The Regulator of Social Housing publishes regulatory judgements for all providers owning 1,000 or more social housing homes.
Following an assessment carried out by the Regulator, providers are awarded a rating from one to four for governance and a separate rating from one to four for financial viability. These judgements determine whether the provider complies with the Regulator’s governance and financial viability requirements. Providers must score a compliance rating of G1/V1 or G2/V2 in both categories to be judged as complying with the standards.
In this report we focus on those judgements relating to governance to help providers underpin the areas where focus is needed for them to ensure that they continue to provide the quality of service that is expected by the Regulator. The Regulator’s Governance and Financial Viability Standard and Code of Practice notes that providers should ensure governance arrangements are effective and deliver the aims and intended outcomes for tenants. We dive into the reasons why providers received a downgrade from their previous judgement.
This report focuses on the outcomes for each provider that has received an upgraded or downgraded outcome following their previous judgement, to understand in more depth the reasons why. It also looks at what providers can do to improve following the judgments they have received.
For most providers, there were often multiple reasons why their regulatory judgement had changed. They include those areas identified below.
- Governance and effective board oversight.
- Risk management and internal controls framework.
- Stress testing, recovery planning and mitigation strategies.
- Financial reporting and value for money.
- Health and safety requirements.
- Data and records.
- Business planning.
We look at each of these areas in turn, highlighting points from regulatory reports and what providers and boards can do to ensure they demonstrate compliance with the Regulatory Standards.