Research and analysis

Consumer regulation review 2022-2023 (accessible version)

Published 6 July 2023

Applies to England

1. Foreword by Fiona MacGregor, RSH Chief Executive

1.1. This report sets out the key learning points from our consumer regulation casework over the last year. It is intended to help stakeholders generally and, in particular, Councillors and housing association board members, to learn from the experience of others so that they can strengthen their organisations’ approaches to meeting the requirements of the consumer standards. Given the changes to consumer regulation that will be implemented from April 2024, including the proactive consumer assessments of large landlords (over 1,000 homes), and that all providers will have to collect Tenant Satisfaction Measures, it is vital that social housing providers act now to ensure compliance.

1.2. At the heart of our review is the need to treat social housing tenants with fairness and respect. We know that for too long, some tenants have not received the level of service that they deserve. This must change. We expect all social housing providers to be respectful, transparent and responsive to their tenants’ needs and we will hold them to account where we find that this is not the case.

1.3. This review includes our findings in the tragic case of Awaab Ishak, a two-year-old boy who died due to exposure to environmental mould in his home. The sector must learn from this tragedy. Providers must be receptive to concerns raised by tenants and they must ensure that they hear their tenants’ voices, including from the most vulnerable. Thorough and timely investigations into the causes of problems in tenants’ homes, including damp and mould, must be carried out to ensure that underlying and more widespread issues are identified and quickly remedied.

1.4. Following our request to all large social housing providers to submit evidence to us about the extent of damp and mould in tenants’ homes, we reported our initial findings in February 2023 and published a further report in June 2023. We found that most providers demonstrated that they:

• are taking damp and mould seriously
• identify and address cases of damp and mould in tenants’ homes
• have made improvements in how they handle damp and mould cases over the last year.

1.5. Nevertheless, a minority of registered providers’ responses lacked the detail we needed and so we have investigated further to understand what they are doing to tackle damp and mould in their homes.

1.6. Ensuring that effective processes are in place to quickly identify and deal with damp and mould is one element of the broader requirement that Boards and Councillors have an up to date and accurate understanding of the quality of the homes for which they are responsible. It is important that registered providers’ systems are comprehensive and encompass all of the aspects that contribute to maintaining homes in a safe condition.

1.7. We welcome the important changes that the Social Housing (Regulation) Bill, when enacted, will make to our remit. From April 2024, the existing serious detriment test will be removed and there will be a new focus on proactive consumer regulation. As part of this, we will be carrying out regulatory inspections of housing associations and local authorities with more than 1,000 homes. The inspections, together with other changes, such as the introduction of the Tenant Satisfaction Measures, will help us to proactively monitor registered providers to ensure they are meeting the consumer standards.

1.8. In advance of the changes to our remit, we began to pilot our new consumer regulation inspections during the latter half of 2022/23. We would like to thank all the registered providers and tenants that have taken part in these pilots. The testing has provided invaluable information to help us design and implement the new inspection programme from April 2024.

1.9. We continue to receive increasing numbers of reactive referrals. During 2022-23 we received 940 referrals from tenants, registered providers and other sources; an increase of 44% from the previous year. We investigated 438 referrals and found a breach of the consumer standards in 13 cases (further details are set out in Annex B).

1.10. The report underlines the importance of working effectively with the regulator to resolve non‑compliance and for the first time we outline some of the features that characterise those providers that respond successfully to breaches. The case summaries illustrate the four key lessons that emerged from our casework last year:

• Landlords must maintain a tight grip on the quality of the homes they manage
• Local authorities must act now to ensure compliance with the consumer standards
• Effective tenant engagement is fundamental to meeting the requirements of the consumer standards
• Meeting statutory health and safety requirements, including landlord gas safety requirements, remains an area of regulatory concern

1.11. The report highlights that some registered providers are not getting the basics right and failing to ensure that tenants are safe within their homes; where that is the case, this must change.

Fiona MacGregor
Chief Executive

2. Key lessons for providers

Through our consumer regulation work, we continue to identify lessons and learning which we consider to be useful to all providers. Social housing providers should take account of these lessons and act in advance of the changes to consumer regulation to ensure that they are compliant with the requirements.

