The Social Housing (Regulation) Act 2023 represents one of the most significant reforms of the social housing sector in recent years. Introduced in response to concerns around resident safety, service quality, and accountability, the reforms are designed to strengthen consumer regulation and improve outcomes for social housing tenants.
The new competence, conduct, and transparency requirements due to take effect from October 2026 mark an important development in the regulation of social housing. While the primary obligations fall on registered providers, property managers delivering services connected with social housing may also find themselves affected by aspects of the new regime.
For property management businesses and their professional indemnity insurers, the reforms have the potential to create new contractual, professional, and regulatory risk considerations.
What the reforms mean for property managers
The reforms extend beyond housing associations themselves. Organisations providing services connected with the management of social housing may be treated as service providers under section 194B of the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008. The statutory definition is broad, capturing a person who, under an agreement with a registered provider "or another person", provides services connected with the management of social housing or arranges for such services to be provided.
The reference to agreements with a registered provider "or another person" is particularly noteworthy. It suggests that, depending on the nature and scope of the services being delivered, a managing agent may potentially fall within the definition even where it contracts through a freeholder, management company, or other intermediary rather than directly with a registered provider. While further regulatory guidance may clarify the precise scope of the regime, the wording reflects a potentially wider reach than might ordinarily be expected.
Where a property manager delivers a comprehensive housing management service, certain statutory obligations relating to competence, conduct, and transparency may be implied into relevant management services agreements, creating a contractual mechanism through which registered providers can seek to secure compliance. The legislation also provides that such implied obligations cannot be excluded or restricted by contract.
Key regulatory and claims risks
Competence, conduct, and qualification requirements
The new Competence and Conduct Standard is intended to drive greater professionalism across the sector. It is not simply a qualifications regime. Registered providers will be expected to ensure that relevant staff possess appropriate skills, knowledge, experience, and behaviours, supported by workforce development policies, performance management processes, and codes of conduct.
Certain senior housing managers and senior housing executives will be required either to hold, or be working towards, approved housing management qualifications, with phased transition periods applying. Importantly for managing agents, registered providers must take steps to ensure that relevant personnel employed by service providers also meet equivalent competence expectations.
There is, however, an important limitation. The qualification requirements for service providers are generally intended to apply only where a provider delivers a "comprehensive" housing management service, covering all or the majority of prescribed housing management functions. Those functions include areas such as repairs and maintenance, asset management, estate management, and major works, among others. The position may therefore be different for organisations providing more limited estate management or common parts services.
For property managers, the principal risk is not simply whether qualifications are held, but whether competence can be evidenced. Following a significant service failure, tenant complaint or regulatory investigation, organisations may find increased scrutiny being applied to training records, governance arrangements, workforce policies, and competency frameworks. For insurers, these may also become important considerations when assessing both risk and claims defensibility.
Transparency and information management
Alongside the competence reforms, the new Social Tenant Access to Information Requirements (STAIRs) will increase transparency obligations across the sector. Registered providers will be required to publish specified information and respond to requests relating to the management of social housing.
Although these obligations apply directly to registered providers, property managers may be expected to support compliance by providing information relating to matters such as repairs, maintenance, estate management, major works, and service delivery. As a result, the quality of record keeping and management information systems may become increasingly important, both from a regulatory compliance perspective and in the context of defending complaints or claims following service failures.
The PI insurance perspective
From a professional indemnity perspective, the reforms have the potential to increase both the frequency and complexity of claims. Following a significant incident, tenant complaint, maladministration finding or regulatory investigation, attention is likely to focus on competence frameworks, governance arrangements, training records, and compliance processes.
While enforcement action will generally be directed at the registered provider, registered providers may seek contractual recovery against service providers where an alleged failing is linked to outsourced management functions. Competence records, qualification status, and governance documentation may therefore become important evidence in defending future claims.
From an insurer's perspective, the reforms may also create a new benchmark against which the adequacy of a managing agent's systems and controls can be assessed. Following a significant incident or regulatory investigation, scrutiny may extend beyond the service failure itself to the competence, training and governance frameworks that supported service delivery.
For insurers, the ability of property managers to demonstrate robust governance, documented competence frameworks and effective record keeping may therefore become increasingly relevant both in underwriting decisions and in the defence of claims.
Conclusion
Much of the discussion surrounding the reforms has focused on qualifications, but the changes are broader in scope, with a clear emphasis on competence, transparency and accountability.
For property managers, the key consideration is whether the nature and scope of the services they provide could bring them within the definition of a service provider under the legislation. Property managers providing services to registered providers may therefore wish to review existing management agreements to assess the extent to which competence, training, record-keeping, and information-sharing obligations are already addressed. Future contracts may increasingly include express obligations aimed at supporting compliance with the new regulatory framework.
For insurers, the reforms reinforce the importance of governance, competence frameworks, and effective record keeping when assessing and managing risk.
