Consultation outcome

Review of the Vagrancy Act: consultation on effective replacement

Updated 28 November 2023

This was published under the 2019 to 2022 Johnson Conservative government

Applies to England and Wales

Scope of the consultation

Topic of this consultation:

This consultation seeks views on the replacement of offences previously held in the Vagrancy Act. This covers the following areas:

a. How to replace the offences in the Vagrancy Act which prohibit begging in an appropriate way that prioritises getting individuals into support.

b. How we can make sure that replacement legislation on begging supports the right environment in which to deliver effective services and to engage with vulnerable people constructively.

c. What other changes – either legislative or non-legislative – should be considered to better equip police, local authorities, and other agencies to engage with people who are rough sleeping and to encourage them into support.

Scope of this consultation:

The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities are consulting on proposed replacement legislation for the Vagrancy Act. This follows the review of the Vagrancy Act that took place in 2019.

Geographical scope:

These proposals relate to England and Wales.

Basic information

Body/bodies responsible for the consultation:

The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice.

Duration:

This consultation will last for 4 weeks from 7 April 2022 to 5 May 2022.

Enquiries:

For any enquiries about the consultation please contact: [email protected].

How to respond:

You may respond by completing an online survey.

Alternatively you can email your response to the questions in this consultation to: [email protected].

If you are responding in writing, please make it clear which questions you are responding to.

When you reply it would be very useful if you confirm whether you are replying as an individual or submitting an official response on behalf of an organisation and include:

• your name
• your position (if applicable)
• the name of organisation (if applicable)
• an address (including postcode)
• an email address
• a contact telephone number

1. Introduction

Background

1. The government is committed to levelling up, beating crime, and ending rough sleeping. That is why, through the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, the government committed to repeal the Vagrancy Act in full, with provisions due to commence once suitable replacement legislation is in place. The government is committed to bringing this forward as soon as is practicable.

2. The public rightly expects that vulnerable individuals sleeping rough should be supported to create and sustain a life away from the streets, and our ambitions should be to support these individuals on a path to self-sufficiency and reduce their need to rely on state support. With rough sleeping levels now at an eight-year low, we are making good progress towards ending rough sleeping for good, and we will be outlining how we will achieve this in our upcoming rough sleeping strategy.

3. Whilst taking this significant step to repeal the Vagrancy Act, we must make sure the police, local authorities and other agencies remain able to protect the public and make communities feel safe for all. This includes supporting vulnerable individuals and responding effectively to begging, which can help to reduce the detrimental effects begging can have on communities and public spaces.

4. We recognise that begging causes harm to the individuals involved and to wider communities given its impact on high streets and community cohesion. It is right that the police and other agencies should have the tools they need to respond effectively to begging, and that we place rehabilitation and support at the centre of our approach for those who need it most. This consultation focuses on those forms of begging that are most harmful to individuals and communities that they warrant criminal penalties.

5. Rough sleeping and begging can be conflated, but in reality the overlap between them is complex. Many people begging are not sleeping rough and do have a place to sleep at night. Begging can undermine the public’s sense of safety and pride in where they live. We recognise that whilst begging can cause unease, it can also be used by organised criminal gangs, including from overseas, as a source of funds in their own right, or to support other criminal activity. The government therefore wants to ensure that effective action can be taken to respond to begging alongside wider work to reduce rough sleeping.

6. We are determined to end rough sleeping. We also acknowledge that some instances of rough sleeping can cause legitimate public concern, alongside concern for the welfare of those involved, which can undermine public safety. It is therefore right that police and other agencies respond effectively to address public concerns.

7. There is limited data on begging and the drivers of it. Research by Crisis has shown that those who beg do so to buy essentials such as food, but also to sustain lifestyles dependent on alcohol or substance misuse. We want to ensure the police, working alongside local authorities and other partners, have the right tools to engage vulnerable individuals and direct them to effective support services and networks, especially for the most entrenched rough sleepers with more complex needs who may otherwise refuse support.

8. As part of the 2018 Rough Sleeping Strategy, the government committed to review the Vagrancy Act 1824 (the ‘Act’) as part of a wider review of homelessness and rough sleeping legislation, to ensure our laws create the right environment to deliver effective services and engage constructively with vulnerable people. This review examined use of the Act and other related legislation and sought views from stakeholders including national homelessness charities, local authorities, voluntary sector organisations, local businesses, the police and the Crown Prosecution Service. After careful consideration, the review concluded that the Vagrancy Act should be repealed in full, but without some replacement legislation it would lead to a gap in police powers to deal effectively with begging. We therefore need to create more modern and fit-for-purpose legislation to make sure the police have the necessary tools and can intervene to support vulnerable individuals and help communities feel safer.

