Prevention of homelessness duties: consultation analysis

3. Duties to prevent homelessness on wider public bodies and landlords

This chapter focuses on the Prevention Review Group's proposed recommendations for duties on public bodies public bodies across health and social care, children's service and criminal justice, and on social landlords and the private rented sector.

Principles of the Prevention Review Group (PRG)

The PRG set out the following principles guiding its approach to providing recommendations for legislative changes on the prevention of homelessness:

• Responsibility to prevent homelessness should be a shared public responsibility and not rely solely or primarily on the homelessness service.
• Intervention should start as early as possible. In many cases this will be before issues have escalated to a point where homelessness appears imminent.
• People facing homelessness should have a choice in where they live and access to the same range of housing outcomes as members of the general public, with appropriate protections to mitigate further risk of homelessness. Housing outcomes should be comparable across the prevention and homelessness duties.

Overarching principles

Q1. Do you agree that these are the right foundational principles?

Q2. Are there any other principles that should be included? If so, why?

Almost all respondents (95%) agreed with the principles; 43% strongly agreed. The principle of shared responsibility was overwhelmingly supported. Many respondents agreed that the varied root causes of homelessness can best be addressed with a multi-disciplinary approach. Similarly, early intervention was described as essential, and would likely be an outcome of greater shared responsibility. Some agreed with the principle of choice but raised concerns about the feasibility of accessing a range of housing options, noting the shortage of suitable and affordable housing. Others called for an understanding that offering more choice will put a strain on resources, staff capacity and housing stock. Some suggested a focus on housing suitability and safety as well as choice.

"As foundational principles shared responsibility, early intervention and choice ought to bring focus and shape to the design of all services that engage with people at risk of homelessness." - Blue Triangle Housing Association

The most common theme in response to Q2 was that no further principles were needed. Several requested that the language used in the principles reflect a desire for equality and non-discrimination. Other suggestions included an emphasis on protecting children and a provision that tenancy-related skills be included in school curriculums. Shelter Scotland called for a principle of non-regression to be included; this is detailed more in Chapter 4.

The principle of 'ask and act' duties

Q3. Do you agree with the proposals to introduce new duties on public bodies to prevent homelessness?

Q4. Do you agree that public bodies should be required to 'ask and act' to prevent homelessness?

Q5. Which public bodies do you think a new duty to prevent homelessness should apply to and why?

Introducing new duties on public bodies was supported by 93% of those answering Q3; 40% agreed strongly. Some respondents felt new duties could prevent homelessness by introducing prevention frameworks and pathways which enable public bodies to work with individuals who are most at risk before they reach crisis point. While some felt new duties will drive change, others had concerns, such as the need for well-trained staff to correctly support those in need. Some argued that statutory duties are unnecessary as they would be ineffective unless it is backed up with sufficient resources.

"Focus group participants felt strongly about the need for better integration of services, a more proactive approach from services they were in touch with, and a 'no wrong door' approach." - Crisis

Almost all (96%) agreed with the proposal that public bodies should identify whether people they work with have a risk of homelessness and then either act on that information themselves or making a referral. Several respondents emphasised that the public bodies should take ownership by acting, rather than referring the case onwards. Some emphasised the need for clear guidance on the duties, including how they will be monitored and the consequences of failing to comply. Some noted the importance of a trauma-informed approach when asking about housing status. Aff the Streets highlighted that if service users are not approached and asked in an appropriate way they could turn away from assistance^[6].

Supporters of a new duties agreed they should apply to any public body that encounters people at risk of homelessness and agreed they should apply to the public bodies listed in the consultation paper. Other recommendations included: Department for Work and Pensions and Jobcentre Plus; the Armed Forces; Scottish Fire and Rescue Service; and third sector, community and religious organisations, specifically those that work with people with problematic substance use, those with mental health issues, victim/survivors of domestic abuse, veterans, refugees and asylum seekers. Others recommended duties on all landlords, not only on housing authorities. These organisations were highlighted as they have greater contact with the vulnerable groups identified in the consultation as being at highest risk of homelessness.

The principle that no-one should be discharged from institutions without anywhere to sleep that night

Q6. Do you agree to introducing a statutory duty on public bodies to prevent homelessness for anybody leaving an institution within six months?

Q7. What would help public bodies to meet this requirement and how might it work in practice?

The proposal for a statutory duty to prevent homelessness for anybody leaving an institution within six months was supported by 94% of those answering Q6. Several agreed as it would enable early intervention with planning starting sooner, giving agencies enough time to organise suitable accommodation. Scottish Refugee Council, Shelter Scotland, Everyone Home Collective and others suggested that the definition of public body should include housing providers contracted by the Home Office, and a stakeholder at a consultation event suggested including residential rehabilitation facilities. Others called for registered social landlords to be under a duty to maintain residences for service users who are entering institutions, where feasible depending on length of stay in the institution. Several others agreed in principle but questioned the practicality of the duty as institutions are not always aware of release dates six months in advance. Others, including Edinburgh City Council, agreed but reiterated concerns about the availability of housing stock.

Suggestions for implementation included the need for guidance on the expectations of each public body, interdepartmental budgeting and oversight procedures, and a clear referral process. Several noted the importance of clear communication, specifically information and data sharing between agencies. Specific suggestions included commissioning third sector organisations for training and a recommendation by Ayr Housing Aid Centre to support more organisations to receive type I accreditation under the Scottish National Standards for Information and Advice^[7]. Some highlighted the need for further education or support to assist individuals returning to their community, such as benefits assistance, furnishing initiatives, support with debt, and financial assistance.

Duties on wider public bodies – health and social care

People who experience homelessness have a much higher rate of interaction with health services than those who do not. Research^[8] shows that there is often an increase in interactions with health and social care before users experience homelessness.

Integration Authorities

The consultation proposes a legislative duty on Integration Authorities to identify those at risk of homelessness and work with partners to assist service users into suitable housing^[9].

Q8. Do you agree with the proposal that Integration Authorities should identify the housing circumstances of people using health and social care services, and where necessary work with partners to ensure that service users are assisted into suitable housing or prevent the risk of homelessness?

Q9. Do you agree that a new legislative duty on Integration Authorities to identify housing circumstances of patients is the best way to prevent homelessness?

Q10. Do you agree that the Integration Authority should have primary legal responsibility for meeting accommodation and support needs where cases are so complex that they cannot be met in mainstream accommodation even with support?

Q11. How would the Integration Authority having primary legal responsibility where cases are so complex work in practice?

Q12. Do you think a duty on the Integration Authority would positively impact on preventing homelessness for people with a range of more complex needs?

