The landscape of food safety regulation is undergoing a period of profound transformation. Driven by evolving consumer habits, industry pressures and the ongoing resource constraints faced by local authorities, the Food Standards Agency (FSA) has placed the modernisation of food regulation at the top of its agenda. 

Following a comprehensive 12-week consultation earlier this year, the FSA published the revised Food Law Codes of Practice (CoP) and Food Law Practice Guidance (PG) on 27 October 2025. These updates apply across England, Wales and Northern Ireland, marking a definitive shift toward a more agile and intelligence-led enforcement era.  

The CoP is a statutory document providing essential instructions that local authorities and enforcement bodies must follow by law, whilst the PG is ‘non-statutory’ and offers practical advice on how to implement the rules effectively on the ground. Together, these documents ensure that food safety interventions stay consistent, proportionate and effective across all regions. 

The updates introduce a more flexible, risk-based approach to food regulation, allowing local authorities to use alternative control methods more widely, including remote assessments, broadening the cohort of professionals who can undertake certain official control activities. The key changes in the revised codes can be categorised into two broad sections: Operational and Workforce related. 

Operational evolution: Flexibility and intelligence 

The 2025 updates introduce a risk-based approach designed to optimise resources while maintaining high safety standards.

• Flexible triage for new businesses: Moving away from the rigid 28-day inspection target, local authorities now have the flexibility to triage new food business registrations. This allows them to focus immediate physical inspections on higher-risk establishments, while adjusting the timescales for lower-risk sites. 

• The digital shift: The new code formalises the use of remote official controls. In specific circumstances, ‘desktop reviews’ and remote assessments can be utilised to streamline regulation. However, to protect the integrity of the Food Hygiene Rating Scheme (FHRS), these methods generally do not apply to businesses within the rating scope. 

• New food standards delivery model (FSDM): Wales has officially implemented the FSDM, aligning it with the system already used in England and Northern Ireland since 2023. While the FSDM was technically introduced in 2023 for England, the 2025 guidance officially incorporates it into a unified statutory requirement. This updates how local authorities regulate food standards such as labelling and composition, and this model prioritises checks on high-risk establishments and uses ‘intelligence-driven’ data to target fraudulent or unsafe food further up the supply chain. 

A workforce for the future: Competency focus 

Perhaps the most significant changes involve the professionals’ enforcement workforce. The FSA has moved to address recruitment shortages by broadening the professional cohort and reviewing the competency framework.

• Expanded workforce: The range of professionals authorised to perform food controls has been broadened. Competent officers who may not hold traditional qualifications can now undertake specific tasks, allowing qualified environmental health practitioners to focus on more complex, high-risk cases. 

• The competency framework: The most critical structural change is the transition from role-based to activity-based competency. An officer’s job title no longer defines competency. Instead, a new competency framework defines the specific skills and knowledge required for each task (e.g. auditing, sampling or remote assessment). Officers who do not hold a traditional qualification can now demonstrate proficiency and undertake specific activities. The FSA launched a revised competency standard in 2025 to help local authorities assess staff training needs and advance professional development plans.  

• Meaningful professional development: The prescriptive requirement for a fixed number of continuing professional development (CPD) hours (previously 20 hours per year) has been removed. In its place is a requirement for officers to demonstrate ongoing, relevant competence. The focus has shifted from ‘clocking hours’ to ensuring training is relevant and effective for the specific activities an officer is authorised to perform. 

The key changes at a glance: 

To conclude, the 2025 updates represent a pragmatic response to a modern food industry. By empowering local authorities with greater flexibility and focusing on demonstrable competence rather than credentials alone, the FSA aims to ensure the UK’s food safety system remains resilient and fit for the future. 

The Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) was introduced by the Housing Act 2004 and has remained unchanged since its introduction in April 2006. The relevant provisions are contained in Part 1 of the Housing Act 2004. Specifically, sections 1–4, which establish the HHSRS as the statutory method for assessing housing conditions and hazards, commenced in April 2006, replacing the previous ‘fitness standard’ under the Housing Act 1985. 

