On Thursday 16th April 2026 the Government published its response to the consultation on the Supported Accommodation (Regulatory Oversight) Act that took place last year.
We're really pleased to see that through our collective voice we’ve achieved a number of positive changes to the original proposals, and there’s a thank you to both MHCLG and DWP for listening to so many of our concerns and responding accordingly. This all demonstrates the effectiveness and strength of our shared voice.
If you need a reminder of the original proposals and our concerns, this summary of the original proposals, summary of Homeless Link’s consultation response and full response are available.
Overview
The Government’s response confirms that from some time in 2027, they will introduce a locally led licensing regime for all supported housing that meets the definition of ‘supported exempt accommodation’ in England.
Licence holders will have to meet a set of conditions, including complying with slightly amended National Supported Housing Standards.
An expanded list of types of service will be exempt from needing a licence, as they are subject to other oversight or regulation.
The Government will link the ability to receive Enhanced Housing Benefit to being licensed, but have paused their proposals to introduce specific definitions or a minimum threshold for the amount of care, support and supervision provided in Housing Benefit legislation.
As confirmed in February, local authorities will need to have published Local Supported Housing Strategies by 31st March 2027.
Key changes
We’ve pulled out the key concerns raised by Homeless Link members that we shared through our response, and what, if anything, has changed as a result.
| Our concerns | Outcome in the Government’s response |
|---|---|
Licensing per scheme A key concern we highlighted was the proposal for providers to have to apply for and hold a licence for each ‘scheme’ they operate, which would have been hugely costly and burdensome for large providers operating across the country, and any provider operating dispersed provision. |
We’re really pleased that the Government have amended this so that licences will be held at licensing district/local authority level, with all the addresses the provider is authorised to operate in that area listed on the licence. This should mean only one licence per organisation per licensing district/local authority. |
Regulatory duplication We highlighted the risk of regulatory duplication and unmanageable administrative requirements for commissioned services and those already subject to other regulation. |
We welcome that the list of types of service exempt from licensing has been expanded to avoid duplication, including to more Ofsted-regulated services and to any local authority-managed accommodation with support commissioned by a public body. Commissioned services where the licence holder is not a public body won’t be required to comply with the National Supported Housing Standards licensing condition, but commissioners will be expected to commission support in line with the NSHS. |
Licence holder We raised the need for clarification around who the licence holder would be in circumstances where multiple parties are involved, for instance a head landlord, a managing agent and a support provider. |
The Government has offered some clarification around this, and applicants are encouraged to discuss this with the licensing authority where this is unclear. MHCLG will also publish illustrative case studies. We’ll be engaging further to see if these measures are sufficient to mitigate the risks to supply flagged by our members. |
Discretionary conditions The proposal to allow local authorities to add discretionary conditions to their local licensing regimes caused huge concern for our members. |
We’re pleased that the Government has dropped this proposal in line with our recommendation. Licensing conditions will be the same across the country, and guidance will be published to ensure consistency in decision-making wherever possible. |
Definitions of support and supervision DWP’s proposal to introduce new definitions in Housing Benefit legislation for support and supervision risked being overly rigid and failing to capture some of the work that happens in homelessness services, and the proposal to introduce a minimum threshold for the amount of support provided was very worrying for any provider of low needs support, or person-centred support where the support provided varies. |
We welcome that the Government has put these plans on pause for now. They say they may revisit this when ‘the operational landscape is clearer’, once licensing is in effect. |
The ‘local need’ standard Members were extremely concerned about the ‘Local Need’ standard as proposed last year, which appeared to give outsized power to local authorities to block supply of supported housing regardless of need. This could also have posed a risk to services which are meeting a regional or national need, or providing a highly specialist service that may not be covered in the council’s Needs Assessment. |
Though not perfect, we welcome the changes made to the Local Need Standard, which removes the requirement for local authorities to countersign and be directly involved in setting up the scheme. The amended emphasis on consultation with local partners and linking with existing services and pathways is positive. |
Risk-based approach to licensing |
We also welcome that the Government has confirmed that it expects local authorities to take a risk-based approach to licensing – acting swiftly to refuse licences to known unscrupulous landlords, but working with decent providers to make improvements before considering refusing a licence. |
Other changes |
A ‘Suitability test for Service Managers’ has been added to the list of licensing conditions. The Government has also decided not to proceed with creating a new planning use class for supported housing for now. |
Generally, the changes made in the response appear to be more workable for providers, and seem to reflect a better balance between enforcement against rogue providers, protecting residents, and supporting good supported housing providers to continue their work.
Issues remaining
The response unfortunately makes no mention of funding providers to support them with the costs of compliance, or to make capital or service improvements after years of underfunding. We will continue to push for this in the next phase of our influencing. The response also failed to address the issue of Housing Benefit subsidy loss.
The Government’s response about mitigating the risks to residents who live in a scheme that fails to gain a licence and need to be rehoused is limited and appears to rely on existing local authorities’ resources and processes, including Discretionary Housing Payments. In light of local housing supply issues and rising homelessness, we’d like to see this strengthened.
There will be a further consultation on regulations to be laid later this year, and we’ll continue pushing for further improvements in our response and in ongoing conversations with MHCLG and DWP.
If you have any thoughts to share on the Government’s response, please contact Alex using the details below.
For more information see our regulations web page.