Prevention of homelessness duties: consultation analysis

4. Reforming homeless legislation to prevent homelessness

The PRG proposed five principles for prevention to be achieved by amending the statutory framework for homelessness. The principles cover: an extended and strengthened duty to prevent homelessness; personalised housing plans that maximise applicants' choice and control; meeting the needs of specific groups; ensuring people requiring assistance receive stable and suitable housing; and clarity and accountability of the system. Respondents' views on each of these principles are described in turn in this chapter.

Principles of the Prevention Review Group

Q57. Do you agree with these principles?

Among those who answered Q57, 92% agreed with the principles; 43% strongly agreed. The most common reasons for support were the benefits of early intervention, support for offering a wider choice of housing options, the importance of a joined-up approach, and an appreciation for the focus on specific groups. The principles were described as easy to understand and complementary to each other.

"The principles set out within the consultation document appear to be a useful legislative framework for the provision of homelessness prevention services. The emphasis on early intervention is particularly welcome." – Glasgow HSCP

Some respondents noted concerns around the principle of maximising choice and control, specifically that limited housing stock could make it hard to manage expectations around choice. North Ayrshire and West Lothian Councils suggested amended wording to reflect this^[16]. Others felt maximising choice could negatively impact rapid rehousing services, with homeless applicants waiting longer in temporary accommodation for housing that meets their preferences. Some stakeholders noted concerns about the principle of stable and suitable housing; this is examined under the analysis of Q77-Q81. A few respondents agreed with the principles but disagreed with the use of personalised housing plans.

Q58. Are there any other principles that should be included and, if so, why?

Several respondents suggested overarching approaches to consider as principles. The most common was for a principle of collaboration and multi-agency working to strengthen shared responsibility. Other suggestions, each mentioned by very few, included: a trauma-informed approach; a human-rights based approach; a principle of non-discrimination; non-regression from existing rights; Turning Point Scotland suggested a principle that recognises connection to community; and Chartered Institute for Housing (CIH) Scotland suggested a principle to develop the skills, knowledge and behaviours of practitioners who support those at risk.

Q59. What outcomes do you foresee if the above principles were to be adopted to amend the statutory homelessness framework?

Many respondents anticipated positive outcomes. The most common was fewer people experiencing homelessness, followed less use of temporary accommodation. Another positive was the opportunity to engage in more prevention work resulting in increased tenancy sustainment and a reduction in repeat homelessness. Other positive outcomes anticipated by small numbers included: reduced stigma about homelessness; improved education and health outcomes; reduced re-offending; cultural and organisational change in public bodies about how they prevent homelessness; improved public awareness; and individuals having the ability to hold public bodies to account.

Conversely, some respondents anticipated negative impacts. These included: an increased number of referrals and greater use of temporary accommodation; increased pressure on independent support services and homelessness services, making it more difficult for the latter to discharge duties; and Shelter Scotland cited a reduction of homelessness rights and a violation of the principle of non-regression (see Q77-Q81).

An extended prevention duty

Q60. Do you agree with the recommendation that there should be changes to existing homelessness legislation to ensure that a local authority must assist somebody threatened with homelessness within the next six months to prevent homelessness?

Q61. How do you think a duty to prevent homelessness within six months would work in practice?

The PRG proposed that a local authority assist anyone threatened with homelessness within the next six months, rather than the existing two-month timeframe. Almost nine in ten (87%) of those answering Q60 agreed with the proposal for an extended prevention duty; 38% strongly agreed. The most common theme in support was that the additional time is beneficial in allowing meaningful prevention activity to occur and for housing options to be explored. A few noted six months would mirror the tenancy notice period.

"Extending the definition to six months would include a lot more work in the short-term, but if this is done right, we do believe it can make prevention work easier in the long run. However, these duties could result in a large 'implementation gap' between policy and what is realistic to achieve on the ground." - Cyrenians

Many, however, caveated their agreement or were unsure because of concerns about how an extended duty would work in practice. While a few stated their current prevention processes would simply begin earlier, concerns about training, capacity and resourcing due to increased caseloads was a recurring theme. The next most common theme was defining what constitutes a threat of homelessness. Some stated that a six month timeframe is too broad for the proposal to be practicable, arguing that it could be hard to predict who may find themselves homeless in six months. For example, leaving an institution or receiving a Notice to Quit are clear risks, but other circumstances leading to homelessness such as relationship breakdown are harder to predict. Several stated that a referral through a clear referral pathway should trigger an assessment. Several respondents called for the legislation to clearly define what constitutes a risk and be supported by guidance about how to identify early warning signs of homelessness.

