Supported Housing (Regulatory Oversight) Act 2023: LGA consultation response

• We support a mandatory licensing regime for all supported-housing schemes to protect residents and close any loopholes could be exploited to avoid consistent oversight.
• Housing Benefit (HB) subsidy must be fully recoverable for licensed schemes regardless of whether the provider is a registered provider or a charity.
• Up front, multi-year new-burdens funding for councils is essential to resource inspections, enforcement, prevention and the setting up of new multi-disciplinary teams.
• A single digital licensing portal and national register, plus HB-IT enhancements to flag enhanced housing benefit claims for supported housing will drive consistency, reduce duplication and enable real-time reporting.
• We need clear definitions of “care,” “support” and “supervision,” underpinned by standard DWP evidence templates and training, to prevent disputes and protect eligibility for all levels of support.
• Robust guidance and support from MHCLG and DWP will reduce interpretation differences and increase transparency.
• LGA could deliver peer support, regional forums and practical workshops, supporting local partnership–led implementation rather than top-down mandates.
• Civil-penalty caps should automatically rise with the Renters Reform Bill increases.
• The Government could pilot a supported-housing planning-use class in areas with high concentrations of supported housing, evaluating its impact on quality, clustering and delivery speed.
• Councils need a coordinated early-warning framework that brings together Housing Options, Housing Benefit and Adult Social Care teams to plan moves, manage risks and prevent unintended spikes in homelessness. This requires adequate and early new burdens funding provided over more than one year which takes into account homelessness prevention.
• Evidence shows that every £1 invested in supported housing prevents over £3 in NHS and social care costs and can avoid up to £47,000 per person in some cases. These savings could be recycled to sustain the licensing regime and expand supply if councils were provided with long term sustainable funding to boost supply of supported housing through commissioning. Licensing would become less cumbersome if councils were able to rely more on commissioning and contract management to take a risk based approach.
   

1. Do you agree that the licensing regime the Government is proposing to introduce should apply to all supported housing?

The LGA strongly supports a universally applicable regime. Exemptions create loopholes that unscrupulous operators exploit, undermining resident safety and public trust. Where a scheme is already regulated – for example by Ofsted or the CQC – the associated evidence can be recognised within the licensing assessment, but it must not replace the requirement to hold a supported housing licence. A universal approach prevents “forum shopping” across boundaries or regulatory silos and simplifies communication with residents.

2. Do the proposed National Supported Housing Principles reflect the core elements of a good‑quality support service?

Yes. Councils broadly endorse the five proposed principles – person‑centred, respectful, safe and responsive, effective and well‑led – as an appropriate summary of what good supported housing looks like. They align with the Care Act wellbeing duty, the Equality Act 2010 and existing regulatory frameworks, and will be easily understood by residents and staff alike.

To embed these principles in day‑to‑day delivery the subsequent National Supported Housing Standards will need to translate them into clear, measurable requirements. We therefore recommend that, when drafting the ‘Environment’ Standard, MHCLG makes explicit reference to accommodation quality, ensuring buildings are free of Category 1 & 2 hazards, meet the Decent Homes Standard and comply with modern fire‑, building‑ and energy‑safety legislation. This clarification can sit within the existing “safe and responsive” principle and does not require a new overarching principle, but it will help prevent situations where excellent support is undermined by poor physical conditions.

3. Do you have suggestions for any additions to the principles as described above?

We would suggest Psychologically Informed Environment (PIE) practice - a proven approach for people with multiple disadvantage - should be reflected in one of the principles.

4. Do you agree with the Person‑Centred Support Standard?

Yes. Councils value person‑centred approaches that enable residents to progress towards greater independence and reduce demand on adult social care and health services. Every resident should have a tailored support plan recording minimum planned hours, review dates and a clear “move‑on” pathway, and showing how the service will coordinate with statutory agencies (Adult Social Care, Probation, Integrated Care Boards etc.).

5. Do you agree with the examples of evidence listed for the Person‑Centred Support Standard?

Yes. The draft standard captures the essential ingredients of good practice and reflects Care Act principles of personalisation, choice and control. Councils particularly welcome the emphasis on co‑produced plans, continuity of keyworkers and a structured pathway to independence.

