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 published results for 2024/2025 for all providers so it is possible to compare 2024/25 performance between landlords.
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 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 using a phased approach, 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 |
|---|---|---|
| Tenant perception | ||
| TP01 | Proportion of respondents satisfied with overall landlord service. | 75.4% |
| TP02 | Proportion satisfied with overall repairs service. | 70.0% |
| TP03 | Proportion satisfied with time taken to complete recent repair. | 68.3% |
| TP04 | Proportion satisfied that their home is well maintained. | 73.2% |
| TP05 | Proportion satisfied that their home is safe. | 83.7% |
| TP06 | Proportion satisfied landlord listens and acts on feedback. | 57.9% |
| TP07 | Proportion satisfied landlord keeps them informed. | 67.0% |
| TP08 | Proportion agreeing landlord treats them fairly and respectfully. | 77.6% |
| TP09 | Proportion satisfied with complaints handling. | 31.6% |
| TP10 | Proportion satisfied communal areas are clean and maintained. | 73.4% |
| TP11 | Proportion satisfied landlord contributes positively to neighbourhood. | 70.9% |
| TP12 | Proportion satisfied with handling of anti-social behaviour. | 58.0% |
| Keeping homes in good repair | ||
| RP01 | Homes that do not meet the Decent Homes Standard. | 0.0% |
| RP02 | Emergency repairs completed within target timescale. | 89.0% |
| Non-emergency repairs completed within target timescale. | 81.2% | |
| Maintaining building safety | ||
| BS01 | Gas safety checks completed. | 99.92% |
| BS02 | Fire risk assessments completed. | 100.00% |
| BS03 | Asbestos surveys completed. | 100.00% |
| BS04 | Legionella risk assessments completed. | 100.00% |
| BS05 | Lift safety checks completed. | 100.00% |
| Effective handling of complaints | ||
| CH01 | Stage 1 complaints per 1,000 homes. | 49.0 |
| Stage 2 complaints per 1,000 homes. | 9.0 | |
| CH02 | Stage 1 responses within target timescale. | 95.8% |
| Stage 2 responses within target timescale. | 91.7% | |
| Responsible neighbourhood management | ||
| NM01 | ASB cases per 1,000 homes. | 68.3 |
| ASB hate incidents per 1,000 homes. | 0.9 | |
Sample
The Regulator outlines the appropriate sample size for surveys to be completed, as outlined in the table below. Using a 95% confidence level and a 4% margin of error, we completed 568 surveys in 5,352 homes. 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.
| Population | Margin of error at 95% confidence level | Indicative achieved sample size |
|---|---|---|
| 100 | ±5% | 80 |
| 250 | ±5% | 152 |
| 500 | ±5% | 218 |
| 750 | ±5% | No data available |
| 1,000 | ±5% | 278 |
| 1,500 | ±5% | 306 |
| 2,000 | ±5% | 323 |
| 2,500 | ±4% | 485 |
| 3,000 | ±4% | 501 |
| 4,000 | ±4% | 522 |
| 5,000 | ±4% | 536 |
| 7,500 | ±4% | 556 |
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.
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 (hours) |
| 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 Handling Code: 10 working days for a Stage 1 complaint and 20 working days for a Stage 2 complaint. Where required, we are also able to agree an extension of 10 working days for Stage 1 complaints and 20 working days for Stage 2 complaints.
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 | Percentage of all homes | Count of tenants surveyed | Percentage of all surveys | Difference between all tenants and surveyed tenants |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| General Needs | 3,492 | 65.9% | 367 | 64.6% | -0.6% |
| Sheltered Housing | 1,436 | 27.0% | 155 | 27.3% | +0.5% |
| AP-Non Sheltered | 257 | 4.8% | 28 | 4.9% | +0.1% |
| Affordable Rent | 121 | 2.3% | 18 | 3.2% | +0.9% |
| Temporary Accommodation | 46 | 0.9% | 0 | 0.0% | -0.9% |
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 | Percentage | Count | Percentage | ||
| 18–19 | 2 | 0.0 | 1 | 0.2 | +0.2% |
| 20–29 | 161 | 2.5 | 14 | 2.5 | +0.0% |
| 30–39 | 613 | 9.3 | 53 | 9.3 | +0.0% |
| 40–49 | 1,023 | 15.6 | 90 | 15.9 | +0.3% |
| 50–59 | 1,097 | 16.7 | 100 | 17.6 | +0.9% |
| 60–69 | 1,584 | 24.2 | 140 | 24.7 | +0.5% |
| 70–79 | 1,349 | 20.6 | 112 | 19.7 | -0.9% |
| 80–89 | 561 | 8.6 | 46 | 8.1 | -0.5% |
| 90–99 | 131 | 2.0 | 12 | 2.1 | +0.1% |
| Over 100 | 21 | 0.3 | 0 | 0.0 | -0.3% |
| Unknown | 18 | 0.3 | 0 | 0.0 | -0.3% |
| Gender | Main and Joint Tenant | Tenants surveyed | Variance | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Count | Percentage | Count | Percentage | ||
| Female | 3,879 | 59.1 | 341 | 60.0 | +0.9% |
| Male | 2,681 | 40.9 | 227 | 40.0 | -0.9% |
| Vulnerability flag | Main and Joint Tenant | Tenants surveyed | Variance | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Count | Percentage | Count | Percentage | ||
| Yes | 2,151 | 40.2 | 236 | 41.5 | +1.3% |
| No | 3,201 | 59.8 | 332 | 58.5 | -1.3% |
| Ethnicity | Main and Joint Tenant | Tenants surveyed | Variance | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Count | Percentage | Count | Percentage | ||
| 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 | 2,653 | 40.4 | 228 | 40.1 | -0.3% |