Achieved sample

The achieved sample stayed above the 973 target in both years.

Measure	2023-24	2024-25
Achieved Sample	1120 (target 973)	1030 (target 973)

 

Overall satisfaction

Overall satisfaction (TP01) decreased from 54.8% in 2023–24 to 53.1% in 2024–25

Measure	2023-24	2024-25
TP01 - Overall satisfaction	54.8%	53.1%

 

Theme 1: Repairs and Maintenance

Satisfaction with repairs and maintenance declined slightly. The non-decent homes reduced and on-time repairs remained high.

Measure	2023-24	2024-25
TP02 – Satisfaction with repairs (overall service)	60.8%	59.3%
TP03 – Satisfaction with time taken to complete most recent repair	61.2%	59.3%
TP04 – Satisfaction that the home is well maintained	51.3%	50.4%
RP01 – Proportion of homes that do no meet Non-Decent Homes	13.0%	6.4%
RP02.1 – Proportion of non-emergency repairs completed on time (Target is within 28 days)	99.3%	99.7%
RP02.2 – Proportion of emergency repairs completed on time (Target is within 4 hours)	99.7%	99.7%

 

Theme 2: Complaints and Engagement

Complaints and Engagement shows slight improvements in listening, communication, and complaint handling satisfaction. Fairness and respect saw a minor decline.

Measure	2023-24	2024-25
TP06 – Satisfaction that the landlord listens to tenant views and acts upon them	36.8%	38.0%
TP07 – Satisfaction that the landlord keeps tenants informed about things that matter to them	48.8%	48.3%
TP08 – Landlord treats tenants fairly and with respect	52.8%	52.5%
TP09 – Satisfaction with the landlord's approach to handling complaints	21.7%	24.5%
CH01.1 – Number of complaints per 1K Homes (Stage 1)	31.8	47.5
CH01.2 – Number of complaints per 1K Homes (Stage 2)	4.7	10.2
CH02.1 – Proportion of complaints responded within the Housing Ombudsman's Complaint Handling code timescales (10 days for Stage 1)	14.7%	53.2%
CH02.2 – Proportion of complaints responded within the Housing Ombudsman's Complaint Handling code timescales (20 days for Stage 2)	23.5%	61.6%

 

Theme 3: Building Safety

The theme Building Safety shows slight improvement in home safety satisfaction and full compliance in gas and fire safety checks, with other measures remaining stable or incomplete.

Measure	2023-24	2024-25
TP05 – Satisfaction that the home is safe	54.6%	55.5%
BS01 – Proportion of homes for which all required gas safety checks have been carried out	99.9%	100%
BS02 – Proportion of homes for which all required fire risk assessments have been carried out	99.5%	100%
BS03 – Proportion of homes for which all required asbestos management surveys or re-inspections have been carried out	99.6%	96.8%
BS04 – Proportion of homes for which all required legionella risk assessments have been carried out	98.9%	99.8%
BS05 – Proportion of homes for which all required communal passenger lift safety checks have been carried out	73.5%	99.5%

 

Theme 4: Neighbourhood and Anti Social Behaviour (ASB)

The theme Neighbourhood and ASB shows improved satisfaction across all perception measures, while reported ASB cases per 1,000 homes increased.

Measure	2023-24	2024-25
TP10 – Satisfaction that the landlord keeps communal areas clean and well maintained	44.9%	47.8%
TP11 – Satisfaction that the landlord makes a positive contribution to neighbourhoods	38.4%	40.5%
TP12 – Satisfaction with the landlord’s approach to handling anti-social behaviour	35.5%	37.1%
NM01 – Number of anti-social behaviour cases, opened per 1,000 homes	9.9	16.8
NM01 (Hate) – Number of anti-social behaviour cases that involve hate incidents opened per 1,000 homes	N/A not collected	0.4

 

Achieved sample

The sample size increased from 111 to 222 year-on-year, showing progress toward the target of 306.

Measure	2023-24	2024-25
Sample	111 (target 306)	222 (target 306)

 

Overall satisfaction

Overall satisfaction  rose slightly from 44.8% in 2023–24 to 45.7% in 2024–25.

Measure	2023-24	2024-25
TP01 - Overall satisfaction	44.8%	45.7%

 

Theme 2: Complaints and Engagement

The theme Complaints and Engagement shows improvements in listening, communication, and complaint handling satisfaction, alongside an increase in complaint volumes and better on-time response rates.

