Choice Based Lettings allocations challenges and alternatives

Others may have split nominations. For example a 75% nominations agreement. Typically this is known as Direct Allocations. This means that they can use an alternative approach to market 25% of their social rent or intermediate rental properties. In this system, social housing providers allocate properties directly to applicants based on their needs and eligibility criteria, without involving a choice-based system. As above they could also use alternative methods.

Issues around Choice Based Lettings

1. Applications Forms: Some of the issues those looking for homes have with the current CBL set up is that you need to apply using different methods to different councils. For example, if you are flexible about where you live it may be that you are apply for CBL properties across several locations. This means for each council list you are on you will need to apply via a different application process. This may be a duplication of effort. So even though they may require the same information, you still need to complete different forms. Currently there is no centralisation of data which would be much easier for both those applying and those receiving applications.
2. Limited Availability: One challenge is the limited availability of suitable properties, especially in high-demand areas. This can lead to frustration for applicants who have limited choices or face long waiting times.
3. Inequality: CBL systems may favour those who are more knowledgeable, proactive, or have access to resources to bid for properties, potentially disadvantaging vulnerable or less empowered applicants.
4. Complexity: The process of bidding for properties through CBL systems can be complex and time-consuming, requiring applicants to navigate through multiple options and understand various eligibility criteria.
5. Geographical Imbalance: In areas with high demand for social housing, certain neighbourhoods may become oversubscribed, leading to geographical imbalances in housing distribution.
6. Digital Exclusion: CBL systems often rely on online platforms for bidding, which may pose barriers to those who lack digital literacy or access to technology, leading to exclusion of some applicants.
7. Misallocation: Without proper oversight and management, there’s a risk of properties being allocated to applicants who don’t genuinely need them or aren’t the best fit, leading to inefficiencies in the use of social housing resources.

Addressing these challenges requires a balance between providing choice and ensuring fairness, as well as implementing supportive measures such as housing advice services, accessibility accommodations, and transparent allocation policies.

Supply imbalance to apply for social housing

There is no denying that there is a lack of affordable housing at present. This is another argument. However, even if there is an imbalance, there needs to be a clearer way to find properties available. The easier it is to apply will eliminate a lot of the issues highlighted above. Ultimately it is about making affordable housing accessible.

To do this the process needs to be easy to follow for those who need it. Whether that is looking at the current CBL process and / or using platforms like ours to complement the current process.