Other considerations included the need for: consent for prevention activity to begin; a process to prioritise those at the greatest risk; assurance the duty does not act as a barrier to those who are statutorily homeless or who approach services for support prior to being six months away from homelessness; and greater public awareness of the duty, housing rights and where to go for support. Cyrenians highlighted a challenge for local authorities who rely on third sector services whose long-term funding may end during the six months.

"Given the relatively long lead in time of becoming homeless within six months, council staff will need much clearer direction and guidance as to circumstance that fall within the policy intention of the Bill. Examples cannot be exhaustive however some can be instructive as well as providing clarity on scenarios that previously would not have met the scope of preventing homelessness but now do." – CIH Scotland

A few argued that a longer timeframe could lead individuals or landlords to stop their own prevention work, if they felt a local authority would provide a safety net. Aberdeen City Council highlighted that the duty could lead to services and landlords intervening at the same time and arguing the landlord should take the lead.

Q62. How would an assessment be made to identify whether someone was at risk of homelessness within six months?

Responses to Q62 covered three themes: the overall approach to an assessment, how it could be conducted and what measure should be used. On the overall approach, small numbers called for a holistic, person-centred assessment of circumstances. Some suggested a skilled individual should conduct the assessment, usually a Housing Officer who is able to reliably identify risks of homelessness. Others suggested the assessment could be part of existing PREVENT1 or Housing Options assessments. Measures included in the assessment could cover: financial status including working status, welfare receipts, debt and rent arrears; health; relationship status; and property condition. Some called for consistent criteria across all local authorities, bodies and housing providers.

Duty to take reasonable steps to prevent homelessness

The PRG proposed that the minimum statutory framework of a duty to take reasonable steps to prevent homelessness should include: housing options information, advice and advocacy; advocacy support; welfare and debt advice; referral to other relevant agencies; support for landlords and tenants in the private rented sector; Family mediation services; support for people experiencing domestic abuse; and supply of furniture or similar goods.

Q63. Building on the experience of housing options approaches in Scotland, do you agree with the proposal to regulate for making specific measures available or reasonable steps to prevent homelessness in legislation?

Most (90%) of those who answered Q63 agreed with the proposal to regulate for reasonable steps to prevent homelessness in legislation; 31% strongly agreed. The most common reason for support was that this creates a consistent approach and strengthens the implementation of Housing Options. Five local authorities disagreed as they felt this work is already being done and that legislation is not required. Across these questions there were frequent calls for funding and training for local authorities to successfully offer the reasonable steps; a few local authorities stated that if they cannot comply with legislation, they could be subject to regulatory intervention and legal challenge. A recurring theme in local authority responses was for duties to apply to other public bodies, include steps those bodies could take, and the need to monitor the support they provide.

Q64. Are there any other specific measures that should be made available or reasonable steps to prevent homelessness that should be included in legislation?

Two thirds (67%) stated at Q64 that other reasonable steps should be included. Some called for the right to independent advocacy and legal representation. Other suggestions made by small numbers included: physical and mental health assessments; support with employability, welfare or problematic substance use; and support for owner occupiers.

Q65. Do you think the specific measures made available, or reasonable steps duties outlined, are clearly and unambiguously set out so that it is possible to measure their achievement? Do they need to be more specific?

While 59% answered 'Yes' at Q65, the question wording means it is unclear if they agreed the measures are clear and unambiguous, or if they need to be more specific. Conversely, a few, including Crisis and Fife Partnership, argued that while a list of steps should exist and that local authorities should be able to offer them, this should not stop other steps being used, or prevent a person-centred approach where users are forced to take steps which not appropriate for their circumstances.

