What can the Midlands Right to Buy pilot tell us about Boris Johnson’s new plan?

First, we face a cost of living crisis, with 9% inflation, rising interest rates and ever-increasing energy costs. I question how big the appetite is among those who may already be struggling, to move away from the financial security, stability and extra support that renting from a housing association offers?

Nationally, the 2018 pilot resulted in less than two-thirds of the government’s target of completed sales being met, and many customers are in a much more precarious position now than they were then.

Second, each £1 of government funding can only be spent once. For every £1 directed at funding the discount available to tenants who choose to exercise their Right to Buy, that’s £1 not being spent on something else, at a time when many people are literally having to choose between heating or eating.

Interestingly, there doesn’t appear to be any ‘new money’ behind this launch, with the expected £500m funding coming from existing government housing budgets.

“Without compensation at current full market value and realistic recognition of the timescale of replacement (which can be up to four years), [one-for-one replacement of homes sold under the Right to Buy] is virtually impossible”

Third, selling off housing association homes does nothing to tackle the nation’s housing crisis and, some will argue, may actually make it worse. The UK already has a deficit of quality, affordable homes – and we’re currently facing skyrocketing land and labour costs, combined with an acute shortage of materials and construction skills.

This makes the building of replacement homes (lost through the Right to Buy), alongside the number of new homes already needed to tackle the housing shortage, even more difficult to achieve.

Crucially, we need to understand more about the government’s intention to replace the homes sold on a ‘like-for-like basis’. Without compensation at current full market value and realistic recognition of the timescale of replacement (which can be up to four years), it is virtually impossible.

There are many lessons from the 2018 pilots, along with the various predecessor schemes, that must be addressed if this latest iteration is going to be any part of a solution, rather than a headline distraction. These include (but are not limited to) eligibility, ease of process and adequate safeguards around future tenure – all key elements from previous learning.

My other major concern is the portability element of the pilot. Under the scheme, residents who could not buy their own homes due to planning restrictions placed on them when they were built could potentially purchase a different home.

This, in my opinion, was the most unsuccessful element of the pilot scheme. Only 12% of applicants who were offered portability during the pilot scheme completed their purchase, compared with 69% given the chance to buy their existing home. This was largely due to a lack of available alternative properties allowing customers to remain in their communities.

Perhaps, rather than repeatedly doing the same thing in various guises and expecting a different outcome, it is time for more innovative thinking? We need to truly understand what housing security looks like for today’s generation – and those of the future.

“We must work together (with customers, with the government, and with wider stakeholders) to ensure we’re not led – as a sector – into rearranging the deckchairs rather than navigating a new course that works for everyone”

We could start by removing the stigma that still exists around renting. There will always be a need for good-quality, affordable, rented homes and this shouldn’t be perceived as a ‘lesser option’. We need to rethink traditional finance models, both for customers who don’t fit conventional borrowing criteria, and for developers who could embrace modern methods of construction faster and in greater volume with the right financial frameworks.

We need to recognise that, for some, a home needs to come with a network of joined-up support services – whether in mental health, practical help or personal well-being. But, most of all, we need to provide housing choice that truly reflects the needs of everyone – from the homeless veteran or single young person, to the couple just starting out or the growing family.

Housing associations have a key role in meeting those challenges, and the Right to Buy (done well) is just one small element of what needs to be a more innovative and collaborative approach.

I certainly believe we should support customer aspirations and welcome the spotlight this latest Right to Buy announcement throws onto the continuing housing debate. However, we must work together (with customers, with the government, and with wider stakeholders) to ensure we’re not led – as a sector – into rearranging the deckchairs rather than navigating a new course that works for everyone.

Sue Shirt, executive director of customer experience, Stonewater