Communities and Local Government CommitteeWritten evidence from TPAS (HCA 10)

Introduction

TPAS promotes excellence in resident involvement and empowerment through training, advice and accreditation. Formed in 1988, TPAS is a membership organisation representing over 1,800 tenant and resident organisations, and 240 social housing providers and contractors.

The Homes and Communities Agency (HCA) is the regulator of social housing in England but it may only exercise its functions through the Regulation Committee (RC).

Since the HCA took over the powers of regulating registered social housing landlords (RSL) in 2012 there has been an opinion that TPAS hears very often, from its members and other people in the industry, that the regulator has withdrawn from its role in regulating the consumer standards.

The CLG Committee enquiry regarding consumer regulation is therefore timely so that this anecdotal evidence can be elaborated upon.

However, it should be stressed that neither TPAS, TAROE nor any other tenant organisation has the capacity to fully undertake consultation on this issue.

The following report is based on what we have been able to do in a very short time period without resources, following an online survey publicised through Twitter, Facebook and the TPAS weekly online magazine.

Summary of our Main Conclusions and Results from the Survey

121 people responded to our survey.

Just four in 10 people who completed the survey felt that the consumer standards are adequate.

Three in every four people believe that the regulator should intervene more often than they currently do.

Only around one in four surveyed took the opinion that the Regulatory Committee is meeting its “fundamental objectives”.

Fewer than one in 10 stated that they thought there was sufficient information made available to them about the activities of the Regulatory Committee.

TPAS recommends that a full scale independent consultation be carried out to determine the full extent of tenant, landlord and stakeholder opinion of the work of the regulator.

The findings of this survey and the conclusion we have drawn are also supported by TAROE, the Tenants’ and Residents’ Organisations of England.

TPAS and TAROE are willing to provide further information and to provide oral evidence in order to expand on any of the points made in this document.

1. Context

1.1 Recent figures released by the HCA show that out of 489 consumer enquiries received since 1^st April 2012 none have been deemed to meet the “serious detriment” level set by the Regulation Committee.1

1.2 Under restrictions in the Localism Act 20112 the Regulator is unable to use its powers in relation to a provider failing to meet a consumer standard unless the “serious detriment test” is met.

1.3 In addition to this restriction the HCA openly states that “Failure to meet one or more of the consumer standards does not in itself lead directly to a judgement of serious detriment by the Regulator.”3

1.4 TPAS believes that, in combination, the conditions laid out in points 1.2 and 1.3 have led to a disincentivisation for RSLs to successfully implement the consumer standards set out in the regulatory framework despite the fact that all RSLs “are subject to the regulatory framework and must all meet the applicable regulatory standards”.4

1.5 For these reasons, TPAS England welcomes this inquiry into the HCA Regulation Committee and welcomes the opportunity to contribute on the subject of consumer standard regulation.

1.6 TPAS is the leading national tenant participation organisation working to promote tenant empowerment in England. We are a membership organisation of around 240 registered social landlord members and 1800 tenant and resident association (TRA) members.

1.7 TPAS operates a free information and advice service for its members, training and consultancy services to members and non-members and we also accredit landlords and contractors that show they involve tenants in all aspects of their business.

1.8 The Department for Communities and Local Government recently appointed TPAS England and its partners to deliver a £1.2 million tenant training and support programme, the national “Tenant Empowerment Programme” under the name Tenant Central.

2. The Survey

2.1 Tenants and staff work and live each day in the sphere of consumer standards regulation. They are all directly affected by the regulatory standards.

2.2 TPAS wanted to give people an opportunity to answer some of the CLG Committee’s questions directly since these are the people that have the most direct experience of the consumer regulations in practice.

2.3 In considering these two points, TPAS decided that an online survey open to anyone with an interest in regulation of the consumer standards would be the most suitable method of consultation.

2.4 TPAS publicised the survey via our website, social media streams and through mail outs from our email database. The survey was open for one week only and in that short time 121 people completed it.

2.5 By a small margin, the majority of respondents were tenants, accounting for 45.5% of the total (figure 1).

Figure 1: Total respondents classified by Tenant, Landlord (member of staff) and Other (please specify)

2.6 The survey asked respondents to consider questions relating to the consumer standards, the regulation of those standards and the regulation committee in general.

2.7 TPAS also provided an opportunity for participants to add any additional comments at the end of the survey. 33% of respondents chose to utilise the comment box. A selection of these comments are included in Section 7 entitled “Respondents’ Comments”.

2.8 Overall, the survey indicates a feeling of dissatisfaction with various aspects of the Regulation Committee and its remit more than it shows satisfaction or confidence. The following sections will draw attention to the results and their implications.

3. The Regulation Committee

3.1 This section looks at the questions from the survey that examined opinion surrounding the Regulation Committee’s overall competence.

3.2 Fewer than 1 in 15 (6.6%) of the people who completed the survey said they were “Happy” with the performance of the Regulation Committee.

