Overall KPIs Performance for Quarter 1 (April — June 2026)
🟢 26 on target
🟠 11 slightly below target
🔴 7 below target
The direction is showing the progress from the previous period as follows: ↑ Improving ↔ Stable ↓ Declining
🏠 Repairs and maintenance
|
KPI
|
2025-26
|
Target
|
Q1 (04-06/26)
|
Direction
|
|
Repairs completed right first time %
|
80%
|
80%
|
80%
|
↔
|
|
Appointments kept %
|
93%
|
95%
|
96%
|
↑
|
|
Percentage of non-emergency repairs completed in target timescale
|
91%
|
90%
|
98%
|
↑
|
|
Average repair completion time (days)
|
n/a
|
12
|
7.4
|
n/a
|
|
Cost per property £'s (routine repairs)
|
n/a
|
£1,068
|
£521
|
n/a
|
|
Planned vs responsive maintenance ratio %
|
n/a
|
60%:40%
|
71%:29%
|
n/a
|
|
No. of responsive repairs per property per month per 1,000 properties
|
248
|
300
|
231
|
↑
|
|
Homes that do not meet the Decent Homes Standard
|
4%
|
5%
|
3%
|
↑
|
|
Stock condition survey coverage %
|
98%
|
100%
|
99%
|
↑
|
Repairs & maintenance: Strong Q1 performance overall, with most targets met or exceeded. Repairs were completed faster, appointments and repair timescales improved, and fewer homes failed to meet the Decent Homes Standard.
😊 Customer satisfaction
|
KPI
|
2025-26
|
Target
|
Q1 (04-06/26)
|
Direction
|
|
Satisfaction with Repairs
|
79%
|
80%
|
79%
|
↔
|
|
Was the repairs operative polite and helpful? %
|
n/a
|
95%
|
89%
|
n/a
|
|
Did the repairs operative tidy up after themselves %
|
n/a
|
95%
|
85%
|
n/a
|
|
% of emergency responsive repairs completed within target timescale
|
n/a
|
90%
|
100%
|
n/a
|
|
% Responsive repairs outstanding ('work in progress') at month-end
|
n/a
|
n/a
|
3%
|
|
| % of overall tenant satisfaction with letting process |
n/a |
85% |
90% |
n/a |
| % of ASB satisfaction with action taken |
n/a |
85% |
92% |
n/a |
Customer satisfaction: Customer satisfaction was mixed but generally positive, with lettings and ASB satisfaction exceeding target. Repairs satisfaction remained slightly below target, with operative helpfulness and tidiness identified as areas for improvement.
📞 Complaints and Customer Services
|
KPI
|
2025-26
|
Target
|
Q1 (04-06/26)
|
Direction
|
| % Calls not answered / abandoned |
8% |
10% |
5% |
↑ |
| Average time taken to answer call (seconds) |
52.8 |
100 |
60.33 |
↓ |
| Complaints responded to within target time % |
71% |
85% |
86% |
↑ |
| Total Complaints relative to size of landlord - per 1000 homes |
10.1 |
8.3 |
9.64 |
↑ |
| Total ASB cases relative to the size of the landlord - per 1000 homes |
17.9 |
25 |
3.82 |
↑ |
Complaints & customer services: Strong customer service performance overall, with fewer abandoned calls, quicker response times and complaints handled above target. Complaint volumes remain slightly above target, while ASB cases were well below target.
💷 Housing, Rent & Income
|
KPI
|
2025-26
|
Target
|
Q1 (04-06/26)
|
Direction
|
| Current tenant arrears % |
4.5% |
4.0% |
4.5% |
↔ |
| Rent collected in year from current tenants % |
95% |
99% |
96% |
↑ |
| Former tenant arrears % |
4.8% |
2.5% |
10.3% |
↓ |
| %age of Universal Credit (UC) tenants in arrears |
n/a |
10% |
35% |
n/a |
| %age of HB tenants in arrears |
n/a |
n/a |
24% |
n/a |
| % of tenants in arrears |
n/a |
n/a |
68% |
n/a |
| Void loss % |
2.4% |
2.0% |
1.7% |
↑ |
| Average routine void turnaround re-let time (days) |
71 |
48 |
35 |
↑ |
Housing, rent & income: Performance was mixed, with strong void turnaround times and improved rent collection. However, tenant arrears remain above target, particularly among former tenants and Universal Credit tenants, which is under review by our Income team.
