The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

7. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

7.1 There are sometimes difficulties in engaging participants in research, resulting in low response rates to questionnaires, answers limited to tick box questions and problems in recruiting focus groups. There was no such difficulty with this research. The willingness to participate has, with only a few exceptions, been exceptional both in terms of the numbers and in terms of the detail with which people have explained their perceptions to the research team. The result has been a rich body of evidence of social landlords' views of the allocations legislation and guidance, of the issues which are unclear and of the tensions which they experience in translating these requirements into practice on the ground.

7.2 The issues surrounding allocations appear to be keenly felt by social landlords: further it was evident from the research that many see these issues as longstanding and a review overdue. It also means of course that landlords are very keen to see the results of the research and, equally, action being taken to resolve the difficulties which they have identified.

7.3 It is important to remember that the research involved gathering the views of social landlords about allocations legislation and guidance: whilst the researchers probed landlords in the case study areas about the reasons for these views, the research did not involve validating or verifying the circumstances or experiences reported. This should not reduce the value of the findings of the research, since perceptions are important and affect the way in which services are delivered. It is repeated here because we are aware that other stakeholders may well hold different views, or at least reflect a different balance or emphasis on the issues.

7.4 This final chapter sets out the conclusions from the research and then moves on to making recommendations for addressing the issues identified.

Conclusions

Allocations Systems Today

7.5 We have stressed throughout the report, as have many of the participating landlords, that allocations and the views of social landlords must be understood in the context of current demand for social housing and the profile of its housing stock.

7.6 Both supply and demand in the social rented sector have undergone a sea change ²² over the past four decades: at the beginning of this period, public sector housing was the dominant tenure in many local authority areas in Scotland. For whole communities, the only option of housing was within the public sector unless they were willing to move to another area. The impact of housing policies supporting owner occupation has overturned that dominance, as well as changing the profile of both size and type of accommodation.

7.7 Associated changes have occurred in the profile of demand for social rented housing, with typically around three quarters of housing lists now consisting of single people, and the next largest household type being single parent households. More importantly, needs amongst those seeking housing from social landlords are now often more than just for accommodation, with a significant growth in the proportion of applicants with support, care and/or health needs.

7.8 This is a hugely important context within which to interpret the findings from this research. Whilst there have been radical changes in the role of the social rented sector, there has not been the same degree of change in the legislative and guidance framework.

7.9 The legislation and associated guidance places specific and detailed requirements on landlords in terms of eligibility to housing. However greater discretion is left to landlords about the priorities given to different types of applicant. Key within the requirements on priorities is that 'reasonable preference' is given to certain categories of applicant: most of these reasonable preference categories were set out in 1966, but statutorily homeless households were added in 1987 with the aim of bringing allocations legislation in line with homelessness legislation. Legislation in 2001 recognised the growing role of RSLs and required them to house those homeless households referred to them by local authorities under section 5.

7.10 In terms of the legislative framework for allocations, there are close and important links with the homelessness legislation. Whilst the allocations legislation and guidance is largely permissive, this is not the style of the homelessness legislation and associated Code of Guidance: in contrast this seeks to remove discretion from local authority's interpretation and implementation. This is likely to explain in part some of the confusion and tension reported by social landlords as they attempt to reconcile these various requirements in allocations practice.

7.11 The research sought information about the allocations systems used by social landlords. This found that allocations systems amongst social landlords in Scotland are dominated by two systems - groups plus points, and points only systems. Groups plus date order and choice based lettings are used but to a significantly lesser extent, while systems based on date of application, traditionally dominant, are now negligible.

7.12 In terms of the two main systems, there are important differences in the profile of landlords using these. Local authorities more commonly use groups plus points, while RSLs more commonly use points only systems. In part there is a historical dimension to this, with RSLs being encouraged in the past by Scottish Homes to use points only systems, since there were reservations about the use of quotas in groups plus points systems. The profile is however more complex now, as more detailed analysis shows: those social landlords with larger housing stock (over 2,500 units) more commonly use groups plus points systems.