3.3 Not a single respondent reported that they were “Very happy”.

3.4 The majority (60.3%) chose to select the “Neutral” option. This could be interpreted as a reflection of the perceived lack of transparency of the RC’s actions leading them to select the “neither/nor option” due to a lack of knowledge upon which to base their opinion.5

3.5 At the other end of the scale 33%, or one third, of respondents rated themselves as “Unhappy” or “Very unhappy”.

3.6 Disappointingly, almost half of the respondents (48.7%) expressed themselves as either “Not confident” or “Not very confident” in the RC to successfully do its job.

3.7 This is in contrast to just 12.4% of respondents reporting themselves as “Confident” or “Slightly confident” in the RC doing its job (Figure 2).

Figure 2

HOW CONFIDENT ARE YOU IN THE REGULATION COMMITTEE TO SUCCESSFULLY DO ITS JOB?

3.8 In response to the question “Do you feel that there is sufficient information made available to you about the activities of the Regulation Committee?” a clear majority of 82.6% answered with an emphatic “No”.

3.9 Less than one in ten (9.9%) of respondents said they felt that there was sufficient information made available to them about the activities of the RC.

3.10 Points 3.8 and 3.9 reveal a stark message. Namely that tenants, landlord staff and other interested parties who completed the survey hold a view that there is a definite lack of communication about the activities of the RC.

3.11 Overall the results in this section show very low levels of satisfaction, confidence and transparency in relation to the RC and its work.

4. Consumer Standards

4.1 When referring to the consumer standards set out by the regulator the results from the TPAS survey are more positive than those above. Slightly more respondents regard the consumer regulation standards as adequate than those regarding them as inadequate (Figure 3).

Figure 3: In your opinion, are the standards set by the Regulation Committee relating to consumer regulation adequate?

4.2 However, as the graph shows, the numbers of those that think the standards are adequate or not are equal. Communities and Local Government Committee members, along with the HCA, should not be satisfied to learn that such a low proportion of people (around 4 in 10) working with and affected by the standards think that they are adequate.

4.3 It should be acknowledged that since the standards were devised through a lay and collaborative process across all bodies involved in social housing, including tenants, the real dissatisfaction may not stem from the inadequacy of the standards themselves, but rather the lack of actions when organisations do not fully comply with the standards. This view is substantiated in the responses to the next question below.

5. Intervention

5.1 The survey then moves onto the topic of intervention. The respondents are conclusive in their opinions related to the topic of intervention.

5.2 In the question “To what extent do you agree that the regulator should ‘only intervene in cases of serious detriment that have caused, or are likely to cause, harm’?” the majority (60.3%) of respondents disagreed or strongly disagreed.

5.3 Around 3 in 10 (30.5%) people who completed the survey agreed with the current HCA policy that the RC should only intervene in cases of “serious detriment”.

5.4 The level of dissatisfaction with the RC and how it intervenes in the industry is stark in Figure 4 as three out of every four respondents (76.1%) believe that the regulator should intervene “more often” or “much more often”.

5.5 Barely 2 in 10 people (21.5%) believed that the amount of times the regulator intervenes in cases should stay the same.

Figure 4

DO YOU THINK THE REGULATOR SHOULD INTERVENE IN CASES...

5.6 As covered earlier6 the regulator will only intervene in cases of “serious detriment”. However, in 127 cases since 20127 the regulator chose to use its powers to conduct further investigations in order to establish whether there was “serious detriment”.

5.7 In conducting these investigations the regulator is allowed to use its powers of monitoring and enforcement.8

5.8 Relating to the part of the question for the inquiry set by the Communities and Local Government “are the monitoring arrangements sufficient?” the TPAS survey revealed that just 12.4% of the respondents believe that the monitoring arrangements set by the RC relating to consumer regulation are sufficient (Figure 5).

5.9 When asked to consider what actions the regulator had taken that they were aware of, the overwhelming majority of respondents said that they weren’t aware of any instances of the regulator using its powers of monitoring or enforcement.

Figure 5: In your opinion, are the monitoring arrangements set by the Regulation Committee relating to consumer regulation sufficient?

5.10 An incredible 80.2% of people that completed the survey were not aware of any instances of the regulator using its monitoring powers like commissioning inspectors or requesting performance information (Figure 6).

5.11 An equally definitive proportion (76.9%) was not aware of any instances of the regulator using its enforcement powers like issuing notices or enforcing a transfer of the management of properties to another provider.

5.12 The high proportion of people unaware of regulator activity in both instances could be contributed to by circumstances highlighted in an earlier question.9 In other words, a general lack of communication has lead to the tenants, landlord staff and others being unaware of the work that the RC is carrying out.

5.13 However, in both of these questions TPAS included a “Don’t know” option. This gave the respondents an option to choose if they felt that they were not sufficiently informed to answer the question. Indeed, between both the categories an average of 11.55% of people selected this option.

5.14 This leaves figures of around one in ten of respondents who were aware of actions taken by the RC relating to their monitoring and enforcement powers. These statistics paint a clear picture of perceived inactivity.

5.15 The findings highlighted in this section point to failures of the regulatory body in the eyes of the people that have to work and live by the consumer standards to intervene in cases on sufficient occasions. It indicates that a review of the “serious detriment” measure may be in order.

