Whilst understanding the advantages of a relatively light touch regulatory regime, we still find the regulator to be extremely reticent and passive in its use of its enforcement powers. It is appropriate for the regulator to punish providers responsible for the most serious service failures. If used sparingly, the power to impose fines would have a negligible impact on the sector’s financial position. The fact that the Government is legislating through the Social Housing (Regulation) Bill to ...

Whilst understanding the advantages of a relatively light touch regulatory regime, we still find the regulator to be extremely reticent and passive in its use of its enforcement powers. It is appropriate for the regulator to punish providers responsible for the most serious service failures. If used sparingly, the power to impose fines would have a negligible impact on the sector’s financial position. The fact that the Government is legislating through the Social Housing (Regulation) Bill to remove the cap on fines suggests it agrees with us that the regulator should be fining providers, at least in the most serious cases of service failure. Type: conclusion | Number: 51 | Paragraph: 201 | Response status: not_addressed Government response: The Government welcomes the Committee’s views on the Regulator’s independence. The Regulator operates at arm’s length from Government, and it is for the Regulator to determine how to exercise its powers. The Department engages regularly with the R