CIH Scotland response to the temporary accommodation standards framework consultation

Don’t know.

The consultation sets out ambitious standards for accommodation which many will already be achieving, and others will be working towards under the current advisory system. Local authorities want to provide the best possible homes and services, but our members have raised significant concerns with the practicalities of moving from an advisory system to a set of legally enforceable standards. 

Firstly, the nature of homelessness means that demand cannot always be predicted and services must adapt quickly to external pressures. In recent years, homelessness services have been operating within the context of a global pandemic, cost of living crisis, significant increases in asylum seekers and refugees due to global humanitarian crises and increased pressure due to early prison release. 

In some cases, the provision of accommodation to meet an immediate need may take priority over the provision of the perfect accommodation. 

Secondly, if they are to be legally enforceable, the standards must be clearly defined so that all parties understand their rights and obligations. Several of the standards could be open to interpretation and so will need clarification and accompanying guidance. Issues with specific standards are detailed at question three and in the subsequent sections. 

No, we do not believe any additional standards are required. 

No.

Several of the suggested standards are worded in a way that could leave them open to interpretation. These must be clarified and detailed guidance should be developed to help with consistency of provision and reporting across local authority areas. 

• Accessible accommodation that is able to meet the needs of any disabled person within the household. The consultation acknowledges that meeting accessibility needs will be particularly challenging in rural areas and may require an offer of accommodation in another area in direct conflict with the location standards. It is not clear how decisions should be made on whether to prioritise physical accessibility or location. In reality, where supply is under pressure, there may be challenges in sourcing accessible housing to meet complex needs in any area, not just in rural areas. 
• Access to facilities to secure personal mail, where appropriate. Guidance will need to specify where and when this would be “appropriate”. Local authorities may not be able to guarantee this in accommodation that is leased.
• Accommodation that is in a good standard of cleanliness and adheres to enhanced cleaning measures as set out by Public Health Scotland, when necessary, in response to public health concerns. It is not clear what is meant by a “good standard of cleanliness” and how this would be monitored and reported on. 
• Providing a sufficient and affordable heating system at an acceptable efficiency rating. It is not clear what is meant by “affordable” heating. An efficient heating system may not be affordable due to low income and/or the cost of energy.
• Allowing access to digital technologies, where possible, to increase digital inclusion, enabling access to online facilities, for example, welfare benefits, choice based letting systems etc. Allowing access “where possible” lacks clarity. Local authorities can, as far as possible, ensure that Wi-Fi is available to households, but it may not be reasonable to expect the cost of connection to be covered. The footnotes suggest provision or signposting to local services such as libraries, perhaps this could be explicitly included within the standard. 
• Providing the means to support people to maintain relationships with their pets. This standard needs further explanation and examples. Not all accommodation is suitable for keeping pets, but the wording implies that other options could be made available to “maintain relationships”, although it is not clear what these would be. As it stands, this standard is not clear or measurable.  

Other standards, such as 24 hour access, laundry and cooking facilities may not be available in some types of leased accommodation such as B&Bs. While local authorities are working to reduce the use of this type of accommodation, recent pressures on homelessness services have led to increases in use as evidenced through breaches of the Unsuitable Accommodation Order. 

Don’t know.

We appreciate that all the proposed standards have been developed with a range of stakeholders and represent the ideal standard of temporary accommodation. However, as we have set out above, some of the standards will be difficult to achieve, particularly where accommodation is leased or where external factors are at play, for example energy costs impacting the affordability of heating. Some standards lack clarity and would be open to interpretation which could lead to costly legal challenges. 

The Scottish government must consider whether each standard can be clarified sufficiently to allow consistency of service and reporting, the extent to which local authorities can be expected to guarantee provision of standards within leased accommodation and whether this is proportionate. 

*In 2020, article 7A was inserted into the Unsuitable Accommodation Order 2014. This set out circumstances where community hosting, rapid access accommodation and shared tenancy accommodation is deemed NOT to be unsuitable accommodation, provided that the household does not include a pregnant woman, a child or a person who exercises parental rights in respect of a child who does not form part of the household.

Yes.