Figure 6: Do you know of any instances when the regulator has used any of its monitoring powers?

6. Fundamental Objectives

6.1 TPAS felt that it would be helpful for the Communities and Local Government Committee to see how the stakeholders rated the RC on each of its four consumer regulation objectives. These “fundamental” objectives are set out clearly on the HCA website and are enshrined in law through the Localism Act 2011.10

6.2 The survey asks the respondents to express an opinion on whether they think the RC has upheld their commitment to meeting each of the four objectives.

6.3 For example, with regard to the second consumer regulation objective the survey asks; “To what extent do you agree that the regulator ensures that actual or potential tenants of social housing have an appropriate degree of choice and protection?”

6.4 Only 1 in 5 (19.8%) of people who completed the survey responded positively saying that they “agreed” or “strongly agreed” with the question. TPAS regards this as a clear indication that social housing tenants and the members of staff at registered social landlords are unhappy with how RSLs are encouraged, or enforced, to involve tenants in decision-making procedures and how much security tenants have (Figure 7).

Figure 7: To what extent do you agree that the regulator ensures that actual or potential tenants of social housing have an appropriate degree of choice and protection?

6.5 This sentiment continues in the survey across the other three questions that relate to whether the RC is meeting its own “fundamental” objectives.

6.6 Only 25.6% of respondents thought that the regulator was meeting its first objective, which is related to the quality and management of properties.

6.7 Just 27.6% of the people who completed the survey believe that RSLs are encouraged to contribute to the wider well being of the areas in where their properties are situated.

6.8 While 27.2% agree that the regulator ensures that tenants of social housing have the opportunity to be involved in its management and to hold their landlords to account.

6.9 Only a minority of social tenants, staff employed by RSLs and other interested parties that completed the survey have stated that they believe the RC is meeting their fundamental objectives.11

6.10 TPAS believes that this is clear evidence that the social housing regulatory body is perceived to be under-performing with regard to the implementation of consumer standards.

6.11 TPAS further believes that this is a direct result of the decision to withdraw from pro-active regulation of the so-called “consumer regulation” in preference to the governance and financial regulations.

7. Respondents’ Comments

7.1 Below we have taken excerpts from the comments made in the dedicated section of the survey.

7.2 “There should be tighter requirements for tenant consultation on change of service, governance and company mergers.”

7.3 One respondent said that they were “unaware of the regulator and what they did”.

7.4 Another respondent simply asked “Without inspections how can standards be upheld?”

7.5 “The loss of the TSA is very notable and tenant involvement has noticeably reduced in significance.”

7.6 “The regulator needs to do more to ensure proper provision of social housing given the housing crisis”

7.7 “I feel the regulator should do random short notice inspections”

7.8 “The regulators should focus on tenants’ complaints and housing needs”

7.9 “Not all landlords work fully in the interests of tenants and there are lots of vulnerable tenants about.”

7.10 “If there is no audit process then performance and standards can’t be driven forward”

7.11 “I feel strongly that the new regulation framework does not give enough say to collective tenant bodies, unless these are involved in complaints. Complaints are service failure. We involve our tenants in shaping services. If the regulator was more interested in that there would be less complaints.”

7.12 “Landlords need much greater monitoring and regulation, tenants need to be at the heart of these.”

7.13 “Feel that the consumer standards cover the key issues for customers however the fact that these are not regulated means that there is no impact and no real reason for landlords to meet these so poor landlords will continue to be poor”

7.14 “Difficult to comment on regulator involvement around “serious detriment” as there has been very little, if any that I am aware of. The bar for serious detriment is set very high and this could mean that some cases are not being dealt with”

7.15 Referring to the procedure whereby the Secretary of State appoints members of the Regulation Committee, one respondent remarked “How can this be independent when members are appointed by one person?”

8. Summary of Our Main Conclusions

8.1 Through the survey the respondents have shown low levels of happiness with the performance of the Regulation Committee, very low levels of confidence in its ability to carry out its work and even lower levels of satisfaction with the level of transparency in carrying out the work.

8.2 Just 4 in 10 people who completed the survey feel that the standards are adequate.

8.3 3 in every 4 people believe that the regulator should intervene more than they do.

8.4 Only around one in four surveyed took the opinion that the Regulation Committee is meeting its “fundamental objectives”.

8.5 Less than 1 in 10 stated that they thought there was sufficient information made available to them about the activities of the RC.

8.6 TPAS surveyed 121 people who are affected by the consumer standards daily. Members of the CLG Committee and the HCA Regulation Committee should find the results of the survey critical of the current performance of the regulator, but also helpful in identifying areas for further improvement.

8.7 In response to various results quoted from the survey TPAS also recommends that the regulator take immediate action in improving the communication of its activities to tenants, landlords and stakeholders.

8.8 Overall however, In light of all of these factors TPAS recommends that a full scale independent consultation be carried out to determine the full extent of the tenant, landlord and stakeholder opinion of the work of the regulator.

8.9 TPAS is willing to provide further information and to provide oral evidence in order to expand on any of the points made in this document.

June 2013