🛡️ Building and tenant safety
|
KPI
|
2025-26
|
Target
|
Q1 (04-06/26)
|
Direction
|
| Communal areas with valid Asbestos Survey % |
100% |
100% |
100% |
↔ |
| Dwellings with valid Asbestos Survey % |
98% |
100% |
98% |
↔ |
| Communal areas with valid EICR (Electric Certificate) % |
99% |
100% |
100% |
↑ |
| Dwellings with valid EICR (Electric Certificate) % |
100% |
100% |
99% |
↓ |
| Properties with valid FRA (Fire Risk Assessment) % |
98% |
100% |
98% |
↔ |
| Communal areas with valid LGSR (Gas Certificate) % |
100% |
100% |
100% |
↔ |
| Dwellings with valid LGSR (Gas Certificate) % |
100% |
100% |
99% |
↓ |
| Assets with valid LOLER report (Lift Report) % |
90% |
100% |
86% |
↓ |
| Assets with valid Legionella Risk Assessment % |
100% |
100% |
100% |
↔ |
| % of homes EPC C or above |
n/a |
80% |
76% |
n/a |
| No. of overdue H&S actions |
n/a |
n/a |
119 |
n/a |
| No. of overdue H&S high risk actions |
n/a |
n/a |
14 |
n/a |
| Damp & Mould cases reported as a %age of stock |
n/a |
13% |
6% |
n/a |
| New emergency hazard cases reported per 1,000 properties |
7.6 |
25 |
50 |
↓ |
| New significant damp and mould hazard cases reported per 1,000 properties |
17.5
|
11 |
0.5 |
↑ |
| Percentage of emergency hazards resolved within 24 hours |
77% |
100% |
100% |
↑ |
| Percentage of significant damp and mould hazards investigated within 10 working days |
100% |
100% |
100% |
↔ |
| Percentage of significant damp and mould repairs initiated within 5 working days |
100% |
100% |
100% |
↔ |
Building & tenant safety: Safety performance was strong overall, with most compliance measures at or close to 100% and key damp, mould and emergency hazard response targets achieved. Lift compliance and overdue health and safety actions are under review with our contractors and the Housing team to gain access.
🤝 Resident engagement (new KPIs)
|
KPI
|
Q1 (04-06/26)
|
| Tenants engaged in co-design &/or scrutiny |
15 |
| Strategic decisions demonstrably influenced by tenant input |
1 |
| Number of service improvements from tenant feedback |
1 |
| Trained & upskilled tenants |
3 |
| Compliance with required and committed publications within agreed timescales |
100% |
Resident engagement (new KPIs): These new measures focus on the outcomes and impact of resident engagement, rather than simply the number of residents participating. In Q1, tenants influenced a strategic decision and contributed to a service improvement, alongside involvement in co-design and scrutiny and opportunities to develop their skills. All required publications were also delivered within agreed timescales.
👥Our People
|
KPI
|
2025-26
|
Target
|
Q1 (04-06/26)
|
Direction
|
| Rolling annual Staff turnover % |
37.6% |
20% |
23% |
↑ |
| The average number of working days/shifts lost due to sickness |
9.3 |
8 |
1.1 |
↑ |
| Staff satisfied with organisation as an employer % (annual measure) |
90% |
88% |
n/a |
n/a |
Our people: Staff sickness levels were significantly below target in Q1, while staff turnover has improved compared with 2025/26 but remains above target. Staff satisfaction remains strong, with the latest annual measure exceeding target.