6. What other information, if any, could be provided to evidence this standard?

Councils would add a requirement to log the actual support hours delivered, accompanied by an explanation where hours differ from the plan. Councils find such data invaluable when assessing value for money and when reconciling HB claims. An anonymised outcomes dashboard using a recognised tool (e.g. Outcome Star, Homelessness Outcomes Pyramid) would also be useful to show aggregate progress across the scheme.

7. Do you agree with the Empowerment Standard?

Yes. Empowerment should also extend to staff and the local neighbourhood, building community cohesion and reducing anti‑social behaviour. A standard poster outlining rights, responsibilities, complaints routes and key contacts should be displayed in every scheme, written in Plain English and available in community languages.

8. Do you agree that providers should give residents an information pack when they move into their accommodation?

Yes. Packs must be accessible (easy‑read, translations, large print) and include an explanation of licensing, resident rights and local advocacy services. Where residents lack digital access, hard‑copy materials should be provided.

9. Do you agree with the examples of evidence listed for the Empowerment Standard?

Yes. 

10. What other information, if any, could be provided to evidence this standard?

Evidence of resident participation in service‑user forums, co‑produced policies and environmental improvements co‑designed with residents such as community gardens or peer‑led activities would be good additions for potential guidance – not necessarily core components for evidence.

11. Do you agree with the Environment Standard?

Yes, provided it explicitly requires compliance with statutory housing standards. Poor physical environments undermine wellbeing and increase NHS costs.

12. Do you agree with the examples of evidence listed for the Environment Standard?

We recommend adding:

• The most recent HHSRS inspection report
• Decent Homes and MEES compliance certificates
• A current fire‑risk assessment and PEEPs
• A photographic log of communal areas
• Evidence that communal lounges meet locally agreed floorspace standards.
  These documents already exist for many properties and would not impose a disproportionate burden.

13. What other information, if any, could be provided to evidence this standard?

A QR‑coded poster in reception linking to the public licence register and the local authority’s complaints portal, ensuring transparency and accountability.

14. Do you agree with the Staff and Safeguarding Standard?

Yes. Safeguarding is everyone’s responsibility, but councils report that fragmented provider structures can obscure accountability. Licensing must require a clear line of sight from frontline practice to senior decision‑makers, with an escalation protocol for whistle‑blowers.

15. Do you agree with the examples of evidence listed for the Safeguarding Standard?

Yes. Councils would also welcome evidence of an actively promoted whistle‑blowing policy and the outcomes of any recent safeguarding audits.

16. What other information, if any, could be provided to evidence this standard?

Multi‑agency safeguarding audit reports, a staff‑training matrix showing refresher cycles, and an anonymised recent safeguarding‑incident case study illustrating learning and improvement would be brilliant examples to evidence this standard.

17. Do you agree with the Local Need Standard?

Yes, in principle.

Robust evidence of local need will be essential if licensing is to steer new provision to the right places and prevent oversupply of poor‑quality schemes.

However, the statutory duty on local authorities to prepare a Supported Housing Strategy has not yet commenced and the required content has not been set out in regulations. Until the new duty and guidance are in force we cannot assume that every area will have an agreed strategy in place for providers to reference.

The LGA therefore recommends that:

• Government should publish clear guidance on acceptable need‑evidence (for example: waiting‑list data, homelessness trends, ASC market‑position statements, NHS discharge data) that providers can use in the interim
• Once the duty is commenced, councils should be funded and supported to develop a strategy covering housing, social care and health, drawing on common national data‑sets so that provision can be planned coherently across district, county and combined‑authority boundaries.

18. Do you agree with the examples of evidence listed for the Local Need Standard?

Examples are helpful. Providers could also consider providing confirmation that the proposal aligns with the local homelessness and rough‑sleeping strategy, adult‑social‑care Market Position Statement and NHS place‑based plans.

19. What additional standards may be needed to ensure specialised schemes are meeting local and national need?

Councils have suggested including a flexible “Specialised Scheme” standard that lets licensing authorities set proportionate, scheme‑specific requirements - such as safeguards around resident‑mix in high‑intensity services, suitable adaptations for people with disabilities, trauma‑informed environmental design, and clear expectations on onsite staffing where regulated personal care is provided.

20. What other information, if any, could be provided to evidence this standard?

A letter of support from the relevant commissioning authority and confirmation that the scheme is referenced in the emerging local Supported Housing Strategy.

