Consultation outcome

Government response to the consultation on changes to social housing allocation tests

Updated 2 September 2024

1. Executive summary

1. England is in the middle of the most acute housing crisis in living memory with the social housing waiting list standing at 1.29 million in March 2023,^{[footnote 1]} total homelessness is at record levels and over 150,000 children are in temporary accommodation (TA).^{[footnote 2]} There is insufficient social housing to meet that demand, and we must ensure that this valuable resource is allocated fairly and efficiently to those most in need.

2. In January 2024, the previous government consulted on proposed changes to how social housing is allocated. The 8-week consultation closed on 26 March. Nearly 500 responses were received and additional engagement with the sector and key stakeholders was carried out to inform policy consideration.

3. Analysis of the responses to the consultation and feedback from additional engagement makes clear that the proposals would not only fail to deliver any meaningful improvements to how social housing is allocated but would likely result in a range of negative impacts.

4. The consultation sought views on the following:

a. The introduction of a United Kingdom (UK) connection test. Non-UK nationals would have become eligible following 10 years of lawful residence in the UK with exemptions for EEA, Swiss and Irish citizens, as well as for those entering the UK via safe and legal resettlement routes.

The majority of respondents did not agree with the introduction of this test and feedback from key stakeholders highlighted significant concerns around its feasibility and the cost of implementation due to the need to recruit additional staff, update IT systems and establish new data verification checks.

As eligibility for homelessness support would not have changed under the proposals, particular concerns were expressed about the test leading to a further increase in expensive temporary accommodation. To prevent councils from being overwhelmed by a surge of homelessness applications, additional exemptions would be necessary for homeless people owed a housing duty. However, this would result in a system virtually identical to the one that already exists where 90% of social lets are allocated to UK nationals and the remaining 10% are allocated to EEA, Swiss and Irish citizens or migrants in severe housing need.^{[footnote 3]}

Given the proposed test would have little to no discernible policy impact and that eligibility criteria for social housing is already tightly defined, the government does not agree that its introduction would be a justifiable use of taxpayer money. Migrants arriving in the UK on student or work visas, as well as those arriving in the country illegally with no leave to remain, will remain ineligible for an allocation of social housing, as they are now.

b. Requiring all councils to undertake a series of tests to determine who should qualify for an allocation of social housing within a specific local area. This included mandating a local connection test, income test and anti-social behaviour (ASB) test.

Respondents were clear that councils already have necessary powers to enact such tests and most are doing so: according to government statistics 89% of councils have a local connection test and/or a residency test in place. Of those councils that responded to the consultation, 80% said that they had an income test in place and 75% said that they undertake an anti-social behaviour or other criminal behaviour test ahead of allocating a social home.

Given that the proposals in this area would not add to existing powers that councils have in any meaningful way, and would only serve to remove vital flexibility to design and operate qualification tests in a way that best meets the needs of individual local areas, the government does not believe it is justified in making the introduction of the proposed series of tests a mandatory requirement.

c. The introduction of a new ground for eviction for those who are convicted of terrorist offences, unless excluding them would increase the risk to public safety, as well as the implementation of a ‘three strikes and you’re out’ policy for anti-social behaviour.

With regard to anti-social behaviour, responses made clear that where eviction is necessary on anti-social behaviour grounds, social landlords already have express powers to apply to a court to remove tenants. With regard to the proposed new ground for eviction for terrorist offences, feedback highlighted significant concerns about the potential detrimental impact of its introduction. For example, the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation made clear that its implementation would lead to negative, possibly dangerous, impacts – such as increased public safety risk, the risk of undermining rehabilitation and increasing the risk of reoffending.^{[footnote 4]} To mitigate this risk to public safety, an exemption would likely have been applied in almost every case with the result that the new test would be entirely redundant.

Given the powers already available to social landlords in respect of anti-social behaviour and the potential risks that might flow from the proposed new ground for eviction for terrorist offences, the government does not believe the proposed measures are either necessary or prudent. The government is resolute in its commitment to fighting terrorism and protecting communities and we expect social landlords to make use of the powers available to them to tackle anti-social behaviour.

5. It is vital that the scarce resource of social housing is allocated fairly but the response to the consultation has made clear that the proposed policies are either unnecessary, given there are already stringent national and local rules in place; costly, given implementation requirements and likely increases in homelessness; or would potentially harm communities and individuals by increasing the public safety risk or risk of reoffending. The government will therefore not be taking forward the proposed changes to how social housing is allocated nor the proposed changes to grounds for eviction.

6. The only real answer to addressing the unmet demand for social housing is to increase the supply of good quality affordable homes. That is what this government will do. We are committed, over the course of this Parliament, to building 1.5 million high-quality, well-designed and sustainable homes as well as delivering the biggest boost to affordable housing for a generation.

7. The government will also continue to work in partnership with councils and housing associations to ensure a fair and effective allocations system where vulnerable groups are supported.

2. Summary of consultation responses and government response 

1. The consultation on social housing allocations reforms ran for 8 weeks from 30 January to 26 March and received 496 responses (not all respondents answered every question). This included responses from 198 local housing authorities (LHAs) (some of which are also registered providers of social housing (RPs)), representative sector bodies, charities, and 47 Private Registered Providers (PRPs).

2. The majority of responses were from individuals providing a response on behalf of an organisation. There were also a small number of responses from private individuals, including tenants, academics, retired housing officers and members of the public, including homeless people.

3. The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (then called the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities) also engaged with an extensive range of stakeholders. The full detail of the consultation questions can be found at Annex A but a summary is set out below.

Social housing eligibility – UK connection test  

Summary of responses  

66% of respondents did not agree with the proposal to introduce a UK connection test. Reasons were grouped into two main categories:

(1) concerns around increasing homelessness, including temporary accommodation (TA) burden and crime;

(2) the policy would disproportionately impact or discriminate against groups such as those with certain protected characteristics (in particular race), refugees or domestic violence victims.

