With the greatest respect to prior commentators – Tenants do have a right to have a say in how their services are delivered and to be able to go to ballot to assess the confidence of the wider tenant constituent, that their right to repair and improvement is being delivered, regardless of the fiscal constraint of the landlord. The right to repair and improvement is not predicated or conditional on how much money a landlord has budgeted, nor should it ever be.
Also, secure tenants do have the specific right to be consulted over changes to housing management – you cannot uphold the interests of ‘security of tenure’ on the one hand by opposing transfer, and then not uphold their right to be consulted on housing management change on the other. If having considered the ‘offer’, tenants can, choose to accept or reject. Although we can argue all day long, as to the merits of subsidy, this is the democratic principle embedded in the current investment opportunity.
A third point. On the issue of whom owns the community asset, don’t forget it is the right of the unemployed or poorly waged to access housing benefit to assist them with their housing cost. For many, that money is spent in the regulated social housing sector. As a principle, tenants in receipt of that welfare support should have a say in how they spend their entitlements. Not those who are not in receipt of it. However, it is a pity that the same level of accountability and choice is not available in the private rented sector.