LGA submission to DLUHC’s consultation on a direction to the Regulator of Social Housing to set a Competence and Conduct Standard for social housing

The LGA is the national voice of local government. We are a politically-led, cross party membership organisation, representing councils from England and Wales.  

Our role is to support, promote and improve local government, and raise national awareness of the work of councils. Our ultimate ambition is to support councils to deliver local solutions to national problems. 

We support the overarching principle of a broad, outcomes-focused Competence and Conduct Standard which will ensure councils as registered providers of social housing have a policy in place which sets out their approach to managing and developing the skills, knowledge, experience and conduct of those of their staff who are relevant individuals.

We do however have concerns about the practical implementation of the new professionalisation agenda, particularly in relation to the qualification requirements. It is our view that there needs to be increased flexibility on transition periods and qualification eligibility thresholds. This would help councils as registered providers of social housing to plan and implement the changes more effectively, alongside all the other regulatory changes that are being introduced in parallel, allow more time for staff to prepare for qualifications and also help training/qualification providers to ensure they have sufficient capacity to deliver the relevant qualification programmes.

Government is currently introducing multiple changes over the next few years that will impact on the delivery of housing management services by registered providers of social housing. These include Awaab’s Law, a proposed new Decent Homes Standard, and new Consumer Standards, including the new Competence and Conduct Standard with the requirement for professional qualifications. The Government need to ensure that these changes are coordinated and introduced in a sensible manner so that landlords can review their housing management services and delivery models and respond to them in the round.

We are concerned that the cost impact assessment fails to adequately estimate the cost of implementing the proposals within this consultation. The impact assessment also does not take account the likely upwards pressure on salary costs that increased professionalisation is likely to bring, with increased expectation of an increased salary for roles that require specific qualifications. If these expectations are not met, it could lead to individuals leaving (or not joining) for better paid roles or not joining a local authority e.g. in the private sector. This will further exacerbate recruitment and retention challenges.

The proposed implementation of the proposals places an additional financial burden on local authorities in their role as registered providers of social housing. The LGA has repeatedly made both the Regulator for Social Housing (RSH) and Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (DLUHC) aware of the significant financial income and expenditure pressures on individual Housing Revenue Accounts (HRAs) and the impact this is having on the ability to fund the vital investment needed to improve and regenerate existing stock and deliver effective social housing management services to tenants. The LGA welcomes the commitment that new burdens funding will be paid to local authority registered providers without an HRA but are concerned that those with an HRA (the vast majority) will need to fund the additional costs out of the income from tenant rents. 

The LGA continues to urge DLUHC to urgently undertake an in-depth review of the future sustainability of HRAs given the cumulative impact of a wide range of competing income and expenditure pressures. 

Do you agree with the content of the direction (Annex A) to setting the broad Standard relating to the competence and conduct of all social housing staff?

Yes. 

We support the overarching principle of a broad, outcomes-focused Standard which will ensure councils as registered providers of social housing have a policy in place which sets out their approach to managing and developing the skills, knowledge, experience and conduct of those of their staff who are relevant individuals. In addition, that this policy should also outline the steps they will take to secure that those of their services providers’ staff relevant individuals all have the necessary skills, knowledge and experience. 

We agree with the Government’s conclusion that given the variety of different operating models, structures and associated role profiles amongst registered providers, as well as the diverse needs of tenants requiring different staff knowledge and skills, that it is not appropriate to set a standardised framework of skills, knowledge, experience and behaviours which must be adhered to. 

In relation to the requirement for registered providers to adopt or develop an appropriate code of conduct for staff who are relevant individuals, it will be important that this is not prescriptive and that councils can, where applicable, use codes of conduct which already existing within their organisation. 

As set out in paragraphs 15a and 46b of the policy statement, do you agree that only individuals who have a substantive role in managing delivery of housing management services should be in scope of the qualification requirements?

Yes.

We welcome the Government’s recognition that some individuals may have cross-cutting roles and responsibilities across different service areas of an organisation, and that it would not be proportionate to require staff who spend only a small amount of their time in relevant work to undertake a relevant qualification. 

It is helpful that the policy statement provides further clarification that ‘significant portion’ should be taken to mean that in many instances the housing management responsibilities will take up more than half of that individual’s working time. 

Recognising, that individuals may have cross-cutting roles and responsibilities, there should be flexibility in terms of timescales to secure appropriate qualifications for the housing management element e.g. to reflect cases where an individual may already be undertaking another qualification for another area of responsibility that is within their remit. This should be left to the discretion of councils. 

