Social Tenant Access to Information Requirements: consultation response
Updated 30 September 2025
© Crown copyright 2025
This publication is licensed under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0 except where otherwise stated. To view this licence, visit nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3 or write to the Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, London TW9 4DU, or email: psi@nationalarchives.gov.uk.
Where we have identified any third party copyright information you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned.
This publication is available at https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/social-tenant-access-to-information-requirements-consultation/outcome/social-tenant-access-to-information-requirements-consultation-response
Executive summary
The Grenfell Tower tragedy was a turning point for social housing. For too long, too many social housing tenants have been ignored by their landlords. The government is clear that we need a transformational and lasting change in the safety and quality of social housing, which ensures that tenant’s experiences and voices are at the heart of our social and affordable housing system.
A key aspect of the change needed is introducing a culture of openness and transparency, ensuring that all tenants can access the information they need to hold their landlords to account. We want landlords to publish more information about their management of social housing, and for tenants to be able to access relevant information on request. Tenants must be empowered to correct the imbalance in the tenant-landlord relationship that proved so catastrophic at Grenfell Tower.
The Social Housing (Regulation) Act 2023 introduced new powers for the government to direct the Regulator of Social Housing to introduce standards relating to information and transparency. A consultation on proposed access to information requirements and the related draft direction to the Regulator of Social Housing (the Regulator) ran between 20 May 2024 and 22 July 2024 and asked several questions on the policy details to support the development of the policy. This response sets out a summary of the responses received and our view on the issues raised by respondents.
Analysis of the consultation responses shows that there was broad agreement for the majority of the requirements that were proposed. However, landlords and their representative bodies have sought further clarity in a few areas. We have set out in our consultation response where we have made changes to the policy statement. When determining how best to meet the requirements, landlords should consider the underlying principles of the scheme and implement the requirements in a way that promotes transparency and accountability.
Following the conclusion of the consultation, we are now directing the Regulator to introduce a new standard requiring all private registered providers (PRPs) of social housing to meet the requirements set out in the Social Tenant Access to Information Requirements (STAIRs) policy statement. From October 2026, PRPs will need to meet the requirements set out in Chapter 1 of the policy statement. These requirements are focused on proactively publishing information. From April 2027, PRPs will need to meet the requirements in Chapter 2, relating to responding to information requests. Alongside this consultation response, we are publishing the STAIRs policy statement and direction to the Regulator.
Overview of STAIRs
STAIRs will require PRPs to proactively publish certain information about their activities relating to the management of social housing, as set out in Chapter 1 of the STAIRs policy statement. This will allow tenants to routinely access information relevant to the management of their homes. PRPs will be required to review and update the information provided on a regular basis, and ensure it is accessible to all their tenants.
STAIRs will also allow social housing tenants or their designated representatives to request access to information related to the management of their housing. Where information is held by a body or person responsible for the management of the PRP’s social housing on behalf of the PRP, it will require the PRP to use all reasonable endeavours to obtain the information and provide it to the tenant.
The requirements in STAIRs do not override the statutory rights or duties placed on the tenant or PRP. This includes rights and duties under data protection and freedom of information legislation.
Together, these measures will ensure that tenants of PRPs are able to access the information they need to hold their landlord to account. They will encourage a culture of transparency where landlords routinely and pre-emptively publish information relevant to the management of their tenants’ homes.
The requirements of the STAIRs scheme do not apply to local authorities or their Tenant Management Organisations (TMOs). Tenants of local authorities can already access information held by the local authority through the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act, though this does not currently extend to their TMOs. However, we have committed to extending the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act to cover TMOs with local authority landlords. This will enable tenants of these TMOs to request access to the information they need about their homes in the same way as other local authority tenants. As a result of the extension of the coverage of the FOI Act and the introduction of STAIRs, we are taking steps to ensure all tenants of registered providers of social housing (social tenants) have a route to accessing information about the management of their homes.
Government published a 5-step plan to deliver a decade of renewal in social and affordable housing on 2 July 2025. This plan is focused on the delivery of the biggest increase in social housing supply in a generation, alongside a transformational and lasting change in the safety and quality of homes. The introduction of STAIRs is just one of the changes we are making to address the third step of the plan, which seeks to establish an effective and stable regulatory regime. STAIRs will support this government’s objective to ensure tenants’ experiences and voices are at the heart of our social housing system.
Alongside STAIRs, we have committed to introducing Awaab’s Law for damp and mould hazards this October, ensuring that all social landlords will need to take action to address hazards quickly. We consulted on a revised Decent Homes Standard and Minimum Energy Efficiency Standards in the social rented sector.
In addition, we are directing the Regulator to introduce new standards relating to the competence and conduct of social housing staff, to professionalise the sector and drive up the quality-of-service tenants receive. These changes, alongside the proactive consumer regulation regime introduced by the Regulator in April 2024, will help to ensure that all tenants receive the quality homes and services they deserve.
The consultation: content and approach
The purpose of the consultation was to seek views from social housing tenants, landlords, service providers and from other interested organisations across the sector, on our detailed policy proposals and the draft direction to the Regulator. In particular, the consultation sought views on several proposals which are detailed throughout this government response.
The consultation was open between 20 May 2024 and 22 July 2024. Respondents could respond via our online survey, email or by post.
We asked 14 questions in total (not including the demographic questions), including questions that invited either a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ response, as well as questions inviting further elaboration in a free text box.
A very small number of respondents who ticked the ‘other’ category were recategorised into another group, such as ‘tenants’ or ‘landlords’, where we were confident this was a better fit with their identity.
The consultation adhered to the consultation principles guidance issued by Cabinet Office.
The impact of PRPs dealing with information requests was included in the regulatory impact assessment produced for the Social Housing (Regulation) Act 2023. Please review the full impact assessment for further information on the methodology and assumptions used.
The cost of meeting the publication scheme requirements was not included in the initial assessment of STAIRs impacts included within the Social Housing (Regulation) Act 2023’s impact assessment, as this policy measure had not been developed at the time of publication. Consequently, we sought information on the costs of meeting the publication scheme requirements through the consultation. Our updated view of the costs of meeting these requirements are set out below.
Summary of consultation responses
The consultation received 130 responses. A breakdown by type of respondent is set out in Table 1.
Table 1: summary of consultation responses
| Type of respondent | Number of responses | Proportion of total responses |
|---|---|---|
| Resident of the social rented sector | 21 | 16% |
| Local authority registered provider | 6 | 4% |
| Private registered provider of social housing | 79 | 60% |
| Other social landlord (not a registered provider) | 1 | 0.7% |
| Other local authority (not a registered provider) | 1 | 0.7% |
| Resident representative group | 3 | 2% |
| Landlord representative group | 3 | 2% |
| Industry body | 3 | 2% |
| Charity (not a registered provider) | 4 | 3% |
| Individual (not a resident of the social rented sector) | 3 | 2% |
| Other | 6 | 4% |
Implementation
Costs
We published our estimated costs of meeting the publication scheme requirements in the STAIRs consultation document. Using the extension of FOI to Registered Social Landlords (RSLs) in Scotland in 2019 and the impact assessment carried out by the Ministry of Justice (MOJ) for the extension of FOI to a number of bodies in 2011 as the closest basis for comparisons, we estimated a one-off sector transition cost of £1,462,450 in year 1.
