The results are in!

Following an internal review of The Association’s Allocation Policy, a consultation document was prepared to gather the views and opinions of a cross-section of the Shetland community. In line with The Scottish Government’s ‘Social Housing Allocations in Scotland; A Practice Guide February 2019’, the following groups were directly approached;

• HHA Tenant Focus Group members
• SIC Housing Service
• Who Cares Scotland – advocates for Looked After Children
• All Community Councils

In addition to this, the consultation was advertised on The Association’s website and social media pages. The consultation was open from Monday 15^th March 2021, running through until Friday 9^th April 2021.

Respondents were asked to clarify their status into the following categories;

• Hjaltland Housing Association tenant (10 responses)
• Shetland Islands Council tenant (5 responses)
• Housing applicant (9 responses)
• Interested party/member of the community (12 responses)
• Service provider (2 responses)
• Community Council Member (10 responses)
• Other (2 responses)

50 responses received in total

Question One - Size of property

Current policy; Single applicants and couples are only considered for one-bedroom properties. In the areas of Lerwick, Scalloway and Tingwall, recent developments have increased the number of one bedroom units, presenting opportunities for single applicants to receive a tenancy with The Association. This is not the case in more rural areas, where properties are generally of a larger size. For example, at the moment The Association cannot cater for a single person or couple wishing to be re-housed in any South area – Cunningsburgh, Sandwick, Boddam or Virkie. There is a similar picture in Aith, Burra, Eshaness, North Roe, Sandness, Sullom, Unst, Walls, Weidsdale and Yell.

Proposal - Amendment to the Allocation policy to allow single applicants and couples to be considered for 3-person properties in all areas except Lerwick, Scalloway and Tingwall. Considerations; single applicants and couples offered larger accommodation will need to consider the cost of heating a larger property and consider possible future implications of Welfare Reform (under-occupation/(Bedroom tax).

Verbatim comments

• If people are waiting for housing and there are options available to them then this should take precedence
• On the basis that overall housing need (for either 2 or 3 person households) is weighed up and factored in to property allocation/award
• Single people and couples should have equal opportunity to live in the community where they belong or aspire to live
• Single applicants applying for a 3 bedroom should have kids to justify getting the size of house
• Agree for couples but not single persons
• There was also some discussion about people having to keep moving as the size of their family increased. For our membership who often may be moved many times during childhood it can be particularly traumatic
• It is important especially in these covid times, that people have sufficient space to be there 24/7
• If it helps to avoid the drift to the centre, then it has to be a good thing
• I support the principle of offering units to those that ‘best fit’

Do you agree with the proposal?

Yes – 88%

No – 12%

Question Two – Incoming Workers

Current policy; incoming workers to Shetland are awarded maximum Social Needs points of 25. This is regardless of their housing need or the job they have secured, and is designed to support adding to the working-age population of Shetland. At present, the points awarded are equivalent to someone threatened with imminent homelessness, or someone living in very over-crowded conditions.

Proposal –Reduce the level of priority from 25 to 10. The principle of attracting incoming workers is important, but should not be weighted equally to applicants with significant housing need.

Verbatim comments

• Decision should be made on who needs the housing the most
• Incoming workers have job security/offer. Those facing eviction or over-crowding may not, and can be considered as living in housing poverty. Again, I think overall housing need must be weighed up and factored in.
• There is no point in prioritising an incoming resident if the net result is that existing residents end up leaving because they are continually passed over for a home.
• Though I do see the point of trying to attract incoming workers to Shetland economy, the needs of those in immediate help should always be addressed first
• When I came to Shetland I found housing very difficult to obtain and it is a big enough step without facing a housing crisis – housing could be provided on a temporary basis – max 2 years
• What effect would this have on those workers? Is it likely they’d have to give up the job as they couldn’t find accommodation? Would this significantly affect recruitment in Shetland?

Do you agree with the proposal?

Yes – 96%

No – 4%

Question Three – Emergency Response Workers

Current Policy; Emergency response workers who are required to live within a certain proximity to their service are awarded 25 Social Needs points. The Allocation Policy states ‘Applicants already living in the area will not be eligible for these points’.

Proposal – Allow Emergency Workers currently residing in the area to be awarded these points to ensure continuation of service provision and retention of essential staff. Emergency response workers would include Fire Service, RNLI, Coastguard, on call hospital staff, ambulance, or ferry workers required to live within a certain area.

Verbatim comments

• Why is this needed if already in the area?
• Completely agree
• But only if they already live in the area in a property that is not their own tenancy eg living in a shared home or with parents
• Emergency services workers should be allocated the maximum amount of social poins regardless of current location. This is imperatively important to keep ES works close to their place of duty.
• Very important to maintain this
• This existing policy helps those who need the accommodation for their job to get it. If they already live in the area, then their need is not as great.