Do you agree with the guidance on the scope of housing management services (paragraphs 1-3 of Annex B1)?

Yes. 

However, we do have concerns in relation to the inclusion of customer services and complaints management, as these services may be delivered across a whole council through a corporate centre operation, away from frontline housing management. Where this is the case, we do not consider it proportionate or reasonable for those managers to be require to undertake an additional housing qualification, not least because they may hold other professional qualifications which are more directly related to the overall function of their job responsibility e.g. customer services. 

We consider that there is a strong case for the addition of a clear ‘reasonable defence’ provision to be added to the policy statement to give sufficient flexibility for agreed exemptions from the requirements on a case-by-case basis. 

In addition to the definitions provided within legislation, does the guidance at Annex B1 of the policy statement on which functions will be in scope provide sufficient clarity to enable you to assess which individuals within your organisation will need to gain a qualification?

Yes. 

It is considered that the definitions provided within legislation and the guidance in the policy statement will provide sufficient clarity in the vast majority of cases. However, there may be specific arrangements in place with Services Providers which warrant a more detailed analysis to assess whether there will be individuals who will need to gain a qualification. As the policy is implemented there may need to be an update to the policy statement to provide further clarity on specific arrangements that come to light, in cases where there is a ‘grey area’ as to whether individuals fall in scope or not. It is helpful that the policy statement makes clear that the list of functions included which fall in scope is not exhaustive.  This provides a degree of flexibility for Registered Providers and Services Providers to make their own assessments of which individuals are in scope of the relevant requirements. 

Do you think that there are any other functions not listed above which should be in scope?

No.

Are there any functions listed above that you think should not be in scope?

Yes. 

We do have concerns in relation to the inclusion of customer services and complaints management, as these services may be delivered across a whole council through a corporate centre operation, away from frontline housing management. Where this is the case, we do not consider it proportionate or reasonable for those managers to be require to undertake an additional housing qualification, not least because they may hold other professional qualifications which are more directly related to the overall function of their job responsibility e.g. customer services. 

We consider that there is a strong case for the addition of a clear ‘reasonable defence’ provision to be added to the Policy Statement to give sufficient flexibility for agreed exemptions from the requirements on a case-by-case basis. 

Does Chapter 5 and section 6.5 of the policy statement relating to exemptions and paragraphs 18 – 21 of Annex B1 of the policy statement provide sufficient clarity to help you to assess which individuals within your organisation will not be in scope of the qualification requirement?

Yes.

Do you agree with the proposal outlined above that individuals must have been in their role for more than 6 months to be classed as a Relevant Person or Relevant SP Manager (except where they are subject to a probationary period) as detailed in paragraph 15c, 46d and 46e of the policy statement?

No. 

We consider that the threshold should be above six months, given the large numbers of staff that are likely to be fall in scope of the qualification requirements and the impact that this may have on service delivery (with staff spending less time on the day job in order to undertake a qualification), as well as ongoing recruitment and retention of staff. 

Increasing the threshold to at least 12 months would help to mitigate these impacts, by reducing the initial cohort of individuals falling in scope of the qualification requirements. This would help councils as registered providers of social housing to plan and implement the changes more effectively, alongside all the other regulatory changes that are being introduced in parallel, allow more time for staff to prepare for qualifications and also help training/qualification providers to ensure they have sufficient capacity to deliver the relevant qualification programmes.

Whatever the threshold is set at, there should be flexibility and discretion allowed to accommodate different circumstances and needs. 

We consider that there is a strong case for the addition of a clear ‘reasonable defence’ provision to be added to the policy statement to give sufficient flexibility for agreed exemptions from the threshold requirements on a case-by-case basis. 

Clarity needs to also be provided on how the qualification requirements should be applied for individuals in temporary/interim positions or agency staff, which would have further implications for council budgets and resources.

Do you agree with the proposal that those staff who have a probation period should have, or be working towards, a qualification within 9 months from the point at which they take up their role as detailed in paragraph 15d and 46f of the policy statement?

No. 

It is unreasonable to expect a council to start paying for a qualification for an individual if they have not yet completed or passed their probation period. This could result in an abortive process, resulting in wasted expense, should that individual not complete or fail their probation period. A more pragmatic approach could be for an individual to have, or be working towards, a qualification within nine months from the point at which they pass their probation period. 

Whatever the threshold is set at, there should be flexibility and discretion allowed to accommodate different circumstances and needs. 

