Operation of the Homeless Persons Legislation in Scotland: 2011-12

6. Temporary accommodation

6.1. Statistics on numbers of households in temporary accommodation are taken from a quarterly statistical return by councils⁸. The return provides summary information on households in temporary accommodation at the end of the quarter who have been placed there as a consequence of their homelessness application. Homeless applicants may be placed in temporary accommodation while the council assesses their application or while awaiting the offer of a permanent let. Also, non-priority applicants and those assessed as intentionally homeless may be placed in temporary accommodation as the outcome of their application.

6.2. Homeless applicants may be placed in temporary accommodation while the council assesses their application or while awaiting the offer of settled accommodation. Also, non-priority applicants and those assessed as intentionally homeless may be placed in temporary accommodation as the outcome of their application.

6.3. After a marked and consistent increase in the number of households in temporary accommodation - from around 4,000 at 31 March 2002 to 11,254 at 31 March 2012⁹ - the number of households in temporary accommodation has reduced to 10,743 at 31 March 2012. This is a reduction of 511 households (-5%) compared with March 2011. (Table 11).

6.4. Beneath this national reduction a different picture emerges. Thirteen local authorities experienced a reduction in the number of households in temporary accommodation and nineteen experienced an increase. The largest reductions were seen in Glasgow (-302 households), Highland (-224), Stirling (-89), Midlothian (-65) and South Lanarkshire (-38).

6.5. Of the 19 local authorities which have seen an increase in the number of households in temporary accommodation, twelve local authorities saw an increase of ten households or less. A further four saw increase of between 11 and 16 households. The number of households in temporary accommodation increased the most in Shetland (+20 households), Dumfries and Galloway (+29 households) and Fife (+104 households).

6.6. Use of bed and breakfast accommodation by local authorities can be an indicator of pressure. It is expensive and is often used as a last resort by local authorities. Two local authorities have seen an increase in its use over the last year. These are Fife (15 extra households in B&B since 31 March 2011) and East Lothian (6 extra households).

Chart 27: Scotland: Households in temporary accommodation at 31 March each year

6.7. At 31 March 2012, there were 3,484 households with children in temporary accommodation. (Table 11). Households with children currently represent around a third (32%) of all households in temporary accommodation. The number of households with children in temporary accommodation has fallen in each year since March 2008.

6.8. The majority of households in temporary accommodation were in local authority or housing association accommodation (66%), with a further 12% in hostels and 12% in bed and breakfast. (Table 11). Households with children or pregnant women are mainly provided with local authority or housing association accommodation (88%), with a small proportion (1%) being placed in bed and breakfast accommodation. (Table 12)

6.9. On 31 March 2012, there were 21 households with children or pregnant women in bed and breakfast accommodation. The number of households with children in bed & breakfast accommodation in March has fallen in each year since March 2008 and, at 21 households, is now at just under 18% of the March 2008 level (a 82% fall). (Table 12).

6.10. Use of bed and breakfast accommodation for households with children varies by local authority. On 31 March 2012, 25 local authorities had no households with children in bed & breakfast accommodation, three councils had one household with children in bed and breakfast and four local authorities had 2 or more with children in bed & breakfast accommodation. Fife Council had eight households with children in bed & breakfast accommodation. (Table 14)

Implementation of the Homeless Persons (Unsuitable Accommodation) (Scotland) Order

6.11. For each quarter from June 2005, councils have reported on the number of households at the end of the quarter who were in unsuitable temporary accommodation and the number where the accommodation provided to the household was in breach of the Unsuitable Accommodation Order. The snapshot figures show that in the quarter ending 31 March 2012:

• 20 households were in unsuitable accommodation. (Table 15a)
• Of these, eight of the households were in unsuitable accommodation in breach of the Unsuitable Accommodation Order. These breaches were in Fife (6 households) and Midlothian (two households). (Table 15b)

Households at risk of homelessness due to eviction: notifications under section 11 of the Homelessness etc (Scotland) Act 2003

6.12. During the quarter ending 31 March 2012, a total of 5,420 notifications of households at risk of homelessness due to eviction/repossession were received by local authorities under section 11 of the Homelessness etc. (Scotland) Act 2003. Of the 5,420 notifications, 4,072 (75%) were by creditors, 1,210 (22%) were by housing associations and 138 (3%) were by private landlords. (Chart 28 and Table 16)

Chart 28: Scotland: Section 11 notifications

6.13. Compared to January to March 2011:

• Notifications from creditors have decreased by 426 (-9%), although local authorities are still receiving around 4,000 per quarter. This slight decrease reflects the atypically large number of notifications received following the RBS vs. Wilson judgement in November 2010.
• Notifications from housing associations have increased by 104 (9%);
• Notifications from private landlords have increased 49 (55%).

6.14. Notifications by creditors during 2011 were double those seen in 2010. This increase in thought to be due to the result of the Supreme Court judgement on 24 November 2010, in the case of Royal Bank of Scotland v Wilson and others. Following this judgement lenders must now serve a calling up notice (section 19) and a section 24 notice. As both of these are trigger points for a section 11 notification, this could potentially explain why notifications from creditors doubled during 2011¹⁰.

6.15. To investigate further we conducted a short survey, to which eight local authorities responded. These are detailed in Table A1 below. These local authorities accounted for 55% of section 11 notifications by creditors in 2011. The proportion of properties with more than one notification varied by local authority, from 0% in Glasgow (who cross-check all notifications prior to entering onto their system) to 31% in Fife.

6.16. If the RBS vs Wilson decision accounted for all of the increase in notifications, we would expect to see the vast majority of properties have two notifications. i.e. the number of properties with more than one notification should be about half the total number of notifications. However, as Table A1 shows, only a small minority of properties have more than one notification.

6.17. This suggests the following interpretation of the change in notifications:

• The impact of the RBS vs. Wilson judgment alone is insufficient to account for all of the increase in section 11 notifications by creditors. In this case, it would seem reasonable to assume that there has been an increase in lenders seeking repossession of properties, but that this increase is not as large as a doubling.
• It seems likely that some creditors are submitting two section 11 notifications following the RBS vs. Wilson judgment and some are submitting only one.
• Because the recording of section 11 notifications by creditors is not being done in a consistent way across all local authorities in Scotland it is not possible to provide an estimate of the underlying increase in lenders seeking repossession of properties.

6.18. In the light of the reporting difficulties flowing from the RBS v Wilson judgement we will review with councils the way in which these statistics are recorded and reported to us.

6.19. Notifications do not necessarily lead to repossessions of the property. It is notable that any increase in lenders seeking repossession has not resulted in increases in homelessness from owner occupation for mortgage default or other financial reasons.

Table A1: Duplications in Section 11 Notifications from Creditors

	Notifications from Creditors		Properties with more than one notification
Local Authority	2010	2011	Number	Percentage of 2011 Notifications
Glasgow City	1,193	1,938	0	0%
South Lanarkshire	891	1,830	114	6%
West Dunbartonshire	120	309	36	12%
Edinburgh	698	1,433	205	14%
Renfrewshire	392	812	150	18%
East Ayrshire	122	436	87	20%
West Lothian	420	889	181	20%
Fife	634	1,706	524	31%
Total for Respondents	4,470	9,353	1,297	14%