The Taxpayers Burden

Service charges in social housing are often presented as unavoidable, technical, and tightly regulated. In reality, they are increasingly opaque, poorly understood, and rarely challenged. This article examines how rising service charges intersect with Housing Benefit, how much public money is being paid to a single housing association, and what Freedom of Information responses reveal about the level of scrutiny applied by local councils once that money leaves the public purse.

I want to be absolutely clear from the start. Transparent. Open. Honest. There should be no confusion about why I am writing this, and no room for claims that this is a personal vendetta or a grudge. It isn’t. The reason I have chosen GreenSquareAccord is straightforward.

First, they are my landlord. I know about the systemic failures within the organisation through my own first-hand experience, and through the experiences shared with me by others via my GreenSquareAccord Resident Support site. Residents are paying ever-increasing service charges for services that are not simply being delivered. This ranges from basic maintenance through to supposed 24-hour emergency responses. We pay for services we do not receive. Responses are slow. Complaints drag on. Issues are rarely resolved. The pushback is always the same.

Second, GreenSquareAccord were raised in Prime Minister’s Questions by MP Layla Moran, who explicitly called out rising service charges. In response, Prime Minister Keir Starmer used the term “fleecehold”. Following this, the BBC published a news article in which GreenSquareAccord stated that they always send residents a detailed explanation of charges when requested. That statement is simply not true.

Third, I, along with neighbours, have repeatedly pushed back and submitted formal Section 22 requests. Deadlines have been missed. Complaints remain ongoing. The Section 20 £250 consultation threshold has been bypassed through the backdating of costs. Calculations have been wrong. More importantly, GreenSquareAccord have been unable to provide the legally required evidence within the statutory timeframe. What has been provided is often incomplete — screenshots instead of invoices, summaries instead of source documents. Residents have also been misadvised on next steps, being told to go straight to the First-tier Tribunal without any meaningful offer of mediation or engagement.

We know the maths is wrong.
We know Section 20 and Section 22 obligations are not being adhered to.
We know charges are backdated.
We know services are not being delivered.

This is not speculation. This is lived experience.

Finally, as set out in my previous work on mergers and leadership failure, there is a growing and ongoing list of issues relating to GreenSquareAccord’s performance, both predating and following the merger. These are matters of public record.

So when I began contacting councils to ask how much Housing Benefit was being paid to this landlord, it was not done lightly. It was because I already knew the failures were systemic, embedded, ongoing, and real. The expectation — or perhaps the hope — was that councils would be challenging these charges. That safeguard was assumed to exist.

It does not.

Housing Benefit sits at the heart of this issue, and it is important to be clear about what it is, where it comes from, and how it works.

Housing Benefit is taxpayers’ money. It is public funding, collected through general taxation, and administered by local authorities on behalf of central government. Its purpose is simple: to help people on low incomes meet the cost of keeping a roof over their head.

People qualify for Housing Benefit for a range of reasons. This includes unemployment, low-paid work, disability, long-term illness, caring responsibilities, and pension age. For many recipients, Housing Benefit is not a lifestyle choice or a supplement. It is the difference between stability and homelessness.

Once awarded, Housing Benefit is paid either directly to the claimant or, in many cases, directly to the landlord. In social housing, it is common for the money to go straight from the council to the housing association. This includes payments toward core rent and, where eligible, service charge elements.

At that point, the money leaves public control.

Councils do not deliver the services. They do not maintain the buildings. They do not provide the caretaking, cleaning, repairs, or emergency response that service charges are meant to cover. They simply pass public money to landlords on the basis of the charges presented to them.

Housing associations receive that money as income. It forms part of their operating budgets and cash flow. For large providers operating across multiple local authorities, Housing Benefit represents millions of pounds of public funding every year.

This is why oversight matters.

When service charges increase, Housing Benefit expenditure increases alongside them. When charges are wrong, overstated, or unsupported by evidence, public money is still being paid out unless someone intervenes. And when councils do not actively challenge those charges, the system relies almost entirely on trust.

That trust is what this investigation tests.

Each part of the Freedom of Information request was asked for a specific reason. Nothing here was speculative.

First, councils were asked for the total amount of Housing Benefit paid in respect of properties owned or managed by GreenSquareAccord within their local authority area over the last three completed financial years. This was about scale. Without knowing how much public money is being paid, it is impossible to have a serious conversation about risk, oversight, or accountability.

Second, councils were asked for the proportion of that Housing Benefit attributable to eligible service charge elements, as distinct from core rent. This distinction matters. Rent is generally regulated, benchmarked, and easier to assess. Service charges are not. They are opaque, bundled, and cover a wide range of costs — from cleaning and grounds maintenance to management fees and emergency services. Without that split, service charges disappear into a larger total and scrutiny becomes almost impossible.

Where councils stated that they did not hold a clear breakdown, further questions were asked about their systems and processes. Specifically, whether rent and service charges are distinguished at assessment or payment stage, and whether any alternative breakdowns or proxy data exist.

Councils were also asked for copies of policies, guidance, and procedures covering how rent and service charge increases are checked or verified. Residents are routinely told that increases are “allowed” or “within the rules”. The question was whether anyone independently tests that claim.

Finally, councils were asked whether they hold any records showing where service charges have been queried, challenged, corrected, or found to be incorrect.

Taken together, these questions were designed to establish three things: the scale of public money involved, how much of it relates to service charges rather than rent, and whether any meaningful oversight exists once that money leaves the public purse.

What the responses revealed is where this moves from process to problem.

Across eleven local authorities, £41,008,098.36 in Housing Benefit has been paid to GreenSquareAccord over the last three completed financial years.

This is not a national total. Several councils have yet to respond substantively, while others have refused to provide the information requested, citing cost limits under Section 12 of the Freedom of Information Act. Those cases are subject to internal review and escalation to the Information Commissioner’s Office.