The role of Integration Authorities

Almost all (96%) answering Q8 agreed that Integration Authorities have an important role in preventing homelessness; 47% strongly agreed. Integration Authorities were seen as best placed to co-ordinate support services for those at risk, and Health and Social Care Partnerships (HSCP) were seen as best placed to identify those at risk of homelessness, given the relationship between homelessness and interaction with health services. Several respondents described how HSCPs identifying those at risk could provide a pathway for early intervention. For example, Public Health Scotland cited an increase in registered council housing due to an intervention policy implemented with NHS Fife for homeless patients seeking medical assistance^[10].

Four fifths (79%) agreed that Integration Authorities should have the primary legal responsibility for those with support needs so complex they cannot be met with mainstream supported accommodation. Several felt this was needed because the legal and specialist support requirements for this were beyond the capabilities of housing and homeless services. Others advised that partnerships between a range of sectors was necessary, such as a case co-ordinated approach with support programmes.

"Many people with complex needs end up being supported by the homelessness service as a default and many homelessness services struggle to get buy-in for partnership working with health and social care services, although this experience has improved through the pandemic." – Crisis

Views on a legislative duty

Fewer respondents (74%) agreed with the proposed new legislative duty on Integration Authorities to identify the housing circumstances of patients; 17% strongly agreed. While still a high level of agreement overall, this was the lowest agreement recorded in the consultation. Many attached caveats to their agreement, as outlined below. Others stated that while a duty is a good way to prevent homelessness, they found the proposal's wording misleading as there is not necessarily a singular or best way to prevent homelessness. These respondents suggested holistic approaches alongside the legislative duty, such as statutory duties on a range of public bodies or clear guidance and training to embed the duty in practice. Two respondents felt all routes should be exhausted before legislation is used as it may not be the best way to encourage collaboration.

A similar proportion (71%) believed a legislative duty would positively impact the prevention of homelessness for people with more complex needs. Key reasons for this were that a legislative duty would ensure users do not get missed by or lost in the system; and it would provide a clear framework for a clear multi-disciplinary service approach.

One quarter (24%) believed a duty would have no impact and 5% felt it would have a negative impact on people with more complex needs. These respondents typically expressed a view that the proposed approaches are already in place. For example Perth and Kinross Council felt new legislation would undermine their existing rapid rehousing programme, and Glasgow HSCP and Inverclyde HSCP have integrated homelessness services into their remit without a legislative duty. Several noted that assessments in HSCPs already consider housing needs for adults that present as at risk of homelessness.

Implementation challenges

While many respondents agreed with the proposals, challenges to implementation also were identified. Several raised the cross-cutting themes of housing stock, staff capacity, training and the availability of specialists, and financing the proposals; respondents argued that without appropriate resources, a legislative duty would have no effect. A number of more specific concerns were raised. These included: how a GP would implement the duty; how HSCPs would collaborate with partner agencies to enable best user outcomes; whether staff at Integration Authorities have the specialist housing knowledge needed to assist; the availability of appropriate housing for those users with needs so complex they cannot be met with mainstream supported accommodation. The Association of Local Authority Chief Housing Officers (ALACHO) noted their support for providing people with complex needs the medical and social support they need but warned that labelling users as 'lacking capacity' could hurt their chances of independent living in the future.

Suggestions for ways to make the proposals work effectively included: requests from some for a clearer definition of 'complex needs' to allow transparent assessment criteria; a few respondents called for service users to participate in their care planning and decisions about housing options; and a few recommended removing conditionality and barriers to care. Others noted the importance of a lead organisation or professional to spearhead co-ordination, and the need to maintain good communication and regular conferences to ensure a whole-system or 'no wrong door' approach. While clear legislative guidance was recommended by several, others requested allowances for a flexible, local approach or an approach that allowed the service provider who knows the population best to provide care planning. The Scottish Independent Advocacy Alliance suggested the use of independent advocates or peer advocates in the support process, and another mentioned strengthening mental health services to enable compulsory in-patient care for mental health and problematic substance use. A few respondents either could not answer or disagreed with the proposal as they were unsure of the role of Integration Authorities in the new National Care Service.

Social work and social care

The consultation proposes two new duties in relation to social work and social care work to ensure there is a joined-up approach between housing services, social work and social care for service users experiencing or at risk of homelessness^[11].

Q13. Do you agree with the proposal for a social worker or social care worker to have a duty to 'ask and act' about housing issues or the risk of homelessness?

Q14. Do you agree that a duty to co-operate on the Integration Authority is the best way to ensure that people who are homeless or at risk of homelessness, due to unmet health or social care needs, get the support they need from health and social care services?

Almost all who answered (95%) agreed with the proposed duty on social workers and social care workers to 'ask and act' (Q13). Several respondents noted these workers have the experience to recognise the potential risks before homelessness occurs, and already have an established relationship with service users. For example, Crisis presented two case studies where social workers intervened to successfully stabilise housing situations for service users at risk of homelessness. Several respondents believed the duty to 'ask and act' would enable an earlier intervention preventing escalation to the point where homelessness appears imminent.

"At present there is a disconnect in terms of prevention between social services and housing providers. Placing a duty on a social worker or social care worker will place housing as a key component in a client's needs. A duty to 'act' should incorporate a duty to accept and respond to referrals from housing and homeless services and to assess households support needs." - Scottish Borders Housing Association

A similar proportion (89%) supported a duty on Integration Authorities to co-operate to ensure people who are homeless or at risk of homelessness due to unmet health or social care needs get the support they need (Q14). Several respondents believed that the joined-up or co-ordinated approach led by the Integration Authority or the HSCP is most appropriate. Others noted the proposed duty would ensure service users do not encounter gaps in the system. Some suggested that a co-ordinated approach would enable person-centred care, addressing the underlying drivers of homelessness.

"This reinforces the points already made that responsibility to house and support people should be a shared responsibility across public services." – Scottish Federation of Housing Associations (SFHA)

While respondents widely agreed, some had concerns in response to both proposals. There were continued concerns about funding, staffing, training, and clear guidance as mentioned in Chapter 3. There were also specific concerns about: how interagency or shared budgeting would work; gaining service user consent for participation and data sharing; consideration of Adult Support and Protection; and about the definition of 'act' and how that would work in practice, including the need to effectively track and measure responses at every stage of delivery. Two expressed a view that Integration Authorities were too far removed from the frontline experiences of social workers, social care workers and service users and suggested implementation policies should rely more on local best practices. Two respondents also highlighted concerns about thresholds in the proposals and questioned what would happen to service users who do not meet the "unmet health or social care needs" criteria or the severe mental illness diagnostic criteria.