21. Do you agree with the Responsible Person Standard?

Yes, but the accountable individual’s remit must be crystal‑clear where landlord and support provider are separate. Councils regularly encounter governance gaps that impede swift resolution of issues.

22. Do you agree with the examples of evidence listed for the Responsible Person Standard?

Organisation charts, professional accreditations and Disclosure and Barring Service checks should be mandatory evidence. Where providers operate across borders, sharing delegated local authority contacts is helpful.

23. What other information, if any, could be provided to evidence this standard?

Minutes of quarterly governance meetings reviewing compliance and escalation pathways to the board or trustees, together with director‑level sign‑off of annual self‑assessments.

24. Do you agree with the Statement of Purpose Standard?

Yes. Councils value a clear statement that explains the client group, support model and intended outcomes. It must be reviewed annually and linked to performance data.

25. Do you agree with the examples of evidence listed for the Statement of Purpose Standard?

Publishing the statement on the provider’s website and in the scheme, and evidencing that staff and residents have seen and understood it, should be required.

26. What other information, if any, could be provided to evidence this standard?

Publication of independent resident‑satisfaction survey results and action plans resulting from feedback.

27. What criteria should a needs assessment include?

A national template should cover support needs, risk factors (including fire and safeguarding), cultural or faith requirements, desired outcomes and a move‑on plan. Councils stress that move‑on planning is vital given acute shortages of social and PRS housing.

28. Do you agree with the suggested content of support plans?

Yes, provided the template is sufficiently flexible for diverse client groups (e.g. care‑leavers, older people, people fleeing domestic abuse).

29. Are there any further criteria that a support plan should include?

Outcome measures, review dates, a relapse plan (where relevant) and a protocol for disengagement or abandonment of the licence agreement.

30. What would the risks and benefits be of licensing authorities joining up to administer licensing across local‑authority boundaries?

Strategic collaboration offers clear benefits for residents, providers and councils:

• Pooled expertise and resources – joint teams can afford specialist surveyors, fire engineers and legal officers that many individual districts struggle to recruit.
• Consistent decisions across a functional housing market area – residents are protected no matter which side of a borough boundary they live and providers face a single set of expectations.
• Natural fit with existing devolution deals – in areas like Greater Manchester, West Midlands or the London boroughs, combined‑authority structures already handle strategic housing, homelessness and inspection work at scale. A regional licensing partnership dovetails with that direction of travel.
• Less duplication for multi‑borough providers – one inspection schedule and one data return reduce administrative cost that can be redirected into front‑line support.

Risks must be managed, not ignored:

• Loss of local knowledge if decision‑making drifts too far from neighbourhood officers.
• Potential confusion for residents about who to contact when something goes wrong.
• Data‑protection hurdles when sharing tenancy information across authorities.

Mitigations that councils recommend:

• Keep a named local contact point in every district so residents and ward councillors have a clear route in.
• Adopt transparent governance arrangements
• Mandate robust information‑sharing agreements and a shared case‑management system so local intelligence feeds into regional decisions.
• Use common service‑level standards (inspection timescales, enforcement ladders) so residents experience the same service everywhere.

Overall, councils view cross‑boundary working as positive and believe it should be framed as the default option, with flexibility for very small or rural authorities to opt for mutual‑aid clusters rather than a full shared service.

31. Do you agree with the proposed definition of a “scheme”?

The consultation defines a supported‑housing “scheme” as a building, part of a building or group of buildings with a single postal address, comprised of one or more units where at least one unit is supported housing. A unit is any self‑contained dwelling or room occupied as a residence.

We agree that this broad approach - anchored to postal address - captures schemes ranging from single self‑contained flats to large hostels. It aligns with how councils currently record properties for Council Tax and HB purposes.

32. Do you agree with the proposed licensing exemptions?

The LGA favours no exemptions. Previous selective/HMO‑licensing regimes have shown that carve‑outs are quickly exploited and create a two‑tier system.

33. Do you agree with the fit‑and‑proper‑person test proposed and who it would apply to?

Yes. The test should extend to all directors, major shareholders and any person of significant control, echoing the approach in the forthcoming Renters Reform legislation. A national register of disqualified individuals should be maintained to prevent “phoenix” operations.

