Home » Scottish Housing Regulator

Scottish Housing Regulator

Introduction

Since the inception of the Scottish Housing Regulator (SHR), concerns have been raised by some housing associations, sector representatives and parliamentarians about aspects of its approach to regulation. In particular, some stakeholders argue that the practical effect of the SHR’s risk-based approach is that smaller community-controlled housing associations experience more intensive scrutiny than larger organisations, resulting in a greater likelihood of regulatory intervention. 

During statutory interventions, Registered Social Landlords (RSLs) may be required to appoint consultants approved by the SHR at daily rates in excess of £1,000, with costs that can run into tens or, in some cases, hundreds of thousands of pounds. These costs are ultimately borne by the housing association and may affect resources available for investment in housing stock, tenant services or rent affordability. Concerns have also been raised about the SHR applying pressure on organisations to appoint consultants before any formal regulatory engagement.

The SHR has stated that RSLs should continue to challenge expenditure to ensure rents provide value for money for tenants. It is reasonable to ask whether similar principles should apply across all aspects of the regulatory system.

Over the lifetime of the SHR, a significant number of community-controlled housing associations have merged with larger organisations as a result of SHR involvement.  Proponents argue that such mergers can improve governance and efficiency, yet there appears to be scant evidence that the claimed benefits consistently outweigh the loss of community control and local accountability.

Concerns and allegations regarding bullying, overly aggressive regulatory conduct and the proportionality of certain interventions have been raised in Holyrood by sector representatives for more than a decade. Yet the parliamentary scrutiny process and timetable have failed to provide a sustained opportunity for these issues to be fully examined.

During evidence to Holyrood’s Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee, the then Chair of the SHR, George Walker, commented that “one person’s bullying is another’s strong intervention”. Critics have cited this remark as illustrating the differing perspectives that exist regarding the SHR’s approach to intervention.

In my view, there remain several areas where improvements could be considered, including:

• A more structured and proactive approach to parliamentary scrutiny;

• Mechanisms to ensure continuity of scrutiny across parliamentary sessions;

• A fuller examination of concerns relating to regulatory intervention, consultant costs and informal engagement; and

• Independent expert support for parliamentary scrutiny.

These issues are discussed in more detail below.

My Amendment

Until the changes introduced by the Housing (Scotland) Act 2025, which have yet to be fully implemented, there was no general statutory right of appeal to an independent tribunal against many decisions of the Scottish Housing Regulator. Individuals and housing associations seeking to challenge regulatory decisions were generally required to use the SHR’s internal review and appeal processes.

While judicial review was available in principle, it is widely regarded as a complex, time-consuming and very costly legal remedy. The SHR’s guidance also refers to the possibility of complaints being considered by the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman (SPSO), although the SPSO has questioned its jurisdiction in relation to regulatory decisions.

My amendment to the Housing (Scotland) Act 2010 received cross-party support and introduced an independent right of appeal against a range of Scottish Housing Regulator decisions. It allows affected parties to challenge key regulatory decisions before the First-tier Tribunal, rather than through internal review or the Court of Session. This provides a more accessible and independent route of appeal while strengthening transparency, accountability and procedural fairness. A regulatory system that is transparent, fair and open to challenge is more likely to command confidence across the sector and deliver better outcomes for tenants and communities.

Post-legislative scrutiny will now be important to ensure the new arrangements operate as intended and provide an effective and accessible route of challenge.

Parliamentary Scrutiny of the SHR

As a non-ministerial office, the Scottish Housing Regulator is accountable to the Scottish Parliament. It is required to lay its annual reports and accounts before Parliament and provide evidence to parliamentary committees when requested. Beyond these requirements, the nature and extent of scrutiny is largely a matter for the relevant committee.

At present, scrutiny typically takes the form of an evidence session following publication of the SHR’s annual report. In my view, there would be merit in requiring a more detailed written report in advance of such sessions, enabling committee members to focus on strategic issues, regulatory performance and compliance with statutory duties.

Parliamentary committees have considered concerns about the SHR for many years. For example, in 2020, the relevant committee sought explanations regarding reports of heavy-handed intervention and allegations of bullying, which the SHR rejected on the basis that they lacked specific supporting evidence. Subsequent evidence sessions examined issues including proportionality, transparency and statutory intervention powers. However, the SHR did not accept the criticisms being made and the concerns raised were never fully resolved. 

This highlights a broader issue: scrutiny of non-ministerial offices is often reactive rather than systematic, making it difficult for committees to examine concerns in depth or pursue issues over a sustained period. I believe there is a strong case for a more structured approach to scrutiny of non-ministerial offices. This could help ensure consistency across parliamentary sessions, preserve institutional knowledge and support more effective oversight.

Before the end of Session 6, I developed proposals aimed at strengthening scrutiny of such bodies, including a comprehensive review of the SHR, enhanced reporting requirements and greater use of independent expert advice.

The Session 6 Legacy Report of the Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee recommended that its successor undertake a comprehensive review of the work of the SHR and continue to monitor issues raised by stakeholders on an ongoing basis.

I hope these recommendations will be implemented during Session 7 and contribute to a regulatory framework that is transparent, accountable and commands confidence across the housing sector.

Committee Appearances

Listed here are all the occasions which the SHR has appeared before the relevant committee to discuss its annual report. The SHR has attended other meetings of a range of committees to give evidence on various matters, so listed here are sessions in which the focus was the SHR itself.

A full list of all mentions of the SHR can be found by visiting this page: Official Report: search what was said in Parliament | Scottish Parliament Website

Search “Scottish Housing Regulator” (speech marks necessary) into the ‘enter keyword’ box. It’s possible to use the different options to narrow down by time, session, type of contribution etc.

SHR in the Press