°Ç¸ç³Ô¹Ï

Reason for publication

We are publishing a regulatory judgement for Aves Housing (Aves) following responsive engagement and an investigation relating to potentially serious governance, viability and consumer standards failings.

As a result of our investigation, we have concluded that Aves is not delivering the required outcomes of the Governance and Financial Viability Standard and the Rent Standard. In relation to the consumer standards, we continue to engage with Aves regarding the verification of data it relies on to demonstrate it is meeting landlord health and safety obligations.

As Aves owns fewer than 1,000 social homes, it is a small landlord. We do not issue grades to small landlords and only publish or update regulatory judgements where we consider there to be serious weaknesses or failings in a landlord’s delivery of the outcomes of our standards.

Summary of the decision

From the evidence gained during our investigation, it is our judgement that there are fundamental failings in Aves’s governance arrangements and concerns that Aves has ceded control of its business, leaving it exposed to inappropriate third-party interest. As a result, Aves is not operating in accordance with its articles of association or the requirements of a not-for-profit registered provider. We lack assurance that Aves’s board has adequate oversight to manage and mitigate material financial risks. We lack assurance that it is managing its resources effectively to ensure its viability is maintained while ensuring that any social housing assets are not put at undue risk. Further, we lack assurance that there is adequate board oversight to ensure tenant safety. Aves has failed to demonstrate that it is meeting the requirements of the Rent Standard and that rents are set below market rate.

How we reached our judgement

Following information from third parties and responsive engagement with Aves, on 11 February 2026 Aves was placed on the Gradings Under Review list. Our regulatory judgement is based on evidence from a number of sources including information from Aves, London boroughs and the findings of a First-tier Tribunal in relation to benefits appeals.

Summary of findings

Landlords are expected to operate effective governance arrangements that deliver their aims, objectives and intended outcomes for tenants and are expected to be accountable to tenants, the regulator and relevant stakeholders. Landlords are also expected to manage their affairs with an appropriate degree of skill, independence, diligence, effectiveness, prudence and foresight while operating with an appropriate and robust risk and control framework. 

Aves provides rental homes in London through lease arrangements. Aves classifies its homes as supported housing and it had relied on tenant eligibility for housing benefit as its main source of income. Services to its tenants are delivered by Aves and a third party that also owns many of the properties it leases. By January 2026 all eight London boroughs in which it has homes, had reviewed housing benefit payments and taken action to cease almost all payments to Aves. A number of boroughs had taken this action several years previously, due to concerns and findings that there was no entitlement to housing benefit as the accommodation provided by Aves was not exempt accommodation. Exempt accommodation is a form of supported housing where housing benefit is exempt from standard locally set Local Housing Allowance caps, recognising the higher costs of providing care, support or supervision to tenants.

The First-tier Tribunal concluded that Aves had generated substantial profits for a third party that exercised control over Aves’s operations and had overcharged for its services, that the tenants did not need support and/or were not provided with support as claimed and that the licence agreements had been created to take advantage of housing benefit rules that allow for enhanced payments. As a result, Aves instructed all its tenants to apply for Universal Credit Housing Costs. This has significantly reduced Aves’s income stream and creates financial risks for Aves to meet its operational costs.

Landlords are required to communicate in a timely manner with us on material issues that relate to non-compliance or potential non-compliance with the standards. However, Aves did not self-refer following the judgement of the First-tier Tribunal when their conclusions clearly raised material issues affecting Aves’ compliance.

We expect landlords to maintain governance arrangements that ensure compliance with their governing documents. Aves has not demonstrated that it has effective governance arrangements in place to ensure compliance with its articles of association. The articles of association state that Aves is a charity and contain provisions relating to its not-for-profit status. However, Aves is not registered with the Charity Commission, and the evidence of inappropriate third-party interest is inconsistent with its status as a not-for-profit registered provider. In addition, payroll records show remuneration to board members, despite the articles of association prohibiting such payments.

We lack assurance that the board has an appropriate degree of skill, capacity and independence to manage the affairs of Aves. There are significant skills gaps, and we lack assurance that potential and/or actual conflicts of interests are being managed. Aves lacks regular, accurate and comprehensive reporting to board and board meetings are not always documented. We lack assurance that the board has sufficient oversight ensuring strategic goals, risk management and compliance are aligned with the best interests of Aves and the tenants it serves. Aves states that it is in the process of recruiting new board members.

