Local government leaders express "substantial concerns" over TSA framework for social housing

The Local Government Association has “substantial and significant concerns” about the new regulatory framework for social housing being introduced by the Tenants Services Authority, it emerged this week.

In its submission to the statutory consultation on the new framework, the LGA said it was a strong supporter of “effective domain-wide regulation which drives providers of all types to respond effectively to their tenants”.

The association also said it was pleased that the new framework reflects, “in many respects”, the key principles the LGA has advocated since Professor Martin Cave’s review of social housing in 2007.

These principles include: consistency of outcomes and tenant experiences across the board through a common regulatory regime for all types of social landlords; a set of common standards of service that all providers strive to meet; and regulation that recognises the different institutional and business models and contexts in which different organisations operate.

The LGA said it was encouraged that the TSA’s proposed framework and standards have addressed some of its key concerns. In particular, it welcomed the fact that Codes of Practice will not be issued at the outset, minimum thresholds for the standards have not been set, and self-improvement will generally be supported prior to inspection and intervention.

However, the LGA identified four “substantial and significant concerns” about the framework:

• The length and complexity of the standards cast doubt on whether they focus on meaningful outcomes and would be comprehensible to tenants
• There are risks that elements of the standards would not be compliant with the Local Government Performance Framework by placing new information burdens on local authorities
• The Value for Money standard appears to duplicate, or at least significantly overlap with, the Use of Resources judgement of the Audit Commission, and
• There is a continued lack of clarity about how the TSA will feed into Comprehensive Area Assessments.

The LGAL also criticised the TSA’s proposed approach to dealing with complaints, arguing that the relationship between the Housing Ombudsman and the TSA “is not clear”. There was a risk of forum-shopping and undermining confidence in the Ombudsman, it added.

Aside from addressing these concerns, the LGA called on the TSA to set out a timetable indicating the major milestones in the first year of regulation.

It concluded: “While the establishment of the new co-regulatory approach has the potential to be a step change from the old system of social housing regulation, we believe that a fundamental overhaul of the broader accountability framework is needed to ensure that public services are designed and shaped around citizens and consumers.”

The LGA pointed to the proposals in its Freedom to Lead paper as the way forward for such a new accountability framework.