Rent arrears management practices in the housing association sector

More documents

Recommendations

Info

on agreements” [LAM interviewee] . One LAM interviewee estimated that Ground 8 was cited in around one case in every six entered in court . Under Group policy, staff are advised that the power should not be used where there are “ongoing investigations with HB departments regarding a new or backdated claim” . In such cases, Ground 8 should be used in combination with Ground 10, with a decision on which Ground to invoke made at Court . If, at any time ahead of the hearing, the tenant makes what is seen as an attractive offer to pay off part of the arrears, the case may be proceeded with on Grounḍ10 . In HA B, Ground 8 was introduced as a tool to deal with high levels of arrears, although, due to commitments in certain tenancy agreements, it could not be used against certain tenants . It is used in “exceptional circumstances”, according to IOs, which is when the tenant has no intention to pay . A manager said that it would be used where there was a combination of factors such as level of arrears, payment history, contact history, and number of times the tenant was previously in court . Ground 8 would not be engaged where the tenant was genuinely willing to pay their rent arrears . Unlike other case study HAs, IOs said that it might be used with vulnerable tenants who rejected support . This is regarded by a manager as an effective “lever” to 102 make tenants pay . ROs had different views about its use – one suggested that it was a “wake up call” for some tenants, others that it was useful to obtain a possession order but not to make occupiers serious about paying rent arrears . IOs also stressed that just because they obtained a possession order on Ground 8 did not mean that they had to follow it through to eviction . HA C introduced the use of Ground 8 about eight years ago in response to frustration at having a warrant suspended seven or eight times . It is used only where there is no alternative and only after a vulnerability assessment has been made; and, if the tenancy can be sustained in any way, then it would not be used . It is not used where there are HB issues . The question was whether the tenant had engaged with the organisation or not . It can only be used in court with the approval of a team manager . In HA D, it is used as a last resort, “when we’ve done everything, and they still break their arrangements, that’s when we’d use it” (manager) . It was the “won’t pays” -someone with whom contact cannot be made or where trust has been breached (for instance through breaking repayment arrangements) - who were identified as candidates for its use . Past experience of failed Grounds 10 or 11 applications in “interest-free loan” cases can also lead to its
use – in these cases, it is viewed as a “get out of jail card” . It is not used with tenants identified as vulnerable . It was implicitly described as a tenancysustaining tool . For instance, its threatened use could trigger action from tenants and therefore secure the tenancy rather than terminate it – it is “a tool to focus people’s minds” (RO) . The Ground actually to be used is decided on the day of the court hearing, but Grounds 8, 10 & 11 are always included in court applications to allow flexibility on the day . Even where an order is made on Ground 8, it does not necessarily entail eviction if the tenant can retrieve the situation . Participants clearly saw Ground 8 as valuable: “it is a useful tool, it is getting more and more difficult to recover rent arrears” (RO); and showed some anxiety at the thought of it not being available: “I would hate for it to be removed” (manager); “I would cry [if G8 were removed]” (RO) . Despite those views, participants also displayed a desire to acknowledge its potential pitfalls and awareness of the controversy that surrounded it . One manager spoke of the need for “checks and balances” and the need for its use to be perceived as fair by “the man on the Clapham omnibus”, while the other stressed that it was “used but not abused” . In HA E, Ground 8 had clearly been an important tool to the organisation in the recent past . As a general rule, before it can be used, an officer must present a supporting case to the Assistant Director . Its use had been linked with the management crisis over rent arrears; in fact, as an RM put it, “it would not have done us well to evict on Ground 8 because it would highlight [internally] poor management” . In 2008-09, an RM said that it had been used for two evictions . The general view among participants now appears to be that there is a disincentive to use Ground 8 because the report requires a lot of additional information . In any event, it was not the favoured