Our Housing Crisis: a tale of broken trust

Complaints to the Housing Ombudsman are on an inexorable rise, revealing a festering issue at the core of housing organisations. These repeated failures have seeped into the national consciousness, catching the attention of both the media and concerned citizens. Even politicians, typically ensnared in their own agendas, have been forced to take notice. We yearn for housing to be a central theme during this general election - a #planforhousing that couldn’t be ignored. And the public? Well, they’ve noticed too. Over the past few years, a relentless stream of reports has flooded in, painting a grim picture of subpar living conditions.

In this financial year alone, the Housing Ombudsman has censured 48 social housing organisations with the allegation of severe maladministration. The Secretary of State has taken notice, penning stern letters to each offender.

But this crisis didn’t emerge overnight. Yes, factors like right-to-buy policies, chronic underfunding, aging housing stock, and the obsession with new build play a role. Yet, we mustn’t underestimate the corrosive impact on social housing’s reputation. Without a credible recovery plan, housing providers can’t rely on the new government for support.

The question echoes: How did management boards allow this debacle to unfold? Do they lack concern for tenants? Are they oblivious to the nuances of customer care? With over 15,000 social housing board members in the UK, surely not all are inept.

Guidance on effective non-executive directorship helps, but it’s not the whole solution. The failure runs deeper - a systemic ailment that demands a broader perspective.

At the heart of every social housing organisation lies a board. This single entity, with its sub-committees and subsidiaries, comprises a mix of executive and non-executive directors. Their mandate: oversee management, set strategic direction, and ensure legal and ethical compliance. But here’s the rub, our corporate governance model mirrors the Anglo-Saxon approach. This private-sector model hinges on capital markets as the primary control mechanism. Share trading and shareholder votes dictate approval or disapproval. Maximising shareholder returns reigns supreme, treating investors as the ultimate owners. Short-term profitability becomes the obsession, often at the expense of long-term investments and social considerations.

Could this borrowed market governance style be the root cause of our housing woes? Perhaps. But there’s an alternative - the Continental model. Widely adopted in European countries, it diverges from the shareholder-centric Anglo-Saxon norm. For an example, take a look at not for profit housing organisations in the Netherlands.

A two-tier board system: the Management Board populated by the executive team, responsible for day-to-day operations, working under the watchful eye of the Supervisory Board. This body oversees management and strategy. It includes representatives from a wider group of stakeholder groups - local representatives, tenants, employees (via worker representatives), the local authority and sometimes influential banks.

The difference lies in the constitutional arrangements. Instead of a paternalistic invitation, tenants have a formal role in planning the future and monitoring performance. Others too, are enabled to influence.

This focus on stakeholders ensures that long-term value creation takes centre stage. It’s not just about finance; it’s about nurturing relationships, sustainability, and societal impact.

So, as we grapple with our housing crisis, perhaps it’s time to rethink our governance compass. The Continental model beckons - a path where stakeholders matter, and lasting value transcends fleeting gains. Where success is measured not by the number of handovers but by satisfying the interests of all involved parties.

Follow on LinkedIn

Comments

Leadership and Seductive Innovation

Whatever sector, whatever industry you are in, these are challenging times. It is all hands to the pump to find the right course. And for those fearing their very survival, it is understandable that the search for that new, powerful idea should dominate. But success will never lie in new technology alone; it is also critical to look in the right direction, not to get waylaid into seemingly seductive solutions. Look at the business and be honest, are a series of technological innovations likely? And if they are, will they make the impact on your industry that you anticipate? For service organisations in particular, constant technomania is probably an absolute distraction from the core business. Worse, it will beguile you into believing there is a promised land; that there is a magic bullet that will solve the organisation’s problems. The techno-fetishists earn their crust by promoting ever whackier and unachievable ideas. New jobs are being created, innovation labs are springing up. Cha...

Homing in on the public sector

Published in The Guardian, 8th February 1995

Homelessness: A Growing Crisis and the Role of Housing Associations

As homelessness in the United Kingdom continues its relentless rise, reaching over 350,000 , the pressing question remains: why are housing associations (HAs), the wealthiest players in the housing sector, doing so little to stem this tide? With millions of pounds flowing into their coffers annually, housing associations have the financial muscle to make a significant impact. Yet, their contributions to addressing homelessness seem conspicuously limited. HAs have long been a cornerstone of social and affordable housing, managing extensive property portfolios and collecting substantial rental incomes from their tenants. These funds are intended for the maintenance and expansion of housing stock, ensuring that affordable housing remains available to those who need it most. However, a closer examination reveals that the priorities of these associations have shifted over time. The increasing pressure to operate with a business-like efficiency has led housing associations to focus o...

