About

Housing shortage drives homelessness: England has chronic undersupply of affordable homes. Annual target of 300,000 new homes not achieved since the 1960s. Between 2004-2024, on average only 147,000 new homes were built per year, while population grew by 15 million since 1964.

Social housing is critical but scarce: Provides key accommodation for low-income households and those experiencing housing instability. Demand massively outpaces supply across all property sizes, particularly for family-sized homes (3+ bedrooms).

Allocation policies vary widely: Local authorities set their own qualification criteria and prioritization within statutory framework, creating a "postcode lottery" of access to social housing.

Key Findings: Policy and Practice Issues

Prioritisation Creates Trade-offs‍

Homeless households prioritised: All participating local authorities gave "reasonable preference" to homeless applicants as required by law. Some used "direct let" approaches (bypassing bidding systems) or increased proportion of relets to homeless households to reduce temporary accommodation costs.

Unintended consequences: Prioritising homeless households can deprioritise other vulnerable groups, particularly single adults without children, who remain in unsuitable/unstable situations longer. Some stakeholders worried this creates a perverse incentive—people may present as homeless to access social housing faster (though limited evidence on extent).

Trade-off is unavoidable: With limited affordable housing stock, prioritising one group inevitably disadvantages another.

Inconsistent Qualification Criteria‍

Wide variation across authorities: Qualification criteria differ significantly between local authorities and between local authorities and housing associations. Examples include varying residency requirements, treatment of rent arrears, criminal convictions, and tenancy history.

Postcode lottery effect: Where you live determines your access to social housing, independent of actual need.

Tensions between flexibility and fairness: While local flexibility allows reflection of local conditions (e.g., areas with airports having longer residency requirements), it creates inequity for vulnerable people who move between areas.

Affordability Checks Cause Exclusions‍

Housing associations use strict affordability assessments: If property deemed unaffordable based on income, offers are withdrawn. Checks more stringent than local authority assessments.

People with rent arrears or complex histories excluded: Even when actively addressing financial difficulties, individuals may be excluded from the housing register entirely. Those with tenancy breakdowns, evictions, or certain criminal convictions (especially arson) deemed "high-risk" and excluded.

Perpetuates homelessness: For people experiencing or exiting homelessness—who often lack stable income, credit history, or documented payment records—passing affordability checks becomes nearly impossible, trapping them in homelessness cycle.

Upfront costs create barriers: Some housing associations require rent a month in advance, which people in crisis cannot afford. Local authorities can help with Homelessness Prevention Grant or Discretionary Housing Payments, but temporary accommodation costs make this difficult to do routinely.

Specific Groups Face Additional Barriers‍

People with criminal convictions: Certain convictions (like arson) create severe barriers to rehousing.

Care leavers and domestic abuse survivors: Previously disadvantaged by local connection requirements, though the July 2025 guidance update now exempts them (and veterans) from local connection tests.

People experiencing rough sleeping or hidden homelessness: Lack of formal paper trail or documented payment history means can't demonstrate financial stability, making qualification nearly impossible.

Single adults without children: Often deprioritised in favour of families with immediate crisis need, remaining in sofa surfing, temporary accommodation, or rough sleeping for extended periods. This compounds vulnerability over time.‍

Data Sharing Problems‍

Inconsistent implementation: While formal data-sharing protocols exist in many areas, implementation varies. Complex cases involving multiple agencies are particularly affected.

Misunderstanding of data protection: Stakeholders report people often use data protection as an excuse not to share information, even when lawful. Over-caution harms individuals needing support.

Slows down solutions: Particularly for health-related cases requiring multi-agency coordination, data protection concerns increase costs and delay holistic solutions.‍

How This Impacts Different Forms of Homelessness‍

History of homelessness becomes a barrier: People with homelessness history face increased challenges during qualification checks—difficulty maintaining stable income/credit history prevents passing affordability assessments.

No paper trail = no housing: Those experiencing rough sleeping or hidden homelessness have no documented housing payment history, so can't demonstrate ability to meet requirements.

Prioritisation systems create unintended cycles: By prioritising immediate crises, allocation systems may force people to reach a higher level of need before qualifying for support, rather than enabling early preventative intervention.

Social capital exhaustion: People in unstable situations initially protected by community networks providing informal support. As they exhaust these resources, they shift toward rough sleeping when informal support runs out.

Policy Insights

‍Policy Changes‍

1. National standards for assessments: Introduce legislation or guidance establishing consistent affordability and qualification assessment standards across local authorities and housing associations. Address specific barriers like rent in advance requirements.

2. Dynamic risk assessment models: Develop and test more nuanced assessment approaches that recognise when people are taking positive steps to improve circumstances (e.g., addressing rent arrears). Move from binary pass/fail to individualised assessments promoting inclusive allocation decisions.

3. Review mechanisms for decisions: Introduce Scotland-style approach where local authorities/housing associations can appoint arbiters to review cases of unreasonable refusal. Alternatively, issue guidance on contractual arrangements between local authorities and housing providers to promote transparency and fairness.

4. Improve data-sharing infrastructure: Provide targeted funding and technical support to improve data-sharing between local authorities and housing providers. Clarify data protection rules with practical guidance, model protocols, and training to reduce risk aversion and promote confident, lawful information sharing.‍

Further Research Needed‍

Impact of allocation processes on homelessness: Research whether priority banding systems and direct routes inadvertently incentivise homelessness applications as means of securing housing faster.

Learn from devolved nations: Examine Scotland's approach where housing associations must rehouse homeless households referred by local authorities within "reasonable period" unless "good reason" not to. Identify other effective strategies applicable to England.

‍