7.13 The evidence from the case studies suggests an important dimension to this difference, with landlords seeing that groups plus points systems offer them a way in which to balance the competing demand for housing from applicants, offering some opportunity of re-housing to a mix of different types of need. In other words, groups plus points systems, as also choice based lettings, are seen as an approach to dealing more effectively with situations where need exceeds supply (overall or for particular locations or types of property).

7.14 There was little of note in the responses about the delivery of allocations, with social landlords with larger housing stock more likely to use local offices and those with smaller stock more commonly delivering allocations through a single central office.

7.15 In contrast there were important findings in relation to performance management information. First, and most strikingly, only a third of all respondents collected information about households assessed as 'reasonable preference'. Given that reasonable preference essentially defines the outcomes required of landlords in allocations legislation, failure to gather information in this form makes it impossible to be able to demonstrate compliance. A higher proportion of landlords reported that they collected information about the outcomes of their policy, but this was still only two thirds: these outcomes will in some cases overlap with reasonable preference, but will include locally defined requirements.

7.16 The evidence from the research, both the survey and the case studies, shows that landlords are more likely to collect performance information, than they are to analyse or report it: landlords also more commonly report the information collected than analyse it. In other words, there is information gathered of which little or no use is made. This finding was a surprise, since analysis is usually a necessary step to enable reporting. The case studies provided insight into the survey responses, suggesting that landlord reporting is driven in significant part by national requirements, particularly from Communities Scotland. As such, landlords collect information for the purposes of this reporting, but do not necessarily use this information for their own internal performance management purposes.

7.17 It is worth noting in this context that a common finding in inspections of allocations by Communities Scotland was that there was a lack of transparency in how decisions were made and of the outcomes delivered. This may suggest a need for greater understanding amongst landlords about the information which they should collect, as well as how this should be used, to evidence the outcomes delivered by their allocations system and to demonstrate transparency in individual lettings made.

7.18 Some landlords recognised the issues in this area and sought assistance. In line with comments on other issues, the desire was mainly for practical assistance, such as the provision of illustrations and good practice examples rather than guidance, which was found less helpful.

Clarification and tensions

7.19 Overall landlords consider that there are a substantial number of areas where the allocations legislation or guidance is not sufficiently clear. From a total of 17 areas where the survey sought the views of landlords on whether clarification was required, there were only 2 areas where fewer than 10% considered there was a lack of clarity. Furthermore there were three areas of allocations where over half of landlords stated that they considered there was insufficient clarity. Local authorities and RSLs with larger housing stock identified more areas where there was insufficient clarity.

7.20 The initial specification of the research pursued a distinction between those aspects of allocations legislation and guidance which lacked clarity and those where there were tensions. This distinction between clarity and tension was however difficult to maintain, with landlords responding to the survey collapsing the two, or pointing out that certain issues created tensions partly because of the lack of clarity.

7.21 The main issues identified by landlords relating specifically to a lack of clarity were

• Eligibility to housing of non UK residents (A8 nationals etc). This was by far the most commonly identified issue. The issues where landlords sought clarification were
  • Legitimacy of taking income into account
  • Access to public benefits and in particular housing benefit, and where the household composition changes
  • Entitlement to homelessness services.
• Eligibility to housing of households with a history of anti-social behaviour. The concern here was to have clarification of what evidence was required as 'history'.
• Eligibility to housing of applicants with arrears. The main question for clarification related to the eligibility to re-housing of transfer applicants with arrears.

7.22 Landlords most commonly identified broader concepts as lacking sufficient clarity. In this context, terms such as 'reasonable preference', 'balanced communities', 'best use of housing stock', and 'preventing homelessness' were particularly problematic. In relation to all of these, landlords most often sought clarification around how they should interpret these terms in a way which was consistent with allocations legislation and guidance, homelessness duties and the constraints imposed by supply of housing at the local level.

7.23 A high proportion of landlords also identified tensions in relation to allocations legislation and guidance. As with issues of clarification, local authorities and RSLs with larger housing stock were more likely to identify tensions. There were however differences between local authorities and RSLs, with local authorities much more likely to identify tensions in aspects relating to homelessness, reasonable preference, best use of housing stock and choice.

