What does the Competency and Conduct Standard mean from an employment law perspective?

Some additional requirements will be included in the new standard. For example, a key change is that tenants must be given a meaningful opportunity to influence and scrutinise updated policies and the new code of conduct. These policies and other documents must be accessible to tenants, and compliance with the CCS will be regulated in line with the regulator’s outcomes-focused approach.

Further clarification has also been given to the ‘relevant persons’ deemed to have a ‘substantive’ role in managing the provision of social housing, as this will determine whether they fall within the scope of the standard or not. The new explanation is based on how much of their working time is spent delivering housing management services to tenants.

If they haven’t already done so, registered providers should conduct an all-employee mapping exercise to assess which staff roles will be affected by the new standard, and evidence their findings.

“Funding and resourcing constraints will be a key concern for many registered providers, especially in light of other recent regulatory changes, such as the introduction of Awaab’s Law and new Consumer Standards”

In terms of what we know for certain, social housing managers and social housing executives will be required to work towards Level 4 and Level 5 qualifications respectively. Contractors and other service providers will also fall within the scope of the CCS, unless exempt due to delivering a narrow or single function.

Registered providers should start by identifying which contracts are in scope (those delivering a comprehensive housing management service), looking to engage providers at an early stage and build the required obligations, reporting any remedies in contract variations or outsourcing agreements. Where staff are partially qualified, it may be possible for them to use top-up modules covering any unmet criteria.

As well as stipulating that relevant qualifications must contain certain areas of study, the government has also confirmed that they must amount to a total qualification time of more than 120 hours.

Apprenticeships count if they meet content and assessment standards. While there is an element of discretion for registered providers in deciding where additional training and qualifications are needed, they are required to take an evidence-based approach.

Funding and resourcing constraints will be a key concern for many registered providers, especially in light of other recent regulatory changes, such as the introduction of Awaab’s Law and new Consumer Standards. Smaller registered providers could find that the majority of their staff are deemed to have a ‘substantive’ role, so the bill for training could be higher than expected, despite the extended transition time.

If late-career staff or those with parental or caring responsibilities opt to exit rather than undertake more training, this could reduce the talent pool and leave a significant skills gap, which could prove hard to fill. To mitigate this risk, registered providers should produce a staff support offer covering funding, study leave and well-being, with a focus on late‑career colleagues, to minimise attrition.

To protect their return on investment in talent, relationships and data, registered providers may wish to amend employment contracts to include a staggered ‘repayment of training’ clause allowing them to recover reasonable training costs if an employee leaves within a specified timeframe.

A staggered structure ensures proportionality, fairness and legal compliance, so employees aren’t penalised for leaving long after completing training. It also reduces the risk of such a clause being unenforceable for being considered a penalty or an unlawful deduction of wages.

“Registered providers should also consider establishing a customer influence committee or formal tenant scrutiny panel to ensure tenants have meaningful opportunities to scrutinise and influence draft policy documents and the new code of conduct”

Housing has traditionally been a collaborative sector, but the CCS may reduce collaboration in the short to medium term. Registered providers may compete more aggressively for qualified staff, and introduce tighter contractual protections such as non-poaching, non-solicitation and non-dealing clauses (covering defined contacts like local authority commissioners, support providers, ASB partners and care providers) and increased use of garden leave to protect staff stability, relationships and data.

To prepare for the CCS implementation, registered providers should establish a cross-functional working group with board oversight to put in place a competence framework for all staff. Registered providers could consider making use of the example provided by the National Housing Federation (NHF), which sets baseline standards for integrity, professionalism and acting in residents’ best interests.

An alternative approach would be adopting CIH professional standards as a complementary framework for staff development, while developing an in-house code of conduct for governance alignment.

If they don’t already have one, registered providers should also consider establishing a customer influence committee or formal tenant scrutiny panel to ensure tenants have meaningful opportunities to scrutinise and influence draft policy documents and the new code of conduct. Careful consideration should be given to who to include on the committee, ensuring a diverse range of backgrounds, genders and ethnicities are represented.

The CCS and the proactive consumer regime emphasise ongoing assurance (not one-off compliance), so tenant oversight should be ongoing, with periodic checks on staff behaviour against the code, evidence of professional competence and training commitments.

Registered providers should aim to adopt a positive culture and behaviours, demonstrating competence, professionalism and tenant respect in their day-to-day activities. This should be embedded in all HR-related systems and processes.

As well as supporting individual staff in working towards a qualification in accordance with timescales stipulated, registered providers should aim to extend support in other ways. Where an employee is underperforming, managers should be supported and empowered to work with them to put a performance improvement plan in place. Taking a more supportive approach will enable a culture focused on continuous improvement.

Coming on top of other recent regulatory changes, preparing for the new CCS will be challenging for registered providers. But by embracing the spirit of the CCS, and adopting the right culture and behaviours, they will be better placed to continue delivering safe and high-quality tenant services in the future.

Katherine Sinclair, legal director in the employment team, Anthony Collins