The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

CHAPTER TWO: INTENTIONALITY DECISIONS AND HOUSEHOLD CHARACTERISTICS

INTRODUCTION

2.1 This Chapter firstly examines the incidence of local authority intentionality decisions and related assessment issues. Secondly it considers what is known about the characteristics of households assessed as intentionally homeless, building on all the relevant research findings.

THE INCIDENCE OF INTENTIONALITY ASSESSMENT

2.2 The Scottish Executive's statistical returns on homelessness ( HL1s) identify a notably low incidence of assessed intentionality across Scotland. In 2003-04, households assessed as intentionally homeless represented only 3.8% of those assessed as homeless and in priority need (1002 out of a total of 26,270 priority homeless households). Further statistical information provided by the Scottish Executive for the same year showed that of the 1028 applicant households assessed as intentionally homeless overall, 822 or 80% were assessed as being homeless, in priority need, and homeless intentionally, while 206 or 20% were assessed as potentially homeless, in priority need and intentionally homeless. ⁵

Some key trends and influences on intentionality assessment

2.3 The Scottish Executive's published statistics show an overall pattern of decline in local authorities' assessment of intentionality over the past decade, as reflected in the number and percentages of applicants assessed as priority homeless, but intentionally so. However, some local authorities deviated from this trend. The proportion of homeless applicants assessed as priority need/ intentionally homeless ranged between 9% and 11% consistently throughout the 1990s. It declined from 11% in 2000-01, to 5% by 2002-03 ⁶ and then to a level of 3.8% in 2003-04 ⁷ (Scottish Executive, 2001).

2.4 It is worth noting at this point that this decline in intentionality assessment goes against the general trends of increasing homeless applications and of growth in the proportion of applicants who are assessed as homeless and in priority need. In the case of the latter, applications increased from 20,500 in 2000-01 to 28,168 in 2003-04 (an increase of 37%).

2.5 The reducing rate of intentionality assessment across Scotland was further indicated by the fact that the research team received a lower level of pro-forma returns from local authorities, than had been predicted on the basis of the previous year's statistics.

2.6 The statistics offer no real explanation of this national trend. To assess causes therefore, we must look to possible underlying influences. One key influence may relate to ongoing changes in the policy and practice context stemming from the recommendations of the Homelessness Task Force (Scottish Executive, 2001). The Task Force promoted a planning and service culture that prioritised the prevention of homelessness as well as the quality of the service response to homelessness. One strand of prevention was to recognise the potential to minimise repeat homelessness by ensuring that all homeless households are accommodated, and where appropriate supported, regardless of the cause of homelessness. Local authorities and practitioners across Scotland operate within a shared policy climate and it is not uncommon for them to refer to processes of culture change within their authorities.

2.7 The pro-forma exercise itself highlighted the impact of local patterns of discretion, including the role of scrutiny and review systems in affecting variations in intentionality assessment between areas and over time. For example, one authority that returned 2 pro-formas reported that initially around 25 households had been assessed as intentionally homeless within the time period. After these cases had been reviewed by the caseworker, or further information came to light following the initial assessment, the numbers so assessed were significantly reduced.

2.8 Lower than expected returns from most local authorities may therefore reflect the fact that this research is linked with policy and strategy implementation, which may itself have been a catalyst to sharpening the focus, increasing scrutiny and modifying the outputs under research investigation. By contrast with the mainstream, 7 of the 23 local authorities that participated in the pro-forma exercise, returned more pro-formas than might have been predicted from their previous year's statistics.

Intentionality assessment, discretion and local variations

Guidance and research literature

2.9 Good practice guidance aims at consistent, equitable and integrated homelessness assessments. Given its discretionary and gate-keeping role, assessment is a critical tool for identifying needs and determining access to accommodation and support services, usually within the constraints of local provision and resources.

2.10 Previous studies have highlighted the extent to which decisions on intentionality vary between local authority areas, and the scope for discretion offered by legislation and guidance. A review of good practice in housing management comments that intentionality assessment under section 26 of the 1987 Act, "is a very problematic section of the homeless person's legislation" (Scott et al, 2001). Additionally it found that practice was "somewhat variable and confused" in regard to the implications of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of children in need, including those of intentionally homeless families. These conclusions reflect earlier findings that local authorities "of similar size and housing stocks differed markedly in the proportion of cases where they made findings of intentionality" (Robson and Poustie, 1996).