While many agreed, a few disagreed with new duties - 5% at Q13 and 11% at Q14. They expressed a view that new duties could undermine existing partnerships, systems and pathways, and pointed to existing duties to assess individuals for homelessness^[12].

Local Authority duties and powers

The consultation proposes that local authorities must ensure services to prevent or alleviate homelessness are designed to meet the needs of people leaving hospital and people with mental illness or impairment.

Q15. What changes to existing practice do you think local authorities and relevant health and social care services would have to make, to ensure they meet the needs of those leaving hospital and those with mental illness and impairment?

Q16. Do you agree with the proposal that the local authority must provide assistance to anyone who is going to be discharged from hospital?

Q16B. Please say why, and what is the main difference this statutory change would make to people in hospital and at risk of homelessness?

Q17. What would be the main challenges of introducing a statutory duty on local authorities to house those due to be discharged from hospital within the next six months?

Over fourth fifths (85%) agreed that local authorities must assist anyone being discharged from hospital, noting that homelessness impedes recovery, and that unstable housing exacerbates anxiety and stress. Some respondents believed the proposal would enable earlier intervention in the housing needs of hospitalised individuals and some others noted it would ensure communication between the NHS and local authorities happens earlier in the treatment process. Others noted that statutory change would enable clear referral pathways, ensure a consistent approach across local authorities, hold local authorities and NHS services accountable to patients, and create more efficient care with reduced hospital costs in the long-term.

Just under a sixth disagreed (14%) with the proposal. A few disagreed as they felt the changes may undermine existing good practice. The broad scope of intervention was questioned, specifically around local authorities' ability to assist 'anyone'. Two suggested the duties should sit with the NHS or health board and two raised concerns about the relevance of the proposals after the new National Care Service takes effect.

Across all four questions in this section, respondents were most concerned about the shortage of housing stock, particularly appropriate housing for those with additional requirements. South Lanarkshire Council suggested that the proposed duty may limit housing stock for others urgently in need but not being discharged from hospital. Others highlighted resource and funding issues, especially shortages in staff trained to understand homelessness, staff to handle assessments and care workers to provide at-home care after discharge. Further funding considerations were mentioned, particularly around funding post-hospital care such as community care teams, and support for landlords who may need to hold empty properties while awaiting tenant discharge. Some requested clarity on the language of the proposals, noting that 'provide assistance' and 'anyone' were too vague. A few respondents, including those attending consultation events, noted that change to the institutional approaches and culture toward homelessness is also needed across all public bodies.

"No-one should be returning home to an unsuitable house just because there isn't another option. Nor should they be staying in hospital for months waiting on something suitable coming up. The lack of available supply needs to be addressed urgently." - Ayr Housing Aid Centre SCIO

Several respondents noted that implementation would require clear guidance, particularly in relation to discharge protocols and assessments. Some highlighted that planning for housing on discharge could be problematic as there is no certainty over the length of a hospital stay. Other challenges raised by some respondents included: communication and co-ordination between agencies to ensure a smooth discharge, specifically around the transition from hospital to private accommodation; patient consent and confidentiality for information sharing; maintaining contact with service users who may move frequently; changing user needs over the course of the 6-month period; considering all needs of a person when starting a tenancy, including education around budgeting; and service users moving between local authorities. A few highlighted the need to include other family members in planning where appropriate, and one mentioned that some service users may find decision-making difficult.

General Practitioners (GPs)

The PRG suggested that GP practices should be required to refer people to local authorities where homelessness is identified, as there is currently no duty to refer.

Q18. Do you agree with the proposal that GP practices are required to refer to local authorities where there is a risk of homelessness identified?

Just over two-thirds of those who answered (78%) agreed with the proposal, stating that GPs are trusted and knowledgeable care providers who are well-placed to inquire about their patients' housing status. Others noted the proposal would aid early intervention.

One fifth of respondents (22%) disagreed, the third highest level of disagreement across the consultation proposals. Many of those who agreed also caveated their agreement with concerns. These concerns were reflected in responses directly from GP practices and from consultation events, and included: concerns about confidentiality and a breach of doctor-patient trust if referrals were made without patient knowledge or consent; that GPs are already overburdened with work; a recommendation that GP staff receive specialist training to understand indicators of homeless, along with gender-responsive, trauma-informed training in areas such as domestic abuse and trafficking; and concern that telephone and virtual appointments over the pandemic have weakened GPs' understanding of their patients' situations. Others, including some event attendees, felt a statutory duty was unnecessary, stating that clear frameworks, pathways and toolkits would be enough to encourage GP participation. Some also noted that including the duty in legislation would require renegotiation of the Scottish GP contract.

Q19. Are there any additional approaches that could be adopted by GP practices to better identify and respond to housing need?

The most common theme was calls for funding to enable non-clinical staff working from GP practices to act as the main contact for patients with housing issues. This includes Community Link Workers, Social Prescribers, Community Connectors or a liaison officer dedicated to homelessness. Dundee HSCP suggested a duty could apply to other health professionals such as Occupational Therapists, Physiotherapists and District Nurses.

Other suggestions included: clear and accessible information and signposting about housing either in the practice or on practice websites; training to ensure GPs and their staff are comfortable and capable asking about homelessness and identifying risk factors; an all-staff approach, including training for frontline staff such as receptionists; offering drop-in services for guidance on non-clinical issues; including housing questions in GP registration forms; creating alerts for patients who change address often or register temporary accommodation; and platforms for GPs to track patients discharged from hospital.

Multiple or Complex Needs

PRG proposed a case co-ordination approach where people may have multiple and complex needs and require the input of two or more public services.

Q20. Do you agree with the proposal that a statutory duty to put a case co-ordination approach in place for people requiring input from two or more public services is the right approach?

Q20B. If you disagree, please say how public services can best work together to prevent homelessness for people with more complex needs.

Q21. If this statutory duty is established: How would it work in practice?

Q21B. If this statutory duty is established: What challenges would it present, and how could these be best addressed?

Q22. What difference would a case co-ordination approach make to people experiencing homelessness or at risk of homelessness who have more complex needs?

Support for a case co-ordination approach

Almost all who answered Q20 (94%) agreed with the proposal to introduce a statutory duty for a case co-ordination approach; just under half (46%) strongly agreed. In their open comments, some respondents specifically expressed support for a statutory duty as they agreed it would underpin the approach and increase accountability.