"Specificity is helpful in measuring delivery and impact, but our experience shows repeatedly that we have to leave room for flexibility and adaptability. What one person needs and what delivers for them will not be the same as what another person needs." – Turning Point Scotland

Specifically, there were calls for a definitive list of minimum furniture requirements, and questions around how some of the steps align with the Scottish Welfare Fund. Blue Triangle Housing Association stated that making these measures 'available' is a low aspiration; they argued that legislation should include an indication of quality to avoid the use of the cheapest available service, and that monitoring should link service provision to individual outcomes to avoid the measures being a tick-box exercise. A small number called on the steps to be reviewed on a regular basis to ensure they remain fit for purpose.

The importance of monitoring performance against, and compliance with, the legislation was frequently raised across Q65 and Q66, though some felt it was not currently clear how this would work in practice. There were also calls for monitoring to be overseen by an appropriate body; a few suggested a role for the Scottish Housing Regulator.

Q66. If you agree with these new duties, what processes or procedures do you think should be put in place to encourage local authority compliance?

A variety of other suggestions to encourage compliance were given at Q66. In addition to calls for resources and training the most common was a call for clear, accessible and detailed guidance about the new duties. This could cover: how procedures should be implemented; how compliance should be monitored; and how to forecast and budget for a new model of working. Some noted the need to update the Code of Guidance to reflect any changes to statutory duties. A few called for the sharing of best practice and Crisis suggested a role for COSLA in supporting local authorities.

Personal Housing Plans

These questions explored how an individual's housing support needs could be assessed, and the potential role for Personal Housing Plans (PHP) in maximising choice and control.

Q67. How can we best ensure that an applicant's views are addressed in a statutory assessment to prevent homelessness?

Q68. Should personal housing plans form part of a statutory assessment for preventing homelessness by local authorities, or just be an option for local authorities to use with an applicant?

The most common theme in response to Q67 was ensuring individuals are asked about their needs, preferences and aspirations, and that these are listened to and explored. Suggestions for achieving this included: adopting a trauma-informed approach recognising the stress of homelessness; providing independent advocacy and support; ensuring ongoing review in case circumstances change; and the need to record the options discussed, an applicant's views on them, and what is agreed. A few mentioned ensuring timely, appropriate and accessible communication, including translators if needed, and incorporating quality assurance e.g. independent peer review. Some highlighted the importance of managing expectations, specifically the need for clear communication about the types of property available.

Just over half (56%) supported using personal housing plans as part of a statutory assessment. The most common reason was that this enables a person-centred approach. Others mentioned: enabling earlier prevention; the benefit of a PHP to people with complex needs; providing clarity for local authorities; and support for adopting a consistent approach which could aid planning, transparency and accountability. Two local authorities called for flexibility to avoid plans becoming a bureaucratic tick-box.

A variety of reasons were given by the 44% who felt PHPs should be an option. Allowing choice was the most common; respondents argued that individuals should have a right to a PHP but should not be forced to have one. A few argued PHPs may not be suitable in all cases, e.g. people making themselves voluntarily homeless. Some argued local authorities should be able to choose the most appropriate support planning tool, with PHPs available as a useful option. A few argued they have existing tools in place and there is limited evidence of a need for, or benefit to, a standardised approach which disregards local context and may not be the best use of limited local authority resources.

Q69. Do you agree with the proposal that a local authority should assess housing support needs, and make provision to meet them, as part of a new prevention of homelessness duty?

Q70. How and at what point should an individual's housing support needs be assessed?

Nine in ten (90%) of those who answered Q69 agreed with the proposal; 44% strongly agreed. Several respondents expressed their support in broad terms, noting that an assessment by a local authority could help to meet people's needs and prevent homelessness. Some local authorities noted they already undertake this work.

The need to adequately resource the proposal was a commonly mentioned concern. Several argued that a local authority should not be solely responsible for assessing housing support needs. Some felt a holistic assessment should be conducted in partnership with health and social care partners. Others noted landlords should be included, reflecting their prevention responsibilities. A few called for third sector representation. Turning Point Scotland suggested that this could be rebranded as 'support to prevent homelessness' or 'independent living support', to represent the expanded idea of what might constitute housing support. A few noted the challenges of assessing the needs of people who are unwilling to engage; an anonymous local authority suggested changing the wording to 'offer to assess' to allow individuals choice and control.

