TSA unveils plans for social landlord regulation
Share
The government’s recently formed social housing regulator, the Tenant Services Authority, has set out how it intends to operate.
In a discussion document published today, Building a new regulatory framework, the regulator sets out its vision for a system of ‘co-regulation’ that would apply to social landlords across England from April next year.
‘The use of less secure tenancies may be justifiable in areas where demand for homes significantly outstrips supply.’
TSA paper
This will mean landlords regulating themselves with the help of scrutiny by tenants, and external monitoring. Groups of tenants will be allowed to ‘petition’ the TSA for improvement when their landlord has been notified of failures and has not responded.
Regulation will be based on a set of national standards, likely to be supplemented by local standards reflecting local priorities.
A grading system will be developed to identify the best performers. Landlords’ performance against the standards could determine whether they get grant from the Homes and Communities Agency, or whether they are allowed to take on homes from other landlords.
The national standards will be split into six themes:
- The service offer to tenants - covers quality of accommodation, tenant choice and customer service, repairs and maintenance, neighbourhood and estate management and anti-social behaviour and security
- Tenant empowerment and involvement - covers empowerment, complaints and local area cooperation
- The tenancy agreement - covers rents, tenure and allocations.
- Governance
- Viability
- Value for money
The standard on tenure may be backed up by a code of practice, setting out when different types of tenancy may be used. This could include short-term ‘starter’ tenancies.
The paper reads: ‘The use of less secure tenancies may be justifiable in areas where demand for homes significantly outstrips supply.’
It suggests councils will get a lighter touch system. The regulator will avoid prescribing performance targets that are not already within councils’ local area agreements, which outline more generalised delivery targets agreed with the government.
And it says its national standards on financial viability and governance are unlikely to apply to local authorities, as they have ‘other rules on governance and financial matters’.
There are also question marks over how council landlords will be measured on their rents, which depends on the results of the government’s review of the local authority subsidy system.
The regulator is in discussion with the Communities and Local Government department about how much funding it can get from the department from April next year.
The amount will influence when the regulator introduces its controversial new charging system and the level of fees it will set. A consultation on charging is planned later this year.
Separate discussion papers will be published shortly with proposals on how landlords are to be measured on viability and governance.
Organisations have until 8 September to respond to the 18 questions in the discussion paper. A formal consultation on firmed-up proposals will follow.
The TSA has also revealed today the findings from its national conversation, touted as the largest ever consultation with social housing tenants, to inform its work.
Repairs and maintenance emerged as the top priority for tenants. This was followed by health and safety, neighbourhood security and tackling anti-social behaviour. Reasonable and affordable rents and decently-maintained homes were also cited as priorities.
The discussion paper reads: ‘We also have learnt that what is sometimes measured by our regulation and the inspection regime, is not always what matters [to tenants]. On repairs and maintenance, being able to choose a convenient time for a repair is more important than hitting priority response time targets.’
See a video of Peter Marsh explaining the plans
Have your say
You must sign in to make a comment
Readers' comments (8)
Alan Savage | 09/06/2009 11:09 am
Hmmmm...were tenants consulted on these national standards or is this yet another parachute job.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Jack | 09/06/2009 12:17 pm
Um, yes through the national conversation or did you miss that one?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Alan Savage | 09/06/2009 12:46 pm
And since when did a 'national conversation' constitute a handfull of people turning up and at a pink camper van parked at half-a-dozen sites?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
michaelbarratt | 09/06/2009 3:55 pm
‘The use of less secure tenancies may be justifiable in areas where demand for homes significantly outstrips supply.’ TSA Paper
TSA is merely a Government QUANGO apparently intent upon homogenizing housing associations and council housing together as ‘social housing’. The result of this slight of hand will not least be a devolution of council tenants’ rights with the consequences of higher rents, less say, less rights and less security of tenure. A move ultimately directed against council tenants that does not surprise me in the slightest given the involvement of Mr Phil Morgan. Below is an extract from the comment I posted in Inside Housing when Mr Morgan was appointed to his present job:
In November 2006, prior to the circulation to 8,200 council homes of a CD promoting the transfer of Crawley Borough Council’s housing stock to a housing association, I contacted Mr Phil Morgan as MD of TPAS (appointed advisers to Crawley council tenants during the stock options process) and asked him to intervene to urge the Council not to send out the CD because the contents maligned myself and other tenants’ opposed to transfer. Mr Morgan in an email to me date 14th November 2006 refused to investigate or intervene on behalf of those affected tenants to prevent the mass circulation of the CD.