Landlords must maintain a tight grip on the quality of the homes they manage

Too many breaches were the result of an incomplete understanding of the condition of housing stock.

Landlords must:

• ensure tenants’ homes meet the criteria set out in the government’s Decent Homes Standard. This includes assessing Category 1 hazards, i.e. those that present a serious and immediate risk to a person’s health and safety under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System.
• have an accurate and up to date understanding of the quality of the homes that they manage, underpinned by reliable stock condition survey data.
• take appropriate action when they are alerted, for instance through tenant referrals, of new issues.

Local authorities must act now to ensure compliance with the consumer standards

In 2022/23, 10 of 13 registered providers who had breached the consumer standards were local authorities. In each case, the Councils self-referred, having assessed themselves against regulatory requirements.

It is vital that Councillors and other senior leaders within local authorities understand their core landlord responsibilities as accountability sits with them. Regardless of management arrangements they must have a clear line of sight and ensure effective mechanisms are in place to quickly identify and tackle under-performance.

We received 33 self-referrals from local authorities during 2022-23 and concluded that our standards had been breached in ten cases. This transparency and willingness to self-refer is a cornerstone of effective regulation and is welcomed. We found that in all instances, local authorities worked effectively with us following a breach.

Effective tenant engagement is fundamental to meeting the requirements of the consumer standards

Landlords must treat tenants with fairness and respect and communicate with them in a way that takes account of diverse needs.

We expect landlords to be receptive to the issues that tenants raise. This year we found that:

• a landlord had failed to respond appropriately to concerns raised by tenants about the quality of the repairs service that they were receiving.
• in the case of Rochdale Boroughwide Housing, the landlord failed to hear from tenants when they were telling their landlord about the condition of their homes.

Meeting statutory health and safety requirements, including landlord gas safety requirements, is non-negotiable

Complying with statutory health and safety requirements is a fundamental responsibility for all registered providers.

For the first time in a number of years, we have found landlords who have not met gas safety requirements. This is disappointing as the regulations have been in place for over 20 years. Causes for the failures included:

• failing to schedule the checks; and
• failing to have a robust ‘no access’ policy in place.

Given the inherent risk in this area, landlords must ensure that they take all reasonable steps to complete gas safety checks on time.

3. Working effectively with the regulator to resolve non-compliance

3.1. Returning to compliance with the consumer standards is not simply about completing, for example, overdue statutory health and safety checks. Whilst this should clearly be a focus for providers to ensure the immediate safety of their tenants, we often find that there are underlying issues that have led to regulatory breaches which also need to be resolved.

3.2. We find that those providers which have successfully returned to compliance have swiftly taken steps to understand the root causes of the problems they are trying to fix. Having a full understanding of the issues that led to the breach allows for the development of a coherent and robust action plan that addresses these causes.

3.3. We also see that the most effective responses show good levels of engagement from senior leadership during our non-compliant engagement work, typically at chief executive level. This provides us with assurance that there is a recognition at a senior level of the seriousness of the regulatory breach, and provides direct and visible support to those delivering the required strategic and operational changes.

3.4. In the last year, three registered providers successfully delivered improvements and we withdrew their Regulatory Notices. Each provider engaged constructively with us and put effective arrangements in place to understand why the non-compliance had arisen and to put in place robust processes that help to ensure better outcomes for tenants. The example below sets out how one of those providers resolved the issues and returned to compliance, but it is illustrative of the way that each of these providers worked in tandem with the regulator to resolve their non-compliance.

Welwyn Hatfield Borough Council

In 2021, Welwyn Hatfield Borough Council (the Council) notified us of issues it had identified in meeting its legal health and safety responsibilities. We found a breach of the Home Standard as the Council had failed to meet legal requirements for fire, electrical, asbestos and water safety. Over the course of the next 12 months, we engaged intensively with the Council as it completed the necessary works, appropriately managed and mitigated risks to tenants, and embedded improvements to strengthen its housing delivery service. The Council engaged positively and constructively with us, and its team, led by the Chief Executive, moved quickly to understand why the problems had arisen and to address the presenting issues. The Council was transparent with us around the challenges it faced within its housing service. It ensured that the necessary support and resources were available to the housing department to aid its return to compliance and, importantly, to quickly mitigate risks to tenants. Central to the Council’s return to compliance was its identification of the root causes of what went wrong. The Council obtained external expertise to support this work which was completed early in the process and allowed it to put in place a robust plan, linked to the root causes, which had clearly defined actions and timescales. This plan provided a coherent framework for the Council, and the regulator, to effectively monitor progress. At the end of the process, the Council sought external assurance regarding its compliance. As a result of the clear plans the Council had put in place to address the root causes, the senior level support provided to the team, and the Council’s effective use of the external expertise it had obtained, the Council was quickly able to demonstrate its return to compliance. Just over 12 months after the initial publication, we removed the Regulatory Notice.