By far the most common response to Q70 was that needs should be assessed as early as possible for example, at initial contact, when a referral is first made, or when an issue first becomes evident. The need for ongoing assessment to address any changes in circumstances was also mentioned by several respondents.

At the earliest point of contact with an ongoing review due to changing circumstances and provision to meet identified support needs. Only when an applicant feels ready to discuss and broach long standing concerns. Having a relationship with their worker enables that assessment to be fuller and achieve better outcomes." - South Ayrshire Council

Only a small number of respondents commented on how housing support needs could be assessed. Key points were that an individual needs to be willing and able to engage and that the person undertaking the assessment has a good relationship with the individual.

Q71. An applicant during the time they are receiving prevention assistance under a new prevention duty from the homelessness system experiences loss of accommodation, or other change of circumstances which make the reasonable steps agreed to be carried out no longer valid. What should the process look like to ensure someone always has access to the right assistance for the circumstances they are in?

Q72. What assistance should be provided to those defined as statutorily homeless but where it may be possible to prevent them from becoming homeless from their current accommodation (while ensuring it meets the definitions of suitable and stable)?

The most common theme in response to Q71 was that a change in circumstances should trigger a reassessment of an applicant's case and an update of any support plan. For this to work well, some noted the need for a flexible process, improved communication between agencies, support to be offered in a timely fashion, an ongoing review process, and ideally an individual having one key contact to liaise with. Cyrenians and an individual argued that applicants should not be penalised in any way if their circumstances changed.

Some expressed a view that existing processes cover this eventuality, and if prevention is no longer possible a homeless application should be made and recorded under HL1. Others supported the PRG's proposal for a single application process. A very small number argued that an applicant should have the right to choose the process they are assessed under. Blue Triangle Housing Association suggested "a "Homes Gateway" which can provide an independent, possibly regulated, triage service for people in insecure housing situations. This can be independent of the local authority housing teams".

"The key is that there should be a single housing options team in a local authority where applicants can move between Prevention and Statutory Homeless as their circumstances dictate. Local authorities should have a single case management system in place so that prevention work and statutory homeless applications can be recorded in one place." - Argyll & Bute Council

Respondents gave a wide range of options for assistance at Q72. Some suggested advocacy and legal advice; money and debt advice including access to Discretionary Housing Payments and local authority prevention funds; and wider housing support and prevention work to enable someone to remain in their property should they wish to. Mediation was also mentioned by some, particularly in relation to those asked to leave their home. Comments about the private rented sector included access to the Tenant Grant Fund, the payment of minor arrears and help negotiating with landlords. Comments around domestic abuse included support for victim/survivors to stay and be safe in their home, with tenancy transfer, and understanding their legal rights.

A few either stated prevention activity should no longer take place, or questioned whether it is appropriate, once a person has been defined as statutorily homeless, and argued the full housing duty and right to permanent accommodation should apply at this point.

Meeting the needs of specific groups

The PRG proposes services should meet the needs of anyone leaving prison, youth detention, the armed forces or hospital in the next six months with no accommodation in place, as well as people experiencing domestic abuse, young people, people with mental health conditions, and those facing homelessness from the private rental sector or as a result of legal proceedings.

Q73. Do you agree with the proposal for meeting the needs of specific groups?

Q74. Is there anything you would add to these proposals that may strengthen legislative changes to prevent homelessness amongst specific groups?

Almost all (96%) agreed with the proposal. There was recognition that these groups are more at risk of homelessness and that the proposal could lead to earlier action and better outcomes. A few felt these groups should have equal access to a full range of housing options but may require ongoing support to help them sustain a tenancy.

"We agree with the proposals for meeting the needs of specific groups. Although homelessness can happen to anyone, it is strongly socially patterned with some groups much more likely to experience homelessness than others. The specific groups set out in the proposals are at increased risk and it is right to have a strong prevention focus targeted on these groups." – Public Health Scotland

While some agreed with the proposed groups, several suggested others including: people on remand; people with physical or learning disabilities; people with problematic substance use; people with multiple disadvantages and undiagnosed trauma; live-in carers; the gypsy/traveller community; veterans; and homeowners at risk of repossession. Crisis and Scottish Refugee Council highlighted the challenges faced by asylum seekers and refugees facing homelessness, with Crisis calling for agencies to co-ordinate their support as set out by the Fair Way Scotland Gateway, and in line with the Scottish Government and COSLA's Anti Destitution Strategy. A few, including Clan Childlaw called for young people leaving care to be included. Crisis suggested local areas should add other groups according to local need. Another organisation noted homelessness services must be able to address intersecting identities. In relation to this specific proposal, Shelter Scotland felt the local authority should have ultimate responsibility to take applications, carry out assessments and secure accommodation. Conversely, four local authorities called for legislation to be clear about other agencies' responsibilities.

