ao link

You are viewing 1 of your 1 free articles

Why are social landlords not squirming in the face of criticism?

Last week’s Shelter commission report raised questions about the landlord-tenant relationship and engagement which the sector needs to talk about, writes Tony Stacey

Linked InTwitterFacebookeCard
Picture: Getty
Picture: Getty
Sharelines

LinkedIn IH“Remote. Unaccountable. Uninterested. These are serious charges... Why isn’t the sector squirming right now?” asks @TonyStacey in #IH50 today #ukhousing

LinkedIn IH“A new charter and tweaks to our code of governance is not going to rebuild trust in the way we need,” writes @TonyStacey #ukhousing

LinkedIn IH“We continue to recruit customers as non-executive directors. They hold their positions – believe me – entirely on their merit,” writes @TonyStacey #ukhousing

Last week I attended the launch of Shelter’s commission report, Building for our Future: a Vision for Social Housing.

The commission’s call for a dramatic increase in the rate of new social housebuilding understandably grabbed the headlines but, for me, what the commission had to say about existing landlord-tenant relationships in social housing was just as interesting.

One of the commissioners, Edward Daffarn, survived the Grenfell Tower disaster. He had blogged before the fire happened that “only a catastrophic event will expose the ineptitude and incompetence of our landlord”.

The commission’s report mentions that “a large minority of social renters feel their landlord is indifferent to their needs and there is a lack of tenant voice and agency”.

This echoes the prime minister’s comments in her foreword to the Social Housing Green Paper last year, when she said many of our tenants “feel ignored” and are “too often treated with a lack of respect by landlords who appear remote, unaccountable and uninterested”.

Remote. Unaccountable. Uninterested. These are serious charges.

If I remember my change management theory correctly, nothing changes until behaviour changes. And behaviour change starts with leadership.

“Remote. Unaccountable. Uninterested. These are serious charges... Why isn’t the sector squirming right now?”

So what are social housing leaders talking about just now? Not this. Not much, anyhow. The conversations I hear are about building more homes, funding and regulation. Oh, and increasingly (thanks here goes to the 72 associations in the Homes for Cathy group), tackling homelessness.

OK, fine but what about these charges against us? Why isn’t the sector squirming right now?

This should have knocked us right out of our comfort zone. The answer is that we think, “Yes, there is a problem but it’s not us, it’s them over there”.

The National Housing Federation (NHF) has had a go – its ‘Offer for Tenants’ is fine as far as it goes, but it is a professional answer to a professional question.


Read more

A national body for tenants must be establishedA national body for tenants must be established
Keep focusing on tenants amid the Brexit noiseKeep focusing on tenants amid the Brexit noise
League tables proposal panned in green paper consultation responsesLeague tables proposal panned in green paper consultation responses

A new charter and tweaks to our code of governance is not going to rebuild trust in the way we need. It is top down and risks the same trajectory as scrutiny panels – with a few exceptions they have involved loads of effort, not engaged many customers and changed little.

In his excellent blog, ‘Do we really trust Bright House more than we do housing associations?’ Bromford’s Paul Taylor argues “the way forward for the social sector is to abandon our professionalism and return to our roots”.

He refers to the work of Gerry McGovern, an expert in customer experience, who said customers trust those who give them control of their lives.

They distrust those who try to control them. Mr Taylor concludes “many social sector organisations don’t seek to put customers in control, or even regard them as paying customers. They can actually disempower them”.

“We continue to recruit customers as non-executive directors. They hold their positions – believe me – entirely on their merit.”

An obsession for the South Yorkshire Housing Association board for many years now has been how we ensure the voice of the tenants is heard in the boardroom.

We continue to recruit customers as non-executive directors.

They hold their positions – believe me – entirely on their merit.

The board absolutely does not settle for that though; we are required to report to them regularly on our progress with co-creation, customer feedback and engagement across all our services.

But I was taken by surprise at the last meeting when board members said they are still not satisfied, and want us to get back to them on how we can ensure we build empathy at all levels of the association. I can’t find the answer to this in my housing association manual.

Yes, I feel uncomfortable about all of this. I do not know the answers, but I know we need to keep worrying away at it, ask customers to share their views and help us co-create the answers.

The NHF says in its Offer for Tenants that we should be “bold and brave”, so let’s do that.

It’s not them over there, it’s us.

