Worst social landlords to be 'named and shamed'

Housing associations whose performance is below par are to be "named and shamed" by the Housing Corporation.

It is part of the regulator's drive to squeeze greater efficiencies from the sector.

The corporation will use "efficiency definitions", which will be provided by consultant Indepen by the autumn. These will cover the different types of work undertaken by associations, such as supported or general needs housing, and provide a yardstick to judge good or inefficient performance.

Corporation chair Peter Dixon said: "The issue is how we manage to convince people to up their game when we haven't got the powers to force people to do things.

"We will do this by public benchmarking – crudely put, this is naming and shaming."

The move represents an acceptance of one of the central recommendations of Indepen's recent report into the regulatory role of the corporation: that registered social landlords should be split into streams. The worst would receive tailored, extra-tough regulation programmes (HT 8 April, page 9).

Dixon said the corporation was "pressing ahead with this as a matter of urgency" after extra powers that had been mooted as part of the upcoming Housing Bill were not included.

The ability to sack board members who underperform was one of these.

Dixon said the corporation had the power to allocate funding as a reward for good performance, but that "beyond this we have to be able to demonstrate that there is a difference between good and bad performance so that bad performers are forced to improve. Our future is to regulate around efficiency and right now we don't have the tools to do this."

However, those associations who finish bottom of the efficiency league tables will not face being placed immediately under supervision as punishment. This would be a "step too far", according to Dixon.

Associations gave a cautious welcome to the move. Steve Howlett, chief executive of Peabody Trust, which has an amber light from the corporation for its financial viability, said: "Openness and transparency can sometimes help us identify the root causes of poor performance. Having said that, indicators do not always reflect performance accurately."