CT Director, Catherine Little, and Policy & Research Officer, Nina Cilins share the lessons learned from a recent roundtable discussion about the first round of inspections under the new regime, which came into play in April 2024. They also share some top tips for the sector.
The new inspection experience, for first round organisations, spanned up to five months from notice to publication of results, with some periods of more intense activity between quieter times. Registered Providers (RPs) mainly felt that the process was more intensive, with a greater focus on Board oversight and assurance than past experience of In–Depth Assessments (IDAs), ranging between strategic questions and more granular detail. Many of the RPs that took part in the first round reflected that, overall, it felt like a fair, well organised and collaborative approach.
Roundtable discussionsÂ
With the first results from proactive inspection and reactive engagement under the new regime, it seems timely to reflect on learnings for the sector. In mid-July, we held a round table discussion with nine of the RPs that had experienced the first round of inspections under the new regime in order to share experiences with one another, and to consider lessons for the sector. Â
Typical inspection process experienced by housing associations and councils  Â
- At least six weeks’ notice.
- Two weeks to provide requested documentation.
- Observations of the Board and Customer committee / tenant panel.
- Onsite work over two to three days. Most interview time was spent with the Executive team, who have the opportunity to open the onsite work with a presentation. A group of involved tenants was usually interviewed, with no staff present.
- For housing associations, interviews with the Chair of the Board, Chair of Audit, and sometimes the Chair of Customer committee. Some RPs including their Member Responsible for Complaints (MRC) and the Regulator for Social Housing (RSH) was usually receptive to this.
- For local authorities, interviews with the senior member responsible for housing (portfolio holder / cabinet member) and Leader of the Council
- Interviews usually conducted in groups /pairs at the suggestion of the RSH. Some organisations requested changes to the interview schedule (for example combinations of people to be interviewed together) and this was subject to the approval of the inspection team.
- Follow up requests for documents.
- Final assurance meeting.
- Call or meeting to discuss likely outcome (embargoed). For some, this is an informal call, followed up with more detailed feedback with the senior team and Chair of the Board.
- Regulatory judgement published.
As with IDAs, the RSH tailored its approach to its views of an organisation’s activities and risks. For some, the focus was on governance and viability, with quite forensic questioning into areas including strategy, systems and delivery of plans with a lighter touch questioning relating to consumer standards, whilst others found the inspection team really focusing on specific elements of consumer regulation.Â
Gaining board assuranceÂ
In terms of consumer regulation, there was a consistent focus on the Safety and Quality standard, in particular the quality and scale of stock condition surveys, and building safety. Other themes varied, but included Anti Social Behaviour (ASB), the Tenant Satisfaction Measures (TSMs), and complaints. Across all of these areas, focus was directed at looking for where the Board gains assurance, how it actively owns, challenges and acts on potential gaps, and the impact (the ‘so what?’) of actions that had been taken. Â
The links between the consumer and economic standards were a topic of discussion. Some commented that they felt it had been positive to be able to draw out a golden thread, reflecting where consumer standards appeared within the governance and viability documentation. For local authorities, not being subject to regulation of the viability and governance standards caused some questions around context. In reality, the RSH was interested in those governance structures that hold responsibility for regulatory compliance. There was no sense that limitations over rental income nor the economic pressures experienced by all RPs reduced the expectations over compliance. Â
Data quality and integrityÂ
The importance of understanding and demonstrating quality and integrity of data was a theme running through all of the inspections: ranging from assurance around TSM data, through stock condition and building safety data, to having a clear understanding of customer data. Â
For most organisations, the follow-up after the interviews felt more substantial than under previous IDAs. There was a sense that inspectors were wanting to see evidence of assurance and that they are following up on documents in more detail than previously. Â
Doubtless, the inspection process will develop and change over the first four-year cycle and there will be learning for the Regulator as it tests out the consumer standards with a range of providers, as well as for the sector. Â
Lessons for the sector and top tips Â
- Start to prepare now! If you haven’t already, complete a self-assessment against the regulatory standards so that you have a clear understanding of where you comply and any potential gaps. Â
- Consider where and how the Board or Council has assurance (evidence) of compliance. In particular some organisations found that they did not have second- or third-line assurances readily to hand for some areas of the standards. This is a good opportunity to map out the source and level of assurance in place and, again, to understand any gaps. Â
- Consider how the cross-cutting themes can be demonstrated in Board discussions and decisions. For example, RPs that could demonstrate the consideration and influence of customer voices in Board discussions and decision making, this seemed to be viewed favourably by the Regulator. Â
- For local authorities, there is less experience of the RSH and of the regulatory mindset. Housing Associations have experienced many years of regulatory engagement and are able to build on a better understanding of the kinds of assurance of compliance that will satisfy the inspectors. It will be important for local authority staff to be clear about the role of, and to work with, elected members in ensuring effective oversight of the landlord function. Â
- The first post-inspection Regulatory Judgements have now been published and these will build a valuable resource for understanding the RSH’s approach , alongside the recent annual Consumer Regulation Review. Â
- Closer to the inspection, good preparations will take you a long way. Attendees commented on the importance of well-presented documentation and of the value added by rehearsal interviews, which had helped confidence and a sense of building up to the inspection itself. The importance of having a team approach was also stressed – by making this a team exercise, you may be better prepared to support one another and address any contingencies, should they be needed. Â
- In your document submission, address the questions asked and provide the documents requested – don’t be tempted to conflate volume of information provided with robust assurance. Â
- Be upfront and honest throughout the process – the Executive team presentation is a really good time to set out your organisational narrative – what’s been more challenging, and any gaps identified, as well as what is going well – and a tone of transparency and collaboration for the inspection.  Â
- Expect the unexpected – there may be adverse social or conventional media, high profile complaints, or key people unavoidably unavailable last minute. It will pay off to have a well-planned and organised approach to the onsite work, with a clear understanding of when key areas will be tested, and with whom. Many of the attendees had someone responsible for briefing and debriefing during the interview process, which helped people to feel more confident on the day and enabled quick turnaround of documents and evidence that had been mentioned. Â
- Providers reflected that the time spent on inspection was significantly more than on the previous IDA regime. For example, the need to be prepared for your Executive Team to devote significant time, over a 10-12 week period, to preparing, managing, and responding to follow-up questions.
Campbell Tickell provides a range of support for RPs reviewing their regulatory compliance or preparing for inspection. Find out more about our regulation services.
To discuss any issues raised in this article, please contact Catherine Little: catherine.little@campbelltickell.com or Nina Cilins: nina.cilins@campbelltickell.com