34. Do you agree that supported‑housing schemes must meet the relevant accommodation requirements and standards to receive a licence?

Yes. This will align supported housing with mainstream housing‑quality expectations and give residents parity with general‑needs tenants.

35. Do you agree that if enforcement action is being taken for Category 1 hazards a licence should not be granted?

Councils support withholding a licence in such instances, but applications should not be unduly delayed where hazards are minor and can be rectified rapidly under an agreed improvement plan.

36. Which factors could mean that accommodation is unsuitable to be supported housing for this licensing condition?

Lack of space to provide support, an inappropriate mix of vulnerabilities, and an absence of accessibility adaptations. For high‑risk cohorts, proximity to “high harm” locations may also be unsuitable.

37. Do you agree that the scheme should demonstrate that it holds the appropriate planning permission?

Yes. A time‑limited licence conditional on securing planning permission may be appropriate where the scheme predates current planning controls, subject to a robust improvement plan.

38. Do you agree that each resident must have a needs assessment and support plan?

Yes. Councils view this as central to person‑centred practice and to evidencing HB eligibility.

39. Do you agree that a scheme providing regulated personal care will only be granted a licence if the care service is registered by the CQC?

Yes. CQC registration provides assurance regarding staffing ratios, training and safeguarding.

40. Should schemes whose care service is rated Inadequate by the CQC be prevented from getting a licence?

Yes, but Government must provide clear pathways for resident decant and continuity of care to prevent homelessness and service breakdowns.

41. Is the National Supported Housing Standards licensing condition likely to be an effective way to secure compliance?

Yes, provided the Standards are precise, measurable and underpinned by statutory guidance and funding.

42. Do you agree that local authorities should have discretion to treat support services commissioned by a public body as complying with the standards?

Local authorities should be able to take commissioning oversight and contract management arrangements into account when assessing compliance, but this should not equate to an automatic “passport” to full compliance.

Discretion should be exercised on a risk‑based, time‑limited basis, with clear conditions and periodic review to ensure that commissioned services continue to meet the National Supported Housing Standards.

43. What discretionary conditions, if any, should licensing authorities be able to add to a licence?

• Bar serial “set‑up/close” operators who repeatedly exit and re‑enter the market to avoid enforcement
• Require full transparency of lease chains and ultimate beneficial owners to prevent governance gaps and hidden profiteering.

44. If you are a supported‑housing provider, do you already hold another property licence, and will you need a supported‑housing licence in future?

45. Do you agree that where a property licence is already in effect the provider should be treated as licensed for supported‑housing purposes until it expires?

No. Grandfathering could leave serious gaps for up to five years. Councils favour an immediate requirement for a supported‑housing licence, with modest fee reductions where a current licence covers some compliance areas.

46. Beyond a standardised application form, what else can Government do to make applications straightforward?

Develop a single digital portal with links to existing council systems (housing, HB, CQC, Companies House) to help reduce duplication. Allow councils to share details on there where licenses have been granted/revoked including reasons why. Provide regional roadshows, step‑by‑step guidance in accessible formats, and fund a national helpdesk for the first three years.

47. What would be the impact of licence fees on your business or, if you are a licensing authority, administratively?

Councils face acute budget pressures after years of budget cuts and escalating demand. Licence‑fee income is unlikely to cover inspection, enforcement and legal costs particularly where complex cases escalate to tribunals or prosecution. Without robust New Burdens funding, the regime could be under‑resourced and slow to deliver the improvements residents deserve.

Aside from funding for enforcing licensing, councils require long term funding to commission good quality supported housing. This will over time negate the need for costly high scrutiny regulation as councils will ensure standards are met during procurement.

48. Do you have any other comments on licensing fees?

We urge Government to commit to multi‑year New Burdens funding, mirroring the approach in the Building Safety Regulator, to give councils the confidence to recruit and retain specialist staff.

49. Do you agree that supported‑housing licences should last five years from the date of issue?

Five years should be the maximum. Authorities need discretion to issue shorter or provisional licences for schemes with higher‑risk profiles or improvement plans.

50. Do you agree that local authorities should have discretion to grant a licence without carrying out an inspection?

Yes, for schemes that are recently commissioned through robust procurement frameworks and have been inspected by other regulators. This will help focus limited inspection capacity on higher‑risk schemes.

