Amanda Britain, Lucy Robertson, Jenny Tate and Stuart Livingstone
Craigforth
ISBN 978 0 7559 7514 3 (Web only publication)
ISSN 0950 2254
This document is also available in pdf format (424k)
CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1. INTRODUCTION
Background
Study aim and objectives
Methodology
Structure of report
2. CONTEXT
Legislative framework
Roles of local authorities and RSLs
Basic approaches to referring statutorily homeless applicants
Model protocol
Outcomes and standards
3. REVIEW OF EXISTING DATA SOURCES ON LETS
4. USE OF SECTION 5
Overview of arrangements
Extent of use of Section 5
5. THE LOCAL PROCESSES
Type of referral approach used
Relationship between approach adopted and local context
Deciding to refer to an RSL
Pre-referrals
Individual or multiple referrals
Inappropriate referrals
Making contact
Making offers
Refusals by the applicant
Review of reasonableness of offers
6. INFORMATION EXCHANGE
At referral stage
Information about outcomes
Satisfaction with information exchange
7. LOCAL AUTHORITY AND RSL VIEWS ON LOCAL ARRANGEMENTS
Transparency and equity
What works well or less well
8. RESOLVING ISSUES
Response to inappropriate referrals
Right to review and the use of arbitration
Use of protocols and agreements
Changes sought to legislation and guidance
9. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Varying approaches, few patterns
Nationally collected data
Outcomes for homeless households
Local processes
Local partnerships
Resolving disputes
Local information issues
Figures
Figure 2.1 Proportions of local authority and RSL stock
Figure 2.2 Numbers of RSLs in local authority areas
Figure 3.1 Percentage of RSL non-transfer lets to homeless households 2006/07
Figure 3.2 Percentage of RSL lets going to statutorily homeless households by percentage of those lets referred using Section 5
Figure 5.1 Average timescale between receipt of referral and return
Figure 6.1 Difficulties with information exchange and views on effectiveness
Figure 7.1 Local authority and RSL views on effectiveness
Tables
Table 4.1 Referrals of statutorily homeless households received by RSLs
Table 4.2 Use of Section 5 for statutorily homeless referrals to RSLs
Table 5.1 Extent of pre-referral discussions
Table 5.2 Reasons for making pre-referrals
Table 5.3 Content of discussions
Table 5.4 RSL views on effectiveness of local arrangements depending on use of pre-referrals
Table 5.5 Helpful aspects of pre-referral discussions
Table 5.6 Recording of Pre-Referrals discussion
Table 5.7 Approach to referring statutorily homeless households to RSLs
Table 5.8 Whether inappropriate referrals are sometimes received
Table 5.9 RSL response to difficulties in making contact
Table 5.10 Number of offers made by RSLs by referral type
Table 5.11 Ever circumstances in which offer not made?
Table 5.12 Main reasons unable to make offer to Section 5 referrals - 2006/07
Table 5.13 Point at which referral returned to local authority
Table 6.1 Information provided to RSLs at referral
Table 6.2 Information received from local authority
Table 6.3 Information gathered about the outcome of referrals of statutorily homeless households
Table 6.4 Information collected and sent to local authority on outcomes of referrals of statutorily homeless households
Table 7.1 RSL views on transparency and equity of local arrangements
Table 7.2 Local authority views on the equity of treatment of statutorily homeless households
Table 7.3 'Top 5' areas identified as working well or less well
Table 8.1 Ever occasions where local authority disagrees with RSL action on
Table 8.2 RSL response to inappropriate referrals
Table 8.3 Reasons given by local authorities for not using arbitration
Table 8.4 Reasons why RSLs think arbitration has not been used
Table 8.5 Local agreements in place - local authorities
Table 8.6 Local agreements in place - RSLs
Table 8.7 Use of the SFHA/ COSLA model protocol
Table 8.8 Reasons why no Section 5 agreement in place - RSLs
Table 8.9 'Top 4' changes suggested by local authorities
Table 8.10 'Top 5' changes suggested by RSLs
The views expressed in this report are those of the researcher and
do not necessarily represent those of the Department or Scottish Ministers.