The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

4. PRIORITISING INDIVIDUAL HOUSING NEED

4.1 Allocations policies set out, amongst other aspects of the overall system, what level of priority will be given to different types or profiles of applicants: essentially they provide a system for governing access to a commodity (housing) where demand exceeds supply.

4.2 The priorities within allocations policies have long been the subject of debate, particularly in relation to the relative priority which should be given to different types of housing need, and of those seeking housing for 'aspirational' reasons rather than as a result of need. Historically the way in which allocations were made by local authorities, as the principal providers, was subject to little statutory control. This situation has gradually changed over the course of the past forty years, with an increase in central direction on what social landlords can and cannot do. The change has however been piecemeal and it is perhaps not surprising therefore that the research identified a number of issues around the question of what is now expected, or required, of social landlords.

4.3 The research identified the following issues in relation to priorities for individual housing need

• Difficulties with the interpretation of 'reasonable preference', with no clear definition and differing interpretations causing confusion amongst landlords at a local level
• Questions raised about the relevance of the current specification of 'reasonable preference' categories given the current demand for social rented housing
• Tensions reported by landlords in responding to their obligations in relation to homelessness and to other 'reasonable preference' categories
• Tensions also reported between meeting 'reasonable preference' obligations, particularly in relation to homelessness, and giving appropriate access to other applicants
• Confusion as to how homelessness can be prevented through allocations and what implications this has for 'reasonable preference'
• Confusion about the rights of A8 nationals and other non- UK residents in relation to eligibility/access to housing and their rights (or otherwise) under the homeless legislation.

4.4 These issues are considered in turn below drawing mainly on the survey responses and the case studies.

Interpretations

4.5 Landlords have difficulty in understanding what is meant both by the term 'reasonable preference' and the interpretation of some of the categories of applicant who are required to receive reasonable preference. This was a consistent finding from the survey and the case studies.

4.6 As noted previously, the 'reasonable preference' categories are defined as:

• Those occupying houses below the Tolerable Standard;
• Those living in overcrowded conditions;
• Those with large families;
• Those living in unsatisfactory housing conditions; and
• Homeless persons and persons threatened with homelessness.

4.7 The guidance to the 2001 Act provides the following explanation for 'reasonable preference'

'Reasonable preference refers to the priority given to applicants for housing. It means that local authorities and RSLs should give due weight to the factors listed above, but it does not restrict authorities to taking only such factors into account. Landlords could add other factors of their own…….However, an authority or RSL should not allow its own secondary criteria to dominate its allocation scheme at the expense of factors in the statutory list.'

SEDD Circular 1/2002

4.8 The key points in the guidance above relate to the requirement to give 'due weight', but that this 'does not restrict' taking account of other factors: these other factors are 'secondary' and must not 'dominate' the allocations system. In other words, the guidance does not state that reasonable preference groups have absolute priority, nor that particular reasonable preference categories have more priority than others, or that landlords cannot take account of other factors, or even that these other factors must relate to need.

4.9 This appears therefore to leave landlords with a considerable degree of discretion to interpret the requirements to meet reasonable preference in their own local contexts. However the responses to the survey and in the case study areas showed clearly that landlords find the position unclear and seek greater clarification. The particular difficulties revolve around the interpretation of what constitutes a reasonable level of preference in priority.

'Various groups referred to in legislation but limited guidance on relative levels of priority' ( RSL)

Define 'reasonable preference' LAs would welcome guidance on who is "top priority'' ( LA)

'The individual interpretation of what is reasonable creates anomalies. Legislation/guidance needs to be more specific on what is regarded as reasonable in each area of defined need.' ( LA)

4.10 Some of the practical issues which landlords were faced with and found difficult to decide what they could or should do were:

• How RSLs can meet reasonable preference responsibilities in relation to applicants on their own housing list while responding to section 5 referrals. This was particularly relevant for landlords operating in areas of stock transfer, where reliance on local RSLs to meet homelessness obligations is greater.
• In what circumstances an applicant not in a reasonable preference category can be given priority in the allocation of a property.
• What level of priority should be given to 'cumulative need' - where for example an applicant has needs from more than one category. Does an applicant who is overcrowded and living in Below Tolerable Standard ( BTS) housing have a higher priority than an applicant who is overcrowded?
• Tensions between what is required in terms of addressing overcrowding and what is achievable in practice given the stock availability. Is it acceptable for a landlord to reduce an applicant's overcrowding but not to eliminate it?