9. It is vital that the police and other agencies are able to help prevent and respond to instances of begging that place individuals involved at risk or makes the public or public realm feel unsafe. They also have a crucial role to play when begging is a barrier to vulnerable individuals entering a pathway to stability off the street, for example by sustaining substance misuse.

10. The government believes a replacement for the Vagrancy Act is needed, which prioritises specific forms of begging that can be most detrimental and may involve aggressive behaviours. The replacement will provide for, in the first instance, responses that encourage and mandate individuals into support. This consultation is seeking views on the design of this.

11. To find the best way forward and match what the public expect to happen, we are consulting on the detail of the proposed replacement to inform its development. We want to ensure that legislation provides the relevant authorities with effective tools and powers. New legislation must also support the right environment in which to deliver effective services and prioritise routes to engage constructively with those who have nowhere to live or are sleeping rough.

12. Given the complexities of the overlap between rough sleeping and begging, the consultation also asks for views on any other changes – either legislative or non-legislative – which should be considered to better equip the police, local authorities and other agencies to engage with people who are sleeping rough and to encourage them into support.

Scope of the consultation

13. This consultation is aimed at those who have an interest in the legislation concerning begging and, more broadly, the effective delivery of services to vulnerable individuals, including rough sleepers, who may be engaged in this activity.

14. The first part of this consultation considers and seeks views on proposals to repeal and replace the Vagrancy Act, with respect to:

a. The types of begging that may be prohibited, where begging is harmful to individuals or detrimental to the community.

b. Which requirements or penalties are most appropriate in response to different forms of begging to address underlying causes, aiming to incentivise individuals to desist from begging and engage with support in the first instance, if needed.

c. How we can make sure that replacement legislation provides the right combination of tools to support an environment in which to deliver effective services and to engage constructively with vulnerable people.

15. The second part of the consultation asks for views and evidence on what other changes – either legislative or non-legislative – should be considered to better enable police, local authorities and other agencies to prevent and tackle behaviour that the public can associate with rough sleeping and begging, including engaging with people who are sleeping rough and encouraging them into support.

2. Proposals

The response to begging

16. “Begging”, although not defined in law, may be considered as asking for gifts on streets or in other public places. There are many ways an individual may beg, or that people may observe begging in public places. It is immaterial whether gifts are of money or in kind, whether they are expressed as gifts or as loans, and whether a person asks expressly or impliedly, by displaying containers for donations or otherwise. Begging does not include soliciting donations to a registered charity with the express written authority of that charity.

17. Section 3 of the Vagrancy Act currently makes all forms of begging an offence. The government review of the Act identified some concerns from stakeholders that, without replacement, repealing this section of the Act would leave a gap in the police, local authorities and other agencies’ ability to respond to begging, particularly where begging is not accompanied by otherwise criminal or anti-social behaviour. It is important that the police have the tools and powers needed to protect the public, including to address begging and to help individuals effectively into support.

18. The 2014 Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act provides police, local authorities and other local agencies with some powers to respond to begging that also involves anti-social behaviour. These powers can be used when the anti-social behaviour meets specific legal thresholds. However, begging in and of itself, and without accompanying behaviour that meets those specific legal thresholds, does not amount to anti-social behaviour. In some instances, police forces have continued to derive benefit from use of Section 3 of the Vagrancy Act to intervene constructively to help support vulnerable people into engagement with services, as well as tackle any associated criminal behaviours

19. It is important that the police continue to have the tools they need to respond effectively to begging, which we recognise can be harmful to individuals and detrimental to communities. Replacement legislation should ensure the police retain the ability to swiftly intervene in relation to harmful begging. For example, replacement legislation could prohibit the following types of begging, amongst others:

a. Instances of begging involving the exploitation, forcing or coercing of others to beg, where this is not already covered in the Modern Slavery Act 2015.

b. Instances of begging where an individual is participating with others to beg in an organised or systematic manner.

c. Instances of begging in locations, such as transport hubs, entrances to business premises and cash points, or approaching stopped cars in traffic, where there is likely to be an adverse or detrimental effect on the quality of life for those in the locality, but where this does not involve any other anti-social behaviour.

d. Instances of begging that are persistent, or where an individual has refused offers of support, or whilst in receipt of welfare.

e. Instances of begging which are purposefully fraudulent in nature, for example where someone is feigning injury.

f. Any other instances of begging which causes harm to individuals or detriment to communities and public spaces.

