Statutory Consultation - A revised regulatory framework for social housing in England from 2012
Joint Response from Your Homes Newcastle and Newcastle City Council
Introduction
The following is a response to the CLG consultation by Newcastle City Council. This response aligns with the submission provided by our arms length management organisation Your Homes Newcastle (YHN)
Newcastle City Council currently own over 30,000 homes which in addition to general needs and leasehold properties also includes sheltered, supported and shared ownership properties. The Properties are managed by Your Homes Newcastle, an Arms Length Mnagement Organisation set up jn 2004 to manage council propertiesand to provide various other services for our residents.
We welcome this opportunity to comment on the Department’s revisedregulatory framework for social housing in England from April 2012.
Q1: Principles of co-regulation
Are these the right principles in the context of changes brought about by the Localism Act?
We agree with the key principles of co-regulation as set out in the consultation document. We welcome the recognition in the revised standards that boards include customers and councillors and that tenant involvement should be at the forefront of co-regulation, with tenants very much shaping how services are delivered and monitored.
We are pleased to see that the principle of outcome based standards has been retained this allows local freedom and flexibility in line with the Localism Act.
Q2-4/Q9: Regulation of Economic Standards:
As a Local Authority the Economic Standards do not apply to us.. We do agree with the principle that the regulator intends to concentrate on the regulation of economic standards in order to provide adequate protection to taxpayer’s interest. In this context the proportionate approach as set out in the consultation document will enable the regulator to rightly focus on organisations that pose the highest level of risk.
Q5-8/Q10: Regulation of Consumer Standards
In relation to all of the Consumer standards we are satisfied that they effectively take into account the Government’s direction to the regulator and amendments required by the Localism Act. As asocial housing provider we are satisfied that the revised standards clearly set out what is expected in relation to the service standards to be provided to tenants. In particular we welcome the amendment to the tenant involvement and empowerment standard in relation to the commissioning and undertaking of repairs. Feedback from tenants indicates that many do not wish to undertake their own repairs; therefore the amendment to this standard enables us as a provider to develop an appropriate local solution that enables meaningful tenant involvement whilst still ensuring a high quality repairs and maintenance service.
We also feel that maintaining a comprehensive repairsservice offers the best value for money via economies of scale and will not require a system of employing a range of officers to check the quality of repairs, and in some cases rectifying sub-standard repairs. We also feel that by maintaining this in-house service will maintain the health and safety of tenants.
Like many other housing organisations we are still keenly awaiting the outcomes from the ongoing tenant cashback pilots.
Use of intervention and enforcement powers
Q11: Do the proposed principles underpinning the use of the regulator’s intervention and enforcement powers, and the associated guidance notes for each power seem reasonable?
We are aligned with the principle that the regulator will minimise interference and that the main focus of the regulators role will be ensuring compliance of the economic standards to safeguard tax-payers interests. The proposed use of intervention and enforcement powers seems reasonable; we welcome the staged approach and opportunities for housing providers to work with the regulator to identify solutions in order to address any failures which may arise.
In terms of the Consumer Standards any regulatory intervention will be dependent on a provider failing the “serious detriment” test. However, clarity is required between the wording in the main document and Appendix F of the consultation on what will trigger a serious detriment test. The main document indicates at paragraph 6.6 that
…"failure to meet one or more of the consumer standards will not in itself lead directly to a judgment of serious detriment by the regulator. This however appears to be inconsistent with the Guidance which indicates that… “breach of one or more consumer standards where there are reasonable grounds to suspect there has been or there is risk of serious detriment to tenants.”.
Q12: Does the proposed approach to registration and deregistration seem reasonable?
Yes, the approach to registration and deregistration seems reasonable.