Written evidence submitted by the Chartered Institute of Housing [EXA 123]

Closing the regulatory gaps

We have been working very closely with Crisis to identify the causes of the abuse around exempt accommodation, and to develop effective practical solutions. We have reached the conclusion that the abuse is a consequence of regulatory concessions which bad faith actors seek to exploit, the most serious of which are:

• registered provider status provides a shelter from Housing Act 2004 licensing (parts 2-3) and from referral to the rent officer
• market rent properties fall outside of the RSH consumer regulation
• specialist supported housing falls outside the rent standard
• local benefits departments have lost their powers to prosecute for benefit fraud.

We are confident that if these can be closed without placing new burdens on most responsible providers, the recent proliferation of poor-quality new entrants will decline naturally without the need for more active intervention to manage the supply.

Additional evidence

Having reflected on our evidence I would also add the following points:

• In my oral evidence I said local authorities knew where exempt accommodation properties were due to the housing benefit claim (and could use this information to exercise their Housing Act powers). It is however important to note that the claim does not tell authorities anything about the quality of the accommodation or the support provided – both of which can only really be ascertained by inspection
• Matt Downie (Crisis) and Farah Nazeer (Women’s Aid) gave powerful evidence of how domestic abuse survivors can be exploited because of the lack of alternative accommodation. In many cases survivors would be better off in general needs accommodation with access to ‘floating’ advice from qualified practitioners. In our evidence to Lords members on the Domestic Abuse Bill we pointed out that housing costs for general needs accommodation are counted in full towards the benefits cap but are wholly disregarded for exempt accommodation.
• It was noted several times that tenants/licensees are contractually liable for any shortfall between their housing benefit and their gross rent. The unmet liability could be used to intimidate and exploit vulnerable claimants. We therefore think that Rent Repayment Orders would be the most appropriate enforcement tool for the most extreme cases of abuse rather than full or partial recovery of housing benefit (see Housing Act 2004 s.73, 96; Housing and Planning Act 2016 s.40-52).

I hope this is helpful.

May 2022