ao link
Twitter
Facebook
Linked In
Twitter
Facebook
Linked In

You are viewing 1 of your 1 free articles

Regulator slams private equity-linked association which ‘put tenants at risk’

A housing association linked to a new model of private equity investment has been downgraded to a non-compliant rating today for “potentially putting its tenants at risk”, the Regulator of Social Housing has said.

Linked InTwitterFacebookeCard
Picture: Getty
Picture: Getty
Sharelines

A private equity-linked housing association is “potentially putting its tenants at risk” #ukhousing

Trinity Housing Association was given a G3 rating for governance and a V3 for financial viability - making it non-compliant on both counts in a stern and damning judgement from the regulator published today.

It said Trinity was “unable to evidence that it is meeting its statutory health and safety obligations thereby potentially putting its tenants at risk”.

Some properties housing vulnerable tenants, it said, have already been moved to other providers with “a shortened tenant consultation period”.

Furthermore, the regulator said, the board at the West Midlands-based association has “failed to manage its significant risks” and has “ceded control to third parties”.

The regulator added that Trinity’s failings amount to a “fundamental failure of governance”, exactly the same words it used to describe First Priority, a housing association with a similar model that almost went insolvent earlier this year.


READ MORE

Civitas adds former chief executive and troubled landlord specialist to boardCivitas adds former chief executive and troubled landlord specialist to board
Moody’s: associations will need £5.3bn of funding this yearMoody’s: associations will need £5.3bn of funding this year
Repairs and maintenance spend tracker: what did your association do in 2016/17?Repairs and maintenance spend tracker: what did your association do in 2016/17?
Top 50 Biggest Builders 2018Top 50 Biggest Builders 2018

It said: “The fact the board has failed to manage its significant risks, has ceded control to third parties and has allowed tenants to potentially be put at risk is a fundamental failure of governance."

Trinity and First Priority are both part of a new sub-class of housing associations which do not own many of their own homes, but rather lease them from private investors and listed funds.

Typically, these associations lease specialist supported housing for people with mental health issues and pay index-linked returns to the funds.

According to the regulator, Trinity owns or manages 1,309 homes in 56 local authorities containing 2,345 bed spaces aimed at “vulnerable adults with complex learning and physical disabilities”.

Documents submitted to the stock market reveal that Trinity leases homes from the real estate investment trust (REIT) Civitas. As of September, payments from Trinity to the fund accounted for 6.9% of Civitas’ annual income.

Inside Housing understands that the housing association also leases homes from the investment fund Henley SIPUT.

The regulator’s judgement stated that Trinity has in the past breached “certain lease terms due to its inability to make payments as they fell due”.

It added: “Cash flow projections presented to the regulator demonstrated it had not been able to secure access to sufficient liquidity to meet future lease payments.”

According to the judgement, the regulator, in conjunction with investors, has “solved the immediate cash crisis and bought the provider time”. It noted, however, that recovery will be “challenging”.


Related Files

Trinity Housing Association Limited RJ.pdfPDF, 174 KB

The judgement also stated: “There had been long standing, inherent conflicts of interest at board and management level which Trinity was unable to demonstrate it was managing effectively.

“The regulator has therefore concluded the board and management of Trinity have failed to ensure that its affairs are managed with an appropriate degree of skill and independence.”

The regulator said that in response to its engagement, Trinity has appointed five new board members. They are: Matt Cooney, chief operating officer of PA Housing; Joe Chambers, chief executive of B3 Living; Azmat Mir, head of development and regeneration; Ian Hughes, former chief executive of Rooftop Housing; and the investor Rupert Cottrell.

A spokesperson for Trinity said: “Trinity has been working closely with the Regulator of Social Housing since early 2018 and more intensively since being placed on its gradings under review list in September. We have proactively taken a number of steps to ensure compliance with the governance and financial viability standards.

“The association is grateful for the support of the regulator, our landlords and other stakeholders during what has been a challenging time for the association.”

The regulator is still expected to issue judgements on three other private equity-linked housing associations it has placed on its Grading Under Review list: Westmoreland, Encircle and Inclusion.

A spokesperson for Civitas Social Housing said: “As part of our overall engagement with all our housing association partners we are working closely with Trinity and its team, including the newly appointed directors.

“We are encouraged by the steps that have been and are being taken to move Trinity forward in a positive manner and by its commitment to working with the regulator to achieve enhanced regulatory gradings as soon as possible.

“Trinity provides a very valuable service of accommodation for people with care needs within a community setting, and this includes the Civitas properties which continue to meet our expectations both socially and economically.”

Inside Housing has contacted Henley for comment.

Update: at 15.17 on 8.11.18 a comment from Civitas Social Housing was added to the story.

Update: at 11.13 on 9.11.18 a comment from Trinity was added to the story.

Regulatory judgements in England explained

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.

Jargon-busting: some regulatory terms and what they mean

Jargon-busting: some regulatory terms and what they mean
  • Co-regulation: this means boards are responsible for deciding how to meet the regulator’s standards – the regulator does not prescribe how to do this
  • Gradings under review list: a public list of providers under investigation who are at risk of being judged non-compliant with regulatory standards
  • In-depth assessment: a planned inspection, in which the regulator assesses a providers viability, governance and approach to value for money
  • Narrative regulatory judgement: a detailed explanation of the reasons behind a regulatory judgement. Narrative judgements are published where a providers’ viability or governance ratings have changed, or where RSH has particular issues or concerns.
  • Reactive engagement: refers to the regulator reacting to complaints or allegations about a provider and taking action
  • Stability check: an annual assessment of all providers owning 1,000 social homes or more. RSH uses accounts and statistical return data to check for any changes in a providers’ risk profile.
  • Strapline regulatory judgement: where a provider is meeting the standards, and its governance or viability ratings have not changed since its previous judgement, the regulator does not publish a full judgement explaining its reasons for the gradings. Instead it just publishes the gradings themselves, in a ‘strapline’.

 

Regulatory judgments published on 31 October 2018

ProviderGovernanceViabilityExplanation
A2 Dominion Housing GroupG1V2Viability downgrade
Acis GroupG1V2No change
Bromsgrove District Housing TrustG1V1No change
Byker Community TrustG2V2No change
Calico HomesG1V1No change
Christian Action (Enfield) Housing AssociationG1V2No change
Coastline HousingG1V1No change
Community Gateway AssociationG1V1No change
Cottsway Housing AssociationG1V1No change
East End HomesG1V2No change
Eden Housing AssociationG1V2No change
Habinteg Housing AssociationG1V1Governance upgrade
Halton HousingG1V1No change
Hanover Housing AssociationG1V1No change
Hastoe Housing AssociationG1V2Viability downgrade
Havebury Housing PartnershipG1V1No change
Liverpool Mutual HomesG1V1No change
Livin HousingG1V1No change
Onward GroupG2V1No change
Railway Housing Association and Benefit FundG1V1No change
Sanctuary Housing AssociationG1V1No change
Saxon Weald HomesG1V1No change
Severn Vale Housing SocietyG2V2No change
Solon South West Housing AssociationG1V1No change
Thames Valley Housing AssociationG1V2Merger
Thirteen Housing GroupG1V1No change
Vale of Aylesbury Housing TrustG1V1No change
Walsall Housing GroupG1V1No change
Linked InTwitterFacebookeCard
Add New Comment
You must be logged in to comment.
By continuing to browse this site you are agreeing to the use of cookies. Browsing is anonymised until you sign up. Click for more info.
Cookie Settings