2nd opinion: You choose, you lose

In recent weeks the government has proposed more choice in schools and hospitals to ensure good public services. The argument is that choice prompts improvement in public services by making customers more influential.

In the housing world some people feel tenants are not really “consumers” because they can’t choose, though the idea of giving people the opportunity to select their own homes and landlords is gaining more ground.

But choice alone cannot work miracles and it can only be effective when related factors are taken into consideration.

A good example is the choice-based lettings system, where there is a gap between the grand aspirations of the scheme and the reality of what it achieves.

There are a lot of good things about choice-based lettings but that’s no excuse for the way we have promoted a system that allows potential customers to choose to be considered for a property as one that offers real choice.

The reality is that, in areas of high demand – especially demand for large properties – there is a shortage of supply.

So the proportion of customers who will really get to cherry-pick the properties they want – where they want them – will be small. In reality most tenants will not get the choice they are being promised when it comes to affordable housing provided by registered social landlords.

Choice-based lettings do improve on the current system – the problem is that they are being misrepresented. Because choice makes us feel good, we are overstating what’s being offered by stripping out the qualifications and detail of strategies for publicity documents.

Choice alone cannot work miracles and other factors must be considered

The spin is undermining an attempt to improve transparency – or as Lord Butler might have put it, there are a good deal of caveats missing even though the system requires qualifications and has uncertainties. Inevitably, this leaves our customers disillusioned and frustrated.

Of course there must be an ongoing effort to deliver services and procure homes more effectively, and the drive towards mergers between larger and smaller associations is all about that idea of improving services and creating choice.

But the question is, how do you deliver efficiencies through consolidation of providers without reducing the variety available to customers?

By limiting that variety, the scope for that key lever of improvement espoused by the prime minister called “choice” is also diminished.

But I don’t believe this mantra of choice will go away. And won’t it be interesting when we finally reach a point where individual customers notify landlords that they want to become customers of another social landlord because that rival RSL offers better service and value.

What a joy it would be to see our housing officers, maintenance surveyors, even chief executives, knocking on doors to try to persuade clients to change providers. We are already good self-promoters of choice; moving to sales and direct marketing should be no problem.