Following feedback received from the consultation, we recognise that it is likely that landlords will require senior manager and/or board member time to approve their publication schemes. We have consequently updated our estimates of the cost of meeting the publication scheme requirements to reflect this.
Our assumption is that approval of the publication scheme will account for one business day of senior manager or board member time. On this basis, we have used 2024 data for wages and hours worked from the Office for National Statistics’ Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings (ASHE) and social housing stock data for 2023/24 collected by the Regulator to calculate a day of senior employee’s time per PRP will cost £311.13. Assuming there are 1,366 PRPs in the sector, the total cost of this is estimated at £435,645 for 2025.
Following this update, we estimate a total one-off transition cost for setting up the publication scheme of £1,898,095 across all PRPs in year 1.
While providers may incur ongoing costs in proactively publishing information through the publication scheme, these costs cannot be sensibly monetised given the range of approaches PRPs may choose to take.
Estimated costs for responding to information requests were published in the impact assessment for the Social Housing (Regulation) Act 2023. We expect information requests to cost around £1.8 million across all PRPs in year 1, and over a 10-year appraisal period, information requests are expected to cost providers £16.7 million.
Next steps
The Regulator has a duty to set standards in accordance with the Secretary of State’s directions and is required to consult on changes or additions to those standards. We therefore expect the Regulator to consult on any new standard reflecting the STAIRs direction. We expect the new standard to apply to all PRPs.
We expect the Housing Ombudsman (the Ombudsman) to consult on necessary changes to their Housing Ombudsman Scheme. This will include consultation on how they will deal with complaints about review outcomes and the handling of reviews, which issues should be covered by the STAIRs review route, and which issues should be dealt with through the landlord’s formal complaints procedure.
Following the passage of the Social Housing (Regulation) Act, the Ombudsman can also produce statutory good practice guidance. The Ombudsman may produce good practice guidance on STAIRs in the future, reflecting examples of how landlords have met the requirements. To produce good practice guidance, the Ombudsman will first require a body of casework to refer to.
Ultimately, it is the policy statement that will set out the requirements that landlords will need to meet. Landlords may choose to refer to good practice guidance to support their understanding of ways in which they might seek to meet the requirements. However, we recognise that landlords will be able to take a range of approaches. We expect landlords to use their judgement in determining an appropriate approach to meeting the requirements. In doing so, landlords should consider their commitment to demonstrating a culture of transparency and accountability.
The primary objectives of this policy are to ensure landlords are open with their tenants and that tenants can access the information they need to hold their landlords to account. Landlords should apply the requirements in a way that reflects these core principles and prioritises transparency. The balance of the STAIRs policy statement is in favour of disclosing information unless it is reasonable not to do so. This will be taken into account by the Regulator when assessing whether providers have delivered the outcomes of the standard, and by the Ombudsman when handling complaints.
The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) will consider an appropriate approach to assessing the impact of STAIRs following implementation.
The roles of the Regulator and the Ombudsman in STAIRs
We are directing the Regulator to set a standard requiring all PRPs to meet the requirements set out in the STAIRs policy statement. STAIRs will be incorporated into the Regulator’s existing regulatory framework and the Regulator will assess whether PRP landlords are delivering the outcomes of this standard as part of its regulation of the sector. The Regulator’s focus will be on assessing whether the requirements of the scheme set out in Chapter 1 and 2 are being delivered at the landlord level.
Where the Regulator finds there are significant failures in landlords which are material to the delivery of the outcomes of the standard, the Regulator will hold them to account.
The Ombudsman will act as the dispute’s resolution body for STAIRs. Social housing tenants who are unhappy with their landlord’s response following an internal STAIRs review should escalate this to the Ombudsman under the terms of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme.
The Ombudsman will handle individual disputes by tenants about requests made for relevant information. The Ombudsman will also have a role in handling individual complaints by tenants who believe their landlord has not published information that they hold, and which falls within the scope of the publication scheme.
The Ombudsman can refer matters to the Regulator, including where a provider is failing to fulfil the obligations of the publication scheme.
Publication scheme
Question 1: Do you agree with the requirements for the publication scheme, as outlined above? If not, why not?
There were 129 responses to this question.
| Option | Total | Percent |
|---|---|---|
| Yes | 90 | 69.23% |
| No | 36 | 27.69% |
| Not answered | 4 | 3.07% |
Question 2: Do you consider it appropriate for the publication scheme to include a requirement for providers to publish previous information requests made under STAIRs, and the responses to those requests? Please provide your reasoning.
There were 128 responses to this question.
| Option | Total | Percent |
|---|---|---|
| Yes | 70 | 53.85% |
| No | 55 | 42.31% |
| Not answered | 5 | 3.84% |
Summary of consultation responses to questions 1 and 2
The majority of respondents (69%) agreed with the requirements for the publication scheme, with many saying that it would increase transparency between social housing landlords and their tenants.
35% of respondents thought the policy statement did not provide sufficient clarity on the requirements for the publication scheme. Some of these responses requested further information on the amount of detail landlords should include for each class of information, how information published under the scheme should be shared with tenants and how often PRPs would be expected to review or update the information.
Some respondents thought the classes of information set out in the policy statement were vague and might lead to inconsistencies across the sector if further detail is not provided in guidance. There was also some confusion over whether commercially sensitive or personal information is exempt from the publication scheme.
A small number of respondents proposed other classes of information that should be in scope of the publication scheme. This included:
- tenancy and allocation policies
- fire risk assessments
- resident safety information
- resident engagement and building emergency evacuation strategies
25% of respondents thought landlords were already obligated to provide tenants with information about their homes through other mechanisms, including the regulatory standards. Many of these respondents were concerned that the STAIRs requirements would conflict with existing statutory schemes and may lead to landlords being required to provide duplicative responses to information requested across multiple schemes.
20% of respondents referred to the need for the publication scheme to be accessible, with some respondents suggesting that the policy statement specifically outline the requirement for landlords to ensure information published under the scheme is accessible for tenants.
Although over half of respondents agreed that the publication scheme should include a requirement for landlords to publish previous information requests as part of their publication scheme, several respondents thought there should be more flexibility around the information they are required to publish under this requirement. Some respondents gave suggestions for alternative approaches, such as a requirement for landlords to produce and publish a thematic report.
Finally, there was a suggestion for the STAIRs publication scheme requirements to be applied to all registered providers of social housing, including local authority registered providers (LARPs).
