The Tenant Satisfaction Measures, or TSMs, are 12 satisfaction perception measures and 10 performance measures, introduced as part of the Social Housing (Regulation) Act 2023 to collect social housing tenants’ views and help them assess the performance of their registered provider.
The Regulator’s website provides more information on the TSMs and explains how the data is being gathered and the requirements we have met to produce these figures. The Regulator will soon outline how you can compare performance between landlords. Details of the survey questions can be found here.
Our surveyor
Our independent surveyor, TPTracker, spoke to tenants from June 2024 to March 2025 and completed surveys across our tenant base to gauge satisfaction, following the requirements of the Regulator of Social Housing. TPTracker also conduct our monthly satisfaction surveys, and have great insight into our tenants and how Red Kite works. Our independent surveyor works with a number of other registered providers on their TSMs, and provided support in collecting, generating, and validating our reported perception measures.
Surveying method
TPTracker spoke to 568 tenants over the phone within the year. Previously, we trialled several methods of surveying in pilot surveys, ultimately choosing phone calls for our official submissions. Housemark, the leading housing and data insight company, report that the majority of landlords conduct surveys via phone, referring to this as the 'middle ground' between in-person and online methods. This method was confirmed as most common in the final report published by the Regulator.
We collected our responses on a rolling basis, completing 142 surveys on a quarterly basis. This has allowed us to learn from the feedback provided and address areas of poor performance. This was a random sample of all eligible tenants, with none excluded, split proportionally across our tenure types, a census approach which meant that no weighting of the results was necessary when calculating the final figures. No incentives were offered to encourage completion of surveys.
| Reference | Measure | 2024/25 performance |
| TP01 | Overall satisfaction with landlord | 75.4% |
| Keeping properties in good repair | ||
| TP02 | Satisfaction with repairs | 70.0% |
| TP03 | Satisfaction with time taken to complete repairs | 68.3% |
| TP04 | Satisfaction that the home is well maintained | 73.2% |
| RP01 | Homes that do not meet the Decent Homes Standard | 0.0% |
| RP02 | Percentage of repairs completed within target timescales - Emergency | 89.0% |
| Percentage of repairs completed within target timescales – Non-Emergency | 81.2% | |
| Maintaining building safety | ||
| TP05 | Satisfaction that home is safe | 83.7% |
| BS01 | Percentage of gas safety checks completed | 99.9% |
| BS02 | Percentage of fire safety checks completed | 100% |
| BS03 | Percentage of asbestos safety checks completed | 100% |
| BSO4 | Percentage of water safety checks completed | 100% |
| BSO5 | Percentage of lift safety checks completed | 100% |
| Respectful and helpful engagement | ||
| TP06 | Satisfaction that the landlord listens to tenant views and acts upon them | 57.9% |
| TP07 | Satisfaction that the landlord keeps tenants informed | 67.0% |
| TP08 | Agreement that the landlord treats tenants fairly and with respect | 77.6% |
| Effective handling of complaints | ||
| TP09 | Satisfaction with the landlord’s approach to handling complaints | 31.6% |
| CH01 | Count of complaints logged per 1,000 homes owned – Stage 1 Investigations | 48.9 |
| Count of complaints logged per 1,000 homes owned – Stage 2 Appeals | 9.0 | |
| CH02 | Complaints responded to within Complaint Handling Code timescales – Stage 1 Investigations | 95.8% |
| Complaints responded to within Complaint Handling Code timescales – Stage 2 Appeals | 91.7% | |
| Responsible neighbourhood management | ||
| TP10 | Satisfaction that the landlord keeps communal areas clean and well maintained | 73.4% |
| TP11 | Satisfaction that the landlord makes a positive contribution to neighbourhoods | 70.9% |
| TP12 | Satisfaction with the landlord’s approach to handling antisocial behaviour | 58.0% |
| NM01 | Count of antisocial behaviour cases logged per 1,000 homes owned – All cases | 60.8 |
| Count of antisocial behaviour cases logged per 1,000 homes owned – Cases that involve hate incidents | 0.8 | |
Sample
The Regulator outlines the appropriate sample size for surveys to be completed, as outlined in this table. Using a 95% confidence level and a 4% margin of error, we completed 568 surveys, with 5,356 homes in the relevant stock types. This slightly exceeds the sample size requirements to ensure we met the minimum requirements whilst we looked to increase our number of homes through our development programme.
We selected a random sample of all eligible tenants, with none excluded, split proportionally across our tenure types and key characteristics such as gender, age, ethnicity and vulnerability. Due to the sample achieved, detailed below, there were no significant areas of under-representation, meaning we did not need to weigh the responses received.
Following the calculation of our satisfaction and performance measures, we also undertook a validation process with an external, qualified third-party partner. This provides further assurance that the measures we have submitted are accurate and meet the requirements outlined in the Technical Requirements.