4. The Home Standard

4.1. The Home Standard requires registered providers to provide homes of a decent quality, and to have an effective repairs and maintenance service which responds to the needs of tenants. It also requires registered providers to meet statutory requirements to provide for the health and safety of tenants within their homes.

4.2. In all the cases summarised below, we found breaches of the Home Standard that had risked serious harm to tenants.

Decent Homes Standard, repairs and stock condition

4.3. There have been several examples this year of registered providers failing to meet the requirements set out in the Home Standard. The case summaries below set out the details of two cases where a local authority and a private registered provider failed to provide decent quality homes for their tenants and to ensure that they had access to effective and efficient repairs services. In both cases, we concluded that the providers had breached the Home Standard and risked serious harm to tenants.

Case summary 1 Compliance with the stock condition and repairs requirements

We received referrals from the London Borough of Haringey and the Industrial Dwellings Society regarding concerns about their stock. We found that LBH had failed to maintain its homes to the minimum standards required, and that IDS had failed to provide an effective repairs service. IDS manages about 1,200 social housing units. Following concerns raised by residents living on the Evelyn Court estate, IDS carried out an investigation and identified issues relating to damp, mould, condensation and flooding. A root cause analysis identified failures both at the estate and across the organisation, including difficulty in tenants being able to report repairs and a lack of planned maintenance. IDS could not provide us with assurance that it understood the full condition of its homes or the extent of the works required to address the issues. We found a breach of the Home Standard and concluded that, as a consequence, there was potential for serious detriment to tenants. We published a Regulatory Notice in relation to IDS’s management of its planned repairs and maintenance programme. LBH told us about issues in relation to both landlord health and safety and compliance with the DHS. It was reporting that 30% of its 15,000 homes did not meet the standard and had identified, as part of recent stock condition survey work, more than 100 Category 1 Housing Health and Safety Rating System failings. (Category 1 failings are serious hazards that pose an immediate risk to a person’s health and safety). Providing good quality homes is a fundamental responsibility of housing providers due to the potential for serious harm to residents. We found that the council’s stock did not meet the minimum quality standards required. We published a Regulatory Notice in relation to compliance with the DHS, along with identified health and safety failings, including fire safety, and concluded that there was a risk of serious detriment to tenants. Both LBH and IDS have demonstrated that they understand the work needed to resolve the failings and have put plans in place to address the immediate issues and underlying causes. We are continuing to engage intensively with both providers as they implement their plans.

Gas safety

4.4. The risk of not completing regular gas safety checks on tenants’ homes is considerable. The underpinning regulations in this area (The Gas Safety (Installation and Use) Regulations 1998) have been in place for over 20 years and so are well known across the sector. However, this year we have found that two local authorities had breached the Home Standard for failing to ensure the safety of residents in relation to gas safety. In total, this related to almost 2,000 homes where tenants were exposed to potential harm. Some of the gas safety checks had not been completed for over five years.

4.5. The case summary below highlights the importance of ensuring access is obtained to tenants’ properties to complete vital health and safety checks, as well as the need to ensure robust scheduling of the required inspections.