Subsequent to the mass circulation of the CD, in respect to which the script had been prior approved by TPAS, the Advertising Standards Authority in July 2007 concluded the claims made in the CD unfairly denigrated a group of tenants opposed to the transfer of council property to a housing association. Breaching the ASA code in respect to clauses 3.1 (Substantiation), 7.1 (Truthfulness) and 20.1 (Denigration & unfair advantage).
Mr Morgan in his 14th November 2006 email to me also stated that:
“Our role is to be clear that the information contained about the transfer is fair and accurate and we agree it is.”
In contrast, ASA in its July 2007 ruling also stated that Crawley Borough Council’s claims appearing in the print media (information prior approved by TPAS according to the Council) regarding the amount of money needed to meet Decent Homes Standard work was inflated and breached their code in regards to substantiation and truthfulness. A similar conclusion also reached by the Audit Commission in December 2006 in respect to what turned out to be a gross overstating of money actually needed to meet DHS.
On an earlier occasion in May 2006 I contacted Mr Morgan regarding the accuracy of financial information circulated by TPAS to Crawley tenants. Subsequently I received from TPAS a copy of an email dated 11 May 2006 sent by Mr Morgan to TPAS Southern Region Manager Trevor Smith referring to their response to my concerns and in part said:
Phil Morgan as seen above has been appointed executive director responsible for tenant services as member of the TSA leadership team, an appointment that greatly concerns me and others for the reasons I set out as a readers’ comments appended to an article in your Journal “Marsh unveils his Leadership Team” dated 4th November 2008 ( accessed via a link on the top side of this page under Articles).
Mr Morgan claims to be a passionate advocate for tenant engement and a keen supporter of the shift to a Tenant centred regulatory regime yet readers’ comments paint a very different picture in my view.
During Mr Morgan’s watch as Chief Executive Office of TPAS (Tenant Participation Advisory Service) the organisation held a roadshow workshop presentations event on 25th November 2003 in Exeter. During the Event a presentation given by a representative from IPB Communications (The same organisation that has worked with TPAS inrespect to many stock option appraisals including Crawley – see my other examples). I find the publised slides shown at the Event relating to the IPB presentation to be collectively abnoxious not least slide 9 which stated “DCH (Defend Council Housing) don’t like any Options - Getting more sophisticated - DON’T GIVE THEM A PLATFORM – Proportionate Responses - Rapid responses – Intelligence.”
I believe that tenants such as myself are entitled to join DCH and have a say in the running and future of our homes. What right do TPAS and their kind have to deny my fellow tenants and I a right to speak? Yet the presentation at the TPAS Event in Exeter proposed just that.
Defend Council Housing was in my opinion characterized at the TPAS Event as lunatic organization and its members not worthy of a say in the future of their homes. In contrast, DCH at the National level has the active support of many Members of Parliament including: Austin Mitchell and former Ministers, Michael Meacher and Frank Dobson. Leading trade unionists such as Jack Dromey (UNITE) and Heather Wakefield (UNISON). At the local level the members are ordinary council tenants across a wide spectrum who are united in their opposition to the transfer of their homes to a housing association, such as those tenants in Crawley whom TPAS and Mr. Morgan refused to help and were subsequently deemed by the Advertising Standards Authority to have been unfairly denigrated.
Within the context of the above and other quoted examples it remains difficult for me to see why tenants should have sufficient trust and confidence in Mr. Morgan as the future TSA Executive Director Tenant Services, especially if and when the Authority has jurisdiction extended to include local authority landlords and council tenants. Personally, I believe it will be difficult for both housing association and council tenants to have faith in a watchdog the Government intends will be funded by landlords – hardly a viable basis for independ adjustication I would have thought.
