What RSH Inspectors Look For in Compliance Records

What the inspector is actually judging

The inspection is a test of evidence, not a test of paperwork volume.

Let me explain what actually happens when the Regulator of Social Housing turns up, because there is a lot of nonsense written about it by people who have never sat on either side of the table. The inspector is not there to admire a folder of gas certificates. They are there to answer one question: can this landlord prove it knows the condition of its homes and that it acts when something is wrong?

That is the whole game. Everything else is detail. You can wave a spreadsheet that says 99.6 percent gas compliance and it means nothing if you cannot show the inspector where that number came from, when the record was checked, who checked it, and what happened to the two homes that were not compliant. I have processed compliance data across more than 1.7 million properties, and the pattern never changes. The organisations that fail are not the ones with the most overdue certificates. They are the ones who cannot evidence what they are telling you.

Compliance, because of the reporting mechanisms in place today, is the minimum expected output. I have said that for years and it still winds people up. Hitting the legal minimum is not a gold star, it is the floor. The inspector treats it as the floor too. So the moment you start dining out on a headline compliance percentage without the evidence underneath it, you have already told them everything they need to know.

The consumer standards and the C1 to C4 grades

Since 1 April 2024 every social landlord in England has been regulated against four consumer standards: the Safety and Quality Standard, the Transparency, Influence and Accountability Standard, the Neighbourhood and Community Standard, and the Tenancy Standard. If you own or manage more than 1,000 social homes, the Regulator will inspect you at least once every four years, and it has been doing exactly that since the programme started.

The output of an inspection is a consumer grade from C1 to C4. C1 means you are meeting the outcomes. C2 means there are weaknesses and you need to improve. C3 means serious failings and significant improvement needed. C4 means very serious failings. C1 is not the target, it is the minimum any landlord should be hitting. Anything below it is published, on the Regulator's website, with your name on it, for tenants, lenders and the press to read.

The big six: the records that get pulled first

Six compliance streams, each with its own record, cycle and competent person.

Every compliance professional knows the big six: gas, electrical, fire, asbestos, water safety and lifts. These are the streams the inspector will ask about first, because they are the ones that kill people when they go wrong. What most people underestimate is that the inspector does not just want the certificate. They want the record behind it, the action that followed it, and proof the two are joined up.

Here is the reference table I give every team I work with. If you cannot produce the middle three columns for any of these streams, on demand, at individual property level, you have a problem before the inspector has even sat down.

The electrical stream is worth a flag on its own. The rules for social housing tightened, with EICR requirements applying to new social tenancies from 1 November 2025 and existing tenancies from May 2026. A satisfactory report has to reach the tenant within 28 days, and any C1, C2 or FI coded remedial has to be sorted inside 28 days too. If you want the detail on the wave of certificates all falling due at once, I wrote about the 2026 EICR renewal cliff and the incoming Level 3 qualification requirement separately.

Data integrity: the thing that sinks landlords

The inspector checks whether your numbers can be trusted, not just whether they are high.

This is where the majority of landlords come unstuck, so read it twice. The Regulator does not only ask whether a check was done. It asks whether you are checking the accuracy and integrity of your own data. When Runnymede Borough Council was inspected, there was no evidence that it was checking the accuracy and integrity of the data for its required health and safety checks and actions. That single finding is worth more than a hundred missing certificates, because it tells the inspector the whole system cannot be trusted.

Think about what that means in practice. A contractor uploads a gas certificate. Your system marks the property green. Job done, apparently. But nobody checked that the certificate matches the property address, that it covers the right appliances, that the engineer was actually Gas Safe registered on the day, or that the calculations on the document are valid. A green tick built on an unverified PDF is not compliance, it is a story you are telling yourself.

The people who do this well have said the same thing in different words. Rachel Ratty at Asprey Solutions puts it as accurate and trustworthy data depending on governance as much as technology. John Osborn at Headland Solutions frames it as compliance being the operational reality and reporting being the story you tell about it, with both needing to be strong. They are right. Extracting the data off the document and validating it against the standard is the difference between assurance and hope. It is the same argument I made in detail about AI compliance document extraction, and it is exactly what an inspector is probing for.

Stock condition data is the foundation

You cannot have accurate compliance records if you do not know what you own and what condition it is in. The Safety and Quality Standard is blunt about this: you need an accurate record at individual property level of the condition of your homes, based on a physical assessment of every home, kept up to date. Not a sample. Not a model. Every home.

The failures here are stark. At Wandsworth Council only 6.5 percent of 17,000 homes had been surveyed in the past ten years. One London council had not assessed some of its stock for over a decade. When Runnymede was looked at, only 30 percent of its homes had a full stock condition survey. The sector average has been climbing, with landlords reporting 75 percent of homes surveyed in the last five years as at March 2024, up from 68 percent the year before, but averages hide the laggards, and the laggards are the ones getting downgraded.

Physical assessment of every home is the base layer everything else sits on.

Here is why this matters for your contractor records specifically. If your stock data is wrong, your compliance programme is aimed at the wrong homes. You schedule a gas service for a property that was converted to electric heating two years ago. You miss a lift in a block your system does not know has a lift. The certificate gaps that show up on inspection day are very often not a contractor failure at all. They are a stock data failure wearing a contractor failure's coat.

Adejoke Ajao at South Liverpool Homes captures the join up neatly, that compliance relies on data being captured consistently across different systems and teams. Your surveyor, your scheduling system, your contractor portal and your asset register all have to agree on what a property is before any of the compliance numbers mean anything.