We consider that there is a strong case for the addition of a clear ‘reasonable defence’ provision to be added to the policy statement to give sufficient flexibility for agreed exemptions from the threshold requirements on a case-by-case basis. 

Do you agree with our proposal that unpaid volunteers should not be required to gain a relevant qualification as detailed at paragraphs 15b and 46c?

Yes.

Do you assess that any of your unpaid volunteers undertake roles which meet the criteria set out above in Chapter 2 and the guidance in Annex B1 of the policy statement?

N/A. This question is specifically for registered providers and services providers.

As outlined in section 3.1 of the policy statement, do you agree that a level 4 qualification is the correct level for a senior housing manager and individual who is a services provider?

If the Government is minded to take forward the qualifications requirement, we consider that level 4 is an appropriate level. We do have concerns about the ease by which individuals who hold a qualification in housing management obtained before the establishment of Ofqual in 2008 (and even potentially after 2008), will be able to provide assurance on compliance with the criteria in paragraph 26 of the policy statement in order to prove that they already hold a Relevant Qualification. This is because some providers and/or courses may no longer exist and therefore there may not be access to the required information to provide proof.

That is why there needs to be local flexibility and discretion allowed to accommodate different circumstances and needs. 

As outlined in section 3.1 of the policy statement, do you agree that a level 5 qualification or a foundation degree is the correct level for a senior housing executive?

If the Government is minded to take forward the qualifications requirement, we consider that level 5 is an appropriate level. We do have concerns about the ease by which individuals who hold a qualification in housing management obtained before the establishment of Ofqual in 2008 (and even potentially after 2008), will be able to provide assurance on compliance with the criteria in paragraph 26 of the policy statement in order to prove that they already hold a Relevant Qualification. This is because some providers and/or courses may no longer exist and therefore there may not be access to the required information to provide proof. 

That is why there needs to be local flexibility and discretion allowed to accommodate different circumstances and needs. 

Do you agree with our proposals outlined above and in section 3.4 of the policy statement that qualifications can be regulated by an equivalent body to Ofqual or a predecessor body?

Yes.

Do you agree that the criteria that qualifications must meet as set out in section 3.2 of the policy statement is appropriate for ensuring senior housing managers and senior housing executives gain the skills, knowledge, experience and behaviours they need to deliver high quality and professional services to tenants?

Yes.

We broadly consider that the criteria cover the key areas to equip staff with relevant technical, legal or business knowledge and skills but also with the soft skills, including engagement with tenants, delivering respectful and professional customer services and meeting tenants’ needs.

Does section 3.2 of the policy statement provide sufficient information to allow you to identify which qualifications would meet the requirements for a senior housing manager and senior housing executive?

It is assumed that relevant providers who offer qualifications focused on managing the delivery of housing services will be reviewing all course content to ensure it is relevant to meet the requirements for a senior housing manager and senior housing executive. For the avoidance of doubt and to make it easier for registered providers and services providers to ensure that their staff undertake appropriate qualifications, the Government should consider publishing a list of ‘approved training courses’ that meet the requirements. This would need to be reviewed and updated on a regular basis. 

Do you agree with our approach to defining what it means to be ‘working towards’ a relevant qualification as outlined in the policy statement?

Yes. 

However, there will need to be local flexibility and discretion allowed to accommodate different circumstances and needs of both individuals and the business to ensure continued service delivery.

It would be helpful to have further clarity on the approach on the proposed two-year time limits to complete a qualification in cases where no time limit is set by a qualifications provider, particularly for those that work part-time. The proposed qualifications would take up a larger proportion of the working week for part-time staff. An approach which discourages councils from employing part-time staff risks undermining gender and disability equality, and pushing good individuals out of the workforce. 

Does the information provided above and within Chapter 1 and Chapter 6 paragraph 44b of the policy statement provide sufficient clarity to help you understand the circumstances in which individuals in scope will be deemed to be ‘working towards’ a qualification?

Yes.

However, there will need to be local flexibility and discretion allowed to accommodate different circumstances and needs of both individuals and the business to ensure continued service delivery.

Considering the costs and benefits outlined within the impact assessment, do you agree that all existing staff within the sector should have, or should begin working towards a relevant qualification within 24 months as outlined in section 4.1 of the policy statement?

No. 