Aves relies on a third party to carry out health and safety compliance and certification. We lack assurance that Aves has appropriate board oversight and underlying systems and controls in place to ensure compliance with its landlord health and safety requirements. There is a lack of independent verification and assurance regarding the data it relies on in relation to health and safety. No independent review has been carried out by Aves to determine tenants’ support needs. In the context of the First-tier Tribunal’s findings, that tenants did not need support as claimed, we would have expected Aves to have reviewed the position. In relation to the consumer standards, we continue to engage with Aves regarding the verification of data it relies on to gain assurance that Aves is keeping tenants safe in their homes and effectively mitigating any potential risks to tenants.   

Landlords shall ensure that any arrangements they enter into do not inappropriately advance the interests of third parties. Aves has not been able to credibly explain management fees to third parties or explain how changes to staffing and managing operating costs through its arrangements with third parties align with its business plan. Key operational decisions in response to business disruptions have not ensured that Aves retained appropriate control over the management of its affairs. In the context of Aves’s contractual arrangements with third parties and serious weaknesses in its board oversight, we consider that Aves has effectively ceded control to third parties.

We lack assurance that Aves’s business plans are based on appropriate and reasonable assumptions. Aves has provided inconsistent and contradictory information on staffing and contractor costs with confusion as to whether services are being outsourced to third parties or being provided directly by Aves. We have seen significant gaps and fluctuations in financial reporting and forecasting and Aves has not maintained a thorough, accurate and up to date record of their assets and liabilities as required.

We lack assurance that Aves is adequately managing and mitigating material financial risks which stem from its contractual arrangements with third parties and reliance on housing benefit and higher rates of rent for supported housing as a single source of income. Aves has not demonstrated that it is managing its resources effectively to ensure its viability is maintained while ensuring that social housing assets are not put at undue risk.

We expect landlords to carry out detailed and robust stress testing against identified risks and combinations of risks across a range of scenarios and put appropriate mitigation strategies in place. Aves has significant gaps in its assessment of risks and has not undertaken adequate stress testing to demonstrate it is able to manage and mitigate risks.

Aves is responsible for setting rents for its tenants in accordance with the Rent Standard. We lack assurance that rents are set below market rate or that they are set in accordance with the Rent Standard. Inconsistent figures for the rent’s claims and explanations as to how management charges are calculated have led to a lack of clarity on how Aves calculates rental amounts.

We continue to engage intensively with Aves to provide an opportunity for it to demonstrate it is able to respond positively and work with us. We are concerned that Aves does not have adequate capacity and capability to produce a credible and comprehensive plan to resolve regulatory concerns. Inadequate steps have been taken by Aves to investigate issues raised in the course of benefits appeals and how that affects wider legal and regulatory obligations. Information provided to us has been inconsistent and contradictory. We are therefore reviewing all options in our regulatory strategy including use of regulatory and enforcement powers.

Background to the judgement

About the landlord

Aves is registered as a small not-for-profit provider based in London with approximately 365 homes across eight London boroughs (Bromley, Croydon, Enfield, Greenwich, Lambeth, Lewisham, Merton and Wandsworth).

According to Aves’s unaudited financial statements for the year ended 31 December 2025, Aves’s average monthly number of persons employed by the company during the year was six.

Our role and regulatory approach

We regulate for a viable, efficient, and well governed social housing sector able to deliver quality homes and services for current and future tenants.  

We regulate at the landlord level to drive improvement in how landlords operate. By landlord we mean a registered provider of social housing. These can either be local authorities, or private registered providers (other organisations registered with us such as non-profit housing associations, co-operatives, or profit-making organisations). 

We set standards which state outcomes that landlords must deliver. The outcomes of our standards include both the required outcomes and specific expectations we set. Where we find there are significant failures in landlords which we consider to be material to the landlord’s delivery of those outcomes, we hold them to account. Ultimately this provides protection for tenants’ homes and services and achieves better outcomes for current and future tenants. It also contributes to a sustainable sector which can attract strong investment. 

We have a different role for regulating local authorities than for other landlords. This is because we have a narrower role for local authorities and the Governance and Financial Viability Standard, and Value for Money Standard do not apply. Further detail on which standards apply to different landlords can be found on our standards page. 

We assess the performance of landlords through inspections and by reviewing data that landlords are required to submit to us. In Depth Assessments (IDAs) were one of our previous assessment processes, which are now replaced by our inspections programme from 1 April 2024. We also respond where there is an issue or a potential issue that may be material to a landlord’s delivery of the outcomes of our standards. We publish regulatory judgements that describe our view of landlords’ performance with our standards. We also publish grades for landlords with more than 1,000 social housing homes. 

The Housing Ombudsman deals with individual complaints. When individual complaints are referred to us, we investigate if we consider that the issue may be material to a landlord’s delivery of the outcomes of our standards.  

For more information about our approach to regulation, please see Regulating the Standards.

Further information

• Regulating the standards
• Regulatory standards for landlords

Related documents

• Decent Homes Standard