The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

3. OVERVIEW OF ISSUES AND TENSIONS IN ALLOCATIONS

3.1 This chapter provides an overview of the main issues and tensions in relation to allocations legislation and guidance identified through the survey, and supplemented by the case study material. It considers

• Landlords' views on aspects of legislation and guidance which are not sufficiently clear
• Landlords' views on areas of tension within allocations legislation and guidance, or between allocations legislation and guidance and other legislation and guidance.

3.2 The questionnaire issued to landlords distinguished between aspects of allocations legislation and guidance where there were issues of clarity, and areas where there were tensions. However, it was evident from the responses received from landlords, and in particular from responses to open ended questions, that landlords did not always make this distinction.

Landlords' Views on Issues of Clarity

3.3 One of the main focuses of this research was to identify landlords' views on areas of allocations legislation and guidance which they considered were insufficiently clear. A number of possible issues were identified within the questionnaire and landlords were also offered the opportunity to identify other issues. The survey was issued to the member of staff with overall responsibility for the allocations function, but the extent to which the views expressed by respondents reflected the organisations position was not tested.

3.4 Overall the responses show that landlords consider that there are a substantial number of aspects of legislation and guidance which are not sufficiently clear. In a few instances however comments made in open ended questions show clearly that some respondents simply were not aware of existing, relevant legislation or guidance. .

Table 3.1: Legislation/guidance not sufficiently clear
All respondents

Source: Craigforth Survey

3.5 Of the 17 aspects identified, there were only two aspects where less than 10% of landlords identified issues of clarity. In relation to three aspects more than half of landlords responding stated that they considered the term or aspect was not sufficiently clear.

3.6 The areas offered varied between broad concepts, such as 'balancing communities', and those which related to a much more specific issue, such as 'exclusions'. In general the survey responses suggest that it is the broad concepts which tend to cause greater difficulty for landlords. Of the seven areas with the highest level of responses from landlords, six include general or aspirational terms mainly relating to the priorities within allocations policies.

• Balancing communities (62%)
• Sensitive lettings (51%)
• Best use of housing stock (46%)
• Local lettings initiatives (43%)
• Giving reasonable preference to varying needs (38%)
• Restricting eligibility to certain properties or property types (37%).

3.7 Areas relating to eligibility to housing tend, conversely, to be considered by more landlords to have fewer issues of clarity.

• Exclusions (23%)
• Suspensions (17%)
• Eligibility to housing of households with a history of anti-social behaviour (13%)
• Eligibility to housing of households with arrears (8%)
• Eligibility to housing of applicants living outside LA area (7%).

3.8 There are of course exceptions. Most notable in this context is the issue about eligibility to housing of non UK residents, which received the second highest responses, with 57% of respondents considering the position to be insufficiently clear. The then Scottish Executive has issued statutory guidance on eligibility for homelessness assistance for foreign nationals including A8 nationals ¹⁵, but the evidence from this research was that landlords still considered the position to be unclear.

3.9 Analysis by the type of landlord (local authority, RSL or LHO) shows that local authorities considered many more areas of legislation and guidance to be insufficiently clear. Only in four of the 17 areas did a lower proportion of local authority respondents identify issues of lack of clarity (exclusions, nominations, elected member involvement, local connection).

Table 3.2: Legislation/guidance not sufficiently clear
Local authority, RSL and local housing organisation

Source: Craigforth Survey

3.10 Areas where the greatest differences of view between local authority respondents and others were evident are

• Balancing communities
• Eligibility to housing of non UK residents
• Sensitive lettings
• Local lettings initiatives
• Restricting eligibility to certain properties or property types
• Preventing homelessness through allocations
• Eligibility to housing of households with arrears
• Local connection.

3.11 In part the difference is likely to reflect the fact that local authorities consider that more issues are relevant to them, reflecting in particular their larger housing stock and their responsibilities for homelessness. As noted at the outset of this chapter, in some instances the difficulties identified by local authorities in this part of the survey were not about clarity but about tensions. This was particularly evident in the explanations given in relation to 'eligibility to housing of households with arrears' where a number of local authorities were expressing concern about the position of households with large arrears although they clearly understood it.

3.12 Further analysis of the survey responses suggests that the size of the social landlord affected the issues identified.

• Large organisations (those with stock greater than 1,000 units) were more likely than smaller organisations to have concerns about the clarity of legislation and guidance relating to 'balancing communities' (73% and 59% respectively), 'sensitive lettings' (66% and 45% respectively) and 'local lettings initiatives' (53% and 38% respectively)
• Conversely smaller organisations were more likely to have concerns about the clarity of legislation relating to 'exclusions' (28% and 14% respectively), 'local connection' (22% and 9% respectively) and 'elected member involvement' (20% and 8% respectively)

3.13 The survey analysis also suggests that there were some differences in the views of landlords depending on whether they operated mainly in urban or rural areas. It is however important to note the limitations of this analysis given difficulties in categorising landlords into urban and rural.

• 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' (25% of rural organisations compared to 6% of urban)
• Urban organisations were more likely to have concerns regarding the legislation/guidance relating to 'households with arrears' (14% of urban landlords compared to 0% of rural)

3.14 Other areas of allocations and legislation identified by respondents to the survey as insufficiently clear were ¹⁶

• Relationship between reasonable preference, balancing communities, best use of stock etc (6)
• Meaning of RP for homeless households (3)
• Choice based lettings (3)
• Housing support, Supporting People and allocations (3)
• Responsibilities for sex offenders (2)
• Communities Scotland's requirements relating to allocations at inspection (2)
• Applicants with history of rent arrears (1)
• Role of 'transfer led' lettings (1)
• Rights of separated parents (1)
• Information to assess medical priority (1)
• Good practice on performance monitoring (1).