51. Do you agree that licensing authorities should inspect each scheme at least once in a licence period, or more often if required?

Yes, but inspection workload will be significant. Councils need time to phase implementation, recruit inspectors and develop multi‑agency teams.

52. Do you agree that licensing authorities should agree an improvement plan with the licensee before further enforcement action?

Yes, as part of a proportionate enforcement ladder. However, authorities must retain the power to take immediate enforcement action where resident safety is compromised.

53. Do you agree that licensing authorities should be able to issue improvement notices for three months (except in serious failures)?

Improvement periods should be risk‑based. Some hazards (e.g. lack of a working fire alarm) require action within days, other improvements (e.g. major refurbishment) justifiably need longer.

54. Do you agree that licensing authorities should be able to extend an improvement notice to six months in exceptional circumstances?

Yes, for major structural works, provided milestones are monitored and residents kept informed.

55. Do you agree with the proposed circumstances in which a licence would need to be varied or revoked?

Yes. A national register should record all variations and revocations so that poor performing providers cannot simply relocate to another area unnoticed.

56. Do you agree that financial penalties should be available as an alternative to prosecution?

Yes. Civil penalties allow councils to act quickly and retain income to fund further enforcement, echoing the approach under the Housing and Planning Act 2016.

57. Do you agree that financial penalties should be set by the licensing authority but capped at £30,000?

£30,000 may be proportionate for small schemes, but for large blocks charging high exempt rents, a bed‑space or rent‑linked cap may be needed to maintain deterrence. 

58. Do you agree that operating a supported‑housing scheme without a licence should be an offence?

Yes. This aligns supported housing with HMO licensing and sends a clear deterrent message.

59. Do you agree with the penalties attached to this offence?

Yes.

60. Do you agree that a tenant in an unlicensed scheme should be able to apply to a tribunal for a determination of rent?

Yes, and the local authority should als o be able to recover Housing Benefit paid during unlicensed operation.

61. Do you agree with the proposed penalty for non‑compliance with licensing conditions?

Yes.

62. Do you agree with the proposed consequence for non‑compliance with an improvement notice?

Yes.

63. Should Government include any other consequences of compliance or non‑compliance in regulations?

Yes. Local authorities need access to additional, proportionate enforcement tools for sustained non‑compliance:

• Suspend Housing Benefit payments – temporary suspension of public subsidy where serious risks remain unaddressed, ensuring taxpayers’ money is not paid to unsafe schemes while safeguarding residents’ entitlement through alternative arrangements.
• Interim management orders – powers, similar to those under the Housing Act, to appoint an interim manager with legal responsibility for the scheme’s day‑to‑day operation when a provider’s failings pose immediate or ongoing risks to residents.

These mechanisms should be time‑limited, subject to clear criteria and include appeal rights, ensuring they are used only in cases where traditional improvement notices or penalties have not achieved compliance.

64. Do you agree that, where an offence by a company is committed with the consent or connivance of an officer, both the officer and the organisation commit the offence?

Yes. Personal liability prevents gaming of the system through shell companies.

65. What other steps can local authorities take to ensure consistent licensing decisions across England?

Consistency is best achieved through a blend of national frameworks and peer‑supported local implementation. Key actions include:

• National digital portal and data‑sharing gateway – a single online platform that hosts licence applications, performance data and enforcement outcomes, integrated via the Information Sharing Gateway so councils can compare practice and spot bad actors on the national Landlord Register.
• Model licence conditions and statutory guidance – centrally drafted conditions and detailed guidance notes to minimise interpretation differences and ensure every authority applies the same tests.
• Sector‑led improvement support via the LGA Improvement Offer – access to diagnostic peer reviews, thematic deep‑dives and improvement clinics delivered by the LGA’s Housing Advisers Programme and Improvement & Development teams. Councils can book free support to identify areas for development and share best practice. This is funded through MHCLG grant which would need to be revisited if supported housing were to become a part of it.
• LGA Supported Housing Network – a dedicated peer network which will host regular webinars, regional forums and an online community of practice to troubleshoot common issues and develop innovative solutions.

66. What additional ways might there be, beyond licensing, to secure compliance with the National Supported Housing Standards?

