Give the mortgage rescuers some credit

On the face of it, it's easy to criticise the mortgage rescue scheme introduced by Labour in 2009. At first, there were a limited number of takers, with local authorities only helping a fraction of the households that came forward with difficulties.

Now the National Audit Office has weighed in by pointing out that only 2,600 households were helped to avoid repossession, instead of an expected 6,000, while the cost to the Exchequer was £240m compared with the forecast £205m.

The main reason for this is that, where households qualified for assistance, most opted for the more expensive option of selling their home to a housing association and becoming tenants rather than the cheaper option of an equity loan from the government. In other words, at the height of the credit crunch and recession, they opted out of home ownership. Hardly a surprise really.

Yes, the mortgage scheme may have been inefficient and, yes, the last government probably got its sums wrong. But let's look at the whole thing in perspective.

In spite of the terrible consequences of banks offering mortgages to people that could not afford them, the number of repossessions was far lower than forecast by the Council for Mortgage Lenders, and lower than during the housing market collapse of the early 1990s.

In November 2008, the CML predicted that repossessions would reach 75,000 the following year (a similar number to 1991). In the event, 47,900 homes were repossessed in 2009 and a further 36,300 in 2010. This was not only due to the mortgage rescue scheme, but other efforts to dissuade lenders from turfing families out of their homes, for which the last government deserves praise.

Strangely enough, nobody from Labour came forward this week to defend the scheme or the previous government's efforts to reduce repossessions. Are they so keen to wash their hands of Gordon Brown and his legacy that they are unwilling to snatch even a little credit when it's due?

Exactly who is going to benefit from these cuts?

Governments of all colours should start to feel uncomfortable when they are accused of neglecting the vulnerable. For Conservatives of a certain age, it is not exactly a new experience but, for most Liberal Democrats, one assumes we have reached a slightly worrying phase that may leave them wondering exactly why they went into politics in the first place.

OK, so welfare reform was never going to be easy. But nearly a year after Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith embarked on his mission to make work pay by punishing those that can't find jobs (or in a few cases don't want to), pressure on ministers to justify their actions is starting to mount.

First there was the flurry of criticism surrounding new caps on housing benefit for tenants in private rented accommodation that even managed to anger London Mayor Boris Johnson. Then came the climbdown over plans to penalise people on job seeker's allowance by cutting their housing benefit if they did not find work after one year.

Now Liberal Democrats are criticising the proposed overall benefits caps that would mean an individual household could not claim more than £26,000 per year from 2013. Finally, the National Housing Federation has joined disability groups in attacking planned under-occupancy rules that may mean people with disabilities who have had adaptations made to their home are forced to move to smaller properties.

During the next few years, housing associations will witness the effects of benefit cuts and other welfare changes first hand. According to the NHF, association tenants will lose an average of £14 per week, or £728 per year. Not only will households struggle to make ends meet on less money but, as landlords, associations will be charged with chasing rent arrears (which are almost certain to increase) and deciding when, as a last resort, families should be evicted.

It is not a pleasant prospect, which makes the lobbying that is going on present during the passage of the Welfare Reform Bill especially vital. For if housing professionals don't join MPs in pressing for changes soon, it may be too late to protect those that are least able to cope with the fallout from an economic crisis for which they, of all people, were not responsible.

It may not be worth joining the queue for social housing.

Amazing. You wait years for a programme about council housing to be shown on TV, and then two come along at once. Following last month's excellent history of council housing on BBC 4, this week we had Panorama on the acute shortage of social housing and the way that some people with homes cheat by sub-letting them at a hefty profit.

The difficulties facing families looking for a reasonably-sized council or housing association property is not exactly news. However, it clearly demonstrates how Labour failed miserably to ensure that sufficient new council homes were built during the 13 years it was in power.

What was illuminating is how councils such as Portsmouth actively dissuade families and individuals with little chance of getting a home from remaining on the waiting list, so reducing the figures by thousands. If other authorities are doing the same thing (and why wouldn't they?), the estimate of how many people are waiting for social housing may in fact be an underestimate.