There are currently 29 prescribed hazards in the HHSRS, ranging from Damp and Mould Growth (Hazard 1) to Structural Collapse and Falling Elements (Hazard 29). These hazards cover a wide spectrum of risks, including physiological, psychological, infection-related and accident-related hazards. Each hazard is assessed for likelihood and severity of harm to occupants, forming the basis for enforcement under the Housing Act 2004. The debate as to whether the HHSRS is the best and most appropriate standard for addressing poor housing conditions has evolved over many years. 

As early as 2013, a report into the private rented sector by the Communities and Local Government Committee raised issues around the ‘particularly complex area of regulation’ that the HHSRS is perceived to be. In 2017, the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health carried out a survey of environmental health professionals (EHPs). Results indicated that although the vast majority of respondents supported updating the HHSRS, over half reported seeing hazards on inspection that were not adequately addressed by the HHSRS. In 2018, the House of Commons Housing, Communities, and Local Government Select Committee undertook a new inquiry into the private rented sector. In relation to the HHSRS, the inquiry acknowledged that the system was supported by the majority of EHPs, but the evidence indicated it to be an unnecessarily complicated one, which fails to give tenants, landlords and agents a clear understanding of the minimum standards that are expected in privately rented properties.

Since then, more recent reports have continued to highlight the challenges faced by the sector. A report commissioned by the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities in September 2021, to explore local housing authority (LHA) enforcement in the private rented sector (PRS), questioned whether the HHSRS was the most effective way of assessing and tackling poor housing conditions, describing the HHSRS as ‘cumbersome’, ‘clunky’ and lacking specificity. The consensus view was that a ‘minimum standards’ approach could prove more effective and easier, both for landlords and LHAs to understand, apply and enforce.

Timeline: From scoping to reform

Scoping review and completion (2018–19)

In October 2018, the government announced that the HHSRS would be reviewed and commissioned RHE Global to undertake a scoping review. The HHSRS Scoping Review (RHE, 2019) concluded that, while there was considerable support for the strong links between health and housing that the HHSRS provides, all stakeholders would welcome simplification of the assessment process. Officers from LHAs found the system difficult to apply, and full assessments were time-consuming. Housing providers and tenants found it difficult to interpret assessment outcomes and felt that there was a discrepancy between the assessment process and other housing-based regulatory regimes governing housing safety. 

The review’s findings presented three options to the government for change (Scoping Review, 2019):

1. Minimum updates: Review and update the current HHSRS Operating Guidance, develop a comprehensive set of worked examples, and review assessor training and competency frameworks.

2. Broader system enhancements: Includes Option 1 plus: Simplify hazard banding, extend and develop standards for incorporation into assessments, amalgamate or remove some hazard profiles, explore digital technology to support assessments, and review guidance for landlords and tenants alongside enforcement guidance.

3. Comprehensive review: Builds on Options 1 and 2 and adds: Consider adding new hazards identified during scoping, assess combined hazard effects, and undertake a full review of the statistical evidence underpinning HHSRS, including potential use of regional data.

Following RHE’s HHSRS Scoping Review, noted above, the government announced on 11 July 2019 that it would proceed with Option 2, a comprehensive review and reform of the system, stating its intention to: 

• Make the system easier to understand for landlords and tenants

• Correct disconnects between HHSRS and other legislative standards

• Facilitate effective enforcement of housing standards by local authorities.

