Research and analysis

Consumer regulation review 2021-2022 (accessible version)

Published 14 July 2022

Applies to England

1. Foreword by Fiona MacGregor, RSH Chief Executive

1.1 Welcome to our Consumer Regulation Review for 2021-22 and the tenth review we have published. This year our preparation for the move to proactive consumer regulation has continued to take shape, and at the same time we have continued to fulfil our important reactive consumer role. Examples of tenants living in poor and unacceptable conditions have increasingly been in the spotlight. In some cases, these have been due to providers failing individual tenants. In others, they have reflected systemic, organisational failures at a provider. When consumer issues are referred to us it is our role to assess whether those issues indicate systemic failures or are individual matters which should be dealt with through providers’ complaints procedures and the Housing Ombudsman. This year we received more than 650 referrals from tenants, registered providers of social housing and other sources. We found a breach of the consumer standards in eight cases, where providers had not met the standards and where tenants had been harmed or were at risk of harm.

1.2 In this review we set out the themes and learning from our casework so providers and their governing bodies can learn from the experiences of others. This year we have seen a number of providers who have not met their legal duties which provide for the health and safety of tenants in their homes. We have also seen providers failing to carry out repairs and as a result people have been living in homes which are unsafe and in a poor condition. The cases we have seen show the importance of having accurate data about the condition and safety of tenants’ homes, and about the experiences of tenants in their homes. When providers do not have good quality, reliable data about their homes and the diverse needs of their tenants, it is likely that they do not have the assurance they need that tenants are safe in their homes.

1.3 We were disappointed that in one case where we found a breach of the consumer standards, the provider had not self-referred despite its leadership and governing body being aware of the issues. Openness with the regulator is at the heart of our co-regulatory approach and is a requirement of our Governance and Financial Viability Standard. It is unacceptable not to tell us when issues emerge which risk an organisation’s compliance with any of the economic or consumer standards. Where providers do self-refer to us, that provides evidence that that they understand their co-regulatory responsibilities. While we found a breach in seven cases self-referred to us, in more than 90% of self-referrals we received we did not find a breach of the consumer standards.

1.4 This year, consistent with previous years, we have found breaches of the consumer standards across a range of providers in terms of their type, size and location. It is tempting for well-run organisations to think that they won’t breach the consumer standards, but our experience shows that breaches of the consumer standards can happen to any registered provider. That’s why it is critical that boards, councillors and management teams are vigilant about their compliance, and continue to seek robust assurance they are meeting the consumer standards. Put it another way – if you are a leader or governing body – could this happen in your organisation? Are you confident in your assurance? Do you have an organisational culture that ensures critical issues aren’t overlooked and are dealt with when they emerge?

1.5 This links to another fundamentally important theme – that of the need to avoid complacency. With progress on new legislation well underway, we are preparing our proactive approach to consumer regulation and talking to stakeholders, including tenants and registered providers as we do that. Our work on the new consumer standards and how we’ll regulate them is taking shape and we are planning to collect data to support the Tenant Satisfaction Measures from April next year. Our new approach to proactive consumer regulation is coming, and we urge all registered providers to act now so you are ready to meet the new regulatory requirements. Now is the time to act so you are assured you are meeting the existing standards and are ready for the changes. Listening to your tenants, and hearing what they tell you will be critical to ensuring that tenants receive good housing services and live in safe, decent, good quality homes. The upcoming changes may require a cultural shift within registered providers, and this can take time to achieve. The work should be underway now.

Fiona MacGregor
Chief Executive

2. Key lessons for providers

2.1 We currently regulate the consumer standards on a reactive basis, considering information from a wide range of sources in assessing how providers meet our consumer standards. A summary of our current role and remit is set out in Annex A. Further details on our approach are set out in our publication Regulating the Standards. Government has recently introduced a Bill in Parliament to amend our role and introduce proactive consumer regulation in the next few years.

2.2 Through our consumer regulation work, we continue to identify themes and learning which we consider to be useful to all providers. We have summarised the key themes from our casework below. A summary of our previous lessons learned is available on the consumer regulation collections page.

Good governance and leadership are vitally important to good quality service

2.3 The link between well governed providers with effective leadership and good quality service delivery has been a consistent theme over the last decade, but never more so than this year. All of the non-compliant decisions we made this year included a failure to have appropriate oversight and understanding of compliance and performance. It is the responsibility of governing bodies to ensure that their organisations are meeting the regulatory standards. Boards, councillors and management teams must have clear oversight of service delivery so they can be assured of the quality and safety of homes and services they provide for tenants.

2.4 In a number of cases, a change of leadership at the provider prompted a review of compliance and service delivery and resulted in a self-referral to us. We encourage all boards and councillors to look critically at their services with fresh eyes, and to really probe the assurance they are getting about how services are being delivered.

Effective engagement with tenants will help landlords prepare for proactive consumer regulation

2.5 This year we found a breach of our Tenant Involvement and Empowerment standard. In this case, the local authority had failed to treat its tenants with fairness and respect, and in other cases we reviewed, we saw failures to understand or respond to tenants’ concerns.

2.6 With proactive consumer regulation coming soon, providers need to continue preparing to deliver the changes needed. Providers are expected to provide good quality homes and services to their tenants. The upcoming changes to regulation will emphasise the importance of tenants being listened to and being able to hold their landlord to account. They will also emphasise the importance of tenants having access to prompt and effective redress mechanisms for when things go wrong.

2.7 Providers must ensure that they are responsive to their tenants. The new legislation will extend our role from a reactive to a proactive one for consumer regulation. We will be able to seek assurance on how well providers, including local authorities, meet our consumer standards. We want providers to use the time before implementation well, so they have the culture, systems and processes that will allow them to deliver good outcomes for tenants. And we want the boards and leaders of providers to be thinking about what assurance they need to demonstrate they meet the new requirements.

Landlords must provide quality accommodation which is safe and well managed

2.8 Meeting statutory health and safety obligations is an essential part of ensuring tenants’ homes are safe. In all of the regulatory notices published this year we concluded that providers had breached our Home Standard due to not meeting legal requirements on fire, electrical, water, asbestos or lift safety. In many cases, providers had also failed to carry out the necessary remedial works or to have accurate data about their stock and what it required to remain in a safe condition.

2.9 We also found a breach of the standards where there were systemic failings in the repairs and maintenance services provided to tenants. In this case, we saw tenants living in properties severely affected by damp or mould, and which in some cases were uninhabitable, with a detrimental impact on tenants’ health and quality of life.

2.10 Providing good quality, safe homes for tenants continues to be the most fundamental objective of all registered providers. Providers must ensure they have effective processes to ensure homes are safe and maintained to a good standard. They must also ensure tenants know how to report issues with their home, are able to easily report issues in ways accessible to them, and that providers can respond promptly when issues arise. Tenants must be confident that their landlord will respond effectively and put things right.

Landlords need reliable data and clear oversight of compliance

2.11 This year several providers have self-referred to us because they could not be assured they had carried out all of the health and safety checks they needed to. This highlights the importance of having accurate, up-to-date, complete and reliable data. It is vital that providers and their governing bodies have access to data they can trust so they have oversight of their organisations and can be confident they are meeting all relevant legal health and safety requirements.

2.12 Mergers can present practical challenges. We saw cases this year where registered providers did not have clear oversight of legacy data management systems and paid insufficient attention to concerns raised at the due diligence stage of merger discussions. In these cases, the organisations did not have enough information on whether a significant proportion of their stock met statutory health and safety requirements. Governing bodies of merging organisations need reliable and accurate data, and to scrutinise that data, so they can be assured that they meet, and will continue to meet, all health and safety requirements after the merger.

Local authorities must also comply with the consumer standards

2.13 Our consumer standards apply equally to all types of registered providers, including local authorities. Of the eight breaches of our consumer standards in 2021-22, five of the providers were local authorities. Elected officials and senior leaders in local authorities have a responsibility to ensure their organisations are meeting the consumer standards. That applies regardless of whether the housing is managed directly by the local authority, or there are other management arrangements (for example an arms-length management organisation) in place.

2.14 We continue to engage with local authorities to emphasise the importance of being transparent with us when they identify issues. In 2021-22, unlike in previous years, in all five of the local authority cases where we found a breach of the consumer standard, the local authority referred the matters to us. This is important. It demonstrates that the local authorities understand their responsibilities and are willing to work with us in a co‑regulatory way to resolve the issues.

3. The Home Standard

3.1 The Home Standard requires registered providers to have an effective repairs and maintenance service and for legal health and safety requirements to be met. Ensuring tenants live in good quality, safe homes is the most fundamental responsibility of all registered providers.

Failure to meet legal health and safety requirements

3.2 In all eight of the breaches of the consumer standards for 2021-22, we have found a breach of the Home Standard because providers have not met legal health and safety requirements.

