The Regulator’s website provides more information on the Tenant Satisfaction Measures (TSMs) and explains how the data is being gathered and the requirements we met to produce these figures. The Regulator published results for 2023/2024 for all providers so it is possible to compare 2023/24 performance between landlords.
Our surveyor
Our independent surveyor, TPTracker, spoke to tenants from October to December 2023 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.
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.
Surveying method
TPTracker spoke to 540 of our tenants. As part of our preparation for our first submission, we trialled several methods of surveying in pilot surveys, ultimately choosing phone calls for our first official submission. 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 one-off annual basis, conducting all surveys between October and December 2023. We have since decided to move to a rolling basis and will now conduct our surveys on a quarterly basis. This will allow us to learn from the feedback provided and address areas of poor performance.
|
Reference |
Measure |
2023/24 performance |
|
TP01 |
Proportion of respondents who report that they are satisfied with the overall service from their landlord. |
78.6% |
|
TP02 |
Proportion of respondents who have received a repair in the last 12 months who report that they are satisfied with the overall repairs service. |
72.8% |
|
TP03 |
Proportion of respondents who have received a repair in the last 12 months who report that they are satisfied with the time taken to complete their most recent repair. |
70.5% |
|
TP04 |
Proportion of respondents who report that they are satisfied that their home is well maintained |
83.2% |
|
TP05 |
Proportion of respondents who report that they are satisfied that their home is safe |
86.7% |
|
TP06 |
Proportion of respondents who report that they are satisfied that their landlord listens to tenant views and acts upon them |
68.1% |
|
TP07 |
Proportion of respondents who report that they are satisfied that their landlord keeps them informed about things that matter to them |
80.3% |
|
TP08 |
Proportion of respondents who report that they agree their landlord treats them fairly and with respect |
85.8% |
|
TP09 |
Proportion of respondents who report making a complaint in the last 12 months who are satisfied with their landlord’s approach to complaints handling |
36.6% |
|
TP10 |
Proportion of respondents with communal areas who report that they are satisfied that their landlord keeps communal areas clean and well maintained. |
72.1% |
|
TP11 |
Proportion of respondents who report that they are satisfied that their landlord makes a positive contribution to the neighbourhood |
74.4% |
|
TP12 |
Proportion of respondents who report that they are satisfied with their landlord’s approach to handling anti-social behaviour |
76.3% |
|
Keeping homes in good repair |
||
|
RP01 |
Homes that do not meet the Decent Homes Standard |
0.0% |
|
RP02 |
Emergency responsive repairs completed within the landlord’s target timescale |
88.4% |
|
Non-emergency responsive repairs completed within the landlord’s target timescale |
77.6% |
|
|
Maintaining building safety |
||
|
BS01 |
Homes for which all required gas safety checks have been carried out |
99.95% |
|
BS02 |
Homes for which all required fire risk assessments have been carried out |
100.00% |
|
BS03 |
Homes for which all required asbestos management surveys or re-inspections have been carried out |
100.00% |
|
BSO4 |
Homes for which all required legionella risk assessments have been carried out |
100.00% |
|
BSO5 |
Homes for which all required communal passenger lift safety checks have been carried out |
100.00% |
|
Effective handling of complaints |
||
|
CH01 |
Stage 1 complaints received per 1,000 homes |
63.2 |
|
Stage 2 complaints received per 1,000 homes |
2.8 |
|
|
CH02 |
Stage 1 complaints responded to within the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code timescales |
93.2% |
|
Stage 2 complaints responded to within the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code timescales |
86.7% |
|
|
Responsible neighbourhood management |
||
|
NM01 |
Anti-social behaviour cases opened per 1,000 homes |
45.0 |
|
Anti-social behaviour cases that involve hate incidents opened per 1,000 homes |
1.3 |
|
| Count of antisocial behaviour cases logged per 1,000 homes owned – Cases that involve hate incidents | 1.3 | |
Surveying methodology
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 540 surveys, meeting the sample size requirements.
We selected a random sample of all eligible tenants, with none excluded, split proportionally across our tenure types. A census approach was used, meaning that no weighting of the results was necessary when calculating the final figures. We did not offer incentives to encourage completion of surveys.
