In return of being freed of the shackles of requiring the regulator’s consent for merger, the disposal of stock and other constitutional changes, the TIE review was designed to protect a tenant’s right to influence.
The verdict of some eight weeks of consultation, 156 responses, a 24-page report and a four-month plus wait for the consultation outcome is…a couple of wording tweaks. I said not to blink…
In summary, the changes mainly affect those looking to change a tenant’s landlord. The principles of good consultation are now down in (tracked changed and red) writing. Fair, appropriate and timely seems a bare minimum for not bearing the brunt of regulator consent.
Business as usual pretty much but paragraph 2.2.3 is where things get a little trickier for those preparing business cases and consultation process for customers. This states a need to:
The main change from the original wording that went out to consultation is the replacement of the requirement to set out short, medium and long term actual and potential advantages and disadvantages with the words immediate and longer term actual and potential advantages. A small change, but a big difference in ensuring no overload of information or an unrealistic expectation on future gazing before all due diligence work is completed.
The other tweak within the paragraph is that ‘providers must be able to demonstrate to affected tenants how they have taken the outcome of the consultation into account when reaching a decision. The addition of the word ‘affected’ being to potentially clarify that the views of wider residents and future tenants don’t need to be taken into account in any decision.
So what does this mean for those of leading merger considerations? For most, it’s as you were. Six immediate continued best practice thoughts are to:
Check out more detail and remind yourself of annual report requirements given it’s that season again here.Back