Intimidation Points and Social Housing
Northern Ireland has an ever growing waiting list for public housing, so how we decide who gets housed first matters immensely until we resolve our current housing issues. How do we decide who gets housing first? Well, the make up of the Housing Executive’s waiting list is very easy to access and understand. An applicant fills out a form which asks them a set of questions establishing their current circumstances, which is converted into points dependent on the situation. The more points achieved, the better the chance of being placed in a new home. The points are split into four sections: intimidation, housing insecurity (chances of being made homeless), current housing conditions and the health of the applicant (as well as getting to 2 points for every year on the list, capped at 10 points).
The eye is instantly drawn to the intimidation section, which gives the applicant 200 points if their life has been threatened or if their house has been attacked. This is a remarkable high point total as it was found that only 4% of applicants on the waiting list had more than 150 points (Ulster University, 2013). In isolation, this sounds like a rational addition to the application, as we live in a divided society with a continued paramilitary presence in some communities. If a person’s life is under threat, being moved quickly is a priority. However, the issue becomes murky when applied to a more complex set of parameters. In other sections of the points system many circumstances will only accrue an measly 10 points. The only aspect which comes close to the intimidation section’s point total is the possibility that a person is homeless or threatened with homelessness, which totals to 70 points (less than half of what can be achieved with intimidation points).
To put this in a more understandable framework, a young single mother with one child who is being kicked out of her already crowded living situation, in need of financial support, could achieve a score of 224 points. At the same time, a middle aged single man, being threatened with homelessness, with no dependents and who has been threatened with violence achieves a score of 300 points. While this seems uneven, it can at least be justified with the immediate danger posed to the individual in this case. The more worrying aspect is that there have been occasions when a person who has been awarded intimidation points has received housing before someone with a higher score. Along with this, there is a feeling that some apply for intimidation points when the circumstances do not apply just so they can receive priority placing on the waiting list.
The Housing Executive acts under an obligation to temporarily accommodate those who could be made homeless if not provided with public housing. Why does this temporary accommodation not work for intimidation victims in the same way it works for the potentially homeless. This could prevent those more in need of public housing being overlooked while still providing intimidation victims with a place to stay while waiting for a new house. The Department for Communities released a report supporting the complete removal of the intimidation points system. This may be a step too far, even though the sentiment is understandable. Intimidation points need to be reassessed, as in its current form it only harms those who are in greatest need of public housing.
