Supported Housing regulation: consultation - government response
Updated 16 April 2026
© Crown copyright 2026
This publication is licensed under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0 except where otherwise stated. To view this licence, visit nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3 or write to the Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, London TW9 4DU, or email: psi@nationalarchives.gov.uk.
Where we have identified any third party copyright information you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned.
This publication is available at https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/supported-housing-regulation-consultation/outcome/supported-housing-regulation-consultation-government-response
Accessible versions of this response will be published shortly. Braille versions can be made available on request.
Ministerial Foreword
Supported housing helps to give people the independence they deserve while living in a safe, supportive, and secure environment. The Supported Housing (Regulatory Oversight) Act 2023 aims to tackle a number of rogue providers in the sector who are taking advantage of a lack of regulation, and to ensure that all residents receive good quality support in good quality accommodation. The Act also includes local supported housing strategies, to help local authorities to understand their local supported housing market better and ensure that it delivers what is needed, and where, for residents.
It is important that local authorities are given the powers that they need to be able to stop rogue provision and to protect residents.
But it is also important that we protect the supply of good supported housing, and the many excellent providers who work incredibly hard for their residents. We want to reassure those who responded to the consultation – we have listened to you.
We are grateful to the many respondents who gave their views. The government is clear that these reforms must be both proportionate and sufficiently robust to deter and remove from the sector those who do not have residents’ best interests at heart.
Alison McGovern MP, Minister for Local Government and Homelessness
Sir Stephen Timms MP, Minister for Social Security and Disability
The Consultation: content and approach
The consultation sought views from local authorities, supported housing providers, residents, and other interested organisations, on the implementation of measures in the Supported Housing (Regulatory Oversight) Act 2023 (the Act) and proposed changes to Housing Benefit regulations. The consultation can be viewed in full here - Supported Housing regulation: consultation - GOV.UK.
In particular, the consultation sought views on the following:
- the new National Supported Housing Standards for the support provided to residents
- the design and implementation of the proposed supported housing licensing regime
- a new planning use class for supported housing
- a definition of care, support and supervision in Housing Benefit regulations including how this could be linked to respective regulatory frameworks in England, Scotland, and Wales
- a proposal to link Housing Benefit with standards and licensing in England and opportunities to link to other frameworks in Scotland and Wales
The consultation was open for 12 weeks, between 20 February and 15 May 2025. Respondents could respond via an online survey on Citizen Space, a PDF copy of the consultation, email or by post. Accessible versions, including an Easy Read version, Braille and British Sign Language, were also available.
In addition to consulting, MHCLG and DWP officials held a range of stakeholder events, including with the statutory consultees, local authorities, providers, sector organisations and residents to ensure that stakeholders had the opportunity to hear from government and to give their views on the proposals.
The consultation asked 93 questions in total, including questions using a response scale, and free text box responses.
The consultation adhered to the consultation principles guidance issued by Cabinet Office.
Summary of consultation responses
The consultation received 581 responses (469 through Citizen Space and 112 through other routes). A breakdown by type of respondent is set out in the table below. Note that the cumulative total does not equal the total number of individual responses as some respondents identified in more than one stakeholder group, for example a number of respondents identified as regulators as well as local authorities.
| Type of respondent | Number of responses received |
|---|---|
| Two-Tier LA | 110 |
| Single-Tier LA | 110 |
| Regulator | 43 |
| Service Provider | 203 |
| Property Provider | 56 |
| Resident | 33 |
| Other Org | 87 |
| All others | 60 |
All responses received have been considered, and this document, including the annex, provides a summary of those responses. Respondents were not required to answer all the questions in the consultation.
Several respondents submitted their responses via the dedicated mailbox or via post but did not follow the questions as set out in the consultation document and online questionnaire. As a result, not all these responses could be included within the quantitative data for specific questions. These responses have however all been considered as part of the analysis of responses.
Responses to the scaled questions are presented in table format in the annex to this response. Responses to free-text questions were analysed to identify common themes and coded where possible to collate similar views and comments. Many of these questions asked respondents to provide further details if they would like to. Key themes or issues are presented to provide a summary of these responses. After the summary analysis of the consultation proposals, we have given the government response and explained any changes.
Common terms used in this response
The Act – this refers to the Supported Housing (Regulatory Oversight) Act 2023.
Supported housing – this should be read as having the same meaning as ‘supported exempt accommodation’ in section 12 of the Act, and specified accommodation in Housing Benefit regulations.
Provider – a provider of supported housing is a non-profit organisation which provides supported housing.
Licensing authorities – this means the authority in charge of administering, issuing, and enforcing licences in the proposed licensing regime. The Act specifies that the licence must be granted by the local housing authority.
Supported housing scheme – the word scheme is used in this response to refer to a supported housing property, or a group of properties that deliver the same service to residents.
Support standards – this means the National Supported Housing Standards for the support provided.
CQC – Care Quality Commission - CQC is the independent regulator of health and social care in England. All providers that deliver personal care, including in supported housing, must be registered with CQC.
FPPT – Fit and Proper Person Test - the fit and proper test considers a person’s suitability to be a supported housing licence holder.
Housing Benefit (for supported housing) - residents who live in supported housing can claim Housing Benefit for help with their housing costs if the local authority determine that they are living in specified accommodation where their need for care, support or supervision is being met.
Ofsted – the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted) is a non-ministerial government department which reports to Parliament. Ofsted regulates supported accommodation which provides accommodation with support for 16- and 17- year-old looked after children and care leavers, to enable them to live semi independently.
Unit – a unit is defined as a dwelling such as a bedspace, apartment, house, room in a shared house, or other building occupied as a place of residence.
Introduction
The consultation set out the government’s proposals for how the measures in the Supported Housing (Regulatory Oversight) Act 2023 (the Act) would be implemented, including the implementation and design of the proposed licensing regime, the National Supported Housing Standards and Housing Benefit changes. The Act and the proposals in the consultation were designed to regulate supported housing, provide better value for money for Housing Benefit spend, and to ensure that residents are protected, in response to a growing minority of rogue landlords who have been putting residents at risk and taking advantage of a lack of regulation.
The consultation proposed a locally led licensing regime covering all of England, to include all supported housing where residents can claim Housing Benefit. It was proposed that providers would apply for licenses for their supported housing schemes in each licensing district, that they would need to pass a fit and proper person test, and that there would be a number of conditions licence holders would have to meet, including complying with the National Supported Housing Standards. The consultation also included questions on Housing Benefit changes.
The supported housing sector is extremely diverse, as has been evidenced by the breadth of responses received to this consultation. It is clear that, while respondents support the principle of regulation and of licensing, there are concerns over the way this may be implemented and calls for simplification wherever possible.
The government has considered the consultation responses carefully and remains of the view that these reforms need to be proportionate and minimise any burdens on both providers who will have to apply for and hold licences, and local authorities administering and enforcing licensing.
This document summarises the government’s proposals for supported housing licensing, the National Supported Housing Standards, planning, and changes to Housing Benefit. The associated annex document contains more detailed feedback for each consultation question with associated analysis.
Summary of key findings and changes to proposals
Licensing
Respondents overwhelmingly agreed with the proposal to include all types of supported housing where residents are eligible to claim Housing Benefit in scope of the licensing regime. Licensing will therefore be extended to mirror the definition of “supported exempt accommodation” in section 12 of the Supported Housing Act, rather than restricted only to the sub-set of supported housing set out in subsection 2 of Section 12.
Respondents broadly agreed with the licensing proposals, but it was clear from the responses that certain elements risked creating additional burdens on good providers, and that improvements could be made to strengthen other aspects.
Local government reorganisation
The Supported Housing (Regulatory Oversight) Act 2023 contains powers for the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) Secretary of State to designate licensing districts, and for licensing districts to designate themselves. The consultation proposed licensing being introduced in every local housing authority in England, and this remains the government’s intention.
The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government is leading a programme of work to reorganise local government in England, replacing the current two-tier system, where it still exists, with new unitary authorities. In unitary authorities, licensing functions such as the commissioning of support, housing benefit teams and housing enforcement teams are already integrated.
However, in most two-tier areas, these functions can be split – the support commissioning responsibility can sit with county councils, while housing benefit and housing teams are district council functions. Licensing will require multi-disciplinary teams that will draw upon staff and skills across both the housing and social services tiers.
Areas that are also undergoing reorganisation will need to be mindful of these changes when setting up their licensing teams. To assist with this, licensing districts will be encouraged to utilise powers in the Local Government Act 1972 to administer and run joint licensing teams covering wider areas, if they choose.
The application process and definition of a scheme
The consultation asked a question about how licensing applications could be as straightforward as possible to minimise unnecessary burdens and proposed a standardised application form that licensing authorities could use. The government wants the implementation of licensing to be simple, especially for those providers who have supported housing in different areas of the country. The government will work with local authorities to develop this application form so that it contains sufficient information to make an initial licensing decision and then decide whether further inspections or action is required.
The consultation proposed that licence applicants would apply for a licence for each scheme, defined as a property address. The responses overwhelmingly suggested that this approach could unfairly affect dispersed schemes where a service is provided across multiple properties and could lead to a large administrative burden.
Ministers have therefore decided to amend this proposal. Instead, a licence must be obtained by the person managing or in control of supported housing properties in each licensing district. The licence will list the specific addresses where the licence holder is authorised to operate supported housing. This will allow licence holders who operate multiple properties in a district to apply for their schemes in that district in one application. The regulations will allow for when notifications or variations should be made, rather than requiring a new application. Licensing authorities will still be able to remove specific addresses from a licence if they do not comply with licence conditions.
The person making an application for a supported exempt accommodation licence must be fit and proper to be managing or in control of the supported housing. The application form will list all the addresses the prospective licence holder is applying to licence in a local authority area (licensing district), including the types of accommodation, and service manager details. The prospective licence holder must confirm that they meet licensing conditions and the licensing authority would then proceed to the licensing assessment, including undertaking inspections, requesting further information as needed. An invalid application will be rejected by the local authority, and if the supported housing scheme continues to operate, the person managing or in control of that scheme will be at risk of committing an offence.
Exemptions
The consultation proposed limited exemptions – both Community Accommodation Service, Tier 2 (CAS2) provision commissioned directly by the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) and Ofsted-registered accommodation for 16–17-year-olds.
Respondents agreed with the principle of exempting provision that already has sufficient oversight to avoid duplication of responsibilities or regulation. But respondents also asked for exemptions to be narrow and justified to stop any loopholes from being created.
The government has carefully considered all responses, including feedback received during stakeholder engagement and is expanding the list of exemptions to include low risk supported housing that is clearly defined and already well-regulated by existing rules and local authorities, as set out below. Those providers operating exempt provision will have to inform the local authority of their exemption. If the local authority disagrees, the licence holder will have a right to appeal that decision. Further details on the appeals process will be set out in the draft regulations which we will consult on in due course. If an exemption ceases to be valid, the licence holder must report this to the local authority and apply for a supported housing licence.
Respondents agreed with exempting Community Accommodation Service (CAS2) accommodation. This provision is wholly overseen by the Ministry of Justice, with clear reporting routes, quality controls and risk assessments.
Most people agreed that services already regulated by Ofsted should be exempt to avoid being regulated twice. However, some pointed out that many Ofsted-regulated services also house young people up to age 25 and that this accommodation provides the same support to those residents, which could still lead to double regulation. Others were concerned that exempting these services might reduce oversight, for example an exemption for all Ofsted regulated services that contains any other resident with a range of support needs would be too broad. As a result of the feedback received, the government will not require any service regulated by Ofsted where that provision also provides a service for up to 25-year-olds to hold a supported housing licence. Both the accommodation and support in this provision is commissioned by the licensing authority so they have sufficient oversight and control over the support provided, and regulating under the Act’s measures as well would be duplicative.
In addition to these exemptions, the government is also exempting low cost older person’s regulated provision for people aged over 55, including Extra Care schemes where the care is regulated by the Care Quality Commission, as well as almshouses. There is a combination of factors that mean there does not need to be extra oversight of older people’s low cost regulated housing. The providers are regulated by the Regulator of Social Housing (RSH), the support provided is often low level, and historically there has been no evidence of rogue provision in this part of the sector. Additionally, some of this provision is similar to supported housing because of the design of the building but falls outside of the definition in the Act because of the low level of support required.
Local authorities can, in some cases, provide supported housing themselves – including both the accommodation and the support. Supported housing provided by a local authority will also be exempt, to remove additional regulatory oversight where it is not required.
The government is also exempting domestic abuse provision commissioned under Part 4 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021. This duty requires local authorities to monitor and evaluate support commissioned in safe accommodation locally.
As a result of both stakeholder engagement and consultation feedback, an expanded list of exemptions is below:
- supported housing which is provided or commissioned by the Ministry of Justice which provides temporary accommodation for persons leaving custody, including the CAS2 scheme
- supported housing containing at least one Ofsted-regulated bed, for residents aged up to 25 years old
- accommodation managed or controlled by a local authority in England where support is commissioned directly by the local authority or a public body
- domestic abuse services that are commissioned – because their commissioning practices also look at the accommodation standard
- older people’s age restricted housing for over 55’s supported housing, including Extra Care schemes, regulated by the Regulator of Social Housing
- almshouses as defined in paragraph 12 of Schedule 1 to the Housing Act 1985
The government will also make clear in guidance that some types of accommodation known as supported housing would not meet the definition in the Act and therefore would not be required to hold a licence. An example is residential treatment services for people who require treatment for substance misuse where the service is regulated by the Care Quality Commission.
The licence holder and commissioned services
Supported housing is often delivered with the involvement of a number of organisations – for example, there could be a head landlord who owns the property, a managing agent who manages the property on the landlord’s behalf, and a support provider commissioned directly by another organisation, for example a local authority or the NHS. Providers questioned who would be expected to hold the licence, when responsibility for meeting different licensing conditions can sit across a number of organisations.
The Act sets out that a supported housing licence holder must be the person ‘managing or in control of’ the supported exempt accommodation. Depending on the exact circumstances there may be more than one person who could be the licence holder, for example a head landlord and a managing agent. The government would expect the organisations to agree between them who is the appropriate person to hold the licence, having regard to guidance and any relevant case law. Where there is any doubt on who should apply for the licence, an applicant may wish to discuss this with the licensing authority.
The licensing guidance will include draft illustrative case studies to set out who would be expected to apply for and hold the licence. In many cases, the managing agent will be the appropriate person if they have control of the day to day running of the property.
Commissioned services are services where there is already oversight of the support service – for example when the local authority or a public body like the NHS contracts a support service for a particular reason in a property. Commissioned services will not be required to comply with the National Supported Housing Standards licensing condition. The licence holder will not be held responsible for that service not meeting support standards but should make the licensing authority aware if they have concerns about a commissioned support service. Commissioners will be expected to commission support services to comply with the National Supported Housing Standards.
The fit and proper person test
The consultation contained a proposal for a fit and proper person test (FPPT) based on the test in HMO licensing. This required a declaration that the licence holder had not been convicted of certain criminal convictions.
Feedback from the consultation suggested that a FPPT was an important part of licensing, to protect residents and ensure that those running supported housing are appropriate to do so.
Following consultation feedback and further consideration, the government has decided to expand the fit and proper person test to include not just the licence holder, but also the Board of Directors if the licence holder is an organisation. There will be an enhanced fit and proper person test for licensees whose residents are particularly vulnerable. The licence holder will also be required, through a new licensing condition, to ensure that service managers (see later in this document), those they have employed to manage their schemes, are also suitable to fulfil that role.
The government has decided to align the supported exempt accommodation licensing FPPT with similar tests used by the Care Quality Commission and Ofsted in relation to supported accommodation. This is a better alignment than HMO licensing, and reflects the services being provided to some of the most vulnerable people in society.
The amended FPPT will require licensing authorities to determine whether the licence holder is a person of integrity and good character and has the relevant skills and experience to be managing or in control of supported housing. Where an organisation is managing or in control of supported exempt accommodation, the board must nominate an individual director as the licence holder. The directors, partner in a partnership and the nominated individual must also be fit and proper persons.
In order to pass the FPPT the licensing authority must be satisfied that full information is available on the licence holder, director, partner, and nominated individual, including a criminal record certificate if required.
Licensing conditions
The standard of accommodation licensing condition
The government is not creating new accommodation standards for supported housing. The consultation proposed that all supported accommodation applying for a licence should be of good quality, and that supported housing properties that the licence covers should meet the existing accommodation requirements and standards relevant to their housing tenure.
The consultation also proposed that, where a Category 1 health hazard is found, that address would not hold a licence.
Respondents overwhelmingly agreed with the principle that accommodation should meet existing accommodation standards, whether that is the Decent Homes Standard (DHS), or the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). There was a strong sense that landlords should be held responsible for property quality, and that they should keep their properties up to standard.
There were also calls for proportionality and flexibility when assessing property standards and particularly around the suggestion that a Category 1 hazard would mean a licence is never given. Some respondents felt that where there is already appropriate action being taken to remedy a hazard, the licensing authority should be able to grant a licence at their discretion, if they are satisfied that this hazard will be rectified. Some respondents raised concerns that licence holders may need time to fix any issues and should be allowed to work with the licensing authority to improve under an improvement plan rather than starting with the assumption that a licence would be refused or removed.
There were also concerns raised in answers to this question about the capacity of local authorities and the shortage of Environmental Health Officers.