Our sample was split proportionally between our tenure types, with our sample representing the proportion of our homes. The below table outlines the split of tenants surveyed across each of our eligible tenure types, showing the number of responses from each tenure type is comparable to 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 | 3,670 | 68.2% | 367 | 68.0% | -0.3% |
| Sheltered Housing | 1,451 | 27.0% | 146 | 27.0% | +0.1% |
| AP-Non Sheltered | 257 | 4.8% | 27 | 5.0% | +0.2% |
| Total | 5,378 | 100% | 540 | 100% | - |
Below is a summary of tenants surveyed compared to our wider tenant base by key characteristics.
| Age bracket | Main and Joint Tenant | Tenants surveyed | Variance | ||
| Count | % | Count | % | ||
| Under 18 | 0 | 0 | 0.0 | ||
| 18-19 | 3 | 0.0 | 0 | 0.0 | 0.0% |
| 20-29 | 168 | 2.6 | 8 | 1.5 | -1.2% |
| 30-39 | 629 | 9.9 | 44 | 8.1 | -1.8% |
| 40-49 | 987 | 15.5 | 71 | 13.1 | -2.4% |
| 50-59 | 1,052 | 16.6 | 79 | 14.6 | -1.9% |
| 60-69 | 1,491 | 23.5 | 130 | 24.1 | +0.6% |
| 70-79 | 1,223 | 19.3 | 123 | 22.8 | +3.5% |
| 80-89 | 638 | 10.0 | 70 | 13.0 | +2.9% |
| 90-99 | 133 | 2.1 | 15 | 2.8 | +0.7% |
| Over 100 | 8 | 0.1 | 0 | 0.0 | -0.1% |
| Unknown | 21 | 0.3 | 0 | 0.0 | -0.3% |
| Grand Total | 6,353 | 100.0 | 540 | 100.0 | - |
| Gender | Main and Joint Tenant | Tenants surveyed | Variance | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Count | % | Count | % | ||
| Female | 3,915 | 61.6 | 346 | 64.1 | +2.4% |
| Male | 2,438 | 38.4 | 194 | 35.9 | -2.4% |
| Grand Total | 6,353 | 100.0% | 540 | 100.0% | - |
| Ethnicity | Main and Joint Tenant | Tenants surveyed | Variance | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Count | % | Count | % | ||
| Asian or Asian British Bangladeshi |
15 | 0.2 | 0 | 0.0 | -0.2% |
| Asian or Asian British Indian | 15 | 0.2 | 1 | 0.2 | -0.1% |
| Asian or Asian British Other | 32 | 0.5 | 1 | 0.2 | -0.3% |
| Asian or Asian British Pakistani | 401 | 6.3 | 29 | 5.4 | -0.9% |
| Black or Black British African | 48 | 0.8 | 1 | 0.2 | -0.6% |
| Black or Black British Caribbean |
326 | 5.1 | 28 | 5.2 | +0.1% |
| Black or Black British Other | 25 | 0.4 | 0 | 0.0 | -0.4% |
| Chinese or Other Ethnic Group Chinese |
9 | 0.1 | 0 | 0.0 | -0.1% |
| Chinese or Other Ethnic Group Other |
9 | 0.1 | 1 | 0.2 | 0.0% |
| Gypsy/Romany/Irish Traveller | 1 | 0.0 | 0 | 0.0 | 0.0% |
| Mixed Other | 20 | 0.3 | 1 | 0.2 | -0.1% |
| Mixed White & Asian | 7 | 0.1 | 0 | 0.0 | -0.1% |
| Mixed White & Black African | 8 | 0.1 | 1 | 0.2 | +0.1% |
| Mixed White & Black Caribbean | 72 | 1.1 | 6 | 1.1 | 0.0% |
| White British | 3,274 | 51.5 | 338 | 62.6 | +11.1% |
| White Irish | 44 | 0.7 | 2 | 0.4 | -0.3% |
| White Other | 130 | 2.0 | 4 | 0.7 | -1.3% |
| Not known or refused | 1,917 | 30.2 | 127 | 23.5 | -6.7% |
| Grand Total | 6,353 | 100.0 | 540 | 100.0 | - |
| Vulnerability flag | Main and Joint Tenant | Tenants surveyed | Variance | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Count | % | Count | % | ||
| Yes | 1,714 | 27.0 | 174 | 32.2 | +5.2% |
| No | 4,639 | 73.0 | 366 | 67.8 | -5.2% |
| Grand Total | 6,353 | 100.0% | 540 | 100.0% | - |