“Very comprehensive, I doubt if he’ll agree with any of it! In fact he tried to ring me when I was reading it – I’m ignoring his calls.”
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
michaelbarratt | 09/06/2009 5:13 pm
‘The use of less secure tenancies may be justifiable in areas where demand for homes significantly outstrips supply.’ TSA Paper
TSA is merely a Government QUANGO apparently intent upon homogenizing housing associations and council housing together as ‘social housing’. The result of this slight of hand will not least be a devolution of council tenants’ rights with the consequences of higher rents, less say, less rights and less security of tenure. A move ultimately directed against council tenants that does not surprise me in the slightest given the involvement of Mr Phil Morgan. Below is an extract from the comment I posted in Inside Housing when Mr Morgan was appointed to his present job:
In November 2006, prior to the circulation to 8,200 council homes of a CD promoting the transfer of Crawley Borough Council’s housing stock to a housing association, I contacted Mr Phil Morgan as MD of TPAS (appointed advisers to Crawley council tenants during the stock options process) and asked him to intervene to urge the Council not to send out the CD because the contents maligned myself and other tenants’ opposed to transfer. Mr Morgan in an email to me date 14th November 2006 refused to investigate or intervene on behalf of those affected tenants to prevent the mass circulation of the CD.
Subsequent to the mass circulation of the CD, in respect to which the script had been prior approved by TPAS, the Advertising Standards Authority in July 2007 concluded the claims made in the CD unfairly denigrated a group of tenants opposed to the transfer of council property to a housing association. Breaching the ASA code in respect to clauses 3.1 (Substantiation), 7.1 (Truthfulness) and 20.1 (Denigration & unfair advantage).
Mr Morgan in his 14th November 2006 email to me also stated that:
“Our role is to be clear that the information contained about the transfer is fair and accurate and we agree it is.”
In contrast, ASA in its July 2007 ruling also stated that Crawley Borough Council’s claims appearing in the print media (information prior approved by TPAS according to the Council) regarding the amount of money needed to meet Decent Homes Standard work was inflated and breached their code in regards to substantiation and truthfulness. A similar conclusion also reached by the Audit Commission in December 2006 in respect to what turned out to be a gross overstating of money actually needed to meet DHS.
On an earlier occasion in May 2006 I contacted Mr Morgan regarding the accuracy of financial information circulated by TPAS to Crawley tenants. Subsequently I received from TPAS a copy of an email dated 11 May 2006 sent by Mr Morgan to TPAS Southern Region Manager Trevor Smith referring to their response to my concerns and in part said:
Phil Morgan as seen above has been appointed executive director responsible for tenant services as member of the TSA leadership team, an appointment that greatly concerns me and others for the reasons I set out as a readers’ comments appended to an article in your Journal “Marsh unveils his Leadership Team” dated 4th November 2008 ( accessed via a link on the top side of this page under Articles).
Mr Morgan claims to be a passionate advocate for tenant engement and a keen supporter of the shift to a Tenant centred regulatory regime yet readers’ comments paint a very different picture in my view.
During Mr Morgan’s watch as Chief Executive Office of TPAS (Tenant Participation Advisory Service) the organisation held a roadshow workshop presentations event on 25th November 2003 in Exeter. During the Event a presentation given by a representative from IPB Communications (The same organisation that has worked with TPAS inrespect to many stock option appraisals including Crawley – see my other examples). I find the publised slides shown at the Event relating to the IPB presentation to be collectively abnoxious not least slide 9 which stated “DCH (Defend Council Housing) don’t like any Options - Getting more sophisticated - DON’T GIVE THEM A PLATFORM – Proportionate Responses - Rapid responses – Intelligence.”
I believe that tenants such as myself are entitled to join DCH and have a say in the running and future of our homes. What right do TPAS and their kind have to deny my fellow tenants and I a right to speak? Yet the presentation at the TPAS Event in Exeter proposed just that.