For the 28% who did agree, 2 years and 5 years were the most proposed timeframes for residence in the UK in order to be eligible for an allocation of social housing.

Exemptions

72% of respondents wanted additional exemptions. Care leavers, domestic violence survivors, refugees and those who are homeless were the most common proposals.

Impact

42% of the respondents who could anticipate how long it would take to implement the test said it would take more than 12 months. 69% thought there would be delivery challenges, with administrative burden and IT changes the most cited. There were further concerns about the impact on homelessness and TA.

The median figure provided across all respondents in the consultation for the number of their new lettings impacted by implementation of this test was 180.

Government response  

4. Eligibility for social housing is already tightly controlled. If a person’s visa means that they cannot access state benefits or local authority housing assistance, they are not eligible for an allocation of social housing. Migrants arriving in the UK on student or work visas are not eligible and nor are those who arrive in the country illegally with no leave to remain.

5. In 2022-23, 90% of social lets were allocated to UK nationals and the remaining 10% were allocated to EEA, Swiss and Irish citizens (who would have remained eligible under the UK connection test) or migrants in severe housing need.^{[footnote 5]}.

6. Responses to the consultation indicated that the UK connection test, as proposed, would only have served to increase the numbers of those in expensive temporary accommodation, which is already at record levels, unless further exemptions were included. However, these exemptions would have resulted in a system that is virtually the same as the one that exists today but with significant time and expense needed to implement.

7. The UK connection test would likely have cost tens of millions of pounds to implement, due to the need to recruit additional staff, update IT systems and establish new data checks to verify whether an individual had 10 years of lawful leave. Given eligibility criteria for social housing is already tightly defined, the government does not agree that this would be a justifiable use of taxpayer money. 

Nationally mandated qualification tests 

Summary of responses

Local connection test

49% of respondents agreed with the imposition of a mandatory local connection test and 48% disagreed. 3% responded that they didn’t know.

Most of those who disagreed with the policy felt there should be no minimum period or this should be a matter for councils to decide.

Exemptions

Those councils that already implement a local connection test mostly exempted the following groups of people: care leavers, armed forces personnel and veterans, and domestic violence victims.

For exemptions from a future test, 66% wanted additional exemptions to the one proposed for care leavers. The most mentioned groups were domestic violence victims, armed forces personnel and veterans, and homeless people. There were a total of 25 notable groups proposed.

Impact

Of those respondents that answered the question about timescales for implementation, the most common response after “Don’t know” (28%), was more than 12 months to implement (27%).

The largest category of responses for how many new lettings would be impacted was  zero (39%), although there were only 54 responses to this question.

---

Income test

80% of respondents from councils indicated they already set an income test and 18% said they do not.

76% of all respondents who answered the question specified that any income test threshold should vary by locality (62% set by the council, 14% set by central government). Those who gave further details thought this should reflect regional salary differences.

There was no notable majority response for the income cap figure.

Exemptions

Of those that said only some of the suggested groups should be exempt, 54% selected ‘households who need or live in supported housing’; 45% said ‘individuals in receipt of universal credit, housing benefit or other legacy benefit’, and 40% ‘members or veterans of the UK armed forces’, with some responses indicating more than one group for an exemption.

For those who wanted additional exemptions, groups with the most mentions were domestic violence survivors and care leavers.

Impact

Of those that answered the question, the largest group of respondents (26%) thought that more than 12 months was required to implement the test.

---

ASB test

75% of respondents from councils that answered this question indicated they already set an ASB or other criminal behaviour test and 22% said they don’t.

55% of all respondents who answered this question agreed that disqualification from social housing should follow anti-social behaviour.

36% said they did not support disqualification and the remaining 9% said they didn’t know. Stated reasons why respondents didn’t agree with a disqualification included wanting the ability to allow discretion (with many of these stating that discretion should be provided by a council).

In terms of length of disqualification period, the most common response was 5 years, with 38% of those who agreed with disqualification selecting this option.

70% of respondents thought the entire household should undergo an ASB test, rather than just the lead tenant.

Exemptions

44% of respondents thought groups other than domestic violence survivors and those with a contributing disability or condition should be exempt. 38% thought they shouldn’t. 18% responded that they didn’t know.

Specific groups that respondents wanted to be exempt were victims of modern slavery, trafficking, cuckooing or other crimes, care leavers, and homeless people.

Impact

87% of respondents did not know how many people would be affected. Of the 13% that could respond, 42% thought that there would be very little impact because checks were already conducted.

---

Fraudulent declaration test

77% agreed that an applicant providing fraudulent information on their application should be disqualified from an allocation of social housing.

Of the 77% of respondents that agreed, the two most opted for lengths of disqualification were 5 years (32%), and 1 year (26%).

A number of councils noted that they already had a declaration in place to prevent fraudulent applicants, and did not think a new, separate process was necessary.

Government response  

8. Councils already have the necessary powers to decide who should qualify for social housing and evidence, alongside responses to this consultation, is that they are using them. Government statistics show the vast majority (89%) of councils already have a local connection test and / or a residency test.^{[footnote 6]} In addition, in response to the consultation 80% of councils confirmed that they have an income test in place and 75% said that they undertake an anti-social behaviour, or other criminal behaviour, test ahead of allocating a social home.

9. Mandating qualification tests would not add to existing powers that councils have in any meaningful way and would only serve to remove vital flexibility to design and operate qualification tests in a way that best meets the needs of local communities.

10. The government is committed to ensuring that, where appropriate, barriers preventing vulnerable groups in need from accessing social housing are removed. We will continue to work with councils, partners and other stakeholders to support vulnerable groups, including victims of domestic abuse and care leavers.

Ground for eviction – anti-social behaviour and terrorism 

Summary of responses

‘Three strikes and you are out’ anti-social behaviour eviction ground 

40% of respondents said the three strikes should be linked to existing Home Office ASB powers. 33% said it should be left to councils to decide.

