In its response to a government call for views on draft “ask and act” guidance, CIH Scotland said the duties, introduced under the Housing (Scotland) Act 2025, offer “a real opportunity to transform the approach to homelessness in Scotland”. But it said this will happen only if roles and responsibilities are clearly understood and adequate resources are provided.

The guidance applies to named public bodies, which will be required to ask about housing circumstances and act when someone is at risk of homelessness. CIH Scotland understands the current draft is a general overview, with separate guidance to follow for each body.

The response draws on research CIH Scotland carried out with Fife Council in 2023 and 2024 on Rapid Rehousing Transition Plans. Local authorities surveyed in that work welcomed a new prevention duty, citing recognition that homelessness is not only a housing issue, a stronger focus on early intervention, clearer roles for partners and better sharing of resources.

They also warned that the duty could become little more than a referral route into homelessness services, with no genuine prevention work and without resources to meet increased demand. CIH Scotland noted that some councils are already struggling to meet existing statutory duties, and that extending prevention duties to six months could add to the pressure. It also pointed to the risk to staff wellbeing, recruitment and retention when services are stretched.

The organisation also questioned whether staff in bodies outside the housing sector have the capacity and skills to carry out “ask and act” effectively, and said training will be needed.

CIH Scotland described the draft as “very high level”, saying it adds little to the legislation and lacks detail on what bodies will be expected to do. It called for stronger wording to make clear that prevention work is not optional, suggesting that “offers the opportunity to connect” be changed to say the duty requires connection, and that community planning partnerships “should” rather than “can” have a key role.

The response also raised several unanswered questions:

• Responsibility: Where several bodies are involved, it is unclear who is accountable for ensuring a person’s needs are met, or whether the original body retains a duty if a referral, for example to debt advice, does not remove the threat of homelessness.
• Monitoring: The guidance does not explain how outcomes will be tracked, how a body will know whether an intervention has worked, or when a case can be closed.
• Onus on individuals: Asking people what they need to stay housed puts the burden on them to know what support exists, and could create problems managing expectations.
• Referrals: The guidance should define what counts as a referral and what information must be passed to councils, and clarify whether bodies must make enquiries for people who are unsure what help they need.
• Assessments: The section on assessments reads as though housing stability should be raised only after a risk has been identified, which may need rewording.

CIH Scotland said it expects the tailored guidance for each body to include specific examples, covering how staff should raise potentially sensitive conversations and what training they will need.