20. We are interested in how to identify those engaged in begging, the referral to appropriate support and services, requirements to desist and to engage with support and services, and powers of arrest. Where individuals engage in persistent begging, criminal prosecutions would remain an available option.

21. There are also instances of begging where intervention may be necessary to safeguard the welfare of an individual, for example in instances where children are begging. In some cases this may be covered in existing provisions under the Children and Young Persons Act 1933.

22. Begging relies on individuals deriving financial gain from the generosity of members of the public. Evidence suggests that a proportion of the funds provided to people begging goes towards funding drug and alcohol addictions, and can finance organised crime. We welcome views on the value of increasing awareness among members of the public about what drives begging and the impact of giving to those begging, including in begging hotspots.

Question 1. Do you agree that the government should introduce new offences to prevent specific forms of begging that may be harmful to individuals or detrimental to communities?

Question 2. Do you agree that begging is harmful to individuals and detrimental to communities? What forms of begging cause greatest harm to individuals and /or detriment to communities? Are there any forms, in addition to those listed above, that cause particular concern?

Question 3. Do you agree there may be benefit in raising public awareness about the drivers of begging, and the links this activity may have to sustaining an individual’s life on the street?

Appropriate powers, requirements, penalties and support for vulnerable individuals

23. Where individuals are prosecuted, Section 3 of the Vagrancy Act currently makes all forms of begging punishable through the issue of a Level 3 fine up to £1,000. The review heard feedback from several police forces that this penalty is often inappropriate to supporting individuals into services. See below for 2 case studies outlining how fines are ineffective deterrents, and can be counterproductive in steering individuals away from treatment.

24. Replacement legislation should therefore ensure that the police and other agencies and courts have a range of options at their disposal to punish appropriately those engaging in criminal activity, while also providing the basis to require or encourage destitute individuals into support and to desist from begging.

25. The review identified that many police forces use Section 3 of the Act as a last resort to engage individuals in services alongside a local authority-led partnership approach to ensure that there are a range of joined up services available to support vulnerable individuals who are begging. We want to ensure these agencies continue to have the tools they need to respond effectively, protecting individuals and communities.

26. Where an offence has been committed that impacts an individual or the community, the police and courts have a range of existing options available:

a. The use of out of court disposals, such as cautions, would enable the police to set meaningful and relevant conditions with the purpose of rehabilitation where appropriate. This could include engagement with mental health or substance misuse support, or attendance at specified services. For non-UK nationals, this may involve conditions such as regularly reporting to an immigration officer or compliance with any lawful instruction given by an immigration officer. This would allow police to tailor conditions to local conditions and make the best use of local services.

b. Where cases are prosecuted and come to court, community orders are available if the offence is imprisonable and the offence is considered serious enough to warrant a community order. Requirements attached to a community order may be selected and imposed by the court for rehabilitative purposes. However, one requirement must be imposed for the purpose of punishment and/or a fine imposed in addition to the community order. Where someone fails without a reasonable excuse to comply with any requirement imposed on a community order, and where they are summoned back to court for the breach, the court has a range of options available - including imposition of a fine, increasing the intensity of the order, or revoking the order and resentencing the offender, including (in appropriate cases) to custody.

c. For non-imprisonable offences, or where the offence is not so serious as to warrant a community order or custodial sentence, replacement offences could retain a fine as the maximum penalty available to the court. The government has considered that if a fine were retained it may be appropriate to reduce the maximum fine for some minor begging offences from a Level 3 fine (up to £1000) to Level 1 (up to £200). For cases of more serious begging offences involving the exploitation of others, there may be a need to maintain more serious maximum penalties.

27. Begging may be undertaken by individuals to fund drug addiction or other substance misuse, to raise funds for organised crime, or as a means of raising funds in addition to any welfare or other earnings. We are keen to ensure individuals are identified and referred into treatment for their addiction, and homelessness is recognised in the government’s Drugs Strategy as one of the complex and co-occurring needs associated with drug addiction. When individuals are arrested, the police are being supported to use Drug Testing on Arrest where appropriate to refer individuals into treatment.