However, when considering these results alongside the responses in the ‘other’ category, slightly more respondents said the council should decide or that the policy was not appropriate or wouldn’t work logistically than selected the Home Office sanctions or a more stringent approach.

---

Terrorism test 

51% of responders indicated they are in favour of disqualifying those convicted of terrorist offences from an allocation of social housing with 33% not being in favour (of those who answered the question). 16% did not know.

When asked about introducing a new ground for eviction for people with unspent convictions for terrorist offences, 55% supported the proposal and 45% were opposed. Reasons provided for non-support for both questions were that it would hinder the monitoring/investigation of individuals and increase the risk to the public, and that it would have a negative impact on homelessness and communities.

Implementation

The most frequent response was via a DBS check/engagement with police/probation/MAPPA in order to identify individuals.

Impact

86% of respondents did not know what the impact of the terrorism test would be on social housing allocations. Of those that provided a response, 51% said there would be no impact. 17% said fewer than 20 lets would be impacted, and the others did not provide impact estimates.

Government response  

Anti-social behaviour

11. The government is committed to cracking down on anti-social behaviour and has set out plans to bring in new powers to tackle persistent anti-social offenders as part of a new Crime and Policing Bill, as well as delivering more neighbourhood police and community officers to keep communities safe. However, eviction is not always the right answer for perpetrators whose needs can be complex and varied. Removing access to social housing entirely may increase the risk of reoffending and reduce the likelihood of rehabilitation.

12. The Regulator of Social Housing’s consumer standards require registered providers of social housing to work with relevant partners to deter and tackle anti-social behaviour in the neighbourhoods where they provide social housing.

13. Where eviction is necessary, social landlords already have express powers to apply to a court to remove tenants that carry out anti-social behaviour. There are existing absolute and discretionary grounds for eviction for ASB in the Housing Act 1985 and Housing Act 1988.

14. The government expects social landlords to use the range of levers already available to them to address anti-social behaviour and criminal behaviour and prevent it reoccurring in order to protect communities.

Terrorism test  

15. Feedback from operational partners, as well as the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, local authorities and others raised significant concerns as to whether the implementation of the terrorism measures would be feasible without leading to negative, possibly dangerous, impacts – such as increased public safety risk, the risk of undermining rehabilitation and increasing the risk of reoffending. To mitigate this risk to public safety, an exemption would likely have been applied in almost every case with the result that new test would be entirely redundant.

16. Councils work closely with the police and other relevant authorities to manage any convicted terrorist offenders within social housing and mitigate the risk of harm to communities.

Other questions covered in the consultation 

Summary of responses

Applicants on a waiting list 

62% of respondents said they rechecked applicants at the point of allocation.

49% of respondents said they rechecked applicants on their waiting lists once a year to ensure their waiting list is accurate. 10% said they checked less frequently than this with another 12% not re-checking until the point of an allocation. 

63% of respondents thought that there shouldn’t be a limit on the number of LHAs that applicants could apply to for social housing, but 27% did. Of the 27% that did, the most specified number was 1 LHA with 38% selecting this.

---

Public Sector Equality Duty 

56% of respondents expected that any of the policies impacting new social housing applicants would have a particular impact on those with a protected characteristic. The top three protected characteristics identified by those who responded to this part of the question as being impacted by the policies were race (41%), disability (31%), and gender (16%). The top three tests identified by those who responded to this part of the question as impacting people with a protected characteristic were the UK connection test (31%), ASB (14%), and the local connection test (13%). The most frequent response (18%) specified the UK connection test would impact people with a protected characteristic under race.

39% of respondents thought the policies impacting existing social housing tenants would have a particular impact on those with a particular protected characteristic. Those who responded to the second part of the question identified the top three protected characteristics impacted by the policies as disability (27%), race (13%), and age (5%). The top three tests identified as impacting people with a protected characteristic were ASB (25% responses), the UK connection test (8%), and the local connection test (6%).

Government response  

17. The consultation responses indicated that the proposed policies risk breakdowns in community cohesion, with the policies favouring certain cohorts over others. Specific policies, notably the UK connection test, would disproportionately impact or discriminate based on race and against groups such as those with protected characteristics, refugees, and domestic violence victims.

18. This government is committed to building resilient, cohesive communities, across the country. We will continue to work closely with community groups, charities, and public sector partners to bridge the divisions between communities and challenge hatred.

Next steps

19. The government does not intend to enact the policy proposals set out in the consultation, which would not have delivered any meaningful improvements to how social housing is allocated – proposals were either unnecessary, unfeasible, risked harming communities, or costly.

20. The only real answer to addressing the unmet demand for social housing is to increase the supply of good quality homes. That is exactly what this government will do. We are committed, over the course of this Parliament, to building 1.5 million high-quality, well-designed and sustainable homes as well as delivering the biggest boost to affordable housing for a generation.

21. We have proposed reforms to the National Planning Policy Framework to support the delivery of more affordable housing and have confirmed a range of new flexibilities for councils and housing associations to support them in delivering more of the affordable homes we need.

22. We have also confirmed investment of £450 million in councils across England under the third round of the Local Authority Housing Fund to create over 2,000 affordable homes for some of the most vulnerable families in society.

23. We will set out details of future government investment in social and affordable housing at the Spending Review, so that social housing providers can plan for the future. The government will also continue to work with councils and housing associations to ensure the fair and effective use of stock.  

24. Finally, the government would like to thank those stakeholders and members of the public who have engaged with the policy proposals, both through their responses to the consultation and other engagement. The views given, data supplied, and expertise provided have all been important factors to understand the impact and desirability of any reforms to the social housing allocations framework. 

Annex A: Consultation responses

1. What evidence does your local housing authority currently collect as proof of eligibility? (322 responses)

a. If other, please specify (137 responses)

• Many answered that they accept more than one form of evidence as proof of eligibility. The most frequently collected document by LHAs as proof of eligibility was a passport (223), with proof of access to benefits (174), visa letters (170) and Home Office data on visas (156) following respectively. 76 respondents did not know.

• Of the 137 respondents that completed the “other” box, the most mentioned forms of evidence were Biometric Residency Permits (38), Share Codes (27), Birth Certificates (27), Driver’s License (18), Home Office Correspondence (14), and Immigration Numbers or Documentation (10). Some respondents said that they rely on the local authority or housing association to undertake checks.

2. Do you agree that an individual should have to demonstrate a connection to the UK for 10 years before qualifying for social housing (if they do not meet the test otherwise or are exempt)? (465 responses)

a. If no, please detail length of test (301 responses)

• Of the 465 responses, 308 respondents said “no”, 131 said “yes”, and 26 didn’t know.

• Out of the 308 respondents who said “no”, 196 in additional information mentioned three main categories: (i) 92 respondents had concerns around impact on homelessness, including increased pressure on temporary accommodation burden and concerns it would lead to increased crime. (ii) 68 respondents believed the policy would disproportionately impact or discriminate against groups such as those with protected characteristics, refugees, or domestic abuse victims. (iii) 36 respondents suggested a needs-based approach would be more appropriate.

• The remaining 112 of the respondents who said “no” suggested that the length of the test should be 2 years, 5 years and / or that exceptions should be required. Several suggested that it should be at local authority or housing association discretion.

3. Do you think there should be any further exemptions to the UK connection test, for example for care leavers? (446 responses)

a. Please explain your answer (365 responses)

• Of the 446 responses, 319 responded that there should be further exemptions, and 127 said “no”.

• Out of the 365 responses in the free text box the majority of exemptions were proposed for care leavers, domestic violence survivors, refugees and homeless people. Further groups proposed included unaccompanied minors, those with a disability or medical need, victims of modern slavery or human trafficking, armed forces personnel/veterans. A small number of responses also proposed exemptions for key workers and families with children.

4. How long would it take your local housing authority to implement a new UK connection test at eligibility stage? (316 responses)

• “Don’t know” was given by 103 respondents.

• For the 210 who did know how long it would take to implement a new policy, the most common timeframe was more than 12 months (89), followed by 6 months (59), 3-6 months (32), 1-3 months (18), then less than 1 month (15).

5. Do you foresee any challenges delivering this change to eligibility in your local housing authority’s social housing allocation scheme? (322 responses)

a. Please detail why/why not (257 responses)

• Of the 322 responses to this question, 221 respondents believed that there would be delivery challenges, 55 respondents did not and 46 didn’t know.

• There were 257 responses detailing why / why not. The most common reasons cited for why the test would present a challenge were resource-related issues, such as staff time, training, and administrative burden, followed by IT changes and cost. Some were also concerned that the test would create further pressures on the homelessness system. Concerns were also raised about potential legal challenge.

• Responses also noted they didn’t think the proposal would resolve the underlying issues of a lack of houses for everyone that needed them.

• Additionally, a small number of respondents were unsure as to how applicants would prove their entitlement to social housing, or how their organisation would check entitlement.

6. Please indicate the number of new lettings in your local housing authority area (including households on the waiting list) that you believe would become ineligible by this policy (120 responses)

a. Please also indicate the size of your waiting list. (60 responses)

• 73 respondents did not know how many new lettings would be affected by the policy.

• Of the 47 responses to this question that estimated the number of new lettings impacted, the number ranged from 0 to 3,500 per year. Of the 39 quantitative responses (i.e. those defined by a set number or proportion of their waiting list with no caveats), the median number of lettings impacted was 180.

• Where qualitative answers were provided, themes broadly fall within the below two categories: (1) lack of data reporting capability - data restrictions and where address history is captured for less than 10 years only; (2) reregistration - where reregistering will have a bearing on the data for new lets impacted.

7. If you currently use a local connection test for social housing, what definition of residence do you currently use as the measure for local connection? (237 responses)

a. If other, please specify (130 responses)

• Of the 237 responses to this question, a small number said they do not apply a local connection test (24). 40 responded that they ask for proof of residency and 78 used evidence listed against the definition in section 199 of the Housing Act to demonstrate a local connection.

• Of the 118 “other” responses, a common theme was a period of residency from 6 months to 5 years.

8. If you currently use a local connection test for social housing, please indicate any groups that are currently exempted from the test (277 responses)

a. If other, please specify (105 responses)

• Of the responses to this question, there was no one group to which all respondents applied an exemption.

• Many grant exemptions to more than one group. Of the groups where exemptions are applied, UK Armed Forces and veterans (182), domestic abuse victims (165) and care leavers (145) were the most common groups. Other groups included named resettlement/reallocation schemes (96), households with extra care requirements (74), partners of deceased MoD staff, prison leavers who were last settled in the area, and those permanently employed in the borough and key workers.

• 50 respondents said they don’t know and 17 said it wasn’t applicable.

9. Do you agree that an individual should have to demonstrate a local connection with an area for two years before qualifying for social housing (unless exempt)? (450 responses)

a. If no, please specify the length of test (191 responses)

• 220 said yes, 218 said no. 12 said they didn’t know.

• Free text box responses provided varied views in answer to this question. The largest group, (94), felt that there should be no minimum period, and that the length of local connection should remain a matter for local authorities to decide upon on a case-by-case basis. 37, the second largest group, reiterated that there should be no local connection test of any length.

• Where responses indicated preferences for the qualifying period of a local connection, there was no one overriding preference, with varying responses suggesting between 1 and 10 or more years.

10. The government intends to use the same definition of local connection as in section 199 of the Housing Act 1996. This definition would mean that a person has a local connection:

• because they are, or in the past were, normally resident there, and that residence is or was of their own choice;
• because they are employed there;
• because of family associations; or
• because of special circumstances.

