London Assembly report calls for reform of city’s ‘frustrating and difficult’ allocation system, and training for housing officers

Zoë Garbett, chair of the London Assembly’s Housing Committee, said in the report’s introduction: “The process for applying for social housing is immensely stressful, frustrating and difficult. It is frequently described as ‘endless’. Whilst the shortage of social homes is a major factor in this, there are also problems with the allocation process itself.”

The inquiry by the cross-party committee came out of the committee members’ case work and scrutiny work, Ms Garbett told Inside Housing. This included situations where Londoners have been turned down because they cannot afford the tenancy.

“Some people are approved by the council and not by the housing association,” Ms Garbett said.

London’s 32 boroughs handle applications separately and have their own criteria. The committee considered a proposal to combine this into a single, pan-London allocations system but concluded it did not hear enough evidence to support this proposal.

Instead, the report called for a “standardised application form for social housing applicants, to support a more simplified and consistent approach to the application process”.

The committee noted: “This approach must continue to allow boroughs to retain local discretion in social housing allocation.”

London Councils, which represents London’s borough councils and the City of London, and the capital’s housing associations should improve co-ordination, the report said. It raised the prospect of a shared housing register between housing associations and each council.

The report included 11 separate recommendations to the mayor of London and central government to improve the system, including that the mayor should develop guidance for boroughs on medical assessments done as part of the social housing application process for disabled people and families with neurodivergent children.

The assembly wants the mayor, London Councils and the NHS to work together on this, to “ensure the process is fairer and more transparent”.

Professor Katherine Brickell of King’s College London, who is known for her research on temporary accommodation and neurodivergent children, called the report “a forensic and, at times, devastating account of how London’s social housing allocation system is failing those who rely on it most”.

Other recommendations relate to succession policies, particularly “measures to prevent unjust outcomes, particularly cases where bereaved family members are abruptly evicted from their homes”.

The committee also wants the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to review housing benefit and how it is affecting social housing applicants going through affordability assessments.

The report called for the government to consider changing the English regulator’s Tenancy Standard to prevent councils from excluding applicants for social housing because of their low income, and including “provisions to ensure requirements such as rent in advance and financial viability are not used as barriers to social rented housing for people on low incomes”.

The report also called for the mayor to improve programmes designed to encourage moves within social housing, warning that “fewer tenants are choosing to move, and social housing churn is currently low”.

“The mayor has two programmes to encourage social tenants to move, the Seaside and Country Homes programme and the Housing Moves programme. However, the scope of these programmes is confined to the limited number of homes available through them. We recommend the mayor considers ways to increase the number of homes available through the Housing Moves programme,” the report concluded.

The report is based on written evidence, Freedom of Information requests to councils, and a survey of people who have applied for social housing in London.

One resident quoted in the report anonymously told the Housing Committee that they first joined the housing list “at 17, when the system was still paper-based”.

Twenty years later, they said: “I have never received a review of my application or been informed about alternative housing options that might have been suitable for me.”