The Chartered Institute of Housing - Time to Turn Off the Life Support?

As a tenant in a shared ownership property, I've heard the phrase "Chartered Institute of Housing" mentioned almost victoriously. Yet, I've seen very little tangible evidence of their results. As someone who's been blocked by them (and we have internal emails to prove it), I'm bound to have a bitter taste in my mouth. However, let's keep it unemotional and focus on the results derived from the costs spent.

Housing associations allow their staff to reclaim the membership fee they pay to be part of the Chartered Institute of Housing. Essentially, this means that as a tenant, I'm indirectly funding these memberships.

The Chartered Institute of Housing (CIH) positions itself as the leading professional body for housing, dedicated to supporting professionals, upholding standards, and driving positive change in the sector. It claims to reinvest its income into improving housing, working across 20 countries to shape the profession. But for tenants struggling with rising service charges, unsafe homes, and a lack of accountability, these claims ring hollow.

The CIH’s Stated Objectives—And Their Failings

CIH has set itself four key objectives:

Be the recognized first-choice professional body for housing professionals.

CIH seeks to boost its profile, increase membership, and position itself as an essential part of a housing professional’s career. But where does this leave tenants? While CIH grows its influence and branding, tenants see little evidence that this benefits their living conditions.

Provide relevant professional development for a valued housing profession.

The organization claims to lead professional development and uphold industry standards. Yet, we continue to see poor housing management, deteriorating conditions, and a lack of accountability from those in charge. If CIH were truly enforcing high standards, tenants wouldn’t be living in damp, unsafe, and unaffordable homes.

Be the leading voice for the housing profession across the UK.

CIH prides itself on influencing policy and promoting best practices. But housing in the UK has never been in such a bad state. Social housing is in crisis. If CIH is the sector’s leading voice, why has it failed to challenge the systemic issues leaving tenants worse off than ever before?

Be a successful, sustainable, and well-respected organization.

Financial sustainability is a core goal for CIH, but this comes at the expense of genuine accountability. It relies heavily on housing associations for funding, through corporate events and paid memberships—costs ultimately covered by tenants through rent and service charges. This financial model creates a clear conflict of interest, ensuring CIH remains loyal to the organizations it should be holding to account.

For all its lofty ambitions, the reality is that CIH’s goals are not being met where it matters most: in the homes of tenants. If housing professionals are truly benefiting from CIH’s training and development, why are so many residents living in unsafe and unaffordable conditions? If CIH is setting the standard for the industry, why has that standard fallen so low?

The Overlap Between CIH and the National Housing Federation (NHF)

One of the biggest concerns is the significant overlap between the Chartered Institute of Housing (CIH) and the National Housing Federation (NHF). Both organisations claim to be central to shaping housing policy, supporting housing professionals, and improving the sector. But while CIH focuses on professional development, NHF positions itself as the representative body for housing associations.

This raises an important question: Why are tenants effectively funding both organizations through rent and service charges when their roles seem redundant? If NHF is driving policy and lobbying for housing associations, and CIH is supposedly maintaining professional standards, then why is housing still in crisis? Why are both organizations failing to address the fundamental issues of affordability, quality, and tenant rights?

Furthermore, housing associations often hold memberships with both CIH and NHF, meaning their funding streams—and their accountability—are intertwined. This dual structure allows housing associations to avoid scrutiny while maintaining a strong influence over both organizations. Instead of tenants seeing real change, they are paying for two institutions that ultimately serve the same interests: those of housing providers, not residents.

A Networking Club, Not an Accountability Body

The truth is that CIH exists to serve housing professionals, not residents. It does not advocate for those most affected by the failures of the sector, yet tenants are expected to help fund it. With housing in crisis, it’s time to ask whether this organization is doing more harm than good.

What value am I, as a tenant, getting from staff holding these memberships? Am I receiving better service? Are they more educated or understanding of housing policy? Possibly, yes, but where are the tangible results? It might just be a nice addition to their email signature, but when housing associations fail to provide basic services, these credentials bring little value.

From a tenant's perspective, the CIH seems more like a networking agency, organizing numerous events and sponsorship deals.

CIH’s Focus on Sponsorships and Events

The Chartered Institute of Housing (CIH) hosts a variety of events, including conferences, webinars, and awards, aimed at housing professionals. While these events are presented as opportunities for professional development and knowledge sharing, a closer examination reveals a significant emphasis on sponsorship and exhibition opportunities, raising questions about their primary focus.

Sponsorship and Exhibition Focus

CIH actively promotes sponsorship and exhibition packages, positioning them as prime avenues for organizations to showcase their services and products to key decision-makers in the housing sector. The organization highlights that sponsoring their events can enhance a company's credibility and visibility within the social housing community. Opportunities range from networking packages, such as dinners and receptions, to prominent branding placements, all designed to help sponsors achieve their marketing objectives.

The emphasis on sponsorship is evident in CIH's description of their events as "ideal arenas" for organizations to promote their brands to a "captive audience." This language suggests a commercial orientation, where the events serve as platforms for businesses to market their products and services directly to housing professionals.

Implications for Learning and Development

While sponsorship can play a role in facilitating events, the heavy focus on commercial partnerships raises concerns about the balance between genuine knowledge sharing and profit-driven motives. The prominence of sponsorship opportunities may overshadow the events' educational content, potentially prioritizing the interests of sponsors over the learning needs of attendees.

Moreover, the financial dynamics of these events warrant scrutiny. Sponsorship and exhibition fees contribute to CIH's revenue, which, as previously discussed, is indirectly funded by tenants through service charges and rents. This situation raises ethical questions about the use of tenant-derived funds to support events that may prioritize commercial interests over the pressing issues affecting residents, such as unsafe and unaffordable housing conditions.

Conclusion

The Chartered Institute of Housing claims to be a professional body for those working in the housing sector, but its lack of engagement with tenants exposes a fundamental flaw. While it may not see tenants as its responsibility, the reality is that tenants are indirectly funding it. Service charges and rent help cover the costs of housing association staff memberships, yet the CIH offers nothing in return to the people ultimately footing the bill.

At a time when housing associations are under intense scrutiny and residents are struggling, we have to ask: why does the CIH still exist in its current form? If it isn’t producing tangible results, if it isn’t advocating for those affected by housing failures, and if it isn’t even justifying the money spent on it, then it’s time to question whether we should be funding it at all. If people feel their membership is a benefit to them, then perhaps they should self-fund it and not claim it back as a business expense.

As a tenant, I’m asking for the life support to be turned off. Put it out of its misery. Let’s save money.

I recently talked to Lara Oyedele, a veteran of the UK housing sector and a former president of the Chartered Institute of Housing.