Formal HHSRS review undertaken (2020–22)

In late 2020, the government commissioned RHE to undertake the formal review of the HHSRS, delivering the project through nine ‘outputs’ and an overarching workstream in respect of the fire hazard. These outputs were:

1. Reviewed and updated HHSRS Operating Guidance

2. Updated comprehensive set of worked examples

3. Review of HHSRS training requirements and competency frameworks

4. Simpler means of banding the results of HHSRS assessments

5. New minimum standards for incorporation into the HHSRS assessment process

6. Assessment of the amalgamation or removal of existing hazard profiles

7. Identification of what a HHSRS digital assessment tool would achieve

8. Reviewed and updated guidance for landlords and property-related professionals, and the introduction of separate guidance for tenants

9. Reviewed and updated HHSRS Enforcement Guidance

10. Review of the ‘Fire Safety Hazard’ and development of supplementary fire safety guidance.

RHE’s project delivery team consisted of highly experienced and specialist Chartered EHPs, academics and housing and industry experts, including three partner universities, namely Cardiff Metropolitan University, the University of Bristol and Middlesex University. The review involved sector-wide stakeholder consultation, housing- and health-related research and literature reviews, as well as pilot-testing of proposed HHSRS inspection and assessment changes. 

Stakeholder engagement was critical to the success of the review and, as a result, to shaping the future direction of the HHSRS. Extensive consultation was undertaken, and more than a thousand stakeholders with specialist expertise and relevant interest in the HHSRS and associated housing conditions contributed, representing all regions within England. Key priorities identified through the engagement exercises included support for:

• Clearer guidance and a more intuitive scoring system

• A baseline approach, or ‘minimum standards,’ to complement hazard scoring

• Digital innovation and tools to streamline inspections and improve data consistency

• Better integration and alignment with other housing and building safety regulations.

Government objectives mirrored these priorities, making the system easier to understand, improving enforcement efficiency and ensuring consistency across housing standards.

Main review completed and government response issued (2023)

By early 2023, the review was delivered, covering the ten required outputs and workstreams. The results included revised technical and stakeholder guidance, amalgamations of certain hazards, a new traffic-light approach to banding, new baseline indicators, updates to enforcement guidance and new supplemental fire safety guidance. In September 2023, the government (DLUHC) published the Summary Report, committing to the development of updated statutory guidance, simplified scoring, baseline indicators and digital tools. The government initiated formal implementation steps, including commitments to drafting new regulations and a phased rollout. The review has produced several significant changes:

• Updated operating guidance: The updated HHSRS Operating Guidance is structured into three parts: an introductory guide, a technical guide for assessors and a fire safety supplement.

• Hazard amalgamation: The original 29 hazards have been reduced to 21 through the amalgamation of selected hazards. This required that the following test criteria be satisfied: 1) the causal mechanisms and spread of harm outcomes be similar, 2) the hazards must have originally been in the same hazard category, and 3) combining the hazards passed an overall test of simplifying the HHSRS assessment.

• Traffic-light banding system: This would introduce a simpler, colour-coded approach to hazard scoring, making results easier to interpret whilst retaining the same hazard rating scoring calculation formula.

• Baseline indicators: Baseline indicators provide a prescriptive list of proportionate building measures designed to address common health-related housing deficiencies found across the housing stock. 

• Updated enforcement guidance: This has been amended to reflect legislative reforms and regulatory best practices. It provides guidance to local authorities on the use of all available enforcement powers under Part 1 of the Housing Act 2004 and incorporates recent changes such as civil penalty regimes, retaliatory eviction protections and multi-agency approaches, as well as emphasising consistency in enforcement strategies and practical examples to support decision-making.

• Updated guidance for landlords and new guidance for tenants: A review and update of the existing guidance for landlords and property-related professionals and the introduction of separate guidance for tenants to allow them to engage effectively with the process and feel empowered to intervene or object as they see fit.

• Digital tools and training: Recommendations for the development of digital assessment tools (including mobile and integrated platforms) and updated training frameworks have been presented to the government as part of the HHSRS review outcomes to improve efficiency, consistency and sector-based competency and training requirements.

• New suite of case studies: A modernised set of worked examples designed to illustrate the practical application of the updated hazard banding system and baseline indicators, supporting assessors and enforcement officers in applying the HHSRS2 framework effectively.

Moving towards implementation (2024–26 onwards)

More recently, the government has signalled its intention to adopt the recommendations from the HHSRS review, and new associated HHSRS regulations are anticipated, pending parliamentary scrutiny and process. HHSRS2 represents a landmark moment in housing regulation. By addressing complexity and improving clarity, the reforms will help ensure safer homes and more effective enforcement. 

