LGA submission to DLUHC’s consultation on reforms to social housing allocations

The LGA is the national voice of local government. We are a politically-led, cross party membership organisation, representing councils from England and Wales.

Our role is to support, promote and improve local government, and raise national awareness of the work of councils. Our ultimate ambition is to support councils to deliver local solutions to national problems. 

The LGA recognises that currently there are insufficient social homes to meet demand and that it is a resource that needs to be allocated fairly and efficiently to those most in need. As the consultation rightly points out there are nearly 1.3 million households on housing waiting lists and in 2021/22 173,550 households who received a new social letting in 2021/22, were new to the social sector. There are also more than 109,000 households in temporary accommodation, with costs exceeding £1.74 billion in 2022/23.

Councils are best placed to manage how they use their social housing stock to meet the needs of individuals and families in their communities. Councils already have and use flexibilities to decide who will be or will not be a qualifying person for social housing and should continue to have that flexibility. We do not consider it appropriate for Government to mandate blanket rules relating to social housing allocation, which simply cannot fully reflect the complexity of local housing markets and the needs of individual and their families. Mandating requirements at a national level sits at complete odds with the localism agenda and is an unnecessary Government intervention. It also risks a number of unintended consequences, including increases in homelessness, individual and families having to remain in temporary accommodation for extended periods of time and associated further rises in temporary accommodation costs. 

Rather than unhelpful national tinkering with local housing allocations policies, which will not address the fundamental lack of availability of social housing and risks adding to, rather than reducing homelessness pressures, the government should take immediate action that will rapidly increase the supply of social housing stock. The LGA’s six-point plan would help support a generational step-change in council housebuilding and give local government the powers and funding to deliver thousands of social homes a year– at scale, and fast.

Current system

Q1. What evidence does your local housing authority currently collect as proof of eligibility?

Not applicable. 

Future system

Q2. Do you agree that an individual should have to demonstrate a connection to the UK for ten years before qualifying for social housing (if they do not meet the test otherwise or are exempt)?

No. We do not agree that an individual should have to demonstrate a connection to the UK for ten years before qualifying for social housing. 

We would not advocate for any length of time before qualifying. We would ask that the policy remains unchanged from current legislation in which councils determine needs and eligibility locally, with the decision on whether adults and families with the right to remain in the UK with recourse to public funds can access social housing made locally. 

The new proposals would prevent councils from using social housing as a means of discharging an accepted homelessness duty for those individuals that are eligible for homelessness support under part 7 of the Housing Act 1996, but will (through the suggested change) become ineligible for social housing under part 6. This will likely mean that individuals and their families will, where an alternative option is not available, remain in temporary accommodation, which can have negative impacts on physical and mental health and also comes at huge expense to councils. In 2022-23 alone councils spent more than £1.74 billion on temporary accommodation. 

Notwithstanding our view, if a UK connection requirement as outlined in the consultation is introduced, it is vital that government works with local government to mitigate concerns and risks. We would also ask that a UK connection test is not applied retrospectively to those that already have the right to remain and recourse to public funds, and is thus introduced at a future date or applied only to those that have arrived in the country after the implementation of the new policy; (to be decided following conversations with councils and other key partners). It should also not be applied to those who are already on a housing waiting list. 

Furthermore, we would request a suitable lead-in time before such a policy is introduced, to ensure that processes for determining an individual’s rights and entitlements are simplified and streamlined, ideally through a digital system, building on lessons learned from the Homes for Ukraine Foundry digital portal; (the specific timings would best be determined through consultation with councils and other key partners).  

Q3. Do you think there should be any further exemptions to the UK connection test, for example for care leavers?

Yes. 

