It's way past time to stop treating tenants like dirt
A committee of MPs tells England's social landlords to clean up their act, but will they listen?
A fish rots from the head, as the saying goes, and so it is with England's social housing industry.
Too often, for too long, it's been ordinary people living within the tenure who have tended to bear the blame – and endure the pain – for problems in the sector.
Lately, though, it's become a lot harder for housing bosses to mask the stench arising from their ranks. The stink is finally drawing attention.
It's worth saying, this is largely because tenants have refused to 'know their place' and 'mind their betters' – and long may that continue – but it's also a result of their grievances being aired on a public stage.
Over the last year, tenacious investigative reporting by Daniel Hewitt and his ITV News team has revealed the scandalous conditions some social housing tenants have been forced to endure. What's more, it has highlighted the weaknesses – bordering on indifference – of systems supposedly in place to hold bad landlords to account.
The power of the reporting is grounded in the actions of tenants themselves, backed by grassroots campaigners such as Kwajo Tweneboa, who took to social media to catalogue the rot and help boost a groundswell of resistance to shoddy housing providers.
Sadly, though, this is ultimately all yesterday's news, unless it can be translated into the political action to force change on a sector still deep in denial about its structural deficiencies and moral failings.
That's where a new report from a cross-party committee of MPs may – or may not – come in. Taking notice of the scandalous conditions so revealed, the Levelling Up, Housing & Communities Select Committee joined the fray with an inquiry into the regulation of social housing.
This month, the committee published its findings. As you'd expect, it makes a series of urgent recommendations, but it also paints a sorry picture of the status quo.
All told, this report – along with the previous reporting on the issues – reveals a sector with a propensity to treat the people living in its homes as dirt. Certainly, it's a far cry from the carefully curated PR image of progressive social virtue.
The quick defence that the scandals exposed represent a minority of tenants' experience doesn't really cut it. In one sense, it only twists the knife for those families experiencing poor service and bad housing; for the rest, it surely tests faith in their landlord's future reliability.
A point illustrated by veteran social housing campaigner and retired housing association chief executive, Tom Murtha, and Tweneboa, who both tweeted:
In their select committee report, the MPs singled out the power imbalance that exists between tenants and landlords: one, it is fair to say, that has often been exploited by the latter. That said, as this sorry saga reveals, tenants are not perhaps as entirely powerless as their landlords might prefer. But, still, the harm runs deep enough.
“Social housing plays a vital role in giving people a secure and affordable home, offering those in social housing protection from the rising costs and insecurity of private renting,” said Clive Betts MP, the committee's chair.
“Too many social housing tenants are living in uninhabitable homes and experiencing appalling conditions and levels of disrepair, including serious damp and mould, with potential serious impacts on their mental and physical health.
“The poor complaint handling of some providers not only adds insult to injury but the resulting delays in resolving tenant complaints actively contributes to the levels of disrepair. Sadly, beyond the distress of experiencing poor living conditions, it is undeniable that tenants also face poor treatment from providers who discriminate and stigmatise people because they are social housing tenants. This must change.”
Indeed it must. As the inquiry into the tragedy at Grenfell Tower has horrifically shown, such systematic contempt for tenants can be lethal, but that's a whole other story.
The question is, will things change? Do sector chiefs really want to alter their ways, or are they simply going through the motions in the hope the problem will somehow go away of its own accord? Answers, as ever, in hindsight.
The select committee said it recognises that the social housing sector is “under serious financial pressure”. There is also a long-standing and worsening shortage of social housing, thanks in the main – it must be added – to government policies past and present (including those of previous Labour administrations).
There are problems, too, with some social housing stock, the report conceded: disrepair is, in part, an issue with the age and design of the properties, “some of which was never built to last and is now approaching obsolescence”.
None of this excuses the sector, however; the report is clear on that, and there are failings above and beyond these issues.
“On levels of disrepair, we conclude that most social housing in England is of a decent standard, as evidenced by the most recent English Housing Survey, but that the condition of some homes has deteriorated so far as to be unfit for human habitation,” the report says.
