It felt timely to review the provisions of the Supported Housing (Regulatory Oversight) Act 2023, in light of the then Parliamentary Undersecretary of State for Homelessness and Democracy’s Statement in July 2025.
In that, she stated that “we will aim to publish a full government response after Summer Recess, in advance of consulting on the draft regulations in early 2026 and implementing the Act as soon as reasonably possible”.
That has not happened.
This is despite an acknowledgement that “there continue to be cases of residences finding themselves at the hands of exploitative landlords”.
Background
The Act itself intends to make provision for the regulation of supported exempt accommodation, alongside local authority oversight of, and enforcement powers relating to, the provision of supported exempt accommodation, and for connected purposes.
It is not acceptable that some of the most vulnerable people in our society are still not being afforded (duly acknowledged in the ministerial foreword to the Supported Housing Regulation Consultation of February 2025) the opportunity to live as independently as possible, and “helping improve their quality of life, their well-being, their health and their employment prospects”.
Those words acknowledge that, notwithstanding some of the excellent work carried out by reputable and professional bodies, there were and remain poor quality providers letting down vulnerable residents by failing to give them the support they need, all while making a substantial profit, and often (in certain instances) at tax payer’s expense.
Notwithstanding that “these abuses have been allowed to go on for far too long… ”, the Act (originally introduced back in 2022 by way of a Private Members’ Bill, receiving Royal Assent in 2023) remains very much on the back burner as regards actually having any of the impact that it proposed.
Headline terms in the Supported Housing (Regulatory Oversight) Act 2023
“Supported Exempt Accommodation” was defined in the Act as being government places provided alongside care support or supervision, managed properties (being those where individuals are admitted in order to meet a need for care support or supervision and indeed receive the same), refuges (provided by relevant authorities where a person has left their home as a result of domestic violence, and used wholly or mainly for non-permanent accommodation of such individuals), and local authority hostels being those owned or managed again by the relevant authority and where the individuals in occupation receive care, support or supervision.
As such, some of the most vulnerable individuals in England.
The Act seeks to address a previous (and indeed still current) lack of regulation within the sector, which became a national scandal. That the responses to the Consultation have still not been fully assessed, nor further action taken, suggests that this must still be continuing.
The Act proposes setting up a Supported Housing Advisory Panel, providing information and advice about or in connection with Supported Exempt Accommodation, to the Secretary of State, local housing authorities in England, and social services authorities in England.
Its Panel is to include at least one person to represent each of the interests of Registered Providers, local housing authorities, social services authorities, charities, and finally the interests of residents. Any individual so appointed could wear various hats under the above. The Panel will have a Chair, and individuals could sit for terms not exceeding five years, with allowing for one reappointment.
Perhaps flowing down from the above, although stated as separate and standalone obligations, local housing authorities were to carry out a review of the Supported Exempt Accommodation in each district and, in light of the same, publish a strategy to be known as a “Supported Housing Strategy” for the provision of Supported Exempt Accommodation in its district.
So what are we waiting for?
The Act sets out timings for compliance with that obligation, that is to take place within one year of the date of regulations being made as to the same… and we are still waiting for those.
Otherwise, the Secretary of State “may” prepare and publish National Standards for England, to be known as the “National Supported Housing Standards.” Those were to deal with “any aspect” of the provision of Supported Exempt Accommodation. The Standards themselves could also set minimum standards in respect of the type or condition of premises, and as to the provision of care, support or supervision at the same. Again, we are still waiting for them…
The Secretary of State was also to be entitled to make licensing obligations in connection with those having control of or managing Support Exempt Accommodation. Again, we are still waiting for those…
Exercising any powers regarding the licensing regulations, the Statutory Consultees had to have been consulted – those being each local housing authority in England, each social services authority in England, the National Housing Federation, and the Regulator of Social Housing.
Whilst the Consultation has commenced, and indeed is now noted as being “closed”, we await further details as to the same.
And what about the consultation?
If we turn then to the Consultation, that sought opinions in connection with: the National Supported Housing Standards, Supporting Housing Licensing, and a new Planning Use Class for Supported Housing. It also sought views on a definition of “care, support and supervision” in the Housing Benefit Regulations, including how this could be linked to respective regulatory frameworks for England, Scotland and Wales, and a proposal to link housing benefits to Standards and Licensing in England (and opportunity to link to other frameworks in Scotland and Wales).
The National Supported Housing Standards (as proposed by the Consultation) were given key principles, expecting that a good quality support service would be: person centred, respectful, safe and responsive, effective, and well led. Within those were suggested further standards: a person centred support standard, an empowerment standard, environment standard, staff and safeguarding standards, a local needs standard, responsible persons standard, and a statement of purpose standard.
Given the wide remit of the sector, consideration was to be given to which forms of supported housing would require a licence and also who would need to apply for a licence.
Interestingly, the types of supported housing which were suggested would need a licence were not finalised, but included older persons, those with a learning disability and/or autistic people, those with mental ill health, those with a physical disability, young people, those experiencing or at risk of homelessness, those with drug or alcohol dependency needs, those with multiple complex needs, as well as domestic abuse refugees and safe accommodation with support. Each individual scheme was proposed to be licensed, with the person having “control or managing” housing being required to apply as a licensee.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, the Act specifically provides that accommodation provided through the CAS2 Scheme (MOJ supported housing provision for those on bail or leaving prison with support needs), and Ofsted regulatory Supported Housing, would not need licensing under the provisions of the SHORA, so it is seen as having an alternative regulatory oversight body.
But does it then capture all who work here? Commentators have welcomed the “fit and proper person” test, including (as mooted in the Consultation) that a local authority will consider “whether any person associated or formerly associated with a proposed licence holder” has done any of the things mentioned in the non-acceptable list. That is presumably intended to capture and consider risk in a sector where the turnover of staff or indeed properties is high.
But…
And whilst proposing financial penalties (hitting where it hurts most?) these provisions apply only to those Supported Exempt Accommodation, who are non-metropolitan county councils, housing associations, registered charities, or voluntary organisations.
They do not appear to apply or be intended to apply to private individuals.
One may ask why! Are those listed the “easy targets”? Is there not already sufficient regulation of those noted entities, by their current regulatory bodies? Is this purely a reaction to the “benefits bill” issue? Should the regulations not seek [also] to protect the residents, as well as the public purse?
And indeed, if this new oversight role, is to fall to the local authority, how will same be funded, and indeed are they the best entity to be doing this?
And whilst not looking to “pass the buck” should the focus perhaps be switched to those regulators who are not doing their job?
And indeed is all of this distancing us from those who we should really be focused on – the residents, and those in need of support, care, and protection.