However, many agreed with the proposal because of the perceived overall value of a case co-ordination approach. Respondents noted this approach would benefit individual users by simplifying a complex network of contacts, reducing service gaps due to uncoordinated interagency processes, and eliminating the need for the user to repeat personal histories or paperwork. Several others advocated for this approach as the best for the users' welfare, to provide person-centred support, and include user participation in their care meetings. Some noted it could have administrative benefits, such as ensuring collective responsibility, accountability and risk management. Others suggested it would improve joint working between and within local authorities, HSCPs, health boards and other partner agencies. Several respondents felt a case co-ordination approach would create efficiency and clarity by reducing duplication of work, allowing all relevant parties to participate in the decision-making process, and providing clear overviews of users' care plans. Some suggested this approach would benefit inter-agency communication and speed up service provision. Attendees at consultation events expressed a desire to consider whether the families of people with complex needs may need assistance.

A case co-ordination approach in practice

Assigning a key worker or lead professional was seen as vital by several respondents. A lead professional could provide consistency, enable trust, and provide an easy contact for the multi-agency team. Others felt co-ordination of the services through a key contact would ensure a smoother process for service providers. A few highlighted concerns about using a lead professional. For example, a lead professional cannot be available all the time, which may mean service users rely on unknown support during a crisis. A lead professional from a specific agency may only have expertise in a single area or could view a service user's needs through their own particular lens. One organisation thought it was important to ensure a referral is accessible to any member of a primary care team including nurses, link workers and GPs, to increase the reach of client contact.

Several cited case co-ordination approaches already being successfully implemented by local authorities or in social care^[13]. Some local authorities highlighted their own approaches such as Aberdeen City's Lead Professional model. Housing First was highlighted by some as an approach that successfully helped those with complex needs with housing and underlying issues that lead to homelessness. Dundee HSCP made some suggestions in their response about how partnership working could function in practice. They described an example of innovative practice where social workers are currently hosted in the Housing Options Team, resulting in a faster and more co-ordinated response to people with complex needs. They also highlighted the Getting it Right Together model proposed as part of the National Care Service as a practice model which could be introduced across housing and homelessness services, as it encourages shared responsibility across the partnership to help people achieve positive outcomes.

"There are already good examples of positive working in partnership. A statutory duty and obligation would extend the requirement and clarify the obligation to co-operate but this needs to be a balanced approach across services with a focus on case management and lead professional agency" – Fife Partnership

Concerns about a statutory duty and case co-ordination approach

Though only a very small number disagreed with the proposal, several respondents raised concerns about how the proposal might operate in practice. Many argued the success of this approach would depend on increased funding and staff capacity. Some felt a statutory duty would undermine existing frameworks for multi-agency working, while others highlighted the need for clear guidelines and open communication to ensure that all agencies co-operate effectively. Several expressed concern about data sharing – regarding both user confidentiality and interagency communication - and others suggested joint working agreements be driven by local agencies with knowledge of the service users.

Some respondents questioned the feasibility of a case co-ordination approach. Challenges included: ensuring buy-in from all relevant agencies; establishing comprehensive guidance; assigning roles to agencies to create measurable outcomes; and clearly defining multiple and complex needs. A few believed a case co-ordination approach would not work in practice as it would be challenging to identify those with complex needs. One noted concern about the negative impact of staff turnover on service users.

Others disagreed with the statutory duty as it could undermine existing multi-agency relationships, such as Inverclyde's Community Mental Health Teams, or exclude third sector organisations that are trusted by users. The Clackmannanshire and Stirling HSCP mentioned a concern with oversight and questioned whether the Care Inspectorate would inspect these partnerships.

Children and Young People services

The consultation proposes changes to improve outcomes for children and young people at risk of homelessness. These include measures to identify those at risk more quickly and to provide housing and care services that meet the unique needs of this group.

Q23. Do you agree with the proposal to establish a duty on health visitors or head teachers to identify a housing issue or risk of homelessness to a local authority?

Q24. How would a duty on health visitors or head teachers to identify a housing issue or risk of homelessness to a local authority work in practice?

Almost all (92%) agreed with the proposed duty on health visitors or head teachers to identify housing risks and issues to local authorities; 41% strongly agreed. The most common theme in responses was that head teachers and health visitors were well placed to identify risks of homelessness. Other reasons for support included the possibility for earlier intervention and prevention which a few noted could reduce the likelihood of homelessness in adulthood, more robust support for existing pathways, and continued strengthening of multi-agency intervention and collaboration.

The most common theme in response to Q24 was calls for clear, simple and thorough guidance and referral processes to ensure support reaches all children. The second most common theme was for training to both identify and support children and families who may be at risk of homelessness. Some noted the importance of clear communication and a partnership approach. Other points to consider included: how to address issues with young people not in school; consent and the limits of data sharing between departments and agencies; and a suggestion for parent/carer assessment once a referral is made.

"There are many reasons why young people and their families may be at risk of homelessness; often issues that are not directly related to housing but have an impact on this, e.g. domestic violence, parental use of alcohol and drugs, poverty. Coordination and flexible repatterning of support to sit around each young person's circumstances can reduce youth homelessness." – Aberdeen Foyer

While most agreed, several noted that teachers are already bound under GIRFEC to protect children from harm, including homelessness, and some questioned the value of creating a new statutory duty. Some respondents noted health visitors and head teachers have different remits, meaning a singular referral framework may not work for both. Others highlighted that head teachers have too many students to be aware of individual circumstances, and suggested a duty includes teachers, guidance staff and school nurses who may know individual students better. A few called for local authorities to have a duty to notify head teachers and health visitors when a child is at risk of homelessness.

Q24B. At what stage should a request for assistance be made to the local authority?

The most common theme in response to this question was support for making a referral as soon as any risk is identified, allowing local authorities to make a clear assessment and identify thresholds and eligibility. Suggested triggers include a child directly asking for help or expressing a desire to run away or leave home, and a risk to the tenure or safety of accommodation. Angus Council suggested making referrals when health visitors or head teachers can no longer offer support. A few suggested alternate routes for assistance as they felt not all concerns should be referred to housing services immediately. These included using family mediation or alerting teams in Child Welfare and Adult Support and Protection.

Q25. How can we ensure a homelessness prevention service is designed so that it can meet the needs of young people at risk, in partnership with other relevant services?

Q26. Do you agree that a local authority, possibly in partnership with others, should have a family mediation service as part of its legislative duties to prevent youth homelessness?

Three main themes emerged in responses to Q25: raising awareness and educating young people about prevention; involving frontline service providers and young people who have experienced homelessness in service design; and using approaches to meet the unique needs of young people, such as specialised housing options and further social assistance. A few highlighted The Youth Homelessness Prevention pathway compiled by A Way Home Scotland as a good model of prevention. Opportunities for those with lived experience of youth homelessness to mentor other young people at risk were noted by a small number. The South Ayrshire Champions Board, comprised of young people with care experience, was highlighted an example of how this could work in practice. Some were concerned the proposal does not sufficiently address the needs of care leavers and CELCIS requested that it is made clear that any legislation or duties applies to this group.