7.24 With the exception of homelessness, these terms are generally recognised as having a loose or no definition: their use is to provide a policy steer on the outcomes which landlords are encouraged (and in some instances) required to deliver. Indeed, a few landlords commented that while they considered the terms to be unclear, they were comfortable with this situation since they considered clarification was the legitimate preserve of the local authority/ RSL. Most however were less comfortable with the lack of specification and sought clarification.

7.25 The responsibility for local policy steer on allocations rests with elected members on the one hand and RSL committee members on the other: this research did not seek their views on the need for clarification of these terms. That said, there were a number of comments made by staff within RSLs in both the survey and the case studies that their committee members also had difficulty with the lack of clarity.

7.26 Overall, it appears from the research that there is a lack of clarity amongst landlords about the scope of local policy decision making - what landlords can decide locally. Linked to this, landlords are also unclear about the evidence which is required to support their local decision making. Particular frustration was expressed to the researchers from some landlords who reported that they had developed their local interpretation of particular terms, but this had then been found at inspection to be inappropriate.

7.27 The difficulty here is complicated by a common perception amongst landlords, both local authorities and RSLs, that Communities Scotland had definitions or interpretations of these terms, in particular to interpretation of what is meant by a reasonable level of preference and of the meaning of the term 'balanced communities', which were not evident to the landlords themselves.

7.28 As noted within the body of the report, the research gathered the views of landlords and did not verify or validate what was reported. Whatever the circumstances of individual cases, this situation is problematic. It runs two risks - both of which were illustrated in the research. First, that landlords will attempt to second guess what Communities Scotland's position at inspection would be and adjust their allocations system accordingly, rather than understanding their own local context and tailoring their policy outcomes to that local context. Secondly, there is a risk that landlords will withdraw from making the more difficult decisions and 'simply allocate every property to the highest priority applicant regardless of our expectations that the allocation will prove successful', as one respondent expressed it.

7.29 Our conclusion here is that it is not simply clarification, as in definition, that is required: rather there is a need for a more fundamental review of what role allocations policies should play, what aspects are legitimately open to local decision making, and what evidence is required to support this.

7.30 The interconnections between the various tensions (as well as between issues of clarity and tension) which were consistently highlighted in the research made it more helpful for the analysis and reporting to be grouped into three broad areas.

• prioritising individual need
• balanced communities, individual and community need
• allocations and wider agendas.

Prioritising individual need

7.31 There were a number of issues identified by landlords in relation to difficulties they experienced in prioritising individual 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'.

7.32 Landlords from both local authorities and RSLs considered that constraints on supply of housing were the most significant factors in causing these tensions, with more than half of landlords giving this as one reason. This was not simply about pressured areas. Landlords operating in areas of low demand also identified supply related difficulties in terms of particular sizes (most commonly the larger property sizes) or types of housing stock (suitable for families and those with mobility problems). In rural areas, particularly in the more closed communities where competition was fierce for particular vacancies, supply constraints were seen to create difficulties in deciding priorities.

7.33 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 expected to receive reasonable preference. This was a consistent finding from the survey and the case studies. The particular difficulty in interpretation relates to what constitutes a reasonable level of preference in priority.

7.34 Some of the practical issues faced by landlords, where they found difficulty deciding what they could or should do, were.

• In what circumstances can an applicant not in a reasonable preference category 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 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?
• 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 terms of both providing temporary and permanent accommodation).

7.35 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: this duty does not extend to the other reasonable preference categories. As such some landlords questioned whether in practice there can be equal priority between homeless applicants and those in other reasonable preference categories.

7.36 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, but there was also specific mention of newly forming households. For both groups the tension arose from the priority given to those in housing need, with the result that those with less or no need could in effect be excluded from re-housing opportunities.

7.37 Some fundamental issues were raised through the research about the relationship between homelessness and the housing list. There were reports from a number of landlords in the case studies of what was referred to as 'strategic' applications through the homeless route. There were two dimensions to this: landlords reported that the reduced access to those with low needs resulted in some households reaching crisis point and having then to present as homeless. Other landlords reported that applicants, and their advisors, recognised that homelessness offered the quickest route to re-housing for many and they therefore encouraged presentation.