2.11 Some commentators have viewed the discretion in intentionality assessment as being linked to gate-keeping, as it enables authorities to limit assistance to homeless persons and/or to prevent queue jumping, in the face of the pressures on services that stem from high demand (Robson and Poustie, 1996). However Pawson (2000) points out that different patterns of intentionality assessment may reflect varying patterns of homelessness across local authority areas. Scott et al (2001) commented:

"Intentionality is generally seen as an area of the legislation allowing significant scope for local authority discretion as to how the law is interpreted. Some indication of the variation in policies in this area can be seen from the recent Housing Management Baseline Study. This showed that, for example, whilst 5 local authorities would 'always' treat a former local authority tenant with rent arrears as 'intentionally homeless', 2 would 'never do so" (Scott et al, 2000).

2.12 Scott et al remind us of the "problems of squaring wide discretion with the objectives of transparency, fairness and objectivity", and not surprisingly, decisions in regard to intentionality have generated an extensive body of case law.

2.13 The Code of Guidance on Homelessness (Scottish Executive, 2005b) emphasises the following points:

• the onus is on the local authority to establish that the applicant became homeless intentionally, rather than on the applicant to prove non-intentionality (Para 7.7)
• applicants should not be treated as being intentionally homeless for all time and each application must be treated on its merits (para 7.24 & .25)
• a person who has rent arrears due to real financial difficulties should not be assessed as intentionally homeless, while someone who has defaulted on payments for 'persistent and wilful' refusals, may be
• some groups should not be assessed as intentionally homeless, such as applicants fleeing domestic abuse or those subjected to external violence or threats
• local authorities should take into account certain factors in determining intentionality, such as age (youth) and health problems.

2.14 This research similarly detected wide variation in the proportions of priority homeless households assessed as intentionally homeless by Scottish local authorities, ranging from 16.6% to zero in 2003-04. The pro-forma pilot exercise confirmed this local variation, with one local authority accounting for 27% of all returned pro-formas, again highlighting the role of local discretion in decision making. (Further information on intentionality decisions at local authority level in 2003-04 is shown in Table A4:1 at Appendix 4).

2.15 This research had no brief to assess whether such intentionality decisions were appropriate or justifiable. Moreover, had this brief pertained, it was found that the pro-forma returns would have offered insufficient information for a systematic assessment of decision processes and equitable outcomes, or for an assessment of the potential effectiveness of appeals. Note that advocacy and appeals will be discussed further at para 2.24 below.

2.16 Overall however, the pro-forma analysis indicated some variation in approaches to intentionality assessment. Some intentionality decisions appeared to rest on a bureaucratic, sharply defined and rigidly applied interpretation of intentionality, and so may not reflect the good practice emphasised in the revised Code of Guidance on Homelessness (Scottish Executive, 2005b). Two examples from the pro-formas are shown below.

"They had given up accommodation in America to come and stay with ill mother and 2 sisters. Mother died and sisters asked them to leave. They were severely overcrowded. They had moved over with children, but had not secured any accommodation so had worsened circumstances and made themselves intentionally homeless."

"The applicant had given up a local authority tenancy assessed as suitable and moved in with her daughter. Applicant has serious medical problems. She gave no reason for giving up her tenancy and said all her friends had advised against it."

2.17 The 29 service users who were interviewed identified varying reasons for their homelessness, including financial and debt related issues, personal circumstances and external violence. Reflecting wider patterns, the most common reasons identified were that they had left their family home or accommodation for reasons of 'personal circumstances', or that they had been evicted on grounds of rent arrears (4 had been evicted on this ground while a further 2 had abandoned their properties following notice of proceedings). Some felt that it may have been possible to prevent their eviction, whether by acting on advice received, or by presenting for help earlier. One person said they believed that had they "come to the council earlier they could have tried to stop the repossession. They put us onto a lawyer". Another said "I got most help before the eviction." Others however felt that they had not been given any advice or help that would have made a difference.