The government welcomes the support for this licensing condition, and believes it is important for properties to be of good quality. For the resident, a poor quality property can affect their engagement with support, their health, and how they feel in their home.
The government expects that a licensing authority would take the appropriate enforcement action under their existing enforcement powers if an issue were identified in supported housing. The consultation had proposed that a licence would not be granted if a Category 1 hazard was identified. However, the responses showed that a more proportionate approach would be to allow the licensing authority to decide what the appropriate action should be, including an improvement plan and subsequent improvement notice if necessary.
If there is already enforcement action being taken against a Category 1 hazard, the licence application should be refused. The government expects licensing authorities to work with providers wherever possible and where this is not causing danger or harm to residents, to allow them to make necessary improvements.
The use of accommodation licensing condition
In some cases, the accommodation that is used for supported housing is entirely unsuitable for the residents. The accommodation, and the support that is provided within it, are linked, and the resident should be able to receive their support in appropriate surroundings.
Rather than suggesting what could be unsuitable, the consultation asked respondents what factors could mean that accommodation would be unsuitable to be used as supported housing. Respondents raised a number of factors that they thought would make a building unsuitable including:
- overcrowding, small room sizes, and a lack of communal areas
- an inappropriate location - for example if accommodation for those recovering from drug addiction is too close to drug hotspots, if the accommodation is too close to other poorly run supported housing and therefore results in anti-social behaviour, or the accommodation is too far away from amenities
- unsafe buildings with no fire risk assessments or damp and mould problems;
- accessibility issues for disabled residents and buildings not being adapted for the residents’ needs
- poor management of the building, and unsuitably trained staff
Respondents also stated that they believe the property should have the appropriate planning permission but also raised that planning permission is often difficult to get for supported housing because of issues such as perceived anti-social behaviour from residents.
Supported housing should fit the needs of residents – there is no one size fits all, and what will be appropriate for one person’s needs will be inappropriate for another. This licensing condition will allow for flexibility and should not restrict the breadth of accommodation that should be available to residents.
The government therefore believes that this licensing condition should ask that supported housing should be at a minimum safe, accessible for the residents, and well maintained. Licensing teams would need to work with support commissioners when assessing this licensing condition and recognise that in some cases the commissioners will specify which building the support should be provided within.
Conditions related to the provision of care, support, and supervision
As the consultation set out, it is already the case that care meeting the definition of personal care must be registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC). The consultation also proposed that where a service is rated “inadequate” by the CQC, the licence should be rejected.
Respondents, including the CQC, queried how this proposal could be operationalised given the separation between housing and care in these settings. Care is commissioned by local authority commissioners, who have the power to remove a care service from a property, so there is existing oversight of care services from both the Care Quality Commission, and local authority commissioning teams.
As a result of the feedback received through the consultation this licensing condition will state:
- Where care is provided in a supported housing scheme the care provider must be registered with CQC
Any service in supported housing that isn’t registered care must comply with the National Supported Housing Standards unless otherwise exempt from the relevant licensing condition.
Needs assessments licensing condition
The consultation suggested that a needs assessment should be completed for each resident. It recognised that in some cases, a needs assessment will be undertaken by another body, for example a local authority. Respondents agreed with this condition and recognised the importance of a needs assessment being unique to each resident, and that assessing needs is crucial to ensuring they receive the right support in the right accommodation.
This condition will ask that the licence holder ensures that a needs assessment is completed when the resident moves in, or if that is not possible, within four weeks of the resident moving into the accommodation. The needs assessment must comply with the National Supported Housing Standards and be completed by a suitably skilled and experienced person, for example by the licence holder, a commissioning body, or a person acting on behalf of either.
New suitability test for Service Managers licensing condition
The consultation responses showed that respondents felt that those in charge of the day to day running of supported housing should be fit and proper to do so, including being named as part of the licence application to ensure accountability. The fit and proper person test will assess the suitability of the licence holder to hold a licence for supported housing, but the government has decided that licence holders should also be held accountable for the staff that they employ, particularly those with responsibility for the day to day running of supported housing, who we will refer to as Service Managers. Disclosure and Barring Service checks are required through the support standards for all staff working with residents, but in addition to this, the government is creating a new licensing condition, to ask that licence holders assure themselves that their Service Managers has the character, capacity, appropriate experience and skills to undertake the role. The licence holder must confirm this on their licensing application and may face enforcement action if not.
This should not prejudice those with lived experience from being or becoming service managers – the government understands the importance of those with lived experience working in supported housing with residents and recognises the benefits that this can bring. For example, having a criminal record must not necessarily be a bar to being a fit person to be a service manager.
Discretionary licensing conditions
The consultation asked a question about whether licensing authorities should be allowed to introduce their own discretionary licensing conditions. Local authorities were supportive of this, but providers raised concerns about inconsistency, and about local authorities having too much power to design their own conditions. There was a mixture of responses to this question.
To ensure consistency of the licensing regime, regulations will not include the power to add discretionary licensing conditions. Many of the conditions local authorities asked for have been included in the proposed use of accommodation licensing conditions or are already available to local authorities through their existing powers (for example, standard room sizes can be managed through the planning system).
National Supported Housing Standards
There was very strong support for the National Supported Housing Standards from all types of respondents.
Some challenges with evidencing the standards were highlighted and some suggestions were made for ways in which the standards could be strengthened.
Some concerns were raised that where the support and housing are delivered by separate organisations it would be difficult for the support provider to evidence the standards in full due to the housing elements that they contain.
Respondents noted that splitting the responsibility to evidence the support standards between the support provider and the housing provider would be operationally challenging.
To address feedback from respondents, and to ensure that responsibilities are as clear as possible, some changes have been made to the standards so they can be met in full by the support provider. The housing elements apply to the licence holder through the other licensing conditions, not through the National Supported Housing Standards licensing condition.
As the National Supported Housing Standards will also apply to supervision, this has been reflected in the standards.
For the Person-Centred Standard, respondents highlighted the invaluable role that advocates play for residents who lack the capacity to be actively involved in their support. The standard has been amended to include the role of advocates, and this has also been reflected in the first criterion of the Empowerment Standard.
Many respondents suggested that the requirements for the resident to have the same support worker wherever possible and for a move-on plan to be in place where required were too narrow. Some revisions to the requirements have been made to reflect that the residents should have consistency of support, rather than the same support worker. The move-on criterion has also been broadened.
For the Environment Standard, it was highlighted that many schemes do not take emergency referrals due to the risks associated with these types of placements. Consideration also needs to be given to the role that a support service plays in ensuring that any necessary repairs are carried out.
Reference to emergency placement referrals has been removed, although where a service does accept these, they will be expected to have a policy in place to manage the associated risk. The repairs criterion has been revised to reflect there should be a process in place to report repairs rather than to respond to requests for repairs. Where the licence holder delivers the housing and the support they will be expected to have both processes in place.
For the Staff and Safeguarding Standard, safeguarding measures have been included as a separate criterion, in addition to the existing requirement for staff to undertake training in safeguarding. A requirement for staff to have training on managing anti-social behaviour has also been included. The performance management process should allow for achievement to be rewarded as well as addressing poor performance.
On the Local Need Standard, there was some confusion if this also encompassed a local connection test for the resident. There were also some doubts about applying this standard to existing schemes and how new schemes would be able to evidence the standard before local authority supported housing strategies are in place.
The government has decided to revise the Local Need Standard to be clearer about its purpose, including that it does not include a ‘local connection’ test, and to only require new providers to evidence they meet it once local authority supported housing strategies have been published. The criterion relating to referral pathways is captured in the Environment Standard.
Where providers accept out of area placements, they will be expected to have a rationale for these. Some specialist schemes such as domestic abuse refuges, veteran or offender accommodation will have a high volume of out of area placements due to the nature of the service.
The government has decided not to proceed with the Responsible Person Standard. This standard was designed to ensure there is an accountable person in the support service who can work with the licence holder to ensure that the National Supported Housing Standards are being met. The licence holder must provide details of the service manager for each address they are seeking to license, and the licence holder must require service managers to be appropriate for the role– therefore, the standard becomes duplicative and is no longer required.
The Statement of Purpose Standard has been revised and simplified to reflect respondents’ views by separating out support provider and housing provider responsibilities. The housing provider responsibilities will be addressed by the Use of Accommodation licensing condition.
There were concerns raised over identifying the location of the supported housing if the statement is published on a website as this could compromise the safety of the residents in certain situations. The requirement for the location to be included has been removed. Supporting guidance will set out clearly that providers can display the Statement of Purpose in the scheme, and it does not have to be published on a website.
The consultation also suggested evidence that could be used by providers to evidence the National Supported Housing Standards and asked if respondents agreed and if they had additional suggestions.
Most respondents agreed with the suggested evidence for the standards. Several key themes were identified, highlighting additional evidence that could support certain standards, which has been incorporated.
The revised standards are set out in full below, with the changes made in bold. It also sets out the additional evidence that can be used.
The person-centred support standard
- an individual needs assessment must be in place for each resident, which identifies the need(s) for support and/or supervision
- a tailored support and/or supervision plan with agreed outcomes must be in place to accompany the individual needs assessment
- the support and/or supervision plan must set out the level and type of support required to meet the identified need(s) of the resident
- wherever possible the resident or their advocate has worked with the support provider to design their support and/or supervision plan
- achieving agreed outcomes is demonstrated and barriers to achieving them is identified
- there must be procedure in place to encourage the resident’s engagement with their support and/or supervision
- the resident has consistent support and/or supervision for the duration of their stay
- a plan is in place to support the resident to live as independently as possible and/or to develop resilience and skills to move on when ready for more independent living
- where appropriate the resident is supported, encouraged, and enabled to take up learning, volunteering, training, and employment opportunities
- communication and information are clear, accessible, and appropriate to the resident’s needs
- the resident or advocate is fully aware of their entitlements and, when necessary, supported to receive those entitlements
- the resident is signposted or referred to specialist services where necessary
Additional evidence
- support reviews
- certificates or records of completion for training programs, workshops, or courses attended by residents
- documentation of any qualifications or skills gained through these activities
The empowerment standard
- residents and/or their advocates are consulted and involved in the service development, and their preferences are considered
- the provider must clearly set out roles and responsibilities within the organisation and ensure that residents understand and are aware of these
- the provider must have a clear, simple, and accessible complaints and redress procedures in place
The environment standard
- the provider offers a clean, comfortable environment, within both individual and shared living spaces, while respecting peoples need for privacy
- arrangements are in place for the management of referrals into the scheme, to ensure peoples safety and security and to avoid an inappropriate mix of residents
- risk management processes are in place
- where appropriate, residents are accommodated to have visits from family and friends and, where applicable, contact with their children
- a process is in place to report both routine and emergency repairs
Additional evidence
- time stamped videos of the inside of the accommodation
- cleaning policy
- risk assessment policy and procedure
The staff and safeguarding standard
- staff working as part of the supported housing scheme demonstrate an understanding of services, receive comprehensive training (including but not limited to safeguarding, anti-social behaviour, domestic abuse awareness and incident management) and are encouraged to acquire appropriate and relevant qualifications
- safeguarding measures are in place
- staff are DBS checked and safe and suitable to be in contact with and work with vulnerable people
- there is a process in place for managing and addressing poor performance and rewarding achievement
- the scheme has sufficient staff to support and accommodate people safely and effectively
- there is a policy in place to deal with anti-social behaviour
- there is a pre-eviction protocol in place
Additional evidence
- details of planned training for staff
- safeguarding policy
- logs of safeguarding incidents and the actions taken in response.
- records of safeguarding referrals made to local authorities or other relevant agencies
- performance management framework
- staff appraisals
- staff rota
- information on staffing levels per scheme
The local need standard
- how consultation with local partners, including the LA, residents, and community groups, has taken place prior to and during setting up the scheme
- how the scheme will link with existing local services and pathways
- how the scheme will seek to maintain a good relationship with neighbours and the wider community
- that the supported housing scheme reflects a need identified in the local supported housing strategy
The statement of purpose standard
- the ethos, core aims, and function of the service
- the outcomes the scheme seeks to achieve for residents and its approach to achieving them
- information about partnerships with other providers, such as commissioned care and support providers, and how these collaborations work
- how the service engages with and build relationships with the local community
- the statement of purpose must be kept under review and updated annually
Planning
The consultation asked for views on planning changes for supported housing, including views on a new planning use class.
There was a range of views on planning changes for supported housing. Local authorities tended to say that a new planning use class would allow them to regulate quality and control the concentration of supported housing in certain areas. But conversely, providers felt that a new planning use class would create barriers to development and stifle supply of new supported housing.
Some respondents said that new supported housing already struggles with negative public perception and gaining buy in from councils and local residents in the surrounding area. They expressed concerns that any planning changes would make it even harder to supply supported housing for certain vulnerable cohorts and could even risk discrimination.
Some respondents highlighted that the proposed licensing regime and National Supported Housing Standards, when implemented, combined with supported housing strategies, should give local authorities the tools to manage poor quality supported housing, negating the need for any planning changes.
At this stage, the government is not minded to introduce any planning changes for supported housing. The government will keep this position under review.
The Act commits the government to review the supported housing licensing regime after three years, at which point the MHCLG Secretary of State must decide whether to introduce a new planning use class.
Housing Benefit
Summary of key findings and changes to Housing Benefit
This government is committed to building a fairer society where everyone can fulfil their potential. For those who are able and willing, this includes the right to work without fear of eviction. Driving up the quality of provision to vulnerable residents in supported housing is important, not least because most supported housing residents receive their rent through publicly funded Housing Benefit. It is therefore essential that this expenditure supports positive outcomes for residents and represents good value for money for taxpayers.
Whilst the Government is clear that Housing Benefit must not be used to pay for care, support, or supervision, it expects good quality care, support, or supervision to be in place. The Act was introduced to address a minority of providers who exploit the system by accessing high levels of rent from Housing Benefit and yet offer little or no support to residents. This must not be allowed to continue.
The Act contains the provision to ‘remove or restrict entitlement to Housing Benefit’ and the consultation asked whether Housing Benefit entitlement should be linked to the licensing regime.
In considering the extent to which Housing Benefit can be used as a lever to drive up quality, the Government is mindful of the many excellent providers of supported housing, who work hard to meet the needs of their residents and who play a vital role in communities across Great Britain.
Linking Housing Benefit to the licensing regime in England
Over 70% of respondents agreed that Housing Benefit should be linked to licensing. The government has listened to the strong support for this proposal and will amend Housing Benefit regulations to link the new licensing regime in England to Housing Benefit entitlement. Respondents stated that this will be an effective compliance tool which will drive up quality and drive out those who are exploiting the system, helping to ensure that taxpayers’ money is only paid to providers who meet required supported housing standards and deliver appropriate, tailored care, support or supervision to the residents who need it. This includes supporting residents to access training, volunteering and employment opportunities where appropriate.
The government recognises the concerns raised about the impact on residents where a provider fails to obtain a licence. Although poor providers are the minority, it is important that we act to protect those residents who are not currently receiving the care and support that they require.
The first risk identified in the consultation responses was the risk of residents being evicted. The government believes there are several mitigations in place to support residents from the risk of eviction, however, there will also be cases when it is in the residents’ best interest to be supported to find more suitable supported accommodation or where the resident may only qualify for general needs accommodation.
The first mitigation is that the government expects Local Authorities to take a risk-based approach to licensing. Where residents are most at risk, we expect Local Authorities to act quickly, refusing licenses to known unscrupulous landlords. However, for many providers, licensing teams will work with them to make the necessary improvements to meet the required standards before a licence is refused. Once a licence is awarded, if a breach occurs, providers who have been put under notice to improve will have a minimum of three months to take remedial action and consider the next steps for themselves and their residents.
Where the accommodation or support is still not suitable, the second mitigation is that the local authority will play a key role in ensuring that residents are appropriately re housed where needed. There are good examples of local authorities doing this already and MHCLG will include guidance on this to ensure that best practice is understood and implemented. The Government also expects that local government reform, will provide more opportunities for non-unitary authorities to ensure a multidisciplinary approach between revenue and benefits teams and those commissioning supported housing services.
Thirdly, the introduction of supported housing strategies will require local authorities to review their supported housing, assess their current availability and consider their future need. This will help to stabilise the sector by ensuring the right type of supported accommodation is available to meet the needs of the community.
The second risk raised by consultation respondents was the risk that residents could be financially disadvantaged by the measures. In considering a proportionate approach which puts the needs of the resident at the heart of the reforms, the Government is mindful that some residents are already being financially disadvantaged by the landlords who are profiting at their expense.
Residents who are impacted by these changes may be eligible for a Housing Payment, through their local authority, from the Crisis and Resilience Fund. The Fund provides immediate support to people in crisis, including residents in receipt of housing support who face shortfalls in meeting their rent or need help with moving costs.
Some respondents expressed concern that customers will face issues when claiming Universal Credit after a provider has failed to get a licence, and Housing Benefit has ceased. They stated that there needs to be a clear process to prevent customers being turned away by DWP and directed back to the local authority.
It is the responsibility of local authorities to determine whether accommodation meets the specified accommodation definition and, as a result, whether housing costs should be met through Housing Benefit or Universal Credit. Where the local authority decides the accommodation is not specified accommodation, the customer will need to claim their housing costs through Universal Credit unless they are rehomed in supported or temporary accommodation or are over pension age. The Government is committed to providing clear guidance to those administering Housing Benefit and Universal Credit to ensure that residents are supported to receive their eligible social security entitlements.