The unlawful subletting of council and housing association properties is, of course, a major issue that most social landlords are addressing and probably requires even greater scrutiny. But of greater concern at present is how the shortage of social or affordable housing is going to be tackled when so little government money is being spent on new homes.

Earlier this week, the deadline passed for housing associations to bid for grants from the Homes and Communities Agency to help them fund new homes that will be let at up to 80% of market rents. So-called 'affordable renting' is now the only game in town so far as government-funded house building is concerned. This means people that can only afford cheaper, social, rents will have to make do with existing homes that are re-let, assuming landlords are not tempted to increase rents on these properties as well.

At the same time, some councils have told housing associations they will not support bids to build homes for affordable renting in their area, especially if the people moving into them are offered fixed-term tenancies lasting as little as two years.

It is not an encouraging picture. In some ways, it might seem reasonable that families who can afford higher rents (and only require state-subsidised housing for a few years) pay more and accept a fixed-term tenancy. But there is no indication of where the next generation of social housing is going to come from, or who is going to house the most needy as the supply of existing homes slowly dwindles.

Programmes such as Panorama can help by bringing the issue to public attention, but whether anyone from the coalition government or the Department for Communities and Local Goverment was watching and is willing to take action remains doubtful.

Why tenants should not bank on making money from cashback scheme

It was a story guaranteed to give social housing a rare bit of publicity in the mainstream media. Council and housing association tenants that carry out repairs to their homes (or pay someone else to do it) are to be entitled to compensation under a new scheme known as 'tenant cashback'.

According to housing minister Grant Shapps, households could even make money out of the scheme by pocketing any savings and putting it towards a deposit on a home. Landlords might also save money, he added, while local contractors would enjoy a bonanza from all the extra business.

'Tenant cashback' is, of course, part of the government's drive for localism and community empowerment. It also allows ministers to give social landlords a gentle slap on the wrist by suggesting they don't keep homes in proper condition or, when they do, they spend too much money.

All of which slightly ignores the fact that councils and housing associations normally strive to negotiate the most economical price for repairs, sometimes by working as part of consortia. Quite how an individual tenant is going to get a better deal on their own, or by joining forces with a few neighbours, is hard to see.

Furthermore, if a tenant carries work themselves that turns out to be substandard, who is going to shoulder responsibility? It will be cold comfort for tenants waiting to move into a home to be told that major repairs are needed because the former occupant did not employ reputable contractors while at the same time claiming money from the council or housing association.

No, the fact is that, in the vast majority of instances, tenants would prefer to call their landlord and get them to carry out any repairs as quickly as possible. If they are not satisfied with their landlord's response, or the standard of work carried out, they should of course complain until the work is done properly.

It was left to the Chartered Institute of Housing to point out that council tenants have had the right since 1985 to call in their own contractors if a local authority does not repair their home fast enough. By 1989, 71 claims had been agreed, after which the government stopped collecting data. It wouldn't be a surprise if interest in 'tenant cashback' wanes even faster.

Can housing associations save public services?

First the good news: housing associations are making more money. Nobody in social housing talks about recording a profit, of course, because that is not what social landlords were put on earth to do. But the bald facts show that associations' total surplus in 2010 after tax was £609m - up £406m on the previous year. Even associations set up following the transfer of ex-council homes chipped in for the first time, reporting a modest surplus of £56m. Normally they record deficits.

There was some criticism in 2009, when the sector's overall surplus fell from £319m to £203m. Associations should be capable of better, said finance directors, especially as turnover was rising. Last year's more impressive result came in spite of the fact that sales of homes (either outright or part-sales through shared ownership schemes) have not recovered to pre-credit crunch levels.

The Tenant Services Authority's analysis of housing association accounts, published on the same day as the Budget, shows surpluses from the sales of 'fixed assets' down 40% on 2008. But the TSA praised associations for controlling management and repair costs better, while the sums paid in impairment charges where associations have to write down the value of land they own fell by £20m.

But why, you might say, is all of this important? Historically, associations have ploughed surpluses back into not just housing but into other activities that benefit communities, including health and training. With councils reeling from government cuts, associations might be the best bet we have to ensure community services are not completely decimated over the next few years.