Landlord Views on Tensions in Allocations

3.15 The second section of the survey sought respondents' views on tensions within allocations legislation and guidance, and between allocations legislation and guidance and other legislation, guidance or policy. As with the issues of clarity, a number of potential tensions were identified in the questionnaire and respondents were also offered the opportunity to identify others.

3.16 The table below shows the proportion of all respondents who stated "yes, some tension" existed in each area.

Table 3.3: Areas of tension
All respondents and by type of organisation

Source: Craigforth Survey

3.17 Again the proportion of landlords identifying each issue as a tension was high, with no issues being considered a tension in fewer than 20% of responses and one issue being considered a tension by nearly 80% of respondents. In five of the eleven options, 50% or more landlords identified the issue as a tension.

3.18 It is clear from the table that areas where most respondents felt there were 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%).

3.19 It is interesting to note that almost half the respondents felt that there was tension in 'Achieving the organisation's objectives, and complying with legislation and/or guidance on allocations' (49%).

3.20 Respondents to the survey identified a number of other areas of tension.

• Imbalance between housing supply and need, particularly in relation to homelessness obligations (6)
• Tensions between housing and other policies (such as anti-social behaviour) (5)
• Allocations policy priorities and access to Supporting People funding (2)
• The cost of running open housing lists (2)
• Information & processes for section 5 referrals (2)
• New duties in relation to housing sex offenders (2)
• Inability to place age restrictions on certain properties (1)

3.21 The issues in relation to allocations and access to housing support, and those in relation to sex offenders were also highlighted by landlords in the case study areas.

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

Table 3.4: Number of tensions

Source: Craigforth Survey

3.23 There were particular differences between local authorities and RSLs in relation to the following

• 'Meeting homelessness obligations, and the needs of other reasonable preference households' (92% of local authorities compared to 69% of RSLs and 47% of LHOs).
• 'Giving choice, and meeting housing need' (84% of local authorities compared to 45% of RSLs and 58% of LHOs).
• 'Meeting reasonable preference, and meeting objectives to support independent living for people with particular needs' (69% of local authorities compared with 37% of RSLs and only 22% of LHOs).
• 'Preventing homelessness, and meeting obligations on reasonable preference to homeless and other households' (81% of local authorities compared to 58% of RSLs and 47% of LHOs).

3.24 There are interesting and important connections here with the type of allocations policy used. Local authority respondents identified more tensions and were much more likely to use a groups plus points allocations system. Discussions in the case study areas indicated that local authorities saw the use of groups plus points systems, along with quotas, as a means by which to balance the many demands on their housing stock and to ensure that there was at least some opportunity for a range of different households and types of need to access their housing.

3.25 It is also worth noting that landlords with housing stock mainly in rural areas were more likely to identify tensions than landlords with mainly urban stock, although again it should be emphasised that this classification into urban and rural cannot be applied to all landlords.

• Almost four out of five rural organisations (79%) identified a tension with regard to 'Preventing homelessness and meeting obligations on reasonable preference to homeless & other households' compared to only 58% of urban landlords.
• More than two thirds of rural organisations (68%) felt a tension with regard to 'Achieving the organisation's objectives, and complying with legislation and/or guidance on allocations' compared to fewer than half of urban landlords (45%).

3.26 Conversely, however, there were some areas where urban organisations felt more tension existed.

• More than two out of five urban organisations (44%) felt tension existed with regard to 'Meeting reasonable preference and meeting objectives to support independent living for people with particular needs' compared with just over a quarter of rural organisations (26%).

3.27 Respondents were most likely to state that the tensions were experienced in relation to particular housing stock, particular locations or particular applicants. The proportion varied little between the different tensions, representing between 50-60% of all respondents. Similarly there was little variation in the views of local authority, RSL and LHO respondents on this.

3.28 It is perhaps more significant to note that for around a third of those identifying a particular tension, it related to all their lettings.

3.29 In terms of the reasons for the tension existing, this was most commonly seen by respondents as being the result of an insufficient supply of housing, with the proportion identifying this as a reason ranging from 98% to 43% depending on the tension. Issues relating to the types and sizes of housing available were also commonly given as other reasons for tensions. One option offered to respondents in this section of the survey was that the tension occurred because of 'tensions between allocations legislation/guidance and housing priorities': between 69% and 17% of those identifying tensions considered that this was a factor.

3.30 Of particular interest is the response in relation to 'lack of clarity in allocations legislation/guidance' as a reason for tensions existing for landlords. This was not seen as the most important issue (with the responses dominated by issues concerning stock supply). It was significant however in relation to particular types of tension:

• Achieving the organisation's objectives (38%)
• Achieving best use of housing stock (36%)
• Preventing homelessness, and meeting obligations on reasonable preference to homeless and other households (33%)
• Meeting reasonable preference (particularly in relation to homeless) and other housing targets, such as voids and arrears (32%)

Main Themes

3.31 The survey responses and the case studies both suggest that the issues for landlords in relation both to clarity and to tension are inter-connected.

'Balancing communities, best use of stock, reasonable preference, sensitive lettings, restricting eligibility, local lettings initiatives - need further guidance about how this sits with equalities agenda and fair access for all, and the needs of homeless households' ( LA)

3.32 The following three chapters consider the findings from the research on a theme basis. These themes, identified through analysis of the survey and the case studies are:

1. Prioritising individual need
2. Balanced communities, individual and community need
3. Allocations and wider agendas

« Previous | Contents | Next »