Consultation outcome

Social Housing Tenure Standard: Direction to the Regulator of Social Housing - government response

Updated 29 October 2026

Executive summary

The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government has the power to direct the Regulator of Social Housing (the Regulator) to set a standard on tenure and the contents of that standard under section 197 of the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008

The Renters’ Rights Act 2025 (the Act) has introduced significant reforms to the assured tenancy framework by establishing a simpler and more secure tenancy framework, including abolishing Section 21 ‘no fault’ evictions and replacing assured shorthold tenancies and fixed-term assured tenancies with assured periodic (rolling) tenancies. These reforms will strengthen tenant security whilst ensuring landlords have rights to regain possession of properties when it is necessary.

The Act commenced for the private rented sector on 1 May 2026, and government is working towards commencing the Act for the social rented sector in October 2027.

Once commenced, the Act will directly impact landlords of the social rented sector who operate under this framework, namely Private Registered Providers of social housing, and their tenants.

Ahead of implementing the Act, the Direction on the Tenure Standard to the Regulator will be updated to ensure this is consistent with the new Act.

The Government consulted on the proposal for a new Tenure Direction to the Regulator, requiring it to set a regulatory standard relating to tenure, aligned with this new assured tenancy and regulatory framework.

The consultation was launched on 2 April 2026 and ran for 8 weeks, closing on 28 May 2026. 83 responses were received and analysed to inform policy consideration.

The consultation sought views on the Direction, with the majority of respondents supporting the proposed Direction as consulted on.

Government is issuing the Direction to the Regulator alongside this response, ahead of the Renters’ Rights Act commencing in the social rented sector in October 2027.

Summary of consultation responses and government responses

The consultation on the Direction to the Regulator of Social Housing ran for 8 weeks from 2 April 2026 to 28 May 2026 and received 83 responses (not all respondents answered every question).

The majority of responses were submitted on behalf of Registered Providers of social housing, with responses from 26 Private Registered Providers and 21 Local Authority Registered Providers.

Responses were also received from representative sector bodies, tenant groups, advice and advocacy organisations, charities, supported and specialist housing providers, and a smaller number of private individuals, including social housing tenants and members of the public.

Questions 1 to 5 were demographic questions that included the status, organisation, location and size of housing stock.

Question 6

Do you agree that the citation, commencement, application and interpretation section of the proposed Direction [in the consultation document]  is clear, aligns with the wider legislative and regulatory framework, and supports consistent application of the Direction?

Group	Total number that answered ‘yes’	Percentage that answered ‘yes’	Total number that answered ‘no’	Percentage that answered ‘no’	Not answered	Percentage that did not answer
Local Authorities	21	100.0%	0	0.0%	0	0.0%
PRPs	21	80.8%	5	19.2%	0	0.0%
Member/sector bodies	4	66.7%	0	0.0%	2	33.3%
Social tenants	6	60.0%	4	40.0%	0	0.0%
Other	13	65.0%	5	25.0%	2	10.0%
All respondents	65	78.3%	14	17.7%	4	4.8%

Answered: 79

Summary of responses

Of the 79 respondents providing a yes or no response, 65 (82%) agreed that the citation, commencement, application and interpretation section of the proposed Direction is clear, aligns with the wider legislative and regulatory framework, and supports consistent application of the Direction. Of those 79 who provided a response, 14 respondents (18%) did not agree. 4 respondents did not reply.

Respondents, particularly Local Authority and Private Registered Providers, welcomed the use of existing statutory definitions and the alignment of the Direction with the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008, the Renters’ Rights Act 2025 and wider regulatory requirements.

However, some respondents flagged a need for further guidance and sought greater clarity for some definitions in the Direction or which could be impacted by it, namely intermediate rent accommodation, affordable rent, low-cost rental accommodation, fixed term tenancies and succession rights.

Government response

Terms used in the Direction rely on statutory or government policy definitions, to ensure consistent application and that definitions used within it are clear to Registered Providers. Unless defined in the Direction, terms have the same meaning as in Part 2 of the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008. Key definitions can be found in the Policy statement on rents for social housing. The proposed Direction updates the definition of ‘intermediate rent accommodation’ to align with the definition in the new policy statement on rents for social housing published on 28 January 2026.

