Skip to content

Social Tenant Access to Information Requirements

The STAIRs consultation's main aim is to deliver on a commitment to introduce an access to information scheme for the tenants of private register providers (PRPs).

Date published: 22 July 2024

We submitted our response to the Social Tenant Access to Information Requirements (STAIRs) consultation – one of the last introduced by the outgoing Conservative Government.

The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities opened the consultation on May 20 2024.

Its main aim is to deliver on a commitment to introduce an access to information scheme for the tenants of private register providers (PRPs).

The consultation seeks views on the content of a policy statement outline requirements we as providers will need to meet under the new legislation.

Our response was submitted after Labour returned to government after 14 years following a landslide election win at the beginning of July.

While we supported many of the proposals put to respondents, we urged the government to consider a number of concerns.

Summary of Stonewater's main responses to the consultation:

As a customer-focused organisation, we are committed to operating in a transparent way to deliver the best service possible.

It is imperative any system implemented allows PRPs the best foundation from which to publish information proactively for the benefit of tenants.

One of the main concerns we highlighted in our response was the need for further clarity on some of the definitions included.

We also raised reservations about resources and timeframes in relation to processing of requests.

Part of our response also noted the Housing Ombudsman Service struggles with the current level of complaints it has to process.

The main areas we asked the Government to consider in our response are:

  • The implications of including a requirement for providers to publish previous information requests and responses. Most notably, the implications on allocating resource to meet the number and complexity of any request. There is also a risk that information could be taken out of the context of the original request and/or conflict with other legal requirements we have on data protection. In addition, a number of requests could become outdated as future policy changes.
  • Further clarity is required on definitions under some proposals. We asked for information in relation to the publication of ‘the use of service charge revenue’, on whether former customers could make a request and what would be defined as ‘reasonable’ in a providers endeavour to obtain information held by a body or person on their behalf.
  • That the staff time limit of 18 hours to respond to requests is high. Should a significant volume of requests be received, it would not be a reasonable time to deliver. Our internal calculations suggest that were a request to require 18 hours of time, it would result in a significant cost to the business if multiplied.
  • The information that organisations are required to provide should be reasonable and/or should not be commercially sensitive. These would include matters such as service charges. For example, energy contracts which apply to multiple customers.

Annie Harling, Stonewater Company Secretary, said: “As one of the country’s largest providers, we aim to be a truly customer-driven organisation by building transparent relationships.

“Customers across the sector should have an effective means of accessing information related to the management of their housing.

“It is vital that Private Registered Providers have a system that best facilitates this.

“While we welcome many of the proposals outlined in the consultation, we would urge the Government to consider our concerns.

“Most notably, we ask consideration be given to the impact on resources when setting out how a PRP responds to a request.

"We want to ensure staff across the sector are best positioned to successfully respond to a request in a timely manner."