Fact-checker: Times article
The Times has run a piece today criticising the building record of the largest developing housing associations, but is this fair? Jess McCabe seeks to set the record straight.
Today, The Times ran a front page story with the headline ‘£350,000 salaries for Britain’s worst social housing chiefs’.
It was comparing the salaries of housing chief executives to how many homes they built, and found them wanting. But is this fair and accurate? Let’s consider the main claims:
CLAIM: The highest-paid housing associations with bosses earning up to £350,000 a year are among the worst performers for building new homes.
FALSE: All the data used by The Times comes from Inside Housing’s list of the 50 housing associations building the most homes in the sector. Patently, no organisation on that list is one of the “worst” builders. Out of more than a thousand housing associations in the UK, these are the 50 building the most homes.
Moreover, while development is very important for housing associations, it is only one arm of their activities. The housing associations in the Top 50 own and manage a combined 1.6m homes, making them massive landlords providing vital affordable housing, sheltered accommodation and care home places, as well as shared ownership.
They are also providers of homelessness services, care, apprenticeships, and a wealth of other services. Development is important, but it is inaccurate to judge their success or failure on build numbers alone.
The Times’ coverage of development data vs Inside Housing
CLAIM: There has been a slump in building this year of 6.3%.
TRUE: Yes, there has been a decrease of completions among the 50 largest builders this year. However, as Inside Housing revealed on its front page today, this is a temporary blip in response to a government-imposed rent cut which reduced the funding available for housing associations to build.
Even this year, the number of new homes these associations started to build is set to rise 23% on 2014/15 levels, from about 28,000 to about 34,000. Since last June alone, housing associations have boosted the number of homes they expect to build in 2015/20 by more than 7,000, despite the introduction of policies which financially constrain their ability to build, such as the 1% annual rent cut.
CLAIM: East Thames Group is the “worst culprit”, because it built less homes than L&Q.
HIGHLY DEBATABLE: East Thames Group saw a drop in the number of homes it is able to build, but it is still within the housing associations who are building the most.
While L&Q did build more homes, it is a much larger organisation. East Thames has 15,000 homes, and a turnover of £146m. L&Q has 70,000 homes, and a turnover of £642m. It is unsurprising that L&Q builds more homes than East Thames.