Allowing this flexibility is essential in managing demand for accommodation and addressing different types of need. 

Don’t know.

Location standards may pose particular challenges in rural areas but urban areas where demand is high will also face similar challenges. Ideally, households will have a choice over location, but pressures on supply mean that this may not always be possible and it is important to manage expectations. 

As with the physical standards, some of the suggested location standards need clarification and guidance should be developed to improve consistency of provision and reporting across local authorities. Specific examples are set out at question eight. 

No, we do not believe that additional location standards are required. 

No.

Several of the suggested standards are worded in a way that could leave them open to interpretation. These must be clarified and detailed guidance should be developed to help with consistency of provision and reporting across local authority areas. 

• The accommodation provided should be located so that the main essential services used by a household can be reached by foot, by public transport or by transport provided by a local authority, where possible. Services include education, school/nursery, supermarket or convenience store, doctors, dentists, support or other health providers and advice agencies, where applicable. The footnotes acknowledge that these standards may be difficult to meet in rural areas, but the diverse needs of households can be difficult to meet in any area, especially with pressures on supply and where there may be conflicting requirements e.g. accessibility or disability needs in addition to location. The wording and broad nature of this standard leaves it open to interpretation. 

The same applies to the next standard in relation to place of employment, formal and informal support networks. 

• Cultural or religious need should also be identified and met through the location of accommodation, where possible. This standard needs clarification and examples that are specific to the provision of temporary accommodation. We appreciate that the footnotes link to a recent CIH report on how social landlords can work towards realising the human right to adequate housing, and this does include a chapter on cultural adequacy. However, this guidance does not relate specifically to temporary accommodation (for example, it may be costly, impractical or impossible in the case of leased accommodation, to make physical changes to a property) and while suggesting steps that landlords can take to improve their practice, it does not provide a framework that could be consistently applied or reported on. 
• The accommodation also needs to take into account the social and economic needs of the household. This standard would benefit from further clarification, especially if it is intended to cover aspects that are not already included in other standards relating to location of employment, support networks and affordability. 
• An assessment of personal safety of the household, specifically households experiencing domestic abuse – predominately women – and whether the temporary accommodation being offered is in an area that is close to the perpetrator’s family and/or is too far from children’s school, social networks, etc. Where the perpetrator has left the family home, the personal safety assessment should ensure that the perpetrator is not offered temporary accommodation close to the victim or the victim’s family. This standard would require extensive staff training and clear lines of responsibility considering that there are often other mechanisms in place e.g. multi-agency risk assessments, multi-agency tasking and co-ordination or multi-agency public protection arrangements. Staff carrying out homeless assessments may not always be given all the information needed to make a determination that would satisfy the proposed standard. 

Don’t know.

We appreciate that all the proposed standards have been developed with a range of stakeholders and represent the ideal standard of temporary accommodation. However, as we have set out above, some of the standards will be difficult to achieve, particularly where there are complex and/or conflicting needs within a household and where supply is limited.  

The Scottish government must consider whether each standard can be clarified sufficiently to allow consistency of service and reporting, the extent to which local authorities can be expected to guarantee provision of standards within leased accommodation and whether this is proportionate. 

Don’t know.

The standards of service experienced by households can be as important as the physical standards or location, especially if a household has support needs or will be staying in the accommodation for an extended period of time. 

However, as with the other sections above, some of the suggested service standards would benefit from clarification and guidance should be developed to improve consistency of provision and reporting across local authorities. Specific examples are set out at question 12. 

We do not think any additional standards are required. 

No.

Several of the suggested standards are worded in a way that could leave them open to interpretation. These must be clarified and detailed guidance should be developed to help with consistency of provision and reporting across local authority areas. 