"It should be clear that the duty lies not just with the local authority but with all services, landlords and stakeholders to agree protocols so that the message of it being a shared responsibility to prevent homelessness is embedded across all services." – Angus Council

A few respondents stated that these groups will have differing housing and support needs and noted the need to avoid a one-size-fits-all approach. They also called for legislation to acknowledge that the available housing stock may not meet an individual's needs or preferences. Other points for consideration, each mentioned by very small numbers, included: beginning to address risk of homelessness as soon as possible after someone enters an institution; a desire to offer health assessments to those being referred as at risk; Highland Council Housing Services called for Short-Assured Tenancies to be converted into Private Residential Tenancies to eliminate no-fault evictions; and Glasgow HSCP argued that Discretionary Housing Payment criteria should be reviewed to identify opportunities to extend its use to prevent homelessness due to rent arrears. Langstane Housing Association and Ayr Housing Aid Centre both highlighted the importance of accessing furniture, white goods and carpets in sustaining a tenancy. Falkirk Council noted the challenge of assisting someone with legal proceedings if it is the local authority who has instigated the proceedings due to antisocial behaviour.

Questions Q75 and Q76 covered the proposals for preventing homelessness for people experiencing domestic abuse. An analysis of these questions is provided in Chapter 5.

Stability and suitability of accommodation

The PRG wanted to give people at risk of homelessness the same accommodation options as are available to any member of the public and to those who are statutorily homeless. They proposed that the criteria for identifying appropriate housing options shifts to focus on the stability and suitability of the accommodation, with suitable safeguards. In this context, stable accommodation must be expected to be available for a minimum of 12 months, and should be defined to include to: A Scottish secure tenancy (SST) or short Scottish secure tenancy (SSST); Owner occupation (e.g. LIFT scheme – Low Cost Initiative for First Time Buyers); Private Residential Tenancy (PRT) where there is an expectation that the accommodation will be available for at least 12 months; or other forms of accommodation, e.g. with a parent or a friend, where the owner/landlord has provided in writing their intention that the accommodation will be available for at least 12 months, and the local authority is satisfied with this reassurance. PRG defined suitable housing as those that meet the needs of the household, including criteria such as affordability, interests of any children, location (including proximity to perpetrator/victim where abuse is a factor), access to services, needs relating to health, and cultural preferences.

Q77. Do you agree with the criteria proposed for the stability of housing outcomes?

Clear differences in opinion were evident in responses to the proposed criteria for the stability of housing outcomes set out in the consultation paper; some viewed it as increasing housing options, while others saw it as reducing existing housing rights.

Three quarters (75%) of those who answered Q77 agreed with the proposal; 23% strongly agreed. Supporters welcomed changes which afford those at risk of homelessness or those experiencing homelessness more choice and autonomy over their accommodation options. A few emphasised the importance of applicants being educated on their rights and presented with the full range of options available before making a decision.

However, several respondents, including third sector advocacy groups such as Cyrenians, Shelter Scotland, Everyone Home Collective and Scottish Women's Aid, raised concerns. While recognising the positive intentions behind the proposal, they expressed concern that any changes to existing legislation could inadvertently dilute or undermine the existing statutory right to permanent housing by replacing it with a duty to secure 'stable' accommodation, which would only be guaranteed for a minimum of 12 months. Several of these organisations requested the Scottish Government examine this aspect of the proposals in depth before drafting legislation.

