Our performance

Regulatory grading

The Regulator of Social Housing sets standards and regulates social housing providers in England. Organisations are rated for their financial viability (V), governance (G) and consumer standards (C) – where 1 is the best and 4 the worst. Grades of 1 or 2 mean that an organisation is compliant with the regulator’s requirements while grades of 3 or 4 signal non-compliance.

Anchor’s is graded V1 for viability, G3 for governance and C3 for consumer standards.

Tenant Satisfaction Measures

In 2023, the Regulator of Social Housing introduced Tenant Satisfaction Measures, you might hear these called TSMs. These assess landlords’ performance in providing good quality homes and services. They help us understand where improvements might be needed.

They cover all types of rented social housing in England that are registered with the regulator. Some, but not all, of the TSMs also cover shared ownership homes.

Some of the measures come from surveys of residents while others from our own performance information. They focus on:

Keeping properties in good repair;
Maintaining building safety;
Respectful and helpful engagement;
Effective handling of complaints;
Responsible neighbourhood management

For Anchor, these measures apply for our Low-Cost Rental Accommodation and our Low-Cost Home Ownership. We publish our annual results on our website and through our other channels. We also share the results with the Regulator of Social Housing.  

If you receive a call, email, or letter asking you to complete this survey, please take part. We value resident feedback as this helps us to improve the services we provide, and we value all types of feedback. Your thoughts are vital and essential to making a difference.  

Find out more about Customer relations and how you can provide feedback here.

Learn about our approach to collecting feedback for the 2025/26 TSMs here.

Overall, our latest results show a stable performance with clear strengths, alongside some areas where we need to improve how residents experience our services.

We’re performing well in our core rented services, where overall satisfaction remains strong and above sector benchmarks. This reflects a solid service offer, good value for money, and positive day‑to‑day experiences for many residents. Building safety compliance is also high, with robust controls in place, and our performance continues to compare well against sector benchmarks in several key areas.

Alongside this, we are strengthening how we listen and respond to feedback, with more opportunities for residents to share their views through forums and other engagement channels.

However, the results also highlight some consistent challenges. Repairs remain a key driver of dissatisfaction. Performance is mixed across emergency and non‑emergency work, and there is a clear link between repairs issues, higher complaint volumes and lower overall satisfaction. Where we have taken targeted action, we are starting to see encouraging progress. Improvements in areas such as emergency repairs show that focused operational changes can make a real difference.

Complaints are another area where we are working on improvements. Satisfaction with how complaints are managed, including timeliness, has declined and is now below Ombudsman expectations. This is affecting how some residents view our services overall.

Communication is also not always as clear or consistent as it needs to be. Residents tell us we can do better at explaining service charges and what drives costs, as well as setting clear expectations about services such as repairs, anti‑social behaviour and leasehold support.

This is particularly evident in low-cost homeownership (LCHO), where satisfaction remains significantly lower than in rented services. This points to a gap between what we deliver and how it is understood and experienced by homeowners.

We have clear plans in place to address these issues. These include improving how we communicate service charges and planned works, strengthening our repairs service, improving complaints handling with a stronger focus on root causes, and delivering more consistent customer experience through our Service Offer programme. Work is also underway to improve stock condition data and provide better visibility of future investment and its financial impact.

In summary, we have a strong foundation, particularly in rented services and compliance, and we are making progress in key areas. The priority now is to improve consistency and pace of delivery, and to focus on the experience residents have of our services.

Overall satisfaction with our Low Cost Rented Accommodation service is 84%, a decrease from last year’s result of 86.1%.

Overall satisfaction with our Low Cost Home Ownership service is 60.2%, an increase from last year’s result of 59.7%.

	Low Cost Rented Accommodation			Low Cost Home Ownership
TSM Survey Question	2024/25	2025/26	Change	2024/25	2025/26	Change
TP01: Overall satisfaction	86.1%	84%	▼	59.7%	60.2%	▲

Keeping properties in good repair

These measures apply only for Low Cost Rented Accommodation.