Ultimately, these reforms aim to create a system that is fairer, more transparent and better equipped to tackle poor housing conditions in a growing and diverse rental market. For local authorities, HHSRS2 provides tools and frameworks to streamline enforcement and improve consistency. For tenants, the changes offer greater transparency and empowerment, making it easier to understand rights and responsibilities. For landlords, the reforms promise clearer guidance on standards, reducing uncertainty and ultimately improving compliance and housing conditions across the sector. While exact dates remain subject to ministerial decisions, the anticipated timeline includes publication of revised statutory guidance and supporting materials over the coming year.

Noise nuisance and the criminal justice system is rarely where local authorities or housing providers wish to find themselves. Most cases are resolved through early intervention, warnings,mediation, tenancy management or the statutory nuisance framework. However, criminal justice and anti-social behaviour (ASB) reforms expected to come into force from 2026 are likely to change what happens when noise problems persist and informal measures fail.

While the core legal framework for noise itself is not being rewritten, the wider enforcement environment around ASB is becoming more robust. That shift has clear implications for how noise cases are investigated, evidenced and escalated.

Noise remains regulatory – but ASB escalation is strengthening

The majority of noise complaints will continue to be handled under environmental protection powers, particularly the statutory nuisance regime. Where a statutory nuisance is established, authorities can serve abatement notices, and non-compliance remains a criminal offence.

Alongside this, persistent noise is frequently treated as ASB, especially where it causes ongoing distress, loss of sleep or intimidation. In practice, many of the most complex noise cases already sit at the boundary between environmental health, housing management and ASB enforcement.

The reforms expected in 2026 strengthen this ASB side of the picture, particularly in relation to repeat behaviour.

Repeat noise and clearer consequences

New ASB tools, including respect orders, are intended to deal with persistent ASB more effectively. A key change is that breach of a respect order would be a criminal offence, rather than purely a civil matter.

For noise investigations, this is significant. One of the most common frustrations for victims is repeated disturbance despite warnings or informal action. Where noise forms part of an ongoing pattern of ASB, having clearer and more immediate consequences for breach may help authorities intervene earlier and with greater confidence. However, stronger powers are effective only if the underlying behaviour is properly evidenced.

The growing importance of structured evidence

As enforcement routes become firmer, the standard of evidence required to support decisions also increases. Authorities need to be able to demonstrate:

• A clear pattern of repeat behaviour, not isolated incidents

• The timing, frequency and duration of noise events

• The impact on residents over time

• Whether warnings, notices or conditions have been breached.

This is where tools such as The Noise App play a practical role in modern investigations. By allowing residents to record noise incidents as they occur, with structured incident reporting and time-stamped submissions, the app helps turn ongoing complaints into a coherent, evidential timeline. Instead of fragmented reports or retrospective descriptions, officers can review consistent, case-linked material that supports early assessment and proportionate decision-making.

Importantly, this type of evidence supports the whole enforcement journey. It can help officers decide whether a case meets the threshold for further action, identify escalation points and, where necessary, demonstrate repeated non-compliance or breaches. While residents’ recordings do not replace professional noise monitoring in every case, they can significantly strengthen case progression, particularly where speed and consistency matter.

Looking ahead

The 2026 reforms are unlikely to transform everyday noise enforcement overnight. Most noise issues will still be resolved outside the courts. But for persistent and harmful cases, authorities are likely to have clearer escalation routes and more meaningful consequences available.

The challenge now is readiness. Ensuring investigation processes, evidence standards and digital tools are aligned will help teams respond more effectively when behaviour persists. Used well, evidence-gathering tools like The Noise App can support fairer, faster decisions – and give residents greater confidence that repeated noise nuisance is being taken seriously.

If a landlord or the occupants of a potential HMO claim they are all related, what is the legal position? 