Do you agree that definition should be used? (437 responses)

a. If other, please explain your preference (130 responses)

• 243 respondents agreed with the definition provided, and 182 said no or suggested alternative definitions.

• Of the 145 respondents who answered ‘no’ or ‘other’ and then provided further information, the biggest group (34) suggested that the supplied definition was too broad, with specific mention to the ‘special circumstances’ clause. 13 respondents wanted a time period to be specified, whether this be bigger or smaller than the two years proposed in question 9.

• There were differing opinions about which criteria to use in the definition – 6 wanted the reference to family to be changed to close family only; of those who did not want family included in the definition at all, 14 wanted residency to be the main criterion, and 10 wanted employment to be the main criterion. 20 respondents said that they wanted to see exemptions given to certain groups.

11. The government proposes to exempt care leavers from the local connection test for social housing up to the age of 25 to align with broader Corporate Parenting Principles, which sets out the responsibilities of local authorities towards children and young people in care. Do you agree? (447 responses)

a. If no, please explain why (61 responses)

• The majority (346) of responses were supportive of an exemption for care leavers, with 75 answering no and 26 answering ‘Don’t know’.

• Of those that answered yes and commented, some specified that the test should apply only to care leavers in their county with some questioning how the exemption would operate in a two-tier authority system. A small number thought an exemption should be decided on a case-by-case basis. Some responses also raised concerns over the negative impact of care leavers not remaining in the area they received social care as a result.

• Of those who said no and commented, reasons for not supporting the exemption included concerns it would result in increased demand/burdens upon current systems/authorities. A number also noted they have exemptions in place already.

• Other responses indicated a preference for care leavers to be housed in the area responsible for their social care. A small number responded ‘Don’t know’.

12. Do you think there should be any further exemptions to the local connection test? (447 responses)

a.    If yes, please propose additional groups (284 responses)
b.    If no, please explain why (66 responses)

• Two-thirds (291) answered ‘yes’ there should be further exemptions to the local connection, with the remaining third (148) answering ‘no’

• Of the 291 who answered ‘yes’ and commented, the further exemptions suggested were as follows:

  • 109 mentioned domestic violence victims
  • 79 mentioned members of the Armed Forces (inc veterans, family members)
  • 62 mentioned homeless people
  • 32 mentioned care leavers
  • 27 mentioned Refugees
  • 20 mentioned those in serious medical need
  • 20 mentioned skilled workers or those moving for secure employment
  • 20 mentioned vulnerable people and those in need of a fresh start in a new locale (such as prison leavers or those recovering from addiction)
  • 18 mentioned the elderly/those who require or have to give care
  • 17 mentioned victims of Modern Slavery/Trafficking/Sexual Exploitation
  • 17 mentioned those in witness protection schemes
  • 13 mentioned those in or in need of supported accommodation
  • 12 mentioned those with the Right to Move
  • 12 mentioned those involved in established resettlement schemes
  • 12 mentioned those who are physically disabled
  • 9 mentioned unaccompanied minors
  • 7 mentioned asylum seekers
  • 7 mentioned members of the traveller community
  • 7 mentioned victims of serious crime
  • 6 mentioned Key Workers such as NHS
  • 6 stated that ‘Exceptional Circumstances/Needs’ should allow for exemption if needed
  • 6 mentioned those living under MAPPA (multi-agency public protection arrangements)
  • 4 mentioned those in unsuitable conditions
  • 3 mentioned those with mental health difficulties
  • 2 mentioned those with Special Educational Needs
  • 2 ticked yes but their comments indicated that they meant ‘no’

Of the 66 that answered ‘no’ and commented, responses stated or implied that the current rules suffice. Some considered it unfair to add further exemptions. Concerns were also raised that applying blanket exemptions would increase housing pressures. A small number asked that it should be at the discretion of the local authority.

13. How long would it take your local housing authority to implement a new local connection test? (303 responses)

a. Don’t know (86 responses)

• There was no clear majority response to the question. For those that responded, 86 responded that they didn’t know and 38 said they already have a test in place.

• 81 said it would take more than 12 months, 48 said 6-12 months, 23 said 3-6 months, 14 said 1-3 months and 11 said less than 1 month.

14. Noting the proposed exemptions, please indicate the number of new lettings in the local housing authority area that you believe would become ineligible by this policy. (83 responses)

a. Size of waiting list (100 responses)
b. Don’t know (212 responses)

• The majority of responses (212) were ‘Don’t Know’.

• Of the 54 that responded, 21 said there would be no or minimal impact, mostly in cases where they already operate a local connection test of at least 2 years. In the 19 responses were estimates of new lettings impacted were given, these varied between 5 and 2,000 lets.

15. Does your local housing authority currently perform an income check for social housing applicants? (306 responses)

a. If so, please provide more details on the test including: the definition of income; the income threshold for the test; whether capital assets are included in the assessment; the evidence collected to determine household income; income assessment periods; and any exemptions. (164 responses)

• 189 responses said that their LA already conducted an income test for applicants, 53 said no and 64 said ‘don’t know’.

• Of those who answered ‘yes’, 164 provided further information on what the test includes, with some providing multiple answers. 114 respondents mentioned that they take applicants’ savings, investments, and assets into account, and 99 indicated an income limit is applied. 32 respondents said that their organisation completes a more holistic financial assessment or affordability check. 50 said that proof of earnings was requested from applicants. 4 said that at application phase, no evidence was requested, with 17 saying income was either not assessed or there was no upper limit applied. 

• In terms of exemptions to any thresholds or tests conducted, 25 different organisations said that money received as compensation for an injury was disregarded from financial assessments, 13 applied an age limit over which applicants were exempted from some or all eligibility requirements, and 15 exempted some or all benefits from income assessments.

• Domestic abuse survivors (13) were the most frequently exempted category of person, followed by armed forces members or veterans (3) and care leavers (3).

