Continuing to look past the headline grabbing parts of the recent Housing Bill, the Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee considered part 3 of the proposed legislation at a session on 25th June, and what it means for placemaking and tenancy sustainment in the private rented sector (PRS).
Parts 1 and 2 of the Bill have rightly gained the highest profiles, containing legislative controls on rent and evictions. The government argues that such controls will protect and empower tenants facing landlords that are increasing rents or evicting them from their homes.
In one imagined narrative surrounding this legislation, the PRS does not, by implication wear well. Media stories of rents increasing by 20, 30 or 40% are widely available, the government simply taking this action to protect renters from unscrupulous or greedy landlords. Without getting into moral arguments about rising costs, housing emergencies, or rising profits, it is easy to see how the PRS is something of the villain in this situation.
Enter part 3 of the Housing Bill. It is a mere 10 pages of the draft and has been very much overlooked as the bigger issues of the Bill take centre stage. But it could be quietly powerful as a way for the PRS to re-claim some of the image tarnished by bruising rent control debates.
Part 3 of the Bill provides for circumstances under which tenants can keep pets or make changes to their home, stipulating that landlords cannot refuse such request unreasonably.
Pets in rented properties
This may seem a small and trivial provision in the scheme of the Bill but according to a recent survey by Dogs Trust, 78% of pet owners struggle to find accommodation, along with cases recently cited by the Big Issue of assistance dogs, exempted by the Equalities Act, negatively impacting their owners search for a home. Gerry Tierney, Housing Advice Team Leader at Ayr Housing Aid Centre recounted to the committee of an ex-serviceman who has a support dog due to PTSD and this was a barrier to even temporary homeless accommodation, so it is a real and pertinent issue at various points in the current housing emergency.
When faced with a housing crisis and a massive shortfall of homes, the numbers affected by such a provision start to stack up. Becky Thwaites, Head of Public Affairs at the animal welfare charity Blue Cross quoted research that found that tenants who have pets stay in their properties longer, pet owners being so relieved to find a suitable property that keeps their beloved pets with the family, that they do not move on, therefore providing a financial benefit to landlords.
The committee also heard from James Hickman, Head of Outreach Projects, Dogs Trust that only 9% of rental properties advertised are pet friendly. Given that PDSA research shows that 51% of UK adults own a pet, the problem is immediately clear.
Issues of damage were raised and rightly discussed but those there representing the animal welfare sector highlighted various schemes such as pet CV’s, pet contracts, and deposits that can mitigate and allay such concerns. Those present were eager to assist the Scottish Government with their guidance for landlords on this issue, collaborating to ensure everyone benefits – Ms Thwaites pointed out that the animal welfare sector was itself at “breaking point” due to various factors including the cost of living crisis, and Mr Hickman reporting that housing issues were the reason for around 10% of handovers to the Dogs Trust.
Being reasonable about such requests also goes to great lengths to build relationships with tenants, recognising their need not only to rent a property but to make a home.
“A real home to live in”
The evidence on not only finding accommodation but making a home was delivered most powerfully and poignantly by Kate Thompson, Policy Officer for the Children and Young Peoples Commissioner, Scotland, when discussing the proposals in the Bill on tenants in the PRS making changes in their property, that children and young people need “a real home to live in”.
The legislation is designed to ensure that landlords do not unreasonably withhold consent when tenants wish to make changes within their homes. It categorises modifications according to the scale of the changes, proposing that minor changes (category 1) do not require any consent, and lists as an example “putting pictures and posters on a wall”. The fact that this requires clarification as permissible speaks to the power imbalance that the Bill as whole seeks to address.
How can we sustain tenancies and build lasting relationships with tenants when such trivial matters would, it is implied, have previously needed permission?
Category 2 changes require consent that should not be withheld unreasonably and lists as an example painting the walls of a property. During a recent discussion with a landlord, the need for such permission arose, and it was rightly pointed out that decoration is a highly personal choice and that landlords do have an interest in properties being maintained in neutral colours, but where does that leave the tenant that loves a pop of colour and wants to make a home in your rental property?
Same opportunities
Ms Thompson also highlighted the important of creating soothing sensory spaces for children with disabilities or neurodivergence. When discussing whether children would be affected by the permission for pets’ provision, she nailed the issue in the round by stating that it was about having the same opportunities as those in other tenures.
All these issues come back to the theme of home and placemaking within the private rented sector. Recent press could suggest that the PRS is a passing through sector, for those trying to save for homes, or unable to secure social rented accommodation due to scarcity. It is rarely portrayed as the sector of choice, parts 1 and 2 of this Bill further the portrait of a sector needing reigned in.
However, a survey in England found that average renters stayed in properties for approximately four years, this is not a transient period of time, it is a period of time when people are putting down roots, perhaps starting families, or registering their children for schools, they are living lives, not merely passing through properties that should be unmarked by their time there.
Perhaps the reasonable approach outlined in part 3 is one way that the PRS could start to reclaim the image of a necessary and reasonable partner in the bid to end the housing crisis.
This article was written by Julie-Ann Cloherty, Learning and Development Officer at Share.
