Birmingham Broke: But What About the Residents?

Last week’s podcast with Mel Little has been troubling me ever since. It raised questions that don’t just hang in the air—they weigh heavy. The more I’ve gone looking for answers, the more worried I’ve become.

Let’s stop pulling punches. Birmingham City Council are not managing their high-rise blocks properly. Fire doors that don’t meet standards, questions over certification, and other red flags all point to homes that may not be safe.

Now, add another layer. Birmingham City Council is bankrupt. Broke. Bust. Penniless. Potless. They’ve spent their money. They’ve got none left. And here lies the problem: if you haven’t got money, how can you spend it fixing the very serious issues in your housing stock? Issues that should concern every single one of us.

Even more concerning, we’re only seeing the tip of the iceberg. I only know about the high-rise blocks. But what about everything else? Houses, low-rise flats, bungalows, sheltered schemes, even care homes. Are they safe? Do they meet fire regulations? Or are residents left alone to endure damp, mould, rotten windows, dodgy electrics, and unsafe living conditions?

All of these things need serious cash to fix. But Birmingham doesn’t have it. That means work doesn’t happen—and residents are left in unsafe homes, still paying service charges for services they’re not receiving—and may not receive anytime soon.

Where’s the Money Gone?

There are many reasons why Birmingham City Council has gone broke—historic equal pay claims, failed IT systems, rising social care costs, political mismanagement. We’re not disputing that, and we’re not here to pass blame for the wider financial collapse.

But here’s the real point: service charges and rents should have been ring-fenced for housing. That money is meant for building safety, maintenance, and essential services to keep homes warm, safe, and dry.

So what’s happened to it? Decades of service charges collected. Millions in rent paid in. Surely there should be sinking funds—secure, protected, ready to cover repairs and bring homes up to legal standards.

If instead that money has been redirected into the black hole of council finances, then residents have paid faithfully year after year without seeing the benefit. Unsafe homes—and a deep sense of betrayal.

Councils as Landlords and Regulators

Here’s the contradiction that sticks. Birmingham City Council isn’t just a landlord—it’s also an enforcer. It tells private landlords to keep homes warm, safe, and dry. That’s the basic standard the housing sector demands.

But if a council can’t meet those standards in its own stock, what credibility does it have when it comes down on private landlords who fail? How can it be trusted to regulate others when it can’t regulate itself?

If there are questions over certification or safety checks, who’s signing them off? Who’s saying these homes are safe when they may not be?

Are councillors aware? What about local MPs? Or is this another case where reputation management is being placed above resident safety?

Birmingham City Council has just issued £450,000 in fines to private landlords for operating unlicensed rental properties—under one of the country’s most comprehensive licensing schemes. Over 12,000 inspections have been carried out, 40,000 landlords licensed, and roughly one in four inspections required immediate action—fixing things like leaky roofs, mouldy bedrooms, missing smoke detectors, and carbon monoxide alarms.

The Council has shown it can enforce standards—swiftly, decisively—when it wants to. And yet, for residents in council homes, those same urgent priorities—safety, maintenance, regulation—seem to be slipping through the cracks.

So it follows that we must now ask: where is the Regulator of Social Housing (RSH)? Under the Social Housing (Regulation) Act 2023, the RSH now carries stronger powers. Think Ofsted-style inspections and unlimited fines.

If Birmingham City Council is failing to keep its own housing stock safe, then surely the Regulator should be investigating. We’ve already seen downgrades for providers failing on governance, stock condition surveys, or disrepair. So where is Birmingham’s governance rating? Where is the scrutiny? Where is the accountability?

Because if councils can fail quietly while still collecting rent and service charges, then regulation is rendered meaningless. And residents—people paying in good faith—are left unprotected.

What Happens Next?

If Birmingham can’t manage its housing, will it be forced to sell it off? And if so—who’s buying?

Developers keen to demolish and rebuild luxury flats? Housing associations already weighed down by billions in backlog repairs? Many associations have already taken on stock they can’t maintain—lowering overall quality. Why would they take on more?

And if no one steps in—not housing associations, not private equity firms—what then? Residents left in limbo, their homes sinking further into neglect. Fire safety problems won’t fix themselves.

And let’s not pretend Birmingham is unique. Slough, Croydon, Woking, Thurrock—all councils bankrupt or close. How many more are teetering on the brink? How many unsafe homes haven’t hit the headlines?

And what about the residents, for whom it’s not about spreadsheets? It’s about the fright of lying awake, wondering if the fire door would hold back smoke. It’s about children growing up with damp and mould. And elderly people trapped in towers where the lift doesn’t work.

After Grenfell, these fears aren’t abstract—they’re real. And the issues appear to be more and more widespread. Housing associations hiking service charges with repair backlogs. Private landlords cutting corners. Councils unable to maintain their own stock. Residents ignored and often bullied into silence.

It seems systemic—residents paying for homes that are not safe, warm, or dry.

And that’s the point. Warm, safe, dry, affordable—it’s not a high bar. Yet if councils can’t meet that, the entire foundation of housing regulation collapses.

If Birmingham City Council can’t lead by example—when it enforces standards in the private sector but fails on its own watch—then who else can? If the people setting the standards can’t meet them, how can we expect anything different?

Right to Reply

Following the publication of this blog, Birmingham City Council shared the following statement from the Regulator of Social Housing

A spokesperson for the Regulator of Social Housing said

“We published a regulatory notice for Birmingham City Council in May 2023, which identified a number of issues including health and safety, homes not meeting the Decent Homes Standard, complaints handling and tenants not being treated with fairness and respect. We are continuing to engage with the council as it works to put things right for tenants.  

“All social landlords have a responsibility to ensure they meet all the outcomes of our standards. This is vital for making sure tenants have a safe, decent place to live.” 

1. Local authorities must meet RSH’s consumer standards. The economic standards do not apply to local authorities. This means that although we will engage intensively with a landlord with serious failures, we have no remit over local authorities’ financial viability or funding decisions.

2. On 1 April 2024 RSH introduced new consumer standards for social housing landlords, designed to drive long-term improvements in the sector. It also began a programme of landlord inspections. The changes are a result of the Social Housing Regulation Act 2023 and include stronger powers to hold landlords to account. More information about RSH’s approach is available in its document Reshaping Consumer Regulation.   

3. More information about RSH’s responsive engagement, programmed inspections and consumer gradings is also available on its website.   

4. Service charges are governed by specific tenancy agreements and leases, as well as common law and statute in this area, including the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, in which the definition of ‘service charge’, as distinct from ‘rent’, is linked to costs incurred (e.g. for cleaning of communal areas, or grounds maintenance).  

5. Variable service charges are legally required (by the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985) to be reasonable and, where costs relate to works or services, the works or services must be of a reasonable standard.   

6. RSH promotes a viable, efficient and well-governed social housing sector able to deliver more and better social homes. It does this by setting standards and carrying out robust regulation focusing on driving improvement in social landlords, including local authorities, and ensuring that housing associations are well-governed, financially viable and offer value for money. It takes appropriate action if the outcomes of the standards are not being delivered.