As colleagues will know, there are five categories of houses in multiple occupation (HMOs) under the Housing Act 2004. Three are listed under section 254(2)–(4), and one each under sections 255 and 257. Except for section 257 HMOs (buildings converted into self-contained flats), all the other definitions are qualified as containing ‘persons who do not form a single household.’

Following problems caused by this phrase (first introduced in the Housing Act 1969), this has been defined in section 258(2) as only excluding situations where either all the occupants are members of the same family or they are covered by relevant regulations. Sub-sections (3) and (4) make it clear this includes cohabiting couples, and some (but not all) blood and half-blood relatives. It is questionable whether it would cover great-uncles/aunts and great-nephews/nieces and great-grandparents/great-grandchildren. However, the situations where there are no intermediary generations living with them are likely to be rare. Step-children are included, but the position of step-grandchildren is also unclear. 

The relevant regulations are the Licensing and Management of Houses in Multiple Occupation and Other Houses (Miscellaneous Provisions) (England) Regulations 2006 (SI 2006/373). Under Regulation 3, certain live-in employees are included, and under Regulation 4, carers and foster parents are covered. 

The irony for those interested in the history of housing legislation is that the definition in the Housing Act 1961 (which introduced wider controls for dealing with HMOs) was based on the occupants not being members of the same family. This approach can be traced back to the Public Health Act 1875 – so is of 150 years’ vintage! Under section 87 of that act, the onus was on the occupants to prove they were members of the same family. Under the current provisions, councils should be prepared to disprove any such claim when prosecuting for the relevant offences, such as for an unlicensed HMO. The ‘family’ approach was changed due to case law (Holm v RB of Kensington & Chelsea [1967] 1 All ER 289), which made it clear that parts of the same family living as separate households would not trigger the HMO definition.

In many ways, establishing whether all the occupants have the relevant degree of family relationship should be easier. This is because it is based on facts rather than having to assess the way in which the different occupants live together when they are occupying the same house or flat. In practice, however, this can be anything but.

I can find no directly relevant case law, but it is worth mentioning O’Halloran v Cornwall Council [2024] UKUT 403 (LC). That case was about the sole or main residence criteria. However, the Upper Tribunal judge made it clear that it was not unusual for the FTT to have evidence from some but not all the occupants, and that direct evidence was not essential as inferences based on other evidence was acceptable (see paragraph 13). That case referred to an earlier one: Opara v Olasemo [2020] UKUT 96 (LC). This highlighted that in the absence of the occupants’ co-operation, cast-iron evidence was not going to be achievable but was not necessary to meet the ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ test (see paragraph 31 of that judgment). 

As all the occupants would have to be members of the same family, as defined, for the premises not to be an HMO (unless covered by the exemption for owner occupiers with up to two lodgers), it is necessary only to prove at least one of them is not, to set up this status and to be able to invoke the relevant licensing and other powers. If interviews fail to give a clear answer, the council has powers under section 235 of the 2004 Act to require, by notice, that the individuals produce the relevant documents, which could include things like birth certificates. This power covers all those involved in the ownership and management of the premises, as well as the occupiers (see sub-section (7)). Where it is the landlord who is making this claim, they could still be asked to provide the evidence – as anyone can obtain copies of such public documents. Failure to produce the documents required by a notice under section 235 is an offence under section 236(1). It is also an offence to alter, suppress or destroy such a document, with both offences potentially carrying an unlimited fine.

Asking people for what they may regard as personal or sensitive information always needs to be handled appropriately, and for those born outside the UK, other documentary evidence may be needed. The number of occupants may be a factor, but colleagues should be aware of making assumptions, as some extended families living in the same dwelling may be large and have a number of different surnames. 

For a more detailed analysis of the relevant clauses under the 2004 Act, I recommend reading ‘Houses in Multiple Occupation – the New Definition’ by Andrew Dymond in the Journal of Housing Law (JHL 2006 9(3) 50–54). 

For practical guidance refer to the RIAMS procedures Definition of Houses in Multiple Occupation (HP19) and Declaring a Building a House in Multiple Occupation (HP13), both available on RIAMS Libraries.