Decision

Thanet District Council (29UN) - Regulatory Judgement: 30 September 2026

Published 30 September 2026

Applies to England

Our Judgement

	Grade/Judgement	Change	Date of assessment
Consumer	C3 Our judgement is that there are serious failings in the landlord delivering the outcomes of the consumer standards and significant improvement is needed.	First grading	September 2026

Reason for publication

We are publishing a regulatory judgement for Thanet District Council (Thanet DC) following an inspection completed in September 2026.

This regulatory judgement confirms a consumer grade of C3. This is the first time we have issued a consumer grade in relation to this landlord.

Summary of the decision

From the evidence and assurance gained during the inspection, our judgement is that there are serious failings in Thanet DC delivering the outcomes of the consumer standards and significant improvements are needed, specifically in relation to the outcomes of the Safety and Quality Standard relating to the quality and decency of homes, and some of the required outcomes of the Neighbourhood and Community Standard. We found that Thanet DC is meeting the repairs, and health and safety, elements of the Safety and Quality Standard; the Tenancy Standard; and the Transparency, Influence and Accountability Standard; with some weaknesses to be addressed. Based on this assessment, we have concluded a C3 grade for Thanet DC.

How we reached our judgement

We carried out an inspection of Thanet DC to assess how well it is delivering the outcomes of the consumer standards as part of our planned regulatory inspection programme. During the inspection, we considered all four of the consumer standards: the Neighbourhood and Community Standard, the Safety and Quality Standard, the Tenancy Standard, and the Transparency, Influence and Accountability Standard.

During the inspection we observed a Cabinet and a Housing Cabinet Advisory Group meeting, meetings of the Tenant and Leaseholder Group, Tenant and Leaseholder Performance Sub-Group and High Rise Living Group. We met with tenants, officers, the Leader of Thanet DC and the portfolio holder for housing. We also reviewed a wide range of documents provided by Thanet DC.

Our regulatory judgement is based on a review of all the relevant information we obtained during the inspection as well as analysis of information supplied by Thanet DC in its regulatory returns and other regulatory engagement activity.

Summary of findings  

Consumer – C3 – September 2026

The Safety and Quality Standard requires landlords to have an accurate record, at an individual property level, of the condition of its homes based on a physical assessment of all homes and ensure that homes meet the requirements of the Decent Homes Standard. We have found serious failings in how Thanet DC is delivering these outcomes. While Thanet DC reports that it has surveyed a large proportion of its homes within the last five years, it cannot demonstrate that the information collected through its surveys is sufficient to assess that its homes meet all four elements of the Decent Homes Standard. These include homes being free from Category 1 hazards (hazards which are a serious and immediate risk to a person’s health and safety), homes being in a reasonable state of repair, having reasonably modern facilities and services, and providing a reasonable degree of thermal comfort. The Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) is the prescribed method for assessing such hazards and surveys of the condition of homes must incorporate an HHSRS assessment. Thanet DC reported that prior to October 2025, its surveys did not assess for such hazards. Since October 2025, the survey form has been amended, and an assessment of hazards is now being carried out. Thanet DC was able to demonstrate that hazards were managed as emergency or urgent repairs, although it was unable to evidence its overall oversight of identified hazards. Thanet DC has committed to completing full surveys of the condition of homes, including an assessment of HHSRS, for all of its homes by the end of March 2027.

Thanet DC provided limited evidence of how information about the condition of its homes is being used effectively to inform investment decisions. As a result, it cannot demonstrate that investment resources are always being prioritised to address the most significant risks to tenants or maintain homes to the required standard. Thanet DC has committed to developing its approach to demonstrating how it is using this information to inform investment decisions.

Thanet DC reports that 86% of its homes are decent. However, as a result of the gaps in the completion of surveys, we do not have assurance that the reported decency figure is accurate, or that Thanet DC has an accurate understanding of the investment needed in its homes to meet the requirements of the Decent Homes Standard.

The Safety and Quality Standard requires landlords to identify and meet all legal requirements that relate to the health and safety of tenants in their homes and communal areas and ensure that all actions arising from required health and safety assessments are conducted within appropriate timescales. Through our inspection, we found that Thanet DC is broadly meeting these requirements, and overall health and safety performance is reasonable. However, we found weaknesses in Thanet DC’s monitoring and oversight of remedial actions that arise from health and safety checks, including those relating to replacement fire doors, and a lack of assurance that the information it holds on the necessary remedial actions is accurate and up to date.

