Consumer regulation: another turn of the wheel

More than a decade later, the wheel has turned again, prompted among other things by the tragedies referred to above.

 

As well as an extended remit for the Regulator of Social Housing (RSH), we can rejoice in our very own Housing Ombudsman, which now enjoys considerable new powers.

 

The first round of the new RSH inspections has taken place, and the good news is that the coveted badge of honour, otherwise known as a C1, is not unobtainable, just as the Audit Commission’s three stars were conferred from time to time upon a select few.

 

It is of course hard to disagree with the propositions that tenants in social housing should be able to live in safe, decent, well-run homes, and that their voices should be listened to. Nor that regulation needs to exist to ensure those outcomes, and above all to prevent serious failures.

 

But then, surely those outcomes are exactly what social landlords have been set up to achieve, whether as local authorities or as registered providers? Keeping the regulator and the ombudsman happy should always be incidental side effects of delivering an inherent and values-driven social purpose.

 

After all, the same is broadly true of achieving the governance and financial viability standards. Regulatory compliance is just a baseline for doing the right thing.

 

Challenges to overcome

 

It’s not always that easy. The minus one per cent rent regime (in place for the four years from April 2016) has knocked the stuffing out of all registered providers, not to mention the need to deal with cladding and other expensive building safety issues, and the wider effects of austerity.

 

The costs of ensuring compliance have gone up across the board, with the antics of no-win, no-fee lawyers turning the screw another twist.

 

We can only hope that under a new government, the overall financial regime will turn a corner, and allow us to make up for the lost years; there have been some encouraging straws in the wind, just at time of writing.  

 

So meanwhile, what’s the best way to organisational excellence, with both contented tenants and regulatory bodies, and not breaking the bank?

Organisational culture

 

Let’s start with organisational culture and then move on to data. And let’s remember too that culture is set from the top, the board and executive, and should then run through to the frontline, as through a stick of rock.

 

Fine stated values and missions are all very well, but if frontline staff believe that tenants should be grateful to have their homes, and that damp and mould are a lifestyle issue, then things are likely to go wrong.

 

So, listening to tenants, individually and collectively, and then acting on what they had said, is a good starting point. Listening to frontline staff goes along with that – they know what works and what doesn’t.

 

Diversity matters here – diversity of thought creates better challenge. And understanding the diverse needs of tenants and staff is key to active listening.

 

At board and committee level, there needs to be a spirit of curiosity and questioning. That means a seeking of assurance rather than reassurance, and an avoidance of complacency.

 

Just because things have worked so far doesn’t mean that they will continue to do so indefinitely.

 

Right through the organisation, managers and directors need to model the behaviours and values that the annual report describes in the usual glowing terms.

 

Curiosity can be taken to another level. For larger organisations in particular, it may be sensible to have a small internal team, with a roving brief to uncover the next likely ombudsman case or safety issue before it can fully materialise.

 

Good data

 

Which leads on to the question of data. The best organisational culture in the world is no match for poor data.

 

So often when things go badly wrong, it turns out that someone, somewhere, knew about the problem, but that the organisation didn’t officially know, in the sense that no record was made, and no action was taken.

 

There have been, by way of example, a number of cases over the past few years involving hoarders and fatal fires. Often, a maintenance contractor or a member of estate staff would have been aware of the issue, but didn’t log it with the landlord. Result – tragedy.

 

But there are many reasons why data may not be accurate – mergers, introduction of new systems, loss of paper records, sloppy data entry and cyberattacks, to name but a few.

 

Along with culture, the bedrock of compliance is solid and reliable data, sensibly analysed, and used as the basis for proactive and preventative interventions. Artificial intelligence may have a useful role here down the line, first in terms of identifying missing or anomalous data, but then in terms of analysing what’s there and pointing to the difficult cases where an early stitch in time may save nine, or even more.

 

So there you have it. Complying with consumer regulation will be an incidental benefit of getting the culture right, and building that on a platform of solid data.

 

Policies, processes and structures may need to evolve to support change, as may recruitment practice and job roles. Readers are probably already on different stages of that journey, and I can only wish them all success.

 

James Tickell, partner, Campbell Tickell