Good afternoon

Many non-registered providers of SEA are currently facing a difficult operating environment, especially in parts of southern England. In several areas, administering councils have reduced or withdrawn what is commonly referred to as “Intensive Housing Management” (IHM) support for “exempt accommodation” delivered by NRPs. In practice, this is making some long-standing supported housing schemes financially unviable and placing services, staff, and residents at significant risk.

This bulletin explains some of the current pressures on NRPs, why some councils are encouraging “piggyback” arrangements with Registered Providers, and why NRPs must approach those arrangements with a degree of caution, as some of the schemes being presented are unlawful. Undoubtedly, a partnership with a Registered Provider can be a perfectly lawful and workable solution, but only where the arrangement is genuinely created, properly documented and reflects the reality of how the scheme operates daily and who is driving the scheme. Where it’s merely a paper exercise designed to create the appearance of compliance, the risks are substantial for providers (large overpayments), councils, RPs, and, most importantly, vulnerable residents.

The current difficult situation for non-registered providers

Across the sector, many NRPs report that councils are taking a more intrusive and restrictive approach to specified exempt accommodation providers and IHM claims. In some areas, this reflects concerns about poor-quality accommodation or low levels of support provided in the wider market; in others, it’s linked to the financial pressure councils face where subsidy entitlement & recovery do not fully meet the cost of Housing Benefit awards.

For some members, the consequences are immediate and severe: reduced income, tighter scrutiny of claims, reluctance by councils to accept new schemes, and, in the worst cases, closure of services or reduction in bed spaces. That creates instability not only for organisations but also for vulnerable residents who depend on continuity, specialist support and safe accommodation.

In one case, involving a long-term client, the Charitable provider, formally approved by the administering council, and after 16 years of successful operation, had the plug pulled more than a year ago, and we’re still awaiting a date for a First-tier tribunal to adjudicate the merits of the tenants’ appeals. For 11 of them, that’s far too late!

A potential solution: working with a Registered Provider

A strategy increasingly discussed in the sector is for an NRP to collaborate with a Registered Provider. In principle, that provides greater confidence for administering councils because a Registered Provider should bring stronger housing governance, established regulatory oversight and a clearer framework for tenancy management and property control. In the right circumstances, such a model can help preserve services that might otherwise be lost.

However, members should be very clear that simply attaching a Registered Provider to a scheme will not, by itself, solve the problem. Councils are looking beyond labels and examining who truly controls the accommodation, who grants occupation rights, who receives the Housing Benefit, who is responsible for housing management, and who delivers the care, support or supervision. Where the day-to-day reality fails to match the paperwork (e.g. vague SLA’s etc), the arrangement is treated as artificial or contrived, causing an immediate suspension and later cancellation of Housing Benefit and potentially large recoverable overpayments.

What a genuine arrangement is likely to look like

A genuine partnership is one in which the Registered Provider has an easily identifiable role in the housing element of the partnership. That role is reflected consistently across the delivery structure, documents and operational practice. Members should expect councils to look for substance rather than form.

  • The Registered Provider should have real control or responsibility for the accommodation, rather than acting as a name on paper only.
  • The legal arrangements should clearly show who owns, leases or manages the property and how responsibilities are divided.
  • The organisation granting the licence, tenancy, or other right to occupy should align with the actual housing management arrangements.
  • Housing Benefit should be paid in a way that reflects the true landlord and the real structure of the scheme.
  • Care, support or supervision should be clearly defined, delivered, and evidenced in records, staffing and resident outcomes.
  • Contracts between the parties should be commercially and operationally credible, setting out roles, accountability, reward share, service standards, data sharing, safeguarding and dispute resolution.

In short, a genuine arrangement would stand up to scrutiny were it tested carefully by a council, auditor, tribunal or regulator.

Arrangements that are likely to create risk

Members should be cautious about any model that appears to have been created solely to preserve IHM awards with minimal alteration of the historic delivery model. Warning signs can include a Registered Provider playing little or no part in property management decisions, occupation agreements issued in the name of the RP while another unregistered body controls the building, or support arrangements that are poorly evidenced or nominal in practice.

Other high-risk features include weak contracts, unclear accountability, inconsistent descriptions given to residents and councils, and financial arrangements that do not match operational reality. These are the types of issues that can lead councils to conclude that the relationship is ungenuine, exposing all parties to challenge and undermining confidence in the scheme. Longer-term, it’s unlikely these culpable parties will play a role in the Council’s future licensing scheme, which will be directly linked to IHM entitlement.

Looking ahead: licensing, standards and stronger local oversight

The direction of travel is clear. The Supported Housing (Regulatory Oversight) Act 2023 is being implemented via a new licensing framework and National Supported Housing Standards, applicable in England, with the government response published in April 2026 and wider implementation expected to follow in stages between this autumn and spring/summer 2027.

Current sector guidance indicates that councils will be required to develop supported housing strategies, determine the type and levels of provision necessary, strengthen oversight of local provision and, in time, link licensing to entitlement of IHM awards.

For members, that means the case for transparent governance, proper documentation, resident-focused support and constructive engagement with councils is only going to become more necessary and collaborative. Providers that can demonstrate quality in accommodation and CSS, accountability, and a willingness to deliver council-generated specifications are more likely to secure the necessary licences than those simply relying on historic arrangements continuing.

Bill Irvine

UC Advice & Advocacy Ltd

www.ucadvice.co.uk