Our member Mark recently won repairs through the union. Here's his story: In February my oven door shattered, scattering glass all over the floor. I removed the, correctly oriented, tray to inspect the damage and when cooled put the tray back in to take photos of the damage to send to Happy Lets. They sent over a contractor who concluded the door needed replacing, wear and tear, easy to fix and so it all seemed fine. However, after a week I emailed to see how progress was going since the oven was not operational and there were still bits of glass falling out if the door was moved. To which they reply that the photos show the tray is upside down so this damage is user error and we owe £260 for the fix. Obviously, this was horseshit. I went along to our Member Defence meeting to talk through options and the experience was incredibly relieving. My first instinct was that Happy Lets was taking the piss but as days went on I began to doubt if I’d had the tray in upside down to begin with and if it's fair to assume an oven would shatter from such a slight change. Going to the meeting and hearing the incredulous responses from my fellow members was heartening and relinquished those doubts. We began to form a plan of how to address Happy Lets claims laying out all the contradictions in their argument. Just sitting with other tenants in a room bouncing ideas off of each other uncovered a lot of stupid reasoning by Happy Lets that didn’t even occur to me at first. In summary our argument in the email exchanges were as follows: An in person contractor saying its wear and tear is stronger in tribunal than an alleged contractor looking at the photos and saying user error The manufacturer when phoned did not agree an upside down tray would cause this Measurements of the tray right way up and upside down don’t allow for the opportunity of a smash to occur Damage occurred on opening the door not closing Under Repairing Standard set out in the Housing (Scotland) Act 2006 wear and tear is the landlords cost These arguments were strong and came about from just chatting with others and pooling our experience. Our first email was met with stonewalling as I had not mentioned Living Rent and so in our second email I reiterated our arguments above and set out a 48 hour deadline, request for the landlords name and address and then an escalation of claiming backdated rent and the ‘avoidance on my part of including any further parties in this dispute’. Standing our ground and letting our next steps remain ambiguous led Happy Lets to not just replace the door but the full oven at their expense. I cannot stress how lonely and silly I felt disputing this initially before chatting with my fellow tenants and it was only through our union that that was firmly corrected by the solidarity of fellow tenants offering up their time to support each other.  

Antony joined Living Rent after being left with no hot tap water in his bathroom for 3 years by Glasgow West Housing Association.  Repairs were booked multiple times but no one showed up, which led to loss of work and earnings for Antony. Basic things like washing his hands became horrible in winter because of the freezing water.  Together we wrote a letter of demands: complete the repairs needed and provide compensation for the earnings lost. We delivered it personally to the housing association so that Antony could tell them his story and make clear how ridiculous a situation this was.  By showing up in person, we got the repairs booked for the same day and the electric tap was fixed in a few short hours. After 3 whole years, Antony finally has hot water in his bathroom!  Direct action gets results. Do you have repairs that have been ignored and cause you daily stress? You have the power to make them repair it.  

Glasgow City Council’s City Administration Committee and Visitor Levy Forum will determine what is funded by the £16m a year in predicted revenue from the ‘tourist tax’. The Visitor Levy (Scotland) Act 2024 granted councils powers to charge a tax on overnight accommodation stays.  Whether the local authority does this, how much they charge, and what they use the money for, is up to them.  Official guidance says it must be reinvested locally, in services or infrastructure used by visitors. The Visitor Levy Forum’s role is to advise the City Administration Committee on the use of funds generated by the levy, with the Committee making the final call. The City Administration Committee The City Administration Committee is key to local government decision-making. Its 23 councillors meet every two weeks to make decisions on behalf of the entire council, about strategy, policy, and financial management. Chaired by Council Leader, Susan Aitken, there are 10 SNP members, 9 Labour, 3 Green and 1 Conservative.  Councillors and council officers report to the Committee, which makes high-level decisions and approves city-wide strategies. For example, they recently signed off on plans to transform Glasgow into a 24-hour night-time economy. The Committee approved the Visitor Levy Scheme in June 2025. From 25 January 2027, a 5% charge per night will be added to visitors’ accommodation costs in the city. Business and tourist sector representatives have been planning the scheme in partnership with the council since December 2024.  Together, they decided the scheme objectives, the terms of the public consultation, their vision of the Visitor Levy Forum, and have been putting forward ideas on how to spend the money. The Visitor Levy Forum The Visitor Levy Forum (VLF) must have a balance of representatives from the tourism industry, businesses and communities advising the Committee on the scheme’s use of funds.  Living Rent applied to represent tenants on the forum, but were blocked from participating. Trade union representatives were included following an amendment from Jon Molyneux, Green Party member of the Committee. The VLF has 10 members, four are from the Glasgow Tourism Advisory Forum, a strategic group set up to monitor progress on actions set out by the Glasgow 2030 Tourism Strategy. These four members include chair and accommodation provider representative Janice Fisher from Greater Glasgow Hoteliers Association (GGHA); Stuart Patrick, chief executive of Glasgow Chamber of Commerce, supporting business in the city; Karen Jackson, marketing head for DF Concerts & Events, the event management company behind TRNSMT, and Debbie McWilliams, chief commercial officer at the SEC. Four members have been picked to speak for people living and working in Glasgow, two from Glasgow Trades Council, one community councillor, and Ian Bruce, Glasgow Council for the Voluntary Sector’s chief executive. Finally, there are two council officers: Aileen Crawford, Head of Tourism & Conventions, and Sharon McKechnie, Visitor Levy Project Manager. Two further high-level governance groups of councillors and council officers oversee the levy and advise the City Administration Committee. They are the Visitor Levy Group and the Political Oversight Group. Their membership is not publicly available. What we need to do The multi-layered and complex structures of council governance have already built a protective stronghold around the purse strings of the Visitor Levy.  The odds are stacked against local people, with powerful voices advocating for funds to be spent on destination marketing.  This had the least support in the public consultation, where Glasgow residents emphasised the need for investment in infrastructure and culture. The council is making headlines for all the wrong reasons: evicting arts and culture, neglecting our streets and historic buildings, and subsidising the most expensive buses in the UK. There should be no doubt amongst our elected representatives on what this money must be spent on. VisitScotland says domestic tourism is suffering due to the cost of living, and visitors prioritise value for money. What could be less value for money than Glasgow’s patchy and unreliable bus service? Affordability, safety and civic pride are priorities for tourists, as well as citizens. We need to show councillors and VL Forum members that the needs of Glasgow’s residents, workers, and visitors for better public transport are aligned.  A feasible and constructive start to taking our buses back while maximising tourism and the night-time economy can be achieved by establishing a publicly-owned night bus service with funds from the Visitor Levy.