Consultation on Affordable Rented Housing: Analysis of Consultation Responses

8 Proposal 7: Short Scottish Secure Tenancy

Proposal 7: Create the flexibility to allow a Short Scottish

Secure Tenancy to be granted in more cases of antisocial behaviour

8.1 Landlords can only grant Short SSTs instead of a Scottish Secure Tenancy in a minority of cases and only after some form of court action has taken place. Court action can take time, during which communities may continue to experience antisocial behaviour. The Scottish Government is of the view that tenants should be very aware of their responsibilities and the possible consequences of their behaviour and that one of those consequences should be the loss of some of their tenancy rights. The Scottish Government is of the view that converting a Scottish Secure Tenancy to a Short SST can be effective in tackling antisocial behaviour and therefore proposes the following:

THE SCOTTISH GOVERNMENT'S PROPOSALS - PROPOSAL 7
(Source: Consultation Document Page 23)

OUR PROPOSALS:

• Allow social landlords to grant new tenants a Short SST when they consider it reasonable to do so following information on previous antisocial behaviour by the applicant or a member of their household.
• Allow social landlords to convert an existing Scottish Secure Tenancy to a Short SST, when they consider it reasonable to do so, following a course of antisocial behaviour by the tenant, a member of their household or visitors to the household in or near the house they occupy.
• In the case of existing tenants with a Scottish Secure Tenancy, the social landlord would have to first give the tenant at least one official warning about their behaviour and the consequences of continuing it.

But we would reserve a power for Scottish Ministers to set out what social landlords must or must not take into account when considering whether or not it would be reasonable to grant or convert a Scottish Secure Tenancy to a Short SST.

As is already the case with granting or converting tenancies to Short SSTs on the grounds of antisocial behaviour:

• the landlord will have to serve a notice on the tenant that the tenancy is to be a Short SST;
• the tenant whose Scottish Secure Tenancy was going to be converted to a Short SST would be able to raise proceedings in court if they disagreed with the landlord's decision;
• the landlord would have to provide, or make sure someone else provided, the housing support services that the landlord considered appropriate; and
• the Short SST would automatically convert to a Scottish Secure Tenancy after 12 months if the landlord had not by then taken steps to repossess the house.

8.2 An analysis of the responses provided to proposal 7 is set out below.

Views on the Proposal (Q29)

8.3 The vast majority of respondents who answered this question (84%) were in favour of Short SSTs being an option for social landlords in tackling antisocial behaviour, with less than 4% disagreeing with the proposal.

Proposal 7 - Do you think Short SSTs should be an option for social landlords in tackling antisocial behaviour?
Respondent Source	Yes		No		Not sure
	Number	%	Number	%	Number	%
Written (n=209)	188	90	13	6	8	4
Events/Facebook (n=136)	103	76	0	0	33	24
Total (n=345)	291	84	13	4	41	12

8.4 The table below breaks down the 209 responses to this question via written questionnaires by respondent type.

Proposal 7 - Do you think Short SSTs should be an option for social landlords in tackling antisocial behaviour?
Respondent Source	Yes		No		Not sure
	Number	%	Number	%	Number	%
Individuals (n=31)	25	81	5	16	1	3
Landlord Representative Groups (n=4)	4	100	0	0	0	0
Landlords (n=80)	76	95	2	3	2	3
Other Groups (n=27)	21	78	4	15	2	7
Tenants Groups (n=67)	62	93	2	3	3	4
Total (n=209)	188	90	13	6	8	4

8.5 Support for the increased use of Short SSTs as a means of alleviating antisocial behaviour from those who answered this question is strongest amongst landlords, landlord representative groups and tenant groups. Support for this proposal was slightly less amongst individuals or other groups but still in excess of three quarters of respondents.

Views on focus of housing law on antisocial behaviour (Q30)

8.6 The consultation asked whether housing law should continue to focus only on antisocial behaviour which occurs in and around a tenant's property. Just over half of the respondents (51%) felt that it should not continue to do this, whilst 36% felt that it should.

Question 30 - Do you think housing law should continue to focus only on antisocial behaviour which occurs in and around a tenant's property?
Respondent Source	Yes		No		Not sure
	Number	%	Number	%	Number	%
Written (n=205)	73	36	104	51	28	14

8.7 The table below provides the breakdown of responses to this question by respondent type.

Question 30 - Do you think housing law should continue to focus only on antisocial behaviour which occurs in and around a tenant's property?
Respondent Source	Yes		No		Not sure
	Number	%	Number	%	Number	%
Individuals (n=30)	11	37	15	50	4	13
Landlord Representative Groups (n=4)	2	50	2	50	0	0
Landlords (n=78)	37	47	28	36	13	17
Other Groups (n=27)	9	33	16	59	2	7
Tenants Groups (n=66)	14	21	43	65	9	14
Total (n=205)	73	36	104	51	28	14

8.8 Landlords and landlord groups were more likely to state that the law should continue when compared with tenant groups, individuals or other groups.

8.9 Whilst respondents were asked about the benefits and problems with this proposal (see below), more work would need to be done to understand why respondents answered this question as they did.

