Is this the end of the story? And if so, how unhappy an ending is it for housing associations?

First, the story could yet have a twist if L&Q’s board decides to appeal the decision in the House of Lords. Second, until any further judgement by the law lords, the ruling last Thursday is law and decisions made by association staff are now subject to scrutiny under the Human Rights Act.

Associations have been warned to expect a barrage of further cases on tenancy issues. Peabody and Affinity Sutton are sensibly planning to issue guidance to employees, reiterating acceptable standards of conduct.

Although potentially expensive legal cases loom, there are few associations that would argue that their tenants don’t deserve the same rights under the Human Rights Act as those of arm’s-length management organisations and local authorities.

The issue that is keeping chief executives awake at night is whether or not their borrowing will have to be counted as part of the public debt. At present it is not, but if it were it would likely put a stop to new lending to housing associations overnight. Although association tenants might benefit from their new rights, surely the cost of this potential scenario would outweigh it.

The ruling has created more questions than it answered. Are associations now subject to freedom of information rules? Will this decision prove sufficient grounds to bring cases against all associations, or simply those ones of a similar size to L&Q?

Should L&Q choose to appeal, there are grounds for optimism. In one passage of the judgement Lord Justice Rix, to paraphrase, says: If housing associations are public bodies due to the fact they receive large sums of public subsidy, then what does that make Royal Bank of Scotland and Lloyds Banking Group?

If an appeal is backed by other large associations then we may not have answered the public/private question just yet.

Have your say

You must sign in to make a comment