The assessment process and decision

2.18 In response to having been assessed as homeless intentionally, several service users said they had been confused by, upset about, or critical of this decision. Some interviewees commented that they had not received written notice of the outcome of their homeless application and were not familiar with the term intentionally homeless. Of those who knew that they had been assessed as intentionally homeless, their comments included that they do not really understand the meaning of intentionality; why they had been labelled as intentionally homeless; nor what they should have done differently. One service user said that staff assessed that they had not looked hard enough for alternative accommodation. Most seemed to feel powerless in respect of the decision and its outcomes. Even for those who stated that they considered the intentionality assessment as being unfair, only a small minority had sought any redress, or appeared to be aware that they could challenge the decision. This minority sought advice, or were advised to do so by professionals, and had appealed against the decision.

2.19 Additionally some interviewees said that they had not disclosed the full details of their circumstances at the time of the homelessness interview. One man who had not disclosed the external violence he had been subjected to, because he "didn't want to be a 'grass'", was told he could have returned to his tenancy by the local authority. A female interviewee said homelessness staff told her that she had "knackered her case" by not reporting the domestic violence that caused her to leave the home she had been in for 2 years in another area. She said she had not reported the domestic violence because the council was unaware that her partner had been staying with her. She also said she had not told them about her daughter, as she needs to get everything sorted before her daughter can live with her.

2.20 Such examples highlight the importance of sensitive, holistic and ongoing assessments. They also alert us to the difficulties that service users face in relation to disclosure and to the problems that staff may face in seeking to obtain a full picture at first interview. The dimensions of communications and trust within the assessment process emerge as critical ones. Beyond these examples, wider research indicates that people's needs related to mental health or prior abuse, may emerge after an initial assessment. It is therefore important to view assessment as an ongoing process, recognising that trust in professionals may build up over time (Scottish Executive, 1996; Rosengard et al, 2002): hence the identified need for case reviews in community care guidance. Assessment issues will be discussed further in relation to support needs in Chapter Three.

2.21 Overall, the professionals interviewed in this study identified a similar range of reasons and factors associated with intentionality assessment. Beyond debt-related financial problems, fleeing external violence was commonly identified as a factor. Some staff commented that in cases where neighbour disputes/ external violence was the reason for people leaving their home, often it was the quiet ones that left, while those causing the problems remained in their house. Reasons for loss of previous accommodation will be discussed further in paras 2.44 and 2.55 below.

2.22 Responding to a question on whether intentionally homeless households had differing support needs from those of other homeless households, one professional emphasised the role of discretion in assessing the homeless application:

"It is not about classification, it is about a person's story…you look at where the story began. How people are classified is often just the luck of the draw."

2.23 How far discretion or the "luck of the draw" affects assessments for households who had given up secure accommodation, will be discussed further at paras 2.34 and 2.35 below.

Appeals and the role of advocacy

2.24 As stated above, a minority of interviewees had appealed the decision of intentionality. One interviewee said they were initially assessed as intentionally homeless because they had been evicted for anti social behaviour, but they had successfully appealed the intentionality decision, with advocacy support from an advice agency.

2.25 Another interviewee said that after 10 years as a tenant they had left their accommodation after experiencing neighbourhood violence that resulted in police charges against other local residents. They identified the reason for the intentionality decision was because they had given up suitable accommodation. With support from an advice agency, their appeal against the decision was successful. They said:

"Another neighbour who had problems with the same woman as I had problems with got a move through the social work department. But I didn't have a social worker and I felt like a sitting duck."

2.26 Such examples demonstrate that advocacy when the loss of accommodation is threatened, can play a significant role in preventing homelessness and in appealing decisions of intentionality. Independent advocacy can therefore be empowering. While only a minority of intentionally homeless applicants successfully sought appeals against the intentionality decision with the aid of advocates, others appeared not to be aware that this was a possible course of action.

2.27 There were some indications that intentionality decisions and related appeals against these may be minimised if the Code of Guidance (Scottish Executive, 2005b) is followed systematically. While some interviewees assessed as intentionally homeless reported that they had left their accommodation because of external violence, it must be noted that the Code advises that applicants who leave their accommodation for this reason should not be regarded as becoming homeless intentionally. However the Code also legitimises discretion, recognising that there may reasonably be differing interpretations of applicants' circumstances and that officers "should not apply standard criteria". Local authorities must have regard to the Code of Guidance and, should cases go to judicial review, it is likely to be a significant point of reference.

