Swindon Borough Council has failed to meet the outcomes in the consumer standards and has been given a C3 grading from the Regulator of Social Housing, as part of a range of regulatory judgements published today.
An inspection was brought forward after the council made a self-referral over health and safety issues and its repairs service.
RSH’s inspection found that Swindon Borough Council:
-
Was unable to report accurately on the presence of smoke and carbon monoxide detectors.
-
Was unable to track or monitor faults from electrical safety checks.
-
Has more than 800 overdue fire safety actions, the majority of which were overdue by more than a year.
-
Was not actively tracking, monitoring, or reporting open damp and mould cases, though there was evidence that reports are followed up effectively.
-
Was unable to demonstrate how tenants’ views have been considered in its decision making, with no evidence of actively encouraging participation from under-represented groups.
Swindon Borough Council has demonstrated that it understands the issues and is taking action towards rectifying the failures identified.
RSH is continuing to engage with the landlord to make sure the necessary improvements are made.
Separately, three housing associations – Housing 21, Torus62 and Sovereign Network – received C2/G1 gradings following inspections. This means that they meet the governance requirements but there are some weaknesses in their delivery of the outcomes of the consumer standards and improvement is needed.
All three housing associations meet the viability requirements with Housing 21 and Torus62 retaining V1 gradings, and Sovereign Network Group retaining its V2 grading.
While both V1 and V2 landlords meets the viability requirements and have the financial capacity to deal with a reasonable range of adverse scenarios, V2 landlords need to manage material risks to ensure continued compliance.
RSH also published interim G1/V1 gradings for Bromford Flagship, after Flagship Housing Group became a subsidiary of Bromford Housing Group in February this year.
Kate Dodsworth, Chief of Regulatory Engagement at RSH, said:
“We take health and safety very seriously and expect all landlords to make sure tenants are not at risk in their homes.
“We also want to see better data management from landlords, to demonstrate they understand their homes and tenants. Self-referrals are a good indicator that a landlord not only understands our requirements, but that they are taking accountability.
“Lastly, our scrutiny of housing associations’ governance and viability remains vital for delivering more and better homes for tenants.”
Notes to Editors
-
RSH regulates housing associations and other private registered providers against its full set of standards. Councils are regulated against the consumer and rent standards only.
-
More information about RSH’s responsive engagement and programmed inspections is also available on its website. is also available on its website.
-
RSH promotes a viable, efficient and well-governed social housing sector able to deliver more and better social homes. It does this by setting standards and carrying out robust regulation focusing on driving improvement in social landlords, including local authorities, and ensuring that housing associations are well-governed, financially viable and offer value for money. It takes appropriate action if the outcomes of the standards are not being delivered.
-
RSH’s gradings are listed below. More information is available on its website. Governance
| Grading | Description |
|---|---|
| G1 | Our judgement is that the landlord meets our governance requirements. |
| G2 | Our judgement is that the landlord meets our governance requirements but needs to improve some aspects of its governance arrangements to support continued compliance. |
| G3 | Our judgement is that the landlord does not meet our governance requirements. There are issues of serious regulatory concern and in agreement with us the landlord is working to improve its position. |
| G4 | Our judgement is that the landlord does not meet our governance requirements. There are issues of serious regulatory concern, and the landlord is subject to regulatory intervention or enforcement action. |
Viability
| Grading | Description |
|---|---|
| V1 | Our judgement is that the landlord meets our viability requirements and has the financial capacity to deal with a wide range of adverse scenarios. |
| V2 | Our judgement is that the landlord 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 | Our judgement is that the landlord does not meet our viability requirements. There are issues of serious regulatory concern and in agreement with us the landlord is working to improve its position. |
| V4 | Our judgement is that the landlord does not meet our viability requirements. There are issues of serious regulatory concern, and the landlord is subject to regulatory intervention or enforcement action. |
Consumer
| Grading | Description |
|---|---|
| C1 | Our judgement is that overall the landlord is delivering the outcomes of the consumer standards. The landlord has demonstrated that it identifies when issues occur and puts plans in place to remedy and minimise recurrence. |
| C2 | Our judgement is that there are some weaknesses in the landlord delivering the outcomes of the consumer standards and improvement is needed. |
| C3 | Our judgement is that there are serious failings in the landlord delivering the outcomes of the consumer standards and significant improvement is needed. |
| C4 | Our judgement is that there are very serious failings in the landlord delivering the outcomes of the consumer standards. The landlord must make fundamental changes so that improved outcomes are delivered. |
- For general enquiries email [email protected]. For media enquiries please see our Media Enquiries page.
