Cost-cutting – there are limits

But while the idea of doing away with lawyers on antisocial behaviour orders may sound like cost-cutting gone mad, it does appeal.

In June last year we reported on an eviction case in Croydon that cost a massive £50,000. The circumstances were exceptional, but it did demonstrate how quickly costs can escalate for landlords dealing with antisocial behaviour. Although experts estimate the cost of securing an ASBO has halved to about £2000, councils’ spending continues to rise. The total number of ASBOs has shot up to 3069, with 2633 of these secured in the 12 months to September last year.

So when Charter Housing Association in Newport says it can make savings of 95% by using its own housing staff to perform the role of lawyers, it is no surprise that Manchester council and the Home Office sit up and take notice. However, it is likely that these DIY ASBOs will only be practical for simple cases. Anything beyond a straightforward hearing runs the risk of unfortunate housing officers quickly finding themselves out of their depth. If lawyers have to be called in last minute to save the day, it’s likely their bills will be extortionate. Worse still, the case may be dismissed and months of work wasted. Saving money so that it can be spent elsewhere on improving services to tenants is a no-brainer. But antisocial behaviour managers and the Home Office will have to be mindful of where they draw the line.

In praise of league tables

Sticking with the cost-cutting theme, it is welcome news that the Housing Corporation has listened to associations and amended most of the areas of contention in its updated operating cost index (page 8). Peter Dixon and Jon Rouse have also got their communications strategy right second time around, meaning that chief executives have been told their scores before they start taking journalists’ calls.

If lawyers have to be called in last minute to save the day, it’s likely their bills will be extortionate

It’s a shame though that the information is no longer presented as a league table. This was one of the principal bones picked with the corporation when the first index was published last August. It is easy to see why Dixon and Rouse have changed their minds but is it the best move?

The argument against league tables in housing is very similar to that in other areas of the public services. But assuming that the methodology has been fixed broadly to everyone’s satisfaction, league tables do ensure that people strive to be at the top – and absolutely no-one wants to be on the bottom.

Of course, simply slashing budgets doesn’t mean a job well done, but the use of league tables on costs, along with other measures of quality and efficiency, will surely focus minds on how to ensure better services for tenants. There will be much to talk about at next week’s NHF chief executives’ conference in Birmingham, but how to reach a consensus on efficiency and effectiveness would be a very good place to start.