Supported Housing (Regulatory Oversight) Act

The Act, introduced as a Private Member’s Bill by Conservative MP Bob Blackman, was mainly aimed at stopping private landlords from labelling their properties as Supported Housing just to claim Housing Benefit from tenants.

However, our response to the consultation raises concerns that it could end up creating a range of unexpected regulatory challenges.

While we welcome the Act’s ambition to improve standards and protect residents, we are concerned that the current proposals risk creating unintended consequences for providers and the people we support.

Our response reflects our commitment to delivering high-quality, person-centred services and outlines practical recommendations to ensure the new regulatory framework is proportionate, effective, and sustainable.

We believe that meaningful reform must be shaped by those with frontline experience.

Our submission highlights the need for streamlined licensing, better alignment with existing regulation, and a funding model that supports—not hinders—service delivery.

We urge policymakers to work collaboratively with providers to ensure that the Act strengthens, rather than destabilises, the supported housing sector.

What did we ask for?

Regulatory Burden & Licensing Structure

• The proposed licensing regime is overly complex and resource-intensive, especially for providers managing multiple small schemes.
• Recommends a single area-wide licence per local authority, listing all schemes, to reduce administrative burden.
• Concern that licensing fees will increase operational costs and may be passed on to residents or reduce service quality.
• Strongly opposes defining a “scheme” as a single bedspace due to excessive licensing implications.

Standards & Evidence Requirements

• Supports the introduction of national standards but urges alignment with existing frameworks (e.g. CQC, Ofsted, Regulator of Social Housing).
• Advocates for flexibility in evidencing standards, using existing contract monitoring and accreditation tools.
• Recommends service user feedback mechanisms (e.g. QR codes, surveys) to assess person-centred support.
• Calls for clarity on responsibilities for collecting and maintaining evidence, especially for needs assessments and support plans.

Support Delivery & Staffing

• Supports person-centred and empowerment standards but notes challenges in maintaining consistent support workers due to sector realities.
• Recommends funding for training and engagement initiatives (e.g. TPAS training, MEAM).
• Highlights recruitment challenges due to delays in DBS checks and underfunding.
• Suggests middle management as the ideal level for “responsible persons” to balance oversight and operational knowledge.

Accommodation & Environment

• Supports high standards for accommodation but stresses the need for funding to maintain large, high-use buildings.
• Recommends compliance trackers for safety certifications and risk assessments.
• Opposes mandatory planning permission for all schemes, citing delays and inflexibility.

Local Authority Engagement & Strategic Need

• Expresses concern over inconsistent engagement from local authorities in assessing local need.
• Recommends awareness campaigns to reduce stigma and promote the value of supported housing.
• Calls for better data sharing and collaboration on strategic planning.

Enforcement & Compliance

• Supports proportionate enforcement, including improvement plans and inspections, but calls for clear guidance and resident-sensitive procedures.
• Recommends six-month improvement notice periods to allow for recruitment and training.
• Opposes automatic penalties for organisational offences; prefers case-by-case assessments.

Housing Benefit & Financial Implications

• Opposes linking Housing Benefit eligibility strictly to licensing due to risk of service disruption.
• Strongly disagrees with using the “personal care” definition for support in Housing Benefit regulations—too narrow for low-support services.
• Recommends phasing out the term “supervision” in favour of modern, person-centred language.

Helena Doyle, Customer Experience Director Wellbeing, said: “We fully support the drive to raise standards in supported housing, but regulation must be a tool for empowerment—not a barrier to care.

“The people we support deserve a service that provides a safe, high-quality home, and providers need a system that enables, not entangles.

“We urge the government to consider a smarter, more collaborative approach that puts lived experience and frontline insight at the heart of reform.”