Do you agree with the proposal?

Yes – 90%

No – 10%

Question Four – Domestic Abuse within the household

Current Policy; Applicants at risk of Domestic Abuse are currently awarded 20 Social Needs points when they still reside with an ex-partner and are applying to move away from their abusive partner. Hjaltland Housing is a member of the Shetland Domestic Abuse Partnership and recently revised the Domestic Abuse Policy to enhance the support available to victims/survivors of Domestic Abuse.

Proposal – Increase points for victims/survivors of domestic abuse to the maximum award of 25 points. In light of serious risk to an applicant, and other household members, victims/survivors of Domestic Abuse should be supported through our Allocation Policy.

Verbatim comments

• I agree with the max points award. Further to this, I question why it is the abused rather than the abuser who needs to move out of the family home. Likely a wider discussion here
• How will you assess the evidence to award under this criteria?
• The group strongly agreed with this proposal. They also think there needs to be emergency accommodation for women (and men) who need to flee domestic abuse as they might need to leave immediately.
• With the increase in numbers of domestic abuse in the past year, this must be a priority as the mental health of those suffering this is so much more increased due to the feeling of isolation.
• Essential – can they get even more points – they need to be priority
• Absolutely this should be done – great idea

Do you agree with the proposal?

Yes – 100%

No – 0%

Question Five – Domestic Abuse/Sexual Assault within locale

Current Policy; Applicants who do not reside with an ex-partner, but live in the same locale remain at risk. At present, they would be awarded 10 Social Needs Points.

Proposal – increase points where an applicant is applying to move from an area due to risk from an ex-partner, or where an applicant is moving due to a serious sexual assault that occurred in the area where they live – 20 points.

Verbatim comments

• Agree although helps but not the solution
• Whilst I do agree, I have not seen the full points allocation/award/scale and therefore unable to fully appreciate to change in points and impact on housing allocation
• Crucial change needed
• This is an issue for the Police if the person is still at risk from an ex-partner despite not living with them
• Difficult to manage in small communities
• The group agreed with this but thought that the person who commits the abuse should be moved rather than the person who is the survivor
• Again, I do make this a priority on my list. Just because they are not in the same house, the feeling of a threat is there. Again, increasing due to the fact that they may feel trapped due to Covid regulations.
• Essential – thank you for doing this

Do you agree with the proposal?

Yes – 92%

No – 8%

Question Six – Racial harassment/antisocial behaviour

Current Policy; Applicants may be applying to move due to racial harassment or targeted ASB. This can have a significant impact on a household, and whilst support will be provided, that may not be enough to alleviate concerns. At present, an applicant would be awarded 10 points.

Proposal – increase points for on-going racial harassment or targeted ASB to 15 points, in recognition of the significant detrimental impact this can have on a household.

Verbatim comments

• Again, I agree in additional points awarded, but would strongly suggest that the perpetrator of any racial harassment or anti-social behaviour is dealt with by the police and social services, before a victim of the crime is encouraged/supported to move.
• The person causing the abuse should be moved
• Again this is an issue that the Police should be dealing with
• When someone is living in fear of violence for their local community should they be awarded more than 15 points
• Better to solve the issue than to move it
• Our group felt the increase should be to 20 points. One of the members brought up that this should also include sexual harassment or homophobic harassment
• The people carrying out the harassment or asb should be persecuted to the fullest extent possible

Do you agree with the proposal?

Yes – 92%

No – 8%

Question Seven – Over-crowding points

Current Policy; Over-crowding points are awarded where your current accommodation is not large enough for the number of occupants in the property. This includes occupants who will not be moving as part of the housing application.

Proposal – over-crowding points to be capped to the bedroom requirements of the household applying to move. For example, a single person residing with family in an over-crowded property will only be eligible for points equivalent to lacking one single bedroom.

Verbatim comments

• Does this allow for same sex children from different families having to share a bedroom?
• Our group struggled to understand the question. The question was interpreted in a number of different ways so we found it difficult to say either way
• Makes sense
• This makes sense
• Not sure I understand this proposal

Do you agree with the proposal?

Yes – 77%

No – 23%

Question Eight – Under occupation

Current policy; Under-occupation points are awarded to encourage social housing applicants to downsize from accommodation too large for their current household. These points are currently awarded using bed-spaces (eg. Occupying a double room but only requiring a single), but Scottish Government guidance relates specifically to freeing up additional bedrooms.