Linking to frameworks in Scotland and Wales
It has been clear from the consultation that there is insufficient support to introduce a link between Housing Benefit entitlement and existing frameworks in Wales or Scotland, where supported housing is already regulated and where direct commissioning is much more common.
The Government will therefore not pursue a link between Housing Benefit and statutory frameworks in Scotland and Wales.
Defining care, support and supervision
Although not part of the Act, the government has carefully considered going further by defining care, support and supervision in Housing Benefit regulations with possible thresholds for the level (or amount) of care, support or supervision provided. This would help raise the quality of provision across Great Britain, improve value for money for the taxpayer and strengthen Housing Benefit regulations by overriding the ‘more than minimal’ case law that has left residents vulnerable and Local Authorities unable to set clear and consistent expectations for providers.
However, consultation feedback on this measure was mixed with no clear consensus for this proposal. This is a complex area, and the government agrees with consultation feedback that this measure requires a person-centred approach as every resident in supported housing has different needs and these needs change over time. In addition, the future of Housing Benefit is uncertain as there is UK Government work underway to determine how best to provide housing support for people in both supported and temporary accommodation across Great Britain.
The Government is mindful that it wants to keep good, supported housing providers in the system. It agrees with consultation feedback that any future definitions/thresholds of care, support and supervision need to utilise regulatory frameworks across Great Britain, be proportionate and workable. Therefore, it will not seek to introduce new definitions/thresholds for care, support and supervision until the operational landscape is clearer, and the licensing regime has come into effect in England.
These changes are necessary to help residents of supported housing to thrive, while being fair to taxpayers and providers. We will continue to engage with the sector as we draft and implement the new regulations.
Other issues raised
Many respondents chose to use the consultation to raise broader concerns or views on Housing Benefit. A summary of these themes and the Government’s position is provided below.
The future of Housing Benefit
Some respondents stated that modernisation of the Housing Benefit system is required before any link to licensing is enforced whilst others suggested that help with housing costs for those living in supported housing should be paid through Universal Credit.
Whilst the Government accepts that the Welfare Reform Act 2012 committed to abolish Housing Benefit, working age residents in Supported Housing and Temporary Accommodation are likely to remain on Housing Benefit for many years to come. There is work underway to consider the best way to provide support to vulnerable people in these types of accommodation, but the Government will want to consider this carefully and in partnership with stakeholders.
In the meantime, it would not be appropriate to delay tackling the issue of the minority of landlords who exploit Housing Benefit recipients and deny residents the care, support and supervision that should be in place to deliver better outcomes for them, and which enables them to qualify for higher rates of Housing Benefit.
Recovery of the licence fee
Many providers expressed concern about the impact of the licence fee stating that it should be recoverable through Housing Benefit as an eligible service charge. Due to their not-for-profit status, if the licence fee is not an eligible service charge, providers advise that the cost would have to be passed on to the residents through increased rent. Providers say that the only alternative would be to cut other resources or close.
The government is mindful that the administration of the regime should not be too burdensome for providers or local authorities, and it recognises the important role that supported housing plays in supporting people who might otherwise not be able to live independently in their community.
Local authorities will charge licence fees for the cost of administering and enforcing the licence regime. They will do this in line with HMT guidance and will not be able to generate a surplus. The government accepts that licence fees should be paid for through the public purse. We know that providers will seek to do this through service charges. Housing Benefit officers will continue to scrutinise these in line with guidance.
Subsidy loss
Many respondents argued that local authorities should receive 100% subsidy for all Housing Benefit awards where the housing provider is licensed regardless of the status of the landlord. There is no provision within the Act related to Housing Benefit subsidy legislation and as such, it was not within scope of this consultation. The policy intention of the Act is to regulate supported housing and to improve the quality of the support being provided. However, the government recognises that subsidy loss is a significant issue for some local authorities and providers. We continue to monitor the situation and the impact this is having. Any future decisions on subsidy rules and funding models will form part of the deliberations on the best way to provide housing support to those on Housing Benefit in the future and will be considered in the context of the Government’s missions, goals on housing and the current financial environment.
Work disincentive
Some respondents raised the work disincentive stating that a grace period or run on (e.g. 6 to 12 months) should be introduced for residents who move into employment to prevent them facing rent arrears.
When residents in supported housing work and earn enough to flow off Universal Credit, their Housing Benefit is re-assessed using less generous Housing Benefit income rules. This means that increased earnings can result in a drop in overall net weekly income, creating a financial penalty for working. It cannot be right that residents who are trying to move into employment face a loss of income simply for doing so. This disincentive not only undermines work incentives but also risks trapping people in supported housing when they are ready to progress.
The government recognises the strong concerns raised by respondents about the financial disincentive to work faced by residents in supported housing and temporary accommodation. In Autumn Budget 2025 the government approved a targeted intervention to address this issue. The change will remove the financial cliff edge for most affected claimants and significantly reduce it for others, ensuring that residents in supported accommodation are better off in work. This supports financial independence and will help thousands of individuals take meaningful steps towards employment and stability as well as potentially freeing up spaces in supported accommodation for others who need it.
Next steps
The Government has listened carefully to feedback received as part of the consultation on the Act and, where appropriate, changes have been made to the proposals, as set out in this consultation response.
Regulations are now being drafted by both DWP and MHCLG. MHCLG expect to consult on their regulations in late 2026. Following that, regulations will be laid in Parliament to bring these measures into force.
In parallel, the Government will consider, in partnership with stakeholders, the best way to provide housing support to those in supported housing in the long term.
This proportionate approach seeks to strike a balance between the issues facing the supported housing sector now, particularly in England, without, pre-empting how to design and deliver a system that works across Great Britain and is fit for the future.
Annex A – Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government question by question analysis
This annex contains tables of the scaled questions as well as a summary of the responses received when respondents had the option to add a free text response. A government response is also included for each question, grouped where appropriate.
Question 5
Do you agree that the licensing regime that the government is proposing to introduce under powers in the Act should apply to all supported housing (supported exempt accommodation as defined in the Act)? This definition is the same as ‘specified accommodation’ in Housing Benefit regulations.
All Respondents
| Text Added | Strongly agree | Partly agree | Neither agree nor disagree | Partly disagree | Strongly disagree | Do not know | Not Answered | Total Responses |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 294 | 297 | 166 | 0 | 31 | 0 | 12 | 75 | 581 |
| 51% | 51% | 29% | 0% | 5% | 0% | 2% | 13% | - |
The first part of the consultation asked a specific question on whether the government should consider expanding the scope of the licensing regime from exempt accommodation to all specified accommodation as defined in Housing Benefit regulations. This would mean that all supported housing across England where residents are claiming Housing Benefit according to the specified accommodation rules would need to hold a licence.
Respondents overwhelmingly agreed with this proposal with 463 out of 581 respondents either strongly or partially agreeing. Only 31 respondents partly disagreed, with the rest not answering the question. Respondents agreed to the principle of covering the whole sector, but urged proportionality, and suggested appropriate and well-defined exemptions where some parts of the sector are already sufficiently regulated.
The answers to this question also highlighted the need for consistency of licensing decisions, and consistency in decision making across all categories of Housing Benefit, and for some specific exemptions from licensing which are discussed later in this document.
Respondents also stressed the need for local authorities to be appropriately resourced to be able to implement and enforce licensing.
Government response
The government will draft regulations for a licensing regime covering all types of supported housing listed in Housing Benefit regulations.
Questions 6 - 7 – Principles
Question 6
Do the principles reflect the core elements of a good quality support service?
All Respondents
| Text Added | Strongly agree | Partly agree | Neither agree nor disagree | Partly disagree | Strongly disagree | Do not know | Not Answered | Total Responses |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 293 | 365 | 123 | 7 | 9 | 2 | 3 | 72 | 581 |
| 50% | 63% | 21% | 1% | 2% | 0% | 1% | 12% | - |
Question 7
Do you have suggestions for any additions to the principles as described above? (Free text response)
The consultation proposed five core principles that set out the foundation of a good support service. These are:
- person-centred
- respectful
- safe and responsive
- effective and
- well-led
There was positive feedback on the principles, with supported housing providers reporting that the principles reflected what they already do in their services.
Respondents reflected that the principles reflected at a high level what they would expect a support service to consist of, and that adhering to these principles would ensure a good quality support service with accountability and where residents are treated with dignity and respect.
There were suggestions of local authorities and providers working together, particularly where similar schemes are already implemented. Providers welcomed the opportunity to work with local authorities and central government.
Questions 6 - 7 - Government response
The government was pleased to see a positive response to the principles and will keep these principles under review as supported housing practices may change and evolve.
Questions 8 – 10 – Person-centred support standard – analysis data
Question 8
Do you agree with the person-centred support standard?
All Respondents
| Text Added | Strongly agree | Partly agree | Neither agree nor disagree | Partly disagree | Strongly disagree | Do not know | Not Answered | Total Responses |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 339 | 336 | 142 | 7 | 9 | 1 | 4 | 82 | 581 |
| 58% | 58% | 24% | 1% | 2% | 0% | 1% | 14% | - |
Question 9
Do you agree with the examples of evidence that are listed?
All Respondents
| Text Added | Strongly agree | Partly agree | Neither agree nor disagree | Partly disagree | Strongly disagree | Do not know | Not Answered | Total Responses |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 282 | 268 | 179 | 11 | 17 | 0 | 4 | 102 | 581 |
| 49% | 46% | 31% | 2% | 3% | 0% | 1% | 18% | - |
Question 10
What other information (if any) could be provided to evidence this standard, including evidence that providers already submit to other bodies? Please specify what the information is currently used to evidence. (Free text response)
The consultation set out the proposal for the person-centred standard. The standard focuses on the resident and their support, including support plans, needs assessments, and how the support is tailored to the resident.
Respondents had strong support for this standard, including for outcomes-focused support plans and tracking residents’ progress. Many highlighted the importance of and need for co-production in the support provided.
Respondents also highlighted the important role of advocates for residents that do not have capacity to actively be involved in co-production.
Respondents also emphasised the need for any evidence to be aligned with existing regulatory audits, and the need to take resident feedback into account through interviews, feedback opportunities, and visits where this is possible.
Some feedback showed that there is a need for flexibility in some cases – for example, the expectation that a resident would have the same support worker for the duration of their stay. Some support is provided in flexible ways, for example through teams of support workers rather than individuals, and it is important to also recognise that residents’ support needs fluctuate and change, so the support service should adapt accordingly.
Most respondents agreed with the examples of evidence listed, but it was clear from the responses that some providers had questions around the detail required and the format that some evidence should be given in. For example, some providers questioned what a needs assessment and support plan should look like and whether this should be standardised. Some also questioned whether there would be personal data risks with sharing needs assessment or support plan information with a licensing team in a local authority. Many asked what the ‘evidence of progress towards agreed outcomes or goals’ would look like to be classed as meeting the person-centred standard.
Some providers said that they did not currently have a move on policy, for example supported housing for older people, and some raised concerns that there is already not enough move on accommodation for residents which can create blockages to a person’s ability to move from the accommodation into general needs housing when they are ready.
Questions 8 – 10 – Person-centred support standard - Government response
The person-centred standard is a crucial part of the support standards – it places the focus on the individual and puts them at the centre of their own support. To strengthen the standard, advocates will be involved in co-producing support plans where appropriate. Standardised needs assessments and support plans will not be mandated, but there will be criteria that needs assessments and support plans must include.
The requirement to have the same support worker will be amended to a requirement for the resident to receive consistent support.
Finally, to recognise the fact that not all residents in supported housing will move on to other accommodation, the requirement for a move on plan has been revised.
Questions 11 – 14 – Empowerment support standard - analysis data
Question 11
Do you agree with the empowerment support standard?
All Respondents
| Text Added | Strongly agree | Partly agree | Neither agree nor disagree | Partly disagree | Strongly disagree | Do not know | Not Answered | Total Responses |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 272 | 358 | 122 | 5 | 4 | 0 | 2 | 90 | 581 |
| 47% | 62% | 21% | 1% | 1% | 0% | 0% | 15% | - |
Question 12
Do you agree that providers should give residents an information pack when they move into their accommodation?
All Respondents
| Text Added | Strongly agree | Partly agree | Neither agree nor disagree | Partly disagree | Strongly disagree | Do not know | Prefer not to say | Not Answered | Total Responses |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 293 | 385 | 59 | 7 | 5 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 123 | 581 |
| 50% | 66% | 10% | 1% | 1% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 21% | - |
Question 13
Do you agree with the examples of evidence that are listed?
All Respondents
| Text Added | Strongly agree | Partly agree | Neither agree nor disagree | Partly disagree | Strongly disagree | Do not know | Prefer not to say | Not Answered | Total Responses |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 189 | 338 | 121 | 10 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 108 | 581 |
| 33% | 58% | 21% | 2% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 19% | - |
Question 14
What other information (if any) could be provided to evidence this standard, including evidence that providers already submit to other bodies. (Free text response)
The empowerment standard focuses on enabling the resident to have a say in their own support and in the service that they receive and be able to speak up when things are not right. The standard promotes resident consultation, involvement in service development, and clarity on roles and responsibilities within the organisation as well as clear complaints processes and transparency.
Respondents were very supportive of the idea of an information pack, which could ensure residents understand the service, their rights and what is available to them. Respondents urged that any information should be accessible, including in formats that are easy for residents to engage with so that they can fully understand the information that is given to them, including digital formats and using social media where appropriate. However, some noted that a large information pack could be overwhelming especially for certain residents who may be dealing with some trauma or who struggle to engage with written material. In these cases, it was suggested that in-person inductions or verbal explanations, as well as gradual information being given during the resident’s stay, could be preferable. It was also suggested that resident’s support network, for example friends and family, should also be able to access this information if required.
There was strong support in the responses for this standard and calls for transparency and accessibility. Many agreed that empowering residents is crucial to create a support service that meets residents’ needs and that this can lead to better outcomes and improved satisfaction. Respondents also agreed with the idea of ensuring that feedback is incorporated into the service to help make continued improvements, and suggested feedback surveys. There was some concern that even if feedback is asked for, it may not be listened to.
There were also calls for government to reflect existing standards, such as those from the Regulator of Social Housing (RSH) and the Housing Ombudsman.
This section of the consultation also asked for views on an information pack that could be given to residents when they move into supported housing.
Questions 11 – 14 - Empowerment support standard - Government response
This standard is about empowering residents, giving them the information and tools to feel fully involved in their support.
The government has listened to the feedback from the consultation and made some amendments to this standard and the evidence that may be required. This is particularly relevant to registered providers, who may already be able to evidence this standard through the information that they are required to provide to the RSH.
Every resident should have information made available to them but how this information is given will not be specified. Providers could provide an information pack, but this information also could be available on the provider’s website, or the provider can use other methods such as face to face meetings to give the resident this information. Whichever way this is given, the provider must make sure that residents are aware of relevant contact information, and that they understand this information and can use it when they need to.
Questions 15 – 17 – Environment support standard - analysis data
Question 15
Do you agree with the environment support standard?
All Respondents
| Text Added | Strongly agree | Partly agree | Neither agree nor disagree | Partly disagree | Strongly disagree | Do not know | Not Answered | Total Responses |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 302 | 302 | 167 | 7 | 13 | 1 | 4 | 87 | 581 |
| 52% | 52% | 29% | 1% | 2% | 0% | 1% | 15% | - |
Question 16
Do you agree with the examples of evidence that are listed in relation to the environment support standard?
All Respondents
| Text Added | Strongly agree | Partly agree | Neither agree nor disagree | Partly disagree | Strongly disagree | Do not know | Not Answered | Total Responses |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 217 | 279 | 162 | 10 | 10 | 4 | 4 | 112 | 581 |
| 37% | 48% | 28% | 2% | 2% | 1% | 1% | 19% | - |
Question 17
What other information (if any) could be provided to evidence this standard, including evidence that providers already submit to other bodies? (Free text response)
The consultation detailed the environment standard and associated evidence. The environment standard emphasises the need for a welcoming environment in supported housing, including that the environment is appropriate for residents, with risk management procedures in place, a positive environment and that residents can have visits from their family friends and children where appropriate. The consultation also asked that a process should be in place for repairs, including clear response times, and that statutory requirements are complied with for this standard.
Most stakeholders agreed with the principles behind this standard and agreed that many providers already implement similar policies and that residents find these helpful. Respondents also noted the importance of supported housing providers being psychologically informed and trauma informed.
Some concerns were raised about how this standard might be implemented practically, including that some of the wording was open to interpretation, for example terms like ‘therapeutic’ and ‘homely,’ and that in some supported housing allowing visits may not be appropriate. There were also concerns about overlapping regulation, for example with property standard regulations.
Respondents agreed with the examples of evidence suggested, including risk assessments, safety certificates, maintenance logs, photographic evidence, and resident feedback. Some additional suggestions were raised including digital records, evidence of community engagement and accessibility audits.
Questions 15 – 17 – Environment support standard - Government response
The environment standard ensures that residents receive their support in clean comfortable and well managed environment, which will allow the resident to engage effectively with the support. This standard does not look at the physical and structural aspects of the property, which are addressed through the accommodation standard licensing condition and the use of accommodation licensing condition.