“We also note with concern the extremely serious impact on the mental and physical health of those affected. Whatever the precise extent and causes of housing disrepair, we call on everyone in and connected to the sector to prioritise above all else the quality of housing being provided to existing tenants.”
It adds that “too many [providers] are guilty of”:
Not responding quickly enough to requests for repairs or investigating the structural causes of disrepair
Preferring quick fixes over proper remediation work
Neglecting sites earmarked for regeneration
Relying too heavily on tenants to report problems, rather than proactively monitoring the condition of their stock
Shining light on social housing's sins
Stigma, as Betts pointed out, is an ugly part of the picture.
As the report goes on to say, its not just the condition of their homes that provokes tenants ire; poor quality of services generally also fuels much complaint.
There's an inescapable sense that social tenants are perceived by their providers as 'second class' citizens, and that is reflected in the way they are treated or spoken to, suggests the report. In many cases, the committee believes, “the poor treatment of tenants” is down to:
A lack of respect for tenants arising from a stigma attached to being a social housing tenant, or to other forms of discrimination
The power imbalance between providers and tenants
The commercialisation of the sector, which has distanced some providers from their tenants and from their original social mission
Indeed, some years ago, it was fashionable at housing conferences to have presentations on stigma, often questioning whether social housing had become a “failed brand”. What wasn't said at these sessions – but nevertheless was implicit between the lines – is that the sector is burdened with the 'wrong kind' of tenant. Low income, working class; just not our kind of people (or brand, if you prefer).
There are ways and means to rebrand of course: sometimes 'officially' with fancy new names and logos. A shift towards producing more expensive products is another: the so-called 'affordable' rent model, or shared ownership properties for budding home 'owners', aimed at a seemingly more up-market clientele.
Massage the sector's demographic profile, in other words, to something more befitting an aspirational, commercially go-getting venture.
The housing crisis has its uses, in that regard, of course. As more people struggle to either rent or buy a home, providers can step in, channel themselves 'up-market' yet still plausibly claim to be helping meet housing need; social purpose fulfilled. Woe betide those who won't – or can't – fit in with this brave new world.
There is, sadly, a streak of sentiment in the social housing sector that resents having to cater for the very people many of its organisation were established – in a spirit of high ideals and raging social conscience – to support. Two fingers to the market and a welcome hand for the communities they served; nowadays, it appears too often the other way around.
Even if there is no resentment, for a sector leadership that has tasted the heady brew of 'placemaking' and regeneration, dazzled itself with the 'glamour' of property development, rubbed shoulders with the worlds of high finance, the bread and butter of social housing lacks a certain, well, sexy razzle. The allure of Cannes; not the dramas of the kitchen sink.
Tenants, of course, lack a voice in the affairs and aspirations of social housing, despite it being very much a matter of pressing concern that directly affects their lives. That's a major part of the problem; too often seen and not heard.
If tenants were given a say in the sector's management and oversight, might that make a difference? The committee seems to think so:
“To reduce stigma and discrimination, we call on providers to ensure their boards and senior management teams better reflect the diversity of their communities, and on the regulator to incorporate this requirement into its revised consumer standards,” the report adds.
“To strengthen tenant voice, we call on the regulator to require providers to support the establishment of tenants and residents associations that are led by tenants and residents and not unduly influenced by providers. We also urge the Government to establish a permanent national tenant voice body to send the clearest possible signal that it intends to involve tenants in the national conversation about how to drive up standards in social housing.”
There's a message for the Housing Ombudsman, too; the body that handles complaints brought by tenants against individual providers. Do more to make people aware of its existence, the report says, as well as widen understanding among tenants about how they can go about lodging a complaint to the ombudsman.
It also urges the Government to grant the ombudsman the power to compel housing providers to pay compensation of up to £25,000 when complaints are upheld against them.
As for the regulatory regime around the quality of social housing, this too comes in for criticism. Since 2011, the Regulator of Social Housing (RSH) has been prevented by the 'serious detriment' test from “proactively regulating” consumer standards, the report points out. Even so, despite this, the MPs are adamant that more could have been done.