While licensing is the cornerstone, councils can also draw on complementary levers to embed standards and drive ongoing improvement:

• Planning controls and land-use policy – Councils can use Local Plan policies (or Supplementary Planning Documents) to define “specialist/supported housing,” apply Article 4 directions to manage clustering, and negotiate Section 106 obligations for capital support facilities and community space. (Dedicated national use-class powers are under development but not yet in force.)
• Robust commissioning and procurement – Embedding the National Supported Housing Standards into service-level agreements, grant-funding terms and framework contracts gives councils (and health partners) clear performance metrics.
• Charity Commission oversight – For housing providers with charitable status, the Charity Commission’s public-benefit and governance regime offers a backstop. It can require governance improvements, review trustees’ conduct and in some cases intervene. In practice this is a slower, more reactive route - not a frontline quality-assurance tool.
• Alignment with the Social Housing (Regulation) Act regime – Registered Providers delivering supported housing remain within the Regulator of Social Housing’s governance and financial-viability framework. However, the Regulator typically covers the housing asset and landlord obligations only - support and care standards still fall to CQC or contractual mechanisms.

By blending these statutory, contractual and (where relevant) charity-governance levers alongside licensing, councils can build a more resilient compliance ecosystem - one that doesn’t lean too heavily on any single mechanism, but keeps standards under review through the full lifecycle of a scheme.

67. Do you agree that all providers should be treated as licensed (and still receive HB) until a licensing decision is made?

Yes, but only where providers submit a complete application within the national window. This incentivises early compliance while protecting residents.

68. How can providers be supported to prepare for supported‑housing licensing?

We believe a partnership-led, practical and realistic support package is vital to help providers meet licensing requirements without undermining front‑line services:

• Robust, accessible guidance – a centrally produced guidance pack covering the application process, standard requirements, timelines, FAQs and case studies. This should include a dedicated helpline or email support service.
• Single digital portal – a user‑friendly online hub for licence applications, document uploads and compliance checklist, integrated with local authority systems to reduce duplication and provide real‑time status updates.
• Targeted funding for improvement and transition – small grants or loans to cover one‑off costs such as back‑filling staff time during application, minor property adaptations, and specialist advice, with eligibility reflecting provider size and client group complexity.
• Open dialogue on licence fees – forums for councils and providers to discuss fee-setting models, explore mitigations and ensure licence costs do not simply pass through to residents’ Housing Benefit claims.
• Local partnership working –regional workshops where providers, local authorities, health and social care commissioners collaborate on shared challenges, build trust and share practical solutions.

69. How can licensing authorities be supported to prepare to run a supported‑housing licensing scheme?

Councils need a realistic, long-term support package to build and sustain licensing capacity in an overstretched system:

• Full HB subsidy reclaim for licensed supported housing so recovered benefit can be reinvested into commissioning, inspection teams and regulatory oversight. If all providers can be licensed then councils would expect to be able to claim housing benefit back, regardless of if the provider is a registered provider or a charity.
• Multi-year, responsive new-burdens funding reflecting inflation, regional recruitment challenges and the need to stand up multi-disciplinary licensing teams
• Recognition that good-quality supported housing reduces homelessness, NHS admissions and adult social-care costs. Long term sustainable prevention funding should incentivise high-impact services and reduce reliance on intensive enforcement.
• Robust digital infrastructure – a single, centrally maintained licensing portal integrated with Housing Benefit, CQC, RSH etc, to eliminate duplicate data-entry, automate compliance checks where possible and give live application and inspection dashboards.
• Local partnership networks – leveraging the LGA Supported Housing Network to host regional forums where councils, providers, health and social-care commissioners co-design consistent local processes, share real-time intelligence and collaborate on emerging challenges.

70. Should the Government consider introducing a supported‑housing planning use class or other planning measures?

A dedicated use class could curb speculative growth in unsuitable areas and ensure schemes contribute to place-based strategies, but could also slow delivery where authorities lack capacity.

We suggest that Government pilot a supported-housing planning-use class in areas with particularly high concentrations of supported housing and acute vulnerability or ASB issues - such as Birmingham and other metropolitan regions - to evaluate impact.

Any permanent change should be accompanied by clear, expedited guidance on scope and change-of-use processes, and resources for planning departments already managing heavy workloads due to staff shortages.