Case summary 2 Gas safety

Newark and Sherwood District Council and Sheffield City Council both made self-referrals to us after they had identified issues with their gas safety compliance. Both organisations had large volumes of properties where there had been a failure to complete an annual gas safety inspection within the last 12 months, as required by law. NSDC told us that over 1,000 of its properties had not received a gas safety inspection within the statutory timeframe. Although most of the inspections were typically overdue for only a relatively short period of time, almost 20% of the council’s homes were affected. In the case of SCC, it told us that more than 800 properties had not received a gas safety inspection within the statutory timeframe. In this case, a significant number of the properties were overdue inspections by more than 12 months and some had not been carried out for almost five years. We found a breach of the Home Standard in both cases and published Regulatory Notices for both providers. Both NSDC and SCC have demonstrated that they understand the work needed to rectify the failures, including to complete the checks as a priority to mitigate any risk to tenants. They are also working with us as they make improvements to address the underlying causes.

Maintaining clear and accurate records of health and safety testing

4.6. It is essential that landlords have good quality data in order to manage and monitor compliance with statutory health and safety requirements, and where necessary, put in place steps to mitigate risks to their tenants.

4.7. The case summary below highlights three local authorities which did not have clear and reliable data that could provide them with assurance that they were keeping tenants safe. We concluded that all three providers had breached the Home Standard and risked serious harm to their tenants.

Case summary 3 Maintaining accurate and clear records of health and safety testing

London Borough of Ealing, London Borough of Redbridge and Great Yarmouth Borough Council self-referred to us after identifying issues with the accuracy of their records. None of the Councils could determine whether all necessary health and safety compliance checks or remedial works had been carried out. LB Ealing explained that a significant number of its properties lacked recorded in-date Fire Risk Assessments, and that data validation was required to provide assurance that its properties had undergone the relevant fire safety inspections. An internal audit also found no evidence of monitoring of remedial works in relation to fire, electrical, asbestos and water safety actions. GYBC referred to us after an internal audit found it did not have up to date records of health and safety compliance and that it lacked assurance that all required checks and remedial actions had been undertaken. A review had also found that FRAs carried out were neither suitable nor sufficient and reliance could not be placed upon them. The Council informed us that there were problems with the integrity of its property and compliance data, which was stored across a number of different systems and organisations. Similarly, LB Redbridge told us it lacked complete records of whether health and safety compliance checks had been carried out in relation to electric, fire and water safety, including whether over 450 of its communal areas required asbestos surveys. We also identified that LB Redbridge lacked clear records on remedial actions in relation to fire door replacements and that it could not report on how long the actions had been overdue. When taking into account the seriousness of the issues and the number of tenants potentially affected, we concluded that there had been a breach of the Home Standard in all three cases and that there was a risk of serious detriment. We published Regulatory Notices for these three Councils in 2022. They have all since put in place action plans to address the accuracy of their health and safety compliance records. These plans include moving away from manual spreadsheets, implementing clear data validation processes, and the introduction of new compliance software systems. We will continue to work with each of these Councils as they resolve the issues which led to the breach of the standard.

Failure to meet legal health and safety requirements

4.8. Complying with statutory health and safety requirements is a fundamental responsibility of all registered providers because of the potential for serious harm to tenants. However, the majority of the breaches we found this year included elements of failing to meet legal health and safety requirements. The case summary below highlights five registered providers (four of which were local authorities) that had failed to ensure that they complied with their legal requirements, either by failing to complete the relevant inspections and assessments, or failing to complete follow-on remedial works. This left thousands of tenants at risk of serious harm.

