How housing associations can grow without losing the local service residents rely on.
Scale and personal service are usually treated as opposites. The bigger a housing association gets, the story goes, the more distant it becomes from the people it actually houses.
Richard Clark doesn't buy that.
As Head of Neighbourhoods and Communities at Bromford Flagship LiveWest (BFL), he's spent his career moving between organisations of very different sizes, from a 3,500-home values-led trust to a group now managing around 127,000 homes across England. In his second appearance on the People in Housing Podcast, recorded two months into his new role, he made the case that scale and local housing services aren't necessarily in tension. What matters is how an organisation chooses to operate.
BFL was formed through consecutive housing association mergers, first Bromford and Flagship, then LiveWest, creating one of the largest housing providers in the country. Rather than treating that scale as a threat to local service, BFL uses a neighbourhood coaching model, where each coach manages around 200 to 220 homes, and is developing a newer "place model" that brings multidisciplinary teams together in specific geographic areas. Richard argues that size alone does not determine how quickly an organisation can act: larger organisations can use their capacity and resources to empower people to make decisions locally, provided the culture supports it. And, for him, one of the biggest challenges facing housing right now isn't structural at all. It's the rising complexity of what customers need, and the toll that takes on frontline colleagues.
What happens when housing associations keep merging?
BFL's shape is the product of two housing association mergers in quick succession, first bringing Bromford and Flagship together, then combining that entity with LiveWest. The result spans from the Isles of Scilly off the Cornish coast, through Devon and Bristol, across the Welsh borders and Midlands, up to Staffordshire and over to Norfolk and Suffolk. Richard's own patch, the Midlands region, covers around 24,000 of those homes.
Richard pointed to WHG's own recently announced merger as another example of consolidation within the sector. From his experience, greater scale can create access to funding, strengthen the ability to work with government and local authorities, and provide additional capacity to invest in both new development and existing homes.
But he was clear that scale is only worth pursuing if it's paired with a genuine commitment to local housing services, not used as a substitute for it.
How do you keep a housing service local when you're managing 127,000 homes?
For Richard, the answer lies largely in the operating model, specifically the neighbourhood coaching model BFL uses, where each coach is responsible for around 200 to 220 properties. That's a deliberate approach intended to allow coaches to understand a customer's actual circumstances rather than operating reactively across a much larger caseload.
The organisation is also piloting something it calls the "place model", currently running in Gloucestershire and Lichfield. Rather than housing management functions sitting in separate teams, a place-based approach brings a small multidisciplinary team, covering neighbourhood coaching, tenancy sustainment, lettings, income and dedicated repairs, together around one specific geographic patch. The intention is to enable more decisions to be made and acted on locally.
Richard gave a small but telling example: fly-tipping reported in a team chat gets picked up by whoever's already driving past, often within hours, rather than logged as a job that could take longer to action through a formal process. It's a minor operational detail, but it illustrates the broader principle behind good local housing services: the closer decision-making sits to the problem, the faster and more responsive the service can become.
Do bigger housing associations actually take longer to get things done?
It's a common assumption, and one Richard pushed back on directly. In his experience, smaller and mid-sized associations can sometimes move more slowly because they may have less resource or capacity to absorb risk. Larger organisations, he argued, can be well placed to empower teams to make decisions on the ground rather than escalating everything upward.
That comes down to culture as much as structure. Richard described the importance of creating an environment where colleagues feel trusted to act and where sensible decisions made in good faith are supported by leadership. Teams that are trusted to act and backed by their leadership tend to move faster than teams waiting for sign-off at every stage.
Debunking the biggest myths about housing association mergers
Two myths came up repeatedly in the conversation. The first is that housing association mergers are primarily about job cuts. Richard's experience across several mergers, at Bromford, Platform and elsewhere, is that the reality is more complex, and that meaningful structural decisions are made as organisations work through how teams and systems operate together rather than simply assuming outcomes in advance.
The second myth concerns whether residents in larger organisations are "customers" or "tenants". Richard's view is that the label matters far less than the substance behind it: what matters is whether an organisation actually treats people well, listens to them and invests in their homes, not the specific word used to describe them.
Growing the next generation of leaders inside a large organisation
One challenge Richard flagged for larger associations is talent development. In a small organisation, it's easy to spot rising talent because leaders see the work directly. At the scale of BFL, that visibility has to be built deliberately, through accessible leadership, regular team meetings and a genuine growth culture rather than a "wait for someone to retire" mentality.
His underlying philosophy, echoing a line more commonly heard in football management, is that ambitious, capable people shouldn't have to wait out a fixed number of years in a role before being trusted with more responsibility. He also pointed to a broader shift in recruitment: placing greater emphasis on attitudes, empathy and lived experience rather than assuming people need a housing-specific background, since the ability to understand and support a resident can matter as much as a qualification alone.
The challenge nobody's talking about enough
Asked what's not getting enough attention in the sector, Richard didn't point to funding or policy. He pointed to the people delivering the service. Customer needs, he argued, are becoming steadily more complex, shaped by cost-of-living pressure, reduced statutory services elsewhere and rising expectations shaped by consumer experiences outside housing entirely. Frontline colleagues are absorbing that complexity daily, often across a geographically dispersed, largely remote workforce where the informal support of being in a room together, and simply checking in on a colleague, is harder to replicate.
For Richard, protecting colleague resilience isn't a side issue. It's central to how large housing associations need to be led.
Asked what he'd change about the sector with a magic wand, Richard didn't hesitate: capacity. Too many people remain stuck in temporary accommodation, with life chances shaped by the absence of a stable home. Scale, in his view, only earns its place if organisations like BFL use it to build more homes and support the communities around them.
FAQs
Can large housing associations still deliver a personal, local service?
Yes, large housing associations can deliver a personal, local service if their operating model is designed for it. Keeping the number of homes each frontline colleague manages at a manageable level means staff can get to know residents and understand their circumstances. Giving local teams the authority to make decisions means issues get resolved quickly and close to where they happen, so the service feels local even at a large scale.
Are housing association mergers mainly about cutting jobs?
Housing association mergers aren’t simply about cutting jobs. The main drivers are usually financial strength, investment capacity and the ability to build and improve more homes. Structural decisions tend to be worked through over time, once the merged organisation understands how its teams and systems work together in practice, rather than being decided in advance.
Why are housing associations continuing to merge?
Housing associations merge because scale can bring greater access to finance, more borrowing capacity and a stronger position when working with government and local authorities. That supports investment in new homes and improvements to existing ones. A merger creates real value when those benefits lead to better homes, services and outcomes for residents and communities.
Are bigger organisations always slower to make decisions than smaller ones?
Not necessarily. Smaller housing associations can be held back by limited resource and less capacity to absorb risk. Larger organisations can use their scale to empower local teams to act without escalating every issue. Culture often matters more than size: teams that are trusted to make sensible decisions, and supported by leadership when they do, tend to move faster.
What's the biggest hidden challenge facing housing teams right now?
One of the biggest hidden challenges facing housing teams is the rising complexity of residents’ needs, driven by cost-of-living pressures, reduced statutory services and higher customer expectations. Frontline housing colleagues absorb that pressure every day, often while working remotely across large areas. Supporting staff resilience through manageable caseloads, visible leadership and regular contact is increasingly central to delivering a good service.
If you'd like to hear the full conversation with Richard Clark, you can find the People in Housing Podcast on Spotify and YouTube. To find out more about Bromford Flagship LiveWest, visit bromford.co.uk.
Useful links:
Contact us
Navigation