By Colin Wiles

My first impressions on reading “The Better Social Housing Review” were twofold. Firstly, the title is misleading – it is only about social housing provided by housing associations, and, secondly, given that this report is produced by the sector’s main trade body and its main professional body, isn’t this a case of marking your own homework? They both have dogs in the fight. Horses and stable doors also came to mind. With the reputation of the sector at its lowest ebb for decades, isn’t this report too little too late?

But delve a little deeper and it seems that the Chartered Institute of Housing and the National Housing Federation have made a seemingly genuine attempt to set up an independent panel to study the woes of the housing association sector. So far as I can see, the five-member panel, chaired by Helen Baker, has no direct link or any disclosable pecuniary interest with any housing association.

The report makes the point that housing associations collectively provide homes to around six million people and that when the sector works best “it creates good-quality, safe and secure homes for individuals and families to thrive in, in strong communities”. But the report acknowledges that Grenfell, recent exposés by the likes of Daniel Hewitt and Kwajo Tweneboa, and, most recently, the shocking death of two-year-old Awaab Ishak as a result of mould and respiratory problems, have severely dented the reputation of the sector.

The report at times is hard hitting, talking about “a lack of response or disrespectful communication from landlords” and the structural inequalities in the sector, “faced especially by people from black and minority ethnic communities, those with disabilities and single parent households”.

The review goes on to make seven key recommendations that will help to put things right.

It admits that “there is nothing revelatory in our findings and recommendations” and, to be frank, much of this advice has been published a hundred times over during the last 20 years, but coming from the CIH and the NHF it is perhaps breaking new ground. It is the first recommendation that is the most interesting, and that is at the very core of the report. “Every housing association and the sector as a whole, should refocus on their core purpose and deliver against it.”

The report defines this “core purpose” as “to provide decent, safe homes for those who can’t afford the market. When housing associations can demonstrate that they are delivering against that purpose they should then review again what further capacity they have available to continue to deliver against wider responsibilities and ambitions.”

 You would think that this hardly needs to be said, and it was met with some scepticism on social media. My old SHOUT colleague Tom Murtha tweeted:

“If housing association leaders need to be reminded what their core purpose is in the Better Social Housing Review perhaps they are in the wrong job.”

The report calls for a “back to basics” approach with each association making its own judgements about priorities and assessing how well it is delivering against the basics. “It is only when there is confidence that these are being properly resourced and delivered that housing associations will then be able to make well-informed judgements about how far to extend and diversify other commitments and ambitions.” 

Three cheers for that. There are many, many people in the sector and beyond who believe that in the dash for growth and commercialisation too many associations have lost sight of basic services.

The other six recommendations are more practical and mostly unremarkable.

• “Housing associations should work together to conduct and publish a thorough audit of all social housing in England.”Who could disagree?
• “Housing associations should partner with tenants, contractors and frontline staff to develop and apply new standards defining what an excellent maintenance and repairs process looks like.”Ditto.
• “The Chartered Institute of Housing should promote the traditional housing officer role as a supported and valued employment opportunity with a Chartered Institute of Housing-recognised programme of training and continuing development.”The report points out that some patch sizes are now up to 1,000. But this does not go far enough in my view. If we are talking about ‘tradition’ then housing officers should be trained across the board to know more about the technical aspects of housing. When I first started on the CIH qualification in Hackney in 1980 we spent many long hours studying construction methods, brickwork, sanitation, M&E (mechanical and electrical), the causes of dampness and mould, etc. I hear too many reports of uninformed housing officers blaming problems on tenants. That has to stop.
• “Housing associations should work with all tenants to ensure that they have a voice and influence at every level of decision making across the organisation, through both voluntary and paid roles.”Again, who could disagree?
• “Housing associations should develop a proactive local community presence through community hubs which foster greater multi-agency working.”Ditto.
• Housing associations should support tenants and frontline staff to undertake an annual review of the progress each organisation is making in implementing this review’s recommendations.”Ditto again.

As I say, it is the first recommendation that is the most noteworthy. The report identifies one of the key problems of the sector as “The power imbalance between tenants and housing providers … perpetuating rather than dismantling the societal stigma and discrimination experienced by people living in social housing”.

The report urges every housing association to “have the courage to ask themselves difficult, but necessary, questions about the reality of all the homes they provide and the service given to all their tenants, so that real progress can continue to be made”. Let us hope that they are listening.

Every board member in the land should be encouraged to read this report and to act upon it.