Terms of reference published for TSA review
Housing minster Grant Shapps has set out the terms of reference for the review of the ‘role and purpose’ of the Tenant Services Authority.
The minister has made it clear he wants to abolish the regulator, but was forced to conduct a review of social housing regulation after failing to get clearance for his plans from the Treasury.
The terms of reference state the purpose of the review includes ‘making recommendations for the transfer of tenant services regulation away from the TSA on to a more locally accountable basis’.
It also states it should be conducted in line with wider government objectives such as ‘reducing the number and cost of quangos’ and ‘reducing administration costs’.
The review will examine all TSA functions, and whether they should be continued or relocated, and the options for a future funding model for social housing regulation.
It will assess the need for ‘separate regulation and inspection of the landlord function’ and establish a new policy on handling complaints from social tenants about their landlords.
It will not look at whether the breadth of regulation should be changed, for example to include the private rented sector. It will also not consider whether the regulation system should continue to be cross domain, as ministers have already decided that it should.
Related Files
TSA review terms of reference
Word
, size 33.5 Kb
Have your say
You must sign in to make a comment
Readers' comments (9)
Sidney Webb | 27/07/2010 2:04 pm
I do hope the Minister got permission this time!
There was massive sector and public input into the establishment of the TSA. Does anyone know who will be permitted to input into this review?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 27/07/2010 2:25 pm
Some good ideas from the Minister. Let's have an honest complaints procedure all the way through from landlord to Ombudsman. If wrongdoings are swept under the carpet then standards never improve. Let's hope for independent funding of Ombudsman instead of one where the landlords sign the cheques which finance them. Do away with cozy arrangements where the major housing bodies have 'old pals' arrangements and cozy up and protect each other from real scrutiny.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
kass | 27/07/2010 4:46 pm
the ombudsman will never deliver satsifaction to social tenants, because even those who win their complaints through it are unsatisfied by what they get.
The only way tenants will be sure to get any redress is to re-stablish legal aid for housing issues as tenants are not asking for recommendations handed out to landlords but for redress of injustices.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Rick Campbell | 27/07/2010 4:59 pm
Yes, we need a good and effective complaints system - will we get it?
NOT A CHANCE!
Yes, we need improving standards - will we get them?
NOT A CHANCE WHEN THERE'S THE OLD PALS AND SELF-INTEREST CLIQUES!
Yes, we need all sorts of things but there is not a cat in hell's chance whilst interested and experienced tenants with good ideas are frozen out by sycophants and/or the inexperienced!!!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 27/07/2010 10:49 pm
OK, someone moved the goalposts. Ain't no use complaining you can't score if you keep kicking in the old direction.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Eureka | 27/07/2010 11:22 pm
Am I missing something? Though the report above states '[The review] will not look at whether the breadth of regulation should be changed, for example to include the private rented sector. It will also not consider whether the regulation system should continue to be cross domain, as ministers have already decided that it should.' The terms of reference document does, however, state 'The review will not consider....The precise content of regulations (but the review will consider what the scope of regulation should be).' Has Inside Housing received some additional briefing on the scope of the review to support the apparently contradictory statement in its report?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
| 27/07/2010 11:56 pm
This is all about assuaging the councils of the CML. The banks need to be sure the loans they have out to HAs are secure and there is a set course of action in case of a HA default (which has never happened). CML not happy with LA's being responsible for HA financial regulation (and lets face financial regulation within LAs themselves is not exactly robust) so probably the role of financial regulation for HAs will be directed to the HCA. So they become like the the old HC. Again....
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 28/07/2010 9:17 am
sorry here - did this coalition not get voted in? they made it clear that quango's - including tenants bodies would go - Democracy?
alternative is a big society bid to set up and run a tenants organisation that is supported, valid and effective - dont know how much tenants want to pay for this has anyone asked them?
At our HA, we speak to our tenants all the time but have asked them, how we do this and what they want in the future. Without our tenants input we wouldnt be effective
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 28/07/2010 8:50 pm
As normal he cannot say who is going to lead the review and who is going to be on the panel, all his rich mates no doubt who do not rent a house or flat so they have no idea what tenants want and how they should be treat.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment