Research and analysis

Stakeholder survey results 2026

Published 2 September 2026

Applies to England

Introduction

The Regulator of Social Housing (RSH) has carried out a stakeholder survey with fieldwork completed in May/June 2026.

We have sought the anonymous views of registered providers and other stakeholders on a range of issues.

We will use the results to inform

• our performance monitoring

• continuous development of our operational approach

• our corporate planning

Whilst covering similar topics, the questionnaire used this year differed substantially from those used previously. As a result, comparisons with prior years’ performance have been included only where the questions are considered sufficiently comparable. Even in these cases, minor variations in wording may have influenced responses and could account for some of the observed differences. Therefore, year-on-year comparisons should be interpreted with caution.

The last RSH stakeholder survey was published in 2025.

Key findings

417 stakeholders responded to the survey which is the same as in the previous survey.

As in previous years, registered providers (RPs) account for most responses. Whilst the proportion of respondents who were registered providers was similar to last year, this year there were slightly more private registered providers (PRPs) and slightly fewer local authority providers (LARPs).

Purpose and strategic objectives

• 87% agree that RSH is delivering its purpose.

• 77% agree that the regulatory framework and approach to regulation are consistent with RSH’s objectives on economic regulation and 80% agree that the same are consistent with RSH’s objectives on consumer regulation.

Approach to regulation

• 83% agreed that RSH’s approach is co-regulatory and a similar percentage (82%) that RSH regulates at the landlord level by looking at how well each landlord is delivering the outcomes of the standards overall.

• 77% agreed that RSH regulates based on their view of the level of risk (both likelihood and impact) of a poor outcome.

Your experience

• Overall, 87% of RP respondents were very or somewhat clear about information and/or evidence requested by RSH.

• Around three quarters of both RPs and non-RPs had engaged with RSH over the last 12 months.  The vast majority of these encounters were positive with over 90% in both groups agreeing that RSH staff are professional and respectful when engaging and over 80% that RSH are knowledgeable about the nature and complexity of the sector and have the range of skills and experience needed to regulate.

• 74% agreed that RSH takes appropriate action in line with our powers and remit when landlords do not meet the standards.

RSH communications

• The Code of Practice (87%) and Regulating the Standards (86%) publications were found to be most useful, as in previous years.

• Responses as to which publications are most useful differed by stakeholder group, as would be expected given their different focus.

• All forms of direct communication (letters or emails, meetings, speaking engagements) and the website score highly.

Perceptions by stakeholder group

• Large PRPs (>1,000 units) and LARPs were generally the most positive across the results.

• When looking at PRPs by unit size, large PRPs responded more positively except when asked about RSH staff where small PRPs (<1,000 units) were slightly more positive (90% compared to 87%).

Responses

417 stakeholders completed the survey.  This was the same as in the previous survey.

After data cleaning, 380 (91%) respondents were classed as RPs, including LARPs, compared to 94% in the previous survey.  Whilst the proportion of respondents who were RPs was similar to last year, this year there were slightly more private registered providers (77% compared to 74%) and slightly less local authority providers (14% compared to 20%).

Amongst those who responded ‘Other’ were Housing Cooperatives and Community Benefit Societies many of which were reclassified as private registered providers during data cleansing based on their answers to registered provider only questions.

Which of these stakeholder groups best describes you or your organisation?	Responses	Proportion of responses
Housing association	252	60.4%
Local Authority	58	13.9%
Almshouse provider	42	10.1%
Other (please specify)	33	7.9%
For-profit provider	12	2.9%
Tenant organisation	9	2.2%
ALMO	4	1.0%
Trade or sector body	4	1.0%
Government department or other public body	2	0.5%
Lender, investor or credit rating agency	1	0.2%

Profile of registered provider respondents

Of the RPs that responded, 133 were large PRPs (>1,000 units) and 180 were small PRPs (<1,000 units).  Of the small PRPs, 24 had 500 to 999 units and 156 had <500 units.  There are 8 PRPs who did not provide size information.  These PRPs are excluded from any unit size analysis.  Given the small number of responses affected, this would have had minimal impact on the scores.

