Slicing up the Allocations Pie – the Future of the Housing Selection Scheme in Northern Ireland

Notes from Housing Advice Practitioners’ Forum meeting 17 February 2014 on Future of the NI Housing Selection Scheme

The Housing Practitioners’ Forum is organised by Housing Rights Service (HRS).  It is made up of representatives from HRS member organisations. The Forum meets regularly to hear about and discuss the latest in housing case law, legislation and policy.

The meeting on 17th February was a single item agenda - to discuss the publication of a research study to inform the fundamental review of Northern Ireland social housing allocations policy.  Ursula McAnulty from the University of Ulster, who was involved in the research, started the meeting with presentation of the main findings and recommendations.

The research was commissioned by the Department for Social Development (DSD) to ensure that the current ways of accessing and allocating social housing make the most effective use of public resources in identifying and meeting housing need. The review has been prompted by the lack of social housing and the ever increasing number of applicants on the waiting list (currently 41,871 with approximately 22,000 in housing stress).

The review was carried out by research staff from the Universities of Ulster and Cambridge who consulted with a number of stakeholders and reviewed best practice in the allocation of social housing in the UK and Republic of Ireland.  A number of proposals are contained in the research report however these do not necessarily reflect the views of Minster McCausland. The DSD is inviting feedback on the research by 4 March 2014 and will publish a summary of the responses and its final proposals. These proposals will be subject to full public consultation and it is expected that this will take place towards the end of this year.

Overview

At the outset it became apparent that only one organisation present at the meeting seems to have been consulted by the researchers, despite the considerable experience of many of the attendees in advising clients on the current selection scheme. Concern was also expressed that apparently no applicants on the housing waiting list were involved in the consultation process. 

In general many of those present felt that the underlying problem with the allocation of social housing was ultimately due to the historical lack of supply and consequent high demand for such properties. The need for a major increase in social housing building programmes was stressed by many participants. Others also highlighted the need for a fundamental debate on the future purpose of social housing i.e. is social housing just about addressing acute housing need and providing a safety net or is it also about meeting wider housing policy objectives such as creating more sustainable and balanced communities? There was cynical view that the Department would simply use the review as a means of simply reducing numbers on the waiting list rather than addressing the housing needs of the homeless.

Specific comments

Pre-application stage

Attendees were supportive of the proposal to introduce a Housing Options Approach to NI with many advice agencies reporting that they have been delivering this approach for many years. The need for impartial advice provided by independent providers was stressed and it was noted that Housing Options services are expensive to operate as they require ongoing investment in staff training and development. A representative highlighted the importance of face to face assessments and advice giving for vulnerable clients and the relatively high costs of providing this compared to telephone or online advice channels.  In addition there was some concern expressed about encouraging applicants to take up tenancies in the private rented sector (PRS) given the lack of security of tenure and rent control together with poor property conditions and management standards often encountered in this largely unregulated sector.  One participant pointed to the high upfront costs involved in the PRS and wondered if there could be particular assistance provided by government to applicants in paying for a month’s rent in advance, deposits and letting fees often required to take up such tenancies.

Application stage

All participants supported the proposal that the principle of universal access to social housing should be adhered to.

Assessment stage

There was a consensus that the long standing, needs based, approach to prioritising applicants for social housing should be retained. The need to review and clarify the purpose of social housing provision was also reiterated. Some participants are worried that the proposed consideration of other priority factors, such as economic regeneration, could weaken this fundamental principle and over complicate the assessment process, potentially allowing for a greater degree of discretion by landlords. A number of attendees voiced their fears that this could possibly allow for a degree of bias and discrimination to be introduced into this process. It was noted that there has never been a legal case upheld against the Housing Executive on the grounds of religious discrimination in the allocation of social housing.

One participant did suggest that the experience of English local authorities shows that their ability to develop allocation schemes that support broader policy aims has helped to avoid the residualism or concentration of the most vulnerable tenants in housing developments particularly for new build schemes. Questions were also asked about where assessments would take place in the wake of the reform of social housing and how wider government set priorities for any new allocations policy could be met without a significant increase in the supply of social housing.

