Source · Select Committees · Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee
Recommendation 41
41
Deferred
Paragraph: 155
We did not find the explanation by the Regulator of why Clarion could be compliant...
Conclusion
We did not find the explanation by the Regulator of why Clarion could be compliant in the case of Eastfields to be convincing, especially given the comparison with Croydon Council and Regina Road. Croydon had been found guilty of systemic The Regulation of Social Housing 75 failure because it “simply did not have the systems to identify that things were going wrong”, whereas Clarion “had those systems and processes in place” yet still allowed things to go wrong. The former suggests incompetence; the latter suggests indifference; but our view is that both constitute systemic failure.
Government Response Summary
The government acknowledges the Committee's views on the Regulator's interpretation of its statutory duties and will raise these points with the Regulator, which is independent of the Government and responsible for interpreting its statutory duties.
Paragraph Reference:
155
Government Response
Deferred
HM Government
Deferred
The Regulator of Social Housing is independent of the Government and is alone responsible for the interpretation of its statutory duties. The Regulator must interpret and discharge its statutory duties in a way that is consistent with Parliament’s intention. The Department engages regularly with the Regulator to understand how it is discharging its duties and to ensure that the Department’s policy intentions are understood. The Department welcomes the Committee’s views on the Regulator’s interpretation and will raise these points with the Regulator. The Government has amended the Social Housing (Regulation) Bill to remove the ‘serious detriment’ test.