Questions 18 – 20 – Staff and safeguarding support standard – analysis data
Question 18
Do you agree with the staff and safeguarding support standard?
All Respondents
| Text Added | Strongly agree | Partly agree | Neither agree nor disagree | Partly disagree | Strongly disagree | Do not know | Not Answered | Total Responses |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 266 | 354 | 114 | 4 | 11 | 3 | 2 | 93 | 581 |
| 46% | 61% | 20% | 1% | 2% | 1% | 0% | 16% | - |
Question 19
Do you agree with the examples of evidence that are listed in relation to the safeguarding standard?
All Respondents
| Text Added | Strongly agree | Partly agree | Neither agree nor disagree | Partly disagree | Strongly disagree | Do not know | Not Answered | Total Responses |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 204 | 298 | 152 | 11 | 10 | 2 | 3 | 105 | 581 |
| 35% | 51% | 26% | 2% | 2% | 0% | 1% | 18% | - |
Question 20
What other information (if any) could be provided to evidence this standard, including evidence that providers already submit to other bodies. Please specify what the information is currently used to evidence. (Free text response)
The staff and safeguarding standard in the consultation set out that staff within supported housing should be appropriately trained and follow safeguarding procedures, including having DBS checks where appropriate. It noted that staff should be able to demonstrate an understanding of the service that they are providing, are DBS-checked and are suitable to be supporting vulnerable residents. It asked that the provider has a process in place for managing poor performance, that the service has sufficient staff to deliver the support effectively, that there is an anti-social behaviour policy in place with a process in place prior to residents being evicted.
Responses to this part of the consultation and the questions around the standard and evidence supported the emphasis on training, mental health awareness and trauma-informed practices. Respondents supported the ask for DBS checks for staff members. Respondents also acknowledged the need for and importance of having those with lived experience working with those in supported housing, as this can be an incredibly valuable way of helping residents to be supported by those who understand particular issues through their own lives. There was also support for multi-agency collaboration in supported housing between staff, providers, and local authorities, and calls for guidance.
There were calls for clarity and flexibility of interpretation in some areas, for example terms such as ‘sufficient staff’ and ‘appropriate qualifications’, to ensure that these terms are applied consistently. Some respondents noted that the absence of formal training should not exclude those with practical support knowledge or people who want to learn to become support workers.
There were concerns raised about the resources of providers to meet training and qualification requirements, especially for smaller providers, and suggestions for government funding or training programmes.
Respondents suggested that in addition to the evidence suggested, a safeguarding policy could be asked for, as well as staff training and appraisal records, and resident feedback.
Questions 18 – 20 – Staff and safeguarding support standard - Government response
The staff and safeguarding standard is intended to reflect what already takes place in good quality support services. It does not mandate staff to obtain qualifications. There is also no requirement for staff training to be delivered by external agencies and providers can choose to deliver training in house. The provider has a responsibility to ensure that their staff have the right skills to support the residents that live in the scheme.
Many respondents commented on the importance of safeguarding policies and procedures. A separate criterion has been added in addition to the existing requirement for staff to be trained in safeguarding practices. A requirement for staff to be trained in dealing with anti-social behaviour has also been added.
Questions 21 – 24 – Local need support standard – analysis data
Question 21
Do you agree with the local need support standard?
All Respondents
| Text Added | Strongly agree | Partly agree | Neither agree nor disagree | Partly disagree | Strongly disagree | Do not know | Not Answered | Total Responses |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 355 | 261 | 151 | 16 | 30 | 21 | 9 | 93 | 581 |
| 61% | 45% | 26% | 3% | 5% | 4% | 2% | 16% | - |
Question 22
Do you agree with the examples of evidence that are listed in relation to the strategic need standard?
All Respondents
| Text Added | Strongly agree | Partly agree | Neither agree nor disagree | Partly disagree | Strongly disagree | Do not know | Not Answered | Total Responses |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 250 | 218 | 150 | 25 | 35 | 12 | 9 | 132 | 581 |
| 43% | 38% | 26% | 4% | 6% | 2% | 2% | 23% | - |
Question 23
What additional standards may be needed to ensure specialised schemes are meeting local and national need? (Free text response)
Question 24
What other information (if any) could be provided to evidence this standard, including evidence that providers already submit to other bodies. (Free text response)
The local need standard was envisaged to encourage communication between local authorities and supported housing providers and asked that the local authority counter-signed a statement saying that the service is required. However, there were concerns raised that the local need standard could be used in some cases to block supply of supported housing, and confusion over the local connection test and local need standard. There was also concern that it will not be possible to evidence this standard objectively until the local supported housing strategies are in place. Respondents also recognised that some schemes would not necessarily be able to prove that they meet local need, because they are for a specific and less universally represented cohort of residents. They said that flexibility and protection for these types of schemes is required and that specialised schemes must not be penalised for being different. There was some concern that non-commissioned schemes may be disadvantaged and that care should be taken to avoid creating a two-tier system through the licensing regime.
Respondents suggested that local authority approval of a referral pathway could be used to evidence this standard, as well as a narrative explanation of how the scheme fills local gaps in supply and evidence from the provider of their outcomes. They also suggested surveying the local community, and residents. Respondents also suggested using existing local plans and needs assessments, for example the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, to evidence this standard.
Questions 21 – 24 – Local need support standard - Government response
As a result of the feedback, the government believes that the local need standard should be amended to make clear that it only applies once local authorities have completed their local supported housing strategy. Through their local supported housing strategies, local authorities will consider and plan for cross-authority arrangements needed for out-of-area referrals and specialist supported housing provision. The criterion relating to referral pathways is being addressed through the Environment Standard.
The local need standard has been amended to ask:
- how consultation with local partners, including the LA, residents and community groups, has taken place prior to and during setting up the scheme
- how the scheme will link with existing local services and pathways
- how the scheme will seek to maintain a good relationship with neighbours and the wider community
- that the supported housing scheme reflects need identified in the local supported housing strategy
The evidence local authorities could ask for is as follows:
- a statement setting out how the schemes on a licence meet the points listed above
Questions 25 – 27 – Responsible person standard – analysis data
Question 25
Do you agree with the responsible person standard?
All Respondents
| Text Added | Strongly agree | Partly agree | Neither agree nor disagree | Partly disagree | Strongly disagree | Do not know | Not Answered | Total Responses |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 289 | 270 | 157 | 19 | 25 | 12 | 3 | 95 | 581 |
| 50% | 46% | 27% | 3% | 4% | 2% | 1% | 16% | - |
Question 26
Do you agree with the examples of evidence that are listed in relation to the responsible person standard?
All Respondents
| Text Added | Strongly agree | Partly agree | Neither agree nor disagree | Partly disagree | Strongly disagree | Do not know | Not Answered | Total Responses |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 228 | 225 | 159 | 27 | 27 | 7 | 5 | 131 | 581 |
| 39% | 39% | 27% | 5% | 5% | 1% | 1% | 23% | - |
Question 27
What other information (if any) could be provided to evidence this standard, including evidence that providers already submit to other bodies. (Free text response)
This standard aimed to ensure accountability for the support service in the organisation through an individual with the power to make changes where these are required.
The majority of respondents agreed with this standard, stating that it is important to be accountable and to provide high quality support. However, some raised concerns that this standard could lead to micromanagement and some did not think this standard would be effective.
Most respondents agreed with the evidence proposed but suggested potential additions such as independent assessments or audits or professional qualifications, as well as incorporating resident feedback into the quality assurance process.
Questions 25 – 27 – Responsible person standard – Government response
The principle behind this standard was to ensure that an individual is held responsible for the support provided, and can work with the licence holder, where the support is provided separately, to make any changes that may be required,
The government will not be continuing with plans for a responsible person standard. The government has considered this standard in light of the changes proposed to the fit and proper person test and concluded that the requirements for this standard are now duplicative. The fit and proper person test changes are detailed later in this consultation response.
Questions 28 – 30 – Statement of purpose support standard – analysis data
Question 28
Do you agree with the statement of purpose support standard?
All Respondents
| Text Added | Strongly agree | Partly agree | Neither agree nor disagree | Partly disagree | Strongly disagree | Do not know | Not Answered | Total Responses |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 239 | 324 | 115 | 12 | 13 | 9 | 5 | 103 | 581 |
| 41% | 56% | 20% | 2% | 2% | 2% | 1% | 18% | - |
Question 29
Do you agree with the types of evidence that are listed in relation to the statement of purpose standard?
All Respondents
| Text Added | Strongly agree | Partly agree | Neither agree nor disagree | Partly disagree | Strongly disagree | Do not know | Not Answered | Total Responses |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 183 | 272 | 125 | 20 | 14 | 19 | 9 | 122 | 581 |
| 31% | 47% | 22% | 3% | 2% | 3% | 2% | 21% | - |
Question 30
What other information (if any) could be provided to evidence this standard, including evidence that providers already submit to other bodies. (Free text response)
The statement of purpose standard asks that the support provider sets out their vision for their service, and what the service aims to achieve for its residents. This statement of purpose should cover the ethos, aims and function of the service, the positive outcomes that it seeks to achieve, its approach, the characteristics of the residents supported in the scheme, the facilities, a description of the location and that this should be reviewed annually. The statement of purpose should be on the provider’s website or accessible within the scheme itself.
Respondents agreed that providers should know why they are providing supported housing, and who their scheme is designed for.
Some respondents disagreed with the proposal that the location of the service should be listed on the statement of purpose if this was publicly accessible, as this would not be appropriate for all types of supported housing.
Questions 28 – 30 – Statement of purpose support standard - Government response
The government recognises the concerns that have been raised in response to this question and with the evidence suggested. In some cases, the government recognises that more information would be helpful and will be providing this through the guidance that will sit alongside the National Supported Housing Standards.
The evidence asked for must be appropriate, and allow a local authority to gain an insight into the scheme that the resident lives in. In some cases, the local authority will need to inspect a scheme and can ask for examples of evidence in person.
The government will continue to engage with providers, local authorities and residents while drafting this guidance to make sure that these concerns are addressed.
Given that the responsible person standard is going to be removed, this standard has been amended to ask that a person of suitable seniority keeps the statement of purpose under review.
Question 31
What criteria should a needs assessment include? (Free text response)
Needs assessments are a critical part of ensuring that the resident gets the support that is appropriate for them in the right kind of accommodation. Needs assessments should always be undertaken before or when a resident moves into supported housing – respondents stated that a needs assessment cannot always be completed in advance for a number of reasons. They can be undertaken by a number of different parties – the provider themselves, commissioners, or other bodies. Respondents recognised the importance of needs assessments in their responses. In some responses, it was noted that needs assessments can often be called something else, but that they will fulfil the same purpose of assessing need and will follow on to a support plan that details the support that the resident will receive.
Key elements that respondents thought should be included in a needs assessment were:
- that needs assessments should reflect the individual and where possible be developed with them, which could mean making the document more accessible
- that needs assessments should list any goals, strengths, barriers to support and risk factors for the individual
- that needs assessments should inform support and action plans
- that needs assessments should be reviewed as resident’s needs can change
Government response
The government is not mandating a specific needs assessment process, or that needs assessments should always contain the same things, as each support service, and each resident are different. However, the needs assessment process should ensure that the residents needs are recognised and that the support service can help the resident through the support that they give.
Questions 32 – 33 – Support plans – analysis data
Question 32
Do you agree with the suggested content of support plans?
All Respondents
| Text Added | Strongly agree | Partly agree | Neither agree nor disagree | Partly disagree | Strongly disagree | Do not know | Not Answered | Total Responses |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 264 | 261 | 165 | 19 | 12 | 2 | 11 | 111 | 581 |
| 45% | 45% | 28% | 3% | 2% | 0% | 2% | 19% | - |
Question 33
Are there any further criteria that a support plan should include? (Free text response)
Respondents agreed that support plans should be tailored to the individual and should set out the next steps, as well as being developed with the individual through regular reviews, and changed over time according to the resident’s progress and needs. Respondents agreed that the individual should be involved in their own support plan as much as possible, or reviewed with the resident’s advocate, and that support goals should be realistic, measurable and cover both short and long term goals for the resident with timeframes wherever possible.
There was some concern that support plans could become too restrictive or formulaic, leading to less flexible support being given. Support can sometimes need to be changed depending on the needs of the resident, and the nature of support is that it is fluid and responds to the individual, so support plans should allow for this flexibility. In some cases, residents are placed in supported housing with very short notice, and so this must also be recognised in any expectations placed on support providers and landlords.
Respondents recognised the clear link between housing and support, and that the resident should be in a suitable home environment to be able to engage properly and constructively with the support given.
Respondents also sought clarity on how regularly support plans should be reviewed.
Questions 32 and 33 – Support plans - Government response
The National Supported Housing Standards guidance will set out what support plans should include as a minimum. The government will not mandate what a support plan should look like, as support differs depending on the residents’ needs and the support provider.
Question 34
What would the risks and benefits be with licensing authorities joining up to administer licensing across local areas authority boundaries? (Free text response)
The Supported Housing (Regulatory Oversight) Act 2023 allows for licensing authorities to join up to administer licensing, and the consultation invited views on the benefits and risks of this.
Respondents felt that join up could facilitate better consistency of decisions and processes and create efficiencies for local authorities. It could reduce duplication and allow local authorities to share data, resources and expertise. However, there were also concerns that too large a licensing area could lead to a loss of local knowledge of housing and residents and negatively affect decision making and local communities. There were calls for clear communication so that providers fully understand which licensing district they need to engage with. Providers working across multiple areas in England particularly felt that larger licensing districts would be helpful.
Government response
Regulations will allow for licensing authorities to join up if they choose to do so but the licensing decision must be made by the local housing authority.
Question 35
Do you agree with the definition of a scheme?
All Respondents
| Text Added | Strongly agree | Partly agree | Neither agree nor disagree | Partly disagree | Strongly disagree | Do not know | Not Answered | Total Responses |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 328 | 188 | 152 | 22 | 39 | 67 | 6 | 107 | 581 |
| 56% | 32% | 26% | 4% | 7% | 12% | 1% | 18% | - |
The consultation proposed defining a supported housing ‘scheme’ as a ‘building or, a part of a building or a group of buildings with a single postal address, comprising one or more units, where at least one of those units is supported housing’. A unit is defined as a dwelling such as a bedspace, apartment, house, room in a shared house, or other building occupied as a place of residence.
More than half of responses to this question agreed with the definition of a scheme but there was concerned that the definition of a scheme was too narrow, and did not sufficiently take into account dispersed schemes that may include multiple units across different addresses but effectively forming part of the same pathway or support service. There were calls for the licensing regime to focus on the support model rather than the postcode the support is delivered in. There was also feedback that licensing at scheme level could discourage providers from applying for licences due to the administrative and financial cost associated.
Commissioning practices are also moving towards encouraging dispersed units in the community, rather than larger multi-bed properties, and licensing should recognise this.
Respondents were also concerned that licensing properties at address level could be overly burdensome and would require a lot of administration which could take support workers away from their role in supporting residents. We received a lot of feedback from providers who explained that often the support offered is the same across dispersed properties, and so licensing individual properties may not give the licensing authority any different information for licensing purposes.
Many respondents suggested alternatives to licensing at scheme level, including using a broader definition of a scheme, licensing providers rather than properties, and making sure that fees are appropriate to the number of residents supported rather than per property.
Government response
The government recognises the concerns raised in the consultation responses, and in the stakeholder engagement that officials have conducted, and the asks for the government to consider the practical implications.
In particular, the government recognises that requiring a provider to apply for a licence for each property address could in practice create a high amount of administrative work, particularly when a provider may be offering the same support service in multiple smaller properties across an area.
It is not possible to licence a provider at a national level as the Act places the duty of licensing at individual licensing district level.
The government is therefore proposing an alternative way of applying for a licence, to make it easier for providers who operate supported housing in a number of properties across a licensing district.
A licence will be issued to providers at licensing district level so that providers could apply for a licence to the licensing district that covers all the addresses where they provide supported housing in that district. The licence application would have to list the properties individually at property address level, with service manager information, so that the licensing authority can inspect the property or ask for follow up information.
Question 36
Do you agree with the proposed licensing exemptions?
All Respondents
| Text Added | Strongly agree | Partly agree | Neither agree nor disagree | Partly disagree | Strongly disagree | Do not know | Not Answered | Total Responses |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 324 | 173 | 153 | 41 | 54 | 46 | 11 | 103 | 581 |
| 56% | 30% | 26% | 7% | 9% | 8% | 2% | 18% | - |
The consultation proposed two exemptions from having to apply for and hold a licence. These were for the Ministry of Justice commissioned Community Accommodation Service (CAS2) scheme, and Ofsted-regulated provision for 16-and-17-year-olds.
There was broad support for the exemption of CAS2 schemes from having to hold a licence.
There were mixed views on the proposed Ofsted exemption. Many providers thought that the Ofsted exemption could be too narrow - respondents who are already regulated by Ofsted noted that they often have mixed provision in their schemes, for example also including residents aged between 18-25, and that the accommodation and support provided would be the same as that given to 16-and-17-year-olds in the same scheme. Ofsted have told us that they do not regulate any supported accommodation outside of provision for 16-and-17-year-olds.
There were calls for exemptions for commissioned services, as these will already have oversight from the local authority commissioning team or the commissioning body (for example the NHS) and as such will have contracts in place to manage the support provided. However, other respondents highlighted their concern that, should commissioned providers be exempted, this could create a two-tier system where some providers are subject to tighter regulation due to their support funding status rather than the quality of the service.