If the UK connection test is introduced as proposed, as well as those arriving as part of a safe and legal resettlement or relocation scheme being exempt, we believe the following groups should also be exempt. This would be in line with the policies of both the Home Office and other government departments: 

• households with children 
• care leavers 
• victims of domestic abuse 
• victims of modern slavery and human trafficking 
• families/individuals with extreme medical cases or significant care needs 
• vulnerable groups that councils already have statutory duties towards, for example, under the Children’s Act 1989 and under the Care Act 2014.

Q4. How long would it take your local housing authority to implement a new UK connection test at eligibility stage?

Not applicable. 

Q5. Do you foresee any challenges delivering this change to eligibility in your local housing authority’s social housing allocation system? Please detail why/why not.

Yes.

Process challenges for councils

Councils already face challenges identifying people’s rights and entitlements given the complexity of refugee and migration routes to the UK, each with different conditions/entitlements but also with certain exemptions from conditions, and subsequently there are challenges providing the appropriate support. Not only could these additional checks, including the UK connection test, mean more time-consuming bureaucracy of already over-stretched council officers to process, but they could also result in more complex cases and uncertainties which could further impact the capacity and well-being of council staff. 

As stated in the consultation document, the Illegal Migration Act 2023 will ensure that any migrants who do not arrive via safe and legal routes will not, in general, be granted leave to remain in the UK and as such will not have access social housing. However, we are still waiting for the Home Office to confirm at which point the Illegal Migration Act will apply to asylum seekers. This is thus an added uncertainty around a policy that will impact the rights and entitlements of arrivals – and something that councils need clarity on. 

If the UK connection test is introduced, alongside these other tests, we would therefore request that clear guidance is produced, following input from local government and other key partners across health and the voluntary and community sector, to ensure there are no ambiguities and there are no discrepancies. Furthermore, resource and caseworker capacity are vital to ensure there are qualified staff to process and signpost people. 

Additional pressures on councils

Of the 89,398 people who applied for asylum in 2022, government statistics outline that two thirds (63 per cent) were males aged 18 to 49. As single males, it is therefore extremely unlikely that the majority of asylum seekers will be seen to be owed a duty for housing and be eligible for social housing from the outset. 

Reflecting this, there are already many people on work visas and other types of visas having to wait five years or more until they currently become eligible for public funds and social housing.

Those that were eligible would be likely to be extremely vulnerable, with substantial care and health needs. Removing access to permanent housing solutions could only increase that vulnerability and thus costs to councils and other statutory partners locally. 

Councils would still have statutory duties to accommodate and support individuals that do not meet the proposed UK connection test under the Care Act and Children’s Act, without funding to meet those statutory duties. 

However, whilst there is a statutory duty to house such households, it is not clear whether the household could be placed in social housing or if they would have to stay accommodated in temporary accommodation. If the latter applies, councils already face serious pressures supporting 104,000 households in temporary accommodation, and costs of temporary accommodation are expected to increase to around £2 billion for this year.

Councils also already have to provide significant support to those with no recourse to public funds (NRPF) where they have statutory duties and this unfunded cost pressure for councils continues to grow, with data from the NRPF Network indicating that costs to 82 councils in England and Scotland increased by 22 per cent to £77.6 million in 2022-23. Those with NRPF are already exempted from social housing, however, this new eligibility would mean that even those with recourse to public funds would not get housing if they have not been here for 10 years and do not meet the other criteria – and as accommodation is one of the most significant costs to councils, there are concerns that this could mean unfunded cost pressures facing councils will continue to rise even further.

Potential increase in homelessness

Another concern is that this policy could ultimately lead to increases in homelessness and other pressures. Not only could this new UK connection criteria lead to more work for councils, it could also result in more confusion amongst refugees and migrants around their rights and entitlements. As a result, those who are eligible for housing support and other support, may not realise their entitlements or they may feel less inclined to come forward to ask for support; the longer they go without housing or the additional support they need, the more their vulnerabilities/issues could be exacerbated; as a result, more people could be driven to homelessness, destitution and other circumstances that are challenging to recover from. It is crucial that if this policy is introduced, very clear information is shared both with councils and migrants/refugees, with resources to both translate the information and help individuals understand their entitlements and navigate their options, to prevent people falling through the gaps.