71. What would be the effect of a supported‑housing planning use‑class, or of requiring planning permission for schemes?

Likely benefits include higher build quality, improved community consultation and better alignment with local housing and social‑care strategies. Risks include planning appeals, additional costs for providers and potential delay in pipeline schemes. 

72. Do you agree with the broad principle of aligning payment of HB (or future housing support) to licensing?

Yes. Linking subsidy to compliance is vital to drive up standards and protect the public purse.

73. For England, do you agree with using the Health and Social Care Act 2008 definition of “personal care” in HB regulations?

Yes. The HSCA 2008 definition provides a clear, CQC-aligned threshold for regulated personal care encompassing tasks such as assistance with bathing, dressing, feeding, medication administration and mobility support, which aligns subsidy to genuinely regulated services.

Many supported-housing schemes deliver lower-level “support” or “supervision” that would fall outside this definition. Rigid hourly floors would disenfranchise low-need interventions that nonetheless prevent crises and reduce hospital and social-care pressures.

To maintain legal clarity while protecting the full spectrum of supported-housing services, we recommend the regulations:

• Cross-reference Schedule 1 of the HSCA 2008 definition in HB regulations.
• Publish an appendix of commonly delivered personal-care tasks to guide providers and HB staff
• Require evidence of current CQC registration and inspection outcomes for all claimed personal care services.

74. Is that definition sufficient to cover care provided in supported housing in England?

The definition omits therapeutic, rehabilitative and recovery‑focused interventions that are central to supported‑housing outcomes yet fall below the threshold for CQC registration. We recommend broadening the definition or cross‑referencing the Care Act wellbeing duty and NHS Community Mental Health Framework.

75. Should definitions of care in HB regulations be linked to existing legislative definitions and frameworks in Scotland and Wales where possible?

76. Will referencing those legislative definitions be enough to cover all care delivered in supported housing in Scotland and Wales?

77. How would you define "support" and "supervision" for HB purposes?

• Support: proactive, planned interventions delivered against a written support plan, designed to develop or maintain life skills, promote wellbeing and progress residents towards independence. Examples include assistance with budgeting, cooking, accessing health appointments, social integration activities and personalised coaching. Support must be tailored to assessed need and recorded in a digital or paper log (date, duration, objective, outcome).
• Supervision: ongoing oversight to ensure resident safety and tenancy sustainment beyond routine housing management. This includes regular check‑ins (in person or by phone), on‑call availability for crisis de‑escalation, welfare checks and monitoring of environment-based risks. Supervision levels should align with risk assessments and resident vulnerabilities, with clear escalation pathways for changing needs.

These definitions should be linked to the National Supported Housing Standards, with providers required to demonstrate compliance through records of delivered support and supervision sessions.

78. Do you agree that a definition of support could include supervision?

Yes, provided the drafting explicitly includes both proactive and oversight elements.

79. Should any definition of support and supervision also link to the National Supported Housing Standards (England) and equivalent frameworks in Scotland and Wales?

80. What level of care, support or supervision do you think is reasonable for eligibility under specified‑accommodation rules?

Councils do not generally support fixed hourly thresholds. Eligibility must be based on the outcome of a person‑centred needs assessment, with providers required to demonstrate that they are meeting the assessed needs, whatever those needs may be.

This approach ensures that residents with very different profiles - from someone who needs occasional welfare checks to a person requiring intensive daily support - can all qualify for enhanced Housing Benefit based on objective evidence of need and delivery.

Providers should submit:

• A documented needs assessment setting out the resident’s functional support, supervision and care requirements
• A support‑and‑supervision plan showing how those needs will be met (including frequency, methods and responsible staff)
• Evidence logs or case notes demonstrating that the planned support and supervision have been delivered in line with the assessment.

DWP should issue guidance on acceptable formats for needs assessments and evidence logs, and local authorities should have discretion to supplement these with local templates, balancing consistency with flexibility.

81. When assessing an HB claim, what evidence is reasonable for a local authority to request regarding care, support or supervision?