Even within this partial dataset, the scale is stark. Tens of millions of pounds in taxpayers’ money are being paid to a single housing association. What is far less clear — and far more concerning — is what scrutiny exists once those payments are made.

Herefordshire Council paid £21,621.85. The council does not routinely distinguish between rent and eligible service charge elements and confirmed that it has not queried or challenged any rent or service charge increases submitted by GreenSquareAccord. While it acknowledged that Housing Benefit has been paid in cases later found to be incorrect or ineligible, it does not record how often this happens, does not retain records of challenge outcomes, and uses no standard correspondence when querying landlords’ charges.

South Oxfordshire District Council paid £613,719.74. The council does not record Housing Benefit in a way that distinguishes rent from service charge elements and refused to confirm whether any increases submitted by GreenSquareAccord have been queried or challenged, citing cost limits. It likewise refused to confirm whether Housing Benefit has been paid on charges later found to be incorrect or ineligible and confirmed that no standard correspondence exists for querying landlords’ charges.

Cherwell District Council paid £1,419,057.13. Although rent and service charges are distinguished during assessment, the council does not centrally record whether increases are queried or challenged. It confirmed that Housing Benefit has been paid on charges later found to be incorrect, ineligible, or overstated, but does not record how many such cases occur. There is no prescribed approach to assessing the reasonableness of increases and no standard correspondence used when querying charges.

Swindon Borough Council paid £1,821,938.87. The council does not hold information confirming that its systems distinguish rent from service charge elements at assessment or payment stage, does not record whether increases are challenged, and does not record cases where Housing Benefit has later been paid on incorrect or ineligible charges. No standard correspondence is used when querying landlords.

Tewkesbury Borough Council paid £115,620. The council confirmed that its systems do not distinguish between rent and service charges and that no increases submitted by GreenSquareAccord have been queried or challenged. It did not confirm whether Housing Benefit has been paid on incorrect charges, citing cost limits, and holds no standard correspondence for querying landlords.

Coventry City Council paid £3,807,288.79. Coventry provides a rare example of active challenge. While its systems do not distinguish rent and service charges at payment stage, the council confirmed that it has formally challenged increases submitted by GreenSquareAccord, including restricting proposed increases for 2025–26. Coventry also identified 47 cases where Housing Benefit was paid on charges later found to be incorrect or overstated. Even here, however, no standardised correspondence is used.

West Oxfordshire District Council paid £2,029,197.47. Its systems do not distinguish between rent and service charge elements, and it confirmed that no increases have been queried or challenged. One case in the last five financial years was identified where service charges were overstated and overpayments recovered. No standard correspondence is used.

Cotswold District Council paid £46,375.09. The council does not distinguish between rent and service charges, has not challenged any increases, and has identified no cases in the last five years where Housing Benefit was paid on incorrect or overstated charges. It also confirmed that it uses no standard correspondence.

Walsall Council paid £18,023,602.19 — the highest total in the dataset. While officers distinguish between rent and service charge elements at assessment stage, the council does not keep central records showing whether increases are queried or challenged, does not record cases where Housing Benefit has later been paid on incorrect or overstated charges, and uses no standard correspondence.

City of Wolverhampton Council paid £10,910,597.58. Although rent and service charge elements are distinguished at assessment, the council does not hold extractable records showing whether increases are challenged, does not record cases of incorrect payments, and uses no standard correspondence when querying landlords.

Gloucester City Council paid £2,199,079.65. Its systems do not distinguish rent from service charges, no increases have been challenged or formally reviewed, and no cases of incorrect or overstated payments have been identified.

Taken together, these responses describe a system in which large sums of public money are routinely paid to housing associations with limited, inconsistent, and often undocumented scrutiny.

Where challenge does occur, it is the exception, not the rule.

In most cases, councils either do not challenge service charge increases at all, or cannot evidence when, how, or why any challenge took place.

Housing associations appear to be too big to take care of the small things — the upkeep of grounds, doors, windows, communal cleaning, damp, mould, fire safety, lifts — yet too small to properly weather the financial pressures facing the sector.

So the cost is passed on.

Investors, lenders, and backers still have to be paid. Covenants still have to be met. Balance sheets still have to hold. And the people left carrying that burden are the residents, and all of us taxpayers.

What we are all left with is an organisation that is too large to be meaningfully accountable, yet unable to uphold its end of the bargain by delivering the services that service charges are meant to fund.

This is not just a GreenSquareAccord issue.

But by focusing on a landlord I know, through direct experience, to be deeply inadequate, the wider problem becomes visible. Promises of change following the merger, and under the leadership of Ruth Cooke, have now passed the five-year mark, with multiple strategies having failed, stalled, or still climbing to be a work in progress. Let’s face it: this organisation is “too big to turn”. Why should any of us throw yet more money after bad? Have we all fallen foul of the sunk cost fallacy?

The real question is this: what happens if it sinks?

That risk matters. Service charges are no longer a technical issue. They affect whether homes are sellable, whether people can move, and whether communities are financially stable. You cannot sell a flat if you cannot explain what the service charge is likely to be next year. All you can do is point to how much it has risen over the last three.

Councils are in a unique position. They have the ability to push back, investigate, and interrogate the figures. They should — because this is public money.

But the evidence shows that this scrutiny is not happening.

Councils are not checking.
They are not challenging.
They are not recording.

They are simply handing over the money — leaving all of us footing the bill for a service we are not receiving.

All figures cited in this article are drawn directly from Freedom of Information responses and are published in full in the accompanying spreadsheet for transparency and scrutiny and can be found here.

GreenSquareAccord was offered a right to reply to the findings set out in this article. As with previous requests for comment, no substantive response was provided by the time of publication.