• Of the 185 respondents from councils who answered this question, 149 confirmed that they had an income test, 33 said they didn’t have an income test and 3 respondents didn’t know.

16. Should the same threshold for the income test apply across England or should it vary? (425 responses)

• 322 responses specified that an income test should vary by locality, of which 264 said it should be set by the local housing authority and 58 by central government. 57 responses suggested the income test should reflect a different geography, of which 34 suggested one threshold for London and another for the rest of the country. 23 responses supported a national threshold

• Of the 99 respondents who specified a different geography, or had additional comments, 17 said that any limit should reflect regional salary difference. A small number (16) felt that there should be no income test at all. 4 respondents said that it should be a regional or county level rate, and 3 said it should be local housing allowance rate based.

17. Should income data be assessed at household or individual level? (421 responses)

a. If ‘household, other’, please specify (40 responses)
b. If other, please specify (20 responses)

• 172 respondents thought everyone in the household should be assessed, 130 thought the lead tenant, 65 thought a variation on the household and 9 thought individual.  29 respondents selected the ‘other’ option and 16 said they don’t know. 

• Free text responses further indicated that the applicant and their partner/spouse should be assessed (some noting regardless of whether the partner was on the tenancy agreement or not) (23). 9 noted that they thought assessments over income data should be a decision for each local authority, and 7 mentioned that only those over 18 should be assessed in a household.

18. Assuming household income is based on the two highest earners working full time, what should the income cap be set at? (406 responses)

• As with the previous question, all response options bar ‘don’t know’ (128) in this question were relatively equal (between 51 and 59 respondents). The joint highest options after ‘don’t know’ were ‘£50,000 to £59,000’ and ‘£60,000 to £69,000’ with 59 respondents selecting each of these options.

19. Should capital assets be included in the assessment? If yes, what type of capital assets should be included, and what threshold should be set? Capital assets could include savings in an interest-bearing savings account; savings in a non-interest-bearing current account; bonds, stocks and shares; property that the applicant does not live in; and land. (418 responses)

a. If yes, please provide more details (255 responses)

• 317 responses said that capital assets should be included in an income assessment. 255 respondents then gave further information about types of assets and thresholds.

• 121 respondents felt that property ownership and related income should be included, and 110 thought that savings should be. 69 respondents thought that only assets or savings above a certain threshold should be included (and many of these thought the current DWP benefits limit should be used). 11 respondents specifically mentioned that only accessible assets and savings should be taken into account, and 16 noted that foreign assets should also be included. 4 specifically said compensation payments received by armed forces personnel should be exempted.

20. Do you agree that households where an individual is in receipt of Universal Credit, housing benefit or other legacy benefits (which are being replaced by Universal Credit); households who need or live in supported housing; and members and veterans of the UK armed forces should be exempt from an income test? (419 responses)

a. If yes and there should be exemptions for other groups, please detail these (60 responses)
b. If only some groups should be exempt, please select all those you think should be exempt (134 responses)
c. If only other groups should be exempt, please detail these (23 responses)

• Of the 419 respondents:
  • 149 said all three groups should be exempt (and no other groups).
  • 65 said these three and other groups also.
  • 134 said no, only some of these respondents should be exempt.
  • 43 respondents said no only other groups should be exempt.
  • 2 respondents said no groups should be exempt.
  • 26 respondents said “don’t know”.

• Of the 134 respondents that said only some of the listed groups should be exempt, 73 responses selected ‘households who need or live in supported housing’; 60 said ‘individuals in receipt of universal credit, housing benefit or other legacy benefit’, and 53 ‘members or veterans of the UK armed forces’.

• For those who said ‘yes, and there should be exemptions for other groups’, additional groups with the most mentions were domestic violence survivors (16), care leavers (13), those on disability benefits (8), and carers (6). 11 respondents wanted exemption decisions to be left up to the housing provider

21. How long would it take your local housing authority to implement a new income test at qualification stage? (305 responses)

• 30 respondents said they already have the test in place.
• 14 respondents said implementation would take 1-3 months, 22 respondents said 3-6 months, 49 said 6-12 months, and 79 respondents said more than 12 months.
• 99 respondents answered ‘don’t know’.

22. Do you think there are any circumstances where a minimum income threshold to determine who should be allocated a social home is appropriate, for example to incentivise being in work? (432 responses)

a. Please explain your answer (293 responses)

• 269 said that a minimum income threshold shouldn’t be applied. 110 said one should be applied. 53 said “Don’t know”.

• Of the explanations given for an answer, 52 responses felt that social housing was needs-based and was there to help the most vulnerable in society; 18 noted that not everyone was capable of working but would be excluded under an income threshold from accessing social housing.

• Of those who agreed with the minimum income proposal and provided further explanation, 31 stated affordability as the reasoning, and 12 said it would incentivise work.

23. Does your local housing authority undertake any anti-social behaviour or other criminal behaviour tests for social housing applicants? (296 responses)

a. If so, please detail what tests are conducted; what data sources are used to inform these tests (e.g. Police National Computer checks or local data sharing); and any groups exempted from the tests. (194 responses)

• 171 respondents said that their local authority already undertakes anti-social behaviour or other criminal behaviour tests for social housing applicants. 60 respondents said they don’t already use this test and 65 said they didn’t know.

• In terms of information gathering, 42 used agreements with external agencies around data sharing (for example. police, probation services, MAPPA, MARAC), 37 respondents relied on the self-declaration of applicants; 34 requested data from previous landlords; and 24 used internal local authority information. Only 8 used the DBS or PNC databases. Regarding exemptions, not much information was provided on this by respondents, but 15 said that whilst there was no specific exemption, offending tenants’ circumstances are taken into consideration or support is offered to tenants.

• Of the 183 respondents from councils who answered this question, 137 confirmed that they already undertook anti-social behaviour or other criminal behaviour tests, 40 said they didn’t and 6 said they didn’t know.