A suitable transition period may need to be longer than 24 months – this will depend on the number and proportion of staff who need to gain or start working towards a relevant qualification. Councils need to have flexibility to determine their own transition period so that they can implement the changes in a way that does not impact on service delivery to tenants, minimises impacts on the recruitment and retention of the workforce, and that can be managed within limited financial resources, given that there will be no new burdens funding for those councils with Housing Revenue Accounts (HRAs). We also do not support the proposal that at least half of those individuals in scope who are in post at the beginning of the transition period must be working towards or have completed (or must be deemed to be working towards or have completed) a relevant qualification, within the first 12 months of the transition period for the same reasons.

Do you have any additional comments or evidence about the potential impact of the policy proposals as assessed in our impact assessment (Annex C)?

Government is currently introducing multiple changes over the next few years that will impact on the delivery of housing management services by registered providers of social housing. These include Awaab’s Law, a proposed new Decent Homes Standard, and new Consumer Standards, including the new Competence and Conduct Standard with the requirement for professional qualifications. We are asking Government to ensure that these changes are coordinated and introduced in a sensible manner so that landlords can review their housing management services and delivery models and respond to them in the round.

We are concerned that the cost impact assessment (direct costs of £130 million) fails to adequately estimate the cost of implementing the proposals within this consultation. The impact assessment itself points out that it has not monetised how providers will address short term gaps in provision to replace those undertaking the training, which is likely to be at least 1 day a week per individual. Providers may of course choose not to fill those short-term gaps in provision, but this is likely to impact on overall service delivery. 

We are also concerned that some of the estimates have been drawn by a survey by the Local Government Association almost 12 months ago, when the full scope of the qualification requirements was still unknown and therefore the responses are unlikely to be a fair representation of the current situation. The survey also only had a 16 per cent response from relevant councils. We consider that an updated survey of councils should be commissioned (whilst recognising that some questions have been included in this consultation) and the impact assessment revised accordingly.

The impact assessment also does not take account the likely upwards pressure on salary costs that increased professionalisation is likely to bring, with increased expectation of an increased salary for roles that require specific qualifications. If these expectations are not met, it could lead to individuals leaving (or not joining) for better paid roles or not joining a local authority e.g. in the private sector. This will further exacerbate recruitment and retention challenges. 

The proposed implementation of the proposals is likely to place an additional burden on local authorities in their role as registered providers of social housing. The LGA has repeatedly made both the Regulator for Social Housing (RSH) and Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (DLUHC) aware of the significant financial income and expenditure pressures on individual Housing Revenue Accounts (HRAs) and the impact this is having on the ability to fund the vital investment needed to improve and regenerate existing stock and deliver effective social housing management services to tenants. The LGA welcomes the commitment that new burdens funding will be paid to local authority registered providers without an HRA but are concerned that those with an HRA (the vast majority) will need to fund the additional costs out of the income from tenant rents. 

The LGA continues to urge DLUHC to urgently undertake an in-depth review of the future sustainability of HRAs given the cumulative impact of a wide range of competing income and expenditure pressures. 

We do not consider that DLUHC has given sufficient weighting to the costs associated with the negative impact the proposals, particularly around the new qualification requirements could have on recruitment and retention in the social housing sector.  In order to seek to mitigate this, councils need to have flexibility to determine their own transition period so that they can implement the changes in a way that does not impact on service delivery to tenants, minimises impacts on the recruitment and retention of the workforce, and that can be managed within limited financial resources, given that there will be no new burdens funding for those councils with Housing Revenue Accounts (HRAs).

Does the information provided above and in section 4.1 of the policy statement provide sufficient clarity on the time limits within which individuals will need to hold or be working towards a relevant qualification within the transition period?

Notwithstanding our view, that we do not support the transition period proposals, as outlined in response to question 19, we consider that the policy statement provides sufficient clarity on the time limits.

Considering the total number of staff in the sector that will need to enrol on qualifications within the transition period as outlined in the impact assessment (Annex C), and noting that our intention is for the Standard to come into force in April 2025, do you believe that you can meet the demand for enrolling learners on qualifications within the 24- month transition period? 

N/A. This question is specifically for qualifications providers. 

Do you agree with the proposal that an adjusted transition period (twice the amount of time) should apply to registered providers which provide fewer than 50 units of stock, and will also apply in relation to their services providers?

No. 

The transition period needed for different registered providers will depend on the number and proportion of staff who need to gain or start working towards a relevant qualification. Councils need to have flexibility to determine their own transition period so that they can implement the changes in a way that does not impact on service delivery to tenants, minimises impacts on the recruitment and retention of the workforce, and that can be managed within limited financial resources, given that there will be no new burdens funding for those councils with Housing Revenue Accounts (HRAs). 

