Rent arrears management practices in the housing association sector

cases for a period and “nobody is prepared to take
the initiative”, so arrears accrue on the property .
However, pursuing abandoned tenants through
Ground 8 would be an easier, more efficient and
effective solution and one is not evicting anyone as
such . Another type of case where it might be used
was in relation to sub-letting, where it was “known”|
that the property was sub-let but that “fact” could
not be proved . “Local laws” separate out the two
teams of ROs . One RM had previous experience of
a DJ (wrongly) staying a possession order under
Ground 8 twice where arrears were £8,000 . This
case infiltrated this team’s decision-making as to the
Ground for possession – why use Ground 8 when
the outcome will be the same as Grounds 10 and
11 . The other RM had experience of obtaining an
order under Ground 8, but subsequently found that
there were other reasons for the rent arrears, and
had considerable difficulty in withdrawing the order .
HA F had not used Grounds 8 and 11 hitherto,
but officers were considering recommending its
adoption as a policy to enable them, like other top
performing HAs, to use it . Officers recognised that
its use was criticised and that some regarded it as
inconsistent with the Government’s wider approach
on homelessness . Officer attitudes towards its use
were largely, although not completely, favourable .
Three particular reasons were cited in favour of its
104
use: deterrence (“it’s like wielding a big knife, we’d
like to have it here as a deterrent”; “if we could have
Ground 8 in our arsenal, it would make life a lot
easier”); disciplining recalcitrant tenants, especially
those where there had already been a large number
of court hearings; and it was believed that Ground 8
would enable the organisation to cut its rent arrears
and legal costs .
What was particularly notable was that all case
study HAs which used Ground 8 felt that they
could do without it (even HA C) . Some participants
said that it might lead to larger accumulated debts,
and might have a “bit of an impact” (HA A), “not
dramatic” (HA B), but its withdrawal would not cause
the business model to decline (“we would get by
without it”: HA C) . In HA E, whilst acknowledging its
withdrawal would not affect the business, the AD
made an impassioned plea for its limited retention
on the basis that government controlled the rents
it could charge and the organisation was controlled
by outside forces effectively . On this basis, use of
Ground 8 was one decision that the organisation
could make for itself .