Case summary 4 Failure to meet legal health and safety requirements

We received referrals from five housing providers regarding issues they had identified in meeting their legal health and safety responsibilities for various compliance matters including fire, gas, electrical, asbestos, and water safety, and issues with data quality. East Suffolk Council had almost 100 overdue Fire Risk assessments and did not have evidence that remedial actions had been completed, following previous assessments. The Council did not have data to provide assurance that it had completed tests and inspections within the relevant timescales in relation to electrical safety, water safety, asbestos safety, and lift safety. We found that the London Borough of Greenwich had more than 400 outstanding Fire Risk Assessments along with hundreds of high-risk remedial fire actions that had not been completed. It had more than 1,000 communal areas and over 10,000 domestic properties that did not have a current electrical condition report. It also failed to ensure that hundreds of blocks had valid asbestos surveys. 80 residential blocks did not have a current water risk assessment. Swan Housing Association had initially identified over 200 overdue Fire Risk Assessments in October 2020 but did not inform us about this at that time. Whilst it completed the overdue risk assessments, almost 1,500 remedial actions arising from them (which included a significant number of high and medium risk actions) became overdue at which point it referred the matter to us. Additionally, more than half of Swan’s communal areas did not have an asbestos management survey, and the association was not following guidance for an annual review of areas where asbestos was present. Swan also failed to record that the recommendations of water safety risk assessments had been completed. Swan’s breach of the Home Standard and the lack of appropriate oversight of compliance risks was further evidence of the governance failings which we had set out in a non-compliant G3 judgement for the provider, published in December 2021. We received a self-referral from Babergh District Council and Mid Suffolk District Council notifying us of issues they had identified in meeting their health and safety compliance responsibilities for gas, electrical and asbestos safety. Babergh District Council did not have valid communal asbestos surveys for all its communal blocks, with over 70% of re-inspection asbestos surveys overdue. There were also a number of overdue electrical and gas safety inspections. Mid Suffolk District Council similarly did not have communal asbestos surveys for all its communal blocks, and re-inspections were overdue for over half the total number required. There were also overdue electrical and gas safety inspections. In both cases we found a breach of the Home Standard as the Councils were failing to meet legal health and safety requirements and had put their tenants at risk of serious harm. Since publishing Regulatory Notices for all 5 providers, we have seen evidence that they understand the work required to put things right and have plans in place to achieve compliance with their legal health and safety responsibilities. These plans include prioritising work according to risk and the vulnerabilities of tenants, reconciling data, and reviewing and strengthening their health and safety monitoring systems and processes. We will continue to engage intensively with the providers as they address these issues until they can provide assurance that they now meet the consumer standards.

5. The Tenant Involvement and Empowerment Standard

5.1. Providers must be receptive to concerns raised by tenants and they must ensure that all tenants’ voices are heard, including from the most vulnerable. The Tenant Involvement and Empowerment Standard requires registered providers to take account of the diverse needs of tenants, treat all tenants with fairness and respect, and to demonstrate they understand the different needs of their tenants.

5.2. This year we have introduced the Tenant Satisfaction Measures, which include measures relating to whether tenants consider their landlords listen to them and treat them with respect. Whilst this data will not be available until 2024, the example below highlights the importance that providers should place on listening to tenants and understanding their needs to ensure that they are treated fairly and equitably.

Case summary 5 Failing to treat tenants with fairness and respect or to demonstrate understanding of their diverse needs

We received information from Rochdale Boroughwide Housing following the death of Awaab Ishak, which included information relating to the presence of damp and mould at the family’s home. The link between the mould and Awaab’s death had not been made at that stage and this was to be considered further as part of a coroner’s inquest. In November 2022, the coroner concluded that Awaab’s death was attributable to the conditions in his home and that there was a lack of effective ventilation at the property. Despite the family having previously reported issues with damp and mould in their home, and informing RBH about Awaab’s health condition, RBH did not take sufficient steps to address the problem. At the time of the inquest, RBH acknowledged that almost 80% of tenants on the estate where Awaab lived had some signs of mould that it had not previously been aware of. We considered that this was indicative of tenants not being aware of how to report issues, or not considering that the issues would be resolved if they did report them. RBH also accepted that it made assumptions about the lifestyle of Awaab’s parents and this affected how it responded to their reports of damp and mould. RBH did not speak to the family about the assumptions it had made, and as a consequence, it did not treat them with fairness and respect when making decisions about how to resolve the conditions in their home. The fact that similar conditions were faced by so many other families on the estate indicated that this was a more widespread failure. In December 2022, we published a Regulatory Notice setting out the breach of the consumer standards. We concluded that Awaab and his family had suffered the most serious harm as a result of RBH’s failings. Furthermore, other families had also experienced harm as a result of the quality of the accommodation provided by RBH, and we did not have assurance that other tenants had not been similarly put at risk as a result of the failings. We also found failings in RBH’s governance arrangements and published a non-compliant, G3 regulatory judgement. Since then, we have engaged intensively with RBH as it works to understand the root causes of the issues and deliver its recovery plan; this includes short term and longer-term changes to its processes, systems and organisational culture. Significant changes have already been made, including, but not limited to, new appointments to the board and senior executive team. We will continue our intensive engagement with RBH until it has demonstrated that the issues leading to the tragic death of Awaab Ishak have been addressed and improvements embedded across the organisation.