	Low Cost Rented Accommodation
TSM Survey Question	2024/25	2025/26	Change
TP02: Satisfied with the overall repairs service	86.2%	85.8%	▼
TP03: Satisfied with the time taken to complete most recent repair	81.1%	79.1%	▼
TP04: Satisfied that home is well maintained	87.2%	87.3%	▲
RP01: Percentage of homes that do not meet the Decent Homes Standard	0%	2.1%	▲
RP02(1): Proportion of non-emergency responsive repairs completed within the landlord’s target timescale	78.5%	75.7%	▼
RP02(2): Proportion of emergency responsive repairs completed within the landlord’s target timescale	62.4%	71%	▲

Details of our target timescales for repairs are available here.

Maintaining building safety

When asked if they are satisfied that their home is safe, 92.1% of Low Cost Rented Accommodation respondents felt satisfied, so did 73.1% of Low Cost Home Ownership respondents.

	Low Cost Rented Accommodation			Low Cost Home Ownership
TSM Survey Question	2024/25	2025/26	Change	2024/25	2025/26	Change
TP05: Satisfied that their home is safe	91.2%	92.1%	▲	71.7%	73.1%	▲

	Both services
TSM Survey Question	2024/25	2025/26	Change
BS01: Proportion of homes for which all required gas safety checks have been carried out	99.4%	99.1%	▼
BS02: Proportion of homes for which all required fire risk assessments have been carried out	99.9%	100%	▲
BS03: Proportion of homes for which all required asbestos management surveys or re-inspections have been carried out	100%	100%	=
BS04: Proportion of homes for which all required legionella risk assessments have been carried out	99.9%	96.9%	▼
BS05: Proportion of homes for which all required communal passenger lift safety checks have been carried out	99.6%	99.8%	▲

Respectful and helpful engagement

	Low Cost Rented Accommodation			Low Cost Home Ownership
TSM Survey Question	2024/25	2025/26	Change	2024/25	2025/26	Change
TP06: Satisfied that resident views are listened to and acted upon	74.9%	73%	▼	40%	42%	▲
TP07: Satisfied we keep residents informed about things that matter to them	88.8%	88.3%	▼	64.3%	64.3%	=
TP08: Agree we treat residents fairly and with respect	89%	87%	▼	60%	59.1%	▼

Effective handling of complaints

	Low Cost Rented Accommodation			Low Cost Home Ownership
TSM Survey Question	2024/25	2025/26	Change	2024/25	2025/26	Change
TP09: Satisfaction with approach to handling complaints	41.6%	42.6%	▲	24.5%	23.4%	▼
CH01(1): Number of stage one complaints received per 1,000 homes	46	85.6	▲	31.3	46.8	▲
CH01(2): Number of stage two complaints received per 1,000 homes	4.4	10.9	▲	4.8	11.1	▲
CH02(1): Proportion of stage one complaints responded to within the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code timescales	85.7%	62.4%	▼	84.6%	66.7%	▼
CH02(2): Proportion of stage two complaints responded to within the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code timescales.	81.5%	50.4%	▼	100%	35%	▼

Responsible neighbourhood management

	Low Cost Rented Accommodation			Low Cost Home Ownership
TSM Survey Question	2024/25	2025/26	Change	2024/25	2025/26	Change
TP10: Satisfaction with the cleanliness and maintenance of communal areas	90.7%	89.8%	▼	74.5%	78.1%	▲
TP11: Satisfaction with Anchor’s contribution to the neighbourhood	82.5%	84.4%	▲	46.2%	39.2%	▼
TP12: Satisfaction with Anchor’s approach to handling of antisocial behaviour	76.4%	75.3%	▼	45.3%	40.4%	▼

	Both services
TSM Survey Question	2024/25	2025/26	Change
NM01(1): Number of anti-social behaviour cases, opened per 1,000 homes	25.6	22.1	▼
NM01(2): Number of anti-social behaviour cases that involve hate incidents opened per 1,000 homes	0.3	0.4	▲