Scottish Government

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1. Over the past few years a range of legislative provisions in relation to housing allocations and lettings have been implemented across all local authorities in Scotland.

2. Recent inspections by Communities Scotland suggested that there was confusion amongst landlords about the rules regarding allocations and how they are intended to operate.

3. In response, the then Scottish Executive committed in 2005 to collecting wider evidence to establish whether more guidance is needed concerning the operation of allocation policies. This research study was commissioned in summer 2006.

Research Aims and Objectives

4. The aims of this research were to

• investigate landlords views of how clear current legislation and guidance are, identifying particular areas of confusion and difficulty;
• explore areas where landlords feel there are tensions between what the legislation and guidance say and the outcome of implementing this in practice; and
• identify areas where further guidance is needed for landlords.

Method

5. A combination of quantitative and qualitative research methods was used.

(a) A review of recent Communities Scotland inspections of allocations function within social landlords to identify issues which should be explored during the research.

(b) A survey issued to all social landlords in Scotland. This included the Local Housing Organisations within Glasgow as well as Glasgow Housing Association itself. A response rate of 67% was achieved.

(c) Case studies in 6 local authority areas to explore in-depth issues and concerns identified in the survey findings with RSL and local authority housing and homeless staff. A total of 135 staff participated.

6. The research gathered and reported the views of social landlords about allocations legislation and guidance: it did not involve validating or verifying the circumstances or experiences reported.

Context

Legislation and Guidance

7. The legal framework for the allocations policies of social landlords is set out in the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987 as amended by the Housing (Scotland) Act 2001. This places duties on the Council (and RSLs) which govern both who can apply for housing and priorities in relation to the allocation of housing. Guidance issued by the then Scottish Executive clarifies the requirements ¹.

8. The legal framework is more specific in relation to admission to the list than it is about the relative priority which should be given to different types of housing need. The only requirement in relation to priority is contained within the 'reasonable preference' requirements: this was introduced in the Housing (Scotland) Act 1966, and has not changed apart from the introduction of a new category of homelessness.

9. Discussion of the legal framework relating to allocations also has to take account of the duties on local authorities in relation to homeless households.

10. In addition to compliance with the legal framework, social landlords' allocations policies are expected to meet Communities Scotland's Performance Standards. Social landlords are subject to inspection by Communities Scotland in relation to these requirements.

Allocations Systems

11. The context within which social landlords are now operating is very different from 1966, when 'reasonable preference' was introduced. In 1966, nearly half (47.3%) of housing in Scotland was public sector. Since then, there has also been a significant change in those applying to, and being housed within, the social rented sector, with an increase in the single adult households and a growth in the proportion of applicants who have health, care or support needs in addition to housing needs.

12. Over this period, there has also been a shift in the types of allocations policies used by social landlords. Date order systems have been replaced by systems which give priority on the basis of housing need.

13. More than four out of five respondents to the survey (84%) used either points only or group plus points policies. The decision about the type of allocations system appeared to be influenced by the scale of operation rather than the landlord type.

14. The majority of organisations (70%) use only one allocations policy. The most common reason for having more than one allocations policy was ownership of specialist housing stock.

15. Social landlords with larger housing stock were more likely to use local offices, with those with smaller stock more commonly delivering allocations through a single central office.

Performance Monitoring

16. In terms of information collected, analysed and reported by landlords, this is most commonly regarding Black and Minority Ethnic ( BME) groups, Section 5 referrals and disability. Information collected, is more likely to be reported than analysed for all the categories asked about. The evidence from the case study landlords is that the information they collect is governed by reporting requirements, particularly to Communities Scotland, and that landlords often do not use this information for their own management or planning purposes.

Overview of Issues and Tensions

Landlord Views on Issues of Clarity

17. Landlords consider that there are a substantial number of aspects of legislation and guidance which are not sufficiently clear. Of 17 areas of allocations identified within the survey, there were only two areas where less than 10% of landlords identified issues of clarity. In relation to three areas more than half of landlords responding stated that they considered the term or area was not sufficiently clear.

18. In general, the broad concepts tended to cause greater difficulty for landlords, particularly 'balancing communities', 'sensitive lettings', 'best use of housing stock', and 'local lettings initiatives'.

