Appendix 3 - Summary of Feedback from Tenant Applicant Consultation
Perth and Kinross Council · 22 January 2025
Back to Housing and Social Wellbeing Committee — 22 January 2025 and its agenda
Text extracted from the council's PDF. Layout and reading order may differ from the original.
Page 1
Appendix 3 Summary of Consultation Responses – 17 May 2024 The consultation was live on the PKC website for 3 weeks to 17 May 2024. A link to the consultation was sent directly to applicants on the Common Housing Register (CHR) including transfer applicants who are also tenants of one of the CHR providers. Some of the questions asked for narrative responses if the respondent answered the question in a particular way. The undernoted is a summary of the themes that were raised by multiple respondents. There were 148 responses to the survey as below; 71 responses from tenants of Perth & Kinross Council or another CHR provider 44 responses from current CHR applicants 33 responses from people who selected the ‘other’ option Question: Do you think that the Common Allocations Policy is fair in terms of the types of applicants who get the highest priority? 41 respondents said Yes and 107 (72%) said No. For those who said No, there was an option to say why they answered the question in this way. They key themes from the No responses are below. • Foreign people or people from outwith P&K get priority over local people • A perception that most allocations go to people with addiction issues • A perception that you need to be on benefits to get a property • Council tenants who live in flats should get priority to move to a house • A belief that some applicants are untruthful in their applications to improve their chance of getting an offer of housing • In rural areas, local people should get priority over ‘outsiders’ • Applicants who are overcrowded should get more priority – currently have to wait too long • People living in the private-rented sector and paying high rents won’t get a social housing offer – considered to be adequately housed but often have property condition issues and unaffordable rents • More priority should be given to applicants with disabilities or mental health issues • People who are under-occupying should be ‘forced’ to move to a smaller property
Page 2
Question: What incentives do you think we should we offer to encourage tenants who are in this position to move to a smaller property? 121 people responded to this question and the key themes were; • Cash incentives • Help with removal costs and other costs such as mail redirection • Help with the cost of decorating and floor coverings • Stop allocating 2 bedroom properties to single people • Offer a ‘nice’ property or a new-build • We shouldn’t be offering incentives, we should ‘force’ people to move to a smaller property Question: We currently allow single people or couples without children to be allocated a one or two bedroom property. Do you agree with this? 146 people responded to this question with 53% saying that they didn’t agree with this part of the policy. The key themes from those who said they didn’t agree were; • It’s not effective use of stock and 2-bedroom properties should be given to young families (most of the respondents said this or something along these lines) • Not fair because families with same sex children are not allowed an extra bedroom • Extra bedroom is ok if the person has medical issues, needs a carer or has disabilities Question: Are there any other categories of applicant that you think we should be prioritising for housing? 127 people responded to this question but some of the responses were more about who we shouldn’t be housing rather than categories of applicant that should get greater priority. The key themes from the responses were; • More priority for transfer applicants, especially those with medical needs • Veterans and care leavers • People experiencing domestic abuse, harassment or issues with neighbours • More priority for families that are overcrowded • People in the private rented sector with unaffordable rents • Local people should get priority over ‘outsiders’
Page 3
Question: Do you think the current provision of housing for older people is adequate? 145 people answered this question with 61% answering Yes, they do think the current provision is adequate. Of those who answered No, the key themes were; • Need more amenity and sheltered housing and more options in rural areas • Create communities for older people so they don’t have to put up with issues such as noise from other tenants • Older people should be prioritised as they’ve paid taxes and should get a nice home in a nice area • Need more pensioner bungalows/cottages rather than flats – most of the bungalows were sold under Right to Buy Question: Do you have any other suggestions on how we can improve the Common Allocations Policy? 95 people responded to this question and the key themes were; • Better communication with applicants – keeping them up to date • More flexibility on property size for people who have access to children • Reintroduce waiting time points • Policy needs to be changed to support people with mental health issues or neurodiverse conditions • Provide more support to help people carry out mutual exchanges including an official platform for people to advertise and seek someone to exchange with • Build more properties and make sure they are the type/size/location for the people in most need • Stop telling people they are ‘adequately housed’ – they wouldn’t have applied if they felt that way • Provide mid-market rent housing for those at the bottom of the waiting list • Prioritise local people