“I have been living under threat and direct intimidation … I am worried and stressed beyond belief and I feel as if this is not being dealt with the seriousness it deserves. Do we have to wait until something worse happens?” (complaint letter, September 2025)

“What am I to do? What advice do you give me in this situation? My life is being threatened, what will it take for action to be taken? Must I be physically harmed again? Please explain to me what I must do to end this torment? I am unable to eat, sleep or function due to the serious nature of these attacks and intimidation.” (complaint letter, September 2025)

Cases like those above tend not to be reported in the media. Even those that are – like some of the families forced from their homes in Ballymena or North Belfast in recent months – reportedly remain among the over 5,200 households (May 2025 figures) in temporary accommodation today. Awarding 200 points had been the mechanism housing authorities used to ensure that people subjected to the trauma of intimidation could be quickly allocated a permanent home somewhere safer.

What happened?

Intimidation points were not part of the 2013 UU / Cambridge report recommendations underpinning most of the Fundamental Review of Allocations; the FRA proposal to remove them followed on from a 2011 consultation no longer available online, which PPR obtained by Freedom of Information.

The 2011 consultation asked whether intimidation points were still needed and whether, in the event of their removal from the Housing Selection Scheme, Primary Social Needs points would “adequately recognise and give due weight to the range of circumstances in which a person is forced to leave… or lose their home” (p. 11). According to the August 2011 report of responses, “the overwhelming majority” believed that the PSN points would need to be amended.

When it emerged in the Fundamental Review of Allocations consultation back in 2017, PPR was critical of the DFC proposal to scrap intimidation points, drawing attention to people’s experiences – similar to the 2025 quotes above -- of reporting fear and intimidation only to be met by unresponsiveness: what it called housing authorities’ “well-documented reticence in awarding points in cases where the threshold is met” (para. 5). To concerns about the omission of victims of gender-based violence, PPR suggested that the criteria be widened to include them (para. 13).

The DFC’s 2020 equality screening of the proposal recognised potential harm to, amongst others, “people intimidated because of sectarianism or on the basis of racial identity, sexual orientation or disability”; and the consultation outcomes report issued by then-Communities Minister Deirdre Hargey (SF) rowed back the proposal. Rather than scrapping intimidation points, the DFC said, the process for verifying threats would be strengthened to eliminate abuse; and the scope of the policy would be widened to include people fleeing domestic violence (p. 47).

…under Minister Lyons, the DFC – facing a legal challenge from the NI Human Rights Commission over the exclusion of domestic violence victims – flip-flopped. Dropping the targeted reforms, he announced instead that the scheme would be closed to new claimants from April 2025, thereby effectively nullifying the legal challenge.

However under Minister Lyons, the DFC – facing a legal challenge from the NI Human Rights Commission over the exclusion of domestic violence victims – flip-flopped. Dropping the targeted reforms, he announced instead that the scheme would be closed to new claimants from April 2025, thereby effectively nullifying the legal challenge. The Primary Social Needs points review -- flagged back in 2011 as a necessary precursor to the removal of intimidation points, to ensure that victims’ needs continued to be adequately met -- was announced in the same statement:

I have asked the Housing Executive to take forward work to review the primary social needs criteria and points for all victims of violence, abuse and trauma as soon as possible and to engage with stakeholders to inform what the prospective changes will look like.

As a listening MLA pointed out to the chamber, “victims of domestic abuse … should be served equally well [by the system] not equally badly, and we will have to reserve judgement on that until we see the review of primary social needs points”.

Minister Lyons also said in January 2025 that the existing structures for verifying threats would be reviewed; to date there have been no further news of either exercise.

PPR’s full analysis of the impact of the Fundamental Review of Allocations is here.