Local authorities' future investigation of intentionality

2.28 Having considered aspects of the homelessness assessment, we now consider local authorities' emerging responses to the new legislative provisions on intentionality. As noted in Chapter One, the 2003 Act amends the current obligation on local authorities to investigate whether priority need homeless applicants are intentionally homeless, into a discretionary power to do so ( Section 4).

2.29 Local authorities were asked, as part of the survey, to indicate whether they were likely to investigate intentionality in the future. In responses by the 31 participating authorities, 13 authorities (42%) said they would continue to investigate intentionality; 4 (13%) said they would not and the remaining 14 (45%) said they either did not know or did not respond to the question. Reasons for continuing to investigate that were given by case study authorities, appeared to relate to local considerations, described in one area as "as it is deemed managerially expedient to do so". This suggests that the legislative change in relation to the power to investigate intentionality may not have a significant impact on policy or practice across Scotland.

THE CHARACTERISTICS OF INTENTIONALLY HOMELESS HOUSEHOLDS

Types of households

2.30 There has been little research to date on the characteristics of intentionally homeless households. One exception was Pawson's review (2000) that identified the risks of being assessed as intentionally homeless in 1997/98 as being proportionately higher for 2 parent households than for single people, and particularly for those with 3 or more children. Pawson found that 16.9% of homeless households in priority need with 2 parents and one or 2 children were assessed as intentionally homeless. However, for households with 2 parents and 3 plus children, the proportion rose to 24.1% (Pawson, 2000).

Household composition: the pro-forma analysis

2.31 This study similarly found that children are significantly represented in households assessed as intentionally homeless, although its data sources are not strictly comparable with Pawson's ⁸. One likely reason for households with children being so notably represented, may be that the assessment process requires local authorities to assess priority need before intentionality.

2.32 As shown in Table 2.1 below, almost half (49% or 363) of all households assessed as intentionally homeless contained children, with female lone parent households featuring significantly. Single males accounted for 30% of the households so assessed.

Table 2.1 Households types assessed as intentionally homeless as a percentage of all such decisions, 2003-04

2.33 As with the incidence of intentionality decisions, there was notable local variation in the household characteristics of intentionally homeless households across local authority areas in 2003-04. Single person households, for example accounted for:

• sixty one percent of such assessments in Glasgow
• ten percent of such assessments in Highlands. ⁹

2.34 Such variation may reflect diverse and interrelated factors such as local circumstances and housing market factors affecting homelessness patterns; the mix of types of applicant households; and/or the role of discretionary decision-making. Further information on assessments as intentionally homeless at the local authority area level, is contained in Table A4:2, Appendix Four.

2.35 Of the 99 applicants covered by the pro-forma returns, more than half (55 or 56%) contained children, compared with the 49% of households with children in the year 2003-04 (see Table 2:1).

Chart 2.1 Numbers of homeless applicants by household type, pro-forma analysis

Household composition: service users interviewed in the case study areas

2.36 More than half the service user interviewees also had children, as shown in the graph below.

Chart 2.2 Numbers of homeless applicants by household type, service user interviewees

Household composition of IH interviewees in case study areas

Note: In one instance a lone parent's daughter was staying with relatives as she wanted to get her living arrangements sorted out before having her back to live with her

Types of priority need

2.37 Unsurprisingly, given the extent to which households with children figured among those assessed as intentionally homeless, the dominant reason for a determination of priority need was that the household contained dependent children. However, as the pro-forma followed the HL1 in requiring local authorities to list only one reason for their determination of priority need, it is unclear whether households have any other problems that might be alleviated through support. Support needs will be considered further in Chapter 3. Other reasons for a priority need determination are shown in Chart 2.3 below.

Chart 2.3 Category of priority need: pro-forma analysis

Category of priority need

Numbers do not add to 100% due to rounding.

2.38 The extent, to which intentionally homeless households are deemed to be in priority need because they have children may have significant implications both for support provision and for the type of accommodation considered suitable. Beyond the needs of adults, the support needs of children require to be addressed specifically (Randall and Brown, 2003, Rosengard et al, 2002). Moreover, various studies have concluded that communal living arrangements such as hostels and B&B, are often highly unsuitable for households with children (Ann Rosengard Associates with Scottish Health Feedback, 2001). Against this background The Homeless Persons (Unsuitable Accommodation) (Scotland) Order 2004 (which came into force in December 2004), now specifies the accommodation types that are unsuitable for households with children and pregnant women. The Order sets out the criteria that the accommodation must fulfil for these groups. These include:

• having exclusive use of a toilet and personal washing facilities
• having use of a living room
• having adequate bedrooms for the household's exclusive use
• having adequate cooking facilities for the household
• being suitable for children.

