Kirklees Council repairs homes effectively, according to the housing regulator. So does the Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames, which completed every emergency repair within its target times at the point of inspection. Yet on 14 October 2026 both councils were told by the Regulator of Social Housing that they have serious failings and need significant improvement.
The explanation lies in a distinction that matters a great deal to anyone living in a council home. Fixing what tenants report is not the same as knowing what condition your homes are in. Both councils were found to lack reliable, up-to-date information about the condition of most of their housing, and without it, neither could demonstrate that hazards across their stock were being identified and dealt with.
The findings expose a problem that goes beyond these two authorities. A landlord can report impressive repair completion figures while lacking the information needed to decide which homes require more substantial investment, which recurring problems share a common cause and where unseen risks may be developing.
What a C3 grade means, and what it does not
The Regulator of Social Housing’s announcement confirmed that Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council in West Yorkshire and Kingston in south-west London had each received a C3 consumer grade, the first consumer grade either council has been given.
The regulator assesses whether social landlords in England are meeting its consumer standards, which cover the safety and quality of homes, tenancies, neighbourhoods and how landlords listen and respond to tenants.
A C3 means the regulator has found serious failings and considers significant improvement necessary. It is not the lowest grade: C4 is reserved for very serious failings requiring fundamental change. It is also a judgement about how a landlord is delivering its services across its stock, not a finding that any particular home is unsafe.
Nothing in either judgement establishes that all, or most, homes owned by these councils are dangerous. The concern is that neither council could show, with sufficiently complete evidence, that it understood the condition of its housing and the risks requiring attention.
Both authorities have acknowledged weaknesses and begun improvement work. Kingston was told that enforcement powers would not be used at this stage, although that decision remains under review. The regulator will continue to monitor progress, with Kirklees also remaining under engagement following its inspection.
This is not the same as the councils having been cleared of their failings. Their future assessments will depend on whether the weaknesses are corrected and improvements can be demonstrated in practice.
Kirklees: a quarter of homes properly understood
Kirklees owned 21,286 social homes at June 2026. According to the regulator’s judgement on Kirklees, it held up-to-date condition information, including hazard assessments, for around 25% of them. The regulator described this as a serious failing. The council has started an accelerated survey programme.
The judgement also recorded that approximately 2,500 fire safety remedial actions remained overdue. That figure counts actions, not homes or buildings, and a single fire risk assessment can generate numerous actions of differing urgency. The judgement does not give a risk classification for every outstanding action, so the total cannot responsibly be presented as a count of dangerous homes.
Even with that qualification, it is a substantial backlog. It sits alongside a finding that the council is generally meeting its health and safety requirements and has made significant progress since March 2024, when the regulator issued a notice about outstanding fire safety actions and delays in tackling damp and mould. The new C3 judgement replaces that earlier notice.
There is real progress here. The regulator saw significant improvements in how the council manages damp and mould, and gained assurance that it delivers an effective, efficient and timely repairs service. Complaints were found to be handled fairly, though only around 70% of responses met the required timescales.
But one finding goes straight to the heart of the problem. The regulator said the council’s approach did not ensure that hazards identified during repairs and damp and mould work were feeding into its understanding of the condition of its homes.
In other words, information the council was already gathering as it visited properties was not being captured in a way that built up a reliable picture of the stock as a whole. An individual repair might be completed, but the intelligence gathered during that visit could be lost to wider maintenance planning.
For a landlord responsible for more than 21,000 homes, that matters. Without reliable records connecting individual defects to the condition of buildings and their components, it becomes harder to distinguish a one-off repair from a recurring problem that warrants investigation or more substantial investment.
Kirklees was also found to have serious weaknesses in its handling of anti-social behaviour. The regulator could not gain assurance that tenants could easily report incidents or would be kept informed, and found inconsistent case management, no clear service standards and limited oversight of performance. Changes had been approved, but there was limited evidence that they had taken hold.
The council accepts the C3 grade and says improvement work is continuing. Its response acknowledges the progress recognised by inspectors while accepting that its approach to stock-condition information, anti-social behaviour and tenant scrutiny requires further attention.
Kingston: good repairs, incomplete knowledge
Kingston owns and manages around 4,500 social homes. The regulator’s judgement on Kingston found that it did not hold accurate and up-to-date information on the condition of most of them. Its last stock-condition survey, in 2020–21, did not include a physical internal inspection of every home.
The council has since begun a new survey programme covering all its homes, which it aims to complete within 18 months. At the time of inspection, 15% had been surveyed under that programme.
That is not the same as saying only 15% of Kingston’s homes have ever been surveyed. The earlier exercise provided information about the housing stock, but not enough detailed, current evidence to meet the regulator’s requirements.
