Stock transfers delivering on promises: more evidence of improvements

The Housing Corporation just published a thematic review of housing association formed by “stock transfers” from local councils.

The thematic review found stock transfer associations are “making considerable progress towards the delivery of its promises to tenants made at the point of transfer. The one or two cases where associations have been unable to deliver on their promises are generally due to circumstances not directly related to the transfer process.”

While the study was primarily one based on self-assessment by housing associations, it is consistent with other evidence such as the National Audit Office’s finding in 2003 that “RSLs have largely delivered the expected benefits to tenants of better quality social housing, better housing services and opportunities for tenant participation.”

The future of ALMOs - through the community gateway?

It was interesting to read in this week’s Inside Housing that some arm’s length management organisations are looking at the community gateway model of stock transfer pioneered in Preston.

As I've said before, I am a big fan of the community gateway model as a form of mutually owned and led housing association committed to supporting and working through resident involvement. The community gateway was designed to reassure residents doubtful about stock transfer and traditional forms of housing association.

If some ALMOs move towards stock transfer into community gateways that is good news for ALMO residents. However, I hope that we continue to see ALMOs surviving and prospering beyond their contract contracts to manage council housing. ALMOs are keeping council housing in municipal ownership while introducing new and better management than what went before.

Of course any change in the status of ALMOs must be with the consent of residents. (Defend Council Housing would love to see any evidence of the "two-stage privatisation" that they have sought to scare council tenants with.)

Defend Council Housing and "predatory social landlords"

Defend Council Housing have just issued a new briefing (pdf available). It attacks housing associations as you’d expect.

Government's claim that tenants won't be worse off with privatisation but Registered Social Landlords provide 'assured' not secure tenancies and so have higher evictionrates; they charge tenants more in rents and service charges and they are unaccountable.

A single contract for council and housing association tenants is on the horizon – that will take away one argument against stock transfer. Increasingly there is a leveling of the playing field on rents too. Housing associations are unaccountable? Tenant surveys suggest that housing association tenants are more satisfied with their opportunities to participate in decision-making than council tenants. Hopefully we will see housing associations working even harder on this with resident scrutiny panels and/or other forms of enhanced accountability.

Shelter's Adam Sampson, speaking at a fringe meeting at Labour conference, expressed his concern that RSLs were becoming increasingly dominated by the banks and focuson homes for sale rather than their tenants.

Housing associations are only responding to the government’s agenda. Hopefully we will soon see the (long awaited) step change in building for social rent.

I know that housing associations are not perfect. They could do better and at times they can be prone to complacency. But they are not the villains of DCH mythology.

(I should also say that I think that the government should offer another route to Decent Homes improvement funding where councils choose to retain existing arrangements for council housing and these arrangements are demonstrably working.)

What I find so frustrating about so much of the rhetoric from DCH – as well as the prejudice against housing associations - is that it seems to assume that all is well with council housing. There is an unwillingness to suggest any thing other than more cash. Any change in the form of council housing – such as council-owned Arm’s Length Management Organisations – is immediately condemned as “privatisation”.

At least there are people like the Confederation of Cooperative Housing who show more open-mindedness and promote new models of social housing.

Roof and stock transfer - two contrasting perspectives

The Jan-Feb issue of Shelter’s magazine Roof carries a couple of interesting and constrasting articles on stock transfer.

Frank Dobson reviews Defend Council Housing’s new "The Case for council housing in 21st Century Britain" (pdf available). He makes a number of arguments against stock transfer. He complains about the very term – “millions of homes and the people in them are looked on as ‘stock’”. I don’t think that is so – but if anyone has a better name for describing tenants of councils becoming tenants of housing associations, answers on a postcard.

Dobson more seriously argues that where council’s have opted for retention, this is because tenants want “democracy” and “whatever their doubts about council landlords, [tenants] want to be able to influence rents, tenancy agreements and management standards”. Do council tenants really have that influence? Do council tenants exercise control through the ballot box? Maybe when about half of all voters were also council tenants. Arguably, ex-council tenants have more influence on housing associations boards where typically one-third of board members are tenants. (Ex-council tenants have even more clout in the tenant-controlled community gateway associations – set-up in Preston and being considered in Braintree and elsewhere. I know I have mentioned these development before but I see them as significant and exciting applications of co-operative principles to social housing.)

Generally housing associations are increasingly focused on responding to their tenants – their customers – with the Housing Corporation and Audit Commission requiring evidence of tenant involvement.

Two academics from Cardiff University, Kevin Morgan and Bob Smith, give a very different perspective on stock transfer from Wales. They see stock transfer and the associate funding for a major improvement programme to be a “once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for a triple dividend – to improve the lot of tenants, create new employment opportunities and enhance the quality of the built environment”.

The recent “yes” votes in Monmouthshire and Rhondda Cynon Taf suggest that tenants want to seize the opportunity. Its now for the new housing associations – created as community housing mutuals - to deliver.

Housing Association plc?

Yesterday I was disappointed to see on my doormat the Inside Housing headline – “Landlord explores flotation”. Places for People - England’s largest housing association with 58000 homes - has discussed with the Housing Corporation to possibility of becoming a public limited company and floating on the stock market.

As Inside Housing notes, this would herald a fundamental change to the nature of housing associations. (Interestingly the possibility was not mentioned in the report on the Future Shape of the Sector Commission.)

While I have no objection to for-profit organizations owning and managing social housing and no objection to housing association using the stock exchange to raise new finance (17 housing association are considering the use of a Real Estate Investment Trust to finance market renting, key worker and similar accommodation) – I think flotation of a housing association is a bad move

I worry about this for two reasons:

1) The housing association movement was conceived as a not-for-profit movement –
and it generally works well as this.

2) If any housing association moves from the third sector to the private sector – it will give the claims of "privatization” made by the opponents of stock transfer credibility for the first time. (In fact, Defend Council Housing already use the musings of Places for People’s Chief Executive in 2002 on flotation for their own purposes.)

Lets hope the legal, regulatory and other complexities involved in flotation will kill this idea.