Following the Money - Housing Benefit, Councils and the Accountability Gap
Birmingham, Walsall and Wiltshire may look very different on the surface, but together they tell an important story.
Birmingham sits at the heart of the West Midlands and is the largest local authority in the UK, with a population of around 1.15 million people and roughly 430,000 households. Just a few miles to the north sits Walsall, a smaller but still significant metropolitan borough with a population of around 285,000 and roughly 120,000 households. Both councils operate within the same regional housing market and share many of the same housing pressures associated with large urban populations.
Further south sits Wiltshire, a large rural unitary authority with a population of around 510,000 and approximately 220,000 households spread across towns, villages and rural communities. The geography is very different, but the responsibilities are the same. All three councils administer national housing support systems such as Housing Benefit and all work closely with the housing association sector to provide and manage affordable homes.
GreenSquareAccord’s history places it squarely within this picture. The organisation was created in 2021 through the merger of West Midlands-based Accord Housing Association and the South West’s GreenSquare Group, leaving it with strong operational footprints in both regions. That means its housing stock, and the public money that flows alongside it, connects councils like Birmingham and Walsall in the Midlands with authorities such as Wiltshire in the South West.
Taken together, these three councils operate under the same national policy framework, administer the same benefit systems and interact with many of the same housing providers. Yet when it comes to transparency and the ability to access basic information about public money flowing to housing associations, their responses could not be more different.
And that is where this story begins.
Following the Money in the Midlands
To better understand the scale of public money flowing to housing associations, I submitted a series of Freedom of Information requests to councils across the country. The aim was straightforward: to establish how much Housing Benefit was being paid in respect of properties owned or managed by GreenSquareAccord.
Housing Benefit is public money. It is funded by taxpayers and administered by local authorities on behalf of the Department for Work and Pensions. Where housing association tenants receive Housing Benefit, those payments ultimately flow to landlords in the form of rent and eligible service charges. Given the increasing pressure on public finances and the rising cost of housing, it seemed entirely reasonable to ask a simple question: how much of that money is being paid to one of the country’s largest housing associations?
The request itself was carefully structured to avoid personal data and focus only on aggregated figures. Councils were asked to provide the total Housing Benefit paid in respect of GreenSquareAccord properties over the last three financial years, along with information about how they assess rent and service charge increases submitted by the landlord.
Across the country, responses have begun to arrive. At the time of writing, twelve councils have now replied, giving us a growing picture of how much public money is flowing through the system. A summary of those responses forms part of the wider Housing Sector investigation, The Taxpayer’s Burden, which is examining how public money flows through the Housing Benefit system into large housing associations across the country.
What is particularly revealing, however, is how differently councils have responded to exactly the same request.
Birmingham City Council was able to provide a clear answer, confirming that just over £42 million in Housing Benefit had been paid in respect of properties owned or managed by GreenSquareAccord over the last three years.
Walsall Council, another authority in the same West Midlands region and part of GreenSquareAccord’s historic heartland, was also able to provide figures showing just over £18 million in Housing Benefit payments across the same period.
Taken together, that means more than £60 million in Housing Benefit payments linked to GreenSquareAccord properties from just two neighbouring councils over three years.
Which raises an obvious question. If two councils in the same region are able to identify and report these figures, why can another council not do the same?
Wiltshire Council took a very different approach. Rather than providing the figures requested, it refused the request under Section 12 of the Freedom of Information Act, arguing that answering it would exceed the statutory cost limit and would require manually reviewing hundreds of email exchanges with GreenSquareAccord.
In other words, while Birmingham and Walsall were able to identify tens of millions of pounds in taxpayers’ money paid in Housing Benefit payments, connected to one housing association, Wiltshire Council says it cannot retrieve the equivalent figure without exceeding the statutory time limit. And that is where the real question begins.
Wiltshire and the Transparency Gap
The decision by Wiltshire Council was challenged through an internal review, particularly given that other councils responding to the same request had been able to provide clear figures. The review has now been completed and Wiltshire Council has maintained its original position.
That matters because Wiltshire is not some random outlier in this story. It sits within the historic South West footprint of GreenSquare’s housing stock prior to the 2021 merger that created GreenSquareAccord. In other words, this is one of the areas where the organisation has long had a significant presence, dare I suggest, a stronghold. When Birmingham and Walsall alone have already identified more than £60 million in Housing Benefit linked to GreenSquareAccord properties over three years, the public interest in Wiltshire’s equivalent figure is obvious. Yet despite that, the council says it cannot provide it.