Government response
The requirement to establish a publication scheme is a core element of the STAIRs policy. It will ensure that landlords proactively publish information on the subjects that matter most to tenants. Our expectation is that, where landlords develop a robust and comprehensive publication scheme, this will reduce the number of information requests they receive, as tenants will already have access to the information they need. Landlords will be required to meet the requirements to publish and maintain a publication scheme from October 2026.
The publication scheme requirements are essential to building a culture of openness and transparency between landlords and their tenants. Although landlords will not be required to publish and maintain their publication schemes until October 2026, we recognise that many landlords already choose to share information proactively with their tenants. We expect landlords to begin preparing to meet the publication scheme requirements set out in the policy statement ahead of STAIRs implementation.
The publication scheme requirements strike a balance between ensuring there is sufficient clarity for landlords in understanding our expectations about what should be published, whilst giving landlords a degree of flexibility to determine what would work best for their tenants. Landlords should consider how best to meet the requirements in the context of their specific situation and the needs of their tenants. When doing so, landlords should consider the principles underpinning STAIRs, ensuring the requirements are delivered in a way that maximises transparency.
We have amended the policy statement to ensure it is clear that landlords are not required to create new records to comply with the publication scheme requirements and can redact information where appropriate and reasonable to do so.
With regards to accessibility, landlords will need to determine the most appropriate way to publish information in a way that supports their tenants’ understanding. All registered providers (RPs) are required to comply with the Regulator’s consumer standards, which require landlords to:
understand the diverse needs of tenants, including those arising from protected characteristics, language barriers, and additional support needs.
Landlords are also required to:
ensure that communication with and information for tenants is clear, accessible, relevant, timely and appropriate to the diverse needs of tenants.
Landlords will need to determine the appropriate approach to meeting these requirements in relation to the information they publish.
The policy statement requires landlords to keep their publication scheme updated on a regular basis, rather than prescribing specific timescales for when landlords should review information published under the scheme. We believe this is the most effective approach to ensure that landlords achieve the intended outcome of maintaining a publication scheme while providing a degree of flexibility for landlords to determine what is appropriate in their circumstances.
With regard to suggestions for additional information to be included within the classes of information in scope of the publication scheme, the existing classes of information cover many of the points raised in consultation responses. This includes information relating to building and fire safety, including fire risk assessments. We believe it is more effective to list broad categories of information rather than specific details, to avoid landlords taking a tick-box approach to the scheme where they do not publish information that would be useful to tenants if it is not explicitly listed.
In response to recommendations for landlords’ resident engagement and building emergency evacuation strategies to be in scope of the publication scheme, we have amended the examples of information typically included in the social housing management class of information from ‘policies relating to the management of social housing’ to ‘policies and strategies relating to the management of social housing’ to ensure resident engagement and building emergency evacuation, amongst other strategies, are now clearly in scope.
Social landlords should take a reasonable approach to determining where information is not appropriate to include, such as where information includes commercially sensitive or personal information. As noted above, landlords can redact information where appropriate and reasonable to do so.
With regards to any conflict between STAIRs and existing statutory information schemes, landlords should note that they are not required to publish information under STAIRs if doing so would bring them into conflict with other statutory provisions.
We considered whether it would be appropriate for landlords to be required to publish previous information request responses. Considering challenges raised regarding whether this is proportionate, given the potential burden on landlords, we have determined that this will not be a requirement of the publication scheme. However, landlords may still wish to consider whether it is appropriate to share this information in the interests of transparency.
One respondent noted the risk that landlords may inadvertently publish a tenant’s personal data if they are required to publish a piece of information that contains a small number of individual data points to comply with the publication scheme requirements. Landlords must ensure compliance with both the STAIRs publication scheme and data protection legislation. Landlords will therefore need to carefully consider what information it is appropriate to publish and whether any redactions are required to ensure they are complying with the Data Protection Act 2018 and UK General Data Protection Regulations (UK GDPR).
We have amended the policy statement to clarify that social housing tenants who believe that their landlord has not published information that falls within the scope of the publication scheme should complain directly to their landlord. Where a tenant is dissatisfied following the completion of an internal review, the tenant should escalate this to the Ombudsman under the terms of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme.
Social tenants will not need to demonstrate that they have experienced a level of detriment for the Ombudsman to review a complaint (unlike complaints made under the complaint handling code). The Ombudsman will not be able to consider a complaint where the tenant has an alternative source of redress under the data protection legislation. The Regulator will consider how far social landlords are delivering the outcomes of their standards and will hold them to account where they judge that there are serious failings.
Finally, we do not believe it is necessary to extend the publication scheme to LARPs. LARPs are already subject to the requirements set out in the FOI Act, including the requirements to have a standard publication scheme approved by the Information Commissioners Office (ICO) and to publish information covered by the scheme. Local authority tenants can also request information about their housing management services from their landlord under the FOI Act. As outlined above, we will also extend the FOI Act to TMOs with local authority landlords. As a result, we are taking steps to ensure all social tenants can receive the information they need about the management of their homes.
Publication scheme costs
Question 3: Do you agree with the assessment of the impacts of the publication scheme, as outlined in the ‘Publication scheme impacts’ sub-section? If not, why not?
There were 125 responses to this question.
| Option | Total | Percent |
|---|---|---|
| Yes | 52 | 40% |
| No | 65 | 50% |
| Not answered | 13 | 10% |
Question 4: Do you have any wider comments on the costs providers will face in implementing STAIRs?
There were 115 responses to this question.
Summary of consultation responses to questions 3 and 4
36% of respondents said that the costs presented in the consultation had been underestimated, with a quarter highlighting costs they believed to be missing from the impact assessment.
These costs include: - administration and IT - management and policy development - staffing (including training) - monitoring - marketing - accessibility - Housing Ombudsman Service fees
Around 18% of respondents highlighted the impact of wider financial pressures in the sector, including costs relating to Awaab’s Law and measures to professionalise the sector. A similar number felt the cost of STAIRs could impact on other housing management services, with some suggesting smaller providers might be disproportionately impacted or that costs might be passed on to tenants.
Respondents also highlighted that the volume of requests might be driven up by so-called ‘claims farms’ who may encourage tenants to make information requests to profit from compensation claims, which would further compound costs.
Government response
The government recognises the need to support providers of social housing to build their capacity to make a greater contribution to affordable housing supply while also ensuring that the necessary investment can be committed to provide safe, decent and warm homes to tenants.
Rental income is an important part of this picture. RPs use income from social housing rents in order to manage and maintain their homes to the required standards, as well as service borrowing to invest in new homes. At the Spending Review 2025, government announced a 10-year rent settlement from 2026 that would permit maximum rents to increase by up to CPI+1% each year. Government recently consulted on how a Social Rent convergence would be implemented, which would permit rents to increase by an additional amount above CPI+1% for some Social Rent properties. The response to this consultation will be published in due course.
