Time to set the record straight

Heard the one about London councils not collecting their rents? Recent DETR figures (Housing Today 11 February) based on cumulative arrears to March 1998 put London councils in the stocks once again for their alleged failure to "get to grips" with rent arrears.

But the joke is wearing a bit thin. DETR's hall of shame had London councils filling nine of the 10 spots at the bottom of their league table. Arrears figures provided by the Audit Commission tell a very different story. In the last available comparison (for 1997) only one of the nine London councils framed by the DETR appears as one of the Audit Commission's ten councils with the lowest levels of rent collection. The 1998 figures, expected shortly, are awaited with interest.

So why the difference? The Audit Commission looks at the percentage of the rent due that is actually collected during the year in question. This reflects how effectively councils are working at the moment. DETR pile in all historic arrears however long ago they accrued - telling you very little about how councils are operating now.

Further, the DETR league table comes with a health warning printed at the bottom of each page suggesting it is misleading to make comparisons. Yet that is precisely what DETR ask you to do, as they publish their tables with councils' names in order of declining size of accumulated arrears.

Based on CIPFA figures, the average London council collected 99 per cent of its rents due in 1997-98, with only one borough below the 97 per cent mark. For the boroughs where comparative figures are available, 60 per cent had increased their collection rate from the year before. Of the rest, many sustained previous high levels. London council tenants in arrears are certainly be feeling "the grip".

Nationwide, council rent collection rates stand comparison with the private sector. Households in this tenure have lower disposable incomes than in any other. Yet the number of council tenants more than three months in arrears stood at around 4.9 per cent in 1997 . The equivalent figure for mortgage payers was 2.5 per cent - and this is a much more affluent group that has been vetted for its ability to pay.

DETR's table based on historic debt shows none of this, leaving ministers in the awkward position of making statements which are not based on the most relevant facts. Historic debt doesn't even help you understand the past, as portions of that debt need to be regularly written off. With a large write off, a council will suddenly change its position in the DETR table simply by taking a committee decision.

This offers a perverse incentive to write off debt for appearances sake. Using historic debt, you end up with a picture of the past which is about as good as you get from a faded old newspaper half eaten by mice. In recognition of this, it is understood that former housing minister David Curry at one point had agreed to publish current collection rates alongside the cumulative figures.

Yet however rent collection is judged, the pressure is still there to increase collection levels further. One reflection of this is the big hike in the number of rent arrears cases reaching the courts, and the 70 per cent increase in actual evictions between 1993 and 1998. This obviously carries its own social and financial cost.

Councils need to make their own judgement about how much extra time to put into boosting collection levels further. They have to balance that time against the resources needed for all the other vital tasks which, only in combination, ensure every tenant has a home they are happy to live in. That is the real objective.

Ensuring councils collect the money they need to provide the service is essential. Doing so to the extent that the service is reduced because of the cost of collecting that final one per cent may not be so sensible. If rent collection becomes an end in itself, we've lost the plot somewhere.