You are viewing 1 of your 1 free articles
The Regulator of Social Housing has said it will restrict the use of “jargon” in its publications after criticisms made in its stakeholder survey.
This was the first such survey since 2013, though they are intended to become annual.
More than 90% of large registered providers rated the English regulator’s various publications as useful, though among small providers this varied from 62% for Global Accounts to 83% for regulatory judgements.
But the regulator noted there were “requests for less jargon and technical language in our publications”, and committed itself to “ensuring that as far as possible our publications are written in plain English and we restrict the use of terminology to where it is absolutely necessary”.
Its imminent move to become a standalone body would have a positive impact on the sector, 55% of respondents thought, though 10% felt this change would be negative and the rest expected no change. Expectations were slightly more negative among smaller providers.
In all, 363 stakeholders started the survey but only 237 completed every section, equivalent to a 28% response rate.
Other answers showed 98% of large providers were familiar with the regulator’s in-depth assessment model, though this fell 32% among small providers that are little affected by it.
Among respondents, 37% had had such an assessment and 90% felt it had focused on key risk areas, while 93% of providers of all sizes felt the Regulating the Standards document had been useful in clarifying the approach taken to regulation.
The Regulator of Social Housing publishes regulatory judgements for all providers owning 1,000 or more social housing homes.
These judgements set out whether the provider is complying with the regulator’s governance and financial viability standards.
The regulator carries out an assessment either through a scheduled in-depth assessment, or reactive engagement (in which the regulator acts following information about a provider).
It then awards the provider a rating from one to four for financial viability (V) and a separate rating from one to four for governance (G).
Providers must score two or higher in both categories to be judged as complying with the standards.
As providers have increasingly taken on more risk to cross-subsidise social and affordable housing delivery through market-facing activity, the regulator has changed a number of associations’ viability ratings from V1 to V2.
The regulator often categorises this kind of regulatory action as ‘regrades’ rather than downgrades. Click here to read more.
Key to ratings:
V1/G1: Compliant
V2/G2: Compliant
V3/G3: Non-compliant and intensive regulatory engagement needed
V4/G4: Non-complaint, serious failures, leading to either intensive regulatory engagement or the use of enforcement powers
Rating straplines in full:
Governance ratings:
G1: The provider meets our governance requirements.
G2: The provider meets our governance requirements but needs to improve some aspects of its governance arrangements to support continued compliance.
G3: The provider does not meet our governance requirements. There are issues of serious regulatory concern and in agreement with us the provider is working to improve its position.
G4: The provider does not meet our governance requirements. There are issues of serious regulatory concern and the provider is subject to regulatory intervention or enforcement action.
Financial viability ratings:
V1: The provider meets our viability requirements and has the financial capacity to deal with a wide range of adverse scenarios.
V2: The provider meets our viability requirements. It has the financial capacity to deal with a reasonable range of adverse scenarios but needs to manage material risks to ensure continued compliance.
V3: The provider does not meet our viability requirements. There are issues of serious regulatory concern and, in agreement with us, the provider is working to improve its position.
V4: The provider does not meet our viability requirements. There are issues of serious regulatory concern and the provider is subject to regulatory intervention or enforcement action.