28. We would welcome views about whether there are instances in which some forms of begging which are harmful to individuals or detrimental to communities should be dealt with through civil orders. There are already examples of where civil orders can be used by a range of bodies, including local authorities and the police, to deal with anti-social behaviour under the 2014 Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act.

Question 4. What types of offences and associated powers, requirements and penalties are most appropriate to incentivise individuals to engage with support? We would welcome any views about the current options available to the police, local authorities and courts as outlined above.

Question 5. What more could be done to make sure any new offences for begging support the right environment to deliver services and engage with vulnerable people?

Supporting the police to engage with individuals experiencing rough sleeping

29. Section 4 of the Vagrancy Act also currently makes “sleeping out” and being in an “enclosed space for an unlawful purpose” criminal offences. There was no evidence found through the review of the Act that the removal of these would negatively impact the police’s ability to respond effectively and supportively to rough sleeping. However, the government is keen to be comprehensive in the way it considers replacement.

30. A multi-agency approach led by local authorities is crucial to end rough sleeping, especially for those with multiple complex needs. As we saw during our pandemic response, which supported over 40,000 people by December 2021, there remained some who refused to engage and accept support from services. Within this the police can play an important role, alongside other agencies, in particular for those who continue to engage in street activity, which can cause real concern to the public and undermine their sense of safety. Local police officers will routinely come into contact with individuals who are rough sleeping. It is important the police are able to engage with them, refer them to services and be able to build trust and relationships with them. When properly equipped and supported, the police play an effective role alongside local authorities and other voluntary and community sector organisations in identifying individuals and signposting or incentivising them into support that is available. This is particularly important when the police or public have concerns about the individual in question.

31. We are keen to see evidence on what barriers impact the police and local authorities’ ability to engage with individuals who are rough sleeping. This might be in relation to the circumstances and needs of people experiencing rough sleeping or the ways in which individuals find shelter on the street. We understand that the public may have concerns about the welfare of individuals in tents, or instances where people experiencing rough sleeping may trespass on private property. Alongside this, councils and the police have been given strong powers to deal with unauthorised encampments. The government wants to ensure that the repeal of the Vagrancy Act does not weaken the potential response to unauthorised or unlawful tent encampments, which can harm local amenity and undermine community cohesion, while ensuring appropriate support for the welfare of those involved.

32. The public may also be caused unease by these activities, particularly if accompanied by drug misuse, criminality or other anti-social behaviour; such concerns are heightened if occurring either on private property or in highly visible locations. We are aware of reports of international examples, in some US cities, where engagement from authorities has not been able to prevent the numbers of those living on the streets and in tent encampments from increasing significantly. We are therefore interested in what legislative or non-legislative changes would support effective multi-agency engagement, enforcement and problem-solving work.

Question 6. What changes should be considered to better equip the police, local authorities and other agencies with the tools to engage those sleeping rough and support them away from the streets? What is the best approach if individuals refuse support or where harmful behaviour is involved?

Question 7. What other changes should be considered to better equip police, local authorities and other agencies to engage with people who are rough sleeping including in tents or trespassing on private property?

Question 8. Are there any other issues that would emerge from repeal of the Vagrancy Act that you think should be considered in bringing forward replacement legislation?

Equalities impacts

33. In developing these proposals, the government has given full weight to its duties in respect of the section 149 of the Equality Act 2010 with due regard to the need to eliminate discrimination, to advance equality of opportunity and foster good relations. We would welcome views about any possible equalities impact on individuals.

Question 9. What do you consider to be the equalities impact on individuals with protected characteristics of any of the proposed options for replacement legislation? Please give reasons and any evidence that you consider relevant.

3. Questionnaire

Question 1. Do you agree that the government should introduce new offences to prevent specific forms of begging that may be harmful to individuals or detrimental to communities?

Question 2. Do you agree that begging is harmful to individuals and detrimental to communities? What forms of begging cause greatest harm to individuals and /or detriment to communities? Are there any forms, in addition to those listed above, that cause particular concern?

Question 3. Do you agree there may be benefit in raising public awareness about the drivers of begging, and the links this activity may have to sustaining an individual’s life on the street?

Question 4. What types of offences and associated powers, requirements and penalties are most appropriate to incentivise individuals to engage with support? We would welcome any views about the current options available to the police, local authorities and courts as outlined above.

Question 5. What more could be done to make sure any new offences for begging support the right environment to deliver services and engage with vulnerable people?