Tony Stacey, chief executive, South Yorkshire Housing Association

 

 

At a glance: the Shelter commission’s recommendations

Complaints and regulation

  • The government should create a new consumer regulator to protect renters and ensure their voices are heard. This should operate alongside the Regulator of Social Housing, focused on its core economic brief.
  • Social housing residents need better protection. Government should require standards of social housing to be proactively inspected, publicly reported, and strongly enforced in order to hold failing landlords to account.
  • If residents are to be protected and given a voice, there must be clearer standards for social housing providers. The government should direct the regulator to make consumer standards more specific; setting clear, minimum expectations, like timescales for dealing with complaints.
  • All groups of residents (whether recognised by their landlords or not) should be able to refer their concerns directly to the new regulator where they have common concerns they believe are caused by a systemic failing in the landlord’s services.
  • Residents should not have to prove they might be at risk of serious detriment for the regulator to intervene. The government should remove the ‘serious detriment’ test for intervention in complaints about social housing, which is a barrier to proper enforcement of consumer standards.
  • To make it easier for social renters to get redress on individual complaints, barriers to complaining must be removed. The government should remove the democratic filter for referral to the Housing Ombudsman
  • Residents must be given support to complain. The government should extend the Legal Help scheme to cover detailed advice and support to make a referral to the ombudsman or the regulator.

Tenant voice and involvement

  • Tenant panels should be encouraged and taken seriously. The government and Regulator should urgently require landlords to actively support the formation of tenant panels and share good practice on how this should be done.
  • Residents of social housing must have a voice with national, regional, and local government. Government should support establishment of an independent tenants’ voice organisationor tenants’ union, to represent the views of tenants in social housing within national and local government. It should involveas wide a range of tenants as possible.
  • Residents must have a leading voice in major works to existing homes or neighbourhoods. The government’s good practice guidance on estate regeneration should be revisedto reflect this.
  • The government should compile good practice on cooperative and mutual social housing models. Transfers of existing homes to such models should only happen if triggered by tenants, and if voted for by a majority of tenants.

Reforming private renting

  • Government should require all private landlords with over25 homes to register with the new consumer regulator.
  • The new consumer regulator should set consumer standards for all private rented housing.
  • The government should increase resources for local enforcement to tackle rogue landlords and poor conditions, in line with the growth in the number of private rented properties.
  • The government should protect private renters from no-fault eviction. It should end Section 21 by changing the law so permanent tenancies are the legal minimum for all private renters. It should make sure they are protected from eviction by above-market rent increases. The government should explore how to introduce more detailed information about rent levels for different property types at a ward level.

Building more social homes

  • Government should deliver enough social homes over the next 20 years for the 3.1 million households who will be failed by the market, providing both security for those in need, but also a step up for young families trying to get on and save for their future.
  • Government should reform the Land Compensation Act 1961 so that landowners are paid a fair market price for their land, rather than the price it might achieve with planning permission that it does not actually have. It could do this most simply by; amending Section 14 so that no account is taken of any prospective planning permission in land designated by local authorities or city regions for infrastructure including housing; amending Section 17 so that Certificates of appropriate alternative development cease to apply in those areas designated by local authorities or city regions for development.
  • In future assessments of housing need, government should specify the need for social housing.
  • Government should remove the exemptions that mean Section 106 rules do not always apply to new developments and conversions.
  • Government should ensure that any Right to Buy scheme(s) are sustainable, by replacing any social housing sold.
  • Government should embrace modern methods of construction in a way that reduces risk and builds public confidence, using methods that are proven to work over the long term.
  • Government should set a standard to ensure investment in maintaining and improving homes and neighbourhoods over their full lifetime.
  • Anyone involved in delivering social housing should ensure that new social homes are delivered as part of tenure-blind, mixed-community developments. This includes avoiding design that will contribute to a sense of exclusion, e.g.avoiding separate entrances to the same building that divide households based on tenure.

Click here to read the report

KEY PROPOSALS IN THE SOCIAL HOUSING GREEN PAPER

  • New 'league tables' of housing providers based on key performance indicators, surrounding services such as repairs and neighbourhood management. This could be linked to housing grant.
  • Consideration to scrapping of the current 'serious detriment' test, to allow 'Ofsted-style' tougher consumer regulation
  • New home ownership options such as allowing tenants to buy as little as 1% of their property each year through shared ownership. This would only apply to new shared ownership purchases.
  • Ditching of plans to force social landlords to offer fixed term tenancies rather than lifetime tenancies in social housing
  • Ditching of plans to force councils to sell off their most valuable social housing when it becomes vacant
  • The potential introduction a new stock transfer programme from councils to 'community-led' housing associations
  • The return of guaranteed debt funding to help the development of affordable homes, and longer term 'strategic partnerships' for developing housing associations
Linked InTwitterFacebookeCard
Add New Comment
You must be logged in to comment.