Providing a family mediation service was supported by 86%, though the most common theme was the need to consider the individual circumstances of each case. A few felt mediation can only be successful if users opt-in, and some highlighted it would be inappropriate to offer mediation in cases of domestic abuse.

"Relationship breakdown is a key reason for people experiencing homelessness… However, we must ensure that mediation is not forced onto people, particularly when there are indicators of violence or abuse. People should still be able to make a homeless application but can access mediation in the meantime. It should not be used as an alternative to providing necessary, safe and adequate accommodation." - Cyrenians

A concern among some was that mediation should not be a barrier to accessing housing. While some felt it could work well where young people have been 'asked to leave' their home, they noted mediation may not be effective in every case and should not be the only tool considered. A few mentioned the value of a cooling off period where mediation services can be offered after the point of crisis. Another suggestion was that mediation be carried out by independent parties without any stake in the outcome. A Way Home Scotland recommended mediation services be extended to landlords and flatmates.

16- and 17-year-olds

The PRG proposed that young people aged 16 and 17 at risk of homelessness must be treated as children under the law and should receive assistance from children's social work.

Q27. Do you think the proposal for 16 and 17 year olds would positively impact on the prevention of homelessness for young people?

Q28. Could there be any 'unintended consequences' for 16 and 17 year olds in taking this approach to legislation? If so, how can this best be addressed so that any new legislation improves outcomes for 16 and 17 year olds at risk of homelessness?

Three quarters (75%) believed the proposal would positively impact 16- and 17-year-olds, while 11% felt it would have no impact and 14% a negative impact. Those anticipating a positive impact argued more needs to be done to support 16- and 17-year-olds and that the proposal will help create stable guidance on case management.

Despite this support, 98% of those who answered Q28 felt there would be unintended consequences of the proposal. Responses from Crisis, Clan Childlaw, Shelter Scotland, and The Promise, among others, highlighted a concern that the proposed changes would diminish 16- and 17-year-olds' existing housing rights by diverting them to social work, rather than allowing them the choice to work directly with housing services to secure independent, permanent accommodation. Several argued that many young people and their families may avoid getting support with housing to avoid contact with social work, causing an increase in young people experiencing homelessness. In contrast, several who agreed with the proposal noted social work could provide specialist care for this group.

Other unintended consequences included: providing access to social work for a short time and then removing it when service user turns 18^[14]; creating an incentive for young people to leave home; unawareness of benefits system; and causing traumatic experiences.

Criminal Justice

The consultation invited respondents' views on proposals relating to criminal justice – specifically prisons, courts, Police Scotland and domestic abuse. The themes below align with the views expressed by criminal justice stakeholders at a consultation event. One anonymous organisation requested that any proposed duties on criminal justice should be complementary to provisions resulting from the Bail and Release from Custody Bill.

Prisons

Q29. Do you agree with the proposal to introduce new legal duties on prisons to ask about and work with partners to address housing issues to prevent homelessness?

There was significant support for introducing new legal duties for prisons to ask about and work with partners to address housing issues. Almost all (98%) who answered agreed and 56% strongly agreed; the second highest level of strong agreement in the consultation.

Respondents felt the duties will ensure people in prison receive housing advice in prison so they can access suitable housing on release; this was the most common reason for agreement. The importance of providing advice as early as possible in an individual's sentence was emphasised across all the questions related to prisons, by respondents including Bethany Christian Trust, Blue Triangle Housing Association and Crisis. Another recurring theme was that new duties should assist people in prison who need ongoing support to maintain an existing tenancy or avoid eviction during their time in prison.

"It is important to have discussions at the very start of a prison sentence with prisoners. This allows for pre-planning and applications to be submitted if re-housing is required."– Fife Partnership

Several respondents noted that homelessness can contribute to re-offending, so ensuring individuals have suitable housing on release could help to reduce re-offending. However, respondents commented on the wide range of support that individuals might need to sustain housing including benefits advice, and support with mental health and problematic substance use.

SHORE (Sustainable Housing on Release for Everyone) standards were referred to in several responses. While respondents gave examples of how SHORE is currently used and individuals are supported with housing, respondents felt new legal duties will ensure SHORE is applied consistently across Scotland.

Q30. How would a statutory duty on prisons to identify and work with partners on housing issues change existing practice already in place to prevent homelessness amongst those leaving prison?

Q31. What are the main challenges of introducing any new statutory duty on prisons to identify and work with partners on housing issues?

Q32. What changes to existing practice would local authorities have to make to ensure they meet the needs of those leaving prison?

There were some suggestions about how SPS and local authorities might need to change working practices to implement the duty. These included: issues related to information sharing to ensure that local authority housing services receive the data they require about people in prison; cross-boundary working where people in prison live in a different local authority area to the prison; making referrals to support services in plenty of time before release; enabling local authority housing staff to have contact with people in prison; and the importance of throughcare to support people in prison after they have been released.

Some respondents suggested prison staff may need training to enhance their knowledge of housing issues and raise awareness of how they can support people in prison with housing issues and the agencies they can refer individuals to. Other challenges identified in comments included: stigma and discrimination towards people in prison establishing processes for monitoring compliance with and learning from the duty; gaining consent for referral from individuals; ensuring people in prison engage with support services; and considering victim and community needs when planning the location of an individual's housing on release. An anonymous respondent raised a concern that private prisons would not have to comply with the duty.

Court services

Q33. Do you agree with the proposal that housing options advice should be available in court settings?

There was widespread support for this proposal. 91% of those who answered this question agreed that housing options advice should be available in court settings. The opportunity to offer support to vulnerable people who may be at risk of losing their home was the main reason for agreement among respondents including Turning Point Scotland and Highland Council Housing Services. Some observed that those being released from court may not have had the chance to receive prison-based advice, so it is important to have advice available in this setting too. A few mentioned that it could help to reduce re-offending and a small number emphasised the need to support people whose bail conditions prohibit them from returning home.

Reasons for disagreement among the few who opposed the proposal included a feeling that demand for advice may vary across local authorities, and a suggestion that people may be too pre-occupied with their court appearance to engage fully with housing advice. Another organisation noted other challenges including: not all courts have social work staff in the building, or space to accommodate them; providing a service after a virtual court appearance; and that some accused appear in a court outwith their local authority.

Police Scotland

Q34. Do you agree with the proposal to place a statutory duty on the police to ask about somebody's housing circumstances if there is 'reasonable belief' they may be homeless or at risk of homelessness?