4.11 It was evident from the case studies that the difficulties in understanding what was required were compounded by the duties on local authorities, and on RSLs through section 5, to provide accommodation for homeless households. Given that this duty does not extend to the other reasonable preference categories, landlords questioned whether in practice there can be equal priority.

4.12 The views of landlords were influenced by their experience, or perception, of the position taken by Communities Scotland in inspections. This was particularly associated with whether reasonable preference for homelessness involved the same level of priority as other reasonable preference categories.

'We are told we have flexibility to allocate taking account of local circumstances but we are increasingly tied by legislation and a commitment to take section 5 referrals. I know that the Council needs to refer homeless applicants but there is no balance of priority for other applicants on our own list. We got criticised by Communities Scotland for bypassing homeless applicants; it might be easier if it was clearer on what basis bypassing is acceptable - especially where its done on the basis of mixing the tenant profile to create some element of stability.' ( RSL)

4.13 The research sought the views of landlords and did not extend to testing the accuracy of these views.

4.14 Communities Scotland expect landlords to be transparent in their lettings decisions and to be able to evidence their case for any bypassing of applicants. One of the comments more regularly made in the CS inspection reports is that landlords do not demonstrate transparency in their allocations. While landlords may be assessing applications in line with reasonable preference, this is not always clear because there is

• a lack of staff guidelines and extensive staff discretion in
  • allocating vacancies to particular quotas or need groups (in groups and points systems)
  • matching applicants to vacancies
• staff discretion in bypassing applicants and
• poor recording of decision making.

4.15 One issue may be that a relatively small proportion of landlords gather and analyse information about how their allocations policy impacts on those in the reasonable preference categories. Only a quarter (24%) of survey respondents stated that they analysed information about households assessed as being in a reasonable preference category: and whilst more analysed outcomes in relation to allocations policy objectives, this was only a little over a half (60%) of landlords.

4.16 Whilst landlords greatest difficulties in interpreting legislation/guidance related to what was required in terms of priority, there were also difficulties identified in the case study areas with interpreting some of the 'reasonable preference' categories, in particular the meaning of 'large families' and 'unsatisfactory housing conditions' ¹⁷.

Reasonable Preference - 40 years on

4.17 'Reasonable preference' is a long standing concept in allocation in Scotland. It was originally introduced in the Housing (Scotland) Act 1966, making it now more than 40 years old. Whilst a number of aspects of housing legislation have changed, the reasonable preference categories have endured in large part unchanged: the significant changes being introduced first by the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987 (adding statutorily homeless households in priority need as a reasonable preference category) and then by the 2001 Act which placed obligations on RSLs in relation to homelessness (section 5).

4.18 The reasonable preference categories of overcrowding, of below tolerable standard housing and of the housing needs of large families originated in a period when local authority housing dominated housing in Scotland ¹⁸. As well as a significant decrease in the proportion of social housing during this period, the stock profile has changed as terraced and semi-detached properties were sold under the Right to Buy. As one commentator explained in 1996

'The public rental sector in Scotland has changed its role from the mainstream sector housing the mass of the working population and families with children. It has become increasingly residualised, housing elderly persons, the long term sick and disabled, and households not in employment with high dependency on benefits.'

Alan Murie ¹⁹

4.19 Some comments were made by landlords that the categories of reasonable preference no longer reflect the role of the social rented sector within local housing systems or the profile of applicants.