2.39 The above criteria are likely to be reflected in the future types of accommodation that local authorities use for intentionally homeless households with children or pregnant women.

The ethnic origin of intentionally homeless applicants

2.40 The pro-forma analysis indicated that intentionally homeless households are predominantly 'White Scottish'. This was the ethnic origin stated by all those applicants described as 'applicant one'. In terms of the 'second applicant' in the households ( i.e. a second adult in the household), 5 gave their ethnic origin as 'other than White Scottish'.

The extent of rough sleeping

2.41 Eight of the 99 homeless applicants were noted as having slept rough over the last 6 months. Rough sleeping had also been part of the experience of the homeless people interviewed, while the length of time that people had slept rough appeared to have varied significantly.

Income sources and employment

2.42 Reflecting wider research findings on homelessness and economic exclusion, the pro-forma responses showed that most households (72%) had no members in paid employment. However in 19% of households, at least one member of the household was reported to be working. In the remaining 9% of cases, the section was either left blank, or it was stated that employment circumstances were not known.

2.43 Less than a quarter of the service users who were interviewed were employed (7 households), while one person was working part time. Most interviewees were financially dependent on state benefits (Income Support, Job Seekers Allowance, Incapacity Benefit and Child Tax Credit). Notably, 3 households who were on Income Support in one area had lost their employment when they became homeless, although one woman stressed that she could get a job. In all the 4 case study areas, and for over half of those interviewed, financial and debt-related problems, and being 'in and out of work', had clearly impacted on their homelessness.

2.44 Money advice needs and financial support were therefore critical for many intentionally homeless households. This emphasises the need for preventative advice, as will be discussed in para 2.58 below.

Reasons for loss of accommodation

2.45 Both Scottish Executive statistics and the pro-forma analysis illustrated that intentionally homeless households are more likely than other applicants to have become homeless due to the loss of a local authority or other social rented tenancy. Conversely, they were found to be less likely to become homeless due to their loss of accommodation with friends/relatives. Further information is shown in Table 2.2 below.

Table 2.2 Reason for loss of previous accommodation: 2003-04

*Percentages do not total 100 due to rounding

2.46 Some of the reasons given by our service user interviewees as to why they had lost their accommodation included:

• two families lost their owner occupied accommodation due to money problems
• seven households were affected by eviction proceedings for rent arrears
• three households in one area gave up private rented tenancies due to high rent costs and unemployment.

The prevalence of evictions

2.47 For those intentionally homeless households for whom eviction was the reason identified for homelessness, the Scottish Executive unpublished statistics showed that eviction for rent arrears was a key catalyst to homelessness and also influenced the subsequent assessment of intentionality:

• eighty eight (12%) had been evicted from a council house/flat due to rent arrears
• twenty eight (4%) were evicted from other social rented property for rent arrears
• thirty (4%) had been evicted from private rented property due to rent arrears
• eight (1%) had been evicted from local authority property due to ASB
• four (1%) had been evicted from other social rented property due to ASB.

2.48 Overall, eviction on the grounds of rent arrears applied in 20% of cases covered by the Scottish Executive statistics and by 26% of the pro-forma applications. Of the pro-forma cases, 15 had lost a local authority tenancy, 2 another social rented tenancy and 9, a tenancy in the private sector. Of those who lost a private sector tenancy, 5 were repeat presenters, having made a previous homeless application. One pro-forma emphasised the financial difficulties in sustaining private sector tenancies, stating,

"The applicant had taken up a private tenancy knowing there would be about £150 per month shortfall in the rent."

2.49 It was further assessed whether the HL1 statistics (which focus on the immediate reason for homelessness) might mask the extent of previous evictions for rent arrears. In the event only 2 pro-forma cases indicated that rent arrears are an underlying reason for eviction, while 2 further households were also affected by ongoing eviction actions. As might be expected, this suggests that a significant proportion of those households evicted for rent arrears reasons apply as homeless soon after eviction takes place.