There were also calls for an exemption or passporting for providers already registered with the Regulator of Social Housing (RSH).
There was also feedback that exemptions should be concise, justified and not allow for loopholes that rogue landlords could exploit.
Government response
The government is clear that any commissioned support should be commissioned in line with the National Supported Housing Standards when they are introduced.
The government will maintain the proposed exemption for the CAS2 scheme.
The final list of exemptions is as follows:
- supported housing which is provided or commissioned by the Ministry of Justice which provides temporary accommodation for persons leaving custody
- supported housing containing at least one Ofsted-regulated bed, for residents aged up to 25 years old
- accommodation managed or controlled by a local authority in England where commissioning is in line with support standards
- domestic abuse services that are commissioned – because their commissioning practices also look at the accommodation standard
- older people’s age specific over 55’s regulated supported housing, including Extra Care schemes
- almshouses as defined in paragraph 12 of Schedule 1 to the Housing Act 1985
Any exemptions would need to be clearly outlined to the licensing authority, with proven status, the licensing authority would need to decide that the application meets the exemption criteria, and to hold a register of these exemptions. Should a provider cease to be exempted, they would need to let the local authority know and apply for a supported housing licence if the property would continue to be supported housing.
Question 37
Do you agree with the fit and proper person test proposed and who it would apply to?
All Respondents
| Text Added | Strongly agree | Partly agree | Neither agree nor disagree | Partly disagree | Strongly disagree | Do not know | Not Answered | Total Responses |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 260 | 270 | 135 | 17 | 37 | 15 | 3 | 104 | 581 |
| 45% | 46% | 23% | 3% | 6% | 3% | 1% | 18% | - |
The consultation’s fit and proper person test (FPPT) proposal checked for information such as criminal convictions, unlawful discrimination, and civil proceedings that have resulted in a judgment relating to housing or landlord and tenant law. It suggested that, if the prospective licence holder was an organisation, that organisation would nominate an individual – the Nominated Officer – for the FPPT.
There was considerable support for a FPPT, with some respondents suggesting that directors and managers should also pass FPPTs. There were asks for the test to be applied transparently and consistently across different licensing areas, with clear rights of appeal and consistency with other regulatory frameworks.
Government response
The Fit & Proper Person Test (FPPT) that was consulted on is based on the FPPT in HMO legislation. However, the test, as set out in the consultation would only prevent someone who has been convicted of an offence from holding a licence, which is not consistent with Ofsted and CQC regulation.
An individual who is a licence holder must be fit and proper. Where an organisation is managing or in control of supported exempt accommodation the government proposes that the board must nominate an individual director who will be the licence holder. The licence holder must provide details of the service manager for each scheme they are seeking to license and must ensure that the service managers are also fit and proper. This will be a new licensing condition requiring the licence holder to assure that their service managers are suitable.
The service manager should be the person with day-to-day responsibility for the operation of the supported exempt accommodation. This may or may not be a person in the employ of the corporate licence holder. In some circumstances the organisation who is ordinarily the landlord of a supported housing scheme will appoint a managing agent who will assume some or all of the landlord’s functions for the scheme.
The directors, partners (if the organisation is a partnership), and the nominated individual must all pass a FPPT.
Decisions on the licensing application will be appealable.
As set out above, the amended FPPT would mean that the Responsible Person standard (one of the National Supported Housing Standards) is no longer required. This standard was designed to ensure that where the support and accommodation are provided separately, there is a person who is accountable for the support service and is responsible for ensuring that the standards are met. As service managers will now be named on the licence and licence holders will be required to ensure that service managers are appropriate to hold that role, there is no need to proceed with the Responsible Person standard.
Questions 38 and 39 – Accommodation requirements and hazards – analysis data
Question 38
Do you agree that supported housing schemes must meet the relevant accommodation requirements and standards to get a supported housing licence?
All Respondents
| Text Added | Strongly agree | Partly agree | Neither agree nor disagree | Partly disagree | Strongly disagree | Do not know | Not Answered | Total Responses |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 379 | 83 | 9 | 7 | 2 | 3 | 98 | 581 | |
| n/a | 65% | 14% | 2% | 1% | 0% | 1% | 17% | - |
Question 39
Do you agree that if enforcement action is being taken under the Housing Act 2004 due to the presence of Category 1 health and safety hazards, or there are other issues of concern relating to accommodation quality at the scheme, a licence should not be granted?
All Respondents
| Text Added | Strongly agree | Partly agree | Neither agree nor disagree | Partly disagree | Strongly disagree | Do not know | Not Answered | Total Responses |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 276 | 301 | 128 | 11 | 30 | 6 | 3 | 102 | 581 |
| 48% | 52% | 22% | 2% | 5% | 1% | 1% | 18% | - |
The government is not creating new accommodation standards for supported housing. The consultation proposed that all supported accommodation applying for a licence should be of good quality, and that supported housing schemes applying for a licence should meet the existing accommodation requirements and standards relevant to their housing tenure.
The consultation also proposed that, where a Category 1 health hazard is found, that scheme would not be granted a licence and that licensing authorities should work with providers to address any concerns.
Respondents strongly agreed with the principle that accommodation should meet existing accommodation standards, whether that is the Decent Homes Standard (DHS), or the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). There was a strong sense that landlords should be held responsible for property quality, and that they should keep their properties up to standard.
Conversely, there were also calls for proportionality and flexibility when assessing property standards and particularly around the suggestion that a Category 1 hazard would mean a licence is never given. Some respondents felt that where there is already appropriate action being taken to remedy a hazard, the licensing authority should be able to grant a licence at their discretion, if they are satisfied that this hazard will be rectified. Some respondents raised concerns that licence holders may need time to fix any issues and should be allowed to work with the licensing authority to improve under an improvement plan rather than starting with the assumption that a licence would be refused or revoked.
The government has consulted on changes to the Decent Homes Standard (2 July – 10 September 2025). Supported housing providers must comply with the relevant accommodation standard for the relevant tenure, including the updated cross-tenure Decent Homes Standard which will be published later this year.
There were also concerns raised in answers to this question about the capacity of local authorities and the shortage of Environmental Health Officers.
Questions 38 and 39 – Accommodation requirements and hazards - Government response
We welcome the support for this licensing condition, and believe it is important for properties to be of good quality. For the resident, a poor quality property can affect their engagement with support, and how they feel in their home.
The government expects that a licensing authority would take the appropriate enforcement action under their existing enforcement powers if an issue is identified in supported housing. The consultation had proposed that a licence would not be granted if a Category 1 hazard was identified. However, the responses showed that a more proportionate approach would be to allow the licensing authority to decide what the appropriate action should be, including an improvement plan and subsequent improvement notice if necessary.
If there is already enforcement action being taken against a Category 1 hazard, the licence application should be refused. The government expects licensing authorities to work with providers wherever possible and where this is not causing danger or harm to residents, to allow them to make necessary improvements.
Question 40
Which factors could mean that accommodation is unsuitable to be supported housing for the purposes of this licensing condition? (Free text response)
The accommodation provided in supported housing can look very different, depending on the accommodation itself, the resident, and their specific support needs. But in some cases the accommodation provided will not be appropriate for any support to be provided.
The consultation asked which factors would mean accommodation is unsuitable for supported housing for the purposes of licensing. Respondents said that the following factors should be considered when deciding whether supported housing accommodation is suitable:
- physical and environmental unsuitability - for example is the space too small, with a lack of privacy and are there any safety concerns?
- location and access – for example is the locations inaccessible for public transport, is there access to health and community services
- health and safety – for example is the property unclean, inaccessible and unsafe, does it have a compliant fire exit and electrics, is there damp and mould, does it meet building regulations etc
- personal factors – such as whether the accommodation is close to the resident’s family and friends, is it in a suitable location for them e.g. can someone in a wheelchair gain access to the property and all its facilities, is the mix of residents appropriate e.g. survivors of domestic abuse should be placed in a single sex facility
Government response
The government agrees that the factors listed above are important in determining whether accommodation is suitable to be supported housing for the purposes of the use of accommodation licensing condition.
This licensing condition needs to ensure that the accommodation is suitable to be used by the residents who are placed in it.
The accommodation licensing condition will state that the accommodation must be at a minimum safe, accessible, and clean. This will ensure that residents are in the right accommodation for them in the right place and will give licensing authorities the power to refuse licences to providers who introduce risky mixes of residents or place residents in inappropriately located schemes.
The definitions of each will depend on each individual resident and their support needs. The government will be providing guidance to help licensing authorities.
Question 41
Do you agree that the scheme should demonstrate that it holds the appropriate planning permission to demonstrate compliance with this licensing condition?
All Respondents
| Text Added | Strongly agree | Partly agree | Neither agree nor disagree | Partly disagree | Strongly disagree | Do not know | Not Answered | Total Responses |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 272 | 85 | 38 | 30 | 27 | 12 | 117 | 581 | |
| n/a | 47% | 15% | 7% | 5% | 5% | 2% | 20% | - |
The consultation asked whether respondents agreed with schemes needing to demonstrate that they hold the appropriate planning permission, in order to demonstrate compliance with the use of accommodation condition.
There was considerable support for this, however there were concerns that planning should not overcomplicate or delay the delivery of supported housing. There were also calls for the government to clarify the correct use class for supported housing.
Government response
The government has considered the responses to this question and planning permission will not be a factor that licensing authorities must consider in determining whether a provider is compliant with the use of accommodation standard. This will be a matter for the licensing authority to consider in any case.
Question 42
Do you agree that each resident must have a needs assessment and support plan?
All Respondents
| Text Added | Strongly agree | Partly agree | Neither agree nor disagree | Partly disagree | Strongly disagree | Do not know | Not Answered | Total Responses |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 244 | 392 | 61 | 7 | 10 | 4 | 2 | 105 | 581 |
| 42% | 67% | 10% | 1% | 2% | 1% | 0% | 18% | - |
Needs assessments are a vital first step in ensuring that the resident is heard, understood and that the service is right for them. Getting a needs assessment right will lead on to a positive support plan that allows the residents needs to be met and allows their support to be tailored to help them work towards their goals.
Unfortunately, in some poor quality provision, residents’ needs are not assessed at all, leading to poor outcomes and in some cases even dangerous situations.
The government believes that every individual in supported housing should have their needs assessed, either before moving in or when they move into the accommodation. This should follow on to a detailed support plan.
The consultation asked that ‘the licence holder should be able to show the licensing authority, if requested, that there is a process in place for completing needs assessments for residents in the scheme. The licence holder should also be able to show how these needs assessments are conducted. Individual needs assessments should not need to be routinely shown to the licensing authority as part of a licensing application.’
Respondents were supportive of residents having their needs assessed and having support plans in place.
Government response
Needs assessments are crucial to ensuring that the resident gets the support that they need in the supported housing accommodation. The regulations will set out that where the licence holder is providing the support themselves or a support provider is providing the support on behalf of the licence holder, a needs assessment must be undertaken either before the resident moves in, or no more than four weeks after they have moved in. The needs assessment should be undertaken by a suitably skilled and experienced person.
Where the care or support service is commissioned, the needs assessment may be conducted by the commissioned care or support service. Where the accommodation is part of a local authority housing pathway, the assessment may be conducted by the local authority.
The needs assessment should lead on to a support plan that is suitably tailored to the individual.
Questions 43 and 44 – Care Quality Commission registration and rating – analysis data
Question 43
Do you agree that a scheme providing care (that meets the definition of regulated personal care) will only be granted a licence if the care service is registered by the Care Quality Commission?
All Respondents
| Text Added | Strongly agree | Partly agree | Neither agree nor disagree | Partly disagree | Strongly disagree | Do not know | Not Answered | Total Responses |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 368 | 38 | 22 | 10 | 13 | 17 | 113 | 581 | |
| n/a | 63% | 7% | 4% | 2% | 2% | 3% | 19% | - |
Question 44
Should the government prevent schemes where the care service has been rated as inadequate by the Care Quality Commission from getting a licence?
All Respondents
| Text Added | Strongly agree | Partly agree | Neither agree nor disagree | Partly disagree | Strongly disagree | Do not know | Not Answered | Total Responses |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 272 | 219 | 113 | 40 | 40 | 33 | 17 | 119 | 581 |
| 47% | 38% | 19% | 7% | 7% | 6% | 3% | 20% | - |
The consultation suggested that, to meet this condition, care meeting the definition of personal care should be registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC). This should be happening anyway. The consultation also suggested that where a service is rated inadequate by the CQC, the licence should be rejected.
Respondents, including the CQC, had concerns that licence holders should not be held responsible for personal care being provided or the property, as they are not in control of this service. Refusing a licence could therefore unduly penalise the licence holder for something that they are not in direct control of. The CQC also stated in their response that they have processes in place to ensure that services rated inadequate can improve quickly.
Questions 43 and 44 – Care Quality Commission registration and rating - Government response
As a result of the feedback received through the consultation this licensing condition will state:
- where care is provided in a supported housing scheme the care provider must be registered with CQC
Any service in supported housing that is not a registered care provider must comply with the National Supported Housing Standards
Questions 45 and 46 – National Supported Housing Standards – analysis data
Question 45
Is the National Supported Housing Standards condition, enforced as part of the licensing regime, likely to be an effective means of securing that the National Supported Housing Standards are met?
All Respondents
| Text Added | Strongly agree | Partly agree | Neither agree nor disagree | Partly disagree | Strongly disagree | Do not know | Not Answered | Total Responses |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 269 | 214 | 147 | 30 | 34 | 15 | 26 | 115 | 581 |
| 46% | 37% | 25% | 5% | 6% | 3% | 4% | 20% | - |
Question 46
Do you agree that the local authorities should have discretion to treat support services commissioned by a public body (such as a local authority, National Health Service or UK government department) as complying with the National Supported Housing Standards?
All Respondents
| Text Added | Strongly agree | Partly agree | Neither agree nor disagree | Partly disagree | Strongly disagree | Do not know | Not Answered | Total Responses |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 224 | 108 | 31 | 49 | 51 | 11 | 107 | 581 | |
| n/a | 39% | 19% | 5% | 8% | 9% | 2% | 18% | - |
A crucial part of the new supported housing licensing regime is the National Supported Housing Standards (NSHS) and the requirement for licence holders to be complying with the NSHS to get a licence. The support standards set out what good support looks like and will ensure that all residents living in supported housing in England receive good quality support.
The consultation recognised that in some cases, for example where the support or care is commissioned directly by a local authority, the licence holder may not be able to control the support or care service and therefore may not be able to meet this licensing condition. However, the consultation stopped short of proposing a solution and instead asked a question about whether licensing authorities should have the discretion to treat commissioned services as meeting the support standards.
There were concerns raised by many about the potential of applying the NSHS licensing condition to licence holders who have commissioned services in their schemes. Providers felt it is unfair to leave the discretion to the local authority, that they should not be held responsible for support that they cannot directly control, and flagging that if they are to be expected to meet this condition for commissioned services, they would need more resource to sufficiently oversee the support service.
Most respondents agreed with exempting commissioned services, recognising that this removes unnecessary duplication and recognising that commissioning bodies have good oversight in place to monitor the support provided.
Questions 45 and 46 – National Supported Housing Standards - Government response
The regulations will set out that commissioned services, directly commissioned by a local authority in England, or a public body such as UK Government department or the NHS, will not be expected to demonstrate that they meet this licensing condition. The government would expect licence holders to report any issues in commissioned services that they identify directly to the commissioner of the support or care service. The licence holder, where the support is not commissioned, is responsible for ensuring that the NSHS are met.
Question 47
What discretionary conditions, if any, should licensing authorities be able to add to a licence application? (Free text response)
The consultation asked a question about whether licensing authorities should be allowed to introduce their own discretionary licensing conditions. Local authorities were supportive of this, but providers raised concerns about inconsistency across licensing districts.
The most common new conditions local authorities asked for include conditions to reduce anti-social behaviour, litter, measures in safeguarding, bins, staff training, property cleanliness, CCTV, parking, issues around neighbourhood tension and impacts on the wider community, display of licences, space and room size, and conditions to manage an oversupply/saturation of supported housing in a local area.
Government response
Based on the feedback, other proposed changes (for example the use of accommodation licensing condition), and concerns raised about the burden further licensing conditions across different licensing authorities could create, the government has decided it would not be appropriate to allow local authorities to add their own conditions. Many of the conditions local authorities asked for have been included in the proposed use of accommodation licensing conditions or are already available to local authorities through their existing powers - for example, standard room sizes can be managed through the planning system already.
Questions 48 and 49 – Property licences - analysis data
Question 48
If you are a supported housing provider, do you already hold another property licence and will you need to hold a supported housing licence in the future?
| Yes | No | Not answered |
|---|---|---|
| 58 | 118 | 312 |
| 12% | 24% | 64% |
For those who answered ‘Yes’, other types of property licence’s held:
| HMO | Selective | Additional | Not answered |
|---|---|---|---|
| 50 | 14 | 11 | 432 |
| 10% | 3% | 2% | 89% |
Question 49
Do you agree that where a property licence is already in effect the provider should be treated as licensed for the purposes of supported housing licensing? This would only be for the remaining period of the existing property licence, until it is replaced with a supported housing licence.
