Kingston Council has received a C3 consumer grade from the Regulator of Social Housing after an inspection found serious failings in the authority’s understanding of the condition of its homes. The regulator said accurate, up-to-date information was unavailable for most properties and just 15 per cent had been surveyed under a new stock-condition programme.
The judgement, published on 14 October, also identified weaknesses in oversight of remedial actions, communal repairs and complaints handling. It found gaps in the council’s understanding of tenants’ diverse needs. The regulator said the borough was meeting key health-and-safety legal requirements and had improved repairs performance. The grade should not be read as a finding that those key legal requirements were generally unmet.
What the regulator found
The inspection focused on Kingston’s role as a social landlord. The regulator’s findings centre on whether the council has a sufficiently reliable picture of its homes and can oversee work needed to keep them safe and in good repair. With condition information missing for most properties, the regulator said the new survey programme had covered only 15 per cent of homes at the time of its assessment.
That information gap sits alongside service weaknesses rather than replacing them. The regulator identified shortcomings in how remedial actions are overseen, how communal repairs are handled and how complaints are managed. It also said the council had gaps in its understanding of residents’ differing needs. These are findings about the landlord’s performance and assurance; they do not establish that every home is unsafe or that every repair or complaint has been mishandled.
The C3 grade is a consumer judgement, not a general assessment of all council services. The regulator publishes consumer gradings when it considers there are serious weaknesses or failings in a landlord’s delivery of required standards. Kingston received its first such grade following inspection. Local authorities receive consumer grades, rather than the separate governance and financial viability grades used for housing associations.
Council says surveys and service changes are under way
Kingston Council said it accepted the areas requiring improvement while welcoming positive feedback across other parts of the inspection. It said inspectors recognised its repairs service, partnership work on anti-social behaviour, fair treatment of tenants and resident engagement. The council reported that all emergency repairs were completed on time, a claim made in its response to the inspection.
The council said its full programme of surveys to improve understanding of the condition of its homes had started and was expected to finish within the next 18 months. It also said it was strengthening oversight of repairs and taking steps to respond to complaints more quickly. Work to improve the range of resident information collected is intended to help the authority better understand and respond to different needs.
Kingston said it was preparing an improvement plan to address the report’s recommendations and would continue working with the regulator to demonstrate progress. It said no enforcement action was currently being proposed, while the regulator said it would maintain intensive engagement and seek assurance that improvements are delivered and risks to tenants are managed effectively.
Progress will be measured against the identified gaps
The immediate test is whether the survey programme builds a dependable record of housing conditions and whether the council can show that remedial work is properly tracked. Better records alone would not resolve weaknesses in communal repairs or complaints handling, so those areas will also need to improve. The regulator’s continued engagement means the authority is expected to demonstrate progress, rather than simply announce plans.
The council’s stated 18-month timetable is a target for completing surveys, not evidence that all homes have already been inspected or that any required work is complete. The regulator’s assessment also preserves an important distinction: it identified serious concerns about information, oversight and services, while stating that key health-and-safety legal requirements were being met. Further evidence of delivery will determine whether the measures described by the council address the failings recorded in the judgement.