• Assessing the needs of all members of the household and provide services informed by that assessment. This should be followed up with referrals and support to enable households to engage with the relevant housing, health, education, social care service, independent advice services and other specialist services, such as domestic abuse support services. Local authorities already have a duty to assess and provide for support needs identified. This is already reported on through homelessness returns and should not be duplicated. Support offered is not always accepted and this cannot be forced. 
• Assisting the tenant to exercise their rights if the support they are entitled to is not realised. Homelessness service staff should not be providing advocacy services for tenants but could signpost appropriately. This may be rolled into the later standard on signposting. 
• Ensuring staff in homelessness and support services receive domestic abuse training. The footnotes refer to the new duty for social landlords to introduce a domestic abuse policy. This legislation does not specify that training should be undertaken and while we fully support this approach, further guidance will be needed to set out the type of training required and by what members of staff and how this will be resourced. 
• Offering support for households to access flexible and ongoing needs-led support, specifically where households have multiple and complex needs, and offer a case coordination approach for households where various services are involved. As set out above, local authorities already have a legal duty to assess support needs and make provision where needs have been identified.
• Creating psychologically informed environments where appropriate, ensuring staff have been trained in trauma informed care. Guidance will need to specify what is meant by “where appropriate” as this can vary on a case-by-case basis, it may be difficult to achieve consistency in what local authorities are offering or how they would report on this. 
• Conducting regular reviews of a household’s needs on a case-by-case basis, agreed by the household and taking into account any change in circumstances. It is not clear how often regular reviews would be expected to take place which leaves this open to interpretation and difficult to measure across local authorities. 
• Conducting regular home visits, where appropriate and where agreed by the household, to allow allocated officers to identify unmet needs of the household. This is similar to the standard above, lacking clarity and open to interpretation. Some may also view this as pushing the boundaries of the role of staff within the homelessness service. 
• Ensuring there is ongoing communication with the household, including easy access to housing officers. Ensure that any information provided is available in different formats and an interpreter is provided where necessary. We agree that good communication is essential but is not clearly defined here and neither is “easy access” to housing officers. 

Don’t know.

We appreciate that all of the proposed standards have been developed with a range of stakeholders and represent the ideal standard of temporary accommodation. However, as we have set out above, some of the standards will be difficult to achieve, particularly where there are complex and/or conflicting needs within a household and where supply is limited.  

The Scottish government must consider whether each standard can be clarified sufficiently to allow consistency of service and reporting, the extent to which local authorities can be expected to guarantee provision of standards within leased accommodation and whether this is proportionate. 

Don’t know.

As with the other sections above, some of the suggested standards would benefit from clarification and guidance should be developed to improve consistency of provision and reporting across local authorities. Specific examples are set out at question 16.

We do not think any additional management standards are required. 

No.

Several of the suggested standards are worded in a way that could leave them open to interpretation. These must be clarified and detailed guidance should be developed to help with consistency of provision and reporting across local authority areas. 

• Clear communication about tenants’ rights. This includes advising or assisting a person in understanding and managing their tenancy rights and responsibilities, including assisting a person in disputes about those rights and responsibilities and signposting to independent advice and advocacy. This standard needs to be revised. It is not clear how a local authority would be expected to assist a person in disputes about rights and responsibilities where they are providing the accommodation and/or service. 
• Procedures are in place to ensure there is minimum disruption to the household when moving in and out of the accommodation and the household is made aware of any support available to help with the move. It is not clear what is meant by disruption. The footnote suggests providing financial support where necessary but this cannot be guaranteed for every household. Discretionary support may be available through the social security system or local authorities’ own funds but will not always be available and may differ between local authorities. Including this in a standard may create unrealistic expectations.  
• That tenants are involved in all discussions surrounding their needs, including relocation and changes to occupancy/tenancy agreements. Tenants being involved in discussions about relocation will be dependent on availability of accommodation and choices being available which is not always the case. As outlined in our responses above, the current lack of supply coupled with increased demand for homelessness services means that some local authorities may have to prioritise the provision of accommodation to meet an immediate need even though it may not be the ideal accommodation. 
• That staffing levels are sufficient. Support and training should be made available to staff to ensure that they are equipped to do their jobs and can meet the requirements of the standards and understand the needs of people experiencing homelessness. This applies to staff directly employed by the local authority and staff who are contracted to carry out the duties of the local authority. The standard does not set out what “sufficient” staffing levels would be or how these may differ across different types of accommodation. If demand for temporary accommodation increases and staffing levels are deemed to be insufficient it is not clear how a local authority would address this without additional resources being made available. 

