Reforms that stifle ‘big society’ TMOs

As social housing managers of tenant managed housing organisations, we are answerable for our work. Residents are the ultimate bosses. Uniquely, we have to earn our right to continue to serve by winning a continuation ballot every five years.

Over the past 15 years the Leathermarket Joint Management Board has benefited from the mix of resident directors we have had - from industry high-fliers and senior public servants to those born and brought up in the area. The specialist knowledge these people donated for free would cost us many thousands of pounds if we’d had to pay for it. Forcing higher income earners off our estates will take away such people.

The government will say its proposals aim to increase housing supply. While the arguments for retaining security of tenure can be applied across the housing sector, the risks to TMOs are huge. Without a statutory exemption to these changes, we would be forced to comply with the policies of our host authorities and the local allocation systems.

Such an exemption would make a marginal contribution to housing supply, but would allow us to continue to show how successful the big society can be in practice.

The changes in social housing risk killing us off completely. Fixed-term tenancies, with a constant churn of tenants every few years, are an existential threat to tenant management. With a transient population, where is the chance to build a sense of involvement?

Transient estates are the hardest to manage. Unless the government thinks again and explicitly exempts TMOs from fixed-term tenancies and the squeeze on higher earners then it risks destroying the best example it has of the big society.

Andy Bates, manager, Leathermarket Joint Management Board