59 provider responses were from LARPs.  Of these, 3 were ALMOs.  Whilst LARPs provided size information, their results have not been split large and small as there were only 7 respondents in the small LARP category.

How many homes does your provider own? (LARP and PRP)	Responses
Under 500	163
500 to 999	24
1,000 to 9,999	106
10,000 to 29,000	46
30,000 to 49,000	15
Above 50,000	18

What type of provider is your organisation?	Responses
LARP	59
Large PRP	133
Small PRP	180

Purpose and Strategic Objectives

Question 3. In this section we present a number of statements and ask you to select to what extent you agree or disagree
a. RSH is delivering its purpose
b. The regulatory framework and approach to regulation are consistent with RSH’s objectives on economic regulation?
c. The regulatory framework and approach to regulation are consistent with RSH’s objectives on consumer regulation?
d. RSH informs the development and delivery of effective social housing policy, by working with a range of sector stakeholders?
e. RSH embodies and lives their values (Professionalism, Collaboration, Inclusion, Confidence, Integrity and Agility) through their engagement with stakeholders?
f. RSH embraces equality and diversity and is inclusive in their engagement with stakeholders?

Q3 responses	Strongly agree	Agree	Neither agree nor disagree	Disagree	Strongly disagree
Q3a	27%	60%	9%	4%	1%
Q3b	22%	55%	18%	4%	1%
Q3c	23%	57%	16%	2%	1%
Q3d	21%	51%	22%	6%	0%
Q3e	27%	47%	19%	6%	2%
Q3f	22%	43%	32%	2%	1%
Q3 overall	24%	52%	20%	4%	1%

• Overall, 76% of respondents agree with these statements, with only 5% disagreeing.

• Agreement that ‘The regulatory framework and approach to regulation are consistent with RSH’s objectives on consumer regulation’ increased from 73% last year to 80% this year.

• LARPs responded most positively followed by large PRPs.  Around a quarter of small PRPs and Others responded that they neither agreed nor disagreed.

Purpose and Strategic Objectives - Comments

Question 4
Do you have any comments about RSH’s delivery of its purpose and objectives, or suggestions for improvement?

123 respondents of 417 provided a substantive response to this question.

Key insights:

• Confidence in RSH’s purpose and professionalism is strong.

• Respondents support an outcomes focused regulator that is proportional in its approach.

• Some respondents feel that the regulatory burden is increasing.

• Greater clarity, consistency and practical guidance are suggested.

I feel the RSH are working well towards their objectives, and the regulatory framework is improving outcomes for residents. (Housing Association, above 50,000)

To support further improvement, additional practical guidance and case studies, clearer visibility of inspection expectations, and continued opportunities for ongoing engagement between inspections would be beneficial. (Local Authority, 1,000 to 9,999)

Approach to Regulation

Question 5. In this section we present a number of statements and ask you to select to what extent you agree or disagree
a. RSH regulates at the landlord level by looking at how well each landlord is delivering the outcomes of the standards overall?
b. RSH’s approach is co-regulatory with boards and councillors remaining responsible for their organisation?
c. RSH regulates based on their view of the level of risk (both likelihood and impact) of a poor outcome?
d. RSH’s approach is assurance based with landlords responsible for showing, with evidence, they are meeting the outcomes of the standards?

• Overall, 82% of respondents agreed with these statements, 13% were neutral and 6% disagreed.

• LARPs responded most positively followed by large PRPs. 

• Strongest agreement was with the statement that ‘RSH’s approach is assurance based’.

Question 5 responses

Q5 responses	Strongly agree	Agree	Neither agree nor disagree	Disagree	Strongly disagree
Q5a	28%	54%	12%	5%	1%
Q5b	33%	50%	13%	2%	3%
Q5c	29%	48%	17%	4%	2%
Q5d	34%	52%	9%	3%	1%
Q5 overall	31%	51%	13%	4%	2%

Q5 overall	Strongly agree	Agree	Neither agree nor disagree	Disagree	Strongly disagree
Other	18%	57%	24%	1%	1%
LARP	47%	46%	6%	1%
Large PRP	38%	47%	7%	5%	3%
Small PRP	25%	54%	15%	4%	2%

Approach to Regulation - Comments

Question 6
Do you have any comments about RSH’s delivery of its regulatory principles, or suggestions for improvement?