'Legislative framework for allocations needs to be fundamentally revised to reflect the implications of the homelessness legislation. The current framework seems somewhat outdated and reflects a point at which LAs were to be left with a large degree of flexibility within broad parameters (reasonable preference groups and factors not to be reflected)…….A wide ranging debate on this issue would be welcomed.' ( LA)'

'Need an updated definition of what is acceptable to classify as reasonable preference. Homelessness, BTS and Overcrowded (statutory ) is understood but medical, other overcrowding (local) and homeless prevention need to be put in context along with other housing needs.' ( LA)

Homelessness and Other Reasonable Preference Categories

4.20 As noted above, landlords reported tensions between meeting their obligations in relation to homelessness and other 'reasonable preference' categories. Seventy per cent (70%) of all survey respondents identified this as a tension: amongst local authorities this rose to 92%, the most commonly identified tension.

'Homelessness clearly seems to take priority - particularly homeless families and this can be at the expense of overcrowded families.' ( LA)

'How to balance 'reasonable preference' with statutory duty toward homeless.' ( LA)

4.21 Whilst the issue was of greater significance amongst local authorities, RSLs also noted concerns in particular in relation to their obligations under section 5 agreements.

'…..what priority should be given to Section 5 Referrals over the applicants who under the Housing (Scotland) Act 2001 should receive 'reasonable preference' in the allocation of houses.' ( RSL)

'Does the legislation intend that Section 5 referrals have overall priority against the other reasonable preference groups? That is what is happening in practice.' ( RSL)

4.22 A number of RSLs who participated in the case studies noted confusion and tensions relating to their homeless obligations and meeting the needs of others on their lists. Not only were they finding it difficult to meet the needs of other reasonable preference groups in day to day allocation, but some were under pressure from management committees to address the problem.

'Over the past few years there has been a significant increase in the number of S5 referrals, this means that on the ground, other needs groups are missing out, especially medical and those over and under-occupying. We were under increasing pressure from our Board to sort this. Last year we proposed using a quota system, but there were fears we would be accused of "picking and choosing". In the end we have had to review our policy and "re-weight" our pointing system in the hope that it will improve things; still not sure though as we have only tested it and it still needs Board approval.' ( RSL).

4.23 Further analysis of the survey responses shows that

• Meeting homelessness obligations and the needs of other reasonable preference groups is more of an issue amongst rural landlords (79% and 68% respectively).
• It is also more of a concern for larger landlords. More than three quarters of landlords with more than 500 units (77%) identified tension in this area compared with just over two fifths of those with less than 500 units (43%).
• It is one of the few areas of tension where high turnover landlords (those with a turnover of 10%+) are more likely to identify a tension than low turnover landlords (5% and under) (78% and 61% respectively).

4.24 The quotes above reflect that most landlords were unclear about what was expected by the legislation and the guidance. Others however had taken the view that the implications of the legislation in relation to homelessness in effect meant that homeless households should receive greater priority. As in the quote below, this was usually because homelessness was seen as the greatest housing need.

'As an organisation with roughly 45 relets each year we provide around 20 properties for Section 5 Referrals each year. Add to this those people housed due to threat of homelessness priorities coming through our external housing list it means the majority of people housed have a homeless priority This means that other housing list applicants who have less needy circumstances e.g severe overcrowding may not receive an offer.' ( RSL)

4.25 Of those respondents to the survey who identified a tension between meeting homelessness obligations and the needs of other reasonable preference households, a little under a third (32%) stated that the tension was experienced in relation to all lettings. For most the difficulty was more likely to occur in relation to particular housing stock, in particular locations or around particular types of applicant or housing need. Local authorities were more likely to report that the tension was experienced in relation to particular housing stock, or locations: RSLs were more likely to say that it occurred in relation to particular types of applicant or housing needs.

Table 4.1: Meeting homelessness obligations and the needs of other reasonable preference households

Source: Craigforth survey

4.26 Constraints on supply were seen by the great majority of landlords as the reason why this tension existed. Although supply was always identified as the principal explanation for a tension existing, a higher proportion identified it as a reason in relation to this tension compared to others.

