A report by Crisis, based on a survey of housing associations, highlighted that some tenants are being denied a tenancy, even when they come top of the list of applicants, because they are judged to not be able to afford the rent or had “unmet support needs”.
The Crisis report, Moving the deckchairs, highlighted that
- One-quarter (24%) of housing associations in England reported often refusing Local Authority nominations because the offer was “unsuitable”.
- Affordability issues in England are preventing access to social housing for low-income groups against a wider backdrop of welfare cuts. Nearly one third (31%) of responding housing associations said that pre-tenancy affordability checks often bring to light new information which leads to an offer of housing being deemed unsuitable for an applicant, rising to 39% amongst larger associations.
- Nearly a quarter (24%) said that households below a certain income threshold are sometimes excluded from the housing register from which they receive applications for social housing lettings, with these exclusions often applied in the context of local authority housing list restrictions.
The process used most frequently by housing association respondents in England to make the majority of their lets was a Common Housing Register and Common Allocations Policy with the local authority and/ or other housing associations (34% of respondents). In most cases, “a majority” was between 90-100% of lets. This result was driven by the practice of larger and large-scale voluntary transfer (LSVT) associations. Among smaller housing associations, in contrast, use of their own waiting list governed by their own allocations policy was more common.
The housing associations responding to the survey were most frequently using both direct lets and Choice Based Letting systems (62% of respondents) operated by councils.. This result was driven by large housing associations – of which, four-fifths operated both systems – with only a quarter of small associations doing so.
Pre-tenancy screenings
The issue of pre-tenancy screening was the subject of research by the government, published in November 2020.
“There was widespread concern among stakeholders that housing associations were increasingly rejecting people who had been shortlisted for a property because of concerns around affordability or their ability to sustain a tenancy.”
The major reasons for rejection were, perceived inability to afford the rent or ‘unmet support needs’.
“Stakeholders and local authority officers attending focus groups were concerned about the issue and felt that some housing associations used pre-tenancy screenings to filter out tenants who would be higher risk to manage, without good reason. Local authority officers gave examples of tenants having been turned down for failing affordability checks without any evidence or documentation.”
In one of the 10 areas investigated around a third of people were rejected. However, there was little data available. Many areas were unable to quantify the extent of the issue.
The use of pre-tenancy screening appeared to be driven by
- Benefit cuts
- The introduction of “affordable rent” (up to 80% of market rent)
- Cuts of services and staff
In relation to “affordable rent” the report said
“…the case studies and focus groups indicated that the introduction of Affordable Rent had given some housing associations an impetus to start undertaking affordability checks. It should be noted, however, that housing association officers at focus groups were generally unable to clarify why these checks should be needed, given that the rent on Affordable Rent homes should be fully eligible for housing benefit.”
“There was evidence of some housing associations taking a commercial approach to assessing whether applicants could afford their properties. In some cases, this involved looking at the money that a household would have left for living expenses after paying rent and bills. In other cases, it was a simple calculation of rent as a proportion of total income, with ratios such as over 45% being deemed unaffordable. For a single person on a weekly income of £200, this would mean a £90 a week rent was considered unaffordable, even though the residual income (£110) is higher than standard benefit rates of £74.35 a week (or £58.90 for under 25s).”
Local authorities in England increasingly complained about housing associations turning down nominations of homeless and other applicants on the basis of pre-tenancy checks.
That tenants are being turned down on the basis that they are too poor to afford the rent, is an indication that rents are becoming unaffordable for people on low wages and/or in precarious work. It also impacts on people who only have part of their rent covered by benifits.
With the transfer of people from housing benefit to universal credit, which has a housing element, UC does not guarantee them their housing element in the way that HB does. If you are working and your income is variable, if you earn “too much” in any one month you won’t receive UC.
Commercialisation and concentration
There has been a process of commercialisation and concentration in the ‘private registered providers’ (housing association) sector. The latest report by the Regulator of Social Housing shows that 227 PRPs (those with more than 1,000 homes), comprising just 17% of the total, owned 96% of stock. The 80 which own more than 10,000 homes, own 75% of the stock.
Whilst some still speak of their social purpose, the focus on maximising their income, is reflected in the rejection of applicants deemed too poor for their rents, and their drive to increase their rental stream by way of “affordable rent” instead of charging social rent.
“Affordable rent” was introduced by the coalition government to facilitate a 60% cut in funding for new build. The tenants were effectively subsidising new build with higher rents, instead of the government. Between 2015 and 2025 there was an increase of 241,485 general needs “affordable rent” housing association properties, and 11,426 “affordable rent” supported housing units. Whilst social rent general needs houses increased by 19,952, social rent supported units fell by 28,238 (Regulator of Social Housing). The “affordable rent” for PRPs is on average £44 higher than social rent, £75 higher in London.
That the Labour government has not ended “affordable rent” is short-sighted. Not only does it increase financial pressure on tenants (in contradiction with the government’s assertion to be addressing the ‘cost of living crisis’) but it increases the housing benefit bill.
Councils?
What about councils? Do we see a similar phenomenon? In the case of my own local authority, Swindon, when the Tories were in power, they introduced a “Greenlight for Housing” policy, which was borrowed from housing associations. It operated a double means-test. There was a means-test of applicants to the waiting list to check whether they earned “too much” to go on the list. Those allowed on the list, who had bid for a property, were means-tested to see if they earned “too little”. If they were judged unable to afford the rent then they had an obligation to participate in the Green Light for Housing process. This involved meeting with council officers to discuss how they might increase their income in order to qualify for a tenancy at some stage in the future. If they refused to participate then their application would be suspended and they would be unable to bid.
In order to check how many councils are carrying out policies similar to PRPs or using the Green Light for Housing process, I have done a Freedom of Information request to English councils which still have council housing. A future article will look at their responses.
What seems likely as a result of the government’s policy of ‘rent convergence’ and 10 years of above inflation rent increases is that the higher the rent goes, the more applicants will be refused tenancies and the higher arrears will be. That’s why we are campaigning for the government to abandon these policies (see No to 10 years of above inflation rent increases – Labour Campaign for Council Housing ).
Martin Wicks
February 5th 2026
Labour Campaign for Council Housing 