Two small providers have been found non-compliant with regulatory standards

In a Regulatory Judgement for Aves Housing published on 29th July, the RSH found that:

• Its tenants did not need and / or were not provided with support as claimed, and no independent review has been undertaken to determine their support needs
• Therefore, all of the local authorities in which Aves was operating had ceased Housing Benefit payments, having decided that the housing being provided did not qualify as exempt accommodation, a decision supported by a subsequent First-Tier Tribunal
• Its tenants were now claiming Universal Credit Housing Costs at a much lower rate than would have been paid as exempt accommodation
• It had failed to communicate the outcome of the First-Tier Tribunal to the regulator, although this had a significant impact on its financial viability
• The balance between rents and management charges was unclear, leading to a lack of assurance that Aves was compliant with the Rent Standard
• Aves had generated substantial profits for a third party that exercised control over its operations and that had overcharged for its services
• Aves was not able to credibly explain the management fees paid to third parties
• Board members had been remunerated even though its articles of association forbid such payments
• The board has significant skills gaps, lack regular, accurate and comprehensive reporting, and board meetings are not always documented
• There is a lack of board oversight and underlying systems and controls to support landlord health and safety compliance
• Business plans are not based on appropriate and reasonable assumptions, with inconsistent and contradictory information provided to the regulator on costs
• Financial reporting and forecasting is irregular and inconsistent
• A thorough, accurate and up-to-date record of assets and liabilities has not been maintained
• Aves has significant gaps in its assessment of risks and has not undertaken adequate stress testing.

Due to the above, the RSH is "reviewing all options in our regulatory strategy including use of regulatory and enforcement powers".

After YMCA Thames Gateway failed to submit its accounts for the year to 31st March 2025, the RSH began responsive engagement, which uncovered an acute financial position.  Its subsequent investigation found that the association:

• Had not undertaken a stock condition survey since 2018 and, as a result, did not have an up-to-date understanding of the condition of its homes or their investment requirements
• Had weaknesses in its health and safety reporting, making it difficult for the board to robustly monitor and scrutinise performance
• Had significantly cut back the maintenance of its homes due to its liquidity position, resulting in a substantial backlog of repairs, including many categorised as urgent
• Had taken on new financial liabilities without understanding or managing their impact, putting its social housing assets at undue risk
• Had insufficiently-developed stress testing and mitigation plans for the level of risk that it faces.

As a result, the regulator did not have assurance that the organisation's business plan would ensure its long-term viability.  The board is now focused on identifying a merger partner.