2.50 This overall significance of evictions for rent arrears in intentionality assessment raises 2 key issues. The first is that there may be considerable scope for homelessness prevention and money/debt advice services to reduce the rate of intentionality decisions. The second is that of non-engagement - specifically, even where tenants do receive advice, this may not always be followed or prevent eviction. This issue of non-take up or engagement with advice and/or support will be considered in Chapters Four and Five.

Anti-social behaviour and potential entitlement to section 7 accommodation only

2.51 The pro-forma investigated how many intentionally homeless applicant households would be entitled to section 7 accommodation only. Questions were therefore included in the pro-forma that are not contained in the HL1 returns and these were:

• whether the household had a short SST that was terminated in the last year?
• had the household been evicted for ASB in the last 3 years?
• does it have a member who is currently subject to an ASBO?

2.52 There were only 5 households that met the first 2 criteria identified above. Two households had been allocated short SSTs that proved unsustainable and both of these were single person households. Two had been evicted for ASB with one of these households containing 2 adults and no dependent children and the other containing 2 adults and one child. A further household had an eviction in process on the grounds of ASB and contained 2 adults and 2 children. There were no cases of an Anti Social Behaviour Order ( ASBO) being in force against a household member.

2.53 This finding suggests that few households assessed as intentionally homeless will be entitled to section 7 accommodation only, indicating that the impact of this element of the 2003 Act will be minimal, at least initially in terms of numbers within local authority areas. Over the quarter year covered by the pro-forma, each of the 5 cases identified came from a different local authority area. Even given this low rate of entitlement to section 7 accommodation only, it is important to consider what factors might change this picture. One potential driver towards a higher rate of households' entitlement to section 7 accommodation would be a rise in intentionally homeless households' not sustaining their short SSTs. Another would arise if the use of ASBOs increased and resulted in more evictions due to ASB.

2.54 The low rate of entitlement to section 7 accommodation only, was also reflected in the sample of 29 service users who were interviewed. All these homeless households would in the future be entitled to short SSTs with support, at least initially. None would have been entitled to section 7 accommodation only. While one interviewee had been evicted due to ASB they pointed out that they had successfully appealed against the intentionality assessment.

Giving up secure accommodation, property abandonment and related issues

2.55 The pro-formas identified 14 households for whom giving up secure accommodation was identified as the immediate cause of homelessness. Two examples are presented below.

"The household terminated a council tenancy down south to move to ( LA) area with no secure accommodation on arriving."

"They gave up a council flat in Glasgow to live in a holiday home. The applicant was fully aware of the occupancy restrictions, as he owns another holiday property on the estate. He wanted to live in the country, not the city."

2.56 The pro-forma followed the definition of the immediate reason for homelessness used in the HL1 returns to the Scottish Executive. It also sought supplementary information on the reason for the intentionality decision, in order to distinguish between households who had given up their accommodation officially and others who had simply abandoned the property. The responses showed that having given up property assessed as suitable was a significant factor in intentionality assessment for many more households than the 14 households for whom this had initially been identified as an immediate cause of homelessness. Overall, the pro-formas indicated that some 29 households had been assessed as intentionally homeless due to having given up accommodation deemed to be suitable. Moreover, property abandonment featured strongly, and was represented in 19 cases. In 6 of these, abandonment followed the start of eviction proceedings for the following reasons:

• rent arrears (3 cases), one of which also involved ASB
• that the house was no longer being used as the main or principal home (2 cases)
• because the house was used for immoral or illegal purposes (one case).

2.57 These findings suggest that households who have given up or abandoned accommodation are less likely than those evicted for rent arrears to make an immediate presentation as homeless, finding other accommodation options, at least in the short term.

2.58 Overall the reasons that people gave up properties that homelessness officers consider to be secure and suitable are complex and varied. This was indicated both by the pro-forma analysis returns and the interviews with agencies and service users. They included material conditions such as rent arrears; personal and relationship problems; neighbour and related ASB issues/ external violence, and there were also examples identified of straightforward housing preferences.

The key role of advice in prevention

2.59 Good practice guidance stresses the need for advice and information to prevent homelessness and Guidance on developing Advice and Information strategies has been issued (Communities Scotland, HomePoint 2004). The Homelessness Task Force (Scottish Executive, 2001c) stated that:

"Evictions invariably deepen a household's problems and should always be a last resort. It is often an indication of failure on the part of the landlord as well as the tenant. We recommend that homelessness strategies should provide for specific, concentrated support programmes for those threatened with eviction across all tenures. These programmes should include the provision of access to independent advice and representations."