Question 6. What changes should be considered to better equip the police, local authorities and other agencies with the tools to engage those sleeping rough and support them away from the streets? What is the best approach if individuals refuse support or where harmful behaviour is involved?

Question 7.What other changes should be considered to better equip police, local authorities and other agencies to engage with people who are rough sleeping including in tents or trespassing on private property?

Question 8. Are there any other issues that would emerge from repeal of the Vagrancy Act that you think should be considered in bringing forward replacement legislation?

Question 9. What do you consider to be the equalities impact on individuals with protected characteristics of any of the proposed options for replacement legislation? Please give reasons and any evidence that you consider relevant.

4. Case studies

Case study 1: where more modern legislation may help agencies to reduce and prevent begging

Despite having made good progress in significantly reducing rough sleeping, Cambridge experiences high numbers of individuals begging. Although anti-social behaviour legislation is used to intervene if an individual uses more anti-social, aggressive methods (such as approaching multiple individuals in a short space of time and/or guiding members of the public to cashpoints), this has had limited success. As begging in and of itself does not amount to anti-social behaviour, the local area has been unable to effectively respond to the other forms of begging that persist. These include:

• fraudulent begging (e.g., asking the public for money for accommodation despite having accommodation already)
• opportunistic begging (e.g., begging in high footfall areas such as cashpoints and entrances to businesses, exploiting injury)
• organised begging (e.g., when large groups migrate to the area to beg)

All these forms of begging continue to have a negative impact not only on the local community, but also on the individuals involved. Begging has a direct impact on business owners and their retail staff and harms the trade of local businesses. Visitors and local residents give generously, and begging can be lucrative to some individuals whilst helping others maintain an alcohol or drug dependency. It can act as a barrier to someone’s meaningful engagement with the support offers provided by the council and its partners, entrenching them further into a life on the streets and delaying their recovery.

The local council and its partners address begging with a clear emphasis on support and public awareness, commissioning specialist health, housing and on-street support services. It also operates a successful fundraising campaign, helping people experiencing homelessness to get off (and stay off) the streets.

However, agencies in the city tend to not use the Vagrancy Act, as it is seen as conflating the 2 separate issues of rough sleeping and begging. Obtaining a conviction can be labour-intensive, with the likely outcome being a fine, which could stimulate further begging. Despite their strong wrap-around and multi-agency support work, they are unable to target effectively persistent begging in the city because effective legislation does not exist for them to use. Therefore, more modern and fit-for-purpose legislation to replace the Vagrancy Act would have real impact for this city and their ability to intervene, prevent and reduce the numbers of individuals begging in public spaces.

Case study 2: where fines are not an appropriate penalty for persistent or professional beggars

Example scenario from hotspot areas

One individual would persistently beg in a busy urban area, outside the entrance to a small supermarket, and receive a fair amount of cash given to them from passing commuters. The individual would refuse all offers of support made to them by outreach teams. Despite warnings, the individual was taken to court and given a £40 fine, which they paid off the same day and returned to their usual spot to continue begging. It seemed as though this individual took the fine as a ‘cost of doing business’, and earning an income through begging is sustaining their street lifestyle. Fining in this scenario is not an effective deterrent to prevent the behaviour.

Case study 3: where fines are not an appropriate penalty for those who are homeless

Example scenario from hotspot areas

The negative impacts of fining as a penalty for begging is felt most severely amongst those who are homeless and are begging as a means of survival. Many of these individuals are hard to reach and hard to engage with, and beg as the only way of sourcing money. When one individual with a drug dependency was recently assigned a fine for a breach of a Community Protection Notice (originally issued for begging), they were put under greater financial pressure, and distanced themselves further from support and treatment programmes. It made them less likely to trust authorities and added to a damaging cycle of needing to beg in order to pay their fine. Fining in this scenario is not effective, as the individual is unable to pay, and is pushed further into a damaging street lifestyle.

About this consultation

This consultation document and consultation process have been planned to adhere to the Consultation Principles issued by the Cabinet Office.

Representative groups are asked to give a summary of the people and organisations they represent, and where relevant who else they have consulted in reaching their conclusions when they respond.

Information provided in response to this consultation may be published or disclosed in accordance with the access to information regimes (these are primarily the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA), the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 and UK data protection legislation. In certain circumstances this may therefore include personal data when required by law.