Question 7

Do you agree that social housing stock owned by local authorities should be in scope of the Direction on tenure, irrespective of whether it is held in a Housing Revenue Account? 

Group	Total number that answered ‘yes’	Percentage that answered ‘yes’	Total number that answered ‘no’	Percentage that answered ‘no’	Not answered	Percentage that did not answer
Local Authorities	19	90.5%	1	4.8%	1	4.8%
PRPs	23	88.5%	0	0.0%	3	11.5%
Member/sector bodies	3	50.0%	1	16.7%	2	33.3%
Social tenants	9	90.0%	1	10.0%	0	0.0%
Other	17	85.0%	0	0.0%	3	15.0%
All respondents	71	85.5%	3	3.6%	9	10.8%

Answered: 74

Summary of responses

There was strong support for this proposal. Of the 74 respondents providing a yes or no response, 71 (96%) agreed that all local authority-owned social housing should be covered by the Direction irrespective of Housing Revenue Account (HRA) status. The 2012 Direction on Tenure does not apply to local authority owned social housing that is not held in an HRA. Local housing authorities with housing stock of 1,000 or more homes are required to maintain an HRA, which records income and expenditure relating to the management of council housing stock and closely related tenant services. This government believes that all tenants of social housing should receive the same rights, protections, and regulatory oversights, establishing consistency across the sector. 

Some respondents raised concerns about implementation and additional costs and sought recognition through a New Burdens Assessment, a need for proportionality, and queried the impact on temporary accommodation.

Government response

Government undertook a New Burdens Assessment, which will be published on GOV.UK. This considered if the proposal would create new duties, powers or expectations on local authorities. The Government notes that the Regulator already regulates all social housing owned by local authority registered providers, regardless of whether the stock is held within an HRA. The remit is determined by the accommodation’s status as social housing, rather than how the local authority manages funding. Therefore, the Regulator already does not distinguish between HRA and non-HRA stock when assessing delivery of consumer outcomes. As a result, the revised Direction does not alter the scope of the Regulator’s oversight and therefore would not create any additional duties for local authorities. Instead, the update to the Direction ensures alignment with the Regulator’s regulatory remit.

The Regulator’s consumer standards apply to all registered providers, irrespective of size. However, the Regulator’s engagement with providers is proportionate to the scale of the risk presented.

Similarly, temporary accommodation that is social housing and provided by a registered provider already falls under the Regulator’s remit. This excludes intermediate rental accommodation, which is outside the scope of the Direction.

Question 8

Do you agree the requirements in the proposed Direction which set out matters that Registered Providers should consider (among other factors) when granting tenancies are clear and appropriate?

Group	Total number that answered ‘yes’	Percentage that answered ‘yes’	Total number that answered ‘no’	Percentage that answered ‘no’	Not answered	Percentage that did not answer
Local Authorities	20	95.2%	1	4.8%	0	0.0%
PRPs	20	76.9%	6	23.1%	0	0.0%
Member/sector bodies	3	50.0%	1	16.7%	2	33.3%
Social tenants	8	80.0%	2	20.0%	0	0.0%
Other	11	55.0%	8	40.0%	1	5.0%
All respondents	62	74.7%	18	21.7%	3	3.6%

Answered: 80

Summary of responses

Most respondents supported the proposed requirements. Of the 80 respondents providing a yes or no response, 62 (77.5%) agreed with the proposals. Respondents welcomed the emphasis on granting the most secure tenancy suitable, transparency in decision-making and consideration of household needs, community sustainability, and efficient use of housing stock. Many considered the proposals to be consistent with the changes introduced through the Renters’ Rights Act and supportive of increased security of tenure.

There were some concerns around how ensuring ‘the most secure tenancy suitable’ would be interpreted in practice. While respondents were supportive of the principles underpinning the proposed requirements, some considered that additional guidance would assist implementation and provide greater certainty.

Government response

This government is committed to providing tenants with greater security and stability. The Renters’ Rights Act is transformative in meeting this objective. To reflect these reforms, the proposed Direction has been updated to remove references to tenancy types that will no longer be available, including assured shorthold tenancies. This ensures the Direction aligns with the new tenancy framework introduced by the Act.

