Tempting as it may be to dismiss the anti-transfer brigade as placard-waving attention-seekers, there are some valuable lessons to be gleaned from their resistance. It is worthwhile, for example, heeding their complaints about the lack of tenant consultation and claims that they are being undemocratically "railroaded" into transfer. The extent to which councils and housing associations engage and involve tenants in the process is notoriously patchy.
Instead of ignoring their cries, the answer must be to find better ways to reach the objectors. In many cases where transfer is an option, the procedure and its consequences need to be made more transparent – and not simply through glossy brochures which smack of a triumph of style over substance. It is also important that it is done early, rather than after opposition has become entrenched.
The crucial tool in engaging the dissenters, however, is choice. Choice in social housing is certainly something housing minister Lord Rooker is keen to encourage (page 16). Relying on only one of three extremes – owner occupation, private rented or social rented – is not regarded as attractive by tenants. A more flexible approach is likely to be central to the government's review of how best to reach the decent homes target.
Instead of ignoring the anti-transfer lobby’s cries, the answer must be to find better ways to reach them
Instead of adopting the often problematic, eggs-in-one-basket, approach of sole dependence on stock transfer, it is expected that the report will urge the sector to consider a "mix-and-match" policy of transfer, arm's-length management and partial transfer. Many in the sector will welcome this. Birmingham already seems to be adopting a more flexible approach.
Whatever the validity of the anti-transfer campaigners' views, their mere existence is proof that, in a society often accused of apathy, at least some people still believe passionately in community.
Source
Housing Today
No comments yet