4.27 The case studies confirmed the significance of supply for landlords. Local market conditions were seen by both RSLs and local authorities, and amongst staff at all different levels within the organisations, as the main cause of difficulties. This was not simply that difficulties were only experienced in the most pressured market areas, with other more local shortages of supply in particular communities or of a particular size or type of accommodation identified as causing difficulties in other less pressured areas.

4.28 There were other dimensions of the difficulties in relation to supply mentioned in the case studies. Difficulties could be greater where there was limited one bedroom housing stock, and the majority of applicants and homeless households were single. In addition where the allocations policy allowed two bedroom housing to be allocated to single people, those single people were competing for the properties against homeless families, sometimes in temporary accommodation

'The allocations policy allows a 2 bed property to be allocated to a single person where there is a shortage of 1 bed properties. However the choice is between single people (in housing need but not priority need homeless) and homeless families sitting in temporary accommodation. Priority has to be given to homeless families and single people, non-priority need or in other housing need cannot get housed.' ( LA).

4.29 Responsibilities in relation to providing temporary accommodation were seen to have increased the pressures on supply available for other needs, even with the introduction of 'homeless at home' ²⁰. Where there was also increasing pressure in other tenures, this limited the opportunities to address needs through, for example, the private rented sector or low cost home ownership.

4.30 Whilst supply was by far the most common reason given for the tension being experienced, there were other factors identified by survey respondents and in the case studies. The second most common reason (53%) given by survey respondents related to a tension between allocations legislation or guidance and housing priorities; and around a quarter linked it to lack of clarity in allocations legislation/guidance (26%) or in other legislation or guidance (21%). Within the case studies, the changed responsibilities in relation to homelessness introduced in the 2001 and the 2003 Acts were also mentioned.

Other Needs (not Reasonable Preference)

4.31 There were widespread concerns amongst all landlords about the difficulties in meeting the needs of applicants who were in none of the reasonable preference categories. 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 tension arose from the priority given to those in the reasonable preference categories, with the result that those with less or other needs were seen as, in effect, excluded from re-housing opportunities. Again, supply side issues were a key factor identified by many landlords as compounding this problem, but this is not to say that landlords operating in less pressured areas found the problem easier to address.

4.32 Survey respondents were particularly concerned about issues for existing tenants whose needs were often less and more likely to be aspirational. As such, in a system focussed on needs, their priority was lower to the extent that they could not compete with homeless applicants (or indeed many of the other reasonable preference households). Some landlords found it difficult to reconcile their responsibilities (or at least their ethos) of providing a quality service to their existing customers, and satisfying new customers.

'Aspirations of transfer applicants and desire to make best use of available stock and need to house homeless as a priority.' ( LA)

'A number of our own tenants want to aspire to another house type or location. But guidance indicates that only a small number of lets are made to this category. I think that we have a responsibility to look after our own tenants first and given our relet turnover the opportunities for matching tenants to housing is limited by supply. Internal moves encourage stable communities and address the housing needs of our existing tenants.' ( RSL)

4.33 The situation was complicated by the fact that transfer applicants were often more selective about the quality of the offer which they would consider. Whilst many of the landlords acknowledged that this reflected their lesser need, it was also pointed out that in some instances it was in the interest of other applicants for the transfer to be achieved. This is in effect the argument for 'transfer led' allocations - where a transfer applicant is given priority not for their housing needs but because the property they occupy is required to meet the needs of an applicant with significant housing needs. In some cases this can result in a vacancy chain which satisfies the housing needs of a number of transfer tenants and an applicant in significant housing need.

'This can be used to generate void properties for specific applicants with housing needs. Homelessness pressure and equalities legislation makes it unclear how far this can be taken. Tenants will only give up good accommodation if they are offered something of the same standard or better. Clarity as to how this can be put to full effect would be welcomed.' ( LA)

'Void turnover as an offer to a transfer applicant always generates another void. This can be more justifiable if the transfer applicant has housing needs themselves or where the void addresses significant housing need. Homelessness pressure and equalities guidance can restrict creativity here.' ( LA)

4.34 Respondents made a connection with 'best use of housing stock' and were unclear of the extent to which achieving better use of stock enabled them to give advantage to those who had lower needs.

