CIH response to the consultation on Secretary of State’s Direction on the Social Housing Tenure Standard

• Do you agree that the citation, commencement, application and interpretation section of the proposed Direction at Annex B is clear, aligns with the wider legislative and regulatory framework, and supports consistent application of the Direction?

CIH response

Yes. We strongly support this it is important that there is no ambiguity for those being regulated as to the extent and scope of regulatory requirements. We welcome the fact that there will be a single definition of what constitutes intermediate rent accommodation. 

Inclusion of local authority non-HRA social housing stock

The 2012 Direction on tenure does not apply to local authority housing stock if it is not held in a Housing Revenue Account (HRA). Current policy (in line with the January 2026 rent policy statement) allows councils with under 1,000 social homes to obtain consent to account for these in their general fund. But the rights of council housing tenants are the same regardless of whether their home is accounted for in an HRA or a general fund (Housing Act 1985, Housing and Regeneration Act 2008).

The proposed Direction does not maintain the current exclusion of local authority non-HRA accommodation, so this accommodation would now fall within its scope.

• Do you agree that social housing stock owned by local authorities should be in scope of the Direction on tenure, irrespective of whether it is held in a Housing Revenue Account?

CIH response

Yes, we strongly support this proposal. Council tenants should not be put at a disadvantage as to their rights simply because the way their accounts are drawn up differs. We agree that the Direction should make this clear to avoid confusion around what might otherwise be perceived to be differences between the primary legislation (Housing Act 1985) and the rest of the regulatory framework.

Granting tenancies

The proposed Direction removes references to assured shorthold tenancies and other specific tenancies mentioned in the previous Direction. Local authorities retain the right to grant introductory and fixed-term tenancies (often referred to as flexible tenancies) so the proposed Direction takes account of these. The proposed Direction requires the Regulator to set a standard with a view to achieving, as far as possible, that Registered Providers grant tenancies which are compatible with the purpose of the accommodation and certain other matters including granting the most secure tenancies suitable (see 3(2) of the proposed Direction).

• Do you agree the requirements in the proposed Direction (Annex B) which set out matters that Registered Providers should consider (among other factors) when granting tenancies are clear and appropriate?

CIH response

We agree that objectives and outcomes as set out in article 3(2) of the proposed Directive are the right ones and that the approach to granting tenancies should be the most secure tenancy that meets the objectives as set out in 3(2)(a) (the individual needs of household, community sustainability and efficient use of stock).

However, since fixed term tenancies and starter tenancies will no longer be available for private registered providers by the time the Regulator issues the new standards – but will continue to be available for local authority providers (as flexible and introductory tenancies) – it might have been better to have made this clearer in the way the proposed Direction is structured. For example, by separating out the parts of the Direction that exclusively apply to local authority providers from those that are common to both types of landlords (i.e. ordinary secure and assured tenancies). While the proposed Direction is unlikely to cause any difficulty for the Regulator, it would provide greater clarity for landlords should they need to refer to the standards and the Direction at any time.

Alternative accommodation

The proposed Direction requires the Regulator to set a standard with a view to achieving, so far as possible, that Registered Providers must be clear and transparent with tenants about their approach to providing advice and assistance to tenants on finding alternative accommodation before a tenancy ends.

The proposed Direction also requires the Regulator to set a standard with a view to achieving, so far as possible, that Registered Providers take all reasonable steps to engage with tenants in finding alternative accommodation to agree to move to, where moving is necessary because of redevelopment or other works.

• Do you agree with the proposed requirements for Registered Providers in relation to tenants finding alternative accommodation before a tenancy ends or where it is necessary for a tenant to move due to redevelopment or other works?

CIH response

Yes, we broadly agree with the proposed Direction – that the approach to giving advice should be clear and transparent and that Registered Providers should take all reasonable steps to engage tenants where a move is necessary due to redevelopment.

The proposed Direction refers to the length of tenancy offered. By the time the new standards are in place this will only apply to local authority providers. As with our answer to question 8, we feel it would be better if this was made clearer from the parts that are common to both types of provider.

Outcome focus

The draft Direction takes an outcome-focussed rather than a prescriptive approach, except for areas where we believe government policy can only be achieved in a prescriptive way. 

The outcome-based approach allows Registered Providers to deliver the outcomes in the most appropriate way for their tenants and organisation whilst ensuring they also meet the requirements of legislation and expectations of government.

• Do you agree that the proposals support an outcome-based approach?

CIH response

Yes, we strongly support this objective – there is always a danger that prescription might result in a ‘tick box’ approach to compliance with the standards. We think the proposed Direction avoids giving the impression that the standards could only be met by meeting rigid criteria. By using language such as ‘approach to’ and setting outcomes according to broad concepts such the ‘sustainability of the community’ and ‘efficient use of stock’, the likelihood that the emerging standards are overly prescriptive is substantially reduced.

For more information about CIH's response, please contact Sam Lister, policy lead, tenant’s rights and legal affairs at sam.lister@cih.org