Consultation responses

The Housing Ombudsman launched a Call for Evidence to investigate common issues in housing maintenance, prompted by a surge in disrepair complaints.

It will inform an upcoming Spotlight report, titled "Repairing Trust," which will focus on repairs and maintenance.

The call for evidence focused on contracted repairs services. We highlighted the issues we've experienced using contractors, and how our in-sourcing project will put residents at the heart of repairs.

We also showcased the resident involvement when contracting our new repairs services in London.

The Housing Ombudsman Service held a consultation on their proposed approach to ‘good practice’ guidance and to requesting self-assessments. While there will be additional consultation for each piece of good practice, as dictated by legislation, this consultation underpins all future pieces of good practice. 

Accordingly, our response suggests that the Ombudsman should:

• To provide clearer guidance on how they intend to measure compliance against Good Practice
• Consult on how they intend to work with PRPs to implement the ‘next steps’ after Good Practice has been issued and a self-assessment been completed.
• Use the creation of Good Practice as an opportunity to provide size-specific guidance in the way that the Complaint Handling Code and the spotlight reports do not.

For more information, read our full response below.

Following a professionalisation review, the Government launched a consultation on a new Competence and Conduct Standard for social housing staff.

This will introduce qualification requirements as well as a code of conduct for those regulated by the Regulator for Social Housing. We wrote a briefing on the proposals, and Tina Edwards, Director of Learning & Culture, provided a comment on our response.

In our response, we set out our broad support for the direction itself, but set out concerns over the:

• timeframes set out for transition to new standards
• the requirements of the qualifications, especially their inclusion of soft skills that we think don't require classroom learning
• the ambiguity around who is scope.

For more information, please read our full response below.

The Housing Ombudsman has started to consult on its Business Plan for 2024-25.

The plan covers the final year of the Ombudsman’s 2022-25 Corporate Plan, which aims to deliver an independent, visible and proactive service for social housing residents and landlords. 

But the questions in the consultation mainly relate to how we’d like to access learning materials.

Specifically, our response recommends:

1. The learning tools the Housing Ombudsman produces should include case studies.
2. The Housing Ombudsman keeps the existing payment model in contrast to a ‘polluter pays’ model to retain reinvestment into services for residents.
3. Compensation awards are not made public.

In November, the Regulator launched a consultation on the circumstances under which it’ll use the new/amended powers it’s been granted through the Social Housing (Regulation) Act.

In our response we endorsed the Regulator’s proposal, with a few small caveats. We believe the Regulator’s overall strategy – adopting a proportionate, transparent and collaborative approach prioritising self-improvement by social landlords – is the right one for all parties.

Our main observation was there’s considerable overlap between some of the circumstances triggering the different powers. For example, failure to meet a standard under section 193, 194 or 194C of the Act can trigger 11 different forms of regulatory or enforcement action.

Likewise, ‘mismanagement of affairs’ is listed as a potential trigger under nine of the powers. We said clarity over what breaches can trigger what actions is critically important, especially given the Regulator’s ability to issue unlimited fines.

In early September, the Lord’s Built Environment Committee launched a call for evidence on Government’s proposal to classify some areas of the Green Belt as ‘Grey Belt’.

According to MHCLG’s proposed definition, these are areas of the Green Belt that make a “limited contribution” to its five purposes (as defined in para 140 of this Framework).

We submitted a response to the Committee, which you can read below. 

We share the new Government’s ambition for safe, affordable homes to be in reach of more people. Housing associations are eager to work with the Government to deliver the ambitious housebuilding program outlined in Labour’s manifesto.

Accordingly, we made the point to HM Treasury that we’re currently unable to start work on new homes because of a series of financial challenges, including uncertainty over our future rental income.

To help us build again we need:

• A long-term rent settlement relinking rent rises to inflation, and reinstating rent convergence
• Higher grant rates for development
• The Building Safety Fund to be extended across social housing tenures
• An extension of the Social Housing Decarbonisation Fund.

In September 2024 MHCLG revised the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) to support government’s ambition to build 1.5 million homes over the course of this parliament.

We welcomed the vast majority of the proposals to the NPPF on the basis they’ll support the delivery of more affordable housing. However, we’ve emphasised to Ministers and officials planning is only one part of the jigsaw.

If these revisions are to be truly effective in increasing the supply of affordable housing, they’ll need to be accompanied by a suite of other measures including:

• The introduction of a new long-term, index-linked rent settlement
• The reintroduction of rent convergence
• Broadening the Building Safety Fund to cover not only leasehold homes, but rented homes too
• Greater funding for decarbonisation works.