There are current examples of where people already fall through the gaps and research shows that the longer people go without the support they need, the more issues evolve and subsequent costs grow, with subsequent impacts for individuals and families, councils and their communities. For example, the Domestic Abuse Commissioner’s report reflects that there are many domestic abuse victims with no recourse to public funds who do not come forward for support, and serious costs to the police, NHS and councils have been incurred as a result of cases going unaddressed and escalating to crisis.  

We have highlighted that the government need to look at developing a cross-departmental homelessness prevention strategy which addresses the drivers and levers of homelessness within central government policy. 

Social cohesion

Resettlement routes recognise the importance of access to permanent homes as a crucial factor for integration to the UK. These families and individuals may struggle to integrate when they do not have stable accommodation, and thus the impact of the proposed change could weaken social cohesion in communities. The change may lead to hidden homelessness within communities, with resulting impacts on integration. 

Building cohesive communities and helping to shape the environments in which those communities flourish lie at the core of councils’ day to day business. The introduction of the UK connection test may also have cohesion impacts. Although activity is less frequent and attracting smaller numbers than last year, protests and other activity in response to asylum seeker dispersal, currently consisting of a mixture of ad hoc community-led and organised anti-minority groups, continues. While more extreme activists have generally received limited traction with community-led protests, it is anticipated that asylum related narratives will remain a focus for anti-minority actors for the foreseeable future.  

It is widely acknowledged that the dispersal of asylum seeking families and adults is unequally distributed across the UK, and is often in communities with existing cohesion and deprivation challenges. The concentration of asylum seekers in areas with cheaper accommodation may also undermine the cohesiveness of local places. 

We ask that government works with local government around the communications and information that is disseminated regarding this new policy. In particular, we want to avoid any misconceptions about migrants and refugees being the cause of issues around social housing access, which could subsequently exacerbate local cohesion issues and fuel anti-minority groups. 

Joined-up approach

There are already challenges regarding the different funding allocated to councils and different rights and entitlements of arrivals across the various asylum and refugee resettlement schemes. 

The new restriction of 10 plus years will mainly impact newly recognised refugees who have been through the asylum route, given refugees from ARAP, ACRS, UKRS and Ukraine visas are exempt, alongside migrants on other visas i.e. work visas, who have received indefinite leave to remain (for example after five years) but have not yet been resident in UK for 10 years.

According to this government asylum and resettlement data, in 2023 the most common single nationality of asylum seekers was Afghan. However, as a result of the local connection test, they could be exempt from social housing, including housing offered through the local authority housing fund, whereas the Afghans that arrived under ACRS or ARAP would not be. This raises important questions around equity. 

The changes also hinder the integration of people whose long-term future is in the UK. Furthermore, often refugees that have arrived through the asylum route have experienced extreme trauma and have similar needs to refugees that have arrived through resettlement routes. 

We continue to raise the need for the Home Office to ensure a joined-up approach across asylum and resettlement with local government, where appropriate funding and policies are in place to ensure that local government and key partners do not face disproportionate pressures and are supported to address the needs of arrivals, to help them settle and thrive across our local communities.

Q6. 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. Please also indicate the size of your waiting list.

Not applicable. 

Existing systems

Q7. 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?

Not applicable. 

Q8. If you currently use a local connection test for social housing, please indicate any groups that are currently exempted from the test.

Not applicable. 

Future system

Q9. 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)?

No. Councils are best placed to manage how they use their social housing stock to meet the needs of individuals and families in their communities. The proposal to mandate a test for local connection at qualification stage to establish a minimum national level sits at complete odds with the localism agenda and is an unnecessary Government intervention. Whilst it is recognised that there will be councils that already apply a two year local connection test, our view is that the decision on the length of time required to demonstrate a local connection with an area should be left to individual council discretion. Councils should also be continued to decide whether they want to implement a local connection and/or residence test. 

