The Labour leader has answered whether tenants of a council-owned housing company in Reading could have stayed in their properties.
Homes for Reading was a rental housing company owned by Reading Borough Council, which lasted from 2016 to June 2024.
Since then, the 101 tenant households have gradually either been moved out or face eviction, so some of the 4,983 people on the council’s housing register can move into the properties.
But the decision has proven hugely controversial, as key workers such as teachers in Homes for Reading properties have been moved out.
An example is the Perry-Lee family, made up of husband and wife Raven and Rowan, who had to move from Caversham with their four daughters to a house in West Reading.
Homes for Reading was closed because it owed approximately £25 million in outstanding loans to the council.
Rob White (Green, Park), the council’s opposition leader, asked whether the families could stay in their homes at a policy committee meeting on February 16.
He said: “The council has used its lawful discretion not to allocate the properties through the published allocation scheme, but instead -to charge a significantly higher rent- allocate them separately to key workers.
“A quick look at Shelter’s website confirms that the council could instead have legally used its discretion to keep the Homes for Reading tenants in their homes.
“Does the council leader agree that this would have been a legal and lawful option? Yes or no?”
Liz Terry (Labour, Coley), the council leader answered: “The reason that the policy committee took the decision to consult on the closure of Homes for Reading was due to the company’s inability to repay the loans that were owed by it to the council in a timely manner, and the impact that would have had on the finances of the council.
“As a result of the decision to close the company, the properties owned by it are being transferred to the council to form part of its social housing stock.
“Every local authority in England is required to have a social housing allocation scheme; and must allocate housing in accordance with that scheme.”
The latest scheme was adopted in May 2024,
Cllr Terry continued: “Whilst local authorities do have a limited degree of discretion in the formulation of their allocation scheme, any use of that discretion must be exercised lawfully, fairly and proportionately.
“However difficult it may be on an individual level, the council’s position is that to have removed our current allocations scheme would not have been fair, proportionate or lawful in the circumstances, as this would have impacted other applicants on the register who also have acute housing needs and significant vulnerabilities and would expose the council to significant risk of legal challenge in relation to fairness, transparency, and equal treatment of applicants on the Housing Register.”
Cllr White again asked whether keeping the tenants in their properties would have been legal and lawful.
Cllr Terry answered: “On the advice I have been given, it was not our discretion to change the allocation scheme, given our commitment to be fair and proportionate to all of the other people on the housing register.
