Councillors in Reading have clashed over the closure of the council’s housing company, which has been disbanded.
Homes for Reading (HfR) was created in 2016 by Reading Borough Council, allowing it to acquire properties and rent them out at market rates.
But eight years on, in 2024, the council decided to close the company, absorbing the homes into the council’s housing stock, allowing it to use them for families on its housing register.
However, HfR tenants were dismayed at the change, arguing the stability they were promised had been broken.
The recommendation to close the company first featured in a report to the policy committee in January 2024, and was officially made later that year.
Rob White, the leader of the Green opposition on the council, characterised the closure as ‘evictions’ and being discriminatory at the latest policy committee meeting.
Councillor White (Green, Park) said: “The controversial decision to close Reading’s housing company, HfR, was taken behind closed doors in a confidential meeting of the policy committee.
“It has meant a Labour council using no-fault evictions to throw families out of their homes – a practice that the Labour Party pledged in its manifesto that it would make illegal.
“The confidential report that came to the committee said that officers would ensure that a full Equality Impact Assessment would be done and reported back before the decision was taken to evict families.
“But that didn’t happen – instead, the decision was taken by the Finance Director in consultation with the leader and deputy leader of the council.
“An Equality Impact Assessment is a tool that helps ensure decisions, practices and policies are fair and do not discriminate against anyone.
“Can you tell us why no Equality Impact Assessment was done on the policy to close Homes for Reading, and evict Reading families?”
His question was answered by Liz Terry (Labour, Coley), the council leader, who accused his comments of being both ‘incorrect and inappropriate’.
Cllr Terry said: “The committee report committed the council to allowing tenants to stay in their properties until the end of their tenancies – so accusing the council of using ‘no fault evictions’ is both incorrect and inappropriate and seeks to unnecessarily inflame what is otherwise a very sensitive situation.
“The evidence shows that the council has been flexible, working with tenants to provide support and move people to new accommodation in an agreed way.
“The papers to the policy committee in 2024 made clear that the council could no longer afford to keep the company open, as its operating model was not effective and the company was placing an increasing strain on the council’s resources.
“Those homes are being transferred as they become available, and the Council has made good on its commitment to work with tenants to find them suitable alternative accommodation.”
She went on to explain that the decision was delegated because the committee agreed that a decision should only come back to it if consultation responses warranted further consideration.
While a statutory consultation concluded in March 2024, cllr Terry stated ‘no other viable way forward’ could be undertaken.
She that cllr White had failed to say how the decision was discriminatory.
The exchange took place at the policy committee meeting in December 2025.