The measures introduced by the Act do not extend to social housing tenants on non-assured tenancies, including local authority tenants. Local authorities retain the ability to grant fixed term tenancies such as introductory and flexible tenancies. The proposed Direction therefore recognises the diversity of the sector, understanding providers operate under distinct tenancy frameworks.

However, we expect Registered Providers to recognise the importance of security of tenure when granting tenancies. The proposed Direction requires the Regulator to set a standard that meets this objective and therefore requires Registered Providers to consider granting the most secure tenancy suitable, taking account of the factors set out above and in paragraph 3(2)(a) of the Direction. This is particularly relevant to local authorities, which may grant either periodic or fixed-term secure tenancies.

The Regulator’s Code of Practice illustrates factors that should be taken into account when considering the suitability of different tenancies.

Question 9

Do you agree with the proposed requirements for Registered Providers in relation to tenants finding alternative accommodation before a tenancy ends or where it is necessary for a tenant to move due to redevelopment or other works?

Group	Total number that answered ‘yes’	Percentage that answered ‘yes’	Total number that answered ‘no’	Percentage that answered ‘no’	Not answered	Percentage that did not answer
Local Authorities	20	95.2%	1	4.8%	0	0.0%
PRPs	22	84.6%	4	15.4%	0	0.0%
Member/sector bodies	4	66.7%	0	0.0%	2	33.3%
Social tenants	6	60.0%	4	40.0%	0	0.0%
Other	15	75.0%	4	20.0%	1	5.0%
All respondents	67	80.7%	13	15.7%	3	3.6%

Answered: 80

Summary of responses

The majority of respondents supported the proposal. Of the 80 respondents providing a yes or no response, 67 (84%) agreed with the proposed requirements. Respondents frequently welcomed the emphasis on transparency, early engagement and tenant support.

While overall respondents supported the principle of requiring providers to assist tenants, there was also some emphasis on the need for clarity around expectations, responsibilities and definitions of suitable alternative accommodation. The most common issue raised was uncertainty around what constitutes “reasonable steps” to help tenants secure alternative accommodation, when moving is necessary due to redevelopment or other works.

Government response

Amplification of this will be provided in the Regulator’s Code of Practice. However, this will not, for example, seek to define different tenancy ending scenarios or prescribe a set of steps that Registered Providers must take to meet this requirement.

Question 10

Do you agree that the proposals support an outcome-based approach?

Group	Total number that answered ‘yes’	Percentage that answered ‘yes’	Total number that answered ‘no’	Percentage that answered ‘no’	Not answered	Percentage that did not answer
Local Authorities	20	95.2%	1	4.8%	0	0.0%
PRPs	24	92.3%	1	3.8%	1	3.8%
Member/sector bodies	4	66.7%	0	0.0%	2	33.3%
Social tenants	5	50.0%	5	50.0%	0	0.0%
Other	13	65.0%	4	20.0%	3	15.0%
All respondents	66	79.5%	11	13.3%	6	7.2%

Summary of responses

Of the 77 respondents providing a yes or no response, 66 (86%) agreed. Supporters noted that an outcome-based approach provides flexibility for providers to respond to differing local circumstances, tenant needs and housing markets.

However, some respondents raised concerns that an overly flexible framework could result in inconsistent practice, reduced accountability and weaker protections for tenants.

Government response

The proposed Direction aligns with the post-April 2024 consumer regulation regime, which included clearer outcome-based standards. These standards state the outcomes that landlords must deliver, rather than prescribing how landlords should operate. By setting out these clear outcomes and holding landlords to account, this takes account of different landlord circumstances, driving improvement while allowing flexibility. In focusing on the outcomes, the approach prioritises the results of tenants’ experiences and quality of delivery, rather than compliance with a checklist. Providers are responsible for understanding the statutory framework that applies to them, obtaining appropriate advice where necessary, and satisfying themselves that they are complying with both legal and regulatory requirements. This approach supports a mature regulatory framework in which providers are expected to exercise appropriate judgement in meeting their obligations.

Respondents also raised concerns about the implications for supported housing and sought greater clarity about the specific outcomes providers would be expected to deliver. Others emphasised the importance of maintaining safeguards for disabled and vulnerable tenants within any outcome-based framework. The proposed Direction will require the Regulator to set a tenancy standard that ensures providers take account of diverse needs when considering the suitability of different tenancies, including groups identified in consultation feedback.