7.38 Landlords felt under pressure to increase the proportion of lets to homeless households, both for reasons of reducing the costs of temporary accommodation, and because of their perception that Communities Scotland considered that homeless households should receive a higher priority than other applicants. As a result they felt they had very limited scope to increase offers to those in unstable housing arrangements on their housing lists who were not homeless, but where long waiting times for re-housing may result in these arrangements breaking down. In this context, many landlords considered this reduced their ability to prevent homelessness.

7.39 There was clear demand from landlords for clarification and resolution of what they perceived to be a complex situation, in which they felt unable to meet all the requirements and expectations. As such they sought action from the then Scottish Executive and Communities Scotland to set out more clearly than at present what was acceptable in practice. The emphasis from most was on practical illustrations, not legal change or more guidance.

Balanced communities, individual and community need

7.40 Levels of confusion and uncertainty about the terms within this broad area were highest of all, and again particularly amongst local authorities. The research identified the following issues

• Lack of clarity about the broad concept of balanced communities and questions about the relevance of the term today, and related issues of achieving best use of housing stock
• Practical issues of what is acceptable practice in giving priority to community needs, whether through sensitive lettings or local lettings initiatives
• Particular tensions between meeting individual needs while at the same time addressing the interests of local communities.

7.41 The in practice meaning of balanced communities, particularly in the current context of social housing, was considered by landlords to be the least clear of all the terms commonly used in allocations. It was linked to local lettings initiatives and sensitive lettings, with achieving balanced communities providing the broad objective, while LLIs and sensitive lettings provided the means by which this was delivered in practice. There were also connections made with 'best use of housing stock' and restrictions on eligibility to particular housing types.

7.42 Landlords questioned what a balanced community was, who defined it, and whether it was an appropriate objective for social landlords. Some were strong supporters seeing it as crucial: these supporters included landlords from local authorities and RSLs, urban and rural areas. Others had reservations referring to concerns such as 'inappropriate social engineering', 'cherry-picking', and 'queue jumping'.

7.43 There were a number of practical issues identified, with questions raised as to whether a balanced community could in practice be delivered by social landlords. Smaller RSLs, and those with mainly specialist housing provision, were particularly uncertain as to how they could contribute to the achievement of this objective.

7.44 Pursuing an objective of a balanced community particularly at a small community or block level involved adjusting the balance of lets to advantage one applicant over another. Landlords were unclear about the evidence which would be required to support bypassing an applicant. In addition landlords were conscious of the requirement for transparency in their allocations decisions and many were uncertain how this could be delivered, particularly where there was very sensitive personal information involved.

7.45 The objective to achieve a balanced community required decisions to be made about the relative priority to be given to individual need and community need. Where the two needs or 'interests' did not coincide, landlords needed to take difficult decisions, sometimes at policy level across the landlord, at estate or settlement level, or around individuals. There were tensions for landlords between their responsibilities to existing tenants and their responsibilities to meet the needs of applicants.

7.46 The tensions were more acute around certain types of individual need, in particular sex offenders, drug misusers and those with a history of anti-social behaviour. Whilst often represented by landlords as an issue about bypassing such applicants, it was also noted that in housing these applicants, who may themselves be vulnerable or difficult, landlords needed to take into account the wider community in deciding whether the let was likely to be suitable and sustainable.

7.47 There were specific issues for specialist RSLs, where their housing stock included mainstream accommodation, where it was important that this mainstream accommodation was let to those who would not create additional difficulties, and preferably would be actively supportive: inevitably that required consideration of community need and application of sensitive lettings practices.

7.48 Generally there was enthusiasm amongst landlords for clarification of what and was not meant by these terms and in particular for practical examples of how this could be achieved in practice.

Allocations and wider agendas

7.49 The issues identified in terms of the relationship between allocations and wider agendas can be grouped broadly into three categories

• Conflicts between allocations legislation and guidance and other housing objectives, principally in the areas of debt management and tenancy management
• Insufficient alignment of care and support services for individual tenants or applicants increasing the demands on social landlords and threatening the sustainability of tenancies
• Tensions between allocations legislation and guidance and other national policy agendas, in particular anti-social behaviour, sex offenders, equalities and housing benefit.

7.50 Tensions between allocations and other housing objectives was the most commonly recognised. Debt management and the eligibility of households with high levels of arrears was a particular concern. The issues here were in part to do with clarity but landlords also found it difficult to reconcile national policies, which expected the housing service to achieve challenging targets in relation to rent collection and allowed eviction on the basis of non payment of rent, but then required landlords to re-house these former tenants after a very low proportion of the outstanding debt was repaid. These concerns were expressed by landlords in both local authorities and RSLs and staff at all levels but particularly those working in frontline operational positions.

7.51 In this situation landlords considered that the process of eviction and re-housing had little practical relevance to achieving the outcome which was being sought - a sustainable tenancy where the tenant was able to maintain rental payments. There were two suggestions made to address this issue. First comments were made that housing support should automatically be provided to households who had experienced these difficulties. Secondly there were suggestions that SSSTs could be used in the same way in which they are available where there is a history of anti-social behaviour, providing an initial period to encourage engagement.

7.52 Landlords also perceived tensions between the pressure to re-let quickly, in order to minimise rent loss, and achieving a sustainable tenancy where they had a vulnerable applicant. This was mainly a concern about the process and timescales for accessing support for vulnerable households, such that even where the household was assessed as requiring the service, that service was not always in place at the time at which the tenancy was ready to start. As a result, landlords either needed to start the tenancy without the support in place, with the obvious associated risks, or to delay the start of the tenancy until the support was available.

7.53 Linked to both debt management and voids management, there were tensions identified by landlords between allocations and tenancy management. Landlords were very aware that in allocating to those who were likely to have difficulties in sustaining a tenancy, or who had had previous tenancy failures, the pressures for their colleagues who provided tenancy management services increased.

7.54 These issues of lack of alignment were repeated in the context of care and support: these included tensions between what landlords and their partners might wish to deliver through their allocations and what was permitted by the broader legal framework - for example the inability of landlords to identify properties, other than those designated as sheltered housing, for letting to older people. The change in the profile of those seeking and being allocated housing in the social rented sector had resulted in this issue being of growing importance to social landlords, both local authority and RSL.

7.55 Landlords reported difficulties in accessing appropriate support, for different types and levels of need and with complications at points of transition from temporary to permanent accommodation. Many landlords saw housing support services funded through Supporting People as the means by which support would be provided to vulnerable tenants, thus easing the pressure on tenancy management services and assisting debt management. Pressures on SP funding at a time when landlords perceive that there is an increase in the number of people requiring support was seen as a key difficulty.

7.56 With the increasingly complex and challenging needs amongst those applying to social landlords, there was a corresponding growth in the need for more specialised assistance from care and health sectors. There were difficulties reported by all types of landlord both in terms of the eligibility criteria for such services and the timescales for obtaining an assessment.

7.57 Landlords from both local authorities and RSLs in the case study areas noted the difficulties if households who had been provided with a care and support package refused to engage with it. Where the support or care was not an integral part of the tenancy, the landlords had no leverage to require participation: they felt that they were left with no other option than to pursue repossession if the tenant defaulted on the terms of their agreement.

7.58 There were skills issues for housing staff related both to assessment of need in the absence of access to the appropriate more specialised skills in health and social services, and to the provision of support by default where no support or care package was in place. There was also concern at the implications for staff safety where they were dealing with individuals whose needs they did not fully understand or know how to handle.

7.59 Tensions in relation to sex offenders were raised unprompted by respondents to the survey and were also highlighted during the case studies. There were particular and greater concerns expressed by RSLs, who reported being unclear about their role. It is important to note in this context that the research was conducted before the introduction of the Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements ( MAPPA) and the National Accommodation Strategy for Sex Offenders ²³, which are designed to improve and support the assessment and management of the most serious sexual and violent offenders.

7.60 Tensions between allocations and other national policies were keenly felt by landlords. These tensions were seen to arise more from a lack of 'connection' between national policies than alignment and co-ordination at local level. Landlords did not necessarily provide frontline staff with a framework within which to resolve, or at least reconcile, these tensions. As a result, frontline staff dealing with allocations sometimes reported feeling that they are left to try to sort things out themselves in a policy framework which did not address the implications of decisions and actions by one function for other functions.

