Based on a survey of housing associations across Britain, the report from homelessness charity Crisis, Heriot-Watt University and the UK Collaborative Centre for Housing Evidence finds that around a third of responding English housing associations said that pre-tenancy affordability checks often brought to light new information which led to an offer of housing being deemed unsuitable for an applicant.

Nearly a quarter of responding housing associations (24%) also said that households below a certain income threshold are sometimes excluded from the housing register from which they receive applications for social housing lettings.

The result is that some applicants are not considered for a social home due to fears the offer is unsuitable and they will not be able to sustain tenancies due to low incomes or insecure finances.

The report finds that housing associations in England cited welfare reform as the most significant contributing factor in these decisions. Nearly three-quarters of housing associations (71%), representing 90% of housing stock in the sample, said that welfare reform had impacted allocations and lettings processes in recent years. Restrictions to housing benefit and the benefit cap meant housing associations needed to conduct more affordability checks.

Housing associations expressed concerns that they were seeing an increasing concentration of applicants with substantial support needs. Therefore, unless people had serious support needs, such as severe health issues, or were at risk of or fleeing domestic abuse, it was deemed unlikely that people would be able to access a social home, or they would at least need to wait a very long time.

There were also concerns for people with support needs who were allocated a home, as the lack of wider social support would make it harder for that household to maintain the tenancy.

Overall, a quarter (24%) of English housing associations reported often refusing nominations from the local authority because the offer was ‘unsuitable’. Some housing associations indicated that they prioritised certain tenants due to the need for adaptions to properties and also a lack of access to required support [3].

Applicants with a history of anti-social behaviour (ASB) were those most likely to be excluded from housing registers (often belonging to local authorities with some owned by housing associations). Three-quarters (76%) of English housing associations said these housing registers would sometimes or always exclude such applicants if they had no support package in place. Even when support was in place, more than half (54%) of housing associations in England said applicants with a history of ASB would still sometimes be excluded from their registers.

Facing inadequate overall supply, housing associations likened managing and prioritising access to social housing to rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic.

Almost three-quarters (71%) of England survey respondents operating with a choice-based lettings system, representing 89% of housing stock captured in the sample, felt that they faced a challenge of available properties not matching demand from applicants. Some felt the scale of housing need in their area was so overwhelming that they were no longer sure that an allocations system could “meaningfully prioritise” between applicants.

Many flagged the difficulties of meeting the increasing costs of repair and new standards, alongside providing new stock.

Recommendations

To make better use of existing stock in England, Crisis is urging the Westminster Government to adopt a more Scottish-style system to support people in the most difficult situations. While a quarter of English housing associations reported often refusing nominations from the local authority because the offer was ‘unsuitable’, this was reported by only 6% of Scottish housing associations. In England, 27% of new social lettings are allocated to homeless households, in comparison to 54% in Scotland.

While relevant English legislation from 1996 requires that councils prioritise certain groups, including those who are homeless, subsequent legislation in 2011 has enabled them to exclude some people from their housing lists altogether. Housing associations in England have no statutory obligations to rehouse homeless households.

Improvements in access to social housing must be underpinned by an effective welfare system that ensures tenants’ rents are covered by the cost of housing benefit/Universal Credit. Crisis believes that the Westminster Government should look at the household benefit cap and bedroom tax and ensure that welfare levels are connected to the real cost of essentials.

In the longer term, Crisis is urging the Westminster Government to start delivering urgently on its promise to build a new generation of social housing. Ministers have committed £39bn over 10 years to build a target of 180,000 homes for social rent and continue to tighten rules around Right to Buy. With a net loss of 180,000 social homes over the past 10 years in England, record numbers of households in temporary accommodation, and rough sleeping on the rise again, Crisis is urging ministers to make delivering their new target an urgent, national priority.

Matt Downie, chief executive of Crisis, said: “This data proves what we’ve been hearing for years. Working with people who use our services, we know that people can be excluded from accessing a social home because their incomes are too low to meet the necessary criteria.

“The fundamental aim of social housing is to provide a safe and stable home for people on the lowest incomes. If people cannot afford social housing, where do they go?

“The reckless depletion of our social housing stock, alongside cuts to state support, has put English housing associations into an impossible position where they are forced to refuse access to people in precarious, vulnerable situations. Homelessness is surpassing record levels. Its costs to people, communities and local authorities are untenable.

“As a society, we should be alarmed that we have got to this position. Ministers have to look at how we can better manage existing stock, and help councils get more stock into the system as soon as possible. This situation has to change, now.”