84 respondents of 417 provided a substantive response to this question.

Key insights:

• Support for proportional and outcomes focused regulation.

• RSH delivery is occasionally felt to be process-heavy and sometimes lack a clear outcomes focus.

• Some respondents would like the regulator to go further in terms of guidance or examples.

The RSH’s regulatory approach is generally clear, proportionate, and aligned with the principles of co-regulation and risk-based assurance.” (Housing Association, 500-999)

Regulatory requirements for smaller providers/almshouses are increasingly challenging given their limited staffing resources.” (Almshouse provider, < 500)

Your Experience

Your Experience (RPs only)

Question 7
(For RPs only) When RSH requests information and/or evidence from you, how clear do you find the request?

• Overall, 87% of respondents were very or somewhat clear about information and/or evidence requested by RSH.  This is similar to last year’s figure of 86%.

• There has been a shift from ‘somewhat clear’ to ‘very clear’ of around 10 percentage points since the last survey.

• Just 1% (four) of respondents felt requests were ‘not clear at all’.

• Large PRPs were the most likely to find requests clear (94%) followed by LARPs (90%).

• Similar to the previous survey, small PRPs felt requests were least clear with 11% responding that they were ‘not very’ or ‘not at all clear’

Question 7 responses	Responses
Very clear	53%
Somewhat clear	34%
Neither clear or unclear	6%
Not very clear	6%
Not at all clear	1%

Q7 by stakeholder group	LARP	Large PRP	Small PRP
Very clear	63%	63%	45%
Somewhat clear	27%	31%	36%
Neither clear or unclear	8%	2%	8%
Not very clear	2%	2%	10%
Not at all clear	0%	2%	1%

Your Experience (RPs)

Question 8
Have you or your organisation directly engaged with RSH staff in the past year, for example during an inspection, annual engagement meeting, event or meeting, by email or phone?

Question 9. To what extent do you agree or disagree from your experience that:
a. RSH staff are professional and respectful when engaging with you or your organisation?
b. RSH staff are knowledgeable about the nature and complexity of the sector and have the range of skills and experience needed to regulate the standards?

• 75% of RP respondents had engaged with RSH over the past year

• Overall, 89% of respondents agreed with these statements, 7% responded neither agree nor disagree and 4% disagreed.  In the last survey 80% agreed, although there was a slight difference in question asked.

• Respondents were most in agreement that RSH staff are professional and respectful when engaging (94%) and this was the same across all RP stakeholder groups.

Question 9 responses (RPs only)

Q9 responses (RPs only)	Strongly agree	Agree	Neither agree nor disagree	Disagree	Strongly disagree
Q9a	64%	30%	4%	1%	1%
Q9b	48%	36%	11%	3%	2%
Q9 overall	56%	33%	7%	2%	2%

Q9 by stakeholder group (RPs only)

Q9 by stakeholder group (RPs only)	Q9a (Strongly agree/agree)	Q9b (Strongly agree/agree)
LARP	94%	92%
Large PRP	94%	80%
Small PRP	95%	86%

Your Experience (non RPs)

Question 8
Have you or your organisation directly engaged with RSH staff in the past year, for example during an inspection, annual engagement meeting, event or meeting, by email or phone?

Question 9. To what extent do you agree or disagree from your experience that:
a. RSH staff are professional and respectful when engaging with you or your organisation?
b. RSH staff are knowledgeable about the nature and complexity of the sector and have the range of skills and experience needed to regulate the standards?

• The results for non-RP respondents were very similar to those for RP respondents.

• 73% of non-RP respondents had engaged with RSH over the past year

• Overall, 89% of respondents agreed with these statements, with the other 11% neither agreeing nor disagreeing

• As with RP respondents, non-RP respondents were most in agreement that staff are professional and respectful when engaging (93%).

