Consultation on Affordable Rented Housing: Analysis of Consultation Responses

9 Proposal 8: Simplifying The Eviction Process

Proposal 8: Simplifying the eviction process where another court has already considered antisocial behaviour by a tenant or their household

9.1 At present, social landlords can recover possession of a house on certain grounds relating to antisocial or criminal behaviour. The UK Government has recently sought views on introducing a quicker procedure under English law for possession in cases of serious, housing-related antisocial behaviour. This would mean that social landlords in England would be able to apply for possession when antisocial behaviour or criminal behaviour has already been proven to another court. The landlord seeking possession would still have to go to court to evict the tenant, but they would only have to demonstrate to the court that the criteria for possession had been met, rather than prove that antisocial behaviour had occurred. The UK Government has still to set out what sort of triggers could prompt a landlord to seek possession. Therefore, the Scottish Government welcomes views on:

THE SCOTTISH GOVERNMENT'S PROPOSALS - PROPOSAL 8
(Source: Consultation Document Page 25)

• Whether we should similarly examine ways of making evictions simpler if another court has already considered serious antisocial or criminal behaviour committed in or near the house occupied by the tenant.

9.2 An analysis of the responses provided to proposal 8 is set out below.

Views on the Proposal (Q36)

9.3 In total, 80% of respondents who answered this question were in favour of examining ways of making evictions simpler where serious antisocial behaviour or criminal behaviour has been committed. Just 6% of respondents were against these proposals.

Proposal 8 - Do you think we should examine ways of making evictions simpler where another court has already considered serious antisocial or criminal behaviour committed in the tenant's home or its locality?
Respondent Source	Yes		No		Not sure
	Number	%	Number	%	Number	%
Written (n=204)	177	87	12	6	15	7
Events/Facebook (n=146)	104	71	8	5	34	23
Total (n=350)	281	80	20	6	49	14

9.4 The table below breaks down the 204 responses to this question via written questionnaires by respondent type.

Proposal 8 - Do you think we should examine ways of making evictions simpler where another court has already considered serious antisocial or criminal behaviour committed in the tenant's home or its locality?
Respondent Source	Yes		No		Not sure
	Number	%	Number	%	Number	%
Individuals (n=28)	23	82	3	11	2	7
Landlord Representative Groups (n=4)	4	100	0	0	0	0
Landlords (n=80)	74	93	1	1	5	6
Other Groups (n=26)	19	73	5	19	2	8
Tenants Groups (n=66)	57	86	3	5	6	9
Total (n=204)	177	87	12	6	15	7

9.5 Support for the proposal from those who answered this question was high amongst all groups, but particularly amongst landlords (93%) and their representative groups (100%).

Appropriate Changes (Q37)

9.6 The consultation asked respondents what changes they might consider to be appropriate if the evictions process was to be simplified. A range of responses were provided by those consulted, which centred primarily on two themes. These are as follows, with the percentages referring to the proportion of the 237 written responses:

• Faster legal processes (about 24% of respondents). It was felt that the Scottish Government should look into implementing ways of "fast-tracking" eviction cases through law courts. Respondents highlighted the often lengthy (and costly) process of eviction, with many suggesting that the creation of specialised housing courts or tribunals may be a solution; and
• The use of previous antisocial behaviour convictions as grounds for eviction (about 14% of respondents). A significant proportion of those who provided a response felt that a previous conviction (primarily relating to antisocial behaviour) should be grounds enough to secure an eviction.

9.7 A variety of additional actions were suggested, including the need to address human rights and other legal issues which may hamper the eviction process; consider attaching eviction orders as part of the punishment as a result of a criminal conviction; increase inter-agency cooperation, and; introduce more effective information-sharing protocols. Around 35% of all respondents did not provide an answer.

Benefits (Q38)

9.8 The consultation asked respondents to consider the potential benefits to be derived from this proposal. Responses were based largely around five key themes. These are as follows, with the percentages referring to the proportion of the 237 written responses:

• Faster/more efficient eviction process (suggested by about 23% of the total respondents). Respondents also noted that due to the current system (and the often lengthy court/legal processes) antisocial tenants could continue to behave in such a manner until action is actually taken against them. Landlords also noted the advantage of reduced legal costs due to shorter legal processes;
• Safer/happier communities (about 18% of the total respondents). Any measures taken to alleviate antisocial behaviour within communities were considered as significant benefits;
• Sends a clear message regarding ASB (about 9% of the total respondents). Many respondents felt that the introduction of this proposal would send a clear message, and would go some way in confirming a "zero tolerance" stance towards antisocial behaviour;
• Minimises stress for residents required to give evidence (about 9% of the total respondents). Respondents suggested that shorter eviction processes would significantly decrease the stress related to giving evidence against a tenant accused of antisocial behaviour. Residents are often reluctant to take part in long, drawn-out legal battles;
• Reduced costs/strain on resources (about 9% of the total respondents). Landlords in particular noted the advantage of reduced legal costs due to shorter legal processes.

9.9 About 27% of respondents did not provide an answer, 12% were unsure about the benefits and around 3% of respondents felt that the proposal had no obvious benefits.

Problems (Q39)

9.10 Potential problems relating to this proposal are largely based around three themes. These are as follows, with the percentages referring to the proportion of the 237 written responses:

• Lack of clarity (about 14% of respondents). Respondents felt that there was a lack of clarity regarding key terms related to the proposal - specifically "simplifying the eviction process" - and the length of time that a case of antisocial behaviour can be considered. Similarly, some respondents noted that the proposal fails to specify the nature and extent of antisocial behaviour;
• Human rights issues (about 8% of respondents). Respondents suggested that the defendants could challenge the proposal (primarily mandatory repossession actions) on the basis of human rights legislation;
• Fails to take individual circumstances into account (about 5% of respondents). Some noted a lack of flexibility, and that individual circumstances don't appear to be taken into consideration.

9.11 A number of other issues were suggested which do not conform to the above themes. These include: the potential homelessness of tenants who are evicted; the potential for inconsistent use (and even abuse) on the part of the landlord; and a strain on administrative resources (one respondent noted how not all landlords shared efficient information-protocols with the police and local authorities).

9.12 About 32% of the total number of respondents did not provide an answer, 11% did not know and around 12% felt that there were no issues with the implementation of this proposal.

Actions to overcome problems (Q40)

9.13 The consultation then provided an opportunity for respondents to suggest actions which could be taken in order to alleviate the above problems. The three main suggestions are as follows, with the percentages referring to the proportion of the 237 written responses:

• Provide clarity (about 15% of respondents). In order to alleviate the issue of ambiguity relating to key terms within the proposal, respondents stated that clarification and guidance from the Scottish Government would be welcomed;
• Provide more support (about 10% of respondents). Respondents felt that engagement with tenants was extremely important, and that an inter-agency approach should be adopted to ensure that all those affected are protected during this process;
• Create a clearly structured set of protocols (about 5% of respondents). Respondents suggested implementing a clearly structured set of protocols which landlords would have to adhere to - this would ensure some level of consistency in the application of the proposal.

9.14 Other responses suggested included: the creation of better information-sharing protocols (for example, a central database of tenants with previous convictions of antisocial behaviour); and the use of criminal Antisocial Behaviour Orders and exclusion orders along with evictions.

9.15 Around 49% of respondents did not provide an answer, 12% did not know and 2% felt that they did not know what actions could be taken.