1984 and Truth Social

How Orwell’s masterpiece can predict Trumps next steps I decided, with a grim sort of duty, to re-read Orwell. Pulled my old, dog-eared copy of Nineteen Eighty-Four from the shelf, expecting, perhaps, a historical curiosity. A powerful warning, yes, but one whose specific horrors belonged to the mid-20th century, to Stalin and the nascent Cold War fears that birthed it. Instead, I found myself gripped by a chilling, nauseating sense of déjà vu . Page after page wasn't just resonant; it felt like a dispatch from the present. Not the whole terrifying architecture of Airstrip One, not yet. But the tools, the language, the psychological distortions – they leaped off the page, smeared across the news reports from Donald Trump’s second presidency, barely four months old. It’s uncanny, and frankly, terrifying. Orwell wasn't just writing about totalitarianism; he was dissecting the mechanisms by which truth is dismantled and power becomes absolute. And seeing those mechanisms depl...

How social landlords must respond to Trump tariff impacts

Economic turmoil will have knock-on impacts for affordable housing supply chains in the UK, but it also presents an opportunity for social landlords to demonstrate resilience, argues Peter Brown Trump's tariff barrage, with a 10% baseline tariff on its goods exports to the US includes a 25% tariff on steel and aluminium imports , materials fundamental to the construction industry. Manufacturing and construction supply chains are directly in the firing line and perhaps more importantly, unforeseen turbulence creates uncertain future costs, risks of contract failure and possibly more company insolvencies. This is no longer a distant concern. How should the sector respond? Decisive action is needed. The potential impact of these tariffs, particularly on steel and aluminium, will ripple through our supply chains, inflating construction costs and jeopardising project viability. Housing organisations, from the largest G15 to the smallest community-led associations, must adopt a war-room...

Shared Ownership - a housing market fix?

Shared Ownership has given homes to around 180,000 families and it’s claimed that it offers a third way, an opportunity to house many more at a lower cost, another tenure that broadens the landlord offer. Some housing association websites go further and claim “It’s about getting your foot on the housing ladder. It’s a great alternative to renting and perfect if you can’t afford to buy a house outright.” Really? Whilst housing associations like selling them, the experiences of the occupiers can be quite different. Higher entry costs, administrative charges, rents rising annually, plus the responsibility for all repairs can mean the worst of all worlds. Why do increasing numbers feel trapped in the tenure? “It’s a step on the ladder” , yet Cambridge University found ( 2012 ) that over 12 years only 27,908 had staircased to 100%, and in many rural areas freehold ownership is expressly prohibited. They concluded that many shared owners simply cannot afford to buy their property in fu...

Redefining acceptable conduct: Using social landlords to control behaviour

Abstract The 1996 Housing Act brought ‘antisocial behaviour’ within the remit of housing legislation for the first time. This legislation is directed exclusively at those living in council housing. There still remains uncertainty about the exact nature of ‘antisocial’ behaviour. This has implications for the reasons for outlawing it and for the application of this legislation. Using data from the British Crime Survey, it is argued that there is insufficient evidence of a growth in antisocial behaviour. This legislation is directed exclusively at those living in council housing. What appears to be occurring on local authority housing estates is that a combination of, among other things, high unemployment, high child densities and lack of public funding in community and associated facilities is resulting in higher rates of vandalism. The legislation, in reality, seeks to legitimise opposition to a range of previously acceptable behaviours. For publication click here . For complete ...

8 facts you need to know about welfare reform

8 facts you need to know about welfare reform This blog is simple. It gives facts that contradict commonly held and repeated views. It debunks the myths that we hear regularly. Print it out and keep it near you. MYTH 1. Keeping the rise in benefits to only 1% is fair because it hits shirkers, not workers. Fact: 60% of the reduction falls on in-work households. Why? Because the 1% rise - which equates to a real-terms cut - affects universal benefits like child benefit and tax credits like child tax credit. MYTH 2. Spending on benefits for those out of work is out of control. Fact: the majority of all welfare spending is on pensioners - 53%. Also, benefits for those out of work is less than a quarter of the total welfare budget. Second, on average, between 2000 and 2010, welfare spending grew annually, in real terms, by only 1.75% - compared to 5.5% in the 1950s and 1960s, and 3% in the 1980s. Third, benefit spending in 2011-12 accounted for 10.4% of GDP, lower than the mid-80s ...

Will Housing Investment be Pivotal?

Rachel Reeves’ Spring Statement on 26th March is poised to be a defining moment. We stand at a crossroads, with stark choices before us. The Chancellor must resist the siren song of austerity and instead embrace a bold vision of investment, especially in housing, and safeguard the vital safety net of welfare. The idea that we can achieve economic growth by slashing benefits and public spending is not just misguided, it’s downright dangerous. It’s a cruel delusion to think that we can starve the very people who need support the most and somehow expect the economy to flourish. Cutting wages and benefits for the poor, the old, the sick, and the disabled is not just morally reprehensible, it’s economically illiterate. It will only deepen inequality and stifle any hope of real progress. Instead of these shortsighted cuts, Reeves must prioritise investment in social housing. A decent home is not a luxury; it’s a fundamental human right. Building more social housing will not only provid...

Who should cast the first stone?

Published in The Guardian 18th April 1998

Housing: creative solutions

Search This Blog