Setting up another type of organisation to deal with local authority housing could be seen as problematic ("Chester-le-Street wins last-minute reprieve from housing takeover", 9 January, page 10). It gives the impression that existing registered social landlords are not seen as favourable or even "trustworty" – and, on top of that, it enforces the rule that arm's-length management organisations are for the elite few.

Also, with such an plethora of choice for local authorities already in existence, this new organisation can only add to the congestion within housing and slow down any progress.

It seems the government's policy on housing is to just keep throwing various ideas at the sector and hope that one sticks.

In my opinion, housing is as difficult or as easy as one wants to make it. Unfortunately, due to the "bigger issue", it seems no one is prepared to make the critical decision – to harmonise housing, perhaps by merging the Housing Corporation and the Audit Commission into one government office, creating a ministerial post.

After that, we could then address what type of housing organisation is needed to answer the needs of local authorities.

We could end up with a three-tier system that would include:

  • local housing cooperatives to take on stock transfers
  • hybrid ALMO/RSL organisations, which for argument's sake could be known as arm's-length local housing management companies
  • ALMOs for those local authorities that have proven attainment.

At the very least, the mess that housing is in must be addressed, instead of trying to throw it around saying "it's not my problem".

Source

Housing Today

Postscript

Mohammed Habib