Measure	2023-24	2024-25
TP06 – Satisfaction that the landlord listens to shared owner views and act upon them	16.9%	23.2%
TP07 – Satisfaction that the landlord keeps shared owners informed about things that matter to them	40.4%	43.8%
TP08 –  Landlord treats shared owners fairly and with respect	43.4%	41.8%
TP09 – Satisfaction with the landlord's approach to handling complaints	8.0%	9.8%
CH01.1 – Number of complaints per 1K Homes (Stage 1)	4.0	6.1
CH01.2 – Number of complaints per 1K Homes (Stage 2)	1.3	1.4
CH02.1 –  Proportion of complaints responded within  the Housing Ombudsman's Complaint Handling code timescales (10 days for Stage 1)	50.0%	77.8%
CH02.2 – Proportion of complaints responded within the Housing Ombudsman's Complaint Handling code  timescales (20 days for Stage 2)	100%	50.0%

 

Theme 3: Building Safety

The theme Building Safety shows improved compliance in most safety checks, while home safety satisfaction and asbestos check rates declined

Measure	2023-24	2024-25
TP05 –  Satisfaction that the home is safe	52.9%	48.6%
BS01 – Proportion of homes for which all required gas safety checks have been carried out	99.9%	100%
BS02 – Proportion of homes for which all required fire risk assessments have been carried out	99.5%	100%
BS03 – Proportion of homes for which all required asbestos management surveys or re-inspections have been carried out	99.6%	96.8%
BS04 – Proportion of homes for which all required legionella risk assessments have been carried out	98.9%	99.8%
BS05 – Proportion of homes for which all required communal passenger lift safety checks have been carried out	73.5%	99.5%

 

Theme 4: Neighbourhood and Anti Social Behaviour (ASB)

Neighbourhood and ASB shows mixed results, with improved neighbourhood contribution, lower satisfaction with cleanliness and ASB handling, and newly reported ASB case rates in 2024–25.

Measure	2023-24	2024-25
TP10 – Satisfaction that the landlord keeps communal areas clean and well maintained	50.0%	38.7%
TP11 – Satisfaction that the landlord makes a positive contribution to neighbourhoods	31.5%	39.5%
TP12 – Satisfaction with the landlord’s approach to handling anti-social behaviour	25.3%	24.8%
NM01 – Number of anti-social behaviour cases, opened per 1,000 homes	9.9	16.8
NM01 (Hate) – Number of anti-social behaviour cases that involve hate incidents opened per 1,000 homes	N/A not collected	0.4

 

Purpose

In the interest of transparency, the purpose of this page is to summarise the approach used to generate the Tenant Perception Survey results.

Throughout the document, information about tenants is referred to as low-cost rental accommodation (LCRA), while details about shared owners are described as low-cost home ownership (LCHO).

Our Approach

We used a phased sample approach to collate our findings. 

Timing of Survey

The survey data was generated using a single integrated survey meeting TSM requirements. We used MS Form for data capture, including personal details like name, address, and tenure for accuracy and to avoid double counting. Verification formulas in the source spreadsheet detected 32 duplications using property reference and postcode.

Collection Methods 

The survey process began on 20 September 2024 and continued until 31 March 2025. Before initiating the survey, internal colleagues were informed to ensure they were aware of the process.

Using data from our housing system, a report was generated listing all MKCC current LCRA and LCHO units. All residents included in the report were contacted, and those who responded became our sample.

A phased approach utilising different communication channels was implemented to notify residents about the survey - starting with email, followed by text messages, then letters and finally phone calls. The report was updated after each channel was used.

• We reached our target number of LCRA (tenants) through emails and text messages who completed online forms
• For LCHO (shared owners), we initially used emails, text messages and letters who completed online forms. Later we used phone interviews to collect responses.
• Paper copies were sent upon request, and any responses received were entered into the MS Form.

The webpage served as the primary source of information about Tenant Perception Survey. Additionally, existing publications were utilised to inform residents about the Tenant Perception Survey. For instance, an article explaining the purpose of the survey was published in the Annual Report 2023-2024, which was distributed to all residents.

Sample Method 

To determine the necessary sample size, we used an online calculator based on regulatory guidance from Table 5 in Annex 5: Tenant Satisfaction Measures. This advised a minimum of 973 responses from LCRA residents and 306 from LCHO residents to ensure statistically robust results.