We have designed STAIRs to deliver a robust access to information policy while appropriately limiting the impact on landlords. For example, only tenants of the landlord and their designated representatives can make requests for information and only information related to the management of social housing is required to be published as part of the publication scheme. We have also amended the policy statement to make it clear that social landlords will not need to create new information in any circumstances to meet the requirements of either the publication scheme or the information request elements of STAIRs.
With regards to wider STAIRs costs, we understand that there will be variance in the number of information requests landlords receive and the time it will take to respond to these. We believe the requirements for landlords to proactively publish information as part of the publication scheme will reduce the number of information requests to landlords. Additionally, our expectation is that many landlords will already have systems and processes in place for sharing information proactively with tenants and responding to requests for relevant information.
Despite the restrictions placed on the scheme, we recognise that there will be some financial impact to social landlords delivering the requirements. Following feedback received from the consultation, we have considered the amount of senior staff time required for the development of the publication scheme and agree that it is likely senior manager and board member time will be needed to approve the publication scheme. We have revised our costings to reflect this. Please see the ‘costs’ section in paragraphs 20-26.
We do not have sufficient evidence to alter cost estimates relating to IT costs. Landlords are likely to take a range of approaches in preparing for the requirements, and we expect a significant proportion of landlords already have systems in place to respond to information requests. With regards to costs for making tenants aware of STAIRs, landlords should already have mechanisms for engaging with their tenants and sharing relevant information. STAIRs does not mandate how landlords achieve this, and we believe that landlords will largely use existing mechanisms to manage STAIRs- related engagement.
Additionally, some of the costs raised by respondents are out of scope of the assessment of STAIRs costs. This includes costs relating to Housing Ombudsman Service fees, any change to which will be subject to consultation, and costs that relate to actions not explicitly required by the policy statement.
Information covered by STAIRs
Question 5: Do you agree with the scope of information that is covered by STAIRs, as outlined in paragraphs 46 to 50? If not, why not?
There were 125 responses to this question.
| Option | Total | Percent |
|---|---|---|
| Yes | 77 | 59.23% |
| No | 41 | 31.54% |
| Not answered | 12 | 9.23% |
Summary of consultation responses to question 5
The majority of respondents (59%) agreed with the scope of information covered by STAIRs.
37% of respondents stated that more detailed guidance was needed to understand what information was in scope and how much information should be provided to tenants. Some respondents suggested a template might help landlords understand the expectation and bring greater consistency. Several respondents queried whether information in scope is limited to information directly relating to the tenant making the request.
15 respondents felt the information in scope was unnecessarily broad as tenants could access some of the information through other means. Service charges were highlighted as an example of this, as this information is already published for shared owners. A similar number noted potential overlaps with existing information requirements included the Data Protection Act 2018, the FOI Act and the UK GDPR obligations.
17 respondents felt some aspects of information should be included that are currently missing in the policy statement. This includes information related to:
- the safety and quality of homes, including fire safety and modernisation
- antisocial behaviour and hate crimes
- measures related to tenancy management for example occupancy rights and allocations policies
Government response
We want to ensure that STAIRs will cover the information that matters most to tenants. Relevant information is any information related to the management of a PRP’s social housing. The list of information categories provided in the policy statement is not an exhaustive list. We have chosen not to provide an exhaustive list to ensure that landlords are proactively and widely considering what relevant information they hold. Landlords must ensure they are providing relevant information in response to requests, unless it is reasonable to withhold information.
The relevant information categories are intended to be broad enough to cover most likely subjects of interest. In response to concerns raised in consultation responses, we would like to clarify that issues relating to building and fire safety would be covered by the policy, with health and safety explicitly listed as an information class, alongside property conditions, repairs, and improvements to property. We expect landlords to use their own judgement in making decisions on whether information is in scope. The Housing Ombudsman Service may issue good practice guidance in this area once it has sufficient casework to draw upon.
As outlined in the policy statement, relevant information is information related to the management of a registered provider’s social housing. This is not limited to information directly relating to the tenant, and landlords will be required to share relevant information that goes beyond individual tenant issues.
STAIRs is not intended to duplicate or overlap with other legislation relating to the sharing of tenant information. This is made clear in the policy statement, which states that information is not ‘relevant information’ if there is a right of access to that information by or under any statutory provision.
Who can make requests
Question 6: The above section (paragraphs 51 to 53) outlines the requirements relating to who can make information requests. Do you agree with these requirements? If not, why not?
There were 128 responses to this question.
| Option | Total | Percent |
|---|---|---|
| Yes | 96 | 73.85% |
| No | 27 | 20.77% |
| Not answered | 7 | 5.38% |
Question 7: Do you consider it appropriate for the requirements to apply to local authorities with tenant management organisations in relation to information held by such bodies? Please provide details.
There were 116 responses to this question.
| Option | Total | Percent |
|---|---|---|
| Yes | 99 | 76.15% |
| No | 8 | 6.15% |
| Not answered | 23 | 17.69% |
Summary of consultation responses to questions 6 and 7
Nearly three quarters of respondents (73%) agreed with the requirements regarding who can make information requests through STAIRs.
Of those who disagreed, several respondents (18%) challenged the requirements enabling tenants to designate a representative to make information requests on their behalf. Many of these respondents were concerned that this would open the scheme to third parties, such as the media or lawyers seeking to profit from compensation claims, or those seeking to take advantage of vulnerable tenants. Some of these respondents also thought this requirement would raise costs for landlords by diverting time away from responding to tenant requests. Some of these respondents suggested narrowing this requirement by specifying a list of suitable representatives that tenants must choose from, such as family members, carers, and social workers.
In contrast, a small number of respondents thought the requirements limiting information requests to tenants and their designated representatives only were too narrow and were concerned that this would restrict journalists and civil society from holding landlords to account.
Some respondents (20%) thought the requirements for who can make valid information requests need to be more clearly defined. For example, some of these respondents thought there was a lack of clarity about whether former or prospective tenants and shared owners and leaseholders are in scope of the scheme. Others questioned whether the requirements would allow tenants to nominate multiple representatives at any given time or sought further clarity on whether a tenant’s nominated representative remains in place only for the duration of the individual request, or whether they can make further requests until the tenant indicates otherwise. Some respondents also queried whether all legal residents of the home can make information requests, including adult children who may contribute to the rent.
Some respondents noted the importance of ensuring the scheme is accessible to all tenants, with a very small number of these respondents (3%) criticising the requirement that requests need to be made in writing to be valid. Some respondents queried whether tenants and their representatives will be able to submit their written requests via email or text message.
Tenant management organisations
Over three quarters of respondents (76%) thought that all the requirements of the STAIRs scheme should be applied to local authorities with TMOs in relation to information held by their TMO. Of these, 20% cited the need for greater equity in access to information between social housing tenants living in homes managed by TMOs and all other social housing tenants. A small number of respondents thought expanding the requirements in this way would result in greater transparency across the sector.
