Teesside Council 'Silent' Over Housing Scandal, As Calls Grow For Independent Investigation
- 3 minutes ago
- 4 min read
Members of the Public 'Left Without Answers', As Hartlepool Council Ignores Homesearch Investigation Question...
25th May 2026
A Teesside Council is facing fresh questions over the operation of its Controversial Housing Allocations Scheme after its claimed the local council failed to acknowledge, respond to, or make any representation in relation to a formal public question submitted by The Teesside & Durham Post concerning the operation of the controversial Hartlepool Homesearch Choice Based Lettings Scheme.
The question, submitted to Hartlepool Borough Council on the 16th March 2026, asked whether the council would commit to supporting a full, independent investigation into the operation of Hartlepool Homesearch, including the council’s use of applicant disqualifications, the allocation of priority housing, and whether any homes have been deliberately allocated to applicants who did not appear to meet any of the priority criteria.
The submission was made after The Teesside & Durham Post carried out an extensive investigation into the local housing register, including Freedom of Information requests, regional data comparisons, and accounts from local residents and applicants who say they've been repeatedly let down by the scheme.
Hartlepool Homesearch is the Hartlepool's choice-based lettings system for social rented homes and is administered by Hartlepool Borough Council. According to the scheme’s own website, it's supposedly intended to give applicants “more choice” about where they can live, while allowing them to view and bid for available properties. Hartlepool Borough Council also states that housing need is reportedly assessed using a banding system, with applicants then placed into bands based on their circumstances and urgency of need.
However, concerns raised by this very publication in a year long investigation found the scheme is in fact doing the exact opposite — leaving vulnerable applicants confused, disqualified, downgraded, or unable to understand why others appear to be moving ahead of them, with some waiting years to be rehoused, & one applicant waiting nearly a decade & still not being offered any suitable accommodation.
Under Hartlepool Borough Council’s own public question rules, residents may ask questions at ordinary meetings of Full Council, provided the question is submitted in writing or by email by the relevant deadline and meets the criteria set out in the council’s constitution.
The council’s guidance states that questions should be concise, direct, and relate to a matter for which the 'authority' has responsibility or which affects the borough.
The same guidance also explains that the Chief Executive, in consultation with the Chair of Council, may reject a question only on specified grounds, including if it is defamatory, frivolous, offensive, seeks confidential information, is substantially the same as a recent question, or is unreasonably excessive in length or number of parts. Copies of accepted questions are to be circulated to elected members and made available at the meeting.
Despite this, The Teesside & Durham Post says the council has never publicly acknowledged the submission, has not provided a written explanation, and has not indicated whether the question was accepted, rejected, deferred, or referred elsewhere.
A spokesperson for The Teesside & Durham Post said:
“We are disappointed to learn that Hartlepool Borough Council has failed to respond to our public question, which in turn raises considerable questions as to whether Hartlepool Borough Council itself knows the flaws in the scheme and is complicit in its failures and operation, letting down every member of the public who uses it. The Hartlepool Homesearch scheme has one of the highest disqualification rates in the whole of the North East, which in itself needs to be looked into, especially when ordinary locals are finding themselves overlooked for housing,with concerns that some applicants are being handed properties that should have been given to those in priority need. The whole scheme, from top to bottom, is a complete & utter failure, and Hartlepool Borough Council must now accept this is the case due to its failure to respond to the facts of the investigation laid out before their very eyes.”
The controversy comes after earlier reporting by The Teesside & Durham Post found serious flaws within the Hartlepool Homesearch system, including findings revealing disabled applicants were being repeatedly sidelined for properties, revelations that the scheme was repeatedly “shifting the goalposts” for some applicants, and that some applicants who'd even challenged decisions by the council or complained about the process later found themselves being disqualified from the housing register in what's been dubbed 'Revenge Disqualifications'...
The council’s own consultation material states that its Housing Allocation Policy sets out who can apply for housing, how applicants are assessed and prioritised, and how applicant choice and preference are dealt with. In 2024, the council consulted on changes including priority bands, local connection, overcrowding, under-occupation, and property entitlement.
That makes the apparent refusal to engage with a formal question about the scheme all the more significant.
At the heart of the issue is whether Hartlepool residents can truly have confidence that the town’s social housing system is being operated fairly, transparently, and in line with its own published rules.
For many applicants, being disqualified from the register does not simply mean waiting longer. It can mean losing the ability to find a home at all, being removed from consideration, and potentially being left in unsuitable accommodation while others in lower priority bands are offered homes.
The Teesside & Durham Post’s submitted question did not ask the council to accept any wrongdoing. It asked whether the council would support an independent investigation into the scheme’s operation.
If the scheme is what the council claims "Is operating properly", then an independent review would allow the council to demonstrate that publicly. If's not, then residents are rightly entitled to know how many people may have been unfairly disqualified, wrongly downgraded, or overlooked for homes they should have been considered for.
The council’s silence has therefore now become part of the story.
A public authority responsible for housing vulnerable residents should be prepared to answer questions about the fairness of its own system. Refusing to engage, or failing even to acknowledge a formal submission, risks creating the impression that the council is unwilling to allow scrutiny of a scheme already facing serious public concern.
The Teesside & Durham Post therefore believes the matter should now be placed before elected members, debated in public, and subjected to a full independent review.