It is not just Wiltshire where concerns are being raised. Questions remain outstanding with other councils too, and some matters may yet need to be taken to the Information Commissioner’s Office. But Wiltshire stands out because of GreenSquareAccord’s historic footprint there and because the refusal has now been upheld on review. At that point, the issue is no longer simply about one unanswered request. It becomes a wider question about transparency, record-keeping and whether councils can properly account for the flow of public money to major housing associations.
That inevitably raises a further question. GreenSquareAccord has long-standing relationships across Wiltshire through development partnerships, regeneration projects and engagement with local political leaders. Given that context, it is reasonable to ask whether those relationships play any role in how information about the organisation is handled. Are Wiltshire Council simply unable to retrieve a clear figure showing how much Housing Benefit has been paid in respect of GreenSquareAccord properties — which would represent a concerning failure of record keeping and financial oversight — or is there a reluctance to disclose the information because of the organisation involved? At this stage there is no evidence to suggest either explanation is correct. But when a council cannot account for the flow of public money that is likely to be in the multiples of millions connected to one of its housing providers, the questions of influence inevitably arise.
The Oversight Problem
The responses from Birmingham and Walsall reveal another important similarity with Wiltshire.
Although those two councils were able to identify the Housing Benefit payments made in respect of GreenSquareAccord properties, neither response suggested that there is any meaningful oversight or challenge built into the system. In other words, while the councils can identify how much money is being paid, there appears to be little mechanism for questioning whether those costs are justified.
Housing Benefit payments are tied directly to rents and eligible service charges set by landlords. When those costs increase, the level of Housing Benefit paid also increases. Yet the responses indicate that councils largely act as administrators of the system rather than active overseers of the public money passing through it.
That creates a striking common thread between Birmingham, Walsall and Wiltshire. In Birmingham and Walsall the councils can identify the figures, but there is no clear process for challenging the costs that sit behind them. In Wiltshire the council says it cannot retrieve the figures at all. Either way, the result is the same: millions of pounds of public money flowing through the system with little visible scrutiny.
That absence of oversight raises an obvious question. If local authorities are administering payments that can run into the tens of millions of pounds, why are those figures so rarely challenged — and why do councillors and MPs so seldom question them?
The relationship between GreenSquareAccord and political figures is not theoretical. It is well documented through press releases, government announcements and parliamentary records. Over the past several years, a consistent pattern of engagement can be seen involving MPs, mayors and councillors across Birmingham and Walsall.
One of the earliest examples occurred in April 2021 when former Prime Minister Theresa May and West Midlands Mayor Andy Street visited a Housing First programme in Walsall delivered by GreenSquareAccord. The visit was promoted by the organisation and included comments from chief executive Ruth Cooke about the project and its outcomes.
In March 2022, Ruth Cooke hosted Labour MP Liam Byrne at the LoCaL Homes factory in Walsall for a tour and policy discussion focused on modern methods of construction, net zero housing and future development programmes. At the time, the factory was presented as an ambitious and innovative step for the future of housing delivery. However, the project has since closed after struggling to become financially viable, resulting in the loss of local jobs and leaving questions about the money invested in what was once promoted as a flagship initiative.
Later that year, during parliamentary committee evidence, then housing minister and Walsall North MP Eddie Hughes confirmed that he had met Ruth Cooke to discuss GreenSquareAccord’s housing stock condition surveys. Hughes had already appeared alongside GreenSquareAccord on several occasions in his constituency, including visits to new affordable housing developments in Walsall and involvement in discussions around local housing and rough sleeping initiatives. During his time as minister responsible for rough sleeping and housing, Hughes also championed programmes such as Housing First across the West Midlands — initiatives in which housing associations, including GreenSquareAccord, played a central delivery role.
These interactions illustrate the close working relationship that often develops between housing associations, local MPs and government housing programmes — relationships that are frequently presented publicly through site visits, announcements and partnership events across the region.
Political engagement has continued across both major project sites used by the organisation. The LoCaL Homes factory in Walsall has hosted visits from politicians including Andy Street, Wendy Morton MP and Walsall deputy leader Adrian Andrew.
Meanwhile in Birmingham, the Stirchley co-operative housing development has become another focal point for political engagement. Councillors from across parties including Mary Locke, David Barker, David Barrie, Gareth Moore, Lee Marsham and Colin Green have visited the scheme as part of council delegations examining community-led housing models.