The previous government held a consultation on their proposed approach to an access to information scheme for residents, called the Social Tenant Access to Information Requirements (STAIRs). A new standard would require social landlords like us to be transparent with residents about the management of homes and would be similar to the way that public bodies have to respond to Freedom of Information Act requests.

We're largely on board with the proposals, but we've got some concerns about the finer details. For example, making stock management data public. While well-intentioned, it could potentially be exploited by those with malicious intent if we don't put proper safeguards in place. Another thing to consider is how we present complex information to residents. Fire risk assessments, for example, can be quite technical. We think it should be acceptable to simplify this kind of data to make it more digestible for the average person, which the proposals as they stand wouldn’t permit.

For more information, please read our full response below.

The government launched a consultation proposing new measures for an accelerated planning system that will provide greater certainty to applicants and enable delivery partners to bring forward much needed housing, commercial and infrastructure development at greater pace.

While we support efforts to improve the current planning system and make it easier for us to deliver affordable homes, we don't think the proposed accelerated planning system (APS) will increase delivery of affordable housing.

For more information, read our full response below.

On 26 March we submitted our response to Government’s consultation on strengthening planning policy for brownfield development. We wrote a briefing on the proposals. There were three headline proposals:

 1. Greater encouragement and flexibility for local planning authorities to deliver on brownfield sites

Under the proposals, local planning authorities would be encouraged to give “significant weight to the benefits of delivering as many homes as possible, especially where this involves land which is previously developed.” They’d also be asked to take a “flexible” approach when applying planning policies or guidance relating to the internal layout of a development.

We endorsed Government’s approach. Much of our development, especially in London, is on previously developed sites. And building new homes on brownfield sites is naturally a more complicated and capital-intensive process than building on greenfield sites. We suggested any additional flexibilities shouldn’t just apply to space standards and/or room dimensions (which alone would have a negligible impact). But also to other local plan standards such as separation distances between homes and provision of commercial space.

2. A new presumption in favour of sustainable development

Government proposed local planning authorities falling below 95% of their Housing Delivery Target (HDT) would be made to apply “a presumption in favour of brownfield development”. This means they’d only be able turn down a development on brownfield land if they could prove the impact would “significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits”.

We suggested the new ‘brownfield presumption’ should apply nationwide, rather than only in England’s 20 most populous cities and towns. And for greenfield sites as well once local housing authorities fall below 85% of their HDT.

3. An increase in the unit threshold for referring schemes to the Mayor of London

Government proposed an increase in the unit threshold for referring schemes to the Mayor of London. Applications must currently be referred to the Mayor if they comprise more than 150 residential units. We suggested the threshold should be increased so only applications of genuine strategic importance are referable to the Mayor.

On Tuesday 5 March, we submitted our response to Government’s consultation on Awaab’s Law. This proposes a new legal requirement for social landlords to investigate hazards within 14 calendar days. And start fixing those presenting a significant risk to the health or safety of residents within seven calendar days.

In our response we endorsed the principles of Awaab’s Law. Residents deserve a timely response when reporting repairs, especially those potentially posing a significant threat to their health and safety. However, we argued applying the law to all 29 Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) hazards was not the right approach. Government had originally proposed to apply the strict timeframes to cases involving damp and mould only. But consulted on applying the law to a much wider range of hazards.

The crux of our argument was Awaab’s Law should apply either to:

1. repair cases involving damp and mould only (as had originally been proposed)
2. a limited subset of the 29 HHSRS hazards

We made the following arguments to back this up:

1. Many of the 29 HHSRS hazards are already covered by rigorous statutory regulations. For example, Biocides (5), Uncombusted fuel gas (9) and Volatile organic compounds (10) fall under environmental health legislation. Including all 29 HHSRS hazards within Awaab’s Law would inevitably lead to overlap and confusion about which law or regulations take precedence.
2. Some of the hazards listed are best resolved through ongoing, holistic support for residents rather than solely through a repairs process. For example, issues such as crowding and space (11) and personal hygiene, sanitation, and drainage (17), are best managed with additional support.
3. Fall hazards (19 – 22), including those associated with baths (19) or falling on stairs (21) or level surfaces (20), are better classified and treated as reasonable adjustments.
4. There’s a lack of gradation according to the severity of risk to residents’ health and safety. Issues of damp and mould, which can necessitate an urgent response, are subject to the same 14-day investigation period as issues such as overcrowding. The latter are undesirable, but will rarely pose an immediate threat to health and safety. Applying a 14-day investigation period universally across all 29 HHSRS hazards could inadvertently lead to a slower response to the most serious hazards.
5. There is the fundamental issue of a lack of capacity among surveyors and contractors to cope with an increased speed of response. Complying with the timeframes may not be possible in all cases due to labour and materials shortages. And the more exacting timescales will inevitably drive up costs. Social landlords would need significant government support to increase in-house resourcing and sign what are likely to be more expensive Service Level Agreements with contractors.

Our response is in line with those submitted by the G15 and NHF.

Following a professionalisation review, the Government launched a consultation on a new Competence and Conduct Standard for social housing staff.

This will introduce qualification requirements as well as a code of conduct for those regulated by the Regulator for Social Housing. We wrote a briefing on the proposals, and Tina Edwards, Director of Learning & Culture, provided a comment on our response.

In our response, we set out our broad support for the direction itself, but set out concerns over the:

• timeframes set out for transition to new standards
• the requirements of the qualifications, especially their inclusion of soft skills that we think don't require classroom learning
• the ambiguity around who is scope.

For more information, please read our full response below.

The Shared Ownership Council is a cross-industry body and their Code of Good Practice is intended to be one of the solutions to improving consumer experience of shared ownership.

In our response to their proposals, we set out our concern that the Code was too far reaching for such an early draft, and that there were some areas where conflicting or overlapping expectations needed clarifying before the proposals go any further.

Date: November 2023

In November, the Regulator launched a consultation on the circumstances under which it’ll use the new/amended powers it’s been granted through the Social Housing (Regulation) Act.

In our response we endorsed the Regulator’s proposal, with a few small caveats. We believe the Regulator’s overall strategy – adopting a proportionate, transparent and collaborative approach prioritising self-improvement by social landlords – is the right one for all parties.

Our main observation was there’s considerable overlap between some of the circumstances triggering the different powers. For example, failure to meet a standard under section 193, 194 or 194C of the Act can trigger 11 different forms of regulatory or enforcement action.

Likewise, ‘mismanagement of affairs’ is listed as a potential trigger under nine of the powers. We said clarity over what breaches can trigger what actions is critically important, especially given the Regulator’s ability to issue unlimited fines.

Date: November 2023

The Housing Ombudsman ran a consultation on its revised complaints handling code from September to November.

It introduces some minor changes to the Ombudsman’s expectations about how housing associations and local authorities should handle complaints. Following the Social Housing (Regulation) Act it is also being placed on a statutory footing. We endorsed the revisions to the Code and referenced the fact we’re signed up to the existing version on a voluntary basis.

Some provisions in the Code gave us mild cause for concern.  The most significant of which was the requirement to issue a full, final response to Stage One complaints within 10 working days of receipt.

The current version of the code says we must respond to the complaint within 10 working days of the complaint being logged, which in turn can be up to five working days after receipt.

We argued there should be some flexibility for complex cases to allow for thorough investigations to take place. For these, we suggested 20 working days as a more appropriate threshold.

Date: October 2023

In our response, we suggest the Regulator reviews and consults on the fee regime after three years once the new costs of consumer regulation are established.

They should also establish a fee-setting mechanism that gives providers certainty and value for money.

Date: October 2023

In our response we questioned how realistic (or desirable) their proposals are for collecting more personal data on residents for the purposes of understanding their diverse needs.

We also shared our concerns on the role of RPs being made larger in relation to ‘shared spaces’, especially where these overlap in complex ways with other providers, and queried the regulator's genuine expectations around stock quality inspections of every individual dwelling, and the timeline for this in the new regulatory regime.

More broadly, we expressed our concern at the drafting of the Standards and the accompanying Code of Practice (meant to share helpful examples) being written with seemingly only a general needs tenancy, owned and managed by one RP in mind.

Date: November 2023

In late September, the Department for Levelling Up opened a consultation on its intention to direct the Regulator to set standards relating to the provision of information to tenants.

It will mean registered providers will have to supply prescribed information on making complaints, tenants’ rights and relevant regulatory requirements. We endorsed the proposals concerning complaints. These build upon expectations in the Regulator’s proposed consumer standards and the Housing Ombudsman's revised Complaints Handling Code.

However, we raised concerns about the requirement to supply information on tenant’s rights and relevant regulatory requirements. The proposal would mean we’re compelled to inform every tenant of the key regulations and legislation applicable to their own individual tenancy.

Since these vary considerably by tenancy type, this would be a vast and expensive undertaking for housing associations given the breadth and complexity of legislation and regulation to which we are subject. In our submission, we suggested the policy goal of better informing tenants of their rights would be better achieved by:

• Re-familiarising tenants with the rights and responsibilities in their tenancy agreements – since these contain personalised information on details such as who is responsible for specific repair
• Government taking a lead on summarising tenants’ rights and regulatory requirements.

Date: October 2023

In our submission we outlined several recommendations for Government to make plans simpler, faster to prepare and more accessible. We also recommended that local control is not lost and suggested that greater emphasis needs to be given to resourcing plan making.