Approval threshold
At least 80/100 in the base overall score before any bonus, at least 70/100 in every assessed area, and every mandatory approval condition met. This scheme threshold will be calibrated in the pilot before live certification.
THE HOUSINGASSURED STANDARD · DRAFT
People first. Clear responsibility.
Read our methods, score explanations and review schedule without membership. These checks focus on everyday support, safe homes, clear staff responsibility and problems followed through.
Explore the Standard of Trust sealSee the design, what it means and how it connects to a public assessment. Example artwork only.Published assessment requirements · private preview. The live scheme will use this evidence framework; current provider profiles and audit submissions are examples, and no real company has been certified.
Clear staff roles. Someone who can help.
HousingAssured focuses on the people using supported and social housing each day. We check whether the staff setup gives residents a clear contact, enough support and a manager who can resolve problems. We assess responsibilities, service cover and follow-through; board size, board composition and the number of directors are not scoring criteria.
| Responsibility | What the provider needs to show |
|---|---|
| Day-to-day management | A named manager, their responsibilities, how residents and staff reach them, and the authority to act on unresolved issues. |
| Resident support | The responsible support worker or team, reporting lines, service hours and a clear route to help when a person’s needs change. Match this to the support the service promises. |
| Repairs and home issues | The person or team receiving repair reports, who follows them up, and who escalates urgent or unresolved problems. |
| Complaints | A named complaints lead and work contact route, the manager/escalation contact, who keeps the resident updated, and a fair alternative when the complaint concerns that person. |
| Cover and supervision | Who takes over during absence, sufficient management time and staff cover for the actual workload, and the appropriate urgent contact outside the advertised service hours. |
Provide a current staff chart, a short responsibilities list, accessible work contacts and a staffing/cover plan. Reviewers check examples of how issues were handled in practice. Roles may be combined in a smaller organisation where the arrangement is workable, has enough capacity and allows complaints to be handled fairly. There is no fixed headcount that earns approval.
Checks for everyday service accountability
Our evidence focuses on people’s support, safe homes, repairs, complaints and promises being kept. Company financial accounts, tax returns and board membership numbers are not routine audit evidence. HousingAssured does not prepare or routinely send these audit returns to regulators or HMRC.
Urgent safeguarding and safety concerns still need the appropriate services. Any disclosure required by law is handled separately from this service review.
24 checks across six key areas.
Proof of what people experience day to day: who helps, whether support happens, whether homes are safe and repairs get done, and how complaints are resolved. Reviewers check proportionate samples of actual practice across the service. A policy or staff chart alone does not demonstrate that the setup works.
Residents know who does what, who handles complaints and who can put things right each day.
Evidence requested
- A current staff structure showing roles, reporting lines and who handles resident support, property/repair issues, complaints and day-to-day service management. Identify the responsible people and usable work contact routes through an agreed evidence check.
- Role responsibilities and a staffing/cover plan matched to the promised service, resident needs and workload. Show who is available during service hours, who covers absence and how urgent issues outside those hours are handled.
- A named manager with authority to resolve issues, a clearly identified complaints lead and a separate escalation route when a complaint concerns that person or cannot be resolved. Residents should receive this information in an accessible form.
- Privacy-reviewed examples showing that staff responsibilities work in practice: an issue reached the right person, management acted and the resident received an update or outcome.
- Proof that agreed landlord payments were paid in full on time, to help protect continuity of residents’ homes: the agreed payment schedule, reconciled landlord ledger and completed-payment evidence or landlord receipts. Identify late payments, part-payments, arrears and disputed sums separately. This is a focused payment check, not a review of company accounts or tax affairs.
The four scoring criteria
- Clear staff roles, reporting lines and accessible contacts
- Sufficient day-to-day management, authority and absence cover
- Named complaints responsibility and a usable escalation route
- Continuity of residents’ homes, including timely landlord payments where applicable
When checked: Before approval and annually; update the staff structure and resident contacts whenever responsibilities change. Check sooner if management cover fails or an issue has no accountable owner. Landlord-payment totals are monthly, with risk-based source checks quarterly.
How evidence becomes a score.
There are 24 published checks: four in each of six areas, each marked 0–5. Providers earn marks through evidence; they do not start with full marks. An area with all criteria applicable has 20 available marks; its total is multiplied by five to give a score out of 100. The six area percentages have equal weight in the base average. A separately explained, evidence-reviewed noticeboard transparency bonus can add 2 points to the overall score, capped at 100 and rounded only at the end.
| Mark | What it means |
|---|---|
| 0/5 | Evidence missing, unverifiable or demonstrates failure. |
| 1/5 | A policy or intention exists; implementation is unproven. |
| 2/5 | Partly implemented, with significant gaps. |
| 3/5 | Working in practice, with identified shortfalls. |
| 4/5 | Consