You are viewing 1 of your 1 free articles
Julian Ashby is former chair of the RSH and current chair of Paradigm Housing
The regulator’s role should be limited to dealing with systemic failures
Julian Ashby give his view on changes proposed in the Social Housing Green Paper and suggests the Housing Ombudsman Service should deal with all complaints
Restraining expectations and then pleasing people with a better outcome is not a strategy that seems to prosper in the political arena.
So it is perhaps inevitable that the green paper can’t live up to the launch hype of achieving generational change.
It may not add much to the ‘broken housing market’ issues of supply and affordability, but it makes a number of proposals that deserve attention and support.
It is clear that the consultations initiated by Alok Sharma have made a difference.
While the department can do little about the issues of welfare reform that were a primary concern of many residents, it has responded to the issues of stigmatisation, voice and redress.
Indeed, the tone and language of the green paper demonstrates a marked shift from the David Cameron/George Osborne view of social housing.
“The department has responded to the issues of stigmatisation, voice and redress.”
Few will argue against the suggestions for ensuring homes are safe and decent, or indeed for ensuring the effective resolution of complaints.
The Decent Homes Standard is not that high and the ‘democratic filter’ is a cause of unnecessary delay to dispute resolution.
The lack of choice for most social tenants makes for a very uneven power relationship with their landlords.
READ MORE
This imbalance is hard to correct so this makes the issues of redress, voice and regulation particularly important.
In this context it is not surprising that the proposals for “empowering residents and strengthening the regulator” will attract more attention.
It trails a range of options but shows a clear preference for greater transparency about landlord performance.
Regulated organisations tend to focus on what is measured so this cannot come as a surprise.
“It is bad in principle and practice to have a regulatory set up that cannot be explained in simple terms.”
It suggests that the regulator is the appropriate body to receive and publish such data and even trails the notion of a consumer rating alongside the ones for governance and viability (an issue I’ll come back to).
Inevitably I have a view on whether there should be a stronger regulator. There are several issues here that often get muddled.
The first is over the respective roles of the regulator and Housing Ombudsman.
The second is the very limited role of the regulator in relation to local authority social housing, and the third is the impact of the ‘serious detriment’ test that limits the regulator’s consumer remit.
Few tenants and even fewer members of the public can be expected to understand the peculiar regulatory arrangements set out in the Localism Act 2011.
It is bad in principle and practice to have a regulatory set up that cannot be explained in simple terms.
The green paper asks questions rather than makes proposals.
But it opens up an opportunity to put the new (and shortly to be independent) regulator on a more logical footing.
Setting standards that cannot be policed is bound to undermine consumer confidence, but few would wish for a return to Audit Commission-style scrutiny.
Greater transparency about performance on the basis of indicators developed by the sector would seem a reasonable route through.
The serious detriment test is a flawed concept – not least because of the ambiguity of its wording.
“It would make more sense for dealing with all complaints to be unequivocally the role of the ombudsman.”
It perpetuates the scope for confusion about the role of the regulator and the Housing Ombudsman – because an individual incident has the potential to trigger the threshold and then both bodies could have a legitimate role.
It would make more sense for dealing with all complaints to be unequivocally the role of the ombudsman. The regulator’s role should be limited to dealing with systemic failures in relation to the standards.
Systemic failure to achieve a standard is necessarily a failure of governance and should be dealt with as such.
That is why I would be against a separate consumer rating.
But the regulator has no current role in relation to the governance of local authorities. In theory this is because there is strong accountability through the democratic process. Grenfell shows the limitations of this assumption.
But subjecting one part of a council’s role to regulatory scrutiny about the adequacy of its governance would be difficult and probably unrewarding.
The regulator has already shown that it does not need to be ‘stronger’ in the sense of having more powers in order to be effective.
But modest adjustments to its remit would enable it to regulate the effectiveness of governance across all the standards.
Julian Ashby, former chair, Regulator of Social Housing
Social Housing Green Paper: full coverage
All our Social Housing Green Paper coverage in one place:
Green paper measures are not enough to create May’s ‘new generation’ of council homes Green paper proposals are welcome but much more is needed to support councils to build, writes John Bibby
Green paper shows ministers now see associations as trusted partners Focusing on the failure of the green paper to address supply misses the point, writes Boris Worrall
Government should focus on building on what is already strong Philippa Jones considers the Social Housing Green Paper through a slightly different lens
We need more than a week of delayed announcements bundled together Jules Birch reflects on the government’s ‘Housing Week’ announcements
The regulator should monitor how associations assist homeless people Government announcements this week are positive, but any enhanced role for the English regulator should include looking at homelessness prevention work, argues David Bogle
The regulator’s role should be limited to dealing with systemic failures Julian Ashby suggests the Housing Ombudsman Service should deal with all complaints
The green paper shows ministers are in listening mode Despite some glaring omissions, the government appears to be in listening mode and it is important the sector takes advantage, argues Emma Maier
A short history of social housing league tables Attempts to create league tables for housing associations are nothing new. Mervyn Jones looks at how they have worked in the past
League tables could prove blunt and counter-productive, sector warns Housing figures criticise government proposals to measure social landlords against performance indicators
Government ‘must decide how proactive regulator should be’ on consumer standards Ministers now face a dilemma over the regulator’s focus, sector figures say
The Green Paper: a golden opportunity missed? Melanie Rees assesses the Social Housing Green Paper against recommendations drawn up by the Chartered Institute of Housing and finds the government comes up short
Longer strategic partnerships and guranteed debt to boost social housebuilding The Social Housing Green Paper outlines key ways of boosting supply
The green paper is remarkable progress but it is still not enough The green paper suggests the government appears to be re-writing much of its policy since 2010, but more needs to be done, writes Jules Birch
Green paper marks a ‘milestone’ on resident involvement The government’s recognition residents need clear information is to be welcomed, now it up to the sector to embrace tenant involvement, writes Paul Hackett
Ministers consider stock transfer programme to community-led associations The stock transfer programme could be revived under proposals in the housing green paper
Access to housing grant could be tied to new league tables Grant could be awarded according to how well landlords meet performance indicators, the paper suggests
Ofsted-style regulation of tenant services proposed The government is considering expanding the Regulator for Social Housing’s remit to intervene over tenant services and give it a more “proactive approach to enforcement”
Government proposes dropping one-for-one Right to Buy replacement commitment A consultation paper published alongside the green paper proposes a broader measurement to replace the one-for-one pledge
A list of recent housing policy U-turns The green paper confirms yet more housing policy U-turns from the government, which has spent the past two years dropping policy ideas developed under the David Cameron government. Here is a rundown of the major changes in policy direction
Sector welcomes green paper but calls for more ‘ambitious investment’ Reaction to the proposals, from the National Housing Federation, Chartered Institute of Housing and more
Morning Briefing: reaction to green paper announcements how the media reported the proposals trailed by the government overnight
Government drops plans to force councils to sell higher-value stock The government drops plans to force councils to sell higher value homes
League tables and ‘sharper teeth’ for regulator in social housing green paper Ministers reveal some of the things in the paper ahead of its publication
Grenfell survivors: green paper does not go far enough survivors of the Grenfell Tower fire have said the measures published in the Social Housing Green Paper do not do enough to rectify issues in the social housing sector
KEY PROPOSALS IN THE SOCIAL HOUSING GREEN PAPER
- New 'league tables' of housing providers based on key performance indicators, surrounding services such as repairs and neighbourhood management. This could be linked to housing grant.
- Consideration to scrapping of the current 'serious detriment' test, to allow 'Ofsted-style' tougher consumer regulation
- New home ownership options such as allowing tenants to buy as little as 1% of their property each year through shared ownership. This would only apply to new shared ownership purchases.
- Ditching of plans to force social landlords to offer fixed term tenancies rather than lifetime tenancies in social housing
- Ditching of plans to force councils to sell off their most valuable social housing when it becomes vacant
- The potential introduction a new stock transfer programme from councils to 'community-led' housing associations
- The return of guaranteed debt funding to help the development of affordable homes, and longer term 'strategic partnerships' for developing housing associations