'…difficult to address when 'need' is the key criteria. Often we could make a sensitive and positive allocation - but the applicant who would best match the property is not necessarily the applicant in greatest need.' ( RSL)

'Should be able to incentivise tenants to move to small properties to free larger homes.' ( RSL)

4.35 There was specific mention of emerging or newly forming households, where the applicant was not under pressure to leave their current accommodation. Allocations systems based on housing need alone were seen to give few opportunities for re-housing. This was particularly the case in pressured market areas and in smaller communities with a small supply of social housing and low turnover. Again, however the issue was seen by most interviewees as being related to lack of supply and affordability of other tenures rather than any particular issues with the current legislation or guidance.

4.36 It was largely in this context that landlords in the case study areas referred to a growth in the number of homeless presentations.

'Pressure builds up on the waiting lists amongst other groups not in the reasonable preference categories and they are forced or directed down the homeless route. Homeless prevention measures can still be put in place but they are running against the tide of new homeless presentations and reducing stock/void/turnover.' ( LA)

'Perception that in areas like xxxxx the "homeless route" is the only means of being housed within a reasonable time frame.' ( RSL)

4.37 There were two dimensions to this.

(a) First, there were concerns that the lack of access to those who were not homeless resulted in growing pressures as people lived in unsatisfactory housing arrangements for long periods, situations worsened and homelessness or threatened homelessness resulted.

(b) Secondly, there was a clear perception in some of the case study areas and amongst some landlords that applicants understood that their priority was greater if they were accepted as homeless and as a result they made 'strategic' applications to the homeless teams. There were comments that this was the advice given by other services and agencies in some instances.

4.38 However landlords stated that in many cases it was difficult to evidence clearly which of the two dimensions applied to particular cases. Given the greater emphasis now being placed on prevention of homelessness both points above are of considerable significance and are discussed in more depth in the next section.

4.39 New requirements on the suitability of permanent accommodation for homeless people and on the number of offers that should be provided were identified by some respondents as creating additional tensions, with practice in some areas continuing to contravene Guidance because of these concerns.

4.40 There were specific issues where a homeless household was occupying temporary accommodation. There were reports of homeless households being offered housing that technically met their requirements but being refused by applicants in the hope that the next offer would be in an area/house type more of their choosing; this was a particular issue for those waiting for family sized housing and related to the type and location of larger sized properties available.

'One of the problems is managing people's expectations - because homeless applicants get the same number of offers as others on the list, we get the feeling that a lot of families especially are biding their time in temporary in the hope that they will get the property they want - this is mainly because most of our larger housing is maisonettes as we lost most of the desirable stuff through the right to buy. In some ways you can't blame people for this but it puts pressure on us (homeless staff) to find enough temporary places for families.' ( LA).

Prevention of Homelessness

4.41 As noted above, a quarter (25%) of survey respondents stated that they considered that the current legislation and guidance was not clear on this matter: this rose to 37% of local authority respondents. Analysis of what landlords considered to be unclear about the current legislation and guidance shows that the difficulties perceived by landlords relate not to the meaning of the term but simply how this can be achieved in practice.

'Preventing homelessness through allocations - need guidance on how to balance this with need to meet actual homelessness needs and minimise time in temp accommodation.' ( LA)

'Guidance would be useful as difficult to achieve in areas where demand from homeless apps is high.' ( LA)

'More information on how we can do this.' ( RSL)

4.42 As can be seen from the quotes, the issues for landlords are particularly around preventing homelessness whilst at the same time meeting the demands to re-house homeless households. A number of landlords were clearly keen to shift the emphasis but could not see how to achieve this within the current requirements.

