By Colin Wiles, housing consultant.

It’s not just Covid-19 cases that are increasing exponentially, so too is the number of serious detriment judgements made by the Regulator of Social Housing. In 2012 there was one, last year there were 6 and this year there were 15, according to the Regulator’s latest annual review of the consumer standards.

This is good news for those who have long felt that the Regulator has not devoted sufficient attention to policing the four consumer standards – Home, Neighbourhood and Community, Tenancy, and Tenant Involvement and Empowerment. It seems that the Grenfell catastrophe has been a catalyst for change and that tenant safety is now absolutely paramount.  I have been told that the Regulator has around 250 staff policing the economic standards and only 2 on the consumer standards, although this might have improved.

Of course, the economic standards are regulated proactively, with a heavy emphasis upon protecting social housing assets, while the consumer standards are regulated reactively, dependent upon referrals from individual tenants, MPs, councillors, the Ombudsman, by self-referral, or as a result of ongoing regulatory engagement. In fact, around four in ten referrals this year came from individuals and another four in ten came from providers owning up to the Regulator, something I covered in this briefing for HQN.

The serious detriment test is that tenants have suffered actual or potential harm and “harm” is not just about safety – it could also cover things like discrimination or financial loss.

Even so, it takes some effort to achieve a judgement of serious detriment. Last year there were 502 referrals and only six serious detriment cases – that’s a hit rate of around one in a hundred.  Over half of all referrals were on the Home Standard (54%) and over a quarter on the Tenant Involvement and Empowerment standard (27%).

Of the 15 serious detriment cases this year, 7 were local authorities and 8 were housing associations, two of them involved in specialist supported housing – a part of the sector that is of growing concern to the Regulator, especially those taking on leases from other landlords.

Of the 7 local authorities, 4 were covered by a single ALMO – Dover, Thanet, Canterbury, and Folkestone and Hythe who came under the East Kent Housing banner, which has now been disbanded. The other three were Runnymede, Lambeth and Gateshead. All of them were found to have failed on the Home standard on basic safety checks. The Regulator notes a significant increase in referrals of local authorities breaching the standards.

14 of the 15 serious detriment cases had breached the Home Standard and one had breached the Tenant Involvement and Empowerment standard. All of the 14 Home Standard breaches related to basic safety checks – gas, electrics, fire, lifts, Legionella and asbestos, although the Regulator notes that compliance with gas safety appears to have improved overall – “good steady progress” is being made on gas, says the report.

So what are the key lessons of this latest review?

First, every Board and councillor with housing duties needs to be right on top of safety issues. To start with, they need to read this report and you should make sure that they have a copy – it is not too long and it is easy to digest. The Regulator makes it very clear that failings on basic safety issues are often a symptom of weak governance. Fail on safety and they will likely come calling to see how your Board is performing. Devolving management to a managing agent or to an ALMO is no excuse: the buck still stops with you. Your Board needs to know exactly what the requirements on the four standards are, and to be asking the right questions. On safety, this means seeking assurance that the checks are being done right and on time, and that all recommendations are being followed up in a timely way.

Second, your systems and risk management controls need to be top notch. You should be able to look up an individual property instantly and to see exactly what needs doing and when. There should be alerts in place that tell you when dates are in danger of being missed. Third, you must be open. If you try to hide things the RSH will take a dim view. By owning up and putting things right you might avoid a serious detriment judgement. If you don’t, you almost certainly won’t.

Lastly, your complaints’ system needs to be top class – it should allow tenants to complain with ease and to be kept informed on how their complaint is progressing. Boards should be reviewing complaint data regularly as complaints can often be a litmus test for underlying problems.

The one organisation that failed the Tenant Involvement and Empowerment standard was Westmoreland Supported Housing. It had failed to consult with vulnerable tenants before issuing eviction notices.  The Regulator points out that the way you treat your tenants is a “key indication of organisational culture, and it speaks to why registered providers exist and their purpose”. So you must treat your tenants with “fairness and respect, and to take their diverse needs into account”. Well said.

As Alistair McIntosh has said in the past, all of this is like taking an exam where the answers are provided in advance. And yet the same issues crop up year after year. If you want to avoid being on the Regulator’s naughty step next year I would advise you to read this review with care and make sure that you have not left undone those things which you ought to have done, or done things that you ought not to have done.