Don’t know.

We appreciate that all of the proposed standards have been developed with a range of stakeholders and represent the ideal standard of temporary accommodation. However, as we have set out above, some of the standards will be difficult to achieve, particularly where there are complex and/or conflicting needs within a household and where supply is limited.  

The Scottish government must consider whether each standard can be clarified sufficiently to allow consistency of service and reporting, the extent to which local authorities can be expected to guarantee provision of standards within leased accommodation and whether this is proportionate. 

Don’t know.

We agree in principle that there should be legally enforceable standards that ensure consistency of practice across local authorities and clearly set out expectations for providers and residents. However, we have set out above some of our concerns with the practicalities of applying the proposed standards and these must be addressed to ensure that the system is workable. 

The existing advisory standards set an aspirational standard for accommodation and services with a lot of flexibility built in, allowing for different approaches to be taken depending on local priorities and circumstances. This approach is helpful in encouraging good practice and continuous improvement, but problematic in terms of applying a consistent, legally enforceable standard. The standards would need considerable revision to make them fit for purpose. 

We strongly oppose any financial penalty or sanctions which would divert resources away from services where they are most needed. Imposing a legally enforceable framework could also increase the risk of legal challenge, again directing resources away from vital services. 

The proposed timescale of 2027 will be extremely challenging and does not acknowledge the current context that local authorities and housing partners are working within. Given that the Scottish Housing Regulator has reported that several local authorities are in systemic failure or at risk, the government has declared a housing emergency, and breaches of homelessness duties remain high, introducing additional legal duties without additional resources will lead to further breaches, not better outcomes.  

Consideration should be given to the impact of extending the UAO which included: 

• Legal challenges for some local authorities
• Financial burdens of opposing legal challenge and potential sanctions 
• Staff resources diverted to dealing with legal processes 
• Inequitable outcomes where households taking legal action may be prioritised to minimise litigation risk. 

Don’t know.

It would make sense for a revised set of standards to be included in the charter. However, we have concerns with the wording of the standards, how compliance would be measured and reported, and the proposed timescale for implementation. 

If new standards are to be included in the charter, the Scottish Housing Regulator would have to work with stakeholders to develop meaningful indicators to measure compliance and track performance. 

The short timescales involved to have new standards included by 2027 will present challenges. New reporting procedures and systems would need to be established and implemented. There may also be financial costs involved in updating systems for data collection and reporting. 

Don’t know.

As above. 

No.

It is unlikely that all local authorities will be able to meet new standards if they are introduced in 2027 without additional resources. Compliance may also change over time if external factors increase the demand for accommodation as we have seen during the current housing emergency. 

We strongly oppose any suggestion of financial penalties which would be counterproductive and direct resources away from vital services. The risk of legal challenge could also result in staff time and resources being diverted.  

The consultation does not include an estimate of the financial impact of meeting the proposed standards. Costs could include upgrades to accommodation or leasing of alternative accommodation, administrative and staffing costs of establishing a new reporting system, and enhanced staffing levels to meet management standards. The Scottish government must work with the sector to identify the extent to which current accommodation and services are falling short of the proposed standards and provide resources if required to support improvements. 

As set out above, the wording of the standards needs to be clarified and supporting guidance developed including examples. 

The Scottish government must continue work to tackle the root causes of homelessness and reduce demand for temporary accommodation. This includes significantly increasing the supply of social and affordable housing. Our research published with Shelter and SFHA in 2025 shows the need for 15,693 social and affordable homes to be delivered each year supported by £1.64 billion annual government funding. 

We welcome the conformation of funding for Rapid Rehousing Transition Plans (RRTP) for another year, this funding should be continued beyond 2026/27 providing certainty for local authorities to continue investing in innovative solutions, homelessness prevention and partnership working. 

Yes.

If the TASF is included in the charter it should be reviewed in line with regular reviews of the charter. 

Yes.

If implemented, the TASF should be evaluated with a focus on whether outcomes have improved as a result. 

To view the details of the consultation please visit the government's website.

For more information on our response please contact scotland@cih.org.