3.3. The case summary below sets out the details of three cases where local authorities failed to ensure all required health and safety tests and actions were completed. We concluded that all three local authorities had breached the Home Standard and risked serious harm to tenants.

Case summary 1 – Compliance with legal health and safety requirements

Cornwall Council, Norwich City Council and Welwyn Hatfield Borough Council all notified us of issues they had identified in meeting their legal health and safety responsibilities. In all three cases we found a breach of the Home Standard as they were failing to meet legal requirements for fire, electrical, asbestos and water safety. Cornwall Council had not completed fire risk assessments for around 90% of buildings that required them and there were hundreds of fire safety remedial actions not completed for a number of years. Electrical inspections were also overdue, and there were concerns about asbestos and water safety. Welwyn Hatfield Borough Council had similar problems to Cornwall Council, with around 90% of fire risk assessments overdue, as well as concerns about overdue electrical and asbestos inspections, and a number of properties without water risk assessments. Norwich City Council, also had overdue fire risk assessments for a number of properties and did not have information about outstanding fire safety remedial actions. It had a large number of overdue electrical inspections and water risk assessments and lacked reliable data about asbestos safety. We published regulatory notices for these three councils in 2021. Each of the councils promptly took steps to put things right. These included taking immediate action to mitigate any risks to tenants, reconciling data, and strengthening their systems and processes. We are continuing to work intensively with these three councils as they resolve these issues. We will maintain that engagement until each council can provide assurance that they meet the consumer standards.

3.4. In the case summary below, a registered provider carried out fire risk assessments for its properties but then failed to complete the remedial actions identified in those assessments. The case summary is also important because it highlights the close link between failing to comply with the consumer standards and having poor governance arrangements.

Case summary 2 - Completion of remedial fire actions

We identified concerns with Empowering People Inspiring Communities’ (EPIC’s) compliance with legal fire safety requirements following a Quarterly Survey [footnote 1] return from EPIC. The Quarterly Survey showed a potential covenant breach on a loan, because EPIC had included deferred fire safety remedial works in the current year of its business plan. However, EPIC had not proactively told us that it had not completed the remedial fire safety work and that it was therefore potentially non-compliant with the consumer standards. We engaged with EPIC about the forecasted covenant breach and the outstanding fire safety work. Through that engagement, we identified that EPIC had not carried out significant fire safety remedial actions following risk assessments for a number of years. Fire risk assessments in 2013 and 2018 had identified that EPIC needed to install fire doors for a number of its blocks but this did not happen; and in 2019 the local fire service also alerted EPIC that it did not have appropriate fire doors. Fire risk assessments carried out between December 2020 and February 2021 again identified the need to install fire doors as well as other improvements needed to fire alarms and compartmentation. At the time we considered this case, EPIC had almost 500 high risk actions it had not completed. EPIC had planned to complete the necessary works, but doing so meant that it forecast a loan covenant breach in that year. EPIC was later able to rework its business plan to avoid a covenant breach while still undertaking required fire safety works. But, it was already clear that the board did not fully understand the impact of including all additional fire safety expenditure in the budget for the year and lacked assurance over the accuracy of its health and safety compliance data. We found that EPIC had breached both the Home Standard, and the Governance and Financial Viability Standard. In August we published a regulatory notice for the breach of the Home Standard and a non-compliant regulatory judgement for the Governance and Financial Viability Standard. We downgraded EPIC’s governance grading to G3 and viability grading to V2. We are continuing to work closely with EPIC as it seeks to resolve the areas that led to its non-compliance.

Maintaining accurate and clear records of health and safety testing

3.5 During the year we found in a number of cases where failing to meet legal health and requirements were in part due to poor record keeping. Having effective data reporting and monitoring systems in place is key to ensuring that properties meet all legislative health and safety requirements that support protection of tenants and that risks are appropriately identified and managed.

3.6 In the case summary below, two providers (a private registered provider and a local authority) did not have reliable data to clearly show what health and safety testing was required or had been completed across the homes it managed. We concluded that both providers had breached the Home Standard and risked serious harm to tenants.