"[We] welcome this proposed broadening of the ways in which councils can discharge homelessness responsibilities… Local authorities need to have an appropriate degree of flexibility to come to particular judgements on what may be suitable for specific households. There are areas, not least Glasgow, where any further increase in the number of homeless households will take housing associations to breaking point, and in these situations the proportionate use of alternatives needs to be available." - Glasgow and West of Scotland Forum of Housing Associations

"Currently, those who are defined as unintentionally statutorily homeless are entitled to one offer of permanent accommodation… This right includes a strong emphasis on security of tenure: housing is not adequate if its occupants do not have a degree of tenure security which guarantees legal protection against forced evictions, harassment and other threats. The proposed changes are in direct conflict with realising the UN right to adequate housing." - Shelter Scotland

Some questioned how local authorities can gain assurance that accommodation will be available for a 12 month period. They noted that circumstances can change at short notice leading to accommodation becoming untenable, e.g. through family breakdown, minor rule breaking resulting in eviction from supported housing, or a landlord needing to sell their property. Some felt it was unrealistic to expect the changes to result in more choice due to a shortage of housing stock. A few disagreed with a discharge of duty without permanent accommodation being secured, fearing this could lead to repeat homelessness.

Q78. Do you agree that 12 months is an appropriate minimum expected period for accommodation to be available (regardless of the type of tenure) for people who are threatened with homelessness or have become homeless?

Four fifths (79%) of those who answered Q78 agreed that 12 months is an appropriate timeframe; 21% strongly agreed. Supporters described 12 months as reasonable and sufficient, noting that a minimum of 12 months offers stability and security.

However, others disagreed and argued that 12 months is not enough time to establish stability or fully settle into and establish roots in a community. Some raised concerns about what happens when the 12 months comes to an end, insisting that support should be provided at this stage to reduce the risk of repeat homelessness. Comhairle nan Eilean Siar suggested the minimum period should be two years; A Way Home Scotland suggested 3-5 years.

Q79. Please say how you see this working in each of the following scenarios:

A private tenancy

Some respondents reiterated concerns about landlord assurances that a property would be available for a minimum of 12 months. A few highlighted that the private rental sector is not best suited to all individuals facing or experiencing homelessness, especially those who may have complex needs which would be unmet in privately rented accommodation. A few felt there was a risk that landlords could view the agreement as a 12 month fixed term contract, and a small number were concerned that the commitment required from landlords could dissuade them from letting to tenants coming from a housing assistance process. However, some respondents were satisfied with the proposal in the context of a private tenancy, as long as a fair and robust tenancy agreement was in place.

Accommodation with an occupancy agreement^[17]

A common theme was concerns that occupancy agreements offer no security of tenure beyond the right to a minimum period of notice, and more questions were asked regarding how local authorities would conclude that they are satisfied with assurances of a 12 month minimum tenure. A few felt that occupancy agreements are not suitable for long-term placements and did not view them as a form of 'stable' accommodation. However, some felt that this could work if a lease is agreed in writing and individuals have access to support throughout their tenure.

People returning to the family home or to live with another relative

Some respondents expressed concerns about the lack of legal protections for those who return to the family home or to live with another relative. This option was seen as particularly unstable by some, who commented that while mediation can take place and written assurances may be given, family relationships can still deteriorate, impacting on the viability of accommodation. Some worried this may result in individuals returning to volatile and untenable living situations which are not safe and are detrimental to wellbeing.

However, some respondents felt that this scenario could work in practice if applicants are given access to ongoing mediation services. Crisis welcomed the requirement for local authorities to secure an expectation that this type of accommodation will be available for a minimum of 12 months, noting that this creates an appropriate test for the stability of such an arrangement which does not exist in current procedures.

Q80. Are these the right grounds to consider in deciding on the suitability of housing outcomes? Are there any other grounds that should be considered?

The PRG proposed that suitability of accommodation will cover affordability, needs relating to health and disability, the best interests of any children in the household, location and access to relevant services, employment, education and social networks. Respondents were largely supportive of considering these factors when deciding on the suitability of housing outcomes with 83% of those who responded to Q80 answering 'Yes'. Supporters felt the proposals cover a household's basic needs, and if accommodation can be found which meets these criteria, it is more likely the tenancy will be sustained. A few, including Shelter Scotland, were particularly supportive of the inclusion of affordability grounds, however there were calls for a clear definition of affordability to be set out. There were a few suggestions for additional grounds to consider when deciding on the suitability of accommodation, including: health and safety requirements; not being overcrowded and having sufficient space/bedrooms; and access to places of worship.