Our sample was split proportionally between our tenure types, with our sample representing the proportion of our homes. The table below outlines the split of tenants surveyed across each of our eligible tenure types, showing the number of responses from each tenure type is comparable the proportion of homes.
| Tenure type | Count of homes per tenure type | Tenure type as % of all homes | Count of tenants surveyed | Tenants surveyed per tenure type as % of all surveys | Difference between all tenants and surveyed tenants |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| General Needs | 3,496 | 65.9% | 367 | 64.6% | -1.3% |
| Sheltered Housing | 1,436 | 27.0% | 155 | 27.3% | +0.3% |
| AP-Non Sheltered | 257 | 4.8% | 28 | 4.9% | +0.1% |
| Affordable Rent | 121 | 2.3% | 18 | 3.2% | +0.9% |
| Total | 5,310 | 100% | 568 | 100% | - |
Below is a summary of tenants surveyed compared to our wider tenant base by key characteristics. The wider tenant sample is reflective of the lead, joint and occupants.
| Age bracket | Main and Joint Tenant | Tenants surveyed | Variance | ||
| Count | % | Count | % | ||
| 18-19 | 2 | 0.03 | 1 | 0.18 | +0.15% |
| 20-29 | 161 | 2.45 | 14 | 2.46 | +0.01% |
| 30-39 | 614 | 9.35 | 53 | 9.33 | -0.02% |
| 40-49 | 1,023 | 15.59 | 90 | 15.85 | +0.26% |
| 50-59 | 1,097 | 16.99 | 100 | 17.61 | +0.62% |
| 60-69 | 1,585 | 24.15 | 140 | 24.65 | +0.50% |
| 70-79 | 1,350 | 20.57 | 112 | 19.72 | -0.85% |
| 80-89 | 562 | 8.56 | 46 | 8.10 | -0.46% |
| 90-99 | 131 | 2.00 | 12 | 2.11 | +0.12% |
| Over 100 | 21 | 0.32 | 0 | 0.0 | -0.32% |
| Unknown | 18 | 0.27 | 0 | 0.0 | -0.27% |
| Grand Total | 6,564 | 100.0 | 568 | 100.0 | - |
| Gender | Main and Joint Tenant | Tenants surveyed | Variance | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Count | % | Count | % | ||
| Female | 3,879 | 59.1 | 341 | 60.0 | +0.9% |
| Male | 2,685 | 40.9 | 227 | 40.0 | -0.9% |
| Grand Total | 6,564 | 100.0% | 568 | 100.0% | - |
| Vulnerability flag | Main and Joint Tenant | Tenants surveyed | Variance | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Count | % | Count | % | ||
| Yes | 2,152 | 40.2 | 236 | 41.5 | -1.4% |
| No | 3,204 | 59.8 | 332 | 58.5 | +1.4% |
| Grand Total | 5,356 | 100.0% | 568 | 100.0% | - |
| Ethnicity | Main and Joint Tenant | Tenants surveyed | Variance | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Count | % | Count | % | ||
| Asian or Asian British Bangladeshi |
14 | 0.2 | 1 | 0.2 | 0.0% |
| Asian or Asian British Indian | 15 | 0.2 | 1 | 0.2 | -0.1% |
| Asian or Asian British Other | 30 | 0.5 | 2 | 0.4 | -0.1% |
| Asian or Asian British Pakistani | 393 | 6.0 | 39 | 6.9 | +0.9% |
| Black or Black British African | 48 | 0.7 | 4 | 0.7 | 0.0% |
| Black or Black British Caribbean |
316 | 4.8 | 23 | 4.0 | -0.8% |
| Black or Black British Other | 25 | 0.4 | 4 | 0.7 | +0.3% |
| Chinese or Other Ethnic Group Chinese |
9 | 0.1 | 0 | 0.0 | -0.1% |
| Chinese or Other Ethnic Group Other |
9 | 0.1 | 2 | 0.4 | +0.2% |
| Gypsy/Romany/Irish Traveller | 1 | 0.0 | 1 | 0.2 | +0.2% |
| Mixed Other | 19 | 0.3 | 4 | 0.7 | +0.4% |
| Mixed White & Asian | 7 | 0.1 | 1 | 0.2 | +0.1% |
| Mixed White & Black African | 8 | 0.1 | 1 | 0.2 | +0.1% |
| Mixed White & Black Caribbean | 70 | 1.1 | 2 | 0.4 | -0.7% |
| White British | 2,777 | 42.3 | 238 | 41.9 | -0.4% |
| White Irish | 40 | 0.6 | 3 | 0.5 | -0.1% |
| White Other | 126 | 1.9 | 14 | 2.5 | +0.5% |
| Not known or refused | 2,657 | 40.5 | 228 | 40.1 | -0.3% |
| Grand Total | 6,564 | 100.0 | 568 | 100.0 | - |
Performance Measure Calculation
Repairs
When repairs are reported, we assign one of several repair priorities which determines the target time to complete works. These are detailed below. When calculating the percentage of repairs completed within target, we calculated using the specified priority timescale for each repair, as per the TSM Technical Guidance.
| Non-emergency repairs | Emergency repairs | ||
| Priority | Target time (days) | Priority | Target time (days) |
| Routine | 20 | 8 | 8 |
| Urgent | 5 | 24 | 24 |
| Recall | 3 | Out of Hours | 24 |
| Emergency | 24 | ||
Complaint handling
As per the Housing Ombudsman’s complaint handling code, we operate a two-stage complaint handling process. When assessing if complaints are responded to within target, our timescales align with the Complaint Handing Code, 10 working days for a Stage 1 complaint and 20 working days for a Stage 2 complaint. Where required, we also are able to agree an extension of 10 working days for Stage 1 complaints and 20 working days for Stage 2 complaints.