In contrast, a number of respondents disagreed with extending STAIRs to local authorities in this way because it would cause confusion for social housing tenants and landlords, possibly leading to duplicate requests being made to local authorities under both STAIRs and FOI. A few respondents questioned how the requirements would be enforced for local authorities and noted the increased resource burden for local authorities, who are already required to follow the information requirements set out in FOI.
A few respondents disagreed with the proposal to extend STAIRs to local authorities in relation to information held by their TMOs based on an understanding that tenants of TMOs can access information through FOI. Others thought extending STAIRs in this way would have adverse impacts on tenants’ ability to exercise their rights under FOI and the Environmental Information Regulations (EIR).
Government response
We believe it is essential that tenants can designate representatives to make information requests on their behalf. This will ensure the policy is accessible to all tenants, including vulnerable tenants and those with additional support needs.
We acknowledge that the ability for tenants to designate a representative of their choosing carries a small risk of third parties exploiting this to make requests that go beyond the interest of the individual tenant. However, removing or limiting this requirement would have an adverse impact on tenants’ ability to access information and reduce transparency between tenants and their landlords more widely.
It is important that tenants have the power to choose a representative as they see fit. Unlike FOI, the scheme is already restricted, and we believe this strikes an appropriate balance between limiting the burden placed on landlords whilst achieving the policy aims of increasing transparency and ensuring tenants can access the information they need about their homes.
The policy statement does not include prescriptive requirements for how many information requests a tenant’s designated representative can make or how many representatives a tenant can have at any given time. Landlords should prioritise openness and transparency when interpreting the requirements enabling tenants to nominate designated representatives to make information requests on their behalf.
The policy statement is clear that only social housing tenants of the PRP and their designated representatives can make valid information requests. It is not possible to broaden eligibility of the scheme to enable former or prospective tenants to request information as the power to set the regulatory standard, which is the vehicle for making the policy statement a requirement for providers, is limited to current tenants.
However, whilst former and prospective tenants are not eligible to make an information request through the scheme, they will be able to access information made available as part of the publication scheme. We believe this will sufficiently enable former and prospective tenants to access much of the information they need about the housing management activities undertaken by the landlord. Where former tenants request information from a landlord, the landlord can consider what it is appropriate to share.
The scheme applies to shared ownership schemes where the shared owner owns less than 100% of the property equity. Leaseholders who are not shared owners cannot make information requests through the scheme.
With regards to accessibility, tenants will not need to mention STAIRs or the specific requirements for their information request to be valid. This means that tenants can make requests for information in much the same way they would have done previously, providing they submit their request in writing.
Additionally, landlords should consider their obligations under the Equality Act 2010, including the provision to make reasonable adjustments where appropriate. This might mean it is appropriate for landlords to support their tenants to make a valid request where tenants require additional support.
We expect landlords to accept written requests made by email and text message.
Tenant Management Organisations
We agree with several respondents who emphasised the importance of parity in access to information for all tenants of social housing regardless of who their home is managed by. We recognise that, at present, some tenants of TMOs may not be able to access information from their TMO under the FOI Act.
However, as STAIRs has been designed to meet the specific needs of PRPs and their tenants, we do not think it would be appropriate for the requirements set out in STAIRs to apply to local authorities in relation to the information held by their contracted TMOs.
The reasons for this reflect many of the concerns raised by respondents, including that extending STAIRs in this way will lead to confusion across the sector about which information requirements apply and will result in difficulties enforcing the requirements.
The requirements of the STAIRs scheme will not apply to local authorities with TMOs. Instead, we have committed to extending the FOI Act to apply directly to TMOs with local authority landlords. This will enable tenants of TMOs to request access to the information they need about their homes in the same way as other local authority tenants.
We are taking steps to ensure all social tenants have a route to access information about the management of their homes.
Processing requests
Question 8: Do you agree with the information provision requirements outlined in paragraphs 55 to 60? If not, why not?
There were 124 responses to this question.
| Option | Total | Percent |
|---|---|---|
| Yes | 108 | 83.08% |
| No | 11 | 8.46% |
| Not answered | 11 | 8.46% |
Question 9: Paragraph 57 relates specifically to information held on behalf of the landlord by another body or person. Do you agree with the requirements relating to information held on behalf of the landlord? If not, why not?
There were 128 responses to this question.
| Option | Total | Percent |
|---|---|---|
| Yes | 105 | 80.77% |
| No | 14 | 10.77% |
| Not answered | 11 | 8.46% |
Summary of consultation responses to questions 8 and 9
The majority of respondents (83%) agreed with the requirements for landlords processing requests.
Despite wide agreement, some respondents indicated that several of the requirements need further clarification. This included a suggestion that the requirement for landlords to fulfil requests for relevant information unless it is reasonable to withhold information from disclosure (paragraph 55) should be expanded to include the other grounds for refusal set out in paragraph 61.
Several respondents questioned whether landlords would be expected to create new records to comply with information requests in special circumstances.
A respondent thought the definition of harm needed to be more clearly defined on the basis that landlords could interpret this definition as including situations where sharing the information could result in negative publicity for the landlord.
Some respondents questioned whether landlords would be required to respond to information requests where the information is due to be published soon.
Some respondents thought it would be useful for tenant-focused guidance to be published to support tenants in understanding the responsibilities of their landlords and to manage expectations where appropriate.
Most respondents (80%) agreed that landlords should be required to use all reasonable endeavours to obtain information held by another body or person responsible for the management of the landlord’s social housing on their behalf.
Despite significant agreement with the proposal, many respondents who were also landlords of social housing questioned the actions they would be expected to take to prove they had used all reasonable endeavours to obtain information from third party contractors managing social housing on behalf of the landlord.
Some of these respondents suggested landlords would need further guidance to support their understanding of their responsibilities, such as further clarification on how the Ombudsman will interpret what is reasonable when considering complaints. Some respondents suggested that there could be a lack of consistency in how providers seek to meet the requirement.
Some respondents questioned whether providers would be expected to renegotiate their existing contracts with third parties to include specific information sharing agreements.
Several respondents thought there should be a sufficient implementation period before STAIRs is introduced to ensure landlords have adequate time to consider how best to meet the requirements and implement the required approach.
Some landlords raised concerns that obtaining information from third parties could hinder their ability to respond to information requests within the required 30-calendar day timeframe, particularly if the information is held by multiple contractors.
Finally, some landlords were concerned about the financial implications of this requirement.
Government response
In response to the feedback received, we have amended the policy statement to provide further clarity on our expectations for the information provision requirements set out in paragraphs 55 to 60. These changes signal our intention that landlords must fulfil requests for relevant information unless it is reasonable to withhold the information from disclosure or the other grounds for refusal are met.
In addition, we have amended the policy statement to make clear that we do not expect landlords to create new records to fulfil information requests in any circumstances to comply with the STAIRs scheme. However, landlords should try to provide information to their tenants in an accessible format.
