Consultation on Affordable Rented Housing: Analysis of Consultation Responses

7 Proposal 6: Considering Previous Antisocial Behaviour

Proposal 6: Create the flexibility for social landlords to consider previous antisocial behaviour when deciding an applicant's priority for housing

7.1 The law on how social rented housing is allocated does not say anything about the behaviour of applicants, or whether landlords should or should not take it into account. Some landlords suspend applicants from receiving offers of housing for a time if the applicant has an antisocial behaviour order or has recently been evicted for antisocial behaviour. The Scottish Government think there may be a case for making it clearer that antisocial behaviour affects your chances of being housed, and have outlined a proposed change identified in the table below:

THE SCOTTISH GOVERNMENT'S PROPOSALS - PROPOSAL 6
(Source: Consultation Document Page 20)

• allowing social landlords to take into account whether an applicant or a member of their household has acted antisocially, when deciding on priority for housing

7.2 An analysis of the responses provided to proposal 6 is set out below.

Views on the Proposal (Q25)

7.3 The vast majority of respondents who answered this question - 76% - feel that social landlords should have the flexibility to consider previous antisocial behaviour by an applicant or their household when deciding their priority for affordable rented housing. A very small proportion, less than 5%, felt that this should not be a consideration, whilst around 20% were unsure. Responses were more positive towards this proposal via the written questionnaires as apposed to the regional events or Facebook.

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

7.5 Across all of the groups who answered this question, the vast majority of respondents felt that social landlords should have the flexibility to consider previous antisocial behaviour. The proportion of respondents disagreeing with the proposals was however greatest amongst other groups at 14%.

Benefits (Q26)

7.6 The consultation asked about the potential benefits of this proposal. A series of benefits were suggested, primarily by those in support of the proposal. However, some of those not in support or unsure also provided feedback. The potential benefits were based largely around four themes. These are as follows, with the percentages referring to the proportion of the 237 written responses:

• Sends a clear message regarding ASB (suggested by about 38% of respondents). Respondents felt that if applicants who are antisocial are aware that any incidents would subsequently be considered by a landlord in deciding priority for social housing it may go some way in discouraging further incidents. It will send a clear message that acting in an antisocial manner will have consequences, possibly leading to the offer of housing being suspended;
• Wider community benefits (about 37% of respondents). Many respondents considered this proposal as recognition of the "real impact" that ASB can have on both individual tenants as well as communities at large. It was felt that the proposal would first and foremost protect the rights (and safety) of other tenants. It could also assist landlords in preventing management issues arising, achieve a balanced housing mix, and help build strong and stable communities;
• Provides clarity/clearer guidance for landlords (about 12% of respondents). Landlords who responded to the proposal noted that while many do currently take previous behaviour into consideration, greater legislative clarity would provide the confidence for landlords to act, as well as potentially developing policies appropriate to their circumstances in this regard;
• Stops the "movement" of ASB (about 8% of respondents). A number of respondents noted that at present, it is far too easy for antisocial tenants to simply move to a new area, or even local authority, after having been convicted of antisocial behaviour. This proposal could go some way in stopping such tenants from simply continuing their behaviour in a different area.

7.7 Other responses included that the proposal offered a greater degree of flexibility for landlords in placing potentially problematic tenants. Around 14% of the total respondents did not provide an answer, 6% were unsure regarding potential benefits and around 2% felt that there were none.

Problems (Q27)

7.8 The consultation asked about potential problems relating to the introduction of this proposal. Through analysis of the responses, five over-arching issues became clear. These are as follows, with the percentages referring to the proportion of the 237 written responses:

• Potential for discrimination/lack of flexibility (suggested by about 30% of respondents). Many respondents felt that the superficial attractiveness of this proposal should be balanced against what should be considered as a major weakness - the presumption that past behaviour will automatically be repeated and that some people are inherently "antisocial". Where antisocial behaviour has been an issue, many felt that the individual in question should be given a chance to "redeem" themselves;
• Issues with evidence of ASB (about 20% of respondents). Respondents suggested that in some cases, it may be extremely difficult to prove the existence (or lack of) of antisocial behaviour in a tenant's history;
• Lack of clarity (about 17% of respondents). Respondents felt that greater clarity is needed regarding this proposal, particularly in defining key terms such as "antisocial behaviour" and "deciding on priority for housing". This could lead to potential discrimination through the inconsistent application of the legislation by landlords;
• Could lead to "problem areas" (about 5% of respondents). A number of respondents felt that "low demand" areas had the potential to become problem areas or ghettoes as problematic tenants are concentrated in one particular area;
• Potential rise in homelessness (about 3% of respondents). Even those that gave positive aspects of the proposal noted that there was the potential to create a visible element of homeless, disenfranchised people who are regarded as antisocial. Those in question could possibly become more marginalised and their problems simply further complicated by a lack of security and access to suitable housing.

7.9 Other responses suggested several other potential issues with the proposal. For example, if the proposal were to be introduced, a number of respondents inquired as to whether housing application forms (as well as allocation policies) would need to be changed, thereby increasing the workload of landlords. Similarly, several respondents highlighted the fact that there is, at present, no central database detailing cases of antisocial behaviour - the cost and time taken to set up such a resource would be significant. Some other respondents highlighted the potential unfairness which could arise from adopting a blanket approach to classifying antisocial behaviour, for instance by taking into account antisocial behaviour caused by people suffering from a mental illness but who are now receiving treatment and by individuals being affected by the antisocial behaviour of another family member.

7.10 About 14% of respondents did not provide an answer, 9% were unsure and 8% considered there to be no problems with the proposal.

Actions to overcome problems (Q28)

7.11 Respondents were asked to suggest actions to overcome the potential problems highlighted in question 27. These are as follows, with the percentages referring to the proportion of the 237 written responses:

• Provide clearer guidance/definitions (suggested by around 28% of respondents). As mentioned in 7.7, respondents felt that there was a lack of clarity; particularly in defining key terms such as "antisocial behaviour" and "deciding on priority for housing". Almost 33% of those consulted suggested this action;
• Take a much harsher stance towards ASB (about 8% of respondents). A number of respondents felt that more should be done in order to "stamp out" antisocial behaviour within communities; largely through stricter penalties and the enforcement of far more extensive checks;
• Use of conditional leases/probationary tenancies (about 3% of respondents). A number of respondents suggested that landlords should have the ability to grant Short SSTs to applicants with previous "history" and should perhaps, in addition, be granted the ability to convert an SST at any time to a Short SST.

7.12 A variety of other actions were suggested by respondents. These included ensuring that a blanket approach is not adopted, for instance problems from antisocial behaviour arising from mental illness or relating to a person's disability are not taken into account and handled with greater sensitivity. Other comments included ensuring that landlords have the flexibility and discretion to examine the context for the antisocial behaviour; increasing inter-agency co-operation and community engagement in order to tackle antisocial behaviour at its root and encourage a long term change in behaviour; providing more support in order to empower social landlords in dealing with antisocial tenants and rejecting the proposal outright. Around 25% of the total respondents did not provide an answer and 12% were unsure.