Today, Living Rent and trade unions have said that the Scottish Government needs to introduce an immediate rent freeze covering all private and mid-market rented homes. Continue reading

The council want to turn the Keiller Centre into student flats. Purpose built student accommodation (PBSA) is wrecking our city centre. Developers know they can make a killing building exclusive student flats, so they won't build affordable housing. These rooms are expensive, small, and poorly built, so they aren't good homes for the students that may live there either. At the moment, developers are walking all over Dundee City Council. We need to come together and tell the council we want good homes for everyone, not expensive student flats. Use our template objection to tell the council that we've had enough of PBSA. We understand the council does not make it easy for residents like us to object. You have to understand planning policy to know what is a 'competent objection' and this takes a lot of time. To make it easier we have written up detailed reasons why you should object. Our template is here. Send the council your objection here. The more people object, the more loudly we can say no to PBSA.  Continue reading

Through coming together with other members of Living Rent, Areej won back £6600 after an illegal rent increase. Areej first came into contact with Living Rent when we knocked on her door and asked what she'd like to change about her housing or local area. Areej and her three children have been living in their flat since 2021. Their problems began in 2023 when the landlord informed her that they wanted to sell the property and asked them to leave. At the time, Areej was nearing the completion of my PhD, a crucial and demanding stage of her studies. The landlord was aware of her circumstances, including the fact that she is a mother of three children and that her husband works outside the UK. Faced with the possibility of losing our home during such a challenging period, Areej tried to find a solution that would allow her family to remain in the property while she completed her PhD and searched for alternative accommodation. The outcome was that they were allowed to stay, but the landlord insisted that Areej pay hundreds of pounds extra every month on top of the rent, outside the tenancy agreement, and to the landlord directly rather than through the agency. Although she immediately began looking for another home, finding suitable housing for a family of four proved extremely difficult. Options were limited for a single mum and full time student. As a result, they remained in the property and continued paying the increased rent. The uncertainty placed significant pressure on the family financially. She struggled to cope with the cost, as well as the stress of not knowing whether we would be able to secure another home. After joining Living Rent, Areej was able to challenge the rent increase by going to the letting agency and making them take action against the landlord. They were able to recover £6600 that had been charged outside the terms of the contract. Areej said "Living Rent’s support made a real difference to my family and helped us stand up for our rights as tenants at a time when we felt vulnerable and uncertain. This experience showed me how easily tenants can find themselves in difficult situations, particularly families with children who are already balancing work, education, and caring responsibilities. It also demonstrated the importance of organisations like Living Rent in helping people understand their rights and take action when those rights are not respected."

Scottish Water found unsafe levels of lead present in our drinking water in October 2024. Unfortunately, the affected pipes were on our side of the property boundary, which makes it the property owners’ responsibility to replace any lead pipes – in our case our landlord, the other flat owners, and the building factor. Our letting agency was initially quite helpful and corresponded with the factor on our behalf as they needed consent from all the flat owners in the building to do any major pipe-replacement works. However, after a few months, we stopped hearing from either of them on any progress made, and it eventually turned out that the factor hadn’t got the consent to do the work and so wasn’t going to do anything, but they failed to tell us about that. In the meantime, we were able to get a meagre rent reduction from the landlord for the increased financial and physical cost of having to buy our own bottled water for drinking and cooking, and filling up empty bottles from taps that we knew were safe, which was also quite mentally draining because our home didn’t feel safe anymore. After a year of inaction from the landlord, agency, and factor, we were exhausted and at a loss of what to do, so we finally joined Living Rent. They helped us confront the landlord and letting agency about the lack of progress in getting safe drinking water for our home. We finally got a filter installed on our drinking water tap which significantly reduced the lead levels and made it safe for consumption. With the help of Living Rent, we also managed to get a further £1000 as compensation for the exposure to lead, as well as their failure to fix it in a timely manner. We wouldn’t have had the strength to stand up to our landlord without our fellow Living Rent members.

