When Mark Bogard, Chief Executive of Family Building Society, talks about Britain’s housing policy, he is unsparing in his assessment: short-termism, revolving-door ministers and a fixation with demand-side gimmicks have left the country without the coherent, long-term framework it badly needs.
We’re holding today’s interview at a pavement table outside The Riding House in London’s Fitzrovia. It’s a bright, sunny afternoon and Bogard has spent the morning discussing mutual matters with the Prudential Regulation Authority before hopping on his Vespa, zipping across central London for our conversation. (When he has meetings in London he rides the Vespa from his home in Belsize Park, otherwise he rides his Ducati to the Family’s Epsom head office and where the Society’s the only branch is, too.)
Bogard leans forward on the table with the energy of a man on a mission.
“The single biggest failure,” he says, “is the focus on initiatives politicians can deliver quickly – Help to Buy, mortgage guarantees – rather than the supply-side reforms that would genuinely shift the dial.”
It is a theme he returns to often: housing policy is a political football, kicked from one minister to the next.
“We’ve had 20 housing ministers in 28 years,” he says with incredulity. “Pretty much every one of them came to the Building Societies Association’s annual lunch, stood up and declared: ‘We’re planning for the long term.’ Not one of them was back the next year.”
For Bogard, that lack of consistency has had real-world consequences – soaring house prices, entrenched generational divides and a shortage of affordable homes.
It is why, earlier this year, he helped set up an Independent Housing Policy Oversight Committee, chaired by former Business Secretary Sir Vince Cable.
“We looked at other areas where Britain can deliver,” he says. “The Olympics happened on time because someone was watching. Climate change policy has the Climate Change Committee to mark the government’s homework. Housing had nobody marking the homework – and if nobody marks it, you don’t do it properly.”
The new committee, still in its infancy, is intended to become that marker. Its goal is to establish a set of clear metrics to measure whether things are improving or deteriorating, and to hold successive governments to account.
“If we can be constructive and factual,” Bogard says, “I hope people will listen.”
BUILDING CONSENSUS
Sceptics will question whether a genuinely cross-party approach to housing is possible. Bogard insists it is. He points to moments when unlikely allies – Michael Heseltine, Peter Mandleson and Vince Cable – have united in calling for a more coherent framework.
“When you get a Labour Lord, a former Tory deputy prime minister and the ex-leader of the Liberal Democrats all talking about housing, they’re not playing politics,” he says. “With tax policy, they’d be at each other’s throats. With housing, they’re just talking about housing. It’s difficult, but it isn’t impossible.”
What would help, he argues, is to elevate housing policy to the same level of importance as the great offices of state.
“Every night when you go to bed, housing matters to you,” Bogard says. “Arguably, it matters more to most Brits than foreign policy. Yet we treat the housing minister’s job as a stepping stone – a stopover on the way up or the way down.
“If housing were a great office of state, with the gravitas and longevity of the Home Office or Treasury, ministers could finally pull together the nine different departments that affect housing policy.”
SHORT-TERM FIXES, LONG-TERM COSTS
Bogard is more than withering when it comes to schemes like Help to Buy.
“Our sense,” he says, “is that money would have been much better spent on supply-side measures. Help to Buy just allowed people to pay more.”
He recounts one example told to him by a colleague: “Two identical flats in the same block. One sold to a buy-to-let landlord, who negotiated hard. The other to a Help to Buy first-time buyer, who paid significantly more. That’s the problem: the policy inflated demand without fixing supply.”
Was it really about helping buyers, or about political calculation?
Bogard raises an eyebrow. “I’ve heard from more than one source that George Osborne was swayed by research showing homeowners are more likely to vote Conservative. Whether that’s true or not, the reaction of housebuilders’ share prices on the day it was announced tells you a lot.”
A PLAN FOR THE FUTURE
So what should happen now? Bogard favours something bolder, a long-term framework, similar to the Bank of England’s independence over monetary policy.
“Unless you have a 50-year plan, insulated from politics, nothing serious will happen,” he argues.
And he is clear on what he’d like to see in the shorter term with a return to a well-crafted stamp duty holiday.
“During the pandemic, the threshold at £500,000 was brilliant policy,” he says. “It covered the majority of homes outside London, got transactions moving and unleashed economic activity.