Q35. How would a statutory duty on police to ask about somebody's housing circumstances, if there is 'reasonable belief' they may be homeless or at risk of homeless, work in practice?

Almost all (96%) who answered Q34 supported the proposal to place a statutory duty on the police to ask about somebody's housing circumstances if there is 'reasonable belief' they may be homeless or at risk of homelessness. Just under half (48%) strongly agreed. Some respondents commented that, while police should ask about housing, this should not be a legal duty. However, they did not explain why they held this view.

Several respondents, including Shelter Scotland and Crisis, commented that because the police often have contact with people at risk of homelessness, they have an opportunity to intervene before the person becomes homeless; this was the most common reason for support. Other supportive arguments included the need to ensure consistency across Scotland, and the potential to make housing support more accessible to people who need it because of sensitive cases such as domestic abuse.

"Police often come into contact with people who are homeless or are at risk of homelessness. It makes sense for police to have a duty to flag this or refer such individuals to homelessness prevention services and it would assist those affected to access services quickly." – North Lanarkshire Council

The need for guidance and support for police officers to ensure they know how and when to ask individuals about their housing situation in a sensitive and timely manner was a recurring theme about implementation. Police Scotland supported the proposal but called for more clarity about what is expected of officers and identified various challenges, including the limited time that individuals have in custody. Others suggested training to raise awareness among police officers that asking about housing is part of their role.

Several, including 11 local authorities, emphasised the importance of robust referral pathways so that police officers can refer people appropriately. A few respondents identified the risk of individuals providing dishonest answers due to a mistrust of the police and the knowledge that their release is dependent on having an address to go to. Scottish Association of Social Work highlighted a risk that "if someone comes before the Court is thought to be homeless, they are more likely to be remanded. Any duty on police must not result in deprivations of liberty on the grounds of homelessness".

Domestic abuse

Analysis of Q36 and Q37, which consider the proposed measures on domestic abuse and how they should be implemented, is provided in Chapter 5.

Duty on local authorities

The consultation included questions about the proposed statutory duty on a local authority to accept a referral from a public body to prevent homelessness.

Q38. Do you agree with the proposal that there should be a statutory duty on a local authority to accept a referral from a public body to prevent homelessness, as part of legislative change that places a duty on public bodies to 'ask and act'?

Q39A. Please say what you think the primary advantages would be.

Q39B. Please say what you think the primary challenges would be.

Q40. Do you have a view on the issue of an individual's consent in this process?

There was widespread support for the proposed duty; 88% agreed and 43% strongly agreed. The main reason for agreement was that the duty would compel local authorities to act when people are at risk of homelessness. Several respondents, including 15 local authorities, Wheatley Group (previously Glasgow Housing Association) and Scottish Refugee Council, stated that the duty would enable local authorities to intervene early, thereby helping to prevent homelessness. Other advantages included the potential for the duty to: support joint working between local authorities and public bodies; clearly allocate ownership of and accountability for homelessness prevention to local authorities; allow for better monitoring of prevention work; and ensure everyone who needs support receives it.

The most frequently identified challenge was local authorities' resources and capacity to handle an anticipated increase in referral numbers. Many respondents, including 19 local authorities, Bethany Christian Trust and Turning Point Scotland emphasised the importance of ensuring local authorities have the resources to deliver the duty.

"There is a potential that the new measures could overwhelm existing resources, resulting in a reduced level of service for individuals with the highest level of needs." – Scottish Borders Housing Association

Another challenge was ensuring referring bodies take preventative action, including supporting individuals where possible, rather than relying on local authorities to act. Other themes included: the potential for inappropriate referrals, with a suggestion that guidance should be provided for referring bodies; and a call for criteria to determine when an individual should be referred for homelessness prevention and when a homelessness assessment would be more appropriate. One noted this approach could be abused if this route was to become seen as a prioritised route to housing.

A summary of views on consent is provided in Chapter 2.

Joining-up services through strategic planning

Respondents were asked for their views on the PRG's recommendations for joining-up services through strategic planning. This is where services work together to identify need and ensure steps are in place to address issues which may lead to homelessness.

Q41. Should the requirements for joining-up services through strategic planning to prevent homelessness be included in legislation or guidance?

Most respondents (61%) felt the requirements for joining-up services through strategic planning should be included in legislation, while 39% felt they should be in guidance. The most common argument in support of using legislation was that it would ensure services comply with the recommendations. Other themes included the potential for legislation to promote joint working and ensure services treat homelessness prevention as a priority. Arguments in favour of guidance, made by a few respondents, included a feeling that there is already strong partnership working which does not need enforcement via legislation, and that using guidance allows flexibility for services to be tailored to local need. For example, Dundee HSCP questioned whether the same outcomes could be achieved through investment in the sharing of good practice between areas and greater use of guidance and best practice at a local level.

Q42. Are there any other requirements for joining-up services through strategic planning that should be considered?

Respondents reported a range of other requirements for joining-up services through strategic planning. Some, including Ayr Housing Aid Centre and Lochalsh & Skye Housing Association, highlighted the need for joint working to address the multiple contributory factors to homelessness such as problematic substance use, mental health, job loss and relationship breakdown. Others discussed establishing shared outcomes that encourage collaboration and joint accountability. Some suggested services could jointly fund services or develop local plans and strategies together with homelessness prevention as a priority.

"A more collaborative approach to treating homelessness as a public health emergency is needed… Joining-up services will foster a sense of mutual accountability." - Cyrenians

Other considerations included: the need for robust referral and service pathways; the impact of the National Care Service on homelessness prevention services; issues around corporate parenting; the need for greater consideration of learning disabilities and autism in local housing strategies; ensuring a link between national and local strategies; the importance of flexibility to adapt services to local need; and including third sector services.

Q43. What do you think the implications are of increased joint working to prevent homelessness between public bodies on data sharing and data protection?

Various implications of increased joint working for data sharing and data protection were identified. Several respondents, including ALACHO and Argyll & Bute Council, highlighted the importance of effective data sharing between partners to identify and support people at risk of homelessness. Crisis provided best practice guidance on data analytics for homelessness prevention. Another common theme was the need for services to create data sharing agreements, or to review agreements already in place, to ensure they can share information timeously and in line with data protection legislation.

Proposed recommendations for social landlords

The consultation invited views on proposed duties to formalise social landlords' existing responsibilities to prevent homelessness. The PRG proposed that where a social landlord identifies a risk of homelessness, they should take reasonable steps to mitigate the risk. The reasonable steps include: practices to sustain tenancies; engaging with the tenant to address financial issues e.g. rent arrears or to address behaviour; and putting in place protocols to mitigate risk of homelessness at an early stage, including relating to domestic abuse or where tenants face court proceedings.