Q81. Do you think the criteria proposed for both stability and suitability of housing outcomes would allow people a wider range of housing options to either prevent homelessness or rehouse someone who has become homeless, and that could lead to better outcomes for the applicant?

Two thirds (67%) of those answering Q81 answered 'Yes'. Those who agreed felt that the proposed criteria for stability and suitability of housing outcomes will afford applicants a wider choice, allowing individuals' circumstances and requirements to be considered and accommodated, which should help with tenancy sustainability.

Some agreed in principle but questioned how realistic the proposals are; they argued that securing accommodation which meets stability and suitability criteria across all of the grounds may be extremely difficult for local authorities, due to both high demand and short supply of housing stock, particularly in rural areas. However, some others criticised the proposals, viewing them as a temporary fix which erode the right to permanent housing.

Safeguards for non-standard accommodation options

The PRG proposal provides guidelines and safeguards for people discharged into any 'non-standard' accommodation, i.e. not social or private tenancy and not owner-occupied accommodation, including appropriate facilities for settled living such as 24-hour access.

Q82. When taken with the general criteria for suitability and stability, do these additional safeguards provide the right safeguards to ensure these accommodation types (non-standard) are always suitable and stable? Are there any additional safeguards that could be put in place?

The majority of those who answered Q82 (70%) felt the proposed safeguards are appropriate and sufficient, with supporters noting the safeguards ensure certain standards are met and offer enhanced protections for households placed within non-standard accommodation. However, questions were raised about who would be responsible for assessing and enforcing the safeguards, and how this would be resourced. A few felt that safeguards about accessibility and vulnerability should be added, and City of Edinburgh Council requested clarity about the safeguard of 'adequate toilet and washing facilities'.

Views on gaining applicant's written consent to be discharged into non-standard accommodation were mixed. Some agreed with applicants' right to veto and felt that if enforced, it should not affect their homelessness status or result in them being found intentionally homeless. Others felt applicants should not be able to veto accommodation if it is deemed suitable, stable and affordable and there are no other alternatives available.

Recommendations for enforcing people's rights

The PRG provided recommendations on people's rights including the right to review, the right to appeal, regulation, and the right to strategic housing needs assessments.

Q83. Do you think any additional measures are needed to ensure a right to review by the local authority within the proposed legislative measures to prevent homelessness?

Three fifths (62%) of those answering said no additional measures were needed to ensure a right to review. Open comments were split between those noting general support for a right to review, support for the proposed list of measures, and those stating that no additional measures are needed. Four organisations felt that sufficiently robust review mechanisms are already in place, which could be supplemented by these proposals.

"The recommendations for enforcing people's rights are a critical part of the package of proposals. The right to review is a vital first step in challenging where decisions have been made wrongly or inappropriately, where the law has not been followed, and where people have not received the assistance they require." - Crisis

While 38% felt other measures were needed, only a small number of respondents gave suggestions: Shelter Scotland called for a right to review decision on whether an applicant is eligible for homeless assistance; South Lanarkshire Council thought whether an individual is tenancy ready should be considered as a right to review; and an anonymous third sector organisation called for local authorities to be obliged to give clear information about their decisions and ensure people get appropriate advice and support when requesting a review. Other comments included a few calls for the measures to be monitored to ensure they remain relevant, and Falkirk Council called for a similar right to review for homeless applications as well as under the prevention duties. Another noted that because the review process is embedded in local authorities it would need to be amended to take account of other services, and learnings from reviews would need to be shared with other services. Blue Triangle Housing Association suggested an independent oversight of how the right to review is being implemented.

Q84. What do you think are the key considerations in any appeal process linked to new legislative measures to prevent homelessness as outlined?

Respondents outlined a range of considerations for an appeals process. Most common were views on how an efficient system should operate. These included: clarity over the permitted grounds for an appeal, the range of possible outcomes and who oversees the appeals process; an accessible process and clear, regular communication, where proceedings are easy to understand for individuals who are already facing challenging circumstances; transparent reporting of appeals and outcomes; and quick decision making. A few local authorities argued an appeal should only be after a review which they responded to and should only relate to whether the legislation has been adhered to. Crisis noted that while the expected process would be a review followed by an appeal, a local authority's refusal to provide a review should not be a barrier to an appeal. North Lanarkshire Council questioned whether applicants can apply directly to the Housing and Property Chamber. A few noted the proposals are preferrable to a judicial review.

