Rent arrears management practices in the housing association sector

Annex 1
Recent eviction cases: case file
review analysis
Methodology
Each of the six case study HAs was asked to
collect and submit brief statistical information in
relation to a cohort of recent eviction cases . As
regards sample selection, case study contacts were
requested to include the most recent ten cases
involving properties repossessed under Ground 8,
along with a similar number of evictions secured
under Grounds 10 or 11 . Referring to the relevant
case files, case study landlord staff completed
pro-formas, which were sent to the research team
for data entry and analysis (a blank pro-forma is
included at Annex 5) .
In all, 105 completed pro-formas were received
for inclusion in the analysis, with these being split
almost evenly between Ground 8 cases (52) and
Ground 10/11 cases (53) . Because one case study
landlord had not made any recent use of Ground 8,
its pro-formas all related to Ground 10/11 cases .
Other than this, the samples of both types of
case were distributed fairly evenly across the case
study landlords .
114
Demographic and economic
characteristics
Single adults accounted for almost two thirds of all
cases in the sample (see Table A1 .1) . Although age
data was not collected, it seems likely that the vast
majority of these persons will have been people
of working age because, in general, retired people
are not subject to the changes in employment
and family circumstances which are often the
cause of rent arrears . Cases taken on Ground 8
were somewhat more likely to be single people or
childless couples and less likely to be families .
Just over half of the cases included in the analysis
involved households where one or more family
members were in employment (see Table A1 .2) .
This should be seen within the context of a sectorwide
figure from the Survey of English Housing
2007 showing that only 38% of all households in
the social rented sector contained persons in work .
The employment rates for the two sub-groups of
evicted households included in our study (Ground 8
vs . Ground 10/11) were similar .