19. Larger organisations (those with stock greater than 1,000 units) were more likely to have concerns about balancing communities, sensitive lettings and local lettings initiatives with smaller organisations more likely to identify exclusions, local connection and elected member involvement. Overall, local authorities identified many more areas of legislation and guidance as insufficiently clear than RSLs.

20. Rural organisations were significantly more likely than urban organisations to have concerns about the legislation/guidance relating to eligibility to housing of applicants living outside the local authority area, whereas urban organisations were more likely to have concerns regarding the legislation/ guidance relating to households with arrears.

Landlord Views on Tensions in Allocations

21. A high proportion of landlords identified tensions in allocations. One issue was considered a tension by nearly 80% of respondents and in a further four areas 50% or more landlords reported a tension.

22. Areas where respondents were most likely to identify tensions were connected to stock and homelessness - 'Meeting the housing needs of large families/ overcrowded households, with current stock availability' (79%); 'Meeting homelessness obligations, and the needs of other reasonable preference households' (70%); and 'Preventing homelessness, and meeting obligations on reasonable preference to homeless and other households' (60%).

23. Local authorities were more likely than RSLs and LHOs to identify tensions, with nearly two thirds (63%) identifying 7 or more tensions.

24. Reasons for tensions existing were most commonly attributed to an insufficient supply of housing, with type and size of housing also commonly given as other reasons for tensions.

25. The survey issued to landlords pursued a distinction between those areas of allocations legislation and guidance which lacked clarity and those where there were tensions. This distinction between clarity and tension was difficult to maintain with landlords collapsing the two, or pointing out that certain issues created tensions partly because of a lack of clarity. The findings from the research were therefore reported under three main themes - prioritising individual housing need; balanced communities, individual and community need; and allocations and wider agendas.

Prioritising Individual Housing Need

26. The research identified difficulties amongst landlords with the interpretation of 'reasonable preference'. Landlords had difficulty in understanding what was meant both by the term 'reasonable preference' and the interpretation of some of the categories of applicant who were expected to receive reasonable preference. The particular difficulty in interpretation related to what constituted a reasonable level of preference in priority.

27. Some landlords questioned the relevance of some of the 'reasonable preference' categories given the very different context now compared to 1966 when the concept was first introduced.

28. There were tensions reported by landlords in responding to their obligations in relation to homelessness and to other 'reasonable preference' categories. Most landlords were unclear about what was expected by the legislation and the guidance: others had taken the view that their duties in relation to homelessness in effect meant that homeless households should receive greater priority than other 'reasonable preference' categories.

29. Tensions were also reported between meeting 'reasonable preference' obligations, particularly in relation to homelessness, and giving appropriate access to other applicants. The main group seen to be disadvantaged were existing tenants seeking transfers, but there was also specific mention of newly forming households. For both groups, the reason for the tension was seen to arise from the priority given to those in the reasonable preference categories, with the result that those with lesser or other needs had significantly reduced, or were in effect excluded from re-housing opportunities. There was a perception that as a result there were an increasing number of 'strategic' presentations through the homeless 'route'.

30. Landlords were unclear as to how homelessness could be prevented through allocations. The issues for landlords were particularly around preventing homelessness whilst at the same time meeting the demands to re-house homeless households. A number of landlords felt that their reducing ability to re-house households other than homeless households undermined the homeless prevention agenda.

31. There were tensions identified by landlords relating to organisational matters

• mainly experienced by RSLs, in relation to the operation of section 5 agreements
• for specialist RSLs where the requirements in relation to reasonable preference conflicted with their organisational objectives.

32. Considerable and widespread confusion was identified about the rights of A8 nationals and other non- UK residents in relation to eligibility/access to housing.

Balanced Communities, Individual and Community Need

33. The meaning of balanced communities was considered by landlords to be the least clear of all the terms commonly used in allocations. Landlords questioned what a balanced community was, who defined it, and whether it was an appropriate objective for social landlords. Some were strong supporters: others had reservations about its value.

34. Practical issues were identified of what is acceptable practice in giving priority to community needs, whether through sensitive lettings or local lettings initiatives. Local authority landlords and RSLs questioned the extent to which social landlords could deliver balanced communities given the profile of social rented housing stock and of demand. Landlords were not clear in what circumstances it was justifiable to bypass an applicant with higher level needs, particularly homeless, in favour of balanced community objectives. They were also not clear what type and level of evidence would satisfy Communities Scotland about their interpretation and use of community need.