Q44. Do you agree with the new legislative duties to ensure social landlords take specified reasonable steps to prevent homelessness where a risk is identified?

Q45. Are there any other reasonable steps apart from those listed that a social landlord should be legally obliged to take to prevent homelessness?

All (100%) who answered Q44 agreed with the proposal, the joint highest agreement in the consultation; 64% agreed strongly. Several respondents made comments in support of the proposal, including recognition that formal duties could strengthen existing practice by encouraging earlier intervention, enabling partnership working, reducing discriminatory practice and ensuring consistent practice among social landlords. A few noted that the steps should be taken as early as possible to support engagement and positive outcomes.

A recurring theme was that social landlords have existing relationships with their tenants and so are well placed to identify risk and deliver preventative support. However, some suggested they could do more to prevent court action, eviction and homelessness. While some agreed the duties should improve outcomes for tenants, another theme was that tenants hold a shared responsibility for engaging with preventative support.

"We commonly see people cycling through the system repeatedly as result of failures in early tenancies that were never addressed. We see people whose health has been impacted and whose life chances and opportunities have become limited through battling repeat homelessness. We welcome the move to formalise the role of landlords being responsible for identifying and mitigating risks of homelessness. This will help to break the cycle." - Blue Triangle Housing Association

A few questioned whether new duties would add anything to existing practice, while others called for them to build on existing work rather than create new processes, and to ensure that the reasonable steps are not overly prescriptive or limiting.

Views on the reasonable steps were mixed. Some felt they were sufficient; others suggested additional steps. Several highlighted a need for social landlords to support tenants with financial challenges, including help with rent arrears or to access grants, welfare rights and employment advice. A few suggested benefits or grants could be paid directly to social landlords to address rent arrears. Another theme was that social landlords should have a duty to ask about and assess their tenants' risk of homelessness through regular well-being checks, support needs assessments and use of data related to rent arrears or neighbourhood complaints. There were calls for clear guidance, regulatory frameworks and monitoring to ensure compliance and accountability.

The importance of including social landlords in multi-agency working was highlighted. For example, it was suggested that social landlords could refer or signpost tenants to mental health services, statutory bodies, mediation services and independent legal advice and advocacy services for support. A few expressed concerns about social landlords receiving little prevention support from other agencies, or about them acting alone in complex cases.

Q46. Do you agree with the proposal to legislate for the establishment of protocols by social landlords in relation to domestic abuse?

Q47. Do you agree with the proposal to legislate for the establishment of protocols by social landlords in relation to where tenants face court proceedings?

Nearly all who answered Q46 (96%) agreed with the proposal to legislate for the establishment of protocols by social landlords in relation to domestic abuse. Analysis of open responses to this question is included in Chapter 5.

Almost all (94%) agreed with legislating for the establishment of protocols by social landlords where tenants face court proceedings; 43% strongly agreed. Reasons for support varied. Some argued the protocols could remove ambiguity and promote consistency around the role of social landlords. Others felt the proposal could help to avoid evictions, limit the need to re-house people on release from prison, and stop a cycle of housing insecurity. Suggestions for protocols and supports included: amending Housing Benefit claims; transferring tenancies to other household members; storing belongings; and re-allocating property as temporary accommodation in cases of short-term sentences.

However, a few were unsure or disagreed that legislation was necessary and felt guidance and monitoring would be more effective. Others felt social landlords were already working to sufficient protocols or highlighted the need for earlier notification of court proceedings to the local authority. A small number of respondents highlighted the protocols could only be successful with tenant engagement. Specifically, Glasgow and West of Scotland Forum of Housing Associations noted that landlords could find themselves in a situation where they are both taking action against an individual who is refusing to engage but also being expected to try and prevent homelessness.

Q48. Given that landlords are already expected to notify local authorities of raising proceedings for possession, do you agree with a new legislative provision to ensure it happens earlier than under current arrangements?

Among those answering Q48, 85% supported the proposal; 50% strongly agreed. The most common reason for agreement was that earlier notification would allow more time to engage in preventative work and represent a move away from crisis-driven support. Some felt the proposal would strengthen Section 11 provision^[15], and encourage more meaningful engagement and compliance with pre-action requirements, rather than treating notification as a tick-box exercise. A few requested clarification on whether tenants' consent would be needed for early notification and, if not, what the appropriate triggers would be.

Among the 15% who disagreed, some expressed a view that earlier notification could be an unnecessary or unhelpful process which generates additional referrals. There was a concern that the pressure of additional referrals on local authority capacity could dilute or hinder existing prevention activities and increase response times. Another concern was that the proposal could place an unfair onus on local authorities, either by making them an intermediary between social landlords and other support agencies, or by detracting from social landlords' responsibilities to engage in prevention. A few suggested the focus should be on promoting engagement with and improving current Section 11 provision.

Q49. What further statutory measures beyond the existing Section 11 provision are needed so landlords notify and work with local authorities as soon as possible to prevent homelessness?

Several respondents proposed that social landlords should have an obligation to share information and work more closely with local authorities and engage in multi-disciplinary working. Specific suggestions included making advance referrals to third sector organisations so support is immediately available if required, working within the Named Person provisions where children are at risk of homelessness, and forming Common Housing Register Partnerships. SFHA cited The North & Islands Section 11 Project as an effective example of partnership working between housing associations and local authorities where 96% of evictions were prevented. A few suggested that landlords adopt a holistic approach and assess tenants' wider support needs such as mental and physical health. Another theme was the need for monitoring, performance indicators, and reporting of outcomes to evidence whether prevention is being undertaken by social landlords.

"There would be benefits from greater co-ordination by social landlords with public bodies who could work together to prevent homelessness, for example health, alcohol and drugs services and education. These links are not as strong at the moment compared to that of a local authority landlord, therefore tenants of a local authority are getting more opportunities than other social landlords."- Aberdeen City Council

A few felt there was no need for further statutory measures beyond the existing Section 11 provision. However, some expressed reservations about Section 11 provision, including concerns about whether landlords give homelessness services sufficient notice and details related to individuals at risk of homelessness, and felt this could be improved.

Q50. At how early a stage should a landlord be expected to notify a local authority about the risk of homelessness?