24. Do you agree that a conviction/sanction for anti-social behaviour should result in a disqualification period from accessing social housing? (450 responses)

a. If yes, how long should someone be disqualified for? (226 responses)
b. If no, please explain your answer (241 responses)

• Of the 450 responses to this question, 246 (just over half of respondents) agreed that a disqualification should follow ASB.

• 236 stated yes to the disqualification with no caveats. 201 put “no”, or “don’t know” with a summary of their concerns.

• 90 respondents wanted this decision to remain with the LAs or for there to be discretion, highlighting that the causes and solutions to ASB are complex and should be considered on a case-by-case basis.

• Where respondents agreed with disqualification for ASB, the most popular disqualification period was 5 years, with 87 respondents, followed by 1 year with 50. 19 respondents said different time periods of disqualification than those given were needed e.g. longer for certain offences.

• 90 respondents said that they didn’t support a blanket disqualification without the ability to allow discretion (with many of these stating that discretion should be provided by a Local Authority). 64 respondents thought that support should be offered instead, or that rehabilitation and public safety were more important or useful than disqualification.

• Concerns were also raised about the test, with responses identifying a possible increase in homelessness owing to such a proposal, which would in turn place increased pressure on LAs, while 34 were worried about the impact of a disqualification on children and other innocent parties.

25. Should all members of a household be subject to a check for history of anti-social behaviour, rather than just the lead tenant? (437 responses)

a. If no, please explain why (126 responses)

• 306 respondents thought that all household members should be subject to an ASB check. 108 said no. 23 said they don’t know.

• 35 responses specifically didn’t want new checks to be implemented for anyone, including lead tenants. 31 wanted the system to remain as it was currently, with local authorities having discretion to act as they saw fit on a case-by-case basis. 30 were worried about the impact of checks on families, that the measure was either too punitive or invasive to families, may break up families, or not give ASB perpetrators anywhere else to go. 30 didn’t want children or other vulnerable people to be subject to checks, or wanted the power for discretion in such cases.

• 42 respondents identified that ASB checks would be too burdensome for local authorities or that this proposal didn’t represent value for money.

26. The government is considering whether exemptions to the anti-social behaviour test should be made for victims of domestic abuse; or those with a condition or disability that was a relevant contributing factor to the anti-social behaviour. Are there any additional groups that should be considered for an exemption from this test? (441 responses)

a. If yes, please detail these (225 responses)

• 196 respondents said yes and 167 said no. 78 said they don’t know.

• Specific groups that respondents wanted to be exempt were victims of modern slavery, trafficking, cuckooing or other crimes (44), care leavers (41), homeless people (29), prison leavers or others in need of rehabilitation or supported housing (26), unaccompanied minors or households with children (24), armed forces personnel or veterans (10), asylum seekers, migrants, or refugees (7).

27. Please indicate the number of new allocations in your local housing authority area that you believe would be affected by the anti-social behaviour test. (291 responses)

• By far the biggest group of respondents, 254, did not know how many people would be affected.

• Only 36 respondents were able to answer the question of how many new allocations would be affected by an ASB test.

• Where further details were provided, only 2 respondents thought numbers of nearly 1000 or more would be affected by the ASB test, 1 thought hundreds, 4 thought less than 100, 11 thought less than 10 or negligible amounts, 15 thought 0 or very few because checks are already conducted by that LA.

28. Does your local housing authority test for any terrorist offences for social housing applicants? (292 responses)

a. If yes, please detail what tests are conducted; what data sources are used to inform these tests; and any groups exempted from the tests. (68 responses)

• 38 of respondents who answered the question said that they already do test for terrorist offences, and 156 said they didn’t. 98 respondents said they didn’t know.

• 71 respondents commented that existing qualification tests could be applied to prevent a terrorist offender being allocated social housing.

• 68 respondents provided extra information, with 40 saying that self-declaration of criminal offences or ASB is used, with 23 saying they engage with police/HMPPS/MAPPA.

29. The government is proposing that an unspent conviction, including under the Terrorism Acts 2000 and 2006 (such as for membership of a proscribed terrorist organisation) should result in a permanent disqualification from accessing social housing, unless doing so would increase public safety risks. Do you agree with this proposal? (434 responses)

a. If no, please explain why (137 responses)

• 222 respondents indicated they are in favour of introducing a terrorism test as proposed, with 143 not being in favour. 69 respondents didn’t know.

• Of those responding no, reasons given included that the proposal would hinder rehabilitation or risk reoffending or radicalisation. Other responses said that it should be at the discretion of the local authority (supported by relevant agencies) and not be a blanket permanent ban to allow for individual factors / risk to be taken into consideration. Some said the policy would worsen homelessness and a small number said it would be disproportionate if it captured lower level / historical offences. Other reasons provided included concerns it would hinder the monitoring / investigation of individuals, that existing criminality test / policies would already prevent this group from accessing social housing.

30. Please indicate the number of new allocations in the local housing authority area that you believe would be affected by the terrorism test. (288 responses)

• The vast majority of respondents (247 out of 288) did not know what the impact of the terrorism test would be on social housing allocations. Of the 41 providing a response, indicative numbers for the impact of the terrorism test on new allocations were as follows:
• 1 respondent said 20 lets
• 6 responders said less than 5 annually, or negligible
• 21 said zero

31. Do you have views on how this proposal might be implemented most effectively? (227 responses)

• A number of responses said that the test should be implemented via a DBS check/engagement with police/probation/MAPPA in order to identify individuals.

• Others said that guidance from government would be required on how local authorities could identify individuals.

• A small number of responses said that a new national database to identify terrorist offenders should be created.

• 8 responders said that local authorities should have discretion on decisions, while other responses said that central government should identify the individual. Some also said that government already inform local authorities directly.