35. Landlords were uncertain about the extent to which an allocation should take account of the wider community in the interests of fulfilling the duty, both to existing tenants to provide a quality environment, and to new tenants to provide a sustainable tenancy. They also identified tensions between the interests of these different groups: the tensions were most acute in relation to sex offenders, households with a history of anti-social behaviour and those with chaotic behaviour often associated with a combination of substance misuse, mental health problems and offending.

Allocations and Wider Agendas

36. Landlords commonly identified tensions between allocations legislation and guidance and other housing objectives, principally in the areas of debt management and tenancy management. Landlords were uneasy about a policy framework which they considered resulted in applicants with large arrears being re-housed after a relatively small level of repayment. There were also tensions reported between the pressure to relet quickly and other objectives of the housing service, particularly achieving a sustainable tenancy.

37. Landlords considered that there was insufficient alignment of care and support services for individual tenants or applicants increasing the demands on social landlords and threatening the sustainability of tenancies. This issue was of considerable and growing importance to social landlords, both local authority and RSL, and revolved around

• Difficulties in accessing appropriate support for different types and levels of need and with particular complications at points of transition from temporary to permanent accommodation
• Implications for allocations where support formed an integral part of the tenancy and where support needs had to be taken into account as well as housing need
• 'Engagement' issues, where support and care services were available but the individual refused that support
• Concerns from social landlords that their staff were dealing with situations where they lacked the necessary skills.

38. Tensions were also identified by landlords between allocations legislation and guidance and other national policy agendas. In relation to anti-social behaviour, landlords were concerned about their ability to support people with complex needs and challenging behaviour, and justifying to communities why people evicted for anti-social behaviour were re-housed. In relation to sex offenders, there were concerns of a lack of information sharing and local co-ordination. There were also less frequently identified issues in relation to housing benefit and to regeneration.

Conclusions and Recommendations

Conclusions

39. The research gathered extensive evidence of social landlords views of the allocations legislation and guidance, of the issues which they see as unclear and of the tensions which they experience in translating these requirements into practice on the ground. There were a large number of areas where landlords identified there was insufficient clarity or tensions existed. The issues surrounding allocations appear to be keenly felt by social landlords and many saw these issues as longstanding and a review overdue.

40. The views of social landlords must be understood in the context of current demand for social housing and the profile of its housing stock: this has changed significantly over the past three decades. There has not been the same degree of change in the legislative and guidance framework. This, together with the contrast between the permissive nature of 'reasonable preference' within the allocations legislation and the tightly defined duties on landlords within homelessness legislation, is likely to explain in part the confusion and tension reported by landlords.

41. At core the problem for social landlords appears to be to understand the scope of their local policy decision making - what can and cannot be decided by landlords at a local level. There is also a lack of clarity about the role of allocations in local housing systems and the extent to which allocations policies should align with other local housing priorities, other corporate local authority agendas, and social care and health priorities. Linked to both, landlords were unclear about the evidence required to support their local decisions, both in terms of the policy and individual lettings decisions.

Recommendations

42. In terms of guidance, it is recommended that revised guidance should set out

• The scope of local decision making in relation to allocations, particularly in relation to prioritising individual need
• The extent to which allocations should align with other local policy agendas
• The evidence required to support the policy priorities and intended outcomes set out in the allocations policy, and of the decisions on individual lets
• Clarification of those areas of allocations where specific difficulties were identified within the research
• Consolidation and re-statement of current guidance.

43. In terms of practical assistance, it is recommended that there is dissemination of practice examples, where complex issues have been resolved successfully and in line with legislation, guidance and the requirements of the regulator. This should include the following

• Systems and processes, such as quotas, where some access opportunities to those not homeless but in other reasonable preference categories; and to those not homeless or in any other reasonable preference category has been achieved
• Use of community need within allocations policies or particular lettings
• Use of sensitive lettings, bypassing and associated evidence
• Dealing with sex offenders and the associated information exchanges
• Making section 5 referrals, including 'vacancy led' and 'applicant led' referrals, and information flows
• Performance monitoring and information management which meets national requirements.

44. More 'hands on' support and assistance for landlords is also recommended where they encounter difficulties which they cannot resolve, or where inspection has identified changes required which the landlord does not feel able to deliver without further assistance. This could be provided by a peer group support network, or by a network of experts, and could build on existing arrangements.