Housing associations are increasingly finding their organisations cast in the role of villain. "Billions are squandered in Prescott homes farce," screamed one headline in the Daily Mail last Thursday. It was referring to the Public Accounts Committee report, which claimed that the government's transfer policy was bad value for money – or, in the typically understated prose of the Mail, "short-changing the public purse by millions of pounds and coinciding with the descent of many respectable estates into crime-ridden ghettos".

Although the Mail's broadside was largely fired at deputy prime minister John Prescott, mud sticks to housing associations painted as greedy, unscrupulous landlords.

However, the fatal flaw of the PAC review, like the National Audit Office report that spawned it, was that although it heavily criticised transfers, it completely ducked the issue of how the government is meant to finance the £19bn council repairs backlog. That is still the government's trump card in countering this criticism and pursuing this policy.

The government might accept that there is a cost associated with transferring homes to housing associations, but it wants to be sure that they will improve services and offer better value for money.

Although the Mail’s broadside was largely fired at John Prescott, mud sticks to associations painted as greedy landlords

Even without the PAC report, the Treasury is becoming increasingly sceptical over whether registered social landlords are performing as well as they could in both management and development. Hence, we are seeing inspections brought into line with councils and arm's-length management organisations (all the better to make direct comparisons) and the discussion on giving grant to developers. Now, as the pressure to deliver intensifies, the government wants to make sure that associations are not sitting on surpluses and assets that could be levered to build more homes (see page 7).

Many well-run associations will understandably feel a sense of indignation, outrage even, at this onslaught by the government, MPs and the likes of the Mail. But, as the old adage goes, perception is reality. Presumably one of the objectives of the housing rebranding exercise is to start a counter-offensive and teach the public that associations can be a force for good in the community. But does it pass the Mail test? How you explain the concept to the layman must be a question for the National Housing Federation council as it puts the finishing touches to its rebranding exercise.

Source

Housing Today