All Respondents
| Text Added | Strongly agree | Partly agree | Neither agree nor disagree | Partly disagree | Strongly disagree | Do not know | Not Answered | Total Responses |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 286 | 151 | 90 | 44 | 38 | 112 | 17 | 129 | 581 |
| 49% | 26% | 15% | 8% | 7% | 19% | 3% | 22% | - |
There are a number of different property licensing regimes already in effect, although none of these cover the support provided to residents. These regimes look at the property itself, and are only in place for specific reasons – whether that is the number of residents, or the area the property is in.
The consultation proposed that, where another property licence is in effect, the licence holder would not have to hold a supported housing licence in addition to that existing licence. In practical terms, this would mean that the property licence holder would continue as normal and then would have to apply for a supported housing licence at the point the existing property licence expires.
Respondents agreed with the premise that existing property licences are not sufficient to monitor supported housing, highlighting that support is not a condition of any existing property licence.
There were some views that holding an existing property licence should not mean you are exempt from having to provide support that meets the support standards and calls for some oversight of these providers in the period before they have to apply for a supported housing licence.
While some respondents support a phased approach to implementing new licenses and therefore only requiring existing property licence holders to apply for a supported housing licence once their existing licence expires, others believe that immediate re-licensing is necessary to ensure compliance and protect residents.
Some respondents queried how providers would be financially compensated if they have to apply for a licence while they still have some time left on their existing licence.
Questions 48 and 49 – Property licences - Government response
The government recognises the range of views on this proposal. Existing property licences do not regulate the support provided. To ensure that the licensing authority knows where those properties are and who runs them, the licence holders must declare on the supported housing licensing application form that they already hold another property licence. This will ensure a line of communication between the provider and the licensing authority.
The regulations will set out that those who already hold a property licence and who operate supported housing must apply for a supported housing licence on or before the end of that property licence’s term, or they will be committing an offence. Providers will be able to apply for a supported housing licence in advance of their existing licence expiring. If they have 12 months or less to run on the existing licence, the regulations will state that that time will be able to be added to the supported housing licence term, which is proposed for five years.
Question 50
In addition to a standardised licence application form that all local authorities would use, what else can the government do to ensure applications are as straightforward as possible for providers and licensing authorities to minimise unnecessary burdens on local authorities and applicants? (Free text response)
The consultation asked what government could do, in addition to a standardised application form, to minimise any burdens on providers and local authorities. Respondents were highly supportive of a standardised application form, and also as much standardisation of the licensing process across different areas as possible, especially for those who operate supported housing in different areas of the country. Consistent approaches for setting fees were also suggested to avoid differences across the country and to ensure fairness and predictability.
Respondents highlighted the need for New Burdens funding to support the implementation of licensing in advance of fees being charged and the need for sufficient funding for licensing to be brought in effectively.
Government response
The government recognises that respondents ask for consistency, standardisation wherever possible, and that the regime is easy for providers and local authorities. A standardised application form will be designed that all providers and local authorities can use. Clear guidance will be published to encourage consistency wherever possible.
Questions 51 and 52 – Licensing fees
Question 51
What would the impact of licence fees be on your business, or for administrative purposes if you are a licensing authority? (Free text response)
Question 52
Do you have any other comments on licensing fees? (Free text response)
The consultation asked questions on the impact of licence fees on local authorities, and businesses, and asked for any other comments from respondents on licence fees.
While respondents recognised that the new licence regime is going to be funded through fees, there are concerns about the level that fees will be set at and the potential impact on businesses and their operating costs. There were also concerns about the increased administrative burden that licensing will place on providers, including time to fill in licensing applications, complete relevant paperwork and evidence and manage licensing going forward.
Some respondents suggested that fees should be scaled depending on the size of the business, or the number of units that are being licensed. There were also suggestions of fees being able to be charged annually, rather than per licensing term, to help providers to spread the costs.
Some also suggested that licensing fees should be recoverable through Housing Benefit service charges as part of the costs of running a supported housing business, and to mitigate any potential impact on service delivery.
Questions 51 and 52 - Government response
The Act allows fees to be charged to allow local authorities to administer and enforce licensing. It will be for licensing authorities to determine their fee structure, how fees are charged and what level fees are set at to enable them to administrate and enforce licensing requirements.
The government will draft regulations to allow for fees to be charged annually as well as a fee for the licence application itself.
New Burdens funding will be provided for the setup of licensing teams.
Question 53
Do you agree that supported housing licences should be granted for five years, starting from the day the licence is formally issued by the licensing authority?
All Respondents
| Text Added | Strongly agree | Partly agree | Neither agree nor disagree | Partly disagree | Strongly disagree | Do not know | Not Answered | Total Responses |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 227 | 137 | 40 | 27 | 36 | 4 | 110 | 581 | |
| n/a | 39% | 24% | 7% | 5% | 6% | 1% | 19% | - |
There was considerable support for supported housing licences being granted for five years.
Government response
Licences will last for five years from the date they are issued. Where a licence is varied the original five years will still apply.
Questions 54 and 55 – Inspections – analysis data
Question 54
Do you agree that local authorities should have the discretion to grant a supported housing licence without carrying out an inspection?
All Respondents
| Text Added | Strongly agree | Partly agree | Neither agree nor disagree | Partly disagree | Strongly disagree | Do not know | Not Answered | Total Responses |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 343 | 170 | 98 | 13 | 58 | 131 | 4 | 107 | 581 |
| 59% | 29% | 17% | 2% | 10% | 23% | 1% | 18% | - |
Question 55
Do you agree that licensing authorities should inspect each scheme at least once in a licence period, or more frequently if required?
All Respondents
| Text Added | Strongly agree | Partly agree | Neither agree nor disagree | Partly disagree | Strongly disagree | Do not know | Not Answered | Total Responses |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 291 | 314 | 92 | 17 | 23 | 20 | 3 | 112 | 581 |
| 50% | 54% | 16% | 3% | 4% | 3% | 1% | 19% | - |
About half of the responses received told us that authorities should have the discretion to grant a licence without carrying out an inspection, especially where the provider is well known and commissioned.
Responses also showed support for each scheme being physically inspected at least once, and there was support for further inspections to happen regularly where needed – for example considering factors such as complaints or the risk profiles of residents.
We heard that unannounced inspections of domestic abuse refuges should be avoided to protect residents’ safety and anonymity, and that where inspections of refuges are necessary, they should follow a strict trauma-informed framework.
There were also concerns raised that a lack of inspections could lead to support standards slipping and risks to residents being missed, so there should be clear local authority criteria and oversight if it is decided not to inspect.
Questions 54 and 55 – Inspections - Government response
Inspections in general should be approached with sensitivity due to the residents, and with the knowledge of the licence holder and support provider wherever possible. However, in some cases, for example where there are serious quality or safeguarding concerns, we recognise that preannounced inspections may not always be possible or appropriate.
Licensing authorities may choose to inspect schemes before granting a licence and at any point during the period of a licence in order to make enquiries to confirm that licensing conditions are being complied with.
If a licensing authority decides not to inspect a property before granting a licence, they must be confident that the accommodation and the support provided is good quality and should be able to demonstrate that they arrived at the decision not to inspect reasonably.
The government will proceed with giving licensing authorities the discretion not to inspect before granting a licence or during the lifecycle of the licence, to help licensing authorities understand when and how they may want to inspect a scheme. Local authorities should be able to take their own decisions on how often to inspect and to concentrate on poor quality provision.
Questions 56 - 58 – Improvement notices and plans – analysis data
Question 56
Do you agree that licensing authorities should agree an improvement plan for a scheme together with the licence holder before any further enforcement action is taken?
All Respondents
| Text Added | Strongly agree | Partly agree | Neither agree nor disagree | Partly disagree | Strongly disagree | Do not know | Not Answered | Total Responses |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 255 | 307 | 105 | 17 | 25 | 15 | 6 | 106 | 581 |
| 44% | 53% | 18% | 3% | 4% | 3% | 1% | 18% | - |
Question 57
Do you agree that licensing authorities should be able to issue improvement notices for a period of three months, except in the case of a serious failure, if the scheme has not improved after an improvement plan has been agreed and undertaken?
All Respondents
| Text Added | Strongly agree | Partly agree | Neither agree nor disagree | Partly disagree | Strongly disagree | Do not know | Not Answered | Total Responses |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 217 | 296 | 112 | 20 | 27 | 13 | 4 | 109 | 581 |
| 37% | 51% | 19% | 3% | 5% | 2% | 1% | 19% | - |
Question 58
Do you agree that licensing authorities should have the ability to extend the improvement notice to a maximum of 6 months in exceptional circumstances?
All Respondents
| Text Added | Strongly agree | Partly agree | Neither agree nor disagree | Partly disagree | Strongly disagree | Do not know | Not Answered | Total Responses |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 303 | 100 | 25 | 15 | 18 | 6 | 114 | 581 | |
| n/a | 52% | 17% | 4% | 3% | 3% | 1% | 20% | - |
There was considerable support for giving providers a chance to improve, through improvement plans, before further enforcement action is taken. Respondents also said that improvement notices must be clearly timed and that licensing authorities should take action where improvements are not made.
Respondents broadly felt that three months was reasonable but that this time should be reduced or removed if serious risks were identified. Respondents also felt that this time could be extended if appropriate.
Questions 56 - 58 – Improvement notices and plans - Government response
The consultation proposed that if at the application stage the licensing authority feels that the scheme needs improvement to meet licensing conditions, they should work with the licence holder to discuss those improvements and make a plan. If, after a plan has been agreed, improvements are not made, the licensing authority should not issue a licence other than in exceptional circumstances. If the scheme is not licensed, the licensing authority must consider whether an offence has been committed or whether any penalties are appropriate. Improvement plans will be implemented as described in the consultation. Where a breach occurs during the term of the licence the licensing authority should also work with the licence holder, through an improvement plan, before considering revocation of the licence. The government believes that licensing authorities should have the option to extend the improvement notice period at their discretion where they feel this is appropriate, and with consideration for the residents and the specific circumstances.
Question 59 – revoking and varying a licence – analysis data
Question 59
Do you agree with the proposed circumstances in which a licence would need to be varied or revoked?
All Respondents
| Text Added | Strongly agree | Partly agree | Neither agree nor disagree | Partly disagree | Strongly disagree | Do not know | Not Answered | Total Responses |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 273 | 144 | 22 | 21 | 7 | 3 | 111 | 581 | |
| n/a | 47% | 25% | 4% | 4% | 1% | 1% | 19% | - |
The consultation set out the circumstances in which a licence would need to be varied or revoked.
A licence may need to be varied in the following circumstances:
a. the licence holder changes
b. the service manager changes
c. the commissioned service changes
d. there is a permanent change to the number of units in the scheme
e. if there are changes to the accommodation
A licence may need to be revoked in the following circumstances:
a. where the licence holder or any other person has committed a serious breach of a condition of the licence or repeated breaches of such a condition
b. where a licence holder has failed to comply with an improvement notice
c. where the licence holder has committed an offence under the licensing regime
d. if a banning order is made against the licence holder
There was considerable support for the circumstances set out. There were also requests for complaints to act as a trigger for a review of the licence, particularly where complaints are unresolved.
Question 59 – revoking and varying a licence – government response
Regulations will set out the circumstances under which a licence may be revoked or varied. Licensing authorities should maintain licences wherever possible; however, the government recognises that there will be circumstances in which it is appropriate for the licence to be revoked. When information comes to light that suggests a licensing authority should consider revoking a licence, the licensing authority should investigate further. Licensing authorities should also notify other licensing authorities where the provider is known to operate of their decision. Licence holders will be able to appeal against a licensing authority’s decision and this information should be given to the provider when a revocation decision is made.
Questions 60 – 61 – Financial Penalties – analysis
Question 60
Do you agree that financial penalties should also be available as an alternative enforcement tool to prosecution and that equivalent provision should be provided for in the licensing regulations?
All Respondents
| Text Added | Strongly agree | Partly agree | Neither agree nor disagree | Partly disagree | Strongly disagree | Do not know | Not Answered | Total Responses |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 222 | 284 | 111 | 31 | 10 | 16 | 8 | 121 | 581 |
| 38% | 49% | 19% | 5% | 2% | 3% | 1% | 21% | - |
Question 61
Do you agree that the financial penalties may be determined by the licensing authority, but must not be more than £30,000?
All Respondents
| Text Added | Strongly agree | Partly agree | Neither agree nor disagree | Partly disagree | Strongly disagree | Do not know | Not Answered | Total Responses |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 253 | 185 | 110 | 59 | 46 | 41 | 19 | 121 | 581 |
| 44% | 32% | 19% | 10% | 8% | 7% | 3% | 21% | - |
Most respondents felt that financial penalties would be a middle ground between inaction and full prosecution. The majority of comments stated the threshold, and appeals process must be transparent, with clear guidance.
There was support for financial penalties being capped at £30,000, as this was stated to be enough of a deterrent for poor providers. However, we also heard that some felt the £30,000 would be inadequate as it would be insufficient to deter larger providers. There were also calls for penalties to be proportionate. Some respondents also stated that there should be stronger enforcement mechanisms if the exploitation of vulnerable people occurs.
Question 61 – Financial penalties - Government Response
The government intends to increase the limit of £30,000 to £40,000 in regulations and we will ensure that the Supported Housing regulations mirror that increase. The licensing authority will also be able to issue a financial penalty of up to £5,000 along with a formal improvement notice in cases of non-compliance with licensing conditions. This is in line with HMO licensing.
Questions 62 – 64 – penalties and offences – analysis data
Question 62
Do you agree that operating as a supported housing scheme without a licence in a licensing area should be an offence?
All Respondents
| Text Added | Strongly agree | Partly agree | Neither agree nor disagree | Partly disagree | Strongly disagree | Do not know | Not Answered | Total Responses | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 185 | 341 | 80 | 12 | 17 | 9 | 6 | 116 | 581 | |
| 32% | 59% | 14% | 2% | 3% | 2% | 1% | 20% | - |
Question 63
Do you agree with the penalties attached to this offence?
All Respondents
| Text Added | Strongly agree | Partly agree | Neither agree nor disagree | Partly disagree | Strongly disagree | Do not know | Not Answered | Total Responses |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 150 | 248 | 109 | 40 | 25 | 18 | 12 | 129 | 581 |
| 26% | 43% | 19% | 7% | 4% | 3% | 2% | 22% | - |
Question 64
Do you agree that a tenant living in supported housing where a licensing offence has been committed should be able to apply to a tribunal for a determination of rent?
All Respondents
| Text Added | Strongly agree | Partly agree | Neither agree nor disagree | Partly disagree | Strongly disagree | Do not know | Not Answered | Total Responses |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 215 | 254 | 89 | 46 | 23 | 22 | 22 | 125 | 581 |
| 37% | 44% | 15% | 8% | 4% | 4% | 4% | 22% | - |
Respondents told us there should be a focus on harm and intent when considering enforcement, with a distinction being made between genuine administrative errors and providers avoiding making improvements that are needed. There were also requests for phased implementation of licensing in order to test the system and for extra support for small providers.
We also heard that banning orders should not be applied automatically and that there should be a distinction between genuine errors and rogue behaviour.
There were concerns raised about whether residents would be able to apply to the tribunal for a determination of rent without support.
Questions 62 - 64 - Government response
Regulations will reflect the proposals contained in the consultation. Guidance will set out more information on enforcement to help licensing authorities to make enforcement decisions. Enforcement should be proportionate. Licensing authorities should consider the severity of the offence when taking enforcement action, and what would be appropriate in the specific situation. The licensing authority will be able to issue a financial penalty of up to £5,000 along with a formal improvement notice in cases of non-compliance with licensing conditions. This is in line with HMO licensing.
Questions 65 – 68 – non-compliance enforcement
Question 65
Do you agree with the proposed enforcement action outlined above in respect of non-compliance with licensing conditions?
All Respondents
| Text Added | Strongly agree | Partly agree | Neither agree nor disagree | Partly disagree | Strongly disagree | Do not know | Not Answered | Total Responses |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 202 | 235 | 116 | 30 | 40 | 24 | 12 | 124 | 581 |
| 35% | 40% | 20% | 5% | 7% | 4% | 2% | 21% | - |
Question 66
Do you agree with the proposed consequence outlined above in respect of non-compliance with an improvement notice?
All Respondents
| Text Added | Strongly agree | Partly agree | Neither agree nor disagree | Partly disagree | Strongly disagree | Do not know | Not Answered | Total Responses |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 181 | 230 | 135 | 33 | 32 | 14 | 11 | 126 | 581 |
| 31% | 40% | 23% | 6% | 6% | 2% | 2% | 22% | - |
Question 67
Should the government include any other consequences of compliance or non-compliance with the regulations or with conditions attached to licences in regulations?
All Respondents
| Text Added | Strongly agree | Partly agree | Neither agree nor disagree | Partly disagree | Strongly disagree | Do not know | Not Answered | Total Responses |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 285 | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | |
| 49% | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | - |
Question 68
Do you agree that if an offence is committed by a licence holder who is a company or organisation and it was committed with the approval or connivance of an officer, or because the officer was negligent, both the officer and the organisation have committed the offence?
All Respondents
| Text Added | Strongly agree | Partly agree | Neither agree nor disagree | Partly disagree | Strongly disagree | Do not know | Not Answered | Total Responses |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 243 | 83 | 41 | 44 | 22 | 23 | 125 | 581 |
| 0% | 42% | 14% | 7% | 8% | 4% | 4% | 22% | - |
There was considerable support for the revocation of a licence following non-compliance with an improvement notice, to protect residents. There were also calls for fairness and oversight to ensure decisions are evidence based, and for an appeals process to be in place.
