Decent Homes: Lessons from last time

The nation’s housing needs urgent investment, but there are well documented barriers to improving standards. The costs associated with building safety, decarbonisation and disrepair are potentially exorbitant, the technology and supply chain for retrofit is still developing, and building trust with customers is seen as a landlord priority. However, these issues have parallels with another period in recent history, the Decent Homes (DH) programme of the 2000s. The DH programme sought to make all social rented housing decent by 2010, and was accompanied by a Standard that defined a minimum level of decency (a Standard currently under review). Research by NHC and CaCHE on the implementation of DH suggests that learning the lessons of the past can help us rise to the challenges of the present. Below we summarise some of the findings.

Long-term ambitions supported planning and the supply chain

DH represented a significant increase in investment in the nation’s housing stock. The available government funding was long-term and relatively secure. And the scale of the programme sent a strong signal of demand to the supply chain, with landlords typically operating open book partnerships with contractors, many of whom grew substantially as a result. This environment helped landlords provide value for money (VfM) by carefully planning their programmes. VfM measures included the smoothing of peaks and troughs in component renewals, expanding the patches of successful contractors each year, and using their enhanced purchasing power to negotiate down prices.

Landlords benefited from collaborating with one another, stakeholders and government

Localised collaboration in DH also helped secure VfM and scale the supply chain. A common practice was landlords engaging in procurement consortia to achieve economies of scale. And national government provided support in establishing consortia in the social sector. Similarly, social landlords collaborated with contractors, local authorities, and colleges to coordinate local training and employment opportunities. Nottingham City Homes worked with their partners to source their supply chain locally, and estimated that every £1 invested in DH generated £1.46 for the Nottinghamshire area.

The current DH review is considering applying the Standard to the private rented sector (PRS). Doing so would make the need for localised coordination greater. Coordination may be needed to on-board the PRS into area-based programmes, collect stock condition data, and educate private landlords in their obligations. Local authorities and combined authorities are trusted bodies that could help with coordination, but they would need adequate resourcing to do so.

Customer engagement was extensive and will be key to building momentum around a new Decent Homes

DH provided impetus for improved customer engagement in the social sector. Customers were involved in programme specification, procurement, and contract management. They also exercised choice in the home, for example choosing their kitchen and bathroom fittings. Customer consultation was key in determining the priorities for neighbourhood improvements – which were often some of the most popular aspects of DH – with improvements to estate security, landscaping and parking common.

A renewed DH may be less reliant upon kitchens and bathroom replacements, which were the easier sell relative to more invasive measures such as electrical rewires. Customers have made it clear that where works are potentially invasive, they want the number of visits and contact points to be minimised, the work to be high quality, and communication to be clear. Consequently, effective customer engagement will be key to getting resident buy-in for a renewed DH.

Decent Homes 2 will be a different beast, but there is a case for integrating it with retrofit

As mentioned, a renewed DH is likely to happen at a time of great demand upon resources. But herein lies a potential opportunity, integrating DH with retrofit. Some of the evidence in our review suggested modernisation of the home could be used as the sell for retrofit. This would also provide VfM by avoiding duplication and letting landlords maximise their existing capacity, rather than trade it off between programmes. An integrated programme could help streamline the customer offer, meaning fewer points of contact and a reduced risk that later installations (e.g. electrical rewires) damage earlier ones (e.g. insulation). The research didn’t suggest this would be easy. And nor did it suggest that combining DH with retrofit would be necessary for every home. But it did suggest that the separation of responsibility for retrofit and decency at government level is then shaping landlord programmes and practice. An alternative scenario would be funding sufficient and flexible enough for landlords to choose the appropriate strategy for each property, especially when there are clear benefits to integration.

The achievements of DH were more than just establishing a minimum standard in rented housing. DH involved an ambitious programme, with long-term funding, implemented in a collaborative environment, with renewed focus on customer engagement. As such, the lessons learned are pertinent for our current situation in which the challenges are great, but the scope for impact is even greater.