solution of any participant: “[I don’t] see the point of it . If I’ve done my work properly, I’ll get my order” (RO); “I can’t see a case where we’d need to serve a Ground 8 notice … and I hope there would never be a need” because “everything is manageable if we do it right from the beginning” (RM) . Another said that the average mindset of officers is that Ground 8 is the “very, very last resort” because there is no going back . The current AD said that it was used in those cases where there had been persistent arrears and tenants had paid the balance off irregularly, sometimes just before court hearings (the “interest free loan” scenario) . It appeared that it might also be used in abandonment cases for an organisational reason – “it is the easiest option for that case” . Estate managers pursue abandonment cases via the legal team . It was felt that the legal team “sat on” these Rent arrears management practices in the housing association sector 103
Page 1 and 2:
Rent arrears management practices i
Page 3 and 4:
Contents Executive summary . . . .
Page 5 and 6:
Executive summary Introduction This
Page 7 and 8:
Key underlying factors were said to
Page 9 and 10:
could, in part, reflect the growing
Page 11 and 12:
overpayments and suspensions were p
Page 13 and 14:
Chapter 1 Introduction 1.1 Backgrou
Page 15 and 16:
arrears management and related aspe
Page 17 and 18:
“… there may occasionally be ci
Page 19 and 20:
under Article 8 of the Convention,
Page 21 and 22:
y HAs . 37 The Circular informed as
Page 23 and 24:
Pre-action protocol for possession
Page 25 and 26:
The purpose of these interviews was
Page 27 and 28:
Table 1.1 - Case Study HAs Organisa
Page 29 and 30:
Chapter 2 Rent arrears management p
Page 31 and 32:
Pawson et al’s study found that 9
Page 33 and 34:
2.3 Rent arrears management practic
Page 35 and 36:
this with any certainty . 69 Howeve
Page 37 and 38:
authority can also lead to a lack o
Page 39 and 40:
2.5 The use of Ground 8 Although th
Page 41 and 42:
In the Hunter et al study, 97 which
Page 43 and 44:
some comment on the effect of the P
Page 45 and 46:
• Ground 8 provided certainty to
Page 47 and 48:
There was a difference of opinion a
Page 49 and 50:
3.3 The use of Ground 8 Whereas ans
Page 51 and 52:
do so early enough, or at all . Cla
Page 53 and 54: Chapter 4 Rent collection and arrea
Page 55 and 56: 4.3 Housing Benefit service perform
Page 57 and 58: Table 4.3 - Housing association evi
Page 59 and 60: As shown in Figure 4 .1, CORE data
Page 61 and 62: were collected for landlords with l
Page 63 and 64: Most associations report initiating
Page 65 and 66: 5.2 Organisation of rent arrears ma
Page 67 and 68: Table 5.2 - Primary structure of ar
Page 69 and 70: Table 5.3 - Recent changes in organ
Page 71 and 72: Table 5.6 - Staff training provisio
Page 73 and 74: Within the transfer landlord cohort
Page 75 and 76: • Where arrears were accrued befo
Page 77 and 78: Table 5.9 - Estimated percentage of
Page 79 and 80: elatively high response rate achiev
Page 81 and 82: The survey sought to collect statis
Page 83 and 84: Ground 8 actions typically accounte
Page 85 and 86: How is the scale of Ground 8 use ch
Page 87 and 88: already routinely exercising the ac
Page 89 and 90: Chapter 6 Case study evidence Chapt
Page 91 and 92: Annex 2 outlines our method, includ
Page 93 and 94: a couple of weeks to three months)
Page 95 and 96: to officers and policies . Officers
Page 97 and 98: RM put it, “caused uproar from te
Page 99 and 100: preferred form of the organisation
Page 101 and 102: tenant contacts are now recorded on
Page 103: as a result, would make an order un
Page 107 and 108: g) The tenant perspective In each c
Page 109 and 110: Ground 8 was generally to scrutinis
Page 111 and 112: Ground 8 was said to be used as a
Page 113 and 114: The key stakeholders regarded the P
Page 115 and 116: ule it would not be used where HB w
Page 117 and 118: Table A1.1 - Evicted households by
Page 119 and 120: uncontactable as a result) . Where
Page 121 and 122: Just under half of all cases in the
Page 123 and 124: Annex 2 Case study HA selection Our
Page 125 and 126: Annex 3 Profile of case study housi
Page 127 and 128: However, after a review across its
Page 129 and 130: as developing joint working with th
Page 131 and 132: Annex 4 Case study topic guides HA
Page 133 and 134: 19. What has been your recent exper
Page 135 and 136: 12. How are your tenants helped wit
Page 137 and 138: 9. If RSLs rely on Ground 8, what i
Page 139 and 140: 4 Tenant employment circumstances (
Page 141 and 142: 10 Value (£) of arrears at defined
Page 143 and 144: Our offices Maple House 149 Tottenh
show all

Rent arrears management practices in the housing association sector

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?