Ministerial visits have also taken place. Labour MP Al Carns attended the Stirchley development alongside West Midlands Mayor Richard Parker during a construction milestone event, while other visits connected to GreenSquareAccord developments have involved MPs such as Pat McFadden and councillor Simran Cheema at the Eagle Works scheme in Willenhall.
There are also governance links. In March 2023, Birmingham councillor Sharon Thompson was appointed to the board of GreenSquareAccord, creating a formal governance connection between the housing association and local political leadership. Thompson, who serves as Birmingham City Council’s Cabinet Member for Housing and Homelessness, holds one of the most senior political roles overseeing housing policy in the country’s largest local authority. Her appointment to the board of a major housing association operating across the West Midlands illustrates how closely the housing sector and local political leadership can intersect.
GreenSquareAccord announced the appointment as part of a wider board refresh, highlighting Thompson’s experience in housing policy and public service. While such appointments are not uncommon in the sector, they do further illustrate the overlapping networks between housing associations, councils and political figures who are simultaneously responsible for shaping housing policy, overseeing housing services, and in some cases participating in the governance of the organisations delivering those homes.
None of these engagements are unusual in isolation. Housing associations frequently work with elected representatives when delivering housing projects or regeneration schemes. But taken together they show how closely political figures, local authorities and large housing providers interact. And that is why transparency matters.
When Representation Becomes Opportunity
One of the more uncomfortable questions raised by this investigation concerns the role of elected representatives themselves.
Members of Parliament are supposed to represent the interests of their constituents. In areas such as Walsall, that includes residents living in social housing and those whose rent is ultimately supported through the Housing Benefit system. Yet the relationship between politicians and housing associations can sometimes appear far closer than that simple principle of representation might suggest.
Former Walsall North MP Eddie Hughes provides a clear example of how those lines can begin to blur.
Before entering Parliament, Hughes already had deep ties to the housing sector, having served as chair of Walsall Housing Group. When he entered Parliament in 2017, housing quickly became a central part of his political profile. He later served as a government minister with responsibility for rough sleeping and housing, placing him directly within the national policy framework governing housing associations.
During his time as MP, Hughes engaged closely with housing providers operating in his constituency. That included GreenSquareAccord. He visited developments delivered by the organisation in Walsall and publicly praised the housing association’s work delivering affordable homes in the area. Parliamentary committee evidence also confirms that Hughes met with GreenSquareAccord’s chief executive, Ruth Cooke, in discussions related to housing matters.
None of this would normally raise concern on its own. MPs frequently engage with organisations delivering housing in their constituencies. But the situation becomes more complex when those same politicians later move into advisory or consultancy roles within the same sector they once regulated or influenced.
Since leaving Parliament, Hughes has moved into consultancy and advisory work connected to the housing and regeneration sector. In practical terms this means providing advice and guidance to organisations operating in the same policy environment he previously helped shape as a minister and MP.
That advisory space sits within a wider housing sector network that includes organisations such as the National Housing Federation and major housing associations themselves. These organisations operate as not-for-profit providers, but they still control significant budgets and regularly engage consultants, advisors and strategic partners to help navigate policy, funding and development opportunities.
For residents, the optics are difficult for residents to ignore. A politician who once held ministerial responsibility for housing policy and publicly supported housing association projects can later return to the same sector as a paid advisor. At the same time, the systems that should be scrutinising the flow of public money into housing associations appear remarkably weak.
As this investigation has already shown, Walsall Council was able to identify the scale of Housing Benefit payments being made to housing associations operating in the borough. But the responses also reveal that there is no routine verification process examining how those payments are calculated or whether the service charges attached to them are accurate.
In other words, millions of pounds in public money can pass through the Housing Benefit system and into housing providers with very little scrutiny.
When those realities sit alongside the close relationships between housing providers, sector bodies and political figures, the situation begins to look politically murky. Residents are entitled to ask a simple question: who exactly is holding these organisations to account?
None of this proves wrongdoing by any individual. But it does highlight the need for far greater transparency around the revolving door that can exist between politics, housing associations and the advisory industry that sits between them. When oversight is weak and the same networks appear repeatedly across politics and housing, confidence in the system inevitably begins to erode.