“People spend money when they move – solicitors, removals, DIY, furniture. The Treasury lost some stamp duty but made it back in VAT and national insurance. If Rachel Reeves wants growth, this is one lever she can pull tomorrow.”
KEEPING IT IN THE FAMILY
For Bogard, housing is not just policy – it is history. The Family Building Society, founded in 1896 by postmen, began life as the Post Office Building Society.
“We were effectively the world’s first direct financial services organisation,” he says with pride. “Postmen would send their deposits and mortgage applications by post. No branches – long before First Direct had been dreamed up.”
That ethos of providing homes remains central.
“Building societies were founded to help people into property. Housing is at the core of what we do – it’s why we care so much about reform.”
THE AI REVOLUTION
But Bogard is not only thinking about the bricks and mortar of housing. He is also looking hard at how technology – especially artificial intelligence – will transform financial services.
At this year’s Building Societies conference, he recalls being stunned by a live demonstration.
“The presenter built three websites from scratch in minutes, created an ad campaign, and then introduced an AI mortgage adviser that looked and sounded just like him. You just thought… bloody hell.”
For Bogard, the implications are profound. “There are two sorts of customers,” he says. “Those who like people, and those who don’t trust them – often because of past mis-selling scandals. For the first group, personal relationships will always matter. For the second, AI advisers could be transformational. Imagine pressing a button and getting advice in Hindi or Polish instantly. That’s revolutionary.”
Yet he is cautious. “The journey has to be founded on data. Most brokers aren’t big enough. To build really good AI advice, you need millions of customer interactions. And then there’s regulation. How will the FCA treat AI advice? That’s still unclear.”
OPPORTUNITIES AND RISKS
The Family Building Society itself is taking a measured approach. “We’ll never be at the bleeding edge – we’re too small. But we’re starting to see uses that are practical. AI can scan bank statements far better than humans, spotting fraudulent changes.
“Some banks are already using it to draft credit reports, which they think are more accurate than people’s. It’s very good at digesting regulation too – 10,000 pages of financial rules distilled into something usable.”
Still, he warns against blind reliance. He points to Boeing’s 737 Max crashes as a chilling example of algorithms gone wrong.
“That’s the ultimate risk: when the computer says down instead of up. In mortgages, the consequences aren’t fatal but if AI wrongly declines your loan, that’s still serious. People must retain the ability to challenge and apply common sense.”
He tells the story of a colleague whose podcast transcripts were mishandled by an AI tool.
“It missed one entirely, then lied about it – said it had definitely received all six. Just like a human might. That’s the scary part: it doesn’t admit what it doesn’t know.”
Why hasn’t finance been disrupted?
For someone who has spent decades in financial services, Bogard is also struck by what hasn’t changed.
“In the mid-90s, the big banks were spending hundreds of millions a year on consultants, talking about burning platforms. Everyone thought new entrants would wipe out the old guard, like EasyJet did to airlines or Amazon to retail. Yet in banking, it’s still Barclays, HSBC, Lloyds, NatWest. The challengers make noise but they’re a rounding error.”
Why? He admits even he doesn’t know. “It can’t just be trust. Other high-trust industries have been disrupted. Maybe it’s regulation, maybe scale. But it’s remarkable: the only real change is that my chequebook has been replaced by an app.”
HOUSING FIRST
For all his interest in technology, Bogard is clear where his priority lies.
“Housing policy will matter to more people than whether they talk to a human or a robot,” he says firmly. “Every family, every night, depends on it. Building societies were founded to provide homes – that’s our essence.”
So if he had to choose between championing AI adoption and pushing for housing reform? “Both,” he laughs. Then, more seriously: “We can’t afford to ignore either. But housing is fundamental.”
LOOKING AHEAD
As our conversation draws to a close, Bogard reflects on what success would look like. “If, by the end of this Parliament, we’ve created a statutory housing oversight committee, elevated housing to a great office of state and ended the revolving door of ministers – that would be transformative. In the meantime, even a well-judged stamp duty holiday would be a step in the right direction.”
For a man leading a building society founded by postmen, the message is clear: stop treating housing as an afterthought. Start planning as if it really matters – because, as Bogard insists, it matters to everyone.
