Housing help: Why some do not get it

When you provide a service it can be useful for informed future planning to analyse which applicants benefit from your services and why others do not.

This is an analysis of the Housing Authority scheme on who is being refused help and those who withdraw their application.

A number of general trends emerge from all Housing Authority schemes, excluding the sale issues and the Vat scheme:

¤ a number of applications are withdrawn because applicants simply do not send in the required documents

¤ most applications are considered invalid because the applicant has assets above what is allowed for the scheme

¤ a significant number of applications were invalid due to applicants possessing other property. This trend is on the increase.

¤ a number of applications are invalid because the property owned by applicants is worth more than the allowed amount, which has recently been raised from Lm35,000 to Lm40,000. This means that now fewer applications are being turned down for this reason.

Scheme X: purchase and improvement of private properties

Understandably for an authority which concentrates mostly on the neediest members of our society, this scheme has few applicants who can qualify. However the majority who did apply (71 per cent) had assets, after our checking, which exceed the amounts allowed.

It is worth noting that applicants are told that they cannot have assets over Lm4,000, excluding the majority of disability grants, in order to obtain grants from the Housing Authority. Yet, they still apply and it is through our thorough checks that undeclared assets are discovered.

Scheme Y: subsidy on loans to purchase private properties

The now very low interest rates offered by our banks for home loans means that today this scheme has considerably fewer applicants than five years ago, although this situation could change quite dramatically again.

In this scheme, the majority actually withdrew their application themselves (54.9 per cent). Broken engagements are another significant factor and a number never bothered to send in the required documents.

Scheme R: rent subsidy

This scheme is growing in popularity. Whereas in 1999 we had 168 applications, last year we had 209. For this scheme, more than half simply withdrew the application themselves.

We need to carry out face-to-face interviews to find out more, as we have tremendous problems with landlords who either refuse to confirm they are charging a rent, or refuse to give receipts or, worse still, when the applicants receive the subsidy, landlords simply raise the rent by the amount of the subsidy!

I am not talking about those living with fixed rents of Lm10 per year, but those who are renting properties privately at around Lm100 per month and are being bullied by landlords who have no intention of declaring their rental income.

Our experience in trying to offer a rent subsidy targets those who think that just by further liberalising the rent sector all our housing problems can be solved. There are many landlords who are hard done by, but there are also many others who are extremely unscrupulous.

A number of applications were invalid since technically, the applicants owned another property. This is due to a number of applicants who are separated. These applicants may have left their own home to start renting while lengthy separation procedures go on.

Scheme 7: adaptation works for the disabled

Scheme 7 is a very particular scheme, not least because in most cases it is not means-tested, but also because decisions are not taken by the normal processing of our applications in the Schemes Section. They are taken by a panel chaired by the Housing Authority where the majority are outside experts in the field who take the decision on applicants' validity or otherwise.

This scheme has grown hugely in popularity - while we had 24 applications in 1999, we had 199 last year. The largest number had their applications invalidated because the works were not actually required (43.7 per cent).

Another large group (23 per cent) had their application invalidated because the works required (in the opinion of this professinal panel, which includes an OT and a representative of the National Disability Commission) were not actually related to the disability.

Scheme Z: repair works in owner- occupied properties

Most applictions are invalidated because applicants have assets over that which is allowed, while 22 per cent were invalidated because applicants' property was valued at over the allowed amount.

Scheme 5: repair works for tenants

This scheme is core to the efforts being made by the Housing Authority to help those living in the most substandard property to repair their homes, subject of course to their incomes and assets being low.

In 1999 we had only 36 applications, while last year we had 202 and 173 of these were valid. Importantly, 12 per cent of these applications are now being referred for other services, including our care and repair service

Scheme W: adaptation works in government owned properties

Here, a significant number are applying for works which do not fall under this scheme, while a small number had their applications invalidated because their income was over the allowed amount, or more importantly and interestingly, they owned other property.

Ms Micallef Leyson is chairman of the Housing Authority