By Jane Eyles, housing consultant and trainer and HQN associate 

Picture this: you’re a housing provider, minding your own business, when suddenly the Regulator of Social Housing (RSH) comes knocking. It’s like having your in-laws visit unexpectedly – you scramble to make everything look perfect, but deep down you know they’re going to find that one thing you forgot to fix.

The promise of transparency

The RSH loves talking about transparency and accountability. In fact, they love these words so much, they’ve made an entire consumer standard out of them!

In their promotional video the RSH proudly declares:

“Our approach relies on constructive engagement with social landlords to give us confidence that they are acting transparently and taking accountability.”

Recently, I’ve dove deep into the murky waters of regulatory inspections. And by “dove deep”, I mean I thought long and hard in a way that usually only happens after the third cup of morning coffee on a Monday.

From my work and knowledge of the sector and speaking with social landlords and residents, inspections work like this:

• The preparation (aka ‘the panic phase’)
• The actual process (aka ‘showtime!’)
• How residents were involved (spoiler alert: it’s complicated)
• What they learned (invaluable!).

People have reported with honesty about their fears, hopes, outcomes and general emotional roller coaster of inspections.

What’s really going on?

Everyone agrees that inspections are raising standards – which is great news if you’re a resident, and slightly terrifying news if you’re unprepared.

But here’s where things get interesting: those summary reports on the RSH website? At 500-1,000 words, they’re shorter than a TikTok video and about as informative as a weather forecast.

These reports are full of delightfully vague statements like:

• “We saw evidence that [the provider] is delivering expected outcomes” (Translation: “They ticked the boxes”)
• “However, further work is needed” (Translation: “Houston, we have a problem”).

It’s like getting a restaurant review that just says “food was consumed, dining occurred” – technically accurate but somewhat useless for transparency, especially for residents!

The inspection experience: A resident’s tale

For residents involved in inspections, the experience seems to vary more than British weather. The most common scenario involves the RSH observing resident meetings, which seems to have made everyone feel like they’re performing in a very low-budget reality show called ‘Big Brother: Housing Edition’.

Resident chairs have felt nervous and try their absolute hardest not to “let their landlord down” – this made me think, but also makes you wonder if we’re missing some authentic feedback in the process.

The real kicker? The most valuable part of the whole inspection – the post-inspection feedback meetings – happens without residents present. It’s like being invited to a party but getting kicked out right before they serve the cake.

The great exclusion mystery 🕵️‍♀️

Here’s where things get a bit Alice in Wonderland: residents participate in the inspection, share their experiences, provide valuable insights… and then get politely shown the door when it’s feedback time.

The draft report and gradings are embargoed and not shared with residents who take part in the inspection until the (brief) report is published.

Here are two things residents told me:

“We weren’t involved in any feedback meetings unfortunately”

“They bang on about residents being involved and yet they leave us out of the process”

It’s like being asked to help cook dinner but not being invited to eat it.

The most crucial conversations happen verbally behind closed doors, making the whole process about as transparent as a brick wall painted black.

Excellent landlords where collaboration between residents and landlords is key, surely it makes sense to include those resident representatives who the RSH spoke with?

Where there’s well-worn hostility and conflict between landlords and residents, are there more risks for including residents who contributed evidence to be included? Could they refuse to keep findings confidential and break the embargo?

In any case, the most valuable part of the inspection seems to be in the verbal feedback – none of which is available to read. I don’t see this as very transparent or accountable.

The ‘don’t let the side down’ phenomenon

When inspectors observe resident meetings, most residents know to ‘act normally and be yourselves’. But let’s be honest – telling yourselves to act normally during an inspection is like telling someone not to think about elephants. Suddenly, that’s all they can think about.

This makes me feel that perhaps the inspectors need to get out more and speak more widely to residents and look at where they live. I understand that the RSH don’t want to become another Audit Commission, with dozens of prescriptive lines of inquiry, but this reliance on resident representatives only, runs the risk of meeting collaborative residents who don’t want to let the side down or hostile residents who may run screaming to the local press.

Room for improvement (without the jargon)

The good news? The RSH has repeatedly said they’re open to feedback and willing to make changes. It’s like they’re saying, “We’re still figuring this out too, bear with us” – which is refreshingly honest for a regulatory body.

Here’s what might help:

• More boots on the ground – instead of relying solely on resident representatives (who might be trying not to rock the boat), how about chatting with a broader range of residents, visiting estates and getting beyond the policies?
• Include residents in feedback – if they’re good enough to be part of the inspection, they’re good enough to hear the results
• Beef up those reports – a little more detail wouldn’t kill anyone, and it might actually help residents hold their landlords accountable.

The bottom line

The housing sector needs robust regulation, and residents deserve to be genuine partners in the process, not just guest stars who get written out before the finale. With a few tweaks, this could become the kind of transparent, accountable system that actually works for everyone – including the residents who have to live with the results.

What do you think? Have you experienced a regulatory inspection? How transparent is it for residents? Share your thoughts – the housing sector needs all the honest feedback it can get!  I’m going to be asking Fleur Priest Stephens, Head of Tenant Engagement at Regulator of Social Housing, some of these questions during my first workshop on resident led scrutiny on 1 July.  Book your place here.