If you want the information that you provide to be treated as confidential, please be aware that, as a public authority, the Department is bound by the information access regimes and may therefore be obliged to disclose all or some of the information you provide. In view of this it would be helpful if you could explain to us why you regard the information you have provided as confidential. If we receive a request for disclosure of the information we will take full account of your explanation, but we cannot give an assurance that confidentiality can be maintained in all circumstances. An automatic confidentiality disclaimer generated by your IT system will not, of itself, be regarded as binding on the Department.

The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities will at all times process your personal data in accordance with UK data protection legislation and in the majority of circumstances this will mean that your personal data will not be disclosed to third parties. A full privacy notice is included below.

Individual responses will not be acknowledged unless specifically requested.

Your opinions are valuable to us. Thank you for taking the time to read this document and respond.

Are you satisfied that this consultation has followed the Consultation Principles? If not or you have any other observations about how we can improve the process please contact us via the complaints procedure.

Personal data

The following is to explain your rights and give you the information you are entitled to under UK data protection legislation.

Note that this section only refers to personal data (your name, contact details and any other information that relates to you or another identified or identifiable individual personally) not the content otherwise of your response to the consultation.

1. The identity of the data controller and contact details of our Data Protection Officer

The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (DLUHC)is the data controller. The Data Protection Officer can be contacted at [email protected] or by writing to the following address:

Data Protection Officer
Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities
Fry Building
2 Marsham Street
London
SW1P 4DF

2. Why we are collecting your personal data

Your personal data is being collected as an essential part of the consultation process, so that we can contact you regarding your response and for statistical purposes. We may also use it to contact you about related matters.

We will collect your IP address if you complete a consultation online. We may use this to ensure that each person only completes a survey once. We will not use this data for any other purpose.

Sensitive types of personal data

Please do not share special category personal data or criminal offence data if we have not asked for this unless absolutely necessary for the purposes of your consultation response. By ‘special category personal data’, we mean information about a living individual’s:

• race
• ethnic origin
• political opinions
• religious or philosophical beliefs
• trade union membership
• genetics
• biometrics
• health (including disability-related information)
• sex life; or
• sexual orientation

By ‘criminal offence data’, we mean information relating to a living individual’s criminal convictions or offences or related security measures.

3. Our legal basis for processing your personal data

We will use the following lawful basis to process your data:

• Article 6(1)(e) of the UK General Data Protection Regulation as it is necessary for the performance by DLUHC of a task in the public interest/in the exercise of official authority vested in the data controller.

Where necessary for the purposes of this consultation, our lawful basis for the processing of any special category personal data or ‘criminal offence’ data (terms explained under ‘Sensitive Types of Data’) which you submit in response to this consultation is as follows.

• Article 9(2)(g) UK GDPR (‘substantial public interest’), and Schedule 1 paragraph 6 of the Data Protection Act 2018 (‘statutory etc and government purposes’).

4. With whom we will be sharing your personal data

DLUHC may appoint a ‘data processor’, such as the Home Office, acting on behalf of the Department and under our instruction, to help analyse the responses to this consultation. Where we do we will ensure that the processing of your personal data remains in strict accordance with the requirements of the data protection legislation.

5. For how long we will keep your personal data, or criteria used to determine the retention period

Your personal data will be held for 2 years from the closure of the consultation, unless we identify that its continued retention is unnecessary before that point.

6. Your rights, e.g. access, rectification, restriction, objection

The data we are collecting is your personal data, and you have considerable say over what happens to it. You have the right:

a. to see what data we have about you

b. to ask us to stop using your data, but keep it on record

c. to ask to have your data corrected if it is incorrect or incomplete

d. to object to our use of your personal data in certain circumstances

e. to lodge a complaint with the independent Information Commissioner (ICO) if you think we are not handling your data fairly or in accordance with the law. You can contact the ICO at https://ico.org.uk/, or telephone 0303 123 1113.

Please contact us at the following address if you wish to exercise the rights listed above, except the right to lodge a complaint with the ICO: [email protected] or

Knowledge and Information Access Team
Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities
Fry Building
2 Marsham Street
London
SW1P 4DF

7. Your personal data will not be sent overseas

8. Your personal data will not be used for any automated decision making

9. Your personal data will be stored in a secure government IT system

We use a third-party system, Citizen Space, to collect consultation responses. In the first instance your personal data will be stored on their secure UK-based server. Your personal data will be transferred to our secure government IT system as soon as possible, and it will be stored there for two years before it is deleted.