Defend Council Housing was in my opinion characterized at the TPAS Event as lunatic organization and its members not worthy of a say in the future of their homes. In contrast, DCH at the National level has the active support of many Members of Parliament including: Austin Mitchell and former Ministers, Michael Meacher and Frank Dobson. Leading trade unionists such as Jack Dromey (UNITE) and Heather Wakefield (UNISON). At the local level the members are ordinary council tenants across a wide spectrum who are united in their opposition to the transfer of their homes to a housing association, such as those tenants in Crawley whom TPAS and Mr. Morgan refused to help and were subsequently deemed by the Advertising Standards Authority to have been unfairly denigrated.
Within the context of the above and other quoted examples it remains difficult for me to see why tenants should have sufficient trust and confidence in Mr. Morgan as the future TSA Executive Director Tenant Services, especially if and when the Authority has jurisdiction extended to include local authority landlords and council tenants. Personally, I believe it will be difficult for both housing association and council tenants to have faith in a watchdog the Government intends will be funded by landlords – hardly a viable basis for independ adjustication I would have thought.
“Very comprehensive, I doubt if he’ll agree with any of it! In fact he tried to ring me when I was reading it – I’m ignoring his calls.”
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Mr. Sharabi | 10/06/2009 12:39 pm
Mr. Michael Barrett, I only have one thing to say (or write, depending upon how cynical you may be)..... Mr. Phil Morgan could be trying to make amends for past oversights, so I feel we should let him get on with his new job and wait to see what the outcomes are and then point fingers, wouldn't you agree?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
michaelbarratt | 10/06/2009 2:56 pm
Dear Mr Sharabi
I am a firm believer in the possibility of redemption if for no other reason than I am in need of it myself. However, the possibility that Mr Morgan is on the road to redemption would appear to be unlikely given the TSA team has shown their support for the use of less secure tenancies in areas where demand for homes significantly outstrips supply (which means just about everywhere).
With regret I fear that Mr Morgan is presently set on the road to perdition not to redemption.
I would also like to take this opportunity to correct the following in my previous comment:
In May 2006 I contacted Mr Morgan regarding the accuracy of financial information circulated by TPAS to Crawley tenants. Subsequently I received from TPAS a copy of an email dated 11 May 2006 sent by Mr Morgan to TPAS Southern Region Manager Trevor Smith referring to their response to my concerns and in part said:
“Very comprehensive, I doubt if he’ll agree with any of it! In fact he tried to ring me when I was reading it – I’m ignoring his calls."
Can Mr Morgan really be counted upon to support the participation of all tenants and their desire to be heard, especially if he happens not to like the opinion expressed? Can Mr Morgan be depended upon to be independent? Is he really the man for the job?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Mr. Sharabi | 10/06/2009 6:48 pm
I must admit, it was very careless of Mr. Morgan to illustrate his discontent towards you as an individual, by such an admission via email. Nevertheless, as much as I am in favour of customer engagement in general, I am also very defensive for such personnel who have spent most of their working lives, improving other peoples (mainly customers) lives. They have done this through hard work and determination, sleepless nights and avoiding temptation. Just because Mr. Morgan felt like he was being pushed into a corner by a certain group of tenants (or even individuals) hence, felt the need for a little time out of the situation, does not mean Mr. Morgan (and his advisers such as senior civil servants) feels any less for tenants as a whole. By showing support for less secure tenancies (and possibly introductory tenancies) Mr Morgan has made a bold statement challenging the old adage of a rented home for life. If people want to live in one particular home for the rest of their life, then personally speaking, I feel they should go out an buy one. If however, they are able to understand that Britain, post globalisation, is facing newer and much more difficult challenges ahead, which would mean the need for a more dynamic and geographically mobile workforce, then the use of less secure tenancies is one way to aid our mighty nation into the next generation of political economics. Less secure tenancies also give the landlords greater powers to tackle ASB thus inducing a more sedate atmosphere within social housing making it more acceptable to other social classes. I understand your viewpoint of defending Council Housing, but that is just it, it is your view point (amongst others) which has limited bearing upon the nation as a whole. Mr. Morgan amongst other key individuals are aiming for a 'paradigm shift' not a shift in policy. When we can all understand this (which I very much doubt) then we will have everyone agreeing with such appointments.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment