Rent arrears management practices in the housing association sector

3.3 The use of Ground 8
Whereas answers to the previous issues
generated relatively even responses, participants’
opinions were generally sharply divided on the
appropriateness of the use and retention of Ground
8 by HAs . Some presented arguments for its use
and retention; others presented arguments in favour
of its repeal for the HA sector . It may well be that
this division was made sharper by the existence
of the national working group, set up to consider
its use in the context of the Parliamentary debates
concerning the amendments to the Housing and
Regeneration Bill . Seven stakeholder participants
represented organisations, which are members
of that group .
It became clear that each argument has a counterargument,
although there is also much conjecture
(particularly about lenders’ positions), which is
used to support individual participants’ contentions .
It should also be noted that the interviews were
conducted at a time of considerable uncertainty
in the banking sector . Each side has its own
apocryphal stories, which are then traded . In what
follows, six arguments in favour of the withdrawal of
Ground 8 are identified and presented, followed by
the counter-arguments .
a. Use of Ground 8 is inimical to the nature of
social housing, particularly in its wider roles (eg
concerning unemployment) . It is important that
a neutral arbiter is involved in decision-making
over evictions, rather than being a passive
observer . The use of this power can be arbitrary,
both in terms of drawing an arbitrary line at
which it can be used, and in terms of decisionmaking
within an organisation where different
officers may make different use of it . Ground 8
actions allow no scope for negotiations, even
where there might be valid reasons for nonpayment
of rent . Shelter reported involvement
in cases where Ground 8 had been invoked
despite HB complications and where the
association had not engaged with the authority .
– Ground 8 provides certainty to housing
associations because of its mandatory nature .
If HAs pursue a possession claim on this ground,
it should follow that a possession order will
be made . It offers a “better, cleaner, more
effective solution” .
b. The withdrawal of Ground 8 would not, in itself,
present a cause for concern among lenders
because they focus on arrears performance
and are not specifically concerned about
management procedures . Lenders look to
regulatory assessments, including star ratings
Rent arrears management practices in the housing association sector 47