By Alistair McIntosh, chief executive, HQN

In the latest inspection reports from the Regulator of Social Housing (RSH), the London Borough of Ealing scored C2 with Oldham MBC coming in at C3. We summarise the RSH findings for you in the table below. But there are a few points of interest to pick up on.

We received an early Christmas present from the RSH inspectors. They criticise meetings with huge agendas that squeeze out discussion. We can all get behind that. It is the bane of our lives. Of course, they are referring to a meeting with tenants. Let’s start to apply this test to all board and council meetings. That would be one way of avoiding the blunders of the past.

The RSH says that Ealing has come on leaps and bounds “recently.” That’s great to hear. Well done to everyone that pulled out the stops. But what would the old Audit Commission have made of this? Back in the day their chief inspector often called out what he saw as “wet paint.” The RSH does say it will continue to engage with Ealing to check progress. Let’s hope they stay on track and power on to C1.

Moving up to Oldham. Here, Housing 21 or Great Places manage most of the homes via the PFI. But the buck stops with the council in the same way it does where ALMOs manage the homes. So, the council gets the C rating, which in this case is C3. In earlier inspections the RSH had graded Great Places and Housing 21 both as C2 for their own homes. Plainly, these ratings will reflect the different experiences of residents. But it begs a few questions. Is it reasonable to apply one C rating across the entire range of a large associations homes? Is Oldham the only place where Housing 21 and Great Places dip below C2? How much of an impediment was the PFI deal? Can we learn lessons for any future arrangements of this sort? The RSH will be engaging intensively with Oldham to make sure services get better.

As ever the RSH is not clear about how they factor in the perception measures to their scores. Also there is no mention of domestic abuse – despite the successful campaign to put this in the consumer standards.

Oldham MBC

Score	C3
Overall satisfaction	89.2% (not mentioned by RSH)
Safety and Quality Standard	– Stock condition survey covers fewer than half of homes – Oldham MBC cannot be sure of its level of compliance with Decent Homes Standard – Oldham MBC reports a generally good repairs service with high satisfaction – Not tracking communal repairs or repairs that are not part of the PFI (38 homes) – Oldham MBC reports 100% health and safety compliance but without satisfactory evidence hence a ‘serious failing’ from RSH.
Transparency, Influence and Accountability Standard	– ‘Serious failings’ on tenant engagement – ‘Lack of meaningful opportunities to effectively scrutinise performance’ – ‘Limited evidence’ that Oldham MBC is ensuring ‘equitable outcomes’ for tenants -Complaint handling ‘generally good’, but poor record keeping and possible under-reporting of complaints.
Tenancy Standard	-Weaknesses in managing introductory tenancies, flexible tenancies and mutual exchanges -Tenancy agreements out of date and no longer meet legal requirements.
Neighbourhood and Community Standard	-Generally OK on dealing with ASB and hate crime, but must give more assurance on outcomes.
RSH engagement	– “Our engagement will be intensive, and we will seek assurance that Oldham MBC is making sufficient change and progress.”

 

Ealing LB

Score	C2
Overall satisfaction	56.2% (not mentioned by RSH)
Safety and Quality Standard	– Accurate and up to date condition surveys for >80% of homes, will be 100% by end of 2026 – Survey feeding into asset management strategy – Good compliance on health and safety though weaknesses on follow up works but getting better – Weaknesses at completing repairs on time but getting better (3,000 overdue jobs completed since December 2024).
Neighbourhood and Community Standard	– Ealing delivering the outcomes on dealing with ASB – Must improve monitoring of outcomes and responding to tenants.
Tenancy Standard	– OK
Transparency, Influence and Accountability Standard	– Some examples of tenants having influence – “We observed meetings where a lot of information was provided, leaving limited time for real scrutiny.” -Ealing does not yet know enough about the characteristics of its tenants -Complaints handling ‘started to improve’ (yet Housing Ombudsman finds a maladministration rate of 82%)
RSH engagement	RSH will continue to engage on: – asset management strategy – health and safety remedial works – complaints.