Proposal – amend the policy to award points where the tenant has a spare bedroom within their social housing property.

Verbatim comments

• Sounds a lot more efficient and sensible
• Doing this will create more housing for families
• If the tenant is wishing to move into a house with fewer bedrooms, then I see this as being beneficial to everyone really. Allowing them to free a household that may be better suited to a larger potential tenant.

Do you agree with the proposal?

Yes – 98%

No – 2%

Question Nine – Insecurity of Tenure Points

Current Policy; Applicants who are in temporary accommodation are currently awarded 15 points, the lowest tier within the Insecurity of Tenure framework. Reasonable preference, in line with the Housing (Scotland) Act 2014, should be given to applicants who are homeless or threatened with homelessness.

Proposal – increase points for applicants in temporary accommodation, from 15 to a maximum of 25. Additionally, to support applicants leaving the care system, increase the points awarded to them to 25 in recognition they are a priority group.

Verbatim comments

• While I agree in principal, I would need to see the whole points system/scale, to understand the impact of an increase to 25 points for insecure tenancy. How does this impact those with other housing needs? How do Hjaltland prioritise?
• This would only be necessary where the temporary accommodation was unsuitable for the household. Those leaving care need to wait their turn like others their age
• Our group felt strongly about this and the need to stop folks being trapped in temporary accommodation. A number of our group knew people who had been ‘stuck’ in Ladies Drive for long periods of time. Our group also felt strongly that young people leaving are should definitely be offered maximum points and there was some surprise this wasn’t the case already

Do you agree with the proposal?

Yes – 90%

No – 10%

Question Ten – Child Contact

Current Policy; Applicants are awarded points where they have over-night access with children, who reside with them some of the time, but not on a permanent basis. There is a sliding scale of points awarded, depending on the number of visits per week. At present, there is no assessment on whether or not there is a housing need, only that contact takes place.

Proposal – amend the wording in the Allocation Policy to confirm points will be awarded where there is child contact and the current accommodation is not suitable to facilitate this as a long-term option.

Verbatim comments

I agree with this but do see a possibility of Misuse in this. Someone using the fact they have contact when they are really only seeking a new house. I know means testing can’t be done. A clear picture of the amount of contact would be needed to award the points.

Do you agree with the proposal?

Yes – 98%

No – 2%

Question Eleven – Local Connection

Supporting local communities Hjaltland is committed to supporting local communities throughout Shetland. Sustainable housing solutions are vital in contributing to a stable and successful community, where individuals and families can thrive. With this in mind, the following proposal is being considered as additional points criteria;

Proposal – applicants who apply for accommodation in an area where they currently live or work will be awarded an additional 10 points. ‘Area’ will be considered in line with Community Council wards.

Verbatim Comments

• This would help folk be able to stay in their own area so makes perfect sense

Do you agree with the proposal?

Yes – 94%

No – 6%

Other comments or suggestions

• Agree with the proposals set out - hopefully the changes can still make it affordable for people to stay in Hjaltland Housing
• Make more affordable 2 bedroom houses, not poxy 1 bedroom flats
• Please make clearer your reasons for awarding the number of points you have awarded. Many people are unaware that there is a scale of points which are allocated under each criteria and can be frustrated at being awarded a minimal number of points despite meeting a large number of your criterion. Explanation as to why you have awarded a low number of points would increase transparency and leave people feeling less in the dark about where they stand with their housing application. Also, clarity is desperately needed with regard to your HHA transfer only properties! When I speak to HHA they tell me that if I am an SIC housing applicant, I should be being considered by the council. However, when I then ask the council, they tell me that only HHA tenants are being considered. This tells me that either your organisations are not communicating with each other efficiently, or that I am being misled by one or the other of you. This is frustrating to say the least and I am certain that it is one of the leading reasons for people losing faith in the housing association. People who are already tenants within the social housing system should not be considered priorities over people who are and have been waiting a long time to be housed.
• Thank you for taking domestic abuse seriously
• All super suggestions. Good idea to do a survey too as it makes the whole process more transparent
• Think these new proposals will be of great help to those that need accommodation
• I think it should be taken into consideration that many people prefer to be housed within an area where immediate family reside
• Having been on the housing list for 25 years and still been unsuccessfuly getting a house in the town where I grew up, work and raised/raising a family in, people from the area should be given more of a chance to be offered secure housing. I’ve been in 11 different private lets over the years, its very disruptive to a young family
• People who apply for houses frequently and have full-time jobs, who are currently in emergency accommodation, should be considered for houses before people who have no intention of working and who have no interest in applying for houses
• Who isn’t getting housing and where do they go? How will this change affect them?