With regards to whether landlords are required to fulfil requests for information scheduled to be published, landlords should have regard to the exemptions in the FOI Act in deciding whether it is reasonable to withhold information, including with respect to information intended for future publication.
We have amended the policy statement to clarify that it is not reasonable for landlords to refuse an information request on the basis that it could result in reputational risk or negative public interest.
With regards to suggestions for tenant-focused guidance, we will work with the sector and tenant representative bodies to support tenants in understanding the responsibilities of landlords under STAIRs. Landlords should also support their tenants in understanding the scheme. The Regulator’s Transparency, Influence and Accountability standard already requires landlords to ensure that ‘communication with and information for tenants is clear, accessible, relevant, timely and appropriate to the diverse needs of tenants’ and to ‘provide information so tenants can use landlord services, understand what to expect from their landlord, and hold their landlord to account’.
With regards to information held by a body or person responsible for the management of the landlord’s social housing on behalf of the landlord, we recognise third parties often play a key role in the social housing sector. Consequently, we believe it is important to require landlords to do as much as they reasonably can to ensure that tenants can access relevant information held by these bodies.
Where a tenant chooses to escalate a complaint on the basis that their landlord has failed to share information held by a third party, the Ombudsman will review each case on its own merits to determine whether the landlord has made reasonable endeavours to obtain the information. In determining what endeavours they should take to meet the requirements to obtain information from third parties, landlords should ensure they apply these requirements in a way that supports a culture of openness and transparency.
The Ombudsman may also publish good practice guidance in the future, reflecting examples of how landlords have previously met these requirements.
STAIRs will not require landlords to renegotiate existing contracts with third parties to include information sharing agreements, but landlords should consider the appropriate steps they need to take to ensure they can meet the requirements and take a proportionate approach. Providers should ensure they can provide evidence of the endeavours they undertook to obtain information from third parties.
The STAIRs policy statement is clear that landlords are permitted to exceed the 30-calendar-day response time limit only in exceptional circumstances, including where additional time is needed to arrange access to relevant information held by a third body responsible for the management of the landlord’s social housing on the landlord’s behalf.
With regards to additional time for landlords to implement the policy to prepare for this requirement, we recognise that providers will need time to prepare to meet all the STAIRs requirements. To support providers, we will phase implementation of STAIRs, introducing the publication scheme requirements in October 2026 and the individual information request requirements in April 2027.
This is a proportionate approach which will give providers sufficient time to prepare to meet the requirements, including the requirement to obtain information from other persons or bodies, whilst also ensuring tenants get access to much of the information they need via the publication scheme.
Refusing information requests
Questions 10: Do you agree with the requirements relating to where providers can refuse to disclose information? If not, why not?
There were 128 responses to this question.
| Option | Total | Percent |
|---|---|---|
| Yes | 92 | 70.77% |
| No | 31 | 23.85% |
| Not answered | 7 | 5.38% |
Question 11: Do you agree with the staff time limit (18 hours) for responding to requests, as outlined in paragraph 63? If applicable, please make reference to any costs or other burdens relating to the time limit?
There were 129 responses to this question.
| Option | Total | Percent |
|---|---|---|
| Yes | 63 | 48.46% |
| No | 56 | 43.08% |
| Not answered | 11 | 8.46% |
Summary of consultation responses to questions 10 and 11
The majority of respondents (70%) agreed with the requirements relating to circumstances where landlords can refuse to disclose information.
However, several suggestions or challenges were raised relating to these requirements. 21% of respondents to this question queried whether there is sufficient detail on where landlords can refuse to disclose information. This included concerns around the requirement for landlords to have regard to other provisions, such as the FOI Act, and consider what is reasonable in making decisions not to disclose. A number of these respondents suggested that further clarity or guidance is required to support landlords in understanding these obligations.
Some respondents provided examples of specific exemptions they believe should be included in the policy statement. These included exemptions relating to commercially sensitive information, or where the information is already accessible to the tenant through other means.
Some respondents queried whether there is conflict between landlords being able to refuse information requests on the grounds that the request is not clear, and the requirement to support tenants in making a clear and valid request.
A small number of respondents raised concerns that landlords might take advantage of these requirements to withhold information where it should be disclosed. Relatedly, several tenant respondents reiterated the need for landlords to be open and transparent, and stated that there are too many grounds on which landlords can refuse to share information.
Whilst more respondents agreed than disagreed with the 18-hour staff-time limit for responding to requests (48% agreed, 43% disagreed), a significant number of respondents to this question raised concerns about the staff time limit.
Of the respondents who disagreed, the majority were social landlords, nearly 30% of which thought that the 18-hour staff time limit for responding to requests was too long. Some of these respondents referenced the cost and resource impacts of the proposed staff time limit, with some stating they may not be able to meet this requirement through their existing staff structures, possibly requiring them to recruit additional staff. Some of these respondents referred to the impact this might have on landlords being able to deliver other housing management tasks. Some respondents also raised concerns that the 18-hour staff time limit would be too onerous for small landlords to meet.
In contrast, a small number of respondents, including a number of tenants, disagreed with the 18-hour staff time limit on the grounds it is too short. Some respondents were concerned that the time limit would enable landlords to reject valid information requests where they exceed 18-hours of staff time, even if the information might be important to the tenant’s welfare. Additionally, a few respondents raised concerns that some landlords might exploit the time limit to avoid responding to valid information requests.
Some respondents sought further clarity on the 18-hour staff time limit, including on the activities landlords should consider when calculating the time needed to comply with the request. Others questioned what steps they would need to take to evidence how long the information request would take to complete.
A few respondents noted the difficulty of calculating the time it would take to complete a request before they have begun completing it, particularly if the request requires input across multiple teams, and sought further clarification on how they should approach this in practice.
Government response
We believe it is essential that landlords are open and transparent with their tenants. However, we recognise that there are circumstances in which it is appropriate for landlords to withhold information. The policy statement seeks to strike a balance between ensuring landlords do not have to provide information where it would not be reasonable, while enabling tenants to access the information they need in most cases.
We recognise that landlords need clarity on the circumstances in which they can withhold information. The policy statement sets out circumstances where a landlord may withhold information, including where it considers that it is reasonable to do so. In considering the reasonableness of withholding information, landlords should have regard to the protection of certain classes of information in the FOI Act and other relevant statutes.
In addition, the Ombudsman may produce good practice guidance in due course to support landlords in understanding these requirements. We will also work with the sector and with tenant representative bodies to promote good practice and ensure that both landlords and tenants understand the policy.
We have amended the policy statement to introduce a requirement for landlords to have a policy setting out their approach to decisions on withholding information. This policy must be fit for purpose and promote transparency and accountability. This change will ensure that landlords consider developing an appropriate approach to withholding information. It will also enable the Ombudsman to consider whether landlords have suitable policies when considering complaints.