6. The Neighbourhood and Community Standard

6.1. The Neighbourhood and Community Standard includes three specific expectations in relation to neighbourhood management, local area co-operation and anti-social behaviour. In relation to this standard, most commonly this year, we received several referrals from tenants reporting that they had been affected by anti‑social behaviour.

6.2. Given the impact anti-social behaviour can have on peoples’ lives, and the neighbourhoods where they live, it is vitally important that registered providers have effective policies and processes in place to work with others and seek to address these issues. Part of the specific expectations within this standard require registered providers to work in partnership with other agencies to prevent and tackle anti-social behaviour, and to provide support for victims and witnesses.

6.3. The case summary below is an example of how a registered provider worked effectively with other agencies to seek to resolve anti-social behaviour concerns and supported affected tenants during this process.

Case summary 6 Working with partner agencies to manage anti-social behaviour

A resident told us about safeguarding concerns and anti-social behaviour they were experiencing. In response to our enquiries, the provider sent us details of its partnership working and details of the support it was offering to the complainants and the alleged perpetrators. The provider explained its arrangements for reporting anti‑social behaviour and safeguarding concerns. It also set out how it was taking account of the additional support needs and vulnerabilities of the tenants to enable them to report anti-social behaviour. The provider highlighted how it had worked collaboratively with other agencies including the police, social services, environmental health, education and with its local operational strategic partnership, in resolving the case. The provider’s response gave us assurance that it had the relevant systems, processes, and procedures in place to manage reports of anti-social behaviour and safeguarding. In this instance, the provider took reasonable steps to work with the tenant, including taking account of their additional support needs, and worked collaboratively with others to try and resolve the issues. Therefore, we did not find a breach of the Neighbourhood and Community Standard.

7. The Tenancy Standard

7.1. The Tenancy Standard requires providers to ensure that their homes are let in a fair, transparent and efficient way. They must demonstrate they offer tenancies or terms of occupation which are compatible with the purpose of the accommodation, the needs of individual households, the sustainability of the community, and the efficient use of their housing stock. Providers should also co-operate with local authorities to help them meet their strategic housing function. The Tenancy Standard also requires providers to enable their tenants to access opportunities to exchange their tenancy with that of another tenant.

7.2. We receive relatively few referrals about the Tenancy Standard, and we did not find any breaches of the standard in 2022-23. However, the case summary below demonstrates the importance of providers having robust processes in place to ensure that the tenancies they offer meet the needs of their tenants, and that they have effective systems to identify when things go wrong.

Case summary 7 Incorrect tenancies

We received a self-referral from a provider which identified that a number of its homes had been misclassified as intermediate rent rather than affordable rent. As a result, the affected tenants had been overcharged. The issue occurred in a legacy organisation which merged to become part of the referring provider. The provider told us a small number of tenants impacted by the mistake were evicted due to rent arrears, and that some had been wrongly placed on incorrect tenancies and served Section 21 Notices [footnote 1]. As a result of the referral, we engaged with the provider which shared a summary of the cases. The provider sought legal advice and each case was assessed individually by the provider to determine the impact on the tenant and whether a refund or compensation was due. Based on the circumstances of the cases, the provider told us it was likely the tenants would have been evicted due to the level of rent arrears and other tenancy breaches, even if the rent had been set correctly. However, the provider recognised that it had made mistakes in this case. As part of its investigation, it appointed external consultants to review all tenancies, in addition to a planned sampling of historical tenancy agreements. Given the assurances we received from the provider and this third-party review, we concluded that there had not been a breach of the Tenancy Standard.

Annex A – Summary of our role and how we regulate

Our aim is to promote a well-governed, viable and efficient social housing sector that is able to deliver homes meeting a range of needs. As the regulator of social housing, Parliament has given us both an economic and a consumer regulation objective. The consumer regulation objective is to:

• support the provision of well-managed and appropriate quality housing
• ensure tenants are given an appropriate degree of choice and protection
• ensure tenants have the opportunity to be involved in the management of their homes and to hold their landlords to account
• encourage registered providers to contribute to the well-being of the areas in which their homes are situated.