The Safety and Quality Standard also requires Thanet DC to provide an effective, efficient and timely repairs, maintenance and planned improvements service for its tenants. We found that performance outcomes are generally positive, with performance and satisfaction rates above the sector median. There is however a weakness in the extent to which the service is informed by tenants’ individual needs due to weaknesses in the information Thanet DC holds on its tenants’ diverse needs, which are detailed below.

The Neighbourhood and Community Standard requires landlords to provide prompt and appropriate action to deter and tackle anti-social behaviour and hate incidents. We identified serious failings in Thanet DC meeting this outcome as it did not provide evidence of how it was taking timely or appropriate action to deter and tackle anti-social behaviour. It did not provide evidence of how it was able to monitor timescales and did not have service standards in place. Thanet DC could not provide evidence of effective case monitoring and oversight, consistent communication with tenants or a structured approach to ensuring timely and appropriate interventions.

The tenure element of the Tenancy Standard requires landlords to offer tenancies or terms of occupation which are compatible with the purpose of the accommodation, the needs of individual households, the sustainability of the community, and the efficient use of their homes. We identified weaknesses in Thanet DC meeting the required outcomes of the Tenancy Standard. We found that there was no oversight of tenancy decisions or monitoring or reporting on tenancy management cases. Also, we found that the current tenancy agreement refers to outdated legislation. Thanet DC confirmed that it is making improvements in this area.

The Transparency, Influence and Accountability Standard sets out the outcomes landlords must deliver about being open with tenants, providing opportunities to influence decision making and holding their landlord to account. Through our inspection, we found that Thanet DC was broadly meeting these outcomes,  with some weaknesses. The evidence from tenants demonstrated that they felt their landlord treated them fairly and with respect and communicated well with tenants. There is, however, limited evidence that Thanet DC provides relevant and accessible performance information to tenants, and that this information supports effective scrutiny of its performance in delivering housing services.

Thanet DC provided evidence of a broad range of tenant engagement activities and opportunities but needs to improve how it shows that tenant engagement consistently influences decision making and service outcomes. Thanet DC also showed examples of how it had taken tenants’ needs into account, and tenants are encouraged to share vulnerability information when reporting repairs. However, there are weaknesses in the information Thanet DC holds on the diverse needs of its tenants, and of how it uses this information to deliver services appropriate to its tenant profile and to ensure equitable outcomes.

The Transparency, Influence and Accountability Standard also sets out the requirement for landlords to ensure complaints are addressed fairly, effectively and promptly. We found that the complaints process is clearly communicated and accessible, however weaknesses were found in how Thanet DC learns from complaints to continuously improve services.

Thanet DC has engaged constructively with us throughout the inspection. We will continue to engage with Thanet DC as it continues to address the issues set out in this judgement.  Our engagement with Thanet DC will be intensive and we will seek evidence that gives us the assurance that sufficient change and progress is being made, and that risks to tenants are adequately managed and mitigated. We are not proposing to use our enforcement powers at this stage but will keep this under review as Thanet DC seeks to resolve these issues.

Background to the judgement

About the landlord

​Thanet DC is located in East Kent and owns around approximately 3,200 social rented homes.

Our role and regulatory approach

We regulate for a viable, efficient, and well governed social housing sector able to deliver quality homes and services for current and future tenants.  

We regulate at the landlord level to drive improvement in how landlords operate. By landlord we mean a registered provider of social housing. These can either be local authorities, or private registered providers (other organisations registered with us such as non-profit housing associations, co-operatives, or profit-making organisations). 

We set standards which state outcomes that landlords must deliver. The outcomes of our standards include both the required outcomes and specific expectations we set. Where we find there are significant failures in landlords which we consider to be material to the landlord’s delivery of those outcomes, we hold them to account. Ultimately this provides protection for tenants’ homes and services and achieves better outcomes for current and future tenants. It also contributes to a sustainable sector which can attract strong investment. 

We have a different role for regulating local authorities than for other landlords. This is because we have a narrower role for local authorities and the Governance and Financial Viability Standard, and Value for Money Standard do not apply. Further detail on which standards apply to different landlords can be found on our standards page. 

We assess the performance of landlords through inspections and by reviewing data that landlords are required to submit to us. We also respond where there is an issue or a potential issue that may be material to a landlord’s delivery of the outcomes of our standards. We publish regulatory judgements that describe our view of landlords’ performance with our standards. We also publish grades for landlords with more than 1,000 social housing homes. 

The Housing Ombudsman deals with individual complaints. When individual complaints are referred to us, we investigate if we consider that the issue may be material to a landlord’s delivery of the outcomes of our standards.  

For more information about our approach to regulation, please see Regulating the standards.

Further information

• Regulatory standards for landlords

Related documents

• Decent Homes Standard