Banded approach

Many participants questioned whether a proposed new ‘banding’ scheme would be more transparent and easy to understand for applicants than the current ‘points’ system. It was noted that a banded approach had previously been used in NI but had been discarded in 1995 in favour of the current scheme. Most attendees felt that the current ‘points’ system was easily understood by applicants, transparent and could be modified to make it more effective. There was a view that there was a danger of throwing “the baby out with the bathwater” by moving to a potentially more complex ‘banding’ system. The majority agreed that minor alternations to the existing scheme would be preferable. There were general points made about abolishing the allocation of intimidation points to address concerns about “points chasing”. One housing association participant reported that incidents of domestic violence were more prevalent than paramilitary attacks and that few intimidation cases were currently at the top of the waiting list.  A number of advisers noted that paramilitary incidents were now quite difficult to substantiate and two thirds of their referrals alleging intimidation were from people in no immediate danger. Another housing association officer felt that points were very tangible entities and easily understood by applicants. However others thought the current system was too complex and bands could be simpler to interpret and administer.

The claim that people are “points chasing” was discussed. It was felt generally that, to a certain degree, this is to be expected because demand for social housing far outstrips supply. In advisers’ experience not all applicants are actually getting the points that they are entitled to and, when this is raised by advice agencies, points are only awarded after evidence of entitlement can be provided. There was concern that this was being misinterpreted as “points chasing”.

Transfers

Most attendees appear to be supportive of using the transfer system to encourage greater mobility in the social housing sector - currently the Housing Executive makes allocations to transfer applicants on a ratio of one transfer allocation for every two waiting list allocations. It was suggested that there could be merit in prioritising transfer applicants for a greater proportion of new build social homes in order to build more sustainable communities. However concerns were expressed about allocating a social home to an existing tenant rather than an applicant from the waiting list who is already in acute need. There was more consensus on the potential use of mutual exchange to meet housing need with transfer applicants automatically included on the mutual exchange register. However there would be concerns if private rented properties are also included in these exchange schemes as in this situation social tenants would sacrifice key protections such security of tenure, repair assistance and a degree of rent control by exchanging a secure social tenancy for private rented accommodation. 

Choice Based Lettings (CBL)

Representatives from social landlords were keen to stress that the proposed introduction of Choice Based Lettings (CBL) could empower applicants by improving transparency and openness about the allocations process. The use of such a system could encourage applicants to make more informed decisions of where they choose to live thus reducing refusal rates and voids. Those applicants without internet access or skills could be supported.  It was argued that by adopting a Housing Options approach, high quality advice could be provided, particularly to vulnerable applicants, on a full range of housing options including money advice. The potential use of ‘assisted lists’ was supported and it was thought that CBL could be particularly useful for hard to let/low demand properties and areas. Close monitoring of the system would be required with particular support provided to applicants who for various reasons are unable to ‘bid’ for properties with direct lettings potentially offered in such circumstances. Ex-offenders were mentioned as a particularly vulnerable group in this regard. Some concerns were expressed about the current operation of the recently developed Housing Executive pilot scheme.

Most participants appear to be supportive of using a date-order system to prioritise applicants within bands which, it is argued, could prevent ‘queue jumping’ and ‘points chasing’ by applicants.  In regard to the latter issue, a number of participants felt that this implied criticism of applicants was undeserved and that it was perfectly legitimate for applicants (and advice agencies) to strive to maximise points entitlements in such assessments. Nevertheless it was accepted that a priority dates scheme could particularly assist applicants when their circumstances change.

There was little support for the use of local lettings policies to meet the needs of local communities and estates which some participants argue runs counter to the main principles of the proposed allocations scheme and would limit transparency.

Also the proposal to suspend applicants who have committed anti-social behaviour for 2 years from the waiting list garnered little support with participants wondering why this period had been decided upon and how it would relate to the current DSD consultation on short secure tenancies. On a similar note, attendees queried why the researchers were proposing a reduction from the current arrangement of applicants receiving a maximum of 3 reasonable offers to 2.  Some advisers felt that generally applicants did not receive many offers and sometimes there was a confusion between multiple and reasonable offers.

Strategic Independent Allocations Scrutiny Panel (SIASP)

The establishment of this scrutiny and oversight body was questioned as it would be a significant departure for the social housing system. Attendees felt that they needed more detail on how this body would be recruited, regulated, and funded in order to comment on this proposal.  One participant thought that the inclusion of such a proposal suggests that the researchers are worried that any new system will have difficulty winning public confidence at least in the short term.

Finally, participants felt they would need further information on the proposal to monitor allocations by Housing Market Area (HMA) and were generally not convinced by the rationale to consider introducing a quota system in the longer term and how this could be varied between HMAs.

The Housing Advice Practitioners Forum is attended by members of Housing Rights Service. You can find out more here.