When Someone Finally Checks the Numbers
Across just two councils — Birmingham and Walsall — more than £60 million in Housing Benefit payments connected to GreenSquareAccord properties can be identified over a relatively short period. Yet even where those figures can be produced, there appears to be no meaningful process for verifying whether the service charges attached to those claims are accurate, justified or properly scrutinised. Meanwhile, in Wiltshire, the council was unable or unwilling to provide the same information at all.
At the same time, the political landscape surrounding the housing sector paints an uncomfortable picture. MPs and councillors appear at development launches, site visits and partnership events, celebrating new housing projects and standing alongside housing association leadership in photographs and press releases. Yet when it comes to the day-to-day reality facing residents — damp homes, rising service charges and increasingly unaffordable living costs — that same political energy is far harder to find.
The result is an ecosystem that can begin to feel closed in on itself. Sector bodies such as the Chartered Institute of Housing, the National Housing Federation and the National Federation of Builders dominate housing policy conversations, often speaking with authority about the future of the sector. But for many residents, the reality on the ground feels very different.
Millions of pounds of taxpayer money flow through the housing benefit system into housing providers. Oversight is limited. Guardrails are weak. And when political careers end, some of the very figures who once held responsibility for housing policy quietly reappear within the same sector as advisors, consultants or board members.
Residents deserve a system where housing providers are properly scrutinised, councils can clearly account for where taxpayer funds are going, and elected representatives are prepared to challenge the sector — not simply stand beside it for the photographs. Until that happens, the uncomfortable question remains: who is actually speaking for the residents?
Questions that Save Money
What makes this even more troubling is how easily errors can slip through when nobody is checking.
In my own case, GreenSquareAccord initially calculated a service charge deficit of £1,005.46 for the year. After the figures were reviewed and challenged, the deficit was reduced to £698.62 once incorrect costs and charges were removed. That is a reduction of £306.84 — more than 30 percent.
That reduction did not come about through complex financial modelling or years of investigation. It came simply from asking questions, examining the charges, and refusing to accept the first set of figures presented. Using the most recent Housing Benefit data provided through Freedom of Information responses, Birmingham City Council paid £13.5 million last year in Housing Benefit connected to GreenSquareAccord properties, while Walsall paid £4.3 million. Together, that is almost £18 million of public money in a single year. If the same level of scrutiny that reduced my own charges by just over 30% were applied to those payments, the potential difference could exceed £5.4 million in just one year alone. That is not a claim that those sums are wrong, but it illustrates what meaningful oversight could potentially uncover.
Over the coming weeks and months, I will be taking GreenSquareAccord service charge to the First-tier Tribunal and documenting the process step by step. Not as a personal grievance, but as a case study. Because if one resident challenging their own bill can uncover significant reductions, the obvious question follows: what might happen if the same level of scrutiny were applied to the millions of pounds of public money flowing through Housing Benefit each year?
And that is the question that ultimately sits at the heart of this story. Millions of pounds of taxpayer money are being paid to housing associations. Councils acknowledge they do not keep central records of challenges, outcomes, or reductions. MPs and councillors appear in photographs and at sector events celebrating partnerships and progress. Yet the residents living in the homes funded by that system are increasingly facing rising service charges, worsening affordability, and homes that too often still suffer from damp, mould, and disrepair. The ecosystem around housing is well organised, well connected, and well funded. But when it comes to meaningful scrutiny of where the money goes, the silence is striking.
And this is where the story comes back to the people who ultimately fund and live with these decisions. Residents across the country are facing a cost-of-living crisis. Councils like Birmingham are struggling to balance their books, basic services are under strain, bin collections have been the subject of industrial disputes, and roads across the country are riddled with potholes that councils say they cannot afford to fix. Yet at the same time, housing associations are able to pass service charges through the system with little meaningful scrutiny, with councils then paying millions of pounds in Housing Benefit on behalf of tenants.
At its heart this is not just about housing policy or council administration. It is about accountability, fairness, and the simple principle that the people paying for the system deserve to know where their money is going.
Are some councils, councillors and MPs turning a blind eye because they know that somewhere down the road it may be their turn to profit from a not-for-profit?
Right to reply: Ahead of publication, I contacted the relevant councils and organisations referenced in this article to offer them the opportunity to comment on the issues raised. At the time of publication, no responses had been received. I was unable to locate a current contact method for former MP Eddie Hughes in order to offer a right to reply. Should any of the parties mentioned wish to respond, their comments will be published in full.