Respondents suggested other consequences of non-compliance, including publishing names of non-compliant providers, temporary licence suspensions or conditions on future licences, requests for a register to track enforcement actions that lead to licence revocation and exclusion periods or barring individuals associated with a revoked licence from re-applying altogether.
There was support for the mix of financial (civil) and criminal consequences of non-compliance. There were requests for local authorities to be able to use rent repayment powers to recover Housing Benefit where providers have operated illegally, and for warnings and a deadline to be issued ahead of any penalties. If rent repayment orders were used, respondents called for clear guidance for residents to support them through the process.
Questions 65 - 68 Government response
The feedback received demonstrated that, for enforcement to be effective, the process suggested in the consultation should be amended. The regulations will set out that non-compliant licence holders will first be issued with a notice, explaining how the scheme is non-compliant. If, after a period of three months, licensing conditions are still not complied with, a fine can be issued. If licensing conditions are still not complied with, an enforcement notice can be issued and ultimately the licence holder can have their licence revoked.
Guidance will set out more information on enforcement to help licensing authorities to make enforcement decisions. Enforcement should be proportionate. Licensing authorities, when taking enforcement action, should consider the severity of the offence, and what would be appropriate in the specific situation.
Questions 69 - 70 – National Supported Housing Standards – analysis data
Question 69
What other steps can local authorities take to ensure that decisions on compliance with National Supported Housing Standards and licensing applications are delivered consistently across England? (Free text response)
Question 70
What additional ways do you think there may be for securing compliance with the National Supported Housing Standards, in addition to the licensing regime? (Free text response)
Respondents supported the idea of encouraging consistency in LA decision making, especially for providers operating across multiple licensing districts. The National Supported Housing Standards will be enforced through the licensing regime, but the Act also required the government to consult on any additional mechanisms for securing compliance with the standards.
Respondents gave feedback that the following could help LAs to ensure consistency in the decisions they take, and to ensure compliance with the National Supported Housing Standards:
- a national framework with standard guidance and training
- peer reviews, benchmarking, and training between LAs
- there could be a national inspections body which would act as an inspectorate of supported housing, independent of LAs
- resident led monitoring e.g. including residents in compliance checks and resident reporting systems
- to utilise the Housing Ombudsman’s complaint handling powers as a softer form of enforcement
- external audits and protection for whistleblowers
Questions 69-70 – Government response
The government will publish detailed guidance for both the National Supported Housing Standards and licensing regulations on gov.uk, ahead of implementing licensing, to give LAs and providers time to consider, plan and prepare.
We will encourage peer review and information sharing between local authorities to help keep licensing decisions consistent, and to ensure that licensing authorities are learning from each other.
The government has a duty to review the licensing regime after three years and will keep the effectiveness of licensing under review to determine whether further measures are required to ensure compliance with the National Supported Housing Standards.
Question 71
Do you agree that all providers should be treated as licensed (and still receive Housing Benefit) when the regulations come into force, until a licensing decision has been made?
All Respondents
| Text Added | Strongly agree | Partly agree | Neither agree nor disagree | Partly disagree | Strongly disagree | Do not know | Not Answered | Total Responses | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 273 | 312 | 95 | 26 | 18 | 19 | 3 | 108 | 581 | |
| 47% | 54% | 16% | 4% | 3% | 3% | 1% | 19% | - |
Responses recognised the importance of ensuring that Housing Benefit remains consistent while licensing decisions are being made, to ensure providers and residents have certainty.
More than half of respondents agreed with this question, with the stipulation that a provider must have made a licence application. LA’s, providers and residents stated that it should be a requirement in order to limit loss of Housing Benefit and resident displacement. We also heard that there should be an enforceable a cut-off for late applicants.
Question 71 - Government response
If providers have applied for a licence before the deadline, and that licence application is valid, they will continue to receive their Housing Benefit until a licensing decision has been reached on whether they will be granted a licence or not. There will not be a formal arrangement to treat a provider as licensed – instead, the fact that they have applied for a licence and that licence application is valid pending a licensing decision will be a defence to the offence of operating supported housing without a licence.
Questions 72 - 73 – National Supported Housing Standards - responses
Question 72
How can providers be supported to prepare for supported housing licensing? (Free text response)
Question 73
How can licensing authorities be supported to prepare to run a supported housing licensing scheme? (Free text response)
The consultation asked for feedback on how providers and local authorities could be supported to prepare for licensing.
Over 60% of respondents gave their views for both of these questions. Local authorities and providers had many similar views – for example, asking for clear guidance for licensing and support standards from government. They also asked for training, and information sharing between providers and between licensing authorities. Some noted that it is up to the providers to ensure that they are prepared for the introduction of licensing.
Many responses highlighted the need for timely information from government to ensure that providers and licensing authorities are prepared for the changes.
There were also calls for funding, particularly for smaller organisations who may struggle to meet licensing requirements, and for local authorities to implement licensing successfully.
Questions 72 - 73 – National Supported Housing Standards - Government response
Detailed guidance will be published to aid licensing authorities and providers with the transition to licensing. The government recognises that supported housing licensing is a change for the sector, and transition period will allow providers time to apply for licences before offences come into force. Additionally, it will be a defence to the offence of controlling or managing supported housing without a licence to have submitted a valid application which the local authority it still considering.
The government wants to encourage licensing authorities to work together to share best practice and learnings with each other.
New Burdens funding will be provided for the setup of licensing teams.
Questions 74 - 75 – Planning – analysis data
Question 74
Should the government consider introducing a supported housing planning use class and other planning measures to enable more effective regulation?
All Respondents
| Text Added | Strongly agree | Partly agree | Neither agree nor disagree | Partly disagree | Strongly disagree | Do not know | Not Answered | Total Responses |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 243 | 115 | 63 | 63 | 39 | 97 | 28 | 83 | |
| 42% | 24% | 13% | 13% | 8% | 20% | 6% | 17% | - |
Question 75
What would the effect of a supported housing planning use class, or requiring planning permission for supported housing schemes, be?
All Respondents
| Text Added | Strongly agree | Partly agree | Neither agree nor disagree | Partly disagree | Strongly disagree | Do not know | Not Answered | Total Responses |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 292 | 115 | 63 | 63 | 39n | 97 | 28 | 83 | |
| 50% | 24% | 13% | 13% | 8% | 20-% | 6% | 17% | - |
The consultation asked for views on planning changes for supported housing, including views on a new planning use class.
Views on a new planning use class and its effect were mixed – local authorities felt it would help them manage poor provision, but providers were worried that planning changes would lead to issues with the supply of new supported housing.
Questions 74 - 75 – Planning – government response
The government will keep planning changes under review and is already committed to an evaluation of the effect of licensing on supported housing quality after licensing has been in place for three years.
Annex B – Department for Work and Pensions question by question analysis
Question 76 – analysis
Question 76
Do you agree with the broad principle of aligning payment of housing benefit or any future housing support to licensing?
All Respondents
| Text Added | Strongly agree | Partly agree | Neither agree nor disagree | Partly disagree | Strongly disagree | Do not know | Prefer not to say | Not Answered | Total Responses |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 295 | 290 | 126 | 20 | 21 | 20 | 8 | 0 | 96 | 581 |
| 51% | 50% | 22% | 3% | 4% | 3% | 1% | 0% | 17% | - |
There was considerable support for the principle of linking Housing Benefit or future housing support to licensing, but respondents felt that Housing Benefit should continue to be paid in full during the licence application process.
Respondents raised concerns about the financial impact on residents when providers fail to obtain or lose their licence. There was widespread agreement that Housing Benefit should only be withdrawn where a provider is demonstrably in breach of the standards with some suggesting that Housing Benefit should remain in payment and be paid in full for a fixed period whilst the resident is supported to understand and execute their options.
Others stated that landlords should have to reduce their rent if they fail to obtain a licence or that that there should be a mechanism in place to protect residents from accruing rent arrears. There was a strong opinion that unlicensed providers should be prohibited from being able to take a resident to court for any rent arrears accrued after the failure to obtain a licence and that this should not result in eviction.
A few respondents stated that it would be unfair to use Housing Benefit as a lever to hold providers to account for the support they provide, when support is not funded through Housing Benefit.
There was also a suggestion that payments should be safeguarded during any disputes or appeals. However, the licensing appeals process was not within the scope of this consultation.
Question 76 – Government response
The government welcomes the support for this proposal and will be implementing a link in Housing Benefit regulations between Housing Benefit eligibility and the licensing regime for England.
The government agrees that Housing Benefit should remain in payment whilst licence applications are being processed to protect the stability of the sector. However, where support to help a provider improve is unsuccessful, and a licence is not awarded, Housing Benefit will cease or be reassessed. Residents of working age will need to claim help with their housing costs through Universal Credit. Anyone impacted by this change may also be eligible for a Discretionary Housing Payment through their local authority.
The government recognises the concerns raised regarding unlicensed landlords continuing to charge high rents and the subsequent risk of residents accruing rent arrears. The Act makes provision for residents to apply to rent tribunals in these circumstances to request that their rent is reviewed, and this will be implemented in the licensing regulations.
Defining care, support and supervision in Housing Benefit regulations across GB
Defining care in England
Questions 77 and 78 – analysis
Question 77
For England, we are proposing using the definition of personal care as per the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014/2936 to define care in Housing Benefit regulations. Do you agree?
All Respondents
| Text Added | Strongly agree | Partly agree | Neither agree nor disagree | Partly disagree | Strongly disagree | Do not know | Prefer not to say | Not Answered | Total Responses |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 212 | 277 | 93 | 35 | 21 | 19 | 19 | 0 | 117 | 581 |
| 36% | 48% | 16% | 6% | 4% | 3% | 3% | 0% | 20% | - |
Question 78
For England, personal care is defined in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014/2936. Is this definition of personal care sufficient to define the care provided in supported housing (in England) within Housing Benefit regulations?
For England, the consultation proposed that the definition of personal care as per the Health and Social Care Act 2008, is used to define care in Housing Benefit regulations. There was considerable support for the use of this definition stating that it was best to use an established legal definition of care in Housing Benefit regulations than to create one. Many respondents felt that this definition would support consistency of local authority decision-making by providing more clarity in terms of what is defined as care provision in supported housing for Housing Benefit purposes.
For England, the consultation also asked whether the Health and Social Care Act 2008 definition was sufficient to define the care provided in supported housing for the purposes of Housing Benefit regulations. Respondents agreed that the definition is appropriate but with the caveat that it needed to be flexible enough to reflect the diversity of care provision in supported housing.
Defining care in Scotland and Wales
Questions 79 and 80 – analysis
Question 79
Do you agree that we should link a definition of care in Housing Benefit regulations to existing legislative definitions of care and frameworks for the regulation of care in Scotland and Wales where possible?
All Respondents
| Text Added | Strongly agree | Partly agree | Neither agree nor disagree | Partly disagree | Strongly disagree | Do not know | Prefer not to say | Not Answered | Total Responses |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 130 | 93 | 44 | 70 | 5 | 5 | 93 | 0 | 271 | 581 |
| 22% | 16% | 8% | 12% | 1% | 1% | 16% | 0% | 47% | - |
Question 80
For Scotland and Wales, will a reference to the respective legislative definition of care be enough to cover all care delivered in supported housing which may be classed as specified accommodation in Housing Benefit regulations? Do you agree?
All Respondents
| Text Added | Strongly agree | Partly agree | Neither agree nor disagree | Partly disagree | Strongly disagree | Do not know | Prefer not to say | Not Answered | Total Responses |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 113 | 42 | 15 | 79 | 24 | 6 | 108 | 0 | 307 | 581 |
| 19% | 7% | 3% | 14% | 4% | 1% | 19% | 0% | 53% | - |
For Scotland and Wales, the consultation proposed that a definition of care in Housing Benefit regulations could be linked to existing legislative definitions of care. For Scotland, personal care is defined in the Public Services Reform (Scotland) Act 2010. For Wales, care is defined in the Regulation and Inspection of Social Care (Wales) Act 2016.
There was weak support for using existing legal definitions of care in Scotland and Wales in Housing Benefit. Respondents emphasised the importance of respecting existing regulatory frameworks of care in each country. But some respondents suggested that using existing definitions of care in Scotland and Wales would ensure regulatory alignment with the work of the Scottish Care Inspectorate and Care Inspectorate Wales.
However, a few respondents expressed a preference for a unified definition of care in Housing Benefit regulations rather than different definitions in each of England, Scotland and Wales, to avoid confusion.
The consultation also asked whether the existing legislative definitions of care in Scotland and Wales would be sufficient to cover all care delivered in supported housing. There was a low response rate to this question (274 out of 581 respondents did not answer this question) and of those who did respond, there was minimal agreement that existing legislative definitions of care in Scotland and Wales would capture all care provided in supported housing.
Feedback was that these definitions may not fully capture the range of care provided in supported housing especially informal care or care organised separately to commissioned care. Respondents emphasised the need for definitions of care in Scotland and Wales to have flexibility of application, be regularly reviewed after implementation and for them to be accompanied by clear guidance to ensure diverse and evolving models of care are not excluded. Some also warned of potential gaps in coverage for hybrid or small-scale schemes and stressed the importance of consulting with providers in each nation.
Defining support and supervision
Questions 81 to 83 – analysis
Question 81
What would you define as ‘support’ and ‘supervision’ for the purposes of Housing Benefit?
Question 82
Do you agree that a definition of support in Housing Benefit regulations could include supervision?
All Respondents
| Text Added | Strongly agree | Partly agree | Neither agree nor disagree | Partly disagree | Strongly disagree | Do not know | Prefer not to say | Not Answered | Total Responses |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 324 | 201 | 121 | 55 | 44 | 48 | 16 | 0 | 96 | 581 |
| 56% | 35% | 21% | 9% | 8% | 8% | 3% | 0% | 17% | - |
Question 83
Do you agree that we should also link any definition for support and supervision to the National Supported Housing Standards for England, the Health and Social Care Standards in Scotland and relevant regulations in Wales?
All Respondents
| Text Added | Strongly agree | Partly agree | Neither agree nor disagree | Partly disagree | Strongly disagree | Do not know | Prefer not to say | Not Answered | Total Responses |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 240 | 254 | 103 | 47 | 13 | 12 | 30 | 0 | 122 | 581 |
| 41% | 44% | 18% | 8% | 2% | 2% | 5% | 0% | 21% | - |
The consultation asked what should be defined as support and supervision for the purposes of Housing Benefit.
Most respondents agreed that any definition of support in Housing Benefit regulations should be beyond the usual duties of a landlord in general needs accommodation. Suggestions of what a definition of support could comprise included the provision of practical, physical and emotional assistance to that resident. It should enable the resident to sustain their tenancy and move on if appropriate. Respondents suggested support was also about assistance with life skills, boosting the resident’s sense of wellbeing, helping with budgeting or organising day-to-day activities such as food preparation, hobbies or community engagement. It should be co-produced, done with the resident rather than ‘to’ them, be regular, meaningful, encourage independence and lead to outcomes which are personal to that resident and may flex over time according to changing need and circumstances. Most respondents agreed that support to the resident should have some specific face-to-face element but that any definition of support within Housing Benefit regulations should separately recognise the use of digital support and support which is provided behind the scenes.
For the purposes of Housing Benefit assessment, most respondents described that supervision could be defined as safeguarding, and that supervision is often precautionary and anticipatory in nature. Most respondents argued that supervision should be ongoing (including during the night) and that any definition of supervision within Housing Benefit regulations should recognise the importance of digital modes of supervision.
Most respondents emphasised that any definitions of support and supervision within Housing Benefit regulations should be person-centred and flex for individual need. Some respondents expressed concerns that definitions of support and supervision could be too inflexible in application as each resident in supported housing has individual needs and those needs flex over time.
The consultation also asked whether a definition of support in Housing Benefit regulations could include supervision. More than half of respondents supported combining the terms as some believed that supervision was a form of low-level support. Some cautioned that supervision should be clearly defined in Housing Benefit regulations separately to support, as for some cohorts in supported housing (for example, older people in sheltered housing), supervision was often provided without support. Some respondents, therefore, warned against defining support inclusive of supervision, to avoid unintended consequences of Housing Benefit eligibility for certain groups within the sector.
Some respondents argued that any definitions of care, support and supervision should account for existing quality assurance processes for commissioned provision. This would avoid unnecessary duplication of administration for local authority Housing Benefit teams when assessment of provision to a resident has already been conducted by commissioning teams.
In England, many respondents argued that care, support and supervision should not be defined in Housing Benefit regulations and that Housing Benefit should be assessed at a scheme level. If a scheme is licensed in England, then some respondents felt it should be assumed that the resident is receiving satisfactory levels of care, support or supervision. However, other respondents argued that there should be clear definitions implemented into Housing Benefit regulations to support local authorities holding providers to account for their provision of care, support or supervision to individual residents- even if they are licensed. Some local authority respondents felt that it was best to wait to judge the impact of the licensing regime in England in raising quality of provision in supported housing before seeking to insert definitions and/or thresholds of care, support and supervision in Housing Benefit regulations.