To achieve this objective, we have set four consumer standards which each have required outcomes and expectations:

• Home
• Neighbourhood and Community
• Tenancy
• Tenant Involvement and Empowerment

We currently only have a mandate to regulate the four consumer standards reactively, and therefore do not proactively monitor the performance of providers or their compliance with the consumer standards. We consider information we receive from a range of sources, such as from tenants and self-referrals from providers, to determine whether there has been a breach of the consumer standards. In every case we consider if there are any equality and diversity issues. Further details on our regulatory approach are set out in ‘Regulating the Standards’.

From April 2024, our mandate will change and we will begin our proactive consumer inspection programme, focusing on large landlords (i.e. those with 1,000 or more homes) that are registered with us. These regulatory inspections will assess whether landlords are meeting our new consumer standards, which we will be consulting upon in the second half of 2023. We continue to encourage all registered providers to act now to ensure that are ready for the commencement of the new regulatory regime.

Annex B – Analysis of cases

Referrals by stage

Our consumer regulation process has three stages:

• Stage 1: an initial review by the Referrals and Regulatory Enquiries team who review all incoming enquiries
• Stage 2: a more detailed review by the Consumer Regulation Panel to determine whether there is evidence of a breach of the standards
• Stage 3: an investigation in cases where there could be a breach of the standards, or if there is a suggestion that tenants are at risk of serious harm.

We have provided a diagram on our website setting out this process in more detail.

The table below shows the total number of consumer regulation referrals handed by us in 2022-23 at each stage. The 2021-22 figures are also given for comparison purposes.

	2022-23	2021-22
Stage 1 – All referrals	940	653
Stage 2 – Considered by Consumer Regulation Panel	438	298
Stage 3 – Investigation undertaken	195	146
Published findings of breach and serious detriment	13	8

In 2022-23 we received 940 referrals which was an increase of 44% on the previous year. The proportion of referrals moved to Stage 2 was consistent with last year (47% in 2022-23, compared with 46% in 2021-22). Similarly, the proportion of cases that required further investigation remained consistent (21% in 2022-23 compared with 22% in 2021-22). In 2022-23 we found a breach and serious detriment in 13 cases, five more than in the previous year. Where we do not find a breach of the standards, that can be for a range of reasons, including where referrals are found to relate to individual matters that should be raised through the registered provider’s complaints process and the Housing Ombudsman; the referral is not within our remit; or the referral does not relate to our consumer standards.

Sources of referrals

We receive referrals from a range of sources, most often from tenants and directly from registered providers. We also receive information from employees or contractors, which can include whistle blowing referrals, and we identify referrals in the course of our planned regulatory engagement with providers. This year, we have also considered some cases arising from referrals associated with media reporting. The table below shows that for all referrals received, the source of these referrals was broadly consistent with the previous year.

	2022-23	2021-22
Referrals from individuals	61%	61%
Referrals from elected representatives	2%	5%
Referrals from contractors/employees	2%	3%
Self-referrals from registered providers (housing associations)	18%	13%
Self-referrals from local authority registered providers	4%	2%
Referrals identified through regulatory engagement	3%	5%
Referrals following issues reported in the media	3%	4%
Other reports	7%	7%

Referrals by standards

The proportion of referrals relating to each of the consumer standards has remained consistent each year. As in previous years, the Home Standard continues to be the consumer standard that is most often cited in referrals, representing 58% of all referrals considered at Stages 2 and 3. The Tenant Involvement and Empowerment Standard is the next most frequently cited standard, accounting for 29% of cases in the year. Referrals which relate to the Neighbourhood and Community Standard and the Tenancy Standard continue to represent a smaller proportion of our work.

2022-23

Standard	Total %
Home	58
Neighbourhood and community	6
Tenancy	7
Tenant Involvement and Empowerment	29

The proportion of referrals relating to each of the consumer standards 2022/23.

2021-22

Standard	Total %
Home	54
Neighbourhood and community	9
Tenancy	9
Tenant Involvement and Empowerment	28

The proportion of referrals relating to each of the consumer standards 2021/22.

1. A Section 21 Notice can be issued by a landlord seeking to end an assured shorthold tenancy. ↩