Rent arrears management practices in the housing association sector

a) Categories of tenant at risk
Research participants were asked about the
incidence of, and tenant attitudes to, rent arrears .
In particular, we were interested in seeing if certain
households were regarded as more at risk of
rent arrears than others and whether different
approaches had been developed to deal with
those instances .
A particularly common observation from participants
was that certain categories of persons were
most at risk of rent arrears, although it was
regularly stressed that each case had different
characteristics . Participants regularly discussed
young people across the case studies, partly
because they were felt to be disproportionately
amongst those with arrears . HA A’s interrogation
of the eviction statistics demonstrated that the
majority of evicted tenants were single persons or
childless households . As regards the young, their
risk factor was enhanced when the property they
were offered was their first tenancy . It was said by
one participant that “young people under about 40
tend to have a very blasé approach to arrears . They
have other debts and don’t see arrears as anything
to be frightened of” (HA A/LAM); or they could
always “go back to Mum” in the event of an eviction
(HA D/RO); they were said to treat the property as
a “house” but not a “home”, in contrast with families
90
and older tenants . Indeed, the latter group were said
to be least at risk – except, oddly it was believed, in
HA E’s sheltered housing – because there was a
“stigma” attached to rent arrears for these persons .
Another category of household mentioned by most
participants was the “vulnerable”, which was said to
include those with mental health problems, the longterm
sick and the illiterate (who would be unable to
appreciate from correspondence the problem) .
Those who “won’t pay” were generally regarded as
a small group of defaulting tenants, which had a
disproportionate effect . A typical example of this
type of tenant was those who took “interest free
loans” by regularly failing to pay rent until they
reached the door of the court .
By far the most significant risk factor, though,
concerned households in receipt of HB . The
issues here concerned delays in payment of
claims; suspensions after a review or home visit;
overpayments; non-dependent deductions; the
impact of part-time working; and intermittent
employment .
The first issue – delays – were caused, on the
tenant side, by not providing all the relevant details
and, on the local authority side, by considerable
differences in performance (from payment within