By far the most common theme in response to Q50 was that landlords should notify a local authority about the risk of homelessness as early as possible or as soon as any risk is identified. Views on when this could be varied, with a few acknowledging that timings would depend on individual circumstances and the support available. A small number suggested specific risk factors for early referral including the tenant having previous experience of homelessness, prison, the care system, or mental health problems, or there being issues with the property, such as it being unfurnished. A less common suggestion was linking notification to specific triggers, such as the tenant falls into rent arrears, makes late payments, is reliant on foodbanks, engages in anti-social behaviour, or is experiencing neighbour disputes. Some felt that landlords should be expected to notify a local authority once they had had taken all reasonable steps and exhausted all support measures without progress. A few specified a time frame for notification such as three or six months.

Several described how notifying a local authority of a risk of homeless should align with legal proceedings, though views were mixed. Most commonly, respondents felt notification should take place at the same time as, or ideally before, a Notice of Proceedings is issued to maximise the time available for preventative or multi-agency work. A smaller number felt local authorities should be notified after this, but prior to court proceedings.

A few reiterated the view that the focus should be on landlords taking the reasonable steps towards prevention outlined in the consultation and there should be no requirement for them to notify the local authority at an earlier stage.

"There should be no limit on how early a notification could be sent with the consent of the tenants. Where no consent is sought or given then, as previously noted, the specific trigger should be clearly defined in law. With this in mind, it is probably appropriate to continue to rely on the point at which formal notification of an intention to take action is given to the tenant" - ALACHO

Proposed recommendations for private landlords

Respondents were asked for their views on the PRG's recommendations for preventing homelessness from the Private Rented Sector (PRS) and to enable the PRS to be more widely used to house people at risk of homelessness.

Q51. Do you agree with the proposal to make pre-action requirements on private landlords in cases of rent arrears permanent in legislation?

Nine in ten (91%) of those who answered agreed with the proposal; 54% strongly agreed. Most commonly, it was felt this would ensure parity of protection for PRS and social housing tenants, and potentially make the PRS more attractive for tenants.

"Private renting tenants should be afforded the same legislative rights as social renting tenants and will ensure a consistent and equitable approach." - East Ayrshire HSCP

However, some noted potential risks associated with the requirements. For example, there was a suggestion that the requirements could act as a disincentive to landlords, causing them to demand higher deposits or to leave the sector, thereby reducing housing stock. It was also highlighted that private landlords could themselves face homelessness if rent arrears lead to mortgage default. While most agreed with the proposal, 10% disagreed. Reasons for opposition included that pre-action requirements are ineffective or unnecessary and that individuals have a responsibility to resolve their own debt.

Q52. How might a new legislative duty on local authorities to respond to referrals to prevent homelessness from private landlords work in practice?

Most commonly, respondents discussed challenges associated with this duty working in practice. These frequently echoed the themes outlined in chapter 2 such as capacity, resources, housing stock and training; one highlighted the need for local authority staff to be trained in PRS specific housing rights.

Several respondents emphasised the importance of establishing clear referral criteria, pathways and timings. Another theme related to ensuring the new duty on local authorities aligns with existing processes such as housing options advice, landlord registration arrangements, and Section 11 protocols. A few, including Crisis, felt the Section 11 protocols should be strengthened to increase their efficacy as a prevention tool.

Some made suggestions about how local authorities should respond to referrals. Support needs assessments, advice or mediation services, housing plans and financial signposting were mentioned. Other suggestions included dedicated staff within the local authority to manage referrals such as East Ayrshire's Private Rented Sector Unit and Angus' Private Rented Sector Officers. Others, however, emphasised private landlords' responsibilities in preventing homelessness, including implementing pre-action protocols, and argued against local authorities being relied on to fulfil this role.

Q53. What sort of support do you think private landlords may need to ensure they meet this requirement?

By far the most common request was for training, education, and advice to promote landlords' understanding and awareness of their role and responsibilities. Suggestions included guidance from the Scottish Government or COSLA on specific topics such as Section 11 protocols, consent, domestic abuse and the pre-action requirements. A few noted that private landlords are likely to have less access to tenancy sustainment resources than social landlords, especially non-professional landlords who may have less knowledge of legislation and available support. There were suggestions for outlining landlord obligations during registration and for an accreditation system to disseminate training and share knowledge. Materials and tools such as websites, a central resource and tenant friendly information packs, were also asked for.

Another theme was the need for better partnership working between local authorities, landlords, tenants and the various representative bodies within the sector. There were requests for landlords to have access to a single named point of contact within the local authority for advice and support. The need for a smooth and clear referral process to the local authority and for the landlord to be able to signpost and refer their tenants to other support services was also raised by some. Several respondents called for mechanisms to record, monitor and enforce compliance with the duties.

Q54. Do you agree with the proposal that a local authority should have a power to request a delay to eviction to allow time to secure a positive outcome for the tenant?

There were high levels of support for the proposal that a local authority should have a power to request a delay to eviction; 87% agreed. Several, including Ayr Housing Aid Centre and 11 local authorities, argued that a delay would allow time to deliver support that could help the tenant avoid homelessness. Some, however, noted the importance of establishing clear guidelines for how this would work in practice, including criteria for making a request and ensuring the delay has appropriate time limits.

Some respondents, including Propertymark, disagreed with the proposal. Some, including some who agreed with the proposal, warned this power could make the PRS less attractive to existing or potential landlords, thereby reducing the housing stock available. Others argued that a delay could be unfair if there is a valid reason for the eviction.

Q55. The Prevention Review Group propose that the homelessness advice and assistance is designed to meet the needs of people living in and seeking to access the private rented sector. Do you agree with this proposal?

A large majority of respondents (93%) supported the proposal that the homelessness advice and assistance should be designed to meet the needs of people living in and seeking to access the PRS. Several respondents, including 10 local authorities and Cyrenians, described the potential for this to improve access to the PRS, alleviating pressure on temporary accommodation and social housing. Some called for financial support such as income maximisation advice to help tenants maintain their tenancy. A small number of respondents disagreed with this proposal. Reasons included difficulties in remote locations where PRS accommodation is limited and expensive, and the need for more resources to provide the service. Another theme was the importance of ensuring advice is available across all tenures and sectors, not just the PRS.

Q56. How would a specific legislative duty on local authorities to provide homelessness advice and assistance relating to living in and/or accessing the private rented sector work in practice?

Several respondents, including Shelter Scotland, Crisis and 11 local authorities, observed that this type of advice should already be delivered by local authorities as part of housing options advice. Some felt there is no need for a legislative duty because of this.

Another recurring theme related to improving access to and quality of PRS accommodation through initiatives such as rent deposit schemes and landlord registration and licensing. Some respondents highlighted that the advice should take account of local variations in the availability and affordability of PRS accommodation. Other themes included the need to clearly define and communicate the nature and scope of the advice.