Local authorities need robust, but proportionate, evidence to satisfy themselves that the level of care, support or supervision delivered meets the resident’s assessed needs. Reasonable evidence can include:

• Redacted independent needs assessments showing how support, supervision and personal-care requirements were determined, with sensitive data redacted.
• Clear, dated documents outlining the nature, frequency and objectives of planned interventions aligned to the resident’s needs.
• Evidence logs or case notes capturing each session’s date, duration, purpose and outcome to validate delivery.
• Service-level agreements or contracts – commissioning arrangements embedding the National Supported Housing Standards, with performance metrics and review cycles.
• Outcome reviews and impact reports (quarterly or annually) of progress against targets, including any independent or multi-agency evaluation.
• Transparent breakdowns of support-hour rates or care-unit costs to allow HB officers to assess value for money.

To streamline requests, reduce duplication and improve national consistency DWP should develop a national evidence template (e.g. an electronic form or structured outline) for providers. This should be digital-first, compatible with case-management systems, include redaction guidance, and integrate via the single licensing portal for joint HB/licence verification.

82. Do you agree with linking HB eligibility in England to licensing (i.e. residents must live in licensed supported housing)?

Yes. 

83. What risks or issues should DWP consider when linking HB eligibility to licensing?

The principal risk is sudden homelessness if a licence is refused or revoked. We recommend:

• A short HB grace period (up to 28 days)
• An early‑warning system requiring providers to notify councils of potential licence issues
• Guidance and funding for councils to produce contingency plans for large‑scheme failure

84. For providers: if a licence were refused and HB stopped or reduced, what would you do?

85. For residents: if you had to move because your provider failed to obtain a licence, what help would you need?

86. Question 90 – For local authorities: what support could you offer residents who might have to move if their provider fails to get a licence? 

Councils’ Homelessness and Housing Options teams would lead on re-housing assistance, but they are already operating at capacity under soaring homelessness pressures. To manage any spike from licensing-related displacement, we recommend:

• Embedding Housing Options in multi-agency licensing teams so they liaise with HB and licensing officers, providers and health partners from application stage, enabling early move-on planning rather than crisis response.
• Housing Options officers should co-ordinate tailored re-housing pathways for displaced residents, drawing on local supported housing networks and PRS partnerships
• Councils have suggested a short “run-on” HB entitlement (e.g. four weeks) – to prevent immediate rent arrears and give time for planned transitions which can be claimed back in full by councils through DWP.
• Extra homelessness prevention funding should be considered to enable councils to scale up staffing, provide emergency placements or offer rapid financial support when displacement demand peaks

Without Government funded transitional support, councils will struggle to absorb extra workloads and the risk of unintended homelessness spikes will grow.

87. For local authorities: if a licence is refused for a large scheme, could you identify the affected HB customers?

Based on our workshops and wider engagement, no. None of the councils we spoke to currently have HB systems that tag addresses by licence status or exemption type, so they cannot automatically generate a list of affected claimants.

If this gap isn’t addressed, councils face a range of unintended consequences. First, the inability to automatically identify displaced tenants drives up crisis costs, as authorities must meet reactive duties for temporary accommodation and emergency placements. Second, the lack of address-tagging forces HB and Housing Options teams into manual, error-prone cross-referencing of multiple systems - time that could otherwise be spent on prevention. Third, residents may suffer hardship and pursue tribunal appeals if licence refusals aren’t communicated promptly. Finally, these manual processes and crisis responses place additional strain on already overstretched staff, further diverting limited resources from core homelessness and support functions.

New burdens funding should consider funding enhancements to HB IT so that:

• Specified accommodation addresses are automatically flagged when licences are granted or refused via the single digital portal.
• Local authorities can run real time reports on licence status and associated claimants.
• Clear guidance and training accompany these system changes to ensure HB teams can use them effectively.

88. For stakeholders in Scotland and Wales: what risks need mitigating if England links HB eligibility to licensing?

89. For stakeholders in Scotland and Wales: would you like to see HB entitlement linked to existing frameworks in your country? Please specify and give reasons. 

90. Closing remarks

Councils are delivering vital supported housing services against a backdrop of rising demand, the cost‑of‑living crisis and severe shortages of affordable move‑on accommodation. They stand ready to implement the new licensing regime, but success will depend on realistic funding, national infrastructure and a clear legislative framework. The LGA looks forward to working with MHCLG, DWP and sector partners to co‑design guidance, share best practice and ensure that every resident of supported housing lives in safe, high‑quality accommodation that supports their journey towards independence.