There has also been further progress since the inspection. In a statement reported on 14 October, Kingston’s housing portfolio holder, Councillor Emily Davey, said the new survey programme was 24% complete and reiterated the intention to finish within 18 months.
The distinction between the regulator’s 15% inspection figure and the council’s later 24% progress report matters. Both describe the new survey programme at different points, and neither changes the central finding that the council did not yet have sufficiently complete evidence about the condition of its homes.
There is another figure in Kingston’s judgement that deserves attention. The council reported that 16% of its homes did not meet the existing Decent Homes Standard. It said the proportion reduced to 10% after taking account of properties recently brought up to standard and homes awaiting imminent demolition as part of its regeneration programme.
Those are the council’s reported assessments, not independently verified measurements of the condition of every property. Nor does a failure to meet the Decent Homes Standard necessarily mean a home presents an immediate danger. The standard encompasses wider requirements concerning condition, facilities and reasonable thermal comfort.
The figures nevertheless demonstrate why knowing the condition of individual homes matters. Without comprehensive and reliable survey evidence, it is difficult to establish the scale of necessary improvements, how quickly they must be delivered or whether previous assumptions remain accurate.
On day-to-day repairs, Kingston performed well: 100% of emergency repairs and 86% of routine repairs were completed within target times when the regulator looked, and performance had improved since a new repairs contractor was appointed.
The council was found to be currently meeting legal health and safety requirements for homes and communal areas, although its reporting and oversight of remedial actions needed improvement, as did communal repairs.
Complaints handling was weaker: 62% of stage one and 74% of stage two complaints were answered within the timescales set by the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.
Unlike Kirklees, Kingston was found to be meeting the regulator’s standard on neighbourhoods and anti-social behaviour, with effective partnership working and support for vulnerable tenants. The regulator also found that tenants were treated with respect and that their feedback had led to changes in services.
These positive findings are relevant. Kingston’s grade should not obscure services that are working well, just as its successful repair figures cannot remove the serious shortcomings identified in its understanding of housing conditions.
Why a repairs record is not enough
Kingston’s case illustrates the central point most clearly. A landlord can hit demanding repair targets month after month and still not know the condition of much of its stock, because repair figures measure how quickly it responds to problems tenants report. They say nothing about problems that have not been reported.
Some serious housing hazards may go unreported, or be reported piecemeal. A tenant may not recognise early signs of a fault, may have learned to live with a recurring problem, or may not know that the damp patch in their flat is part of a wider defect in the building. A landlord that inspects homes systematically can identify patterns, plan major works before failures occur and direct money towards the most pressing needs. A landlord relying heavily on reactive repairs is, to an extent, waiting to be told.
That distinction is not simply good management practice. Under the regulator’s Safety and Quality Standard, social landlords must maintain accurate, up-to-date records of the condition of individual properties based on physical assessments of all homes. They are expected to use that information to inform repairs, maintenance, planned improvements, compliance and decisions affecting tenants.
The obligation therefore extends beyond commissioning a survey and filing its results. A survey only becomes useful when the information changes what the landlord does.
For housing asset managers, this can affect everything from annual repairs budgets to multi-year programmes for roofs, windows, heating systems and other building components. Good information allows planned expenditure to be directed towards identified needs. Poor information increases the risk of costly surprises, repeated repairs and projects being prioritised on incomplete evidence.
Contractors and maintenance teams have a role in that process. Where operatives discover further defects or patterns of deterioration during routine work, the information needs to reach the people responsible for planning future maintenance. Kirklees’ experience shows why a functioning repairs service does not necessarily mean that communication is working.
That is also why the regulator looks at what landlords know about their tenants. Both councils were found to have gaps in their data on tenants’ circumstances and needs. Without it, a landlord struggles to demonstrate that services are reaching residents fairly, including those who may need additional support to report problems, arrange inspections or access repairs.
The wider lesson is that good housing management requires two kinds of knowledge: an accurate understanding of the buildings and an understanding of the people living in them. Weakness in either can undermine otherwise effective services.
What tenants can do now
A C3 judgement is not a reason for any individual tenant to assume their home is unsafe. Nor is it a reason to tolerate a defect because the regulator has praised the landlord’s repairs service elsewhere.
If something in your home needs fixing, report it to the council directly, describe it clearly and keep a record of what you reported, when, and what response you received. Photographs can help. Where a problem is recurring, explain what repairs have already been attempted and whether they resolved the underlying cause.
