By Alistair McIntosh, HQN CEO

The RSH has just put out its latest batch of inspection reports. This time we get to see the full range side by side from C4 all the way through to C1. Will this help you to pinpoint where you sit against the ratings? It’s not that easy as some of the reports lack detail. But here goes. We focus on the Safety and Quality and Transparency, Influence and Accountability Standards.

Runnymede – home of the Magna Carta – props up the table with a C4. Do the RSH make a better fist of protecting tenants’ rights than that 1215 charter? Let’s hope so.

The C4s don’t know enough about the homes they have or the tenants that live in them, while basic services are not up to scratch. It’s as if these landlords had never heard of consumer regulation – and the RSH isn’t convinced that left to themselves these councils will get better.

Here are some of the defects at Runnymede Borough Council:

• Only 30% of homes had a full stock survey incorporating the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS)
• 250 hazards were found thanks to the inspection
• Half the homes don’t have a valid energy performance certificate
• The RSH has “no confidence” in Decent Homes Standard (DHS) calculation and is sceptical about the accuracy of health and safety data
• 300 fire safety remedial actions are overdue by more than a year
• Damp and mould policy doesn’t meet legal requirements (website places greater responsibility on tenants than the council for dealing with damp and mould)
• Contact centre not dealing properly with tenants’ calls about repairs
• Gathered some information about tenants’ requirements, but did not use it
• Tenants don’t know what to expect – lack of service standards and performance information
• “Consistently failing” to respond to complaints on time
• Runnymede has also been slow to fix problems with the Rent Standard.

At the opposite end of the country, we find another C4 in Northumberland. The RSH charge sheet is much of a muchness. At Northumberland it found a litany of woes:

• Up-to-date data on only 3% of homes
• Poor recordkeeping on health and safety
• Poor communication with tenants on repairs
• The council didn’t know enough about its tenants.

Damningly the RSH says that “we do not yet have assurance that [the council] understands the potential risk to tenants and that it has the ability to put matters right”.

Going back down South, it’s a similar story at Runnymede: “…We saw a lack of understanding of some of the areas needing fundamental change and we lack assurance of its capacity to deliver sustained improvements.”

So, there will be a lot of “intensive engagement” by the RSH.

Let’s take one step up to the C3s. There are definitely green shoots of improvement at Rugby and the City of London. Rugby is “respectful” towards tenants while the City of London is working on a plan to get better at engagement. But there’s a long way to go. We pick out the bad points and a few positives from the reports below. Needless to say, the RSH engagement will still be “intensive”.

Rugby Borough Council:

• Extensive survey activity yet unable to calculate DHS compliance reliably
• Overall, complying on health and safety but 800 homes with out-of-date electrical inspections and 600 with no smoke alarm
• Data on repairs inaccurate (spotted by third party and led to self-referral)
• Not doing as much as they should to engage residents
• “Numerous examples of poor usability and outdated information on Rugby BC’s website”
• Don’t know enough about diverse requirements of tenants
• “We observed a respectful approach to tenants”.

City of London Corporation:

• “Long standing issues” with meeting health and safety requirements
• Self-referral on electrics and fire safety – number of high risk actions over due by more than one year
• Full stock survey started 2025 and will complete March 2026 – estimated 18% of homes do not meet DHS – funding in place but will not reach full compliance till 2035
• Repairs and maintenance service improving but still not good enough
• “Committed to treating tenants with fairness and respect”
• Don’t know enough about tenants so “cannot robustly assess that outcomes for tenants are fair and equitable”
• “Some examples of tenant feedback influencing policy development and landlord services”
• New resident involvement strategy leading to improvements but needs to be “embedded”.

Moving on to the C2s. These landlords certainly know what to do. You could say they are on a journey. If they keep going, C1 will be in reach. But for now, they fall short for the reasons we set out below. Interestingly North Northamptonshire is a Reform council. Yet the RSH analysis of the council’s approach to diversity reads exactly the same as for many other C2s.