2.60 The HomePoint guidance stresses that the process of developing Housing Information and Advice Strategies or other joint strategies can heighten awareness of common ground and areas for potential joint working on prevention between housing and non-housing teams. Additionally, a diverse range of staff teams can contribute to prevention by providing good quality information and advice, including housing options sections, homelessness staff, area teams, hostels staff, tenancy support or social services staff (Communities Scotland, 2004). Our case study local authorities had either developed, or were in the process of developing, Housing Information and Advice Strategies, and one urban case study authority was one of the first in Scotland to produce such a strategy.

2.61 Introducing relevant protocols can also play a part in reducing evictions for rent arrears as illustrated in one case study area (D). In this area, there were 42 evictions from local authority properties for rent arrears in 2004/05, representing 54% of the 2001/02 total. Interviews with RSLs also indicated that levels of evictions on the grounds of rent arrears, are very low. Local authority housing interviewees attributed the reduction to improved processes, including the introduction of a Joint Protocol with Social Work for tenancies at risk.

2.62 Interviews with service users similarly emphasised that, had they had better access to good information and advice, their homelessness might either have been prevented, or its impact might have been lessened. This message rings out in the following quotes:

"There should be more help to prevent homelessness in the first place. They should nip things like rent arrears in the bud and contact you when they see arrears arising. Nobody got in touch with me until there were arrears of about £900. Before I started having benefit problems, I always had zero rent arrears."

"I had letters about the rent arrears but they didn't start proceedings until after 2 years. I wasn't forced into paying and then the court demanded payments of £1000. They should give you a lot more notice and face-to-face appointments."

"The council should make appointments with you to see them face-to-face about arrears, instead of sending letters."

"I had no time to organise anything. I lost all my furniture and was billed for emptying the house after the eviction and for clearing up. I was also charged for full rent when not staying there. I'm waiting for the bill. I need to see what the debt is before I go to debt management".

2.63 One service user who said they had been consulted by their local authority while they were staying in a local authority hostel (case study area (A)) commented on the futility of eviction and the need for housing management staff to work more closely with homelessness prevention staff to prevent it:

"It's daft that the council evict you and it must cost a fortune, because they have to take you to court and then get you out the house and then keep you in the hostel then get you another house and get carpets etc…why not have housing work with the tenancy support team?"

2.64 There was some ambivalence evident in regard to professionals' perceptions of the preventative role of information and advice. Those interviewed individually and in focus groups in different areas, like service users, pointed to the scope for improvement in prevention of homelessness. One common theme was that pro-active prevention had been increasing within specialist homelessness and housing support services. Another was that where housing advice services are decentralised, or where different parts of the housing service play a role in advice ( e.g. homelessness and housing benefit), inconsistencies and divergent approaches can arise, so inhibiting effective prevention.

2.65 While there is scope for local authorities to improve their policies and procedures in responding to rent arrears, the introduction of section 11 of the Homelessness etc. (Scotland) Act 2003 will require RSLs and private landlords to inform local authorities when a notice for proceedings is raised. This should trigger local authorities' awareness of situations where tenants may face the risk of losing their homes.

2.66 The discussion of the role of information and advice in prevention of homelessness alerts us to the fact that homelessness prevention is a cross-cutting issue with implications for a wide range of housing and related services. Action to prevent homelessness will therefore be considered throughout this report.

Repeat homelessness and prevention issues

2.67 The frequency of repeat homelessness amongst applicants assessed as intentionally homeless or potentially intentionally homeless was strongly in evidence in the pro-forma pilot exercise. More than half (53%) of pro-forma household applicants overall had applied as homeless previously, while the incidence of repeat homelessness reached 63% of applicants in one local authority area. This high incidence clearly begs further questions about prevention and support.

2.68 It was not possible to determine how this level of repeat homelessness compares with that for the wider homeless population, as no comparative data was available. Current Scottish Executive statistics only identify repeat presentations within the 12 month period reported. However, Pawson's earlier work offers some comparison (Pawson 2001). This found that around 27% of recorded applications are repeat applications, indicating either or both that repeat homelessness may have increased generally since 2001, or that repeat homelessness may be significantly higher amongst intentionally homeless households. Certainly histories of repeat homelessness were also notable among the service users we interviewed. Eleven interviewees had been homeless before, and in one urban area more than half the interviewees had experienced repeat homelessness.