Notwithstanding our view, if the proposal is taken forward, clarity is needed on whether any exemptions from local connection tests that councils may currently apply that are different to those outlined in the consultation can still be applied. For example, exemptions relating to medical care needs or for health and safety reasons, such as to escape serious crime, avoid reoffending or prevent drug relapse. It should also not be applied to those who are already on a housing waiting list. We also welcome (should the proposal be brought forward) that local housing authorities will be able to set a longer period than two years. 

Q10. 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?

Notwithstanding our view that we do not support the proposal to mandate a test for local connection at qualification stage to establish a minimum national level, if the proposal is taken forward it would appear sensible to use the definition as outlined in section 199 of the Housing Act 1996. 

Q11. 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?

Yes. Notwithstanding our view that we do not support the proposal to mandate a test for local connection at qualification stage to establish a minimum national level, if the proposal is taken forward we support the proposal to exempt care leavers. 

Q12. Do you think there should be any further exemptions to the local connection test?

Yes. Notwithstanding our view that we do not support the proposal to mandate a test for local connection at qualification stage to establish a minimum national level, if the proposal is taken forward we consider that the following should be exempted:

• victims of domestic abuse 
• victims of modern slavery and human trafficking 
• families/individuals with extreme medical cases or significant care needs 
• vulnerable groups that councils already have statutory duties towards, for example, under the Children’s Act 1989 and under the Care Act 2014.

More broadly, councils should have discretion to put in place other exemptions as they see fit. 

Q13. How long would it take your local housing authority to implement a new local connection test?

Not applicable. 

Q14. 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.

Not applicable.

Current system

Q.15 Does your local housing authority currently perform an income check for social housing applicants?

Not applicable. 

Future system

Q16. Should the same threshold for the income test apply across England or should it vary?

Q17. Should income data be assessed at household or individual level? If household, whose income data should be assessed?

Q18. Assuming household income is based on the two highest earners working full time, what should the income cap be set at?

Q19. Should capital assets be included in the assessment? If yes, what type of capital assets should be included, and what threshold should be set?

Q20. 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?

Response to Q16-Q20. We do not support the proposal for the Government to mandate an income test for applicants and those on a waiting list who have yet to be allocated a social home. Councils are best placed to manage how they use their social housing stock to meet the needs of individuals and families in their communities. 

Councils should therefore continue to have flexibility to decide who will be or will not be a qualifying person for social housing and set financial thresholds and income assessments appropriately to reflect local housing markets and the individuals and families living in their area.

This continued flexibility will also mean that in applications where a financial resources threshold is exceeded it can be assessed on its own merit and councils can make exceptions. For example: a property owner with an over-riding medical need where they are considered to have insufficient income and equity to purchase a property that meets their specific medical need.

Q21. How long would it take your local housing authority to implement a new income test at qualification stage?

Not applicable. 

Q22. 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?

Councils should continue to have flexibility to decide who will be or will not be a qualifying person for social housing and set financial thresholds and income assessments appropriately to reflect local housing markets and the individuals and families living in their area.

Existing systems

Q23. Does your local housing authority undertake any anti-social behaviour or other criminal behaviour tests for social housing applicants? 

Not applicable. 

Future system

Q24. Do you agree that a conviction/sanction for anti-social behaviour should result in a disqualification period from accessing social housing? If yes, how long should someone be disqualified for?

No. We do not support the proposal to mandate a new qualification test that would disqualify social housing applicants who have unspent anti-social behaviour convictions or civil sanctions in the area that the anti-social behaviour was committed. 

Councils should continue to have the flexibility at a local level to determine whether anti-social behaviour should result in a disqualification period from accessing social housing. This is the best way to ensure that the individual circumstance of each applicant are considered. There are often complex reasons behind anti-social behaviour activity which requires a multi-agency response. For some individuals and families, access to a social home, with appropriate wraparound support, will be the best housing option to address their needs and prevent future criminal or nuisance behaviour. 

