By Roger Jarman, HQN Associate

Introduction

On 1 February HQN hosted an event with over 140 delegates which examined the key changes in housing regulation due this year. The event was chaired by Alistair McIntosh and keynote presentations were given by Will Perry, Director of Strategy at the Regulator for Social Housing (RSH), and Richard Blakeway, Housing Ombudsman. This blog summarises the key takeaways from the event.

The regulator

Will Perry revealed a new mantra that the regulator will presumably promote in the months to come, describing the agency’s mission as delivering “more and better social homes”. Within that context he emphasised that the regulator’s role was to assess the outcomes delivered by providers and to make sure that the consumer standards were met.

The RSH will not dictate how outcomes should be achieved or, indeed, how the standards should be met. Landlords need to take responsibility for how they deliver their services. Ultimately the RSH will be reporting on the assurance received from a provider following regulatory engagement (including inspections).

Perry emphasised that all providers should focus on their governance framework, their financial viability, their value for money and their framework for rent setting etc. This was just as important for local authorities as it was for housing associations. Perry hinted that the RSH could assess the control systems and risk management of local authorities even though formally the economic standards do not apply to local councils.

Following the consultation on the content of the four consumer standards that concluded in October, Perry told delegates that support for the draft standards was high. The final standards would show only “minimal tweaks”. He anticipated that the decision statements on the final set of standards and the associated code of practice would be published before the end of the month. Furthermore, a new suite of documents will be published before April which update ‘Regulating the Standards’ (last revised in March 2022).[i] The sector will need to wait and see if this set of documents will include the RSH’s long-awaited inspection plan as required under the 2023 act.

Perry then described the methods that would be used to regulate the consumer standards. A key part of the any review will focus on the data provided by providers (such as the TSMs). Data reviews might prompt intervention by the regulator. Engagement could also be instigated if the regulator became aware of an issue through other sources (such as reports of maladministration from the ombudsman).

Delegates heard that inspections will be similar to the in-depth assessments (IDAs) currently undertaken by the RSH when the economic standards of housing associations are assessed. As with IDAs, inspectors will review specific documents provided by landlords and interviews will be held with board members, councillors, senior executives and others during the course of an inspection. There will also be engagement with tenant activists and tenant groups to derive an assessment of landlord performance from a user perspective.

Perry was at pains to point out that regulatory engagement on consumer standards with the RSH was not a “pass/fail assessment”. However, he did confirm that there will be ‘C ratings’ for organisations that have their services assessed against the consumer standards. Comment: If that is the case, surely a C3/C4 rating would be classed as non-compliant? Perhaps this needs further clarification from the regulator?

Delegates were advised that there would be six weeks’ notice before onsite inspections by the RSH. However, Perry noted that the legislation did give the regulator the power to undertake inspections with just 48 hours’ notice. The cyclical inspection of larger providers with more than 1,000 units will take place every four years but inspections might be more frequent if necessary. He referred to the potential use of performance improvement plans but did not elaborate on the circumstances when they might be employed.

Perry was keen to emphasise that the framework was focused on improving service delivery.  Even if organisations achieved C1 ratings under the framework, improvement might still be possible in some service areas.

Finally, Perry, reviewing the regulator’s experience from the programme of pilot inspections, called for inspected providers to ensure they:

  • Can evidence their outcomes
  • Have effective governance structures
  • Can demonstrate clarity of reporting, oversight and accountability
  • Can confirm they have access to good-quality data
  • Can verify good use of performance data
  • Have evidence about how they listen to their tenants and act upon what they hear.

The ombudsman

In his presentation Richard Blakeway focused on the current review of his complaint handling code. He also updated delegates about the status of the statutory memorandum of understanding (MoU) between the ombudsman service and the regulator.

Blakeway was hopeful that the new complaint handling code would be published the following week (week beginning 5 February). He noted that the current voluntary code was published three years ago. He emphasised that the statutory code was different from the existing code. For instance, the self-assessments against the code will now be required on a statutory basis. There is a further requirement that these self-assessments must be submitted to the ombudsman. Additionally, the ombudsman service then has a duty to monitor provider compliance against the code.

The ombudsman has undertaken an online check of provider websites and found that in 40% of cases the code was not available for the ombudsman service or other parties to review. Under the new legislation these self-assessments must be available for public scrutiny.

In outlining his additional powers, Blakeway noted that the legislation now enabled him to act against a provider in relation to maladministration cases even when a complaint had not been received [author’s emphasis].

There is considerable interest in the sector about the respective roles of the ombudsman and the RSH under the new regulatory framework. Since his appointment Richard Blakeway has seemingly taken on a number of roles which might be akin to the responsibilities of a regulator.

The legislation requires that a statutory MoU must be produced setting out the functions of the two agencies. Blakeway noted that there is an existing MoU, although this operates on a voluntary basis. The new MoU will build on the existing agreement and should be available “very, very soon”. He noted that there was no obligation to consult on the content of the MoU.

Blakeway was confident that the ombudsman and the regulator could both add value under the new framework and that their respective roles will continue to complement one another. The different approaches adopted by the agencies would promote better practices in the sector (he claimed). In this respect Blakeway highlighted the work that the ombudsman service had undertaken identifying the problem of damp, mould and condensation in social housing. This work had helped the regulator develop its own approach to working with social housing providers on how the issue should be tackled – particularly at board/councillor level.

 ***

The implementation of the new regulatory framework is nearly upon us.

As the 1 April start date approaches, HQN will keep members informed of all the developments as they occur.  Watch out for our blogs, briefings and in-depth commentaries. Our training programme continues and this will evolve as the new framework unfolds. Look out for one-off events too.

[i] https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/regulating-the-standards