Copy of questionnaire

Summary of achieved sample size 

We adopted a sample approach to gather our data. By utilising our housing extract, we were able to verify the sample's representation of the population by analysing various factors such as gender, ethnicity, age, property type, and geographical location for both LCRA and LCHO.

Low-Cost Rental Accommodation (LCRA)  

Gender Breakdown

Gender	Population (%)	Sample (%)
Female	66.24	68.42
Male	33.74	30.98
Gender Neutral	0.01	0.05
Prefer Not to Say	0.01	0.05
(Blank)	-	-

Property Type Breakdown

Property Type	Population (%)	Sample (%)
House	48.44	41.86
Bungalow	18.75	19.86
Flat	17.88	23.26
Sheltered Flat	7.38	7.02
Disabled Bungalow	5.36	4.93
Disabled Flat	0.78	0.98

 

Age Groups

Age Group	Population (%)	Sample (%)
91–100	1.36	3.67
81–90	6.98	3.63
71–80	14.64	13.63
61–70	17.29	20.23
51–60	20.86	21.07
41–50	19.45	19.53
31–40	15.23	13.95

Property Size

Property Size (Bedrooms)	Population (%)	Sample (%)
3	38.53	34.00
1	30.69	33.21
2	24.40	27.16
4	4.06	2.84
0	1.94	2.70
5	0.38	0.09

Low-Cost Home Ownership (LCHO) 

Gender Breakdown

Gender	Population (%)	Sample (%)
Female	51.05	47.75
Male	48.95	47.75
(Blank)	0.00	4.50

Property Type Breakdown

Property Type	Population (%)	Sample (%)
House	82.93	85.29
Flat	8.57	6.61
Bungalow	6.08	6.31

Age Groups

Age Group	Population (%)	Sample (%)
91–100+	2.01	44.14
81–90	7.22	2.40
71–80	18.45	11.41
61–70	19.52	12.31
51–60	21.52	15.32
41–50	17.78	8.71
31-40	12.03	5.11

Property Size

Property Size (Bedrooms)	Population (%)	Sample (%)
3	50.13	52.25
2	33.84	36.64
1	11.21	7.51

Weighting  

No weighting was applied to generate the reported measures. We did not apply any weighting as: 

• We informed all our tenants and shared owners about the survey and offered them different ways of submitting their response, hence giving each member of the population an equal chance of being included in the sample.
• We were satisfied that the achieved samples were largely representative of our whole population of tenants. 

Use of Contractors 

We did not engage any external contractors for the survey process. The Housing Business Improvement Team managed the project, with support from the Home Ownership team in contacting shared owners. This approach enabled us to maintain consistency and ensure the integrity of the survey. Additionally, the Housing Landlord Board provided governance oversight.

Accessibility

Tenants and shared owners could use a variety of channels to provide their response to TPS.  For example, letter, email and our preferred method, the digital form. Our publications also invited residents to inform us if they have any other barriers to accessing information. No one was excluded in the context of paragraph 63.

Failure to meet the required sample size requirements 

Whilst we exceeded in receiving our requirement for LCRA, we did not achieve the target for LCHO.

This year we:

• Wrote to 1290 shared owners dispelling the myth that the survey is not for them and inviting them to take part. This effort yielded an extra 113 responses.
• Conducted telephone interviews which resulted in 21 surveys being completed.

This resulted in a 100% increase from last year, rising from 111 responses to 222 responses after the removal of duplications. 

As part of our efforts to, we will look to visit shared owners to conduct the Tenant Perception Surveys. We believe that this additional collection method will help us reach our target of 306 responses.

Incentives 

Apart from the incentive of us saying that we will use feedback to help shape our services, we also offered £50 high street vouchers to five residents. This was managed by an independent draw.

Methodological issues 

Feedback from telephone interviews with LCHO shared owners suggests some of the shared owners did not perceive questions in the survey to be relevant to the services they receive.

What We’re Doing Next

• Publishing our response
  We’ll reflect on the context and our actions in response to these results, and share them with you in the Annual Report for Tenants and Leaseholders 2024-2025
• Improving how we collect feedback
  We’ll prioritise in-person visits as a way to gather feedback—especially from shared owners—to ensure everyone’s voice is heard.
• Reviewing our processes
  These results will help us identify areas for improvement and guide a wider review of our internal processes.

 

Source: Information taken from supporting document provided to Regulator of Social Housing

These are annual reports published by the Regulator of Social Housing

• Tenant Satisfaction Measures 2024/25
• Tenant Satisfaction Measures 2023/24