Benefits (Q31)

8.10 The consultation asked respondents to consider the proposed benefits of the Scottish Short Secure Tenancy (Short SST) proposal. A range of responses were suggested by respondents, based primarily around four themes. These are as follows, with the percentages referring to the proportion of the 237 written responses:

• It may lead to improvements in the behaviour of the individual (about 38% of respondents);
• It may create an improved environment for all i.e. neighbours, tenants, landlords and their communities (about 25% of respondents);
• Legal issues such as the eviction of problematic tenants are made easier and take less time to resolve (about 20% of respondents);
• Landlords will have greater jurisdiction and power over their tenants (about 17% of respondents).

8.11 A smaller proportion of respondents suggested other benefits, including that it may act as a final deterrent for people prior to eviction. Approximately 15% of all consultation respondents did not know what the proposed benefits from this proposal may be, 10% did not respond and 3% saw no benefits.

Problems (Q32)

8.12 The consultation asked about the problems of implementing this proposal. A range of recurring themes were identified. These are as follows, with the percentages referring to the proportion of the 237 written responses:

• Issues relating to the evidence required to support decisions and the potential to apply the proposals inconsistently. Many felt that the proposals were not clear on issues such as what landlords can and cannot take into account, whether there is a need for a limit on the number of times conversion to a Short SST can take place; and what is meant by an "official warning". More information needs to be provided to clarify to landlords what conduct needs to be taken into account. (suggested by about 25% of respondents);
• The issue of time and resources e.g. the policing required and the support which needs to be provided in cases of Short SSTs (about 20% of all consultation respondents);
• Potential legal challenges and the lack of clarity regarding the appeals process (about 15% of respondents);
• It does not alleviate the underlying challenges and may lead to new social challenges as people are moved around or are unsure where to go when evicted (about 10% of respondents);
• The proposal could be perceived as a violation of one's basic human rights i.e. potentially stigmatic and/or discriminatory (about 8% of respondents).

8.13 Other responses to this included that the proposals themselves are too narrow; that the rolling period is too short and will not deter antisocial behaviour as people can radically change once the tenancy has been confirmed; and that an increase in short SSTs may result in an increase in demand for support services that may not be able to be met. Around 18% of respondents did not provide an answer, 5% did not know and about 10% did not foresee any problems with this proposal.

Actions to overcome problems (Q33)

8.14 Respondents were also given the opportunity to suggest actions on how any aforementioned problems with the Short SST proposal could be alleviated. A range of responses were provided, focussing primarily on three key themes. These are as follows, with the percentages referring to the proportion of the 237 written responses:

• Clear and established guidance must be provided (about 27% of respondents);
• Landlords should be stricter and enforce tenancy agreements where tenancies are breached (about 14% of respondents);
• Increased support for example via training, education, increased supply of housing and increased financing to the housing market (about 10% of respondents).

8.15 Other actions suggested included putting a limit on the landlord's responsibility to the area around the tenant's property; encouraging multi-agency working; starting all new tenants on a Short SST (as per proposal 9 of the consultation document) and tackling all the issues. About 33% of all respondents did not provide an answer, 9% did not know and about 1% did not think that there were any actions required to overcome any proposals associated with this proposal.

Issues to take into account (Q34)

8.16 The consultation asked respondents to consider what social landlords should take into account regarding this proposal. Four key issues were identified. These are as follows, with the percentages referring to the proportion of the 237 written responses:

• Behavioural attitudes towards others and their tenancy (e.g. antisocial behaviour; respect for condition of the property and their neighbours) (about 60% of all respondents);
• Previous tenancy history (about 12% of respondents);
• Financial issues, such as debt and council tax arrears (about 9% of respondents);
• Conditions of tenancy e.g. length, breach of tenancy (about 9% of respondents).

8.17 Other issues suggested by the consultation respondents included: landlords must consider all individual problems on an individual basis; appropriate support should be offered where necessary (e.g. mediation and support workers in place); as well as accounting for legal issues such as reporting incidents to police and backed up with supporting evidence. About 20% of all respondents did not provide an answer, 6% did not know and 1% did not foresee any issues to take into consideration with regards to this proposal.

What more could be done (Q35)

8.18 The final question relating to proposal 7 asked what more could be done in order to help social landlords tackle antisocial behaviour. Four key themes have been identified through the analysis. These are as follows, with the percentages referring to the proportion of the 237 written responses:

• The introduction of a "fast-track" method of securing eviction, for example, through the use of specialised housing courts or tribunals (about 30% of respondents);
• The provision of more resources, particularly with regards to housing support services, in order to help create healthy, sustainable tenancies (about 13% of respondents);
• Greater/stricter enforcement of current legislation (about 11% of respondents);
• Granting greater flexibility to landlords in dealing with antisocial tenants (about 6% of respondents).

8.20 A series of other suggestions were made. These included: the creation of a central database or index of offenders (which would be easily accessible to landlords); the introduction of "monitoring" schemes (for example; allowing tenants "three strikes" before action is taken); and greater engagement with the community at large in order to foster a sense of joint responsibility in dealing with such issues. About 22% of respondents did not provide an answer and 3% did not know.