There are differences in quality between the social housing stock in the Netherlands and England. The most important explanation is that quality and quality backlog is defined in different ways (Vijverberg and Jones, 2005). We continue our search for explanations by studying legislation on quality on different governmental levels and the way quality is measured in both countries. After considering the quality regulations laid down by central government for the social housing stock in both countries, we go on to study the specific supplementary requirements local authorities are empowered to set and the agreements and performance contracts concluded between the authorities and the social sector. This article also deals with the content of and methods used for quality measurement in both countries. There are differences in measurements and frames of reference in both countries. The article concludes with conclusions and recommendations. The Netherlands can learn from England on certain points, and vice versa.

The Netherlands and England both have a large social housing stock. In this article the two countries are compared on sector and stock characteristics, the quality and backlog of the stock, and investment and maintenance expenditure. Both countries show a declining tendency in the social housing stock. Social management bodies are strongly urged to develop businesslike approaches to housing management. There are differences in the way the management of the property is organized (private or public), independency of operations, regulatory systems and supervision requirements. The housing stock in both countries have many characteristics in common. A significant difference is the age of the stock. The quality of the stock is measured in both countries periodically by central government (KWR in the Netherlands and HCS in England). Significant improvements in the quality of the stock has been achieved. In both countries the social rented housing stock had the lowest quality backlog of all ownership categories. Although there are differences between local authorities and housing associations, the overall quality of social housing in England is somewhat higher than in the Netherlands. Total investment and maintenance expenditure are on the same level. Within this total expenditure there are differences between the two countries and between social housing management bodies in England. The expenditures are in line with the backlog. It¿s interesting that the quality survey in England is based on a quality standard (Decent Home Standard). Decent Home Standard defines the future agenda. All social houses must satisfy the decency criteria in 2010.

Together, the housing associations in the Netherlands spend about ¿ 3 billion per year on the maintenance and minor improvements of their 2.4 million social rental dwellings. By far the greatest share of the maintenance is contracted out to external contractors. Frequently heard justifications for this are that they are better equipped for such work, they work more efficiently and innovatively, and so they are cheaper. However, for day-to-day maintenance tasks, the housing associations draw frequently on their in-house maintenance contractor. At the present time, in-house maintenance contractors are being put under considerable pressure to work in a manner that better meets market requirements. The housing associations draw up agreements with their in-house contractors with respect to productivity, the quality of the management, and the quality of the service provision to tenants. Automation and data processing support the drive for enhanced professionalism. In the paper, attention will be paid to the factors housing associations have to weigh up when deciding whether or not to introduce outside maintenance contractors or retain their in-house contractor. There then follows an outline of the important discussion points and dilemmas that in-house maintenance contractors will have to address in the next few years. Consideration is given to the focus of the package of tasks and responsibilities, the organization, and the business assumptions. Finally, the drive for professionalization and the future perspective of the in-house maintenance contractors is outlined.