantly) large professional landlords operating in one part of the private rented sector will create a two-tier system that unfairly disadvantages the (often) small private landlords whose properties would be subject to rent controls.