Liverpool Mutual Homes, the largest housing association in the city, has set up a £700,000 social dividend fund that offers grants to community groups for social enterprises and other projects. It would be surprising if other associations did not do the same thing, so proving that social landlords were part of the 'big society' long before anyone at Conservative Central Office came up with the idea.

Whatever happens, there will be far more money flowing through associations' balance sheets in the years to come as they raise rents for new, and some existing, homes to as much as 80% of market rates. While they will be expected to use much of the extra proceeds to fund borrowing for further development, there is no reason why some money could not be set aside to fund community services.

With the future of associations' charitable status being questioned in some quarters, what better way to show that they have not lost touch with their local communities and vulnerable people in particular?

Homelessness falls, or is it going up?

Every three months, the government reveals how many people in England are classed as homeless. Publication of the quarterly statistics is largely ignored by the media, which is generally only interested in how much houses cost rather than how many people can't afford to buy, or rent, one.

The latest figures, for the period to December 2010, make slightly confused reading. On one hand, the number of households living in temporary accommodation fell to 48,010 and is 10% lower than during the same period in 2009

At the same time, local authorities are dealing with more cases of homelessness and, in nearly half of them, accepting they must do something about it. Just over 26,000 households made applications to local authorities between October and December - 42% of which were accepted as priority cases where the council must provide assistance. The total number of applications was up 23% on the corresponding quarter in 2009.

The number of homelessness cases where local authorities are under a legal duty to provide assistance had been declining since 2003, before starting to rise early last year. The government says it has now stabilised at about 11,300 cases per quarter, but it is too early to say whether the number will rise again, or start falling.

All of which begs the question, has the credit crunch and recession resulted in more homelessness or not? Given that the economic crisis was largely caused by reckless bank lending for mortgages and had a major knock-on effect on housing, one might easily expect the situation to be worse than it is.

According to the government figures, most people become homeless because of breakdowns in family relationships, with just 3% of current cases caused by mortgage arrears. During the recession of the early 1990s, the number of cases involving households with mortgage problems peaked at 12%.

More worrying at present is what happens to people requiring temporary housing. Under Labour, the use of bed and breakfast accommodation for families with children fell dramatically. Yet during the final quarter of last year, 660 families with children were in B&B compared with 400 at the end of 2009.

While this is just 2% of the 36,230 families with children in all types of temporary accommodation, it is a worrying trend that needs to be reversed immediately to avoid the problem of homelessness becoming far more visible to society as a whole.

Why housing has to keep the right company

These are difficult times for companies set up by local authorities to manage and, in theory, improve their council housing.

Arm's length management organisations (almos) first appeared on the scene nearly 10 years ago, primarily to attract government money for bringing homes up to the decent homes standard. An admirable aim and one for which Labour probably isn't given proper credit, the standard usually involved installing new kitchens and bathrooms in what were often rundown flats and houses.

Almos were the main alternative to councils transferring their homes to a housing association (which could then raise money for the work via private borrowing). However, they would not have been necessary in the first place if Labour had stubbornly refused to give money directly to local authority housing departments.

A decade or so later, many of the 60 councils with almos have started to question whether they are really necessary, especially where decent homes work is complete. A few councils have gone so far as to abolish their almos and take management work in-house again.

In the meantime, the coalition government has annoyed councils that went to the lengths of creating an almo by suggesting that, when it comes to claiming grants for outstanding decent homes work, an almo is no longer necessary. Last month, the Homes and Communities Agency gave £379m of the £1.6bn it was handing out in grants to non-almo authorities. At the same time, 11 councils with almos that bid for money received nothing.

But that does not mean almos have no future whatsoever. Next month, in East Kent, a so-called 'super-almo' will start managing 18,000 homes owned by four district councils, including Canterbury and Dover. All four have completed their decent homes work, and so the motive now is saving money, not raising grants from the government.

The 'super-almo' model appears to be in line with the government's policy of councils sharing services and so cutting overheads. East Kent Housing, as it was named by tenants, aims to save £2.5m during the next three to five years.

Whether it will be first and last of its kind remains to be seen, but those that have waved the almo banner so enthusiastically since 2002 will be hoping that it represents a way of making sure they are still around for a few years yet.