Where we assess an issue or a potential issue to be material to a landlord’s delivery of the outcomes of our standards, we may carry out responsive engagement with that landlord. landlord.
- issue a regulatory judgement and (where applicable) grade for the landlord; and/or
- use regulatory or enforcement powers.
We may also decide to seekclose evidenceour aboutresponsive aengagement. landlord’sFor deliveryexample, we might decide not to explore the relevant issues further in view of evidence-based assurance provided by the standardslandlord, outcomesor we might decide to explore the issues further in other ways, forsuch exampleas includingthrough relevanta future programmed inspection.
Where we decide not to explore issues asfurther, anwe areamay ofstill focususe inrelevant ainformation programmedto inspectionhelp us identify any current or carryingfuture outpatterns anin inspectionissues thatarising iswith notthe programmed. landlord.
Landlord improvement
Where we suspecthave given a seriousregulatory failurejudgement that a landlord needs to deliverimprove its delivery of the outcomes of our standards, and we mayconsider addthat the landlord tois oursufficiently gradingswilling underand reviewable listto whilstmake the required improvement, we concludewill ournormally findings.carry Onceout welandlord issueimprovement work.
Our landlord improvement work involves us continuing to engage with the landlord as it makes the required improvement. Its focus is on the landlord delivering long-term, sustainable improvements.
While our regulatorypriority judgement,will be for landlords to deal with the most serious areas of risk without delay, we will removewant to see that the landlord fromunderstands the gradingsreasons underfor reviewthe list. weaknesses or failings identified, and develops and implements a robust plan to address them. We will expect the landlord to be responsible for designing and delivering appropriate improvement plans, with oversight from their boards or councillors and, where appropriate, evidencing meaningful engagement with tenants.
Further
Once actionwe followingare oursatisfied responsivethat the engagement landlord understands the underlying causes for the weaknesses or failings and has developed a proposed improvement plan, we will consider how well the proposed improvement plan identifies:
-
Whereachievable improvements that ourare responsivelikely to address and engagementavoid recurrence of the weaknesses or failings identified in the regulatory judgement (and any related weaknesses or failings that are relevant) and underlying causes;
-
how these improvements will be delivered;
-
realistic and achievable timescales for delivery of the improvements that are aligned with the seriousness of the issues, prioritising those with amost impact or potential impact on tenants (in the context of our regulatory standards);
-
robust ways in which the landlord leadswill usprovide evidence, including any external assurance it plans to formseek, that intended strategic outcomes (rather than individual actions or changeoutputs) have ourbeen viewachieved;
-
how the plan will support sustained improvement in the landlord’s delivery of howthe welloutcomes of our standards; and
-
actions the landlord will take to deliver outcomes of our Transparency, Influence and Accountability Standard in relation to the improvement work. This includes, for example, the outcome to provide tenants with accessible information about actions it will take to improve performance. We expect landlords to share relevant improvement plans with tenants.
We will consider reasonable remedial strategies the landlord isproposes, deliveringincluding relevant voluntary undertakings. See below for more information on voluntary undertakings.
Through the landlord improvement work process, we monitor landlords’ progress. We will expect landlords to regularly report to us to show their progress and that improved outcomes are being delivered, and for this to be supported by evidence. We may also hold engagement meetings with the landlord where we will discuss the landlord’s reporting and may challenge the level of progress or evidence provided.
In line with our standards,regulatory approach, our landlord improvement work is proportionate and risk-based. Our level of engagement is usually more intensive where we mayconsider reflectthat thisthe inrelevant weaknesses and/or failings are more serious, and also at the start of our publishedengagement regulatorywhile judgementthe improvement plan is being developed, and where appropriatethere grading.are Wekey normallyrisks continuethat we expect the landlord to address and mitigate more immediately. Over time, we may vary our responsivelevel of engagement withas aour landlordview untilof itthe haslevel providedof evidencerisk may change.
It is expected that givesthrough our landlord improvement work the landlord will provide us sufficientwith robust evidence and assurance that it has addressed the relevant weaknesses orand/or failings.failings, Inand casesthat wherethe process will lead us to conclude that the landlord doeshas notmade providethe usneeded withimprovement in its delivery of the outcomes of our standards. Factors we are likely to focus on before reaching such a conclusion will include the evidence that givesimproved usoutcomes sufficienthave assurancebeen delivered, and that theysustainable improvements have madebeen embedded that address the relevant improvementsissues.
There weare willa takerange whatof wedecisions considerabout our regulation of the landlord that landlord improvement work may lead to. These include deciding:
-
to issue a new regulatory judgement and (where applicable) grade(s). This could be an upgrade but may not be if, for example, we consider that the landlord has not developed and/or implemented an appropriate courseimprovement ofplan action.within Inreasonable sometimescales;
-
that cases,an inspection should be carried out before we mayissue alsoa useregulatory judgement;
-
to close our landlord improvement work and change our regulatory strategy with the relevantlandlord information(because, for example, we no longer consider that the landlord is sufficiently willing and able to helpwork with us identifyfor currentour landlord improvement work to be the right process); and/or
-
to use regulatory or futureenforcement patternspowers.
Upgrades in
There issuesare arisingtwo withroutes ato particularan landlord.upgrade. WeUpgrades maycan alsobe usemade either following responsive engagement or following an inspection.
Which route we decide to be the relevantmost informationappropriate is likely to helpdepend uson scopea range of factors, including the landlord’stype programmedof inspection,regulatory engagement that led to our previous regulatory judgement (for example, an inspection or responsive engagement), how recently we maypublished forthat example,judgement, and the breadth and depth of the issues we identified.
As our responsive engagement is generally narrower in scope than our inspections, we would usually expect responsive engagement to be able to support an upgrade only:
Where responsive engagement does lead to an upgrade, then it is likely we would decide that an inspection should be carried out before any further upgrade is considered, to useprovide a fuller assessment of how well the outcomes of our regulatorystandards orare enforcementnow powers.being delivered by the landlord.
Where we decide that an inspection should be carried out before we consider an upgrade, our decisions about the timing, approach and scope of this inspection will depend on the particular circumstances, and will take into account our need to take appropriate steps to implement our inspection plan and deliver a balanced inspection programme.