Question 9 responses (non-RPs)

Q9 responses (non RPs)	Strongly agree	Agree	Neither agree nor disagree	Disagree	Strongly disagree
Q9a	56%	37%	7%	0%	0%
Q9b	41%	44%	15%	0%	0%
Q9 overall	48%	41%	11%	0%	0%

Your Experience (All)

Question 10. In this section we present a number of statements and ask you to select to what extent you agree or disagree
a. Where possible, RSH acts to ensure investor confidence in the sector is maintained?
b. Where possible, RSH acts to ensure access to finance (for private registered providers) on competitive terms?
c. RSH takes appropriate action in line with our powers and remit when landlords do not meet the standards?

• Responses to this set of questions are characterised by high proportions of neither agree nor disagree responses.

• Overall, 65% of respondents agreed with these statements with 31% responding neither agree nor disagree.

• 74% of all respondents agreed that RSH takes appropriate action in line with our powers and remit when landlords do not meet the standards.

Question 10 responses (all)

Q10 responses (All)	Strongly agree	Agree	Neither agree nor disagree	Disagree	Strongly disagree
Q10a	27%	45%	26%	2%	1%
Q10b	16%	34%	46%	4%	1%
Q10c	24%	50%	20%	4%	1%
Q10 overall	22%	43%	31%	3%	1%

Your Experience (Large PRPs)

Question 10. In this section we present a number of statements and ask you to select to what extent you agree or disagree
a. Where possible, RSH acts to ensure investor confidence in the sector is maintained?
b. Where possible, RSH acts to ensure access to finance (for private registered providers) on competitive terms?
c. RSH takes appropriate action in line with our powers and remit when landlords do not meet the standards?

Question 10 responses (Large RPs)

• This question, and the first two statements in particular, are of most relevance to large PRPs.

• Overall, 82% of large PRP respondents agreed with these statements.

• Strongest agreement (90%) was with the statement that RSH acts to ensure investor confidence in the sector is maintained.

Q10 responses (Large RPs)	Strongly agree	Agree	Neither agree nor disagree	Disagree	Strongly disagree
Q10a	39%	51%	7%	2%	1%
Q10b	27%	45%	23%	3%	2%
Q10c	28%	55%	11%	6%	1%
Q10 overall	32%	50%	14%	4%	1%

Your Experience - Comments

Question 11
Do you have any comments about your experiences of engaging with RSH, or suggestions for improvement?

107 respondents of 417 provided a substantive response to this question.

Key insights:

• Engagement with RSH is generally viewed positively.

• Experiences sometimes vary depending on individual staff members or teams.

• Some smaller and specialist providers feel that the regulatory framework is not sufficiently tailored to them.

• Some respondents suggest greater transparency around judgements so that stakeholders understand how to improve.

My experience of interactions with the RSH is always positive. I’m always astonished at the level of understanding they have of my organisation and their approach is always with best intentions for the sector and its customers. (Housing Association, 30,000 to 49,000)

Where things go wrong, is there enough transparency on why and lessons learned for sector to benefit from? (Housing Association, 1,000 to 9,999)

RSH Communications

Question 12
Broadly speaking, how useful do you find the publications RSH publishes on its website?

• Over 80% find RSH publications useful with only one ‘other’ respondent finding them ‘not useful at all’.

• Large PRPs found them the most useful (93%) followed by LARPs (89%).

• Across all stakeholder groups, less than one in ten found the publications not useful.

Question 12 by stakeholder group

Q12 by stakeholder group	All	Other	LARP	Large PRP	Small PRP
Very useful	41%	43%	47%	54%	30%
Somewhat useful	40%	35%	42%	39%	42%
Neutral	15%	14%	10%	5%	23%
Not very useful	4%	5%	1%	2%	5%
Not at all useful	0%	3%	0%	0%	0%

Question 13
Please indicate how useful you find the specific publications listed below.

• Overall, 77% of respondents found these publications useful.  This is in line with the last survey (76%).