We expect landlords to follow the principles of openness and transparency in determining where it is appropriate to withhold information. The balance of the policy statement is in favour of disclosure, and we expect landlords to share requested information with their tenants unless it is reasonable not to do so. Where tenants are not satisfied with their landlord’s approach, following an internal review process, they can raise this with the Ombudsman who will be able to investigate.
Regarding queries around refusing information requests where it is not clear, while landlords do not have to respond to such requests, they should support the tenant with making a valid request, including through going back to the tenant to seek further clarification.
The time limit for information requests has been set to balance the burden on landlords with the need for tenants to be able to access information in the majority of cases. The tension between some landlord responses stating this time is too long, and some tenant responses stating it is too short, reflects this.
Where respondents raised concerns relating to the time limit being problematic in cases where tenant safety is a factor, we recognise the concerns raised. However, our expectation is that most requests will take significantly less time than 18 hours to respond to, including those relating to safety. In cases where tenants have significant, urgent concerns regarding the safety of their homes, they should raise this separately with their landlord and through other channels as appropriate. The government has also committed to introducing Awaab’s Law, ensuring all social housing landlords will be required to take action to address hazards quickly.
Regarding further support for landlords in interpreting the staff time limit requirements and calculating what actions would fall under the time limit, landlords should use their own judgement to determine what is reasonable in the circumstances.
Finally, whilst not a specific requirement of the scheme, strong record keeping and information management practices are essential to the successful delivery of the scheme. We expect providers to ensure they keep good records of information related to the management of tenants’ homes so that they can be as open as possible with their tenants and to be held to account. This is fundamental to building a culture of openness and transparency across the sector.
Responding to information requests
Questions 12: Do you agree with the requirements relating to responding to information requests, including time limits, as outlined in paragraphs 68 to 74? If not, why not?
There were 128 responses to this question.
| Option | Total | Percent |
|---|---|---|
| Yes | 99 | 76.15% |
| No | 25 | 19.23% |
| Not answered | 6 | 4.62% |
Summary of consultation responses to question 12
A significant proportion of respondents (76%) agreed with the requirements relating to responding to information requests, including time limits.
Despite wide agreement to the requirements, many respondents thought some of the requirements need further clarification. A number of respondents sought clarity over how they should interpret reasonable timescales, on what would be considered an exceptional circumstance and how the Ombudsman would interpret whether a reasonable attempt had been made to make information accessible to tenants.
A small number of respondents questioned at what point the 30-day response period for responding to a request should begin. Some respondents also requested further detail on the circumstances where it might be appropriate for landlords to redact information and raised the risk this could be exploited by landlords.
A small number of respondents thought the policy statement should include a requirement for landlords to issue their tenants with an acknowledgement of receipt following an information request.
Of those who generally agreed with the time limits for responding to requests, a small number of respondents thought landlords would need longer than 30 days to respond to complex information requests.
A few respondents noted the difficulty landlords could face in meeting the time limit when obtaining information held by third-party contractors.
In contrast to those who agreed with the requirements, around 15% of respondents thought the proposed time limit for responding to information requests was not long enough. 10% of these respondents, most of whom were social landlords, thought meeting the time limit set out in the policy statement would divert time and resource away from the delivery of other critical housing management activities.
Around 10% of respondents thought that, whilst the timescales set out in the STAIRs policy statement would be achievable in the long-term, landlords would struggle to respond to requests within 30 calendar days in the short-term. Others noted the cumulative impact of responding to multiple information requests at once, particularly if a number of these requests took a significant amount of time and were close to the 18-hour staff time limit.
Nearly 30% of respondents noted comparisons between the STAIRs requirements for processing information requests and existing requirements set out in FOI and the Subject Access Requirements (SARs).
Some of these respondents welcomed the similarity between the STAIRs requirements and existing information sharing requirements, such as FOI and SARs. Other respondents thought the timescales for responding to STAIRs requests should be closer aligned to FOI timescales by setting time limits in working days instead of calendar days. These respondents thought this change would ensure greater consistency with other information sharing requirements used across the sector.
Government response
Registered landlords should ensure that they are doing everything possible to respond to information requests promptly and in line with the requirements in the policy statement.
The requirements for responding to information requests give providers some flexibility to consider what is appropriate in the circumstances. We understand that some landlords have requested further guidance to support their understanding of how some of the requirements will be interpreted by the Ombudsman, such as the provision for additional time to respond to requests in exceptional circumstances.
The Ombudsman will determine each case on its own merits, assessing whether landlords have applied the requirements in a way that reflects the principles of the scheme and prioritises transparency. The Ombudsman may publish good practice guidance in the future to share examples of how some landlords have met some of the requirements.
In response to feedback received, we have amended the policy statement to include a requirement for landlords to acknowledge receipt of all information requests they receive from their tenants. Both landlords and tenants should note that the 30-calendar day time limit for responding to requests begins from receipt of the request, not once the landlord has acknowledged receipt.
The STAIRs policy statement is clear that landlords are permitted to exceed the 30-calendar-day response time limit only in exceptional circumstances, including where additional time is needed to arrange access to relevant information held by another body responsible for the management of the landlord’s social housing on their behalf.
Any work undertaken by the landlord to share information in an accessible format should be undertaken within the 30-calendar-day response period. Landlord will not be expected to exceed the 18-hour staff time limit under STAIRs to do this, however they should consider the most effective way to share information with tenants in accessible formats.
Whilst we recognise the challenges landlords may face in meeting some of the requirements, including the time limits for responding to requests, we believe it is important that tenants have access to the information they need about the management of their homes in a timely manner. Landlords should proactively publish information in line with the requirements for the social housing publication scheme to reduce the burden of information requests.
We will work with the sector and landlord representative groups to help prepare landlords to meet the requirements. To support landlords’ transition in meeting the STAIRs requirements, we will introduce the proactive publication scheme element of STAIRs before the requirements for landlords to respond to individual requests.
This will give landlords sufficient time to prepare for the information requests element of the policy, whilst ensuring landlords proactively publish much of the information tenants need as early as possible. Landlords should take the necessary steps to prepare for the requirements ahead of their implementation.
Complaints
Question 13: Do you have any comments regarding the process for dealing with complaints?
There were 99 responses to this question.
Summary of consultation responses to question 13
76% of respondents chose to share written feedback on the process for dealing with complaints. 40% of those who provided additional comments generally agreed with the process for dealing with complaints.
A proportion of respondents who provided additional comments did not agree that the Ombudsman should act as the primary dispute resolution service for STAIRs complaints. Some respondents (12%) raised concerns about the Ombudsman’s lack of technical knowledge and expertise in this area and its capacity to manage a significant increase in the volume of complaints.
Nearly 15% of respondents expressed a preference for the ICO to act as the primary complaints body for STAIRs. Many of these respondents referenced the ICO’s experience in dealing with information related disputes. Some respondents thought that establishing a route of redress through the ICO would bring consistency between STAIRs and other information-sharing requirements which PRPs are already required to meet, such as SARs.
