It’s taken a long time for Sedgefield to transfer its homes to a housing association. Earlier this year, though, the council finally got its wish.

Four years ago, tenants voted against transfer to what was then Sunderland Housing Group (now Gentoo). In the meantime, the council decided it could afford to bring its 8,500 properties up to the decent homes standard without handing over the stock to an association able to raise private funds

But the creation in March of Sedgefield Borough Homes after a large scale voluntary transfer is about more than decent homes. By spending
£100 million over the next five years, it will ensure properties that already meet the government standard get better kitchens and bathrooms, along with new roofs and central heating.

‘The decent homes standard is not particularly challenging,’ declares Colin Steel, chief executive of the new association. ‘Tenants wanted that higher standard and liked the autonomy of a stand-alone organisation.’

Mr Steel’s organisation is not alone. Nearly half of stock transfer associations in England are aiming to exceed the decent homes standard - introduced in 2001 with the aim of improving the UK’s social homes by 2010. In 20 years since the first stock transfer in England, LSVTs have raised more than £19 billion from private lenders to pay for refurbishment work - more than half of that (£11.2 billion) after 2001, when the decent homes standard came in. The government has contributed a further £5 billion - mainly to pay-off overhanging debt where stock was in very poor condition.

But with 12 per cent of stock owned by transfer associations still below the decent standard as the 2010 deadline approaches, can stock transfer’s role in the flagship refurbishment programme really be classed as a success?

Norman Perry, former chief executive of the old funder and regulator of housing associations the Housing Corporation, believes transfer has been ‘an unqualified success’, with new landlords pumping money into social housing in a way that councils could not afford. He acknowledges, though, that the main reason tenants voted for transfer was the prospect of better homes. ‘There was nothing ideological about it,’ he says. ‘Nobody goes to bed at night saying they want to be a housing association tenant.’

Accidental policy

In fact, stock transfer had been around for more than a decade by the time Tony Blair’s government began promoting it as a route to decent homes in 2001.

James Tickell, registrar at the corporation in 1988 and now a director at consultancy Campbell Tickell, says the fact that money borrowed by associations reduces pressure on public spending was not immediately appreciated by the Thatcher government.

‘Then it dawned on people that it was a good wheeze for getting a lot more investment and reducing the stranglehold of local authorities,’ he says. ‘It was an accidental policy that took off relatively quickly.’

When decent homes was introduced in 2001, Labour authorities had long since recognised that Conservative stock transfer policy was not going to be reversed by their party. But while transfer was openly advocated by the government, it suffered major setbacks in areas such as Birminghamas the protest group Defend Council Housing gained strength.

In Tower Hamlets, the council allowed estates to vote individually on whether to transfer. By 2009, 15,000 ex-council homes were managed by housing associations, while 13 estates that voted against had joined other tenants in arm’s-length management organisation Tower Hamlets Homes.

Marc Francis, lead councillor for housing, says 1,600 of the 4,000 non-decent homes that were transferred to housing associations have been brought up to standard. ‘Stock transfer delivered some fantastic regeneration schemes but other results were more mixed,’ he adds.

The ultimate verdict on the effectiveness of stock transfer as a means to better homes belongs to tenants. Ann Thomas, a tenant board member at King’s Forest Housing in Suffolk, says tenants feel better off with her transfer landlord, which completed decent homes work last year. ‘Most people are pleased they can get repairs done within a day,’ she adds.

But Margaret Atkinson, a tenant of Coast & Country Housing, wishes the local council, Redcar & Cleveland, was still more directly involved in housing. ‘I wish we had stayed with the council,’ she says. ‘If you are unhappy you can vote it out.’

Local heroes

As a passionate supporter of transfers David Orr, chief executive of the National Housing Federation, points out that stock transfer landlords are at the forefront of community engagement and other new initiatives. ‘It’s strengthened the sector and challenged the way that associations see their core task,’ he says.

A Joseph Rowntree Foundation study published earlier this year found that 47 per cent of stock transfer associations aim to exceed the decent homes standard.

Other fans include Steve Trusler, strategy director at contractor Wates Living Space, who praises many for employing local firms. ‘They’ve tried to capture expenditure in their local area,’ he says.

But what of the future? With the decent homes deadline looming at the end of next year and the government promising councils greater financial freedoms, is there any reason why stock transfers should continue?

Professor Hal Pawson, author of the JRF study, says the current review of the council housing finance system, will have far-reaching implications, but that does not mean councils will cease to consider the transfer route. ‘People have started to raise their sights in the past few years. We need to put enough resources aside to maintain the decent homes standard and build on it.’

Have your say

You must sign in to make a comment