G15 Resident's Group respond to the Social Tenant Access to Information Consultation

G15 Residents’ Group convened on 9th July to discuss the consultation on Social Tenants Access to Information Requirements.

G15 Residents’ Group is a newly formed independent group supported by G15 Housing Associations and endorsed by its CEOs. G15 Residents’ Group consists of two residents from each of the G15’s housing associations, who are either resident board members or engaged residents. The G15 Residents’ Group has been established to promote the residents’ voice in a cross-organisational forum to respond to residents’ housing priorities. Every group member has knowledge of social housing operations with lived-experience offering a balanced point of view of the housing sector. We represent the views of the residents living in the 770,000 homes under management by the G15 across London and England.

The approach used to facilitate the discussion and write-up of key themes discussed is provided below for full disclosure, along with unattributable quotes extracted from the transcript of the discussion, for completeness and reference for officials working on this matter.

Within this document references to the G15 Resident Group members reflect those present at the consultation meeting (15 out of 19 members – listed below).

The main points we would like to make can be summarised as follows:

• G15 Resident Group members support the principle of transparency and accountability but have concerns about the costs, bureaucracy, consistency, and accessibility of the information that would be required.

• Members felt conflicted in that they wanted greater transparency from their landlords and to be able to hold them to account, however, felt that the proposed requirements were not focusing on the correct routes of redress and could end up being overly onerous and time-consuming for housing associations and potentially have the reverse effect.

• The majority of our members feel that improving the accessibility of information and communication to residents is a high priority, by this we mean, making information available in an easy-to-read format that is resident-friendly.

• We think Government should consult more widely with residents to find out what information is most relevant and useful for them, and how it can be presented in a clear and consistent way across different organisations. Government should also consult with housing associations on how it would operationally work and their capacities.

• Through a ranking exercise the group has identified the categories of information they feel are most important for landlords to share with residents. These are ‘spending’ and ‘housing services’. More specifically, information around the ‘use of service charge revenue’ and ‘prioritisation of complaints’.

• There was a difference of opinion within the group which led to a healthy discussion on the impact implementing this requirement would involve, especially for smaller housing associations. A couple of our members were vehemently opposed to the scheme in its current format, due to them perceiving it to be uneconomic and unnecessary (as they felt this information is already published by housing associations). A couple of other members expressed that although they would not want an onerous burden to be put on housing associations, this should not be used as an excuse to dismiss the overall agenda as they feel there is a genuine need to improve accountability within organisations.

• Members also questioned whether the publication of minutes from resident meetings would impact residents' involvement and possibly lead to them withdrawing. We are also concerned with how this interacts with GDPR requirements.

• Given the significance of STAIRs and its potential impact on our landlords (and therefore residents’ experiences with landlord services) we propose that the scheme is piloted ahead of full roll-out across the sector to understand its implications. Only by doing this can we all understand if it presents good value for money. As it stands members were conflicted over its current value and raised concerns about housing associations' current resources and pressures.

• We question the role of the Housing Ombudsman as the appeals body for information requests and whether they are the correct regulatory body to govern this requirement considering their position in dealing with resident complaints. Some members were concerned about a conflict of interest here. There were also concerns about the Ombudsman's current capacity and large workloads.

• Although we support transparency, we agree transparency alone is not enough to build trust between residents and landlords. This consultation does not offer a productive avenue for residents to hold their landlord accountable. Rather, members felt that direct genuine engagement accompanied by good communication and quality services are imperative to repair that relationship.

We would suggest starting the process of consultation by speaking to resident groups like ours about the types of information we want landlords to disclose. We are sharing our views on the importance of the information classes proposed, which can be found in Appendix 1.

We believe clarity and collaboration is required with residents and resident groups, such as ours, if a sustainable scheme is to be delivered. We urge Government to consult such resident representative groups ahead of mandatorily requiring landlords to deliver publication and information request schemes. My members and I would be happy to contribute to shaping the agenda.
Should you wish to clarify or discuss our response, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Yours sincerely,
Daisy Armstrong
Chair of G15 Residents’ Group
Resident Board Member Southern Housing

Read our full response here