Anthony Day explains why the gathering of data – and the way it is used to create a near-complete visibility of stock – benefits both landlord and tenant alike
For years, stock condition surveys in social housing have been treated as a necessary but often disconnected activity.
Carried out to meet expectations around asset management and compliance, they have typically focused on collecting data, meeting programme deadlines and moving on. The result is that many landlords hold large volumes of information about their homes but still struggle to translate that into meaningful decision-making.
Raven Housing Trust’s reported 98.9% completion rate over a five-year survey cycle stands out in that context. Just as significantly, the organisation has also achieved 100% survey coverage across its blocks.
But the more important question is not how high the percentage is, but what sits behind it and what it enables in practice. A high completion rate, on its own, does not necessarily equate to better outcomes. The value lies in how the data is gathered, how consistent it is and, crucially, how it is used.
Like many organisations, Raven previously relied on external providers to deliver its surveys. That model offered capacity and coverage, but also introduced limitations.
When surveys are carried out by a third party, they can become a transactional exercise: a visit is completed, a report submitted and the operational link to the rest of the organisation is relatively weak.
There is little opportunity to connect what is seen in a home to wider issues around repairs, customer engagement or safeguarding.
Shifting dynamic
Bringing the service in-house has shifted that dynamic. Surveyors now operate as part of the wider organisation rather than alongside it.
This has allowed the survey process to sit within day-to-day housing management rather than outside it. In practical terms, that means surveyors can coordinate with housing officers, repairs teams and customer services to gain access, share information and trigger action more quickly.
Access remains one of the biggest barriers to effective stock condition programmes. What is notable here is not that it has been solved, but that it is approached differently.
Rather than relying on a single contact method or a purely compliance-based message, engagement is built around explaining why access matters to residents and how it benefits them. This is combined with multiple touchpoints and, where possible, aligning visits with other appointments.
Equally important is the question of consistency. One of the common criticisms of stock condition data is that it can vary widely depending on who carries out the survey. Raven’s response has been to define a clear internal standard, setting out how surveyors should assess and categorise the condition of assets, from kitchens and bathrooms to roofs and electrical systems.
This reduces the scope for subjective interpretation and, when combined with a relatively small, stable team of surveyors, helps to support a more consistent and reliable dataset.
This internal consistency is reflected in external validation. Raven’s most recent audit of its stock condition data recorded 92% accuracy, compared with an industry norm often cited below 80%. This provides additional confidence that the data being collected is not only comprehensive but dependable.
Connecting data
A further evolution is how survey information is brought together and used across the organisation. Building on established practice, this is now supported by more connected data systems and closer integration with wider services.
A single visit can surface a range of issues at once, from health and safety concerns to repairs and longer-term investment needs, allowing these to be identified, recorded and acted on in a coordinated way.
An example illustrates the point. In one survey, damp and mould were identified across several rooms, alongside a repair issue and multiple assets approaching or reaching the end of their lifecycle.
In a more traditional model, some of these issues might only have come to light when a resident reported them or when a separate visit took place. Here, they are identified together, recorded in a consistent way and fed directly into operational systems to trigger a coordinated response.
This has two implications. The first is operational: issues can be addressed earlier, before they escalate into more complex or costly problems. The second is cultural: the survey becomes part of a wider effort to understand and respond to what is happening within homes, rather than a stand-alone exercise. Repairs that might otherwise have gone unnoticed can be picked up, alongside wider concerns.
The data generated through this approach also starts to reveal patterns, including higher instances of repairs and wider concerns such as hoarding in homes where access has previously been refused. That reinforces the importance of persistence in gaining access, and of treating surveys as an opportunity to identify vulnerabilities as well as asset condition.
At a strategic level, the benefits become more apparent. Having a current and consistent view of stock condition allows for more informed decisions around investment.
Rather than relying solely on assumed lifecycle replacements or prescribed replacement dates, landlords can begin to tailor programmes based on the actual observed condition of components. Over time, this can support more targeted capital spend and a more efficient use of resources.
This condition-led approach is also gaining wider relevance. With changes associated with Decent Homes 2 expected to place greater emphasis on the actual condition of homes rather than purely modelled replacement cycles, testing and embedding this way of working now provides a useful foundation for what is likely to become standard practice across the sector.
Broader lessons
It also supports a more robust and evidence-based response to complaints and regulatory requirements. With detailed records of a property’s condition at specific points in time, housing providers are better placed to respond to resident concerns, whether by evidencing previous conditions or by identifying where issues have arisen more recently.
None of this suggests that the model is easily replicable. Bringing services in-house requires capacity, resource and organisational alignment. Nor does it remove all of the challenges associated with stock condition surveys. Access will remain an issue, and maintaining up-to-date data across a large portfolio is an ongoing task.
However, the broader lesson is not about a specific completion rate. It is about the role that stock condition data plays within housing management.
When surveys are treated as a compliance exercise, their impact is limited. When they are integrated into a wider, joined-up approach, they can begin to inform how services are delivered, how resources are allocated and how homes are maintained over the long term.
In that sense, near-complete coverage is less an end point and more a foundation. The real shift comes in moving from collecting data to using it effectively, and in recognising that understanding homes in detail is central to everything else that follows.
Anthony Day is sustainability and stock condition manager at Raven Housing Trust
Image credit: Summit Art Creations/Shutterstock
Read next: Water shortage threatens a million new homes
Are you a social housing professional? Sign up for a FREE MEMBERSHIP to upload news stories, post job vacancies, and connect with colleagues on our secure social feed.
