TSA must stop the mega-builders
The Tenant Services Authority arrangements which allow unregistered organisations to own regulated housing providers perhaps provides an opportunity for new entrants to the social housing ‘market’ with the usual assumed benefits of choice and competition.
SIGN IN TO ACCESS THIS CONTENT
You've reached your monthly limit for unrestricted access to Inside Housing content. To get free unrestricted access simply sign in below, or register your details.
Sign In
If you are already registered sign in for unrestricted access to alll the content on the site.
In the case of the Salvation Army Housing Association proposal, we have the allure of a non-registered provider with a long record of standing with the poor, rationalising arrangements with a closely connected organisation which will no doubt bring efficiency benefits to residents and service users.
And I can’t think of anyone who would want to stand in the way of that. Perhaps on the plus side (as a Euro enthusiast) it might also provide opportunities for the expansion of French, German, Dutch and other EU social housing providers into the UK social housing sector.
But what happens when a profit distributing mega-builder sets up a registered provider subsiduary to own and manage section 106 housing on the sites it develops?
It would appear that the TSA has taken appropriate steps to protect the massive public sector investment in social housing providers through capital sector grants.
However, has it done enough to prevent the owner using revenue funding - in the form of charges for services and contributions to corporate overheads - and the registered provider as a cash cow to help prop up the bottom line and dividends to shareholders?
Chas Townley, Stroud