We’ve all been there - the bus is late, there’s a queue of 20 people, it’s raining. Once we’re on, the bus crawls through town, constantly stuck in traffic. Despite the poor quality of service, with buses 20% slower than they were 20 years ago, Glasgow’s bus tickets are among the most expensive in the UK. In Edinburgh, London, and across Europe the buses are cleaner, more reliable, and cheaper. Glasgow and the rest of Strathclyde region can and should have buses as good as any in Europe, but right now the buses are run for profit, not to provide the service citizens want. Buses in Strathclyde used to be owned by the council but were sold off in 1986. Today the bus system is splintered into 40 different companies, making coordination almost impossible. Despite this, over half of bus company income comes directly from the government. Most of that government subsidy rightly pays for free tickets for pensioners, disabled people, and young people - but bus company owners get to skim off the top. Ten pence in every pound of bus revenue is profit, and in Strathclyde that profit goes into the pockets of shareholders. Edinburgh and nearby councils managed to keep ownership of Lothian Buses, and their service is cheaper and more reliable as a result. Lothian Buses returns its profits to councils, or spends it on improvements. This is called public ownership, or sometimes municipal ownership. London’s buses are owned by private companies, but unlike in Glasgow they are regulated through what is called a franchising system. Transport For London, a government body, chooses the routes and sets the fares. The same tickets work on all London buses, and they are all painted the same colour. Although private companies are making a profit, the system is much better-organised and they can’t just set whatever price they like. To fully bring the buses into public ownership, we need a franchising system here. Strathclyde Partnership for Transport (SPT), which brings together the 12 councils of Strathclyde Region, is working to bring in bus franchising in Glasgow despite fierce opposition from the bus companies. The Scottish Parliament passed a law to allow bus franchising back in 2019, but the Scottish Government shamefully delayed implementing it, and SPT have only been able to begin the process recently. Worse, the Scottish Government has made the process long and complicated, taking up to seven years. We could be well into the 2030s before any action is taken. In the meantime, Greater Manchester has implemented franchising and bought the private bus companies, creating the hugely popular Bee Network of black-and-yellow buses. Liverpool expects to begin in 2026, and Yorkshire in 2027. Thanks to the delays and the complicated process, Scottish councils are being left behind.  Scottish councils do have some options to push forwards without the government’s help. Although SPT are putting off any decision about public ownership until later in the franchising process, their own report says that “Local transport authorities should consider the formation of a municipally-owned bus operator… where competition… is weak.” In other words, SPT or any of the SPT member councils could create a small publicly owned bus company today, as long as it isn’t expecting to turn a profit competing with the private companies. This council-owned bus company could secure Scottish Government funding for electric buses, which is currently being used to buy buses for First Bus. It would allow SPT to build experience managing urban bus routes again, and could be expanded over time. There is a convenient new source of funding: Glasgow is just about to introduce a tax on hotel rooms called a “visitor levy,” which will raise about £16m a year. There is an obvious gap: Glasgow only has a handful of bus lines after midnight they only run on Fridays and Saturdays, they’re only hourly, and a single ticket is £4.75 (First) or £5.50 (McGills). When the bus comes once an hour, you never get in the habit of using it, and if it’s over £5 a ticket you won’t want to. A regular, affordable, 7-day night bus might not make a profit, but the benefits to the city would be huge. It would be easier and cheaper for people to access night life on weekdays. City centre hospitality staff could take the bus home. It’s an example of how what citizens want from the transport system and what is profitable can be hugely different things. That’s why Living Rent are calling for the Visitor Levy to be used to fund a bus company that fixes Glasgow’s night buses.  

Felix and Oscar came to Living Rent with concerns about their tenancy. Their landlords had given them a lodging agreement despite living full-time in Inverness, meaning they gave our members the wrong terms of tenancy. As a result, the landlords also failed to protect Felix and Oscar’s deposits.  The landlords used to drop in and stay at random times, criticising Felix and Oscar for moving furniture around or not mowing the lawn. When Felix asked if he could have his family stay there over Christmas, the landlord requested an additional fee of hundreds of pounds!  We demanded that the landlords return Felix and Oscar’s deposits and provide compensation to each tenant due to their failure to provide the proper terms and conditions to their tenants.  Felix and Oscar have won £1,000 each alongside having their deposits returned to them - that’s £2,400 total back in the hands of tenants, instead of in their landlord’s pockets.  Join Living Rent today!