Hartlepool Homesearch: A System That Fails Even the most Basic Fairness Test

More damming evidence emerges of Hartlepool Borough Councils now visibly failed Hartlepool Homesearch Scheme, as our investigator find's multiple failings in the councils Housing policy, leaving it wide open to legal action by claimants.

10th October 2025

Hartlepool Borough Council’s Homesearch Choice Based Lettings Scheme, claims to create a fair system for deciding who gets access to the towns both valuable & limited social housing stock. But after studying the details a little deeper, our investigator tasked with delving into Hartlepool Borough Councils Housing Allocations Policy claims it’s very easy to see how this policy fails to live up to that promise.

Behind the polished language of “banding assessments” and claims of “making the best use of housing stock” lies a system that many reasonably minded people would see as deeply unfair, discriminatory, and stacked against the most vulnerable at every possible opportunity.

A Two-Tier System That Punishes the Vulnerable

Theres clear evidence of a "Two Tiered Approach" being used in Hartlepool Borough Councils Housing Allocations Policy

The policy divides applicants into four bands — with Band 1+ and Band 1 reserved for those supposedly in “priority need.”But if you’re homeless and single, without children, you’ll likely fall into Band 2 or even lower.

That means a person sleeping on a friend’s sofa or in their car can be left waiting years behind others simply because they don’t fit the narrow legal definition of “priority.”

It’s a system that effectively says: your homelessness doesn’t count unless you have kids or fit a bureaucratic label.

That may be legal, but it certainly isn’t fair.

Medical Need:

More Like a Lottery, Not a System !

Applicants with Medical Needs are feeling as if they're being routinely dismissed by those running the scheme

The council claims to prioritise people with medical needs — but, as our investigator found, the council provides no clear definition of what counts as “emergency,” “urgent,” or “high” medical grounds.

Applicants are therefore left guessing what evidence they need. For people with disabilities or long-term conditions, this lack of transparency means many applicants are being downgraded or dismissed altogether, even with valid medical proof such as an Occupational Therapy report, with decisions seemingly depending entirely on the discretion of an officer, rather than clear standards, with fairness going out the window.

Punished for the Past:

The “Non-Qualifying” Trap

Perhaps one of the most controversial parts of the policy is those deemed to be "Non-Qualifying", which our investigators found is wide open to legal action by those effected by the policy

Perhaps one of the most disturbing parts of the policy is the way Hartlepool Borough Council is excluding people for past mistakes.

Applicants can be made “non-qualifying” if they have:

• Rent arrears over eight weeks

• “Unacceptable behaviour”

• A “recent unspent conviction” within the last two years

• Or even a vague “history of anti-social behaviour.”

  
  

There’s literally no explanation of what counts as “unacceptable” — meaning someone could be blacklisted for a neighbour dispute or an incident which took place years ago. This approach not only punishes rehabilitation, but hits those trying the hardest to rebuild their lives...

Our investigator also found that Hartlepool Borough Councils Homesearch Policy Is blind to real-world hardship. Many tenants fall into arrears because of Universal Credit delays or council errors, not bad behaviour. Yet the policy treats them the same as deliberate non-payers.

The Bedroom Rules That Break Families Apart

Hartlepool Homesearch's policy onBedroom Entitlements is 'tearing families apart'...

The policy’s bedroom entitlement section may look technical, but its impact on parents is devastating.

If you’re a separated parent with shared custody, you’re normally only allowed a two-bedroom home, regardless of how many children stay overnight. Larger homes are granted only in “exceptional” cases.

This rule effectively tells one parent — usually fathers — that they don’t deserve proper space for their children. It risks pushing families apart and undermines the principle that both parents should play an active role in their children’s lives.

Local Connection or Local Exclusion?

Our investigator found that to qualify for social housing in Hartlepool under the Hartlepool Homesearch Scheme, applicants usually need to have lived in Hartlepool for at least two continuous years, or three of the last five.

That might sound reasonable until you look at who it excludes: former residents returning home, students, or workers who temporarily left the area.

Meanwhile, councils from other parts of the country have quietly relocated homeless families to Hartlepool, adding pressure to the local housing market — yet locals with lifelong ties find themselves shut out.

“Best Use of Stock” — Or an Example of Social Segregation?

Its clear, applicants who choose not to have children are the ones being worst disadvantaged by the Homesearch Scheme..

The council has decided that single people and couples without children can only ever bid for flats — never houses — unless the property is age-restricted or adapted for disability.

This blanket rule is a clear example of social segregation, treating single residents effectively as second-class applicants. It ignores the reality that many childless people work, pay taxes, and contribute to the community every bit as much as families.

Debt, Poverty and Punishment

In a town, where child poverty is the second highest in the region, its unthinkable to even contemplate Hartlepool Borough Council is implementing such policies

Under the policy, anyone with eight weeks of rent arrears or two months of mortgage arrears can be blocked from applying.

Our investigator found no consideration of why those arrears exist, with our investigation finding that a single parent whose benefits were delayed or a tenant overcharged by a landlord is treated no differently to someone who simply refuses to pay.

In a town where wages are low and the cost of living is rising, this rule feels more like punishment for being poor than a fair housing policy.

Our investigation concluded by looking into the Hartlepool Homesearch Appeals Policy, which, according to our reporter, was some of the worst they'd ever seen. Even if you disagree with the council’s decision, your options are significantly limited.

You get just 21 days to request a review — with absolutely no guarantee of independence whatsoever, no set timescale for response, and no assurance that new evidence will be considered.

A Policy That Protects those running it, Not the People

Hartlepool Borough Council’s Homesearch Policy is supposed to help those most in need. But in reality, it looks more like a mechanism for exclusion than compassion.

The Hartlepool Homesearch Scheme clearly prioritises bureaucracy over humanity, punishes those who fall through the cracks, and leaves far too many residents — especially single adults, the disabled, and low-income families — feeling shut out of their own town’s housing system.

In my 23 years as a Housing Advocate helping those who at their lowest, Ive never seen such an unfair system that deliberately goes out of its way to punish applicants in the way it does.

In a fair society, housing policies should lift people up, not lock them out.

Sources:

• Hartlepool Borough Council, Homesearch Allocations Policy (effective 11 November 2024)

• Equality Act 2010

• Housing Act 1996