• The Code of Practice (87%) and Regulating the Standards (86%) publications were found to be most useful as in previous years.  The Sector Risk Profile and TSM publications also scored highly (85% and 84% respectively)

Publication	Very useful	Somewhat useful	Neutral	Not very useful	Not at all useful
Annual Report and Accounts	26%	40%	29%	4%	2%
Code of Practice*	47%	40%	11%	2%	1%
Fire remediation survey	23%	46%	25%	4%	2%
Focus reports	39%	43%	15%	2%	1%
Global accounts of PRPs	32%	33%	29%	4%	2%
Quarterly survey of PRPs	26%	39%	30%	4%	2%
Regulating the Standards	50%	36%	10%	2%	2%
Regulatory Casework Review	37%	44%	14%	4%	1%
Sector Risk Profile	56%	29%	12%	2%	1%
Social housing stock and rents	31%	46%	18%	3%	1%
Tenant Satisfaction Measures (TSMs)	50%	34%	11%	3%	2%
Value for money reports	32%	43%	20%	3%	1%

Responses differed by stakeholder group, as would be expected given their different focus

• The Code of Practice (81%) and Regulating the Standards (80%) are most useful for small PRPs.

• 99% of large PRPs found the Sector Risk Profile useful, with 96% finding the Global Accounts, Regulating the Standards and Regulatory Casework Review useful.

• 96% of LARPs found the Tenant Satisfaction Measures useful, with 95% finding the Code of Practice and Regulating the Standards useful.

• Other stakeholders found the Social housing stock and rents and Sector Risk Profile most useful (both 84%) followed by the TSM and Code of Practice (both 82%)

Very or somewhat useful	Small PRP	Large PRP	LARP	Other
Annual Report and Accounts	55%	80%	64%	72%
Code of Practice*	81%	93%	95%	82%
Fire remediation survey	60%	75%	82%	71%
Focus reports	75%	89%	93%	72%
Global accounts of PRPs	49%	96%	41%	57%
Quarterly survey of PRPs	46%	89%	62%	62%
Regulating the Standards	80%	96%	95%	71%
Regulatory Casework Review	68%	96%	92%	77%
Sector Risk Profile	74%	99%	92%	84%
Social housing stock and rents	67%	89%	86%	84%
Tenant Satisfaction Measures (TSMs)	75%	92%	96%	82%
Value for money reports	64%	91%	80%	72%

(*Please note: RSH publishes Codes of Practice alongside the Standards to amplify them, not as standalone documents.)

Question 14
How helpful do you find the communication channels listed below when looking for updates and information about RSH standards, publications and news?

• Direct forms of communication (letter or email, meetings and speaking engagements/conferences) are felt to be more helpful than indirect communications, although the website and website alerts also scored well.

• Findings are broadly in line with the previous survey.

Communication	Very helpful	Somewhat helpful	Neutral	Not very helpful	Not at all helpful
Direct meetings	59%	20%	17%	2%	1%
Letter or email	54%	33%	10%	2%	0%
LinkedIn	13%	34%	37%	12%	4%
Speaking engagements at conferences	33%	40%	24%	3%	1%
Trade press articles or columns	21%	46%	29%	5%	0%
Website	38%	42%	17%	2%	1%
Website alerts	34%	37%	27%	1%	1%
X (formerly Twitter)	2%	12%	50%	18%	18%

RSH Communications - Comments

Question 15
How could RSH improve their engagement with the sector, including providers, through the above listed publications and communication channels?

72 respondents of 417 provided a substantive response to this question.

Most responses were positive or constructive. Comments related to website usability, continued use of X (formerly Twitter) and volume of communications.

Specific improvements suggested by respondents included:

• More practical, concise, direct and targeted communications.

• Clearer explanations of regulatory expectations and sharing of good practice.

In-person engagement remains the most valuable, as it enables open discussion, builds trust and allows for a deeper understanding of context and challenges. (Tenant organisation, above 50,000)

I think the RSH engagement with the sector is good and value the publications. (Housing Association, above 50,000)