Some expressed concern about the workload and resource implications for local authorities and the First Tier Tribunal of increased reviews and appeals, which also has implications for the speed of decisions. A few questioned if the proposals could introduce a disproportionate level of bureaucracy. Some highlighted the need to ensure appellants can access appropriate independent support and advocacy. A very small number supported the right to appeal on points of law or where a decision is based on incorrect or incomplete information but questioned whether the First Tier Tribunal should judge on whether a housing decision is reasonable when the statutory duties sit with a local authority.

Q85. Do you have anything to add to the proposal on the role of the Scottish Housing Regulator (SHR) in relation to proposals for new legislative duties to prevent homelessness?

Q86. What implications do you think these proposals have for other regulatory bodies?

In response to Q85, some respondents noted their general support for the proposal, or noted they had nothing to add. Some supported the proposal as it could allow for better oversight and accountability of local authorities, improve service delivery and prevention work, and ensure the legislation is implemented correctly. There was also support for an approach which incorporates the views of those with lived experience, which could help shape ongoing delivery and a human rights-based approach.

Another common theme was questions around how the data would be gathered and monitored. Specifically, a few queried how the Scottish Housing Regulator would collect data from, or about experiences with, any other public bodies involved in delivering prevention duties. There were calls to ensure the data is meaningful, useful and reflects the housing market and stock availability in each local authority, and for thought to be given to how data collection could align with existing systems. Another theme, mentioned by Crisis, CIH Scotland, Scottish Women's Aid and others, was for the SHR to include more information about the performance of social landlords in homelessness prevention.

Other calls included for: additional resources for the SHR; the existing regulatory framework to be used to reflect the revised legislative framework; the SHR to consider reporting on the private rental sector and repossessions by lenders; and clarification about whether dual tracking should apply to all applicants. An anonymous local authority felt additional regulation could stifle local authorities' ability to deliver innovative approaches.

Only a small number of open comments were given at Q86. The most common theme was the need for adequate monitoring and reporting of performance against the duties by regulatory bodies, potentially by amending monitoring frameworks. An anonymous local authority strongly advocated for new legislation to be regulated to the same degree as other duties; they feared that if there is not consistent regulation then implementation of the duties would fall exclusively to statutory homeless bodies. They also called for a clear and transparent approach to addressing areas of weakness where these are identified.

Another theme was that the cross-cutting nature of the proposals means their regulation needs to be considered and agreed between regulators. Suggestions for which bodies would need to work together included: the Scottish Housing Regulator; Care Inspectorate, the Scottish Social Services Council; Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Prisons; Scottish Police Authority; Healthcare Improvement Scotland; the General Medical Council; and Royal College of Nursing. Blue Triangle Housing Association questioned if a failure to 'ask and act' becomes a reportable incident to bodies such as OSCR (Office of the Scottish Charity Regulator).

Q87. Do you agree that there should be a general assessment of housing support needs of persons (separate to assessments for individuals) in an area as part of the Local Housing Strategy (LHS)?

Nine in ten (89%) supported a general assessment of housing support needs as part of the LHS; 26% strongly agreed. The most common theme was support for this approach, with many noting they already do this. Two local authorities felt this should be part of the Housing Need and Demand Assessment which precedes the LHS; one noted HL1 and PREVENT1 data will need to be reliable and robust to enable a credible assessment, and another suggested this should be part of the Housing Contribution Statements.

Another common theme was that an assessment helps local authorities to plan and target resources and housing stock appropriately, identify specific local issues, and may contribute to policy development more widely. Some respondents agreed with the proposal but suggested that it should be a joint review between local authorities and health and social care due to the latter's greater understanding of support needs and their role in commissioning the support services. A few requested clarity on what a general assessment would involve, what health needs would be assessed, and how this could be recorded consistently across Scotland.

"On balance we believe that it may be beneficial to encompass an assessment of housing support needs at a population level. However, this should be undertaken in conjunction with Health and Social Care Partnerships who will already understand the health and social care needs of their population that will provide strong indications as to the level of need within an authorities' area." - Glasgow HSCP