Overdue actions and the remedial backlog trap

Doing the inspection is the easy half. Closing the actions that come out of it is where landlords drown. The published judgements are full of it. The City of London had more than 1,000 overdue fire safety actions, some of them high risk and overdue for more than a year, plus large numbers of outstanding remedial actions from electrical checks. Newcastle City Council carried over 850 overdue fire safety remedial actions on top of 1,800 overdue repairs. Brighton and Hove had 3,600 homes without a current electrical condition report out of a stock of 12,100.

The commercial point for contractors sitting inside this system is simple. If you deliver the work but your paperwork does not flow back cleanly, or you leave the client unable to evidence closure, you become part of their risk. Landlords are starting to score contractors on exactly this. Being the contractor who returns clean, verifiable, correctly addressed records inside the deadline is quickly becoming a way to win and keep contracts, not just a nicety.

Awaab's Law and the audit trail

Awaab's Law turns your record keeping into a legal clock you have to evidence.

Awaab's Law came into force on 27 October 2025 and it changes what a compliance record has to prove. For damp and mould you now have to investigate within 10 working days, give the tenant a written summary within 3 working days of the investigation, and make the home safe within a further 5 working days. Emergency hazards have to be dealt with within 24 hours. If you cannot make the home safe in time, you have to sort suitable alternative accommodation at your cost.

The part that catches people out is the evidence burden. To prove you hit those timescales you have to keep photographs, contractor notes, inspection reports and tenant communications, all time stamped, all joined to the property. The inspector, or an Environmental Health Officer, or a court, can ask you to reconstruct the timeline of a single case. If your contractor records are scattered across email, a job management system and a filing cabinet, you will not be able to. The audit trail is the compliance now.

This is not a damp and mould problem, it is a records problem, and it is expanding to further hazards from 2026. Every stream in the big six is heading the same way: prove it happened, prove when, prove who, prove what followed.

The golden thread and contractor competence

The Building Safety Act 2022 introduced the golden thread, the principle that safety information should be held digitally, kept current, and available to the right people when they need it. Around 6,000 of the estimated 12,500 residential blocks over 18 metres in the country are owned by social housing providers, so this is squarely a social housing issue. The golden thread is not a document, it is the expectation that your records are a single connected source of truth rather than fragments held by different contractors.

Competence sits alongside it. The inspector will want to see that the people signing your compliance records were actually qualified to do so. Was the electrician appropriately registered? Was the fire risk assessor competent for the building type? Do you hold and check their accreditations rather than assuming them? Contractor competence records are compliance records too, and they carry a long tail. I set out why records retention has become a thirty year problem in the piece on the liability hidden in the Building Safety Act, and it applies directly here.

The ten point contractor compliance audit

Run this before the Regulator runs it for you.

Here is the audit I would run on any portfolio before an inspection. Work through it property by property for a sample, then by stream across the whole portfolio. If you cannot answer yes with evidence to every one of these, you have found your gap while you can still fix it.

1. Match the record to the property: every certificate ties to a real, current property in your asset register, with the correct address and unit reference. No orphan documents, no mismatches.
2. Confirm the competent person: the engineer, electrician or assessor was registered and qualified for that work on the date they signed. Hold the accreditation, do not assume it.
3. Check the document is valid, not just present: the certificate covers the right appliances or installation, the codes are recorded, and the calculations stand up. A PDF on file is not the same as a valid record.
4. Track every remedial to closure: each C1, C2, FI, or fire action has an owner, a date raised, and a date closed. Nothing sits open without an age and a reason.
5. Age your open actions: you can produce the age profile of everything outstanding, and nothing high risk has been open beyond its deadline.
6. Reconcile against stock condition: the compliance programme is aimed at the homes you actually own in their current form, cross checked against a recent physical survey.
7. Prove the timeline: for damp, mould and emergency cases you can reconstruct the Awaab's Law clock with time stamped photos, notes and tenant contact.
8. Test your own data integrity: you run routine checks on the accuracy of your compliance data and can show the inspector how and when you do it.
9. Join the sources: contractor portal, scheduling system and asset register agree with each other. No stream lives only in one contractor's inbox.
10. Retain for the long tail: records are held for the retention periods the Building Safety Act now demands, and you can retrieve any of them on request.

What tips a landlord into a C3

After enough of these I can predict the downgrades. It is rarely one dramatic failure. It is a pattern the inspector recognises within the first hour.

Notice what is not on that list. It is not the odd, honest no access property where a tenant will not let anyone in. Courts have confirmed a landlord cannot always force entry, and the Regulator knows you will not be at 100 percent for that reason. What sinks you is not the honest gap. It is the inability to prove you know where the gaps are and that you are chasing them. Stick your head above the parapet, show the inspector your worst numbers and your plan to close them, and you will fare better than the landlord hiding behind a percentage nobody can verify.

Recommended videos

Ryan Dempsey, CEO of The Compliance Workbook, full interview

TCW

Awaab's Law forces social landlords to fix damp and mould urgently

Channel 4 News

Damp and mouldy homes still an issue as Awaab's Law comes in

ITV News

Stock condition survey, what it is and why it matters

Halton Housing

Stock condition surveys explained

Karbon Homes

7 reasons your home might fail an EICR inspection

Artisan Electrics

What the sector is saying

Frequently asked questions

My verdict