Action for Housing questions 123 unallocated Govt properties

Action for Housing has questioned why 123 Government rental properties were left unallocated last year, following findings set out in the Principal Auditor’s 2018/19 report.

The report highlighted how 170 properties were void and unallocated government properties, of which 47 “were classified as being beyond economical repair”.

The 170 properties represented 2.3% of the Government housing rental stock.

“The value of rents of void and unallocated government housing for the financial year 2018-19, according to the Housing Department’s records, stood at £247k (representing 4.8% of the Rent Roll total of £5.19m),” the report said.

“By the end of the financial year 2023-24, the rental value of void and unallocated government housing had decreased by £84k to £163k (at that point representing 2.9% of the Rent Roll total of £5.63m).”

Action for Housing said the report highlighted “several issues which are of serious concern.”

One of the core issues, Action for Housing said, was that 123 unallocated properties could have been rented.

According to the report if the 47 unusable properties were excluded from the calculation it “would give the average time a government rental property remains void before it is reallocated to be approximately 6 years and 2 months.”

Action for Housing said “this delay is not acceptable given the huge need there is for government rental housing.”

The audit report also found that “there are no documented policies for the process of allocating Government rent roll properties.”

“18 out of the 25 applicants tested (representing 72% of the sample) were allocated a property notwithstanding that they were not first on the waiting list and without any corresponding documentation in the application files (or the Housing Database) as to the reasons for allocating the property to these applicants, instead of allocating it to someone in a higher position on the waiting list,” the report said.

“Of the 25 allocations tested, it was noted that the Chief Minister intervened in 7 (28%) of these allocations.”

The report added that in 5 of these 7 cases there was documentation available on file explaining the applicants' circumstances.

But in the other two cases “there was no documentation at all to support the decisions taken by the Chief Minister; and even though the Housing Allocation Committee had previously been involved in four of the seven cases, the Housing Allocation Committee was bypassed in all of the decisions made by the Chief Minister.”

Action for Housing called this is “a serious situation which cannot be condoned in any way.”

The report also described how one case involved a former homeowner who was allocated a Government property, yet no evidence was found of her case being referred to the Housing Allocation Committee, nor of the Housing Department questioning if she could afford to purchase a private property.

“This is one of the cases…where the Chief Minister intervened and approved to waive this applicant’s qualifying period; also award her 1,000 discretionary points; and include her on the Social Category ‘A’ list,” the report said.

“The Principal Housing Officer replied that the Chief Minister exercised his discretionary powers, citing exceptional circumstances that he believed justified this course of action.”

“Looking ahead, the Principal Housing Officer believed it would be prudent for Housing senior management, in consultation with the Government, to deliberate on whether the Housing Act, the Housing Allocation Scheme, or related policy provisions should explicitly allow the Chief Minister to act in such a manner in the future.”

According to the report the Principal Housing Officer “was of the view that in order to ensure tighter controls and clarity moving forward, he recommended that the Chief Minister’s ability to override existing rules in exceptional circumstances be formally defined.”

The report also found that the Principal Housing Officer acknowledged the discrepancies identified in the audit inspection.

“He recognised that some of these arose due to human error, input mistakes, deviations from the Housing Act requirements, and lapses in established protocols,” the report said.

“He agreed that due process was not consistently followed and applied during the allocation process.”

Action for Housing said the Principal Auditor's report on public housing “highlights cases of nepotism and a lack of accountability and transparency in the allocation of government rental homes which creates an atmosphere of distrust amongst the public.”

“We hope that this report will serve as a wake-up call and that those entrusted with this ministry will act accordingly,” the group said.