4.43 Effectively, by not being able to respond to the housing needs of other groups - both those within the current reasonable preference categories and others, such as newly forming households - a number of landlords felt that this negated the principles underpinning the homeless prevention agenda.

'I think there is too much emphasis on meeting immediate homelessness and not about preventing future homelessness just now - for good reasons, but we need to avoid getting caught up in short term management only.' ( RSL)

'Too much pressure from households already having priority status. Currently a waiting list for homeless households exists - how do we prioritise prevention when faced with rooflessness?' ( LA)

4.44 Insufficient supply of housing was identified by landlords as by far the most important reason for the tension they experienced, but this was a lower proportion at 82% than on average for other areas of tension (88%). Respondents to the survey were slightly more likely to identify tensions between allocations legislation and guidance and other housing priorities (56%) in relation to preventing homelessness than on average for other tensions (51%).

Organisational Issues

4.45 There are two issues to be considered where landlords identified organisational issues creating tensions in relation to individual priorities for housing.

(a) Tensions, mainly experienced by RSLs, in relation to the operation of section 5 agreements

(b) Tensions for specialist RSLs where the requirements in relation to reasonable preference conflicted with their organisational objectives.

Section 5 Agreements

4.46 Difficulties identified in relation to the operation of section 5 referrals were

• Differences in practice between local authorities causing additional complications for regional and national RSLs
• Some local authorities being slow to provide nominations/section 5 referrals increasing void times
• Homeless applicants in temporary accommodation being given priority by local authorities, with a concern that the 'route' to RSL accommodation was increasingly through temporary accommodation.

4.47 There were particular issues for some RSLs in understanding the relative priority which they were expected to give to section 5 referrals as against other reasonable preference households on their own housing lists.

'Does the legislation intend that section 5 referrals have overall priority against other reasonable preference groups? That is what is happening in practice.' ( RSL)

4.48 Some RSLs, responding to the survey and within the case studies, reported that they were holding a list of section 5 referrals since they had insufficient vacancies to meet the need.

4.49 In one case study area where the local authority stock had been transferred, the problem appeared to be particularly acute. Due to this increasing pressure to meet section 5 referral obligations, the local RSLs reported that they could not always meet the request for accommodation for homeless households within the 6 week timescale.

4.50 To 'return' the referral to the local authority did not resolve the difficulty, and would mean, in light of having no stock, the local authority in turn would need to make another section 5 referral of the same applicant: in response, the local authority requested that the RSL retained the original referral. Thus, the local RSLs reported having two lists in operation - a section 5 waiting list and their own waiting/transfer list.

4.51 A consequence of this situation was that the local authority was effectively becoming a landlord 'by default', since it managed tenancies leased for temporary accommodation. Staff were therefore carrying out traditional landlord functions (void and estate management, dealing with neighbourhood issues and repairs etc).

4.52 While this problem was of particular concern in an area of stock transfer, it highlights the issue (reported by other interviewees) of 'applicant' led section 5 referrals - where a section 5 referral is made irrespective of whether the RSL has a vacancy.

4.53 In an attempt to overcome the problems reported and associated with applicant led section 5 referrals, one local authority, in conjunction with the local RSLs, had developed a vacancy led approach and agreeing that the RSLs could stipulate any criteria/conditions relating to the available property they felt relevant to the let. In addition, if an RSL had genuine difficulty with the referral, they could negotiate as long as they offered an equivalent alternative vacancy and provided reasons within an agreed framework.

4.54 This practice of negotiation reflects comments from other areas that the occasional need for sensitive letting has to be achieved through negotiation and good working relationships between local authorities and RSLs if the system of section 5 referrals is to be successful.

Specialist RSLs

4.55 There was evidence from the case studies that some RSLs set up to cater for particular groups had particular problems with their obligations in relation to reasonable preference households. These obligations have meant that such RSLs have been required to let mainstream tenancies to applicants not from their original specialist client group or from those who may not be supportive or understanding of their neighbours with particular needs. This changed the nature of the RSL provision and could create management difficulties for the RSLs concerned.

