In November 2022 the previous government established the Social Housing Resident Panel, initially focusing on social housing quality reforms. In October 2024 this current government relaunched the panel with a broader scope across all social housing policy.

As a result of the work on the social housing resident panel they have released a report on ASB experiences, the data and research shows a landscape that is still struggling with the demands and difficulties of ASB, and it is clear that now more than ever community safety experts are needed to shape best practice. The Social Housing Resident Panel is a national initiative that brings together up to 250 residents from across England to inform the development of social housing policy. Established in 2022 and expanded in 2024, the Panel provides a structured mechanism for residents to share their lived experiences directly with government and ministers as reforms are developed and implemented.^[1]

A Strategic Shift Toward Resident-Centred Policy

The Panel was originally created to support the implementation of the Social Housing White Paper, which introduced reforms to improve landlord accountability, strengthen regulation, and raise service standards. In 2024, its remit was broadened to cover all aspects of social housing policy, including the government’s commitment to deliver the largest increase in social and affordable housebuilding in a generation.

Under the current Labour Government, there is a renewed emphasis on:
- Rebuilding trust between tenants and landlords
- Improving housing quality and safety
- Delivering a new generation of affordable homes
- Embedding tenant voice in decision-making at every level

The Panel supports these objectives by ensuring that policy is grounded in lived experience and responsive to the realities of social housing. It also aligns with the new consumer regulation regime introduced in April 2024, which places greater emphasis on transparency, accountability, and tenant empowerment.^[2]

Resident Engagement: Sector Context and Challenges

Resident engagement in social housing has long been recognised as a driver of service improvement, community cohesion, and accountability. However, recent research suggests that engagement is under pressure:

- A Riverside scrutiny report found that 90% of surveyed residents felt they had no meaningful influence over their housing services, citing poor communication, inaccessible engagement structures, and a lack of trust in landlord responsiveness.^[3]
- TPAS and the Local Government Association identified that only 70% of tenants were aware of engagement opportunities, and just 30% felt they had any influence, highlighting a disconnect between formal engagement structures and resident experience.^[4]
- The Resident Voice Index and LSE (London School of Economics) Housing and Communities have both emphasised the need for inclusive, accessible, and responsive engagement models, particularly in light of post-Grenfell reforms.^[5][6]

These findings underscore the importance of initiatives lyike the Social Housing Resident Panel, which aim to reset the relationship between residents and policymakers.

How the Panel Operates

The Panel uses a multi-format engagement model to ensure accessibility and flexibility:
- Full Panel Meetings: Strategic discussions involving all members
- Focus Groups: Thematic sessions on issues such as anti-social behaviour, repairs, and disability inclusion
- Online Communities: Digital platforms for residents to share views asynchronously
- Surveys and Polls: Broader engagement tools to capture national sentiment and emerging trends

This structure enables participation from residents with varying levels of availability, digital access, and engagement experience. It also supports both formal and informal modes of engagement, from tenant boards to ad hoc feedback forums.^[7]

Resident-Led Priorities

Panel members vote on the issues they wish to prioritise. Recent areas of focus include:
- Tackling anti-social behaviour and improving community safety
- Ensuring effective implementation of Awaab’s Law, particularly around damp and mould
- Improving landlord communication and transparency
- Embedding disability access and inclusion in housing policy
- Strengthening complaints handling and the role of the Housing Ombudsman

These priorities are actively shaping departmental workstreams and informing cross-government initiatives.

Impact to Date

The Panel has contributed to several key developments:
- Competence and Conduct Standard: Resident input helped define expectations for landlord staff professionalism and respectful engagement
- Make Things Right Campaign: Insights informed a national campaign to raise awareness of tenant rights and complaints processes
- STAIRS (Social Tenant Access to Information Requirements): Feedback helped shape the design of this proposed scheme to improve transparency from landlords
- Repairs and Maintenance Policy: Resident experiences influenced responses to damp and mould, particularly under Awaab’s Law

These contributions demonstrate the value of resident voice in shaping policy that is both effective and grounded in real-world experience.

How does this link to our work on data from the Social Housing Regulator and the Housing Ombudsman Service?

The work we have done on the HOS (Housing Ombudsman Service) complaints reveals a high volume of maladministration findings across England. Some of the most frequent issues include:

• Mishandling of anti-social behaviour (ASB)
• Poor complaint handling
• Delays in repairs and maintenance
• Failure to recognise tenant vulnerabilities
• Inadequate record keeping and communication

These failures are not isolated, they reflect systemic weaknesses in landlord governance, responsiveness, and tenant engagement.

The Social Housing Resident Panel provides a structured mechanism for surfacing these issues before they escalate to formal complaints or legal action. The Panel’s priorities, such as damp and mould, ASB, repairs, and communication, mirror the most common maladministration themes identified by the Ombudsman. This alignment validates the Panel’s role as a strategic early warning system.

