Overly complex processes and the duplication of work by local authorities causing delays to housing assistance payment (HAP) applications, alongside the refusal of legitimate applications, were among the issues discovered by an Ombudsman investigation.
Ombudsman Ger Deering said his office received numerous complaints from the public, and identified shortcomings through voluntary housing and homeless groups regarding the scheme before its investigation.
Launched in 2014, the HAP payment to landlords was intended to cover the full cost of a household’s rent. Due to significant increases in rent rates, however, two-thirds of HAP households were paying the difference between the HAP cap and the actual cost of rent in 2023.
Some 53,742 households were in receipt of HAP at the end of 2024, meaning the same number of rentals have been removed from the private rental sector, the Ombudsman said, contributing to a sustained increase in the rate of rents.
The availability of rental properties coming under the HAP limits is declining as rents increase, prompting a recommendation from the Ombudsman that caps should be revised on a regular basis to reflect the rental market.
Among the findings of its investigation into HAP’s administration was a “duplication of work” being done by local authorities resulting in potential delays.
Although households approved for social housing support are immediately eligible for HAP, they must make separate applications, resulting in repetition.
The report also highlighted the “overly complex” requirement for local authorities to seek approval from the HAP shared services centre (SSC) before amendments to HAP records or applications for approval can be made.
It noted that the SSC processed 5,821 amendments in one sample month during the investigation.
The investigation also found further “unnecessary delays” when it comes to validating applications and verifying landlords’ proof of ownership.
Delays increase the risk of inability to secure properties, it said.
Separately, the Ombudsman found that some local authorities are refusing HAP applications despite all evidence suggesting a tenancy is legitimate, while others have approved HAP where it should not have been.
Local authorities have “broad discretion” when determining whether a tenancy is genuine, with decisions not always accounting for each case being different or nuanced.
In particular, it said local authorities place “undue weight on family relationships even where all other evidence suggests the tenancy is legitimate”.
Separately, despite being legislatively considered socially housed, HAP tenants do not have access to the same benefits as their counterparts in standard social housing such as tailored arrears repayment plans.
These inequities pose a risk of HAP tenants falling into a “poverty trap,” it said.
“This unfairness is compounded by the fact that they do not have the security of tenure that their counterparts in other forms of social housing have,” the Ombudsman said.
