The Chartered Institute of Housing’s submission to the Regulator of Social Housing’s call for evidence on More and Better Social Homes

We welcome the discussion and engagement with the sector to determine a sustainable future and greater partnership between registered providers and the RSH. As this is ahead of a formal consultation next year, we hope the comments will be taken into consideration so that the role of the RSH and how the sector will be regulated going forward can be better understood.

The RSH’s call for evidence raises the question of what it means to be a social landlord. There have been positive developments in the sector in recent years, with a greater emphasis on professionalism, a commitment to culture change and putting residents at the centre of all that we do. CIH’s professional standards highlight how this can be promoted for individuals and housing professionals, and we support the RSH’s focus on the core aims and mission of social housing at an organisational level and for the wider sector. 

However, social landlords are not a homogenous group, and any regulatory framework should recognise the significant diversity that exists across the sector. We encourage the RSH to engage with all types of providers when reviewing this area, recognising that a universal approach may not be appropriate in all circumstances and that effective regulation will require a degree of nuance and flexibility.

As noted throughout our response, it is critical to understand how different providers operate, in order to understand and explain how to be ‘centred on social housing’. The call for evidence rightly states that social housing comes in ‘many different forms and sizes serving many different groups of people with different needs’. While we agree with the principle behind this, we feel it is important to note that the wording of ‘being a social landlord must be central to their business’ may not accurately reflect the complexities and differences in the types of providers operating in the sector. The RSH must remain flexible and avoid being prescriptive when introducing a requirement for the central role of social housing for providers, particularly for local authorities and supported housing providers.

Local authorities play a vital role in supporting their local community, which includes, but is not limited to, social housing. Not all local authorities are stock-holding, and some manage a small number of homes following Large Scale Voluntary Transfers (LSVTs). Others provide and maintain a significant number of homes and are continuing to develop new homes to meet housing need. However, housing is only part of the wide-ranging responsibilities and duties of local authorities. Concerns have been raised that a narrow definition of being ‘centred on social housing’ may not reflect the practical governance of local authorities and could cause restrictions or limitations to how they can operate. While this can mean resources are more stretched, the breadth of operations within local authorities is also a valuable strength, with greater contact with residents and a wider understanding of what is needed to meet the area’s needs. The RSH should ensure that any definition or requirement within regulation reflects this reality and allows for local authorities to operate and meet all their duties and commitments to their local community.

Supported and specialist housing also acts differently to general needs provision as the essential support element in their operational structure often relies on cyclical, or unpredictable revenue funding. For the Regulator, this may mean that supported housing providers seeking to be registered or already registered are evaluated on a set of operating expectations in terms of financial viability and risk that are incompatible with the realities of delivering supported housing.

Supported housing plays a critical role in our society: providing support for a range of residents, including those with transitional support needs following crisis, those with long-term health needs and those needing additional support in later stages in life. In our engagement, members have raised concerns about how narrow a definition of social housing would be, and if this would include broader charitable purposes. This would also apply to multi-functional homelessness charities and community-based organisations who work within the housing sector. We would encourage the RSH to explore encompassing a mission-based aim under any new requirement, to ensure that the RSH is supporting social and supported homes, and encouraging new providers to be regulated, rather than limiting scope and excluding providers working in different ways. It is essential that any definition of social housing under the RSH reflects different operating models, as providers know best how to support their residents’ needs.

The RSH rightly wants to focus on more and better homes, to reflect the need both to invest in our existing homes and residents and build new homes to meet housing need across the country. This conversation is framed within a wider context of providers needing to invest significantly more in existing homes to meet regulatory and legislative changes, such as the new Decent Homes Standard, Awaab’s Law, and sustainability and retrofit targets, and wider changes such as the Competence and Conduct Standard and mandatory qualifications within the housing sector. This has led some providers to note that they are having to reprioritise their strategies and financial plans to move towards investing in existing homes and away from development. These pressures are outlined in the RSH’s annual Sector Risk Profile, which demonstrates the difficult trade-offs and significant economic challenges that landlords are facing. 

Recent financial issues in the for-profit registered provider (FPRP) sector resulting in some FPRPs going into administration should also be heeded.  While we fully support the government’s desire to increase social house building, this should not be at the expense of putting public money or existing social homes at risk.  We support changes to economic regulation that would put processes in place to prevent any circumnavigating of full and proper checks of financial structures and the ability of the RSH to prevent the loss of those homes to the social housing sector if the worst were to happen. It is particularly important to ensure that – if FPRPs dispose of stock, voluntarily or otherwise – that social sector stock retains its social status and tenants’ rights are fully protected. This may require intervention to ensure that any new owner has the capacity to manage social housing in the long term, and how this will be done needs careful consideration.

Despite this stretched financial environment, it is also the case that the sector is ambitious in wanting to build new homes and support the government’s 1.5 million target. The significant level of interest in the Social and Affordable Homes Programme (SAHP), and oversubscription for funding in both London and the rest of the country, demonstrates a readiness and willingness by the sector to develop, even when finances are constrained, providing that adequate grant and other investment support are available and that the wider operating environment (e.g. rent policy) remains stable.   

In order for the RSH and government to encourage both more and better homes, more certainty is needed to improve financial viability and the wider operating environment for providers. Decisions made at a government level will impact upon the business plans of providers in the long-term, with calls from CIH and the sector to increase and frontload the SAHP, provide greater certainty for revenue funding for supported housing and ensure that local authority finances are on a sustainable footing with a review of Housing Revenue Account debt and the self-financing settlement. The sector is prepared to deliver more and better homes, but it must be with an understanding that the challenging operating environment will continue to restrict innovation and growth without support.

However, we are clear that, while we need more homes, this cannot be about quantity alone. The types, tenures, quality and accessibility of the homes we build matters, as they must meet local community needs, as well as being safe, decent and affordable for existing and future residents in the long-term. This includes building schemes which are integrated with local infrastructure, align with climate targets, understand the local community and accessibility requirements, and put residents at the centre of all decision-making. They must also be affordable homes, particularly emphasising the need for social rent, and joined-up with local plans, supported housing strategies and homelessness action plans. The quality of new homes cannot be sidelined within a conversation about more homes; it must be at the heart.

Housing associations and private registered providers

Housing associations play a pivotal role in providing necessary social housing for those who need it and often work in partnership with local authorities to meet local needs. This is particularly crucial where local authorities have reduced capacity, resources and finances, due to restricted budgets and historic debt. Some housing associations were first formed through LSVTs from local authorities in the late 1980s, others as charities in the nineteenth century and the role and makeup of housing associations is diverse and ever-changing. While local authorities often work closely with housing associations and other registered providers in their areas, local authority members have raised concerns of the difficulty in understanding complex or group landlord structures operating in their area, which can cause difficulties in achieving accountability and data sharing. The RSH has a role to support local authorities in this, and we would encourage greater sharing of existing data at the local authority level to ensure alignment and joint working in understanding and navigating working with a variety of registered providers in a local area.

Some local and national politicians have also raised concerns about how accountable some housing associations are to local communities compared to local authorities with elected representatives. This issue is perceived to have worsened over time with the increase in mergers within the housing association sector.  With significant reorganisation also underway in both local and regional government we would encourage the RSH to consider how their regime can support and enhance local confidence, accountability and transparency in future through this review.     

Additionally, it would be welcome for the RSH to consider publishing more learning and analysis from both the data they collect and the interactions they have with Registered Providers. This could highlight the different environments and housing markets Registered Providers work in and the varied financial and regulatory pressures each organisation faces depending on their size, focus and whether they operate in London or rural areas for example. This could help place landlords’ performance and decision making within a useful context.  

Local authorities

Local authorities are currently not regulated in the same way as other registered providers. They operate differently and are democratically accountable with elected officials and therefore are not subject to RSH regulation for governance and viability. However, this call for evidence remains relevant to local authorities in how they work with other registered providers, as well as potential areas for future regulation going forward.

Local authorities play a vital role in meeting housing need, as well as setting local plan strategies for new homes. They have statutory homeless duties and must provide homes for those who require temporary accommodation in their area, at escalating costs. Following engagement with our local authority members, we believe there is a strong case for the RSH to have more involvement in the regulation of local authorities under the Economic Standards, particularly with the Governance and Financial Viability Standard. While not explicitly regulated under this standard currently, local authorities often engage with the RSH about issues of governance and financial viability through existing regulatory inspections related to the Consumer Standards.

We believe that greater transparency, data and interrogation of the financial viability of local authorities will be beneficial to the local authority sector, tenants and government. With greater scrutiny, the RSH can play a key role in understanding where local authorities are increasingly stretched financially, and can highlight this, in the sector risk analysis, to government and others to inform wider decision-making. Local authority finances face acute pressures, which CIH and other sector partners have raised for some time, and any additional demonstration of what this looks like in practice, and how it influences local authorities’ decision-making, will be beneficial in demonstrating the need for further support.

We understand that local authorities may hold differing views on this approach, as any new burdens can create additional strain on local authority resources and capacity. However, as noted, many local authorities already engage with the RSH on these areas through the Consumer Standards, and the evidence suggests many still need more time to improve to ensure tenants fully benefit from the regime. We believe the RSH could introduce some oversight in this area in a different way to PRPs recognising the different legal, financial and governance regimes in which local authorities operate.

We encourage the RSH to explore this approach as part of this review.

Supported housing providers

It is important to also note how supported housing acts differently to many other types of social housing, and this should be taken into consideration when the RSH is assessing how they work with, and regulate, supported housing providers going forward. One of the key themes in our member feedback has been the need for proportionality, with one member noting: “We would encourage the Regulator to ensure any future requirements remain proportionate and do not unintentionally discourage specialist supported housing providers from entering or remaining within the regulated sector.”

There have been concerns raised that the RSH does not have enough oversight of the supported housing elements of registered providers. CIH has previously given evidence to raise issues regarding exploitative actors who only have a small number of homes, so remain outside of the grading regime and manage supported housing without regulation. While new licensing rules will improve this, there remain questions for the role of the RSH in ensuring that providers outside of the regime are audited and that vulnerable residents are protected. Some of these issues are further expanded in the RSH’s 2025 report.

More broadly, consistency is essential across supported housing providers to protect residents. The process of becoming a registered provider is increasingly discussed within the context of the Supported Housing (Regulatory Oversight) Act 2023. CIH supports this move towards ensuring the supported housing providers are regulated by the RSH so they are accountable and their residents protected, but we think the RSH needs to adapt in order to be able to effectively perform that role.  

There are barriers to supported housing providers registering with the RSH, particularly for smaller organisations. Members shared difficulties in meeting the RSH’s standards, particularly around viability and risk, as funding cycles and commissioning arrangements for support revenue funding are short-term and complex. The decision to become registered or not also has additional impacts on councils claiming back Housing Benefit subsidy, which can make registered providers more attractive partners for supported housing, therefore compounding the problem for some of the smaller, more specialised and community-based providers. This is a key issue for councils, and, while it may be appropriate for many supported housing providers to become registered, for some this is not currently a financially viable route. With the acute financial strain on revenue funding in supported housing, this is a common concern, particularly for smaller providers, and we urge the RSH to discuss options with stakeholders for a different route and regime for supported housing providers which better reflects the realities on the ground.   

In order to deliver much-needed supported housing in a more viable way, we are seeing increasing collaboration between supported housing providers and registered providers, to form new partnerships. As noted below with new providers entering the social housing sector, the RSH must assess its readiness, resource and flexibility to work within this ever-evolving context in supported housing, and work with providers in a way that understands the complexities, pressures and differences compared with general needs social housing. 

Finally, it is vital that the RSH provide clarity on how their regulation will interact with the new requirements being introduced through the Supported Housing (Regulatory Oversight) Act 2023. Clear guidance must be issued for providers on any areas where the regulation and legislation overlap, or areas where providers will need to carry out tasks for both. Joint working is needed between providers, the RSH, NHS, local authorities, the Care Quality Commission and others, to better understand the pressures facing providers and align workstreams to avoid duplication or unnecessary additional burdens. Without this greater understanding and support for good providers, there may be a continued loss of supported housing homes, which is already a growing concern.

As the sector continues to evolve, we agree that regulation should adapt to meet these changes, but it is important that any new entrants to social housing meet the same regulatory governance and financial standards as existing landlords. We support the principle that the core mission of social housing must apply to all organisations, and residents must be protected no matter who provides their home.

We must also learn lessons where this has not worked well in the past, to ensure there is a balance between innovative new models and financial sustainability in the sector. The call for evidence rightly notes the need to ‘fail safely’, including for new entrants into the sector, to ensure that residents and their homes are protected in worst-case scenarios. CIH has concerns about the recent trend of mergers and more landlords becoming too big to fail. The RSH plays a crucial part in preparing and mitigating for this with fair, proportionate and equitable regulation for both new and existing providers of social housing. The RSH must assess its readiness, resources and flexibility to work with new providers and models within the sector and ensure a consistent approach for both providers and residents.

The call for evidence rightly outlines the need for independence and autonomy of landlords in decision-making. The vast majority of existing registered providers are not-for-profit and work within charity law.

There have been concerns raised in the sector that these proposals may impact the independence of decision-making for landlords and the role of the RSH within boardrooms. The RSH has been clear that the intention is for boards to articulate decisions and plans, with greater levels of accountability, not for the RSH to be prescriptive on levels of resource or decisions themselves. This is a crucial distinction; social landlords must be held accountable, by both the RSH and residents, but they must also be able to make decisions based on what is best for their residents, colleagues, community and wider organisational objectives. These priorities and objectives will vary by organisation.

Smaller and more community-based landlords have highlighted concerns on potentially subjective language in the proposals, such as using development capacity and increasing efficiency. Community-based organisations may have different priorities to those of larger landlords, as they must focus on, and act upon, the priorities of residents, which may require a greater focus on investment in existing homes and neighbourhoods rather than building new homes, for example. Flexibility and an understanding of the diversity of the sector is needed to reflect that organisations know their residents best and should make decisions to meet their needs, within the existing regulatory framework.

The call for evidence also highlights the issue of disposals of existing social homes. Decisions regarding disposals are taken seriously and often as a last resort, such as an inability to meet regulatory standards in a specific older property. These must remain independent and autonomous decisions by boards, with meaningful resident engagement. However, a lack of social housing continues to be an issue where housing demand and need is significant. CIH has made recommendations on the approach to disposals, particularly in how this impacts rural housing supply, through the Social Housing Bill. We welcome conversations about how the RSH, housing associations, local authorities and government can ensure there is a fair, proportionate and practical approach to disposals and prevent potential losses of homes from social housing where possible.

Finally, we also note points raised by members on why it matters that housing associations remain independent and autonomous. Historic lessons from the reclassification of housing associations from the private to public sector in 2015 highlight the need for providers to remain independent, particularly in relation to the impact on fiscal measures, specifically public sector net debt.

Our members have shared that the current regulatory environment for landlords has become very complex. This includes both increasing regulatory requirements and an increase in the number of regulatory bodies that they must work with for both existing and new homes. One member explained that they are working with four regulators within their field of operations, which can be confusing, costly and time-consuming. We would encourage the RSH, and government, to ensure that there is greater alignment and joined-up working between regulators and other agencies with better Memoranda of Understanding, communication of roles and responsibilities, and data sharing. This would help to ensure that approaches, expectations and requirements are aligned. 

Additionally, members and the wider sector have been clear through feedback that the current Value for Money Standard could be improved. Value for money is essential within social housing, to ensure organisations are working effectively and sustainably for their residents. We would encourage the RSH to review this standard, in discussion with the sector. This includes engagement with the supported housing sector, where value for money and viability often operate in unique and complex systems as well as thinking more broadly about how financial decisions and procurement can benefit the wider public purse in terms of including routes to apprenticeships, skills and jobs for the local economy, supporting smaller, local businesses and preventing homelessness and ill health through good quality homes.

To meet the increasing requirements of social housing within the strained operating environment, providers have developed creative and innovative ways of working, partnerships and operating models. Innovation should be encouraged and supported by the RSH, although subject to scrutiny when these are not effective or fall within existing standards.

While we agree with the need to ‘fail safely’, some in the sector are concerned that innovation and risk-taking are not encouraged or actively discouraged within the regulatory framework. This has been raised by those who receive a V2 grading, which has sometimes been seen as a ‘badge of honour’ to demonstrate an ambition of both investing in existing homes and being ambitious in development plans. It is important that the RSH’s approach to innovation is relevant to the current operating environment. This reinforces the need to review the Value for Money Standard.

Local authority members have also highlighted that effective partnership working, and collaboration should be better promoted within RSH governance. This includes greater lesson-learning opportunities and transparency in inspections and regulatory gradings for local authorities, to improve overall performance in the sector. This also relates to increasingly important partnership working between local authorities and housing associations, and the RSH should look at how it can effectively share good practice in this crucial area.