Landlords that performed well in the Tenant Satisfaction measures, through work we have done analysing this data, consistently demonstrated:

• Accurate record keeping
• Timely repairs
• Multi-agency collaboration
• Tenant engagement and scrutiny

Compensation awards in maladministration cases range from £100 to over £10,000, with higher amounts linked to prolonged distress, health impacts, and safeguarding failures. These figures highlight the cost of poor service, to residents, landlords, and the public purse. It is imperative to stress that investing in resident voice and proactive engagement is not only ethical, but a cost-effective strategy for reducing complaints and improving outcomes.

The Ombudsman frequently recommends:

• Staff training
• Policy reviews
• Improved record keeping
• Better communication

In a sector facing rising demand, regulatory reform, and public scrutiny, the Panel offers a data-backed, resident-led model for improving housing outcomes and rebuilding trust.

What did the report say?

The report rang true some important lessons for ASB that we often hear. Experiences of ASB were common among the panel members; 85%  of panel members having experienced ASB at any time. ASB is therefore widespread and affects a large range of people, this correlates well with our YouGov survey, with 60% saying more needs to be done to tackle anti-social behaviour, and that 28% have said that ASB has made them feel unsafe in their area. It was also clear there were varied definitions of ASB, it wasn’t limited to “low-level” nuisances, their understandings ranged from noise and nuisance behaviour to serious criminal act. It was gleamed that many emphasised that context, individual vulnerabilities and housing conditions shape whether an act feels “anti-social” or not. This also intersects with our understanding with how ASB interacts with other contextual factors including vulnerabilities and is more prevalent in housing conditions that are more conducive to noise, such as thin walls and shared spaces.

The most frequently reported were noisy or abusive behaviour (60%), harassment (43%), illegal drug use (36%). This coincides with our research on the Tenant Satisfaction Measures and Housing Ombudsman complaints as these are often the most common complaints. The message was clear, that respondents described negative effects including disturbed sleep, worsening physical and mental health s, stress, feeling unsafe or trapped in their homes, and in extreme cases, suicidal thoughts. It is clear that ASB in social housing is still not marginal, it is frequent, varied in form and severity, having serious consequences for wellbeing and social cohesion. ASB is more than a matter of “neighbour nuisance”, and should be treated as a fundamental problem for wider housing safety and community stability.

Reporting, response and resident dissatisfaction

Reporting is common ; however,  resolution is rare. 75% of panel members who experienced ASB had made a formal complaint/report. But only 27% said the outcome was satisfactory. Key problems highlighted as structure barriers to effect redress were: poor communication from landlords or agencies, lack of visible local housing officers or ASB teams, ineffective multi-agency coordination (e.g. between landlords, police, social services), long delays, and high burden of submitting evidence (diaries, recordings) falling on victims. Many felt unsupported or blamed rather than helped. There was also a markedly low awareness of review mechanisms. About 25% of respondents said they had never heard of the “ASB case review” option. Again, this correlates with our findings from our YouGov survey, with 87.5% not aware of the ASB case review. Among those who had, some felt it did speed up action, but did not guarantee a satisfactory or conclusive outcome. There is evidently structural failing in how ASB complaints are processed. Reporting does not reliably lead to effective intervention, and we repeat calls to make reporting ASB easier, simpler and more effective.

For any questions around this piece, anything related to it, or policy questions generally, please contact:

Harrison Box, Policy Officer

This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

To view the full report click here

^[1] “Social Housing Resident Panel.” 2022. GOV.UK. March 28, 2022. https://www.gov.uk/guidance/social-housing-quality-resident-panel..

^[2] “Social Housing Resident Panel - Meaningful and Effective Resident Engagement Panel Member Report -Focus Groups.” 2025.

^[3] “Resident Voice Draft Report for Consideration by the Riverside Customer Voice Executive 1 Resident Scrutiny Panel -OH/Riverside London Scrutiny Panel Investigation Report: The Resident Voice.” n.d. Accessed August 7, 2025.

^[4] Tenant Engagement Experts. n.d. “Engaging and Empowering Tenants in Council-Owned Housing.” Https://Www.thinkhouse.org.uk/. https://www.thinkhouse.org.uk/site/assets/files/1459/tpas.pdf.

^[5] “Resident Voice | Home - Resident Voice Index.” 2024. Resident Voice Index. February 19, 2024. https://residentvoiceindex.com.

^[6] London School of Economics and Political Science. 2021. “Giving Social Housing Tenants a Voice.” London School of Economics and Political Science. 2021. https://www.lse.ac.uk/Research/research-impact-case-studies/2021/giving-social-housing-tenants-a-voice.

^[7] “Social Housing Resident Panel Reports 2025.” 2025. GOV.UK. July 9, 2025. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/social-housing-resident-panel-reports-2025..