The final question in this section asked respondents whether any definition for support and supervision could be linked to the National Supported Housing Standards in England, to the Health and Social Care standards in Scotland and to relevant regulations in Wales.
There was considerable support for this proposal with many respondents seeing it as a logical way to quality assure that the support or supervision to residents was being provided in line with relevant regulatory frameworks and that providers are held accountable for their provision. There was considerable support from respondents who felt that this approach would promote consistency of application of Housing Benefit regulations when assessing provision of support or supervision to a resident in supported housing and ensure that Housing Benefit assessment respected frameworks across England, Scotland and Wales. Whilst many welcomed the alignment, some service and property providers expressed caution, noting that the expectation of provision of support or supervision using national standards must be clearly defined, realistic and not be overburdensome for local authorities to administer or for providers to evidence. Others warned against undermining existing Housing Benefit case law, creating overly rigid links to relevant regulatory frameworks which could exclude legitimate providers or create unequal systems of assessment of Housing Benefit claims across England, Scotland and Wales given that the expectations of support or supervision across different regulatory frameworks are not necessarily equal.
A threshold of care, support or supervision
Questions 84 and 85 - analysis
Question 84
What level of care, support or supervision provision do you think is reasonable to be eligible for Housing Benefit under specified accommodation rules?
Question 85
When assessing a Housing Benefit claim under specified accommodation rules, what is a reasonable in terms of evidence which a local authority could request when assessing a Housing Benefit claim under any definition or threshold of care, support, or supervision?
The consultation asked what level of care, support or supervision is reasonable to be eligible for Housing Benefit under specified accommodation rules.
Respondents expressed a consistent view that the level of care, support or supervision must be, ongoing, meaningful, tailored to individual needs and enough to make a difference to a person’s ability to live as independently as possible. Some respondents focused on how that provision should be available and stated that it is up to the resident to decide if they want to use it. There was strong consensus that provision should not be tokenistic but instead reflect the complexity and variability of residents’ needs.
Many emphasised that provision should be outcome-focused and flexible, but outcomes should be personalized to the resident.
There were opposing views over using an hourly threshold for provision of care, support or supervision to improve upon the ‘more than minimal’ threshold in case law. Some suggested a benchmark of 2–3 hours per week or calculating hours through client/staff ratios to ensure that the resident is receiving care, support or supervision which is over and above what they may receive in general needs accommodation. Others warned against rigid thresholds that could exclude those with fluctuating or less visible needs, stating one person’s needs can be very different to another’s and that those needs may be influenced by many factors. Some also warned of a ‘race to the bottom’ if a numerical threshold was implemented.
Some respondents agreed that the impact of the provision upon an individual resident should be prioritised over the amount.
When responding to questions on how support or supervision should be defined and what thresholds of that provision could be, some respondents outlined the importance of Intensive Housing Management (IHM) models of supported housing. IHM is not a term present in Housing Benefit regulations, but it is used within the supported housing sector to ‘describe the housing management tasks that supported housing providers perform in addition to the duties of general needs landlords’ (p. 189, Housing Benefit Guidance for Supported Housing Claims, 2022).
Some respondents cautioned against the creation of definitions/thresholds of care, support and supervision in Housing Benefit which did not account for the importance of IHM in some supported housing settings. They stated that IHM can be important in providing preventative support to residents and can involve the provision of CCTV or alarms for example which are provided in connection with the provision of adequate accommodation and therefore, eligible for payment of Housing Benefit. They warned that the Housing Benefit received because of the provision of IHM was crucial in allowing services to function.
Other respondents outlined the difficulties which some local authorities have experienced with some providers seeking to claim ineligible costs for care, support or supervision provision as eligible service charges by stating it is IHM. In stakeholder engagement, there was some belief that this was sometimes due to financial pressures due to increasing decommissioning of support services.
Respondents were also asked what they thought was reasonable in terms of the evidence a local authority could request to assess a Housing Benefit claim. The majority felt that needs assessments, support plans, case notes, tenancy agreements, Company’s House information, evidence of staffing levels, rotas and rent calculations (amongst other evidence) were acceptable but that requests should be reasonable to not over burden providers or put at risk the privacy of residents. Concerns were raised over the use of generic support plans by some providers to evidence Housing Benefit claims and resident testimony should be requested by local authorities when appropriate, to substantiate content of support plans.
Several local authorities reported that Housing Benefit teams lacked the expertise and capacity to assess care, support and supervision provision, especially in large or mixed schemes. Respondents raised how cloud based supported housing IT systems could be used to allow local authorities secure access to data in real time to mitigate against confidentiality concerns. Others felt that that Housing Benefit teams should not have access to support plans. Several respondents suggested that information submitted to local authorities or regulators for other purposes should be sufficient and should be shared.
Questions 77 - 85 – Government response
The government welcomes support for the use of existing legislative definitions of care from across England, Scotland and Wales but recognises concerns raised by respondents that these definitions may not fully capture the breadth of care delivered in supported housing settings across GB.
The government agrees that if care, support and supervision were to be defined in Housing Benefit regulations, that definitions should be clear, flexible and inclusive.
We also agree that to qualify for Housing Benefit under specified accommodation rules, the level of care, support and supervision provided to the Housing Benefit customer should be regular, meaningful, and tailored to their individual needs. It must go beyond tokenistic or incidental contact and should contribute to positive outcomes such as improved wellbeing, tenancy sustainment, or increased independence.
We recognise the diversity of supported housing models and the varying intensity of support required by different resident groups. The government supports the proposal that any future work on definitions/thresholds of care, support and supervision should consider utilising regulatory frameworks for supported housing in England, Scotland and Wales.
The government understands stakeholder concerns regarding impacts of any future definitions/thresholds of care, support and supervision upon claims for costs for intensive housing management. As outlined in Housing Benefit regulations, costs for care, support and supervision are ineligible for payment under Housing Benefit. IHM is not a term used in Housing Benefit regulations. We are prioritising work to link Housing Benefit entitlement to the MHCLG-led licensing regime and Housing Benefit service charges are outside the scope of the Act.
The government appreciates the concerns of some sector representatives over perceived over-scrutiny of Housing Benefit claims by some local authorities but also understands concerns from some local authorities over the authenticity of some evidence they receive when assessing Housing Benefit claims.
The government’s position is that local authorities have statutory responsibility for the day-to-day administration of Housing Benefit. This includes assessing individual claims and determining whether additional information or evidence is required to support a Housing Benefit claim. The government agrees that local authorities must be satisfied that the eligibility criteria set out in legislation is correct and that Housing Benefit payments are accurate. We need to be mindful that this is taxpayers’ money, and it is absolutely right that costs being funded through Housing Benefit are appropriate and meet all regulatory requirements in Housing Benefit legislation. However, the government also recognises the importance of protecting customer confidentiality and expects local authorities to balance these responsibilities appropriately.
The government supports the principle that local authorities should be able to request evidence, such as support plans, where necessary to ensure accurate processing of Housing Benefit claims. This is essential to safeguard public funds and uphold regulatory requirements. Licensing teams will be able to request information that they need in order to determine whether licensing conditions are met. The MHCLG licensing guidance will set out that support plans must not be routinely requested, given that they may contain special category data and may be for people who are at risk of harm (e.g. domestic abuse survivors)
In summary, consultation feedback on this proposal was divided with no clear support. Therefore, the government will not seek to introduce new definitions/thresholds for care, support and supervision at this present time.
However, all consultation feedback will be reviewed should options to define/insert thresholds of care, support and supervision in Housing Benefit regulations be reconsidered in the future.
Linking entitlement to Housing Benefit to licensing
Questions 86 and 87 - analysis
Question 86
The Government intends to link the eligibility of Housing Benefit in England to licensing so that residents must be living in licensed supported housing to receive Housing Benefit under the specified accommodation rules. Do you:
All Respondents
| Text Added | Strongly agree | Partly agree | Neither agree nor disagree | Partly disagree | Strongly disagree | Do not know | Not Answered | Total Responses |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 252 | 262 | 107 | 26 | 19 | 16 | 6 | 145 | 581 |
| 43% | 45% | 18% | 4% | 3% | 3% | 1% | 25% | - |
Question 87
What risks or issues should DWP consider when linking Housing Benefit eligibility in England to licensing?
The consultation asked whether respondents agreed that the government should link eligibility for Housing Benefit in England to licensing so that residents must be living in licensed supported housing to receive Housing Benefit under specified accommodation rules. The consultation also asked respondents to consider the risks of creating such a link.
There was considerable support for creating a link between Housing Benefit and licensing although concerns were expressed over the impact on residents at best, accruing rent arrears or at worst, being made homeless if their provider fails to obtain a licence and Housing Benefit is reduced or stopped.
Respondents raised concerns about de-stabilising the sector due to providers leaving or closing which would reduce the number of viable housing options, impacting supply.
Respondents also stressed that anyone facing homelessness due to their provider failing to obtain a licence should be treated as priority need.
Some respondents were concerned that licensing could be over burdensome and force smaller providers to leave the market. Others were concerned that the licensing teams and Housing Benefit teams will be asking for the same information and that there may be inconsistencies between different local authorities when making decisions on Housing Benefit claims. Many respondents sought assurance that licensing would not cause delays to Housing Benefit payments because any disruption in cashflow would impact services. They stressed that good quality supported housing providers should not be penalised due to licensing backlogs, errors and appeals.
Responses from local authorities called for mechanisms to support data sharing across local authorities particularly where providers are operating in multiple areas.
Questions 86 and 87 – Government response
The government welcomes the support for linking Housing Benefit eligibility in England to the supported housing licensing regime and will be drafting regulations to implement this change.
The government acknowledges the concerns raised about potential risks to residents, but this measure will protect those who are not currently receiving the standard of care and support that they require. Where a licence is refused, it is important that those residents whose care, support or supervision needs are not being met, are helped to move to more suitable licensed accommodation. The local authority will provide help with this. In some cases, where residents no longer have care, support or supervision needs they may be able to remain in their accommodation if their provider is able to continue operating as general needs housing. If this is not possible the local authority will support them to move. The government recognises that the licensing regime needs to be straight forward and not place undue burden on providers. MHCLG will be introducing a standardised application form and clear guidance for local authorities to ensure consistency.
The impact on providers and residents
The impact on providers
Question 88 – analysis
Question 88
For providers in England, if you had a licence refused and Housing Benefit stopped or was restricted for your residents, what action would you take? Would you consider continuing to operate as general needs accommodation? Would you consider closing?
The consultation asked providers whether they would close if they had a licence refused and Housing Benefit stopped or was restricted, or whether they would continue operating as general needs accommodation.
The majority of providers said they would be forced to close as their schemes would not be viable without the income from Housing Benefit. Operators of lease-based models stated that the general needs option would not be sustainable because the rent would be unaffordable for their tenants and it is unlikely that they would be able to renegotiate the lease. Other providers stated that as registered charities they would not be able to switch to general needs accommodation because they are restricted by their charitable objectives and would therefore be forced to close. A minimal number of respondents stated that they would try to continue operating as general needs without offering any support.
The impact on residents
Questions 89 to 91 - analysis
Question 89
For residents in England, if you had to move because your provider failed to obtain a licence, what help would you need with finding somewhere else to live and with moving?
Question 90
For local authorities in England - what support could you offer to residents who may have to move out of their current accommodation if they lose entitlement to Housing Benefit and access to care, support or supervision because their provider fails to get a licence?
Question 91
For local authorities in England - if a licence is refused for a large scheme, would you be able to identify the Housing Benefit customers within the scheme that were affected by the decision?
All Respondents
| Text Added | Strongly agree | Partly agree | Neither agree nor disagree | Partly disagree | Strongly disagree | Do not know | Prefer not to say | Not Answered | Total Responses |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 179 | 170 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 49 | 0 | 359 | 581 |
| 31% | 29% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 1% | 8% | 0% | 62% | - |
The consultation asked residents what support they would need if their provider failed to obtain a licence and they had to find somewhere else to live.
Local authorities who responded to this question acknowledged the stress that this situation could cause and stated that residents would need emotional support as well as practical help finding new homes. They felt that sending a letter to advise residents their provider was closing would be insufficient and lacks empathy, and that dedicated housing support staff should be provided to help navigate any move.
Providers recognised the distress and trauma that moving home could cause and stated that it would increase the pressure on temporary emergency accommodation. They expressed concern that residents would not be able to relocate alone and would need help with sourcing other housing support, budgeting and moving costs. Others stated that inter-agency working would be required to ensure that any care, support or supervision was continued during the transition.
Residents who responded stated that they would need help with finding somewhere to live along with continuity of care and support. Other help included assistance with the actual move, from packing to financial help towards the cost of the transport and deposits for new accommodation. Once relocated, residents stated they would need support with updating benefits and registering with new doctor’s surgeries. Some residents expressed a wish for a support worker or housing officer to guide them through the process and requested a choice in the area they are moved to.
The consultation also asked what support local authorities could offer residents who may have to move because their provider fails to obtain a licence.
Local authorities stated that they must ensure residents do not fall into homelessness and that sufficient temporary options need to be available while long term housing is sorted. Some local authorities stated that it should be a personal journey, not a process and that each affected resident should be assigned a dedicated support worker who could also liaise with DWP and Universal Credit teams. Some local authorities expressed concern that helping residents who face a shortfall in their rent whilst seeking alternative accommodation would place their Discretionary Housing Payment budgets under increased pressure and that they may not be able to assist everyone requiring financial help.
Questions 89 to 91 – Government response
The government recognises the potential impact of an unsuccessful licence application and appreciates these comments. Refusal of a licence will be a last resort, and we are committed to ensuring that residents receive appropriate tailored help and that local authorities are equipped to respond effectively.
The government is pleased that local authorities already have systems in place to enable them to identify Housing Benefit customers who are affected by their provider failing to obtain a licence so that support can be put into place as soon as possible.
Licensing and the impact on Scotland and Wales
Questions 92 and 93 – analysis
Question 92
(For stakeholders in Scotland and Wales) What risks do we need to mitigate against, in Scotland and Wales, if we link eligibility in England for Housing Benefit, under specified accommodation rules, to licensing?
Question 93
(For stakeholders in Scotland and Wales) - As licensing is not being introduced in Scotland and Wales under the Act, would you wish to see entitlement to Housing Benefit under specified accommodation rules linked to the schemes referenced in paragraphs 2.9 and 2.10 or to any other regulatory scheme already in place?
All Respondents
| Text Added | Strongly agree | Partly agree | Neither agree nor disagree | Partly disagree | Strongly disagree | Do not know | Prefer not to say | Not Answered | Total Responses |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 179 | 170 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 49 | 0 | 359 | 581 |
| 31% | 29% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 1% | 8% | 0% | 62% | - |
The Supported Housing (Regulatory Oversight) Act 2023 only contains powers to introduce licensing in England. Stakeholders in Scotland and Wales were asked what risks the government needs to mitigate against if we link eligibility to Housing Benefit to licensing in England.
There was a low response rate to question 92, but respondents expressed concern that unlicensed providers may migrate to Scotland and Wales where it is perceived to be less strict or unregulated. However, Welsh respondents perceive this to be a relatively low risk because most of their short term supported housing is commissioned by local authorities through the Housing Support Grant. In addition, in Wales registered social landlords are regulated by the Welsh Government. Respondents in Scotland also perceived this to be a low risk due to their existing framework of regulation through the Care Inspectorate (care and support) and the Scottish Housing Regulator (housing standards).
Respondents also stated that without UK-wide coordination providers operating across borders could experience inconsistencies in decision making or confusion over which policy applies in which country.
Respondents stated that there needs to be clear cross-border protocols, close collaboration and information sharing between government departments and stakeholders in England, Scotland and Wales. Others warned that displaced residents in England could present as homeless in Scotland and Wales and conversely queried how the licensing regime in England would impact Welsh and Scottish residents placed in supported housing in England.
Stakeholders in Scotland and Wales were also asked if entitlement to Housing Benefit should be linked to any existing regulatory frameworks in Scotland and Wales.
There was also a low response rate to question 93. Although respondents broadly agree with the principle of linking Housing Benefit eligibility to registration with the Care Inspectorate in Scotland and to the Housing Support Grant in Wales, there is a concern that not all providers of supported housing will be captured by these frameworks in either country. In Wales, only short term supported housing is commissioned through the Housing Support Grant.
Respondents in Scotland had reservations about linking to the Care Inspectorate because not all services are required to register and registration is often linked to a branch of services with multiple models grouped together. This may make it difficult for Housing Benefit teams to verify specific addresses and details of individual specified accommodation.
Welsh respondents stated that good relationships between their Housing Support Grant or social care commissioners and respective Housing Benefit teams is key to developing a better understanding of supported housing.
A few respondents expressed disappointment that the Act has not sought to address the issue of subsidy loss or the landlord definition in Housing Benefit regulations which currently only lists non-metropolitan county councils in England as an eligible landlord type for two categories of specified accommodation. This excludes all Welsh and Scottish local authorities from operating exempt accommodation and managed properties, and their view was that this creates a disparity between them and some English local authorities.
Questions 92 and 93 – Government response
The government has considered these comments and will not be linking entitlement to Housing Benefit to any existing framework in Scotland or Wales. We will continue to keep the devolved governments informed as the work to link entitlement to Housing Benefit to licensing in England progresses.
The government is aware of the issues caused by local authority subsidy loss and understands the frustrations expressed about the landlord definition and will continue to keep both under review.