Introduction
The Elevate Programme was established to equip the next generation of senior leaders in the housing sector with the insight, confidence and connections they need to lead in a period of significant challenge. Over nine months, participants engaged with experienced mentors, including chief executives from across the country, and heard from thought leaders on issues such as leadership, regulatory preparedness, and customer service. More importantly, they were tasked with working collaboratively to explore some of the most pressing challenges facing the sector and presenting their findings at the flagship event.
This year, two working groups presented their findings. The first examined how the sector defines its “customer offer” and whether greater clarity is needed around what residents should expect from their landlords. The second explored how standards could be raised through collaboration, using procurement and specification alignment as a starting point. Taken together, the presentations revealed a sector grappling with complexity, but also one that has the talent and ambition to propose practical, collective solutions.
Group One: Defining Our Customer Offer
Group One began with a simple but powerful question: what do residents have a right to expect from their landlord? While housing associations share a broad mission to provide safe, affordable homes, they operate independently, each with its own balance of commercial and social objectives. This independence has historically been a strength, enabling innovation and responsiveness to local needs. Yet the group argued that it has also created fragmentation. Residents do not always know what to expect. Stakeholders, from regulators to local authorities, see a patchwork of practice. At times, the sector appears to lack a unifying voice about its core purpose.
The group proposed that clarity begins with recognising three distinct levels of responsibility. At the heart lies the landlord’s core duties: collecting rent, maintaining homes, ensuring repairs are completed promptly and delivering landlord services to a consistent standard. Alongside this sits a contributory role, where housing associations work with other agencies but do not lead. Community safety, for example, requires active partnership with the police, but is not something housing associations should be expected to shoulder alone. Finally, there are activities that fall beyond the remit of landlords altogether. Social care, policing, and health are vital services, but they are statutory responsibilities of other agencies, and housing associations should resist being drawn into filling those gaps, however strong the instinct to step in may be.
To illustrate how this clarity might work in practice, the group pointed to real examples. Damp and mould are clearly core responsibilities, and residents must be able to expect consistent, timely action. Antisocial behaviour, however, requires contribution but not leadership. Landlords may provide evidence, enforce tenancy agreements, and support residents, but ultimately, the police must lead on crime. Mental health crises represent an even clearer boundary, requiring specialist statutory intervention. Too often, landlords are left holding responsibilities they are not equipped to deliver, particularly at the frontline level. The group emphasised that creating a framework of “Do, Contribute, Do Not Do” could empower staff to act confidently, reassure boards that organisations are not straying into dangerous territory, and give residents clarity about the role of their landlord.
One of the most striking features of the group’s analysis was their comparison with policing. The police have long faced the challenge of being pulled into areas beyond their remit. The “Right Care, Right Person” programme helped reset expectations, clarifying that mental health and social care are not the police’s core purpose. Housing, the group argued, faces a similar challenge. The lesson is not to withdraw compassion or support but to set boundaries collectively, ensuring accountability sits with the agencies equipped to deliver.
Looking forward, the group suggested that sector bodies such as the NHF and CIH should lead work on codifying a national baseline offer. This would not prevent local variation but would provide a shared minimum that residents could rely on regardless of where they live. Such an offer could also strengthen the sector’s relationship with regulators, protect reputation and provide a consistent narrative to the government. Without collective action, the risk is that others will define the sector’s purpose for it.
Group Two: Raising the Standard of Social Housing
Group Two began by acknowledging the scale of the challenges facing the sector. Asset management is increasingly complex, with data quality often variable. Compliance demands continue to rise as regulators strengthen their scrutiny. Financial plans are under pressure as costs increase, while development has become more risky and less predictable. Health and safety, particularly building safety, continues to demand significant investment. At the same time, new consumer regulation and tenant satisfaction measures place additional focus on service quality. Supported housing remains underfunded and unstable.
The group argued that these issues cannot be tackled effectively by individual organisations acting alone. They are shared problems, requiring shared solutions. The sector, they suggested, has often been too fragmented, with organisations duplicating effort and competing where collaboration would serve residents better.
To illustrate what collaboration can achieve, the group presented the example of the North East Housing Partnership. Five housing associations, representing 95,000 homes, collaborated to align their kitchen specifications. This initiative, now expanding to eight landlords and potentially 140,000 homes, has already demonstrated tangible results. By pooling procurement and agreeing a single specification, the group forecast savings of over £7 million across a decade. These savings have not been achieved at the expense of quality. On the contrary, specifications were raised, including modern features such as soft-close doors and drawers, while ensuring that residents retain meaningful choice.
The benefits extended beyond cost. The supplier, JTC Kitchens, committed to opening a new assembly plant in the North East, bringing jobs and local economic activity. Shorter supply chains reduced environmental impact. Residents benefitted from consistency, quality and choice within a clearly defined framework. The project also provided reassurance to boards and executives that resources were being used more effectively.
Encouraged by the success of the kitchen project, the group suggested other areas where collaboration could deliver similar benefits. Bathrooms, wallboards and bathroom suites could be standardised. Shared stores and logistics could reduce duplication and overheads. Planned investment programmes could be aligned to capture economies of scale, although this would require significant leadership and commitment. The group also pointed to the potential for shared back-office services, noting that collaboration does not need to stop at procurement.
While acknowledging the challenges, the group emphasised the importance of leadership. Collaborative projects require compromise and a willingness to move beyond organisational preferences. Success depends on building trust and maintaining focus on the ultimate goal: delivering better outcomes for residents. In this context, the North East case study represents more than a procurement project. It shows that the sector can achieve more when it chooses to act collectively, and that the benefits are financial, social and reputational.
Shared Insights
Although Group One and Group Two approached different topics, their work reflected strikingly similar themes. Both concluded that clarity is essential. For Group One, this meant clarity of purpose, ensuring residents and staff know what landlords can and cannot be expected to deliver. For Group Two, it meant clarity of standards, ensuring residents can expect a consistent level of quality regardless of where they live. Both groups argued that the sector must overcome fragmentation and duplication.
Both groups also placed residents at the centre. For Group One, the customer offer must be transparent, fair and deliverable. For Group Two, collaboration must deliver tangible benefits for residents in terms of quality, safety and affordability. In both cases, trust is built when promises are clear and consistently delivered.
Perhaps most importantly, both groups recognised that courage will be required. It is not easy to step back from non-core roles, particularly when frontline colleagues are motivated by compassion. Nor is it easy to compromise on organisational preferences in pursuit of collective procurement. But the sector will only meet the scale of the challenges ahead if it acts with boldness and unity.
Conclusion
The Elevate Programme is not only about leadership development. It is about giving emerging leaders the chance to confront real challenges and present real solutions. This year’s working groups have shown what can be achieved when bright, committed leaders are given space to think and to collaborate.
Group One’s call to define a clear customer offer addresses one of the most fundamental questions of legitimacy for the sector. Group Two’s demonstration of collaboration through procurement offers a practical example of how efficiency and quality can be achieved together. Both show that the housing sector is capable of innovation and collective leadership, even in difficult times.
The message from Elevate 2025 is clear. By focusing on core purpose, by collaborating rather than competing, and by placing residents at the heart of decision-making, the sector can navigate the challenges ahead with confidence and integrity.
If you are interested in being part of the next Elevate cohort, to develop your leadership and contribute to shaping the future of social housing, please do get in touch.