4.56 For some specialist RSLs, this problem was reported to stem from pressure to reduce/minimise void and re-let times in order to meet performance targets and minimise rent loss, with the result that they often did not have time to establish from other services or agencies if they were aware of anyone whose needs would match the property.

4.57 There was also evidence, however, that some national specialist RSLs - particularly where they had small numbers of properties in an area - were not receiving any requests from the local authority to meet homeless or other reasonable preference groups needs. Overall, specialist RSLs were the least likely to report problems and issues around prioritising individual housing need.

4.58 There were, however other issues for specialist RSLs where support is an integral part of the provision: these issues are considered in chapter 6.

A8 Nationals and other non- UK residents

4.59 One of the most consistent themes to emerge from both the survey results and the case studies was lack of clarity and confusion amongst social landlords in relation to housing and the right to homeless provision for A8 nationals and other non- UK residents.

4.60 Apart from 'balancing communities', eligibility to housing of non UK residents was the most common area that respondents noted as not sufficiently clear in terms of legislation and guidance. Over half of all respondents (57%) noted this and when looked at by type of organisation, this rises to 78% for local authorities, compared to 57% for RSLs and 32% for LHOs.

4.61 Within the case studies this issue was mentioned by almost all those who took part in the interviews and focus groups across all areas. While some respondents and interviews noted concern and confusion about differentiating between various 'groups' of non UK residents, such as the right to housing, benefits and homeless provision between asylum seekers, refugees and people from outwith the European Union, the single most common group where there appeared to be confusion was in relation to A8 nationals.

'We went on training and it's a bit clearer now - we now know what the difference is between Asylum Seekers, refugees and A8 nationals - but it doesn't make it any easier when working out if people have rights to housing or benefits - I think the SE needs to give clear guidance on this.' ( LA)

4.62 One of the main areas of confusion is whether A8 nationals have entitlement to public assistance as many landlords have concerns about their ability to meet rental costs, should they find themselves out of work. The main areas of concern reported were:

• The requirement to ask for income details as the legislation and guidance clearly states that income should not be considered when assessing housing need
  
  'We know that in terms of the legislation we should not be taking income into account but we need to assess if people from Poland and other eastern European countries can pay the rent - there's no point in giving then a house if we then need to evict them a few months later for arrears.' ( RSL)
• The rights of workers to Housing Benefit - this was linked to being unemployed, those not registered under the Workers Registration Scheme or who have been working for less than a year (this was linked to reports that many workers report having complied with the rules on working and registering in the UK, only to find employers have not registered them, hence they have no entitlement to public assistance).
  
  'It's really difficult, one family had all the paperwork to show they had been working and had a right to benefits, but their employer hadn't done what was required and they were told that they couldn't get help with their rent - as it was we really weren't sure what to do.' ( RSL)

• Where the family composition or circumstances of A8 households changes - again linked to benefit entitlement and the ability to pay rent.
  
  'We had one family where both the husband and wife were working and there were no problems with their rent payment; however, the lady found out she was pregnant and her husband's wages alone couldn't cover the rent - we have no idea if she is entitled to child benefit or if they might get help with their rent.' ( LA)

• Rights to homelessness provision, including the right to a homeless assessment and access to temporary and permanent accommodation.
  
  'We are giving people a homeless assessment but are not sure if we should be or not - I'm aware that other Councils only offer advice on other tenures, like private rented.' ( LA)
  
  'We (homeless staff) have been told that people from eastern Europe have no entitlement to homeless provision, especially if they have a house or family in their own country - one woman who had 2 kids recently came in and we had to turn her away - I felt really bad as she had nowhere to go but there was nothing we could do.' ( LA)

4.63 Almost all landlords, particularly local authorities, reported an increase in the number of non UK residents over the past few years (with the exception of RSLs in very rural areas or those which have very specialist provision) and all felt that guidance in this area should be a priority, especially given the problems and concerns many reported in determining the relative priority for other groups and individuals on their waiting lists.

« Previous | Contents | Next »