Q25. Should all members of a household be subject to a check for history of anti-social behaviour, rather than just the lead tenant?

We do not support the proposal to mandate a new qualification test that would disqualify social housing applicants who have unspent anti-social behaviour convictions or civil sanctions in the area that the anti-social behaviour was committed. Councils should retain discretion to set anti-social behaviour criteria for applicants and household members.

Q26. 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?

Notwithstanding our view that we do not support the proposal to mandate a new qualification test that would disqualify social housing applicants who have unspent anti-social behaviour convictions or civil sanctions, if it is taken forward we support the proposed exemptions. Additional groups that should be considered for an exemption are:

• care leavers
• victims of modern slavery and human trafficking 
• families/individuals with extreme medical cases or significant care needs 
• vulnerable groups that councils already have statutory duties towards, for example, under the Children’s Act 1989 and under the Care Act 2014.

Q27. 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.

Not applicable. 

Existing systems

Q28. Does your local housing authority test for any terrorist offences for social housing applicants?

Not applicable. 

Future system

Q29. 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? 

We do not consider that there is sufficient information on this proposal to provide an informed judgment. More clarity is needed on how councils would be expected to accommodate those with unspent convictions, particularly in relation to the discharge of an accepted homelessness duty for those individuals that are eligible for homelessness support under part 7 of the Housing Act 1996, but who will (through the suggested change) become permanently ineligible for social housing under part 6. Further clarity is also needed on how exemptions would be applied in relation to cases where not providing social housing would ‘increase public safety risks’.

Q30. Please indicate the number of new allocations in the local housing authority area that you believe would be affected by the terrorism test.

Not applicable.

Q31. Do you have views on how this proposal might be implemented most effectively?

No comment.

Grounds for eviction (anti-social behaviour and terrorist offences)

Q32. 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?

Councils should have discretion to decide when it is appropriate to evict a social tenant in relation to anti-social behaviour activity. For some individuals and families, continued access to a social home, with appropriate wraparound support, will be the best housing option to address their needs and prevent future criminal or nuisance behaviour. There are often complex reasons behind anti-social behaviour activity which requires a multi-agency response. Many councils invest resource in providing support and advice to tenants in order for them to sustain a tenancy and they should retain discretion to do so. 

Q33. 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?

We do not consider that there is sufficient information on this proposal to provide an informed judgment. Further clarity is also needed on how exemptions would be applied in relation to cases where eviction from social housing would ‘increase public safety risks’.

Q34. 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? If yes, how long should this period be?

Yes. However, councils should have discretion to set the period for which applicants are prevented from qualifying for social housing and apply exemptions on a case-by-case basis. 

Q35. Does your local housing authority re-check applicants at the point of allocation to ensure that the eligibility and qualification tests are still met?

Notwithstanding our view that we do not support many of the proposals in this consultation, if they are taken forward we do not consider that they should apply retrospectively for those who are already on a waiting list at the time of implementation. 

Q36. 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)?

Not applicable. 

Q37. 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?

Not applicable. 

Q38. Should there be a limit on how many local housing authorities an applicant can apply to?

Although there may be merit in applying a limit on how many local housing authorities an applicant can apply to, in reality this is likely to be incredibly difficult to monitor and enforce given the lack of resources in councils. 

Q39. Do you expect that any of the policies affecting social housing applicants would have a particular impact on those with a particular protected characteristic? If so, please give further detail on the relevant policy and its impact.

Q40. Do you expect that any of the policies affecting social housing tenants would have a particular impact on those with a particular protected characteristic? If so, please give further detail on the relevant policy and its impact.

Answer to Q39. and Q.40. The LGA would urge the Government to undertake and publish a review of the equalities impact that proposals contained in this consultation may have on those with protected characteristics.