Do you agree with our proposal as outlined above and described in section 3.6 of the Policy Statement that there should be transitional arrangements in place for those with partially relevant qualifications (which meet or exceed the requirements in section 3.1 of the policy statement, but do not meet all the course content criteria in section 3.2)

Yes. 

We agree with the principle that there should be transitional arrangements in place for those with partially relevant qualifications. However, the transition period needed for different registered providers will depend on the number and proportion of staff who need to gain or start working towards a relevant qualification. Councils need to have flexibility to determine their own transition period so that they can implement the changes in a way that does not impact on service delivery to tenants, minimises impacts on the recruitment and retention of the workforce, and that can be managed within limited financial resources, given that there will be no new burdens funding for those councils with Housing Revenue Accounts (HRAs).

It would also be helpful if the Government could work with qualifications providers to map technical qualifications against the criteria in the policy statement so that registered providers and services providers can easily understand where they need to provide relevant individuals with top up modules. 

Where your course does not cover all the criteria listed above, do you plan to update your qualifications to ensure that you cover the proposed course content requirements?

N/A. This question is specifically for qualifications providers.

Do you agree with our proposal as outlined above and described in section 3.7 of the policy statement that there should be transitional arrangements in place for those who have completed an apprenticeship programme without a qualification element provided they meet other criteria (as above)?

Yes. 

This is a pragmatic approach to ensure that those who are undertaking or have recently completed a housing apprenticeship programme without a qualification element (and which meets the criteria in paragraph 34(b) and (c) of the policy statement) are not expected to then undertake a further qualification. It also gives providers an appropriate amount of time to incorporate a qualification element into their apprenticeship programmes.

Having read the information provided above and in Chapter 6 of the policy statement, are you clear on what your responsibilities are in relation to Relevant SP Managers?

Based on the information provided in section 6.1 and Annex B2 of the policy statement, are you clear on what would classify someone as a Relevant SP Manager?

Response to question 27 and question 28. It is considered that the information provided is sufficiently clear on what registered providers responsibilities are in relation to Relevant SP managers and what would classify someone as a Relevant SP Manager. 

As the policy is implemented there may need to be an update to the policy statement to provide further clarity on specific arrangements that come to light, in cases where there is a ‘grey area’ as to whether individuals fall in scope or not. It is helpful that the policy statement makes clear that the list of functions included which fall in scope is not exhaustive.  This provides a degree of flexibility for registered providers and services providers to make their own assessments of which individuals are in scope of the relevant requirements.

Does the guidance in Annex B2 of the policy statement enable you to understand what the implications of these requirements are for your organisation and your obligations under the terms implied by section 217A of the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008?

N/A. This question is specifically for services providers. 

Does the information provided in Chapter 6 of the policy statement enable you to understand the requirements placed on registered providers in relation to services providers?

N/A. This question is specifically for services providers. 

Are there any other bodies representing the interests of services providers that you think the Secretary of State should nominate as a body with which the Regulator must consult on the regulatory Standard in relation to these requirements, other than the National Federation of ALMOS and the National Federations of TMOs?

Yes, we would also recommend consultation with the Local Government Association (LGA) and the Association of Retained Council Housing (ARCH) as sector representative bodies of registered providers, who contract services providers. 

Are there any other issues you want to raise, or anything you believe has not been considered in relation to proposals 16 and 17?

Yes. 

We are concerned about the implications of the new requirements and the potential withdrawal from the market of services providers, in cases where the financial and workforce impact of is significant enough to render their business model unviable. This could leave registered providers without a good quality, value for money contractor and have a detrimental impact on the provision of services to tenants. Further clarity would also be welcomed on how registered providers with existing long-term contracts could enforce the new requirements for housing management qualifications as part of those contracts. 

We consider that the Government should undertake further work with registered providers and services providers e.g. those who deliver social housing repairs contracts, to understand the challenges and what their responses is likely to be before they roll out this specific requirement.

In paragraph 64 of the impact assessment, we have set out our assumptions around the familiarisation / implementation costs to registered providers and services providers for the implementation of the full Competence and Conduct Standard including the qualification element of the Standard? Do you agree with these assumptions?

We don’t know. It is unclear what assumptions have been made in arriving at these figures. As outlined in the impact statement the Government should update the costings based on direct feedback from providers on their anticipated costs. 

N/A. These questions are specifically for individual registered providers, qualification providers and services providers.