A respondent noted that neither landlords nor tenants have a right of appeal through the first-tier tribunal for decisions made by the Ombudsman, unlike decisions made by the ICO.
Of those who agreed that tenants should be able to take their complaints to the Ombudsman, some thought it was important that the Ombudsman and the ICO work closely to share information and best practices.
One respondent requested the government explain the working relationship between landlords, the Ombudsman, the ICO and the various appeals processes.
20 respondents acknowledged differences between the proposed STAIRs complaints process and the existing Housing Ombudsman Complaints Handling Code. Whilst some agreed with this approach, many of these respondents thought that STAIRs complaints should be dealt with in accordance with the code as this would allow for a consistent approach to be applied to all complaints across the sector, increasing tenant and landlords understanding of how complaints should be approached.
This included the timescales for STAIRs complaints mirroring the existing timescales for other types of complaints made under the complaints handling code.
Some respondents thought the timescales for STAIRs complaints should also mirror the existing timescales for other types of complaints made under the complaints handling code, for example referencing working rather than calendar days, to increase clarity and consistency across the sector.
Several respondents thought the process for dealing with complaints needed to be more clearly defined, including specifying a time limit for responding to complaints and providing more information on the penalties that housing associations may face if complaints are upheld.
A small number of respondents thought the expectations for the review process should be clarified further, including identifying circumstances for where additional time for a review is required and who should conduct the review.
A small number of respondents disagreed with the proposal for the Ombudsman to increase their fees to deliver STAIRs.
Government response
As the independent complaints resolution service for social tenants and landlords, the government is confident that the Ombudsman is well placed to determine complaints made under STAIRs. The Ombudsman is already accessible and familiar to tenants, ensuring ease-of-use and consistency with other social housing-related disputes. The Ombudsman acting as the dispute resolution service for STAIRs will ensure that there continues to be a single point of contact for social tenants wishing to escalate complaints.
In addition, the Ombudsman has a strong understanding of the social tenant-landlord relationship, and an established relationship with the Regulator. The Ombudsman will continue to build its resources to ensure it has the capacity to handle any increase in complaints and ensure it has the capability to handle information-related disputes.
Whilst decisions made by the Housing Ombudsman cannot be appealed to a tribunal, there are some situations where landlords and tenants can seek a review of a decision made by the Ombudsman.
In addition, landlords and tenants can challenge a decision made by the Ombudsman after it has been reviewed through judicial review. The Ombudsman will provide details on how to request a review of a decision on a STAIRs complaint.
Whilst we acknowledge the concerns of some respondents regarding the differences between the process for complaints made about STAIRs and other disputes handled under the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code, we believe it is necessary to distinguish between the two different types of complaints.
Disputes handled through the existing Housing Ombudsman Scheme and complaint handling code relate to the service delivery of landlords and in these events the Ombudsman primarily seeks to determine whether the tenant making the complaint has suffered some detriment as a result.
As complaints made about STAIRs are not service-related, the detriment cannot be assessed by the Ombudsman in the same way. Instead, the Ombudsman will consider to what extent the landlord followed the correct processes for fulfilling requests for information, regardless of any adverse impact to the tenant. This will include considering whether the landlord has failed to fulfil an information request where no exemptions apply.
The Ombudsman may choose to consider whether a landlord’s handling of a STAIRs request or internal review has had an adverse impact on their tenant.
The Ombudsman will introduce changes to the Housing Ombudsman Scheme to clarify the differences between how the Ombudsman will assess complaints about STAIRs and other complaints handled under the code.
The Ombudsman will consult on changes to the Housing Ombudsman Scheme before STAIRs is introduced.
We have amended the STAIRs policy statement to clarify that the Ombudsman will consider individual complaints where tenants believe a provider has not published information that they hold, and which falls within the scope of the publication scheme.
This will enable tenants to better hold their landlords to account for meeting this publication scheme requirement and enable Ombudsman to play a role in resolving individual issues where they arise.
The role of the Ombudsman in STAIRs is to resolve disputes between landlords who are members of their scheme and their tenants. When making determinations about compliance with the policy statement, the Ombudsman will apply the requirements in a way that favours disclosure.
Where appropriate, the Ombudsman may report a landlord’s failure to meet the requirements to the Regulator. The Regulator will assess all incoming referrals which may result in responsive engagement to determine whether the landlord has failed to deliver the outcomes of their standards.
We recognise that there are some areas of the STAIRs complaints process that landlords would benefit from more information. The Ombudsman may produce good practice guidance for landlords in due course to support landlords understanding of how they can meet the requirements.
Direction to the Regulator of Social Housing
Question 14: Do you have any comments on the draft direction?
There were 66 responses to this question.
Summary of consultation responses to question 14
Over half of respondents (57%) did not share any comments on the department’s draft direction to the Regulator.
10% of respondents referenced implementation timelines in response to this question. These responses raised concerns over the lack of clarity in the draft direction on when landlords will be expected to meet the requirements. Some landlord respondents requested a reasonable implementation period to ensure they have sufficient time to prepare to meet the requirements.
Several respondents questioned the mechanism for how STAIRs will be introduced into the regulatory system, such as whether the scheme will form part of a new consumer standard or integrated into an existing standard.
Some respondents sought further clarity over how the Regulator will enforce compliance with STAIRs, including what impact any failure to meet the standard might have on consumer, governance and viability gradings.
A small number of respondents requested government publish further guidance to support landlords in understanding the requirements they will need to meet.
Government response
All PRPs will be required to comply with the STAIRs publication scheme from 1 October 2026 and with the information request requirements from 1 April 2027.
We have amended the policy statement to clarify that the proactive publication scheme element of STAIRs will be introduced before the requirements for landlords to respond to individual requests.
We believe this is a proportionate approach which will give landlords sufficient time to prepare for the information request proportion of the requests, whilst ensuring landlords proactively publish much of the information tenants need as early as possible.
STAIRs will be incorporated into the Regulator’s existing regulatory framework. If a landlord fails to meet the requirements of the scheme, the Regulator may choose to consider whether the landlord has failed to meet the outcomes of this standard. The Regulator will consider how far a landlord has delivered the outcomes of all the consumer standards when issuing a consumer grading.
The Regulator will consult on changes to their standards before STAIRs is implemented. The Ombudsman will also consult on changes to the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, including how they will deal with complaints and reviews, before providers are required to meet the requirements.
The Regulator has the power to issue a code of practice which relates to matters addressed in its standards, including STAIRs. This is designed to amplify some of the requirements and provide illustrative examples to help providers understand what the Regulator is looking for when seeking assurance that providers are delivering the outcomes of the standards. The Regulator may choose to update its code of practice to include STAIRs.
Following the passage of the Social Housing (Regulation) Act 2023, the Ombudsman can publish statutory guidance. As noted throughout this document, the Ombudsman may publish good practice guidance to provide examples of how landlords have met the requirements.