It's hard not to take the MPs' point as an accusation of timidity on the RSH's behalf. They say the regulator's “interpretation of its statutory duty to minimise interference and act proportionately” has resulted in the “most passive consumer regulatory regime permissible under the Housing & Regeneration Act 2008”.
The Government is set to repeal the 'serious detriment' test via the Social Housing (Regulation) Bill, which the report says will remove “a significant barrier to proactive regulation”. Even so, it calls for the regulator to be “more proactive in defending the interests of tenants” and urges it to “make more use of its enforcement powers, especially in the most serious cases”.
Stock greetings
Inevitably – and no surprise – the committee's findings were welcomed by the two main industry bodies, the National Housing Federation (NHF) and the Chartered Institute of Housing (CIH).
“We are pleased to see that the report acknowledges that the vast majority of social homes are high quality, as well as offering a balanced reflection on the breadth of the challenges around the quality of social homes. We will be talking to our members about the recommendations that apply to them,” said the NHF's chief executive, Kate Henderson.
“Every person in this country deserves to live in a safe, secure, good quality and affordable home and any examples of poor quality social homes are unacceptable. Housing associations are committed to acting swiftly to tackle these issues. We are pleased that the committee has welcomed action already taken by the sector, including the independent panel set up by the NHF and CIH to review poor quality social housing."
Gavin Smart, chief executive of the CIH, said that much of what the committee highlighted “aligns with the evidence” the organisation gave to the inquiry. He welcomed many of the proposals on giving tenants a stronger voice, and on bolstering regulation and the complaints regime.
“The committee’s recommendations highlighting the need for housing providers to work with tenants to enable them to shape their homes, neighbourhoods, and services are important steps forward in ensuring greater transparency and collaboration for the sector,” he said.
Smart added: “It is clear that there are pressures on the sector, not least the cost of building safety remediation and moving to net zero carbon, but the cases of poor quality and service highlighted have been unacceptable and must be put right.
“The sector acknowledges it must do better and this report is a further reminder of that. We will work with partners to build on the committee’s findings and recommendations, drawing on our work on professionalisation, and the forthcoming recommendations of the independent review panel into housing quality, which we launched with [the] National Housing Federation last month."
Tweeting its response the report's publication, the regulator said it will “carefully consider” the findings as it shapes its approach to “proactive consumer regulation”, including revised standards and new measures of tenant satisfaction.
“Every tenant deserves to live in a safe, decent and good quality home,” deputy chief executive Jonathan Walters added. “It’s clear from the report, and some of the examples in our own casework, that there are landlords who have failed to achieve that. This is unacceptable. To landlords who need to change, our message continues to be very clear: act now to put things right and don’t wait for new legislation.”
As Betts added, providers – whether council or housing association landlords – need to “up their game” and “treat tenants with dignity and respect”. One might add, government must do the same, whether at the national or local level; for far too long, tenants have been dismissed and disregarded, their lives and well-being at best an after thought.
The sector has fallen far from the days when it was trendy for its executives to declare that the “tenant is king”. Perhaps that was simply an Orwellian herald of these sorry days to come.
Instead, as Betts said, housing providers need to “put tenants at the centre of how they deliver services, including regularly monitoring the condition of their housing stock”.
“Where they fail,” he added, “providers should face the prospect of tough action from a more active regulator. Given the financial loss, inconvenience, and distress caused to tenants from serious cases of disrepair, the Government also needs to equip the ombudsman with the power to award far higher levels of compensation to tenants when there has been serious service failings.”
The committee has no power of enforcement, of course; all it can do is make recommendations in its report. The Government, like the sector, is perfectly at liberty to utter stock welcome and move on. There is no reason in itself why anything must change.
Given the recent political drama around the incumbent in Number 10, it is tempting to perceive the housing sector as much akin to Boris Johnson. Found out, it offers hollow apology; facing the opprobrium of the public eye, it prevaricates. One wonders, even now, if like the outgoing Prime Minister, it seeks to brazen out the furore – anything for one more sip of power.
The social housing sector has long preened itself as the good guys in front of the mirror; it's way past time it sought to live up to the image.
If you want to stop the rest of the fish from rotting, chop off its head. Or is it too late for that? Tenants and campaigners might well ask: where are the resignations?
MC