2.69 There were varied reasons identified for the failures of tenancies allocated under the homelessness legislation. One local authority stated:

"The applicant had given up the tenancy in November 2004, but only stayed there one week although they had the tenancy for 5 weeks and had done some decorating. The children were not happy in the flat and felt scared due to loud noise from people out in the street. They stayed with friends until they presented again as homeless."

2.70 In this case it may have been that the accommodation or its location was unsuitable, as highlighted by other research. Pawson (2001) found that for a significant minority of households who had accessed local authority or RSL tenancies following a previous homeless application, the accommodation allocated was inappropriate, either in terms of location (36%) or property type (25%).

2.71 Overall the circumstances of households who were repeat homeless applicants showed some notable similarities and differences, as identified through a comparison of 'repeat' and 'first-presentation' intentionally homeless applicants. For example:

• Twenty nine repeat homeless applicant households (48%), contained children, (compared with 55% of intentionally homeless households overall).
• 'Repeat' intentionally homeless households were more likely than 'first-presentation' households to have been evicted from local authority accommodation because of rent arrears (15% of all repeat applicant households, compared to 11% of non-repeat applicants).
• 'Repeat' households were more often provided with extra support as a result of their application (46% compared to 15% of non repeat homeless applicants).

2.72 These findings in some ways should not be surprising, as they indicate that repeat applicants may have more difficulties in sustaining their accommodation and that their support needs may have become more apparent to agencies. However it should be noted that one local authority, which has a policy of providing support to all homeless households, returned one third of all pro-formas relating to repeat presentations. This authority also accounted for 42% of all cases where extra support was provided to repeat applicants. There is therefore a case for further investigation of the support needs of repeat homeless households and of the outcomes of the support services that they receive.

SUMMARY

2.73 A key initial finding of this study was that the pro-forma pilot exercise generated a significantly lower incidence of intentionally homeless or potentially intentionally homeless decisions than had been projected for most local authority areas based on previous patterns. Reasons for the declining rate of such decisions may include (either or both) the influence of national policy and good practice guidance, and that in some areas the research may have prompted increased internal scrutiny of applications. Another significant finding of the pro-forma pilot was that only 5 of the 99 applicant households were identified as being only entitled to section 7 accommodation when the provisions of the 2003 legislation come into force.

2.74 The research findings overall illustrated the characteristics of households assessed as intentionally homeless and some of the problems associated with intentionality. Key patterns identified included that:

• households with children feature significantly among those assessed as intentionally homeless, although this may change as priority need is phased out/abolished
• repeat homelessness is a persistent pattern
• eviction for rent arrears is significantly represented in intentionality decisions, suggesting that homelessness prevention has a key role to play in reducing intentionality decisions
• abandonment of permanent accommodation considered suitable, featured strongly as a reason for intentionality decisions (including on the ground of external violence)
• ASB was an issue in only a minority of intentionality cases.

2.75 Issues of support needs and service responses will be explored further in Chapters 3, 4 and 5.

2.76 Two issues for policy implementation emerged from the national pro-forma pilot exercise. Firstly, given the small number of households assessed as intentionally homeless in most local authorities, it would appear that implementing the new legislation may not be so onerous. Our professional interviewees stressed 2 points however that must be considered in implementing the 2003 Act changes: that shortfalls in accommodation and support must be addressed in the interests of all homeless people, and that at times households do not engage with the support on offer to them.

2.77 Secondly, in terms of future trends in intentionality assessment, only a small minority of local authorities (4) reported that they are unlikely to investigate intentionality once the duty to do so is transformed into a power. This pattern must be seen within the wider picture of a small and declining population of such households, and it is important to consider whether this pattern will continue in future years. It is possible for example that other factors, such as the abolition of priority need and the suspension or modification of local connection, may lead to a higher incidence of intentionality assessment. Additionally, once the continuing duty to accommodate is in force, some households who have turned down a permanent tenancy and have gone to stay with friends or relatives, may re-present as homeless. In this context, Guidance would be helpful on how and when local authorities can be said to have discharged their duty to an intentionally homeless household.

« Previous | Contents | Next »