A household recognized as a priority by the mediation commission has been waiting for months without receiving a single housing offer. Its DALO status is clearly recorded in its file, but no lease has been signed. This gap between being granted priority status and actually being allocated housing is due to a process many applicants discover too late: two separate commissions make decisions at different stages, and their approaches do not always align.
Mediation commission and CALEOL: two decisions, two different approaches
The most common misconception is that the mediation commission allocates housing. It does not. Its role is limited to reviewing the applicant’s situation and deciding whether they meet the criteria to be recognized as a priority applicant who must be housed urgently.
Once this status has been granted, the file is passed to the prefect. The prefect must identify housing suited to the household’s needs and means, then put the household forward to a social housing provider. To understand in detail how DALO housing is allocated, it is important to distinguish between these two stages, as they involve different parties and timelines.
The named allocation of the housing is then voted on by the Housing Allocation and Occupancy Review Commission (CALEOL), which is specific to each social housing provider. The CALEOL may reject an applicant put forward by the prefect, provided it gives reasons for its decision. The rejection must be based on objective criteria relating to the unsuitability of the proposed housing or the household’s circumstances at the time of review.
DALO recognition criteria: what the mediation commission checks
A mediation commission sits in each department. It is made up of representatives of the State, local authorities, social housing providers, approved associations and qualified individuals. Its composition is intended to bring different perspectives to bear on each individual case.
For an applicant to be recognized as a priority, three preliminary conditions must all be met:
- Be a French national or hold a valid residence permit when the appeal is filed.
- Be unable to obtain decent, independent housing by their own means and meet the income limits applicable to social housing.
- Have taken at least one prior step (submitted and renewed a social housing application, reported unsanitary conditions, or served formal notice on the landlord).
Once these conditions are met, the applicant must also be in one of the situations set out by law: having no home, having waited an abnormally long time for an offer, facing eviction without rehousing, having been accommodated in a facility for more than six consecutive months, or occupying premises unfit for habitation.
The abnormally long waiting period varies by department
The threshold for recognition due to excessive waiting is not the same everywhere. Each prefect sets this period according to the pressure on the local rental market. In areas where housing is in very short supply, the period may be relatively short, while in less saturated departments it will be longer. The same application may be recognized as a priority in one department but not in another, solely because of this factor.
The prefect’s role and reservation quotas in DALO housing allocation
Once a household has been recognized as a priority, the prefect has a set period in which to make an offer of suitable housing. This period begins when the mediation commission’s decision is notified.
The prefect first draws on the State’s own reservation quota, meaning the share of social housing reserved by the State. However, this quota is not always sufficient, particularly in departments where DALO demand far exceeds available supply.
Other parties with reservation rights may also be called upon. Local authorities have reservation rights over part of the social housing stock. Action Logement also reserves a quarter of its relevant annual allocations for priority groups, including people recognized under DALO. If a party with reservation rights fails to meet this obligation, the prefect may directly allocate the missing housing to the households concerned.
When the prefect makes no offer: an appeal to the administrative court
If no suitable offer is made within the prescribed period, the applicant may bring a case before the administrative court. The judge may then order the State to rehouse the household and impose a financial penalty for non-compliance.
This penalty is not paid to the applicant. It goes into a fund dedicated to financing social housing. Legal proceedings are the only legal recourse when the prefect fails to act, but they do not guarantee rapid rehousing: the judge’s decision depends on the actual availability of housing in the area.
Refusing a DALO housing offer: consequences for the applicant
A household recognized as a priority that refuses an offer of housing suited to its needs and means risks losing its priority status. The mediation commission may then consider that the State has fulfilled its obligation.
The decree of 15 February 2011 clarified what is meant by housing “suited to the applicant’s needs and means”: the rent remaining after housing assistance must be affordable given the household’s income, the location must provide access to essential services (employment, healthcare, schooling), and the size of the housing must match the household’s composition.
A refusal based on the proposed housing’s genuine unsuitability does not result in the loss of priority status. However, the applicant must submit the refusal in writing and explain how the offer fails to meet the suitability criteria. Without this explanation, the refusal will be treated as a withdrawal.
As we can see, the DALO process relies on a chain of parties (the mediation commission, the prefect, the housing provider and the CALEOL), each operating under its own constraints. Priority recognition grants a right, not a lease. Between a favorable decision and moving into a home, the availability of local social housing remains the decisive factor.