Case summary 3 – Lack of accurate data to demonstrate health and safety compliance

The London Borough of Barking and Dagenham (LB Barking and Dagenham) and Sovereign Housing Association (Sovereign) both made self-referrals to us after they identified issues with their health and safety compliance. Both organisations told us they could not be assured that they were meeting all of their legal health and safety requirements. LB Barking and Dagenham told us that it did not have a clear record of whether fire risk assessments were required for a number of properties, and for thousands of properties, it could not confirm whether a current electrical inspection had been completed. Additionally, it did not have clear records for whether a number of properties should have been included on the asbestos survey programme; and thousands of properties needed data validation to establish whether they should be included on the gas safety programme. A number of lifts were also overdue for an inspection. Similarly, Sovereign did not have clear records of whether it had completed fire risk assessments for a large number of blocks, and it also did not have a clear record of whether an electrical inspection was required or had been completed for a number of blocks. Several hundred communal areas had never had an asbestos survey and a similar number had not been included in a programme of re-inspections. We published regulatory notices for both LB Barking and Dagenham and Sovereign in early 2022. Both providers have demonstrated that they understand the work needed to rectify the failures. They have taken steps to check the accuracy of the data held and have implemented a recovery programme to address the presenting issues and underlying causes. We are working closely with both providers as they implement their recovery programmes.

Managing health and safety compliance when organisations merge

3.7 This year we saw a small number of cases where registered providers who had gone through a merger process had identified they were not meeting their legal health and safety duties in some areas.

3.8 In the case summary below we found a breach of the Home Standard as the provider identified that legal health and safety requirements had not been completed. The case study shows the importance of ensuring that appropriate due diligence is carried out ahead of a planned merger and that controls are in place when different systems are integrated. As with the case of EPIC above (case summary 2) it also shows the clear links between governance and compliance with the consumer standards.

Case summary 4 – health and safety issues identified during a merger

In April 2021 GreenSquare Group Limited and Accord Housing Association merged to form GreenSquareAccord. Shortly after the merger GreenSquareAccord self-referred to us as it had identified it was not meeting its legal health and safety requirements for fire, electrical and asbestos safety. The issues were in homes formerly owned and managed by Accord Housing Association. Hundreds of properties did not have current fire risk assessments and some properties had never had a fire risk assessment. More than 10,000 properties had never had an electrical inspection, and no asbestos surveys had been carried out in communal areas. We concluded that it was a breach of the Home Standard, and that there had been a risk of serious harm to tenants. We published a regulatory notice for GreenSquareAccord in October 2021. Around the same time, we published a regulatory judgement downgrading GreenSquareAccord’s governance grading from G1 to G2. After it had identified the issues, GreenSquareAccord carried out work to check the data it held was accurate and carried out a recovery programme to complete the safety tests and remedial actions. We are working with GreenSquareAccord as it completes the changes necessary to address this issue, including the underlying causes of the failure and weaknesses in its governance arrangements.

4. Tenant Involvement and Empowerment Standard

4.1 The Tenant Involvement and Empowerment Standard requires registered providers to take account of the diverse needs of tenants, treat all tenants with fairness and respect, and to demonstrate they understand the different needs of their tenants.

4.2 The standard sets out how a registered provider should interact and engage with its tenants.. The requirements of this standard speak to the culture of the organisation, and how its systems and processes operate in practice. This year we found a breach of the Tenant Involvement and Empowerment Standard. In the example below, the provider did not adequately respond to the concerns its tenants raised about the poor conditions they were living in and was unable to demonstrate that it was treating its tenants with fairness and respect.

Case summary 5 – Failing to treat tenants with fairness and respect

We received information from and about the London Borough of Croydon (LB Croydon) through simultaneous self-referral and national media reports about their repairs and maintenance service. At the time, this centred on concerns raised by tenants living in a LB Croydon tower block who had reported unsafe living conditions from leaks, damp and mould. We engaged with LB Croydon to understand the extent of the concerns and the impact on tenants. In response, LB Croydon commissioned an independent report which found the issues experienced by tenants at the tower block were indicative of wider failings in its repairs and maintenance service. Underpinning these problems were staffing and cultural issues, weak performance management and issues in how LB Croydon responded to tenants’ concerns and complaints. We found a breach of the Home Standard, but also a breach of the Tenant Involvement and Empowerment Standard, because the evidence showed fundamental failings in how LB Croydon were engaging with tenants. We found that LB Croydon had failed to treat its tenants with fairness and respect and had failed to provide an effective process for tenants to raise complaints. During the investigation we recognised the urgent steps being taking by LB Croydon to address the issues, including steps to mitigate the risk to tenants. However, we concluded the widespread and longstanding nature of the failures had impacted on tenants lives and had put their safety at risk, and so we published a regulatory notice in May 2021. We are working intensively with LB Croydon as it continues to address the failings. An improvement plan is in place and a programme is underway to address the underlying causes of the failings which led to the breach. We will continue to work closely with LB Croydon until these issues are addressed, and it is able to provide evidence that improvements are sustained.

4.3 The Tenant Involvement and Empowerment Standard requires registered providers to have an approach to complaints that is clear, simple and accessible and ensures that complaints are resolved promptly, politely and fairly. The case summary above also is an example of where tenants’ concerns were not addressed and resolved because they did not have access to an effective complaints system. It is important that providers ensure that their tenants are aware of how to complain, are able to access a complaints system and are confident that their concerns will be listened to and put right where necessary.

5. Neighbourhood and Community Standard

5.1 The Neighbourhood and Community standard includes three specific expectations in relation to neighbourhood management, local area co-operation and anti-social behaviour. We received comparatively few referrals about the Neighbourhood and Community Standard in 2021-22 and did not find any breaches of the standard.

5.2 Many of the referrals we received involved tenants reporting that they had been affected by anti-social behaviour. It is important that registered providers have effective policies and processes in place to try and tackle anti-social behaviour, because of the significant impact it can have on the lives of people living nearby. Our standard requires providers to work collaboratively with other agencies, such as the police, to seek to address such behaviour.

5.3 The case summary below is an example of how a registered provider worked effectively with other agencies to seek to resolve anti-social behaviour concerns and supported affected tenants during this process.

Case summary 6 – multi-agency approach to managing anti-social behaviour

We received a referral from a tenant about anti-social behaviour taking place near where they lived, and we engaged with the registered provider. In response to our request for information, the provider set out the numbers and types of incidents that had occurred. The provider sent us its anti-social behaviour policy and explained how incidents were logged and tracked. The provider explained that cases were only closed when the issues were resolved, and in consultation with the tenant. The provider also had a mobile app to make it easier for some tenants to report and record incidents. The provider explained that it had worked collaboratively with the police, fire service, local authority and community impact teams. Residents were involved in community trigger meetings which had led to the installation of additional security equipment. The provider also set out how it carried out doorstep interviews to seek evidence from tenants and provided guidance and mediation for residents where possible. The information provided to us showed that the provider had the relevant systems, processes and procedures to help manage and try to prevent anti-social behaviour incidents. The provider understood the importance of working with tenants and partner agencies in anti-social behaviour cases. In this case, the provider had taken reasonable steps to work with tenants and other agencies to try and resolve what was a complex case, and so we did not find a breach of the Neighbourhood and Community Standard.

6. Tenancy Standard

6.1 The Tenancy Standard requires registered providers to ensure that their homes are let in a fair, transparent and efficient way. Providers must demonstrate how their lettings make best use of available housing and there should be clear application, decision-making and appeals processes. The standard also requires providers to enable their tenants to access opportunities to exchange their tenancy with that of another tenant. When letting homes, the Tenancy Standard requires providers to take into account the housing needs and aspirations of tenants and potential tenants. This is particularly important where tenants have access needs due to disability.

6.2 We receive relatively few referrals about the Tenancy Standard, and we did not find any breaches of the standard in 2021-22. However, the example below is helpful in demonstrating the need for providers to ensure they have robust policies for the allocation and transfer of homes. It is also a good example of how registered providers should be proactive in looking at their own performance and taking early steps to address an emerging issue.

Case summary 7 – management of internal transfers, taking prompt corrective action

A whistleblower contacted us with concerns about how a provider was managing internal transfers for tenants between properties. As a result of the referral, we engaged with the registered provider who provided data setting out the number of transfers that had taken place over the previous five years. The provider told us that it had recognised the need to increase the number of internal transfers and how it had taken steps to improve the transparency of its processes to support an increase. The provider explained that it had started to review its processes in 2020, but that this was delayed by the organisation’s response to Covid-19. When the review was completed, it recommended increasing the financial resourcing to this area. An independent third-party organisation also completed a review of the allocations policy and the provider had engaged with the local authority about its allocations process to ensure it was working effectively with its local authority partners. We recognised that there had been weaknesses in the provider’s approach to internal transfers and it needed to increase the number of transfers as well as to be more transparent with residents about how it made transfer decisions. However, taking into account the steps the provider had taken to understand and address the issue at an early stage, we concluded that there was not a breach of the Tenancy Standard.

Annex A – Summary of our role and how we regulate

7.1 Our aim is to promote a well-governed, viable and efficient social housing sector that is able to deliver homes meeting a range of needs. As the regulator of social housing, parliament has given us both an economic and a consumer regulation objective. The consumer regulation objective is to:

• support the provision of well-managed and appropriate quality housing
• ensure tenants are given an appropriate degree of choice and protection
• ensure tenants have the opportunity to be involved in the management of their homes and to hold their landlords to account
• encourage registered providers to contribute to the well-being of the areas in which their homes are situated.

7.2 To achieve this objective, we have set four consumer standards which each have required outcomes and expectations:

• Home
• Neighbourhood and Community
• Tenancy
• Tenant Involvement and Empowerment.

7.3 We currently only have a mandate to regulate the four consumer standards reactively. This means that we do not proactively monitor the performance of providers or their compliance with the consumer standards. We consider information we receive from a range of sources, such as from tenants and self-referrals from providers, to determine whether there has been a breach of the consumer standards. In every case we consider if there are any equality and diversity issues.

7.4 We do not have a role in resolving individual disputes between tenants and their landlord, but for all the information we receive, we focus on whether there is evidence of a systemic failing by a registered provider and consider the impact (or potential impact) to tenants. Where we see a potential breach of the standards we also consider if it has caused, or has the potential to cause, serious harm to tenants. We call this the serious detriment test. Further details on our approach are set out in our publication Regulating the Standards

Annex B – Analysis of cases

Referrals by stage

8.1 Our consumer regulation process has three stages. Stage 1 is an initial review by the Referrals and Regulatory Enquiries team who review all incoming enquiries. Stage 2 is a more detailed review by the Consumer Regulation Panel to determine whether there is evidence of a breach of the standards; and Stage 3 is an investigation in cases where there could be a breach of the standards, or if there is a suggestion that tenants are at risk of serious harm. We have provided a diagram setting out this process in more detail.

8.2 The table below shows the total number of consumer regulation referrals handed by us in 2021-22 at each stage. The 2020-21 figures are also given for comparison purposes.

	2021-22	2020-21
Stage 1 – All referrals	653	591
Stage 2 – Considered by Consumer Regulation Panel	298	236
Stage 3 – Investigation undertaken	146	111
Published findings of breach and serious detriment	8	1

8.3 In 2021-22 we received 653 referrals which was an increase of 10% on the previous year. The proportion of referrals moved to Stage 2 increased from 40% in 2020-21 to 46% in 2021-22. The proportion of cases that required further investigation also increased from 19% in 2020-21 to 22% in 2021-22. In 2021-22 we found a breach and serious detriment in eight cases which was a significant increase from the previous year when we found one breach. We attribute this to a decrease in the number of breach cases in the previous year due to changes occurring within providers as they responded to the impact of Covid-19 and changes in how we engaged with providers at that time.

Sources of referrals

8.4. We receive referrals from a range of sources, most commonly from tenants and directly from registered providers. We also receive information from employees or contractors, and we identify referrals in the course of our planned regulatory engagement with providers. This year, we have also considered cases arising from referrals following media reporting.

8.5 The table below show that for all referrals received, the source of these referrals was consistent with the previous year. There was a small decrease in referrals from individual tenants, and an increase in the number of issues from referrals following media reporting or from other sources.

	2021-22	2020-21
Referrals from individuals	61%	70%
Referrals from elected representatives	5%	5%
Referrals from contractors/employees	3%	3%
Self-referrals from registered providers	15%	15%
Referrals identified through regulatory engagement	5%	4%
Referrals following issues reported in the media	4%	2%
Other reports	7%	1%

Referrals by standards

8.6 The proportion of referrals relating to each of the consumer standards has remained consistent each year. As in previous years, the Home Standard continues to be the consumer standard that is most often cited in referrals, representing more than half of all referrals considered at stages 2 and 3. The Tenant Involvement and Empowerment Standard is the next most frequently cited standard, accounting for 28% of cases in the year. Referrals which relate to the Neighbourhood and Community Standard and the Tenancy Standard continue to represent a smaller proportion of our work.

Stage 2 and 3 - 2021-22

Standard	Percentage of cases
Home	54
Neighbourhood and Community	9
Tenancy	9
Tenant Involvement and Empowerment	28

Stage 2 and 3 - 2020-21

Standard	Percentage of cases
Home	46
Neighbourhood and Community	12
Tenancy	12
Tenant Involvement and Empowerment	30

1. Registered providers with more than 1,000 homes complete a quarterly return with information regarding their financial health. ↩