Here are the key points from the C2s:

North Northamptonshire Council

• Accurate and up-to-date stock data for 83% of homes with “accelerated plans” to get to all the homes
• 14% of homes don’t meet DHS but plans in place to finish the job by 2028
• “Broadly meeting” requirements on health and safety – “weaknesses in oversight and scrutiny” to be addressed
• Weaknesses on non-emergency repairs but more resources now going in
• “Tenant feedback has positively influenced service delivery”
• “Positive culture” towards tenants
• “Tenant feedback” has improved service delivery
• Analysing TSMs and using scrutiny to improve services – shares performance information via newsletters that are developed with tenants
• Needs to do more to understand diverse needs of tenants – plans in place to “provide assurance on accessibility, equity and impact” from April 2026.

Here are the final words of the RSH:

“North Northamptonshire Council has engaged constructively with us and has demonstrated that it understands the issues it needs to address. It is taking action to address the weaknesses identified. This includes completing its stock condition survey plans to carry out remediation works to ensure homes meet the DHS, improving the timeliness of non-emergency repairs, strengthening its performance reporting and improving its complaint response times.”

Westmorland and Furness Council

• Recent stock condition survey covers 95% of homes – all homes surveyed so far meet DHS – “clear plans” to complete surveys
• “Taking all reasonable steps” on health and safety
• Plans to strengthen radon testing and approach to damp and mould
• The council “…actions repairs appropriately and reports high levels of tenant satisfaction with the service”
• “Culture of putting tenants first”
• Needs to do more to understand diverse needs of tenants – information gathered at sign up but is not kept up to date
• Range of ways to engage – but limited evidence of this leading to effective scrutiny – plans in place to improve
• Learning from complaints and implementing service improvements.

The RSH concludes that:

“Westmorland and Furness Council has engaged constructively with us and is addressing the weaknesses identified. We recognise the positive steps Westmorland and Furness Council has already taken and its commitment to continued improvement.

“We will continue to engage with Westmorland and Furness Council as it implements its improvement plans, with particular focus on establishing and embedding a broader range of tenant scrutiny activities, improving the accuracy, completeness and routine updating of tenant information, and developing its approach to using tenant insight to support fair, equitable and accessible services.”

Willow Tree Housing Partnership has now moved up to C2 from C3 in October 2024. The association says that the first inspection “…happened shortly after we completed our merger, which took us to over 1,000 homes for the first time. It was a busy time for us, and we knew there were things that needed improving – like updating our stock condition data and fixing some rent issues we discovered and immediately reported”.

The RSH report is a balance of areas that have got better and those where more work is needed:

• The association has a “better understanding” of stock condition, but needs to increase the proportion of homes with up to date surveys
• Management of damp and mould has improved, but the RSH will keep checking that “…progress continues at an appropriate pace and scale..”
• Willow Tree is taking steps to turn around the repair service though “…improved outcomes for tenants are not yet evident…”
• The association still does not know enough about the diverse needs of its tenants
• Willow Tree can now show that complaints are being used to drive service improvements
• The RSH will continue to “actively engage” with Willow Tree. The association says it wants to get to C1 “…within the next 12 months, and we’ll be working closely with the Regulator to make this happen”.

At the top of the tree with C1 sits Yorkshire Housing. This comes as no surprise: their CEO was a leading light of the old Housing Inspectorate so he knows the ropes. Well done. It’s a great result.

Back in the day, inspection reports were lengthy. This RSH assessment of consumer standards doesn’t quite make it to 10 paragraphs. Nonetheless we can extract some nuggets:

• Board gets assurance on health and safety due to accurate systems
• Accurate and up-to-data information on homes – including tall buildings – is used to inform investment decisions
• Gets expert advice on tall buildings and “deploys mitigations while programmed works are planned or underway”
• Repairs service is improving but this needs to be “sustained”
• Yorkshire Housing’s “…approach to repairs is informed by the diverse needs of its tenants, and…it uses tenants’ information to appropriately tailor services and monitor the equitability of the repair service…”
• “Tenant feedback and insight is used to improve services”
• Tenants are treated with “fairness and respect”
• “Complaints are addressed fairly, promptly and effectively” and are analysed to drive improvements.

The Yorkshire Housing report is short and sweet. You get a real feel for what the RSH is looking for. It’s all about using the right data to relentlessly drive improvements and keep the board in the picture. Know the homes, know the tenants and act.

HQN held a session with a group of C1s recently. Their message was very similar. One hallmark was that they all had strong project teams with real clout. C1 is a marathon not a sprint. And C1 is not necessarily perfection: the RSH definition states that C1s “…identify when issues occur and puts plans in place to remedy and minimise recurrence”.