Tenants contacted about a stock-condition survey should also understand what that visit is intended to achieve. It is an opportunity for the landlord to inspect the property, record its condition and identify work that may not have been apparent from previous repair requests. Where necessary, tenants can ask how any findings will be communicated and what happens if the survey identifies a problem.
If a reported issue is not resolved, use the council’s formal complaints procedure.
It is worth understanding who does what. As the regulator’s own guidance explains, the Regulator of Social Housing looks at whether landlords are meeting standards across their services as a whole; it does not resolve individual complaints. That is the role of the Housing Ombudsman.
If you remain dissatisfied after completing the landlord’s complaints process, you can take the complaint to the Ombudsman. You do not need to wait for the regulator to complete its work with your council before seeking that route of redress.
Social landlords in England are also subject to legal timescales for investigating and dealing with specified hazards under the rules commonly known as Awaab’s Law.
The first phase came into force on 27 October 2025, covering emergency hazards and significant damp and mould hazards. From 30 November 2026, the second phase of Awaab’s Law will extend the significant-hazard requirements to additional risks, including excess cold and heat, falls, structural collapse, electrical hazards and certain fire and hygiene hazards.
These are specific statutory requirements, not a guarantee that every repair must be completed within the same period. The applicable timescale depends on the type and seriousness of the hazard and the work required. The phased introduction does not remove landlords’ other existing duties to maintain safe, habitable homes.
Anything presenting an immediate danger, such as a suspected gas leak, exposed live wiring or a serious fire safety concern, should be treated as an emergency rather than left to the ordinary complaints process. Tenants should use the appropriate emergency reporting route and contact the emergency services where necessary.
The regulator’s findings apply to social housing in England. Tenants in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are covered by different regulatory and complaints arrangements.
Will the scrutiny lead to better homes?
Regulatory attention has real value. Both councils now have clearly identified areas to fix, published in detail, and a regulator watching whether they do. That strengthens the internal case for funding surveys, improving complaints handling and clearing overdue remedial work, and gives tenants and councillors a benchmark against which to hold the councils to account.
But a grade is not a repair programme. Surveying thousands of homes takes time and money, and good surveys often uncover more work, not less. Better information may reveal maintenance needs that have to be prioritised and paid for at a time when council housing budgets are under pressure.
Kirklees illustrates the scale of the financial decisions involved. In March 2026, the council announced a £390 million housing investment programme, including £264 million for improvements to existing council homes and £126 million to support new housing development.
That investment predates the new judgement and is not simply a budget for addressing the regulator’s latest findings. It does, however, show that the council is already making substantial commitments to its housing stock. Reliable condition information will be important in deciding how the improvement element of that programme is prioritised and whether the work planned is sufficient to meet the needs identified.
The financial consequences of completing the surveys cannot yet be established. More accurate records could help avoid repeated interventions and improve the timing of planned maintenance. They might equally reveal work that the councils have not previously budgeted for, forcing difficult decisions about expenditure and delivery.
There are potential consequences for housing contractors and professional service providers, too. Accelerated surveys require competent inspection capacity; findings may lead to additional specialist investigations, procurement and remedial works. The availability of those services, and the quality of the information passed between surveyors, contractors and landlords, could influence how quickly improvements become visible to tenants.
Closer supervision does not guarantee quick results. The councils will have to demonstrate progress through completed surveys, reliable property records, reduced outstanding actions and improved services, rather than plans alone.
There is reason not to assume that a poor grade is permanent. In the same round of regulatory judgements, Broadacres Housing Association received an upgrade to C1 after demonstrating improvements including stronger oversight of health and safety reporting and more effective arrangements for dealing with anti-social behaviour.
That is not a prediction of what will happen at Kirklees or Kingston. It shows that regulatory assessments can change when landlords provide convincing evidence that weaknesses have been addressed.
For residents, the important measure will be what happens in their own homes and neighbourhoods. A higher proportion of completed surveys is useful, but it will mean much more when defects are identified, necessary work is completed, complaints are handled promptly and tenants receive clear information about the condition of their housing.
That is not an argument against the inspections. It is the reason they matter. The lesson from Kirklees and Kingston is that a landlord’s performance cannot be judged only by the repairs it knows it has done. It must also know the condition of the homes it has not recently looked inside, and give residents effective ways to challenge it when things go wrong.
For tenants, that is the difference between a landlord reporting activity and one that can demonstrate that its homes are being managed safely.
This article reports regulatory findings and related statements available as at 15 October 2026. The judgements concern the landlords’ delivery of consumer standards in England and do not establish the condition or safety of every individual home. Survey figures, improvement programmes and reported housing-condition measures may change. Tenants with unresolved complaints or immediate safety concerns should seek appropriate assistance relevant to their circumstances.
