In a recent speech to the Scottish Parliament, Stirling constituency representative Evelyn Tweed said she feared there will be a tragedy like that of an English headteacher who took her own life after an Ofsted inspection without independent scrutiny of the Scottish Housing Regulator (SHR).

Ruth Perry, 53, who had worked at Caversham primary school in Reading for 13 years, took her own life in January after she was informed that the school was being downgraded from outstanding to inadequate.

Citing complaints a constituent made to her, Evelyn Tweed said that she presented to Scottish Housing Regulator’s chair George Walker “very credible and corroborated evidence” of the Regulator’s alleged bullying of housing association staff. That approach, the MSP heard, left people unable to work and feeling suicidal, but her requests for an independent investigation were refused.

Ms Tweed said: “Every few years since the Scottish Housing Regulator was founded in 2011, complaints are reported in the housing press about its ‘aggressive, over the top and frightening’ tactics. Yet nothing is done because there is no independent oversight of its actions.

“The Scottish Housing Regulator in my view is abusing the very privileged position it holds in public life. It is completely independent of government ministers, and unlike every other public body there is no independent complaints process. It is judge and jury over the careers of individuals and the future of RSLs.

“The board offers little more than a rubber stamp of the staff’s actions and fails to provide effective challenge and leadership. And it appears to me that the SHR is very confident that neither the SPSO nor the Ethical Standards Commissioner will get involved in ‘regulatory decisions’. So, the Regulator’s senior staff and board can act without fear of consequences.”

In April 2020, the Scottish Parliament’s Local Government and Communities Committee asked SHR to respond to reports of alleged “bullying” behaviour and suggestions that important decisions were being taken at an inappropriate level within the organisation.

The letter highlighted an article in Scottish Housing News on December 12, 2019 which detailed the “considerable disquiet” within the sector about “heavy handed interventions” by SHR staff. It also referred to a Freedom of Information request response from the SHR, which states that only one of 12 decisions, since 2014 to take statutory action was sanctioned by the board, with the rest being authorised by a third-tier assistant director.

The Regulator had previously told SHN at the time that it publishes information on how it responds to whistleblowing and reports on each and every statutory intervention.

In its response to the committee in May 2020, the Regulator said it was “comfortable” that its approach to regulation is “appropriate, proportionate and effective” having conducted a review of its operations.

However, Evelyn Tweed has claimed that much of the alleged behaviour has continued.

She said: “Eighteen months ago, credible, and corroborated evidence was presented to me that appeared to show a very clear agenda to remove a director of an RSL with no proper procedure, and a pattern of behaviour that could only be designed to damage the mental health of staff. I sent the details on to the chair of the Regulator expecting that he would be as concerned as I was. I could not have been more wrong. It was clear that my correspondence with the Scottish Housing Regulator was treated as nothing more than an irritation.

“The chair stated that he and the board were assured that their staff and agents acted properly. Yet these assurances were based solely on information provided by the very same people accused of the improper behaviour. And when I have tried to gather evidence to investigate the position for myself, I have met with delays and obfuscation and a point blank refusal to release information under the Freedom of Information Act.

“I would expect the Scottish Housing Regulator to apply the same standards to themselves as they do to RSLs. Whenever any complaint, whether substantiated or not, is made about a small housing association, the Regulator is only too keen to demand investigations costing literally hundreds of thousands of pounds of tenants’ money, using consultants it picks, charging £1000 or more per day.”

Evelyn Tweed has also echoed concerns that the Regulator’s actions have resulted in several community-based associations merging with larger organisations. The MSP highlighted a report from the Glasgow and West of Scotland Forum of Housing Associations (GWSF) which outlined its “serious concerns” about Reidvale Housing Association’s decision to seek a larger association.

She added: “A recent proposal to merge Reidvale - one of Glasgow’s most successful community-owned housing associations - prompted the director of one representative body to claim that the Regulator has an ‘unwritten merger culture’. The Regulator’s culture, along with its unchecked powers, represents a major threat to the community-based housing association and co-operative movement in Scotland.

“But it seems different rules apply to large organisations. The Dumfries & Galloway Housing Partnership (DGHP) must have had any number of governance failings that went unchallenged by the Regulator for years, before finally an independent investigation into a major failure resulted in DGHP merging with the Wheatley Group. This failure of the second largest housing association in Scotland should be a major embarrassment to the Scottish Housing Regulator and set alarm bells ringing.”

Ms Tweed indicated that she will request that the Scottish Parliament instructs an independent KC-led inquiry into some of the Scottish Housing Regulator’s interventions and approach to regulation, and has called for further evidence from the sector.

She said: “The housing minister, Paul McLennan, has written to me to confirm that the Regulator is accountable to the Scottish Parliament and I should send my concerns to the Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee. I will be writing to this Committee asking for it to instruct an independent KC-led inquiry into some of the Scottish Housing Regulator’s interventions and approach to regulation in general.

“If anyone who has experienced poor treatment or bullying by the SHR or its agents would like to get in touch they can email me evelyn.tweed.msp@parliament.scot in complete confidence. I know that people are frightened to speak out because they fear reprisals from the SHR. That says everything about the culture of the regulation of housing in Scotland.”

The Scottish Housing Regulator said its interventions are “always appropriate and proportionate” and only used “as a last resort”.

A spokesperson told SHN: “Our sole statutory objective is to safeguard and promote the interests of tenants and others who use the services of social landlords. We are accountable to Parliament for achievement of that objective, and we welcome that scrutiny. We do recognise that when things go wrong at any organisation, engagement with a regulator can be difficult. We use our statutory powers of intervention as a last resort, and usually following a long period of working with a landlord to secure improvement.

“We work to be an effective, open and transparent regulator: we publish in our Regulatory Framework how we deliver our functions and use our powers; and we publish a full account of all cases where we use the powers of statutory intervention given to us by the Scottish Parliament. Our interventions are always appropriate and proportionate to ensure the interests of tenants are protected. We have a clear and appropriate route for anyone who wishes to raise a concern or to complain to us about how we work and they have right to take concerns to the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman.”