32. The government has committed to exploring a ‘three strikes and you’re out’ eviction expectation for all social landlords, meaning three proven instances of anti-social behaviour, accompanied by three warnings from a landlord, would result in eviction. How should a ‘strike’ be defined? (426 responses)

a. If other, please specify (86 responses)

• The largest group of responses (169) said the three strikes should be linked to existing Home Office ASB powers. 140 said it should be left to LHAs to decide.

• However, when considering these results alongside the responses in the ‘other’ category, 214 said the local authority should decide and 199 said that the Home Office sanctions or something more stringent should apply.

33. Do you believe that a new ground for eviction should be introduced to ensure that those with unspent convictions for terrorism offences be evicted from social housing, unless doing so would increase public safety risk? (417 responses)

a. If yes, how is this best implemented? (133 responses)
b. If no, please explain why (152 responses)

• 228 said yes, 189 said no. Reasons provided for not supporting a new ground for eviction included that it would hinder the monitoring/investigation of individuals and increase the risk to the public, and that it would have a negative impact on homelessness and communities.

34. Do you agree that those who provide fraudulent information in social housing applications should be prevented from qualifying for a set period, in addition to any disqualification period that would have applied had they not made a false declaration? (436 responses)

a. If yes, how long should the disqualification be? (291 responses)

• The broad majority of respondents (334) agreed that an applicant providing fraudulent information on their application should be disqualified . 

• On the number of years of disqualification, 106 respondents opted for 5 years, 87 for 1 year, 55 for 2 years and 37 for 3 years. There were no responses for 4 years.

• 6 LHAs noted that they already had a declaration in place to prevent fraudulent applicants or had the power to take action under existing legislation, and did not think a new, separate process was necessary.

35. Does your local housing authority re-check applicants at the point of allocation to ensure that the eligibility and qualification tests are still met? (285 responses)

• 176 respondents said they rechecked applicants at point of allocation. 47 said no, 62 said they didn’t know.

36. How often does your local housing authority check whether your waiting list is accurate (e.g. by checking whether those on a waiting list are still in the area and still require social housing)? (278 responses)

• 136 responses indicated they check once a year. 28 said they check less frequently than this. 34 responses said they do not re-check until the point of allocation. 73 don’t know how frequently they check the accuracy of their waiting list, and 7 don’t hold a waiting list.

37. Do you check whether applicants to social housing or those on your local housing authority waiting list have (a) applied to another local housing authority, (b) are on a different local housing authority’s waiting list, or (c) have been allocated housing by another local housing authority? (280 responses)

a. If yes, please explain what checks are made, how frequently they are made and any action that is taken. (37 responses)

• Of the 280 responses, 167 said ‘no’ and 43 said ‘yes’ and 70 did not know.

• Of the 37 responses to the second part of the question, few respondents specified the frequency of fraud database related checks and responses ranged from quarterly checks to every three years.

• There was no clear single method used to carry out checks and responses indicated that a range of different methods were used. These ranged from using the National Fraud Initiative; data sharing and partnership with other authorities; requesting address history to check eligibility and identify if an applicant is currently housed in social housing; financial credit checks through providers such as Experian to check addresses. A small number of responses said they rely on applicant’s self-declarations.

38. Should there be a limit on how many local housing authorities an applicant can apply to? (425 responses)

a. If yes, please indicate the limit (110 responses)

• 115 respondents thought there should be a limit on the number of local authorities that applicants could apply to for social housing. 267 thought there shouldn’t be. 43 didn’t know.

• The most specified limit was 1 with 42 responses, and the next biggest responses were 2 and 3 LHAs with 25-26 mentions each, and all other numbers of LHAs had fewer than 10 responses. 

39. Do you expect that any of the policies impacting new social housing applicants would have a particular impact on those with a particular protected characteristic? (452 responses)

a. If so, please give further detail on the relevant policy and its impact (262 responses)

• 252 respondents said “yes”, 86 said “no”, and 114 did not know.

• There were 262 responses to the second part of the question. Responses frequently noted groups with protected characteristics they believe would be impacted by the proposed policies but did not specify which policy this was related to. Many responses used the free text to reiterate they needed further information about the policies or to state the need for a full Public Sector Equality Duty test to be carried out by the Department.

• The top three protected characteristics identified as being impacted by the policies were race (108 responses), disability (82 responses), and gender (41 responses).

• The top three tests identified as impacting people with a protected characteristic were the UK connection test (80 responses), ASB (36 responses), and the local connection test (35 responses).

• The most frequent response (48 responses) specified the UK connection test would impact people with a protected characteristic under race.

40. Do you expect that any of the policies impacting existing social housing tenants would have a particular impact on those with a particular protected characteristic? (430 responses)

a. If so, please give further detail on the relevant policy and its impact. (182 responses)

• There were 430 responses to the first question; 169 said “yes”, 116 said “no”, and 145 did not know.

• 182 responses gave further detail on the policy and impact. Of these, 148 said “yes” they expect some of the policies impacting existing social tenants would have a particular impact on a particular protected characteristic. 9 said “no”, 20 said “don’t know”, and 5 did not answer the first part of the question.

• Responses frequently noted groups with protected characteristics expected to be impacted by the proposed policies but did not specify which policy this was related to. Many responses used the free text to reiterate they needed further information about the policies or to state the need for a full Public Sector Equality Duty test to be carried out by the Department.

• The top three protected characteristics identified as being impacted by the policies were disability (49 responses), race (24 responses), and age (10 responses).

• The top three tests identified as impacting people with a protected characteristic were ASB (45 responses), the UK connection test (15 responses), and the local connection test (11 responses).

1. Local Authority Housing Statistics, 2022-03. ↩

2. Statutory homelessness statistics in England: January to March 2024. ↩

3. Social housing lettings in England data, April 2022 to March 2023. ↩

4. Response to housing consultation/ convicted terrorists - Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation. ↩

5. Social housing lettings in England data, April 2022 to March 2023. ↩

6. Local Authority Housing Statistics, 2022-03. ↩