PPR’s original concerns about proposed changes to the Housing Selection Scheme, in 2013 in response to the academics’ proposals and again in 2017 in response to the DFC’s FRA consultation, were that they privileged reducing the appearance of housing need rather than its substance; that they risked further diminishing the commitment to allocating social housing by objective need; and that this would cause harm, including to people to whom housing authorities owe duties under section 75. The message was and is that we need a greater supply of social homes so that we can begin to meet existing housing need. Spending time and resources tinkering with the waiting list, people’s points and other internal control mechanisms do not get us any closer to achieving this.

Since implementation of recommendations began in January 2023, these misgivings have been borne out, as evidenced by testimonies from housing clinics and complaints throughout 2024 and 2025. With the notable exception of the move to unlimited areas of choice for waiting list applicants, the FRA changes generally increase the powers of social landlords and housing authorities, while further limiting the access of some people in housing need to a safe, secure and permanent home. Meanwhile building of new social homes fell ever farther below target, even before the recent funding cuts to housing associations’ construction grants.

Too many of the equality impacts on section 75 groups flagged in the DFC’s screening exercise were waved away on the grounds that the changes would make the system easier to manage or better value for money. As predicted in the EQIA, some have already caused real harm.

the failure to involve the people who are most likely to be affected, and the absence of transparency and engagement around the changes to come (including the failure to make public the results of promised additional research on implementation and impact mitigation) are deeply concerning.

And there is more on the horizon. Upcoming changes like discharging the duty to homeless people via an unregulated and insecure private rental sector; expanded powers to exclude people from FDA and from the waiting list; revocation of ‘no detriment’ and interim accommodation points; and as-yet-undefined ‘banding’ of the waiting list all risk having deeply detrimental impacts on real people’s lives. Much depends on the manner of implementation. For this reason the failure to involve the people who are most likely to be affected, and the absence of transparency and engagement around the changes to come (including the failure to make public the results of promised additional research on implementation and impact mitigation) are deeply concerning.

Reversing the DFC’s decision to drop the UU/Cambridge research proposal for an independent scrutiny panel to ensure the housing service was “sustainable, fair, equitable, robust, consistent, customer driven, transparent, compliant, efficient and value for money” would go some way towards allowing people to have confidence in the system going forward. Applicants and tenants would be reassured to know that any concerns they may have, now or in future, about the multiple changes to the Housing Selection Scheme and their impact, will be formally addressed by an independent oversight body. Of all the proposals made over the years, this was absolutely the wrong one to leave in the drawer: there is still time to act on it.

PPR’s full analysis of the Fundamental Review of Allocations changes and their impact to date is here.