Recommendations

7.61 The brief asked the research team to identify where further guidance is needed for landlords. Our view is that the research highlights a need for a wider response than more or amended guidance. This final section sets out our recommendations for addressing the issues identified.

Legislation and guidance

7.62 Some of the difficulties identified in the research derive directly from the legislative framework which either specifically relates to allocations or is part of the broader legislative framework.

7.63 The research brief did not ask for recommendations on legal changes. It is however clear that aspects of the current framework are unhelpful. In particular, the original reasonable preference categories, particularly overcrowding, Below Tolerable Standard housing, and large families, reflect a very small proportion of applicants seeking housing from the social rented sector. The growing number of applicants who have support, care and health needs in addition to housing needs are less obviously catered for within the categories. 'Unsatisfactory housing conditions' is more relevant, but overlaps with many who would be assessed as homeless or threatened with homelessness.

7.64 The uncomfortable juxtaposition between the permissive nature of the term 'reasonable preference' and the very specific obligations placed on social landlords in relation to homelessness needs to be recognised. The 1987 Act seems to imply that there is parity between homeless households and other reasonable preference categories: however there is a duty to provide accommodation, even if only on a temporary basis, in relation to homeless households but not for other reasonable preference categories. It is therefore not surprising in our view that landlords are unclear whether in effect this means that homeless households are expected to receive a higher priority in allocations than other reasonable preference households.

7.65 There were also a number of areas where landlords were seeking extension of their ability to use a Short Scottish Secure Tenancy ( SSST), such as for tenants with a history of debt, and those where there had been a failure to engage with support resulting in a previous tenancy failure. These are issues much wider that allocations and need to be considered elsewhere.

7.66 We consider that legislative change must be the backstop solution to these and other issues. Instead changes to guidance should aim to provide the clarity which is missing from this legislative framework. At core the problem for landlords is to understand the scope of their local policy decision making - what can and cannot be decided by landlords at a local level and what is a requirement of the national framework. This must address the issue of prioritising individual need, particularly the relationship between homelessness and other reasonable preference categories. It must also clarify the requirements in relation to individual need and community need. In so doing, the opportunity to use sensitive lettings and local lettings initiatives should be clarified.

7.67 The research has identified the wide range of different policy agendas which impact on allocations, and which allocations policies could be expected to support. Allocations policies should not be developed in a 'silo', divorced from these other public policy objectives. The guidance needs to make clearer than currently exists the role of allocations in local housing systems, including the extent to which these are expected to align with other local housing priorities, other corporate local authority agendas, and social care and health priorities.

7.68 Landlords should be able to provide evidence to support their selection of priorities and specification of outcomes within their allocations policies. Just as landlords are not clear about the scope for local policy decision making, so they are also not clear about the evidence required to demonstrate transparency, both in relation to their policy development and individual decisions.

7.69 Amended guidance should clarify the range of specific issues which have been identified in the research, particularly relating to eligibility to housing of non UK residents, (even recognising that there is already statutory guidance in the Code of Guidance on foreign nationals' eligibility for homelessness assistance), what constitutes a reasonable repayment for those with high arrears and a clearer definition of the evidence required in relation to a history of anti-social behaviour.

7.70 Finally, there was evidence from the research that landlords were not always aware of the relevant guidance. Revised guidance should re-state existing relevant guidance and, if possible, consolidate into a single document on allocations.

7.71 In summary, revised guidance should set out the following

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

Practical assistance

7.72 There was frequent comment made by landlords responding to the survey and in the case studies that guidance was not always what was required. The difficulty described by landlords was that guidance set out requirements in general terms for all landlords whatever their circumstances. It did not resolve the tensions that they experienced in their particular local circumstances. In part we have concluded that this is because the scope of local decision making is unclear within the guidance and clarification of this (a matter for guidance) will assist. In addition, however, we agree that there is a role for much more practical assistance.

7.73 First, we support the request from a number of landlords for dissemination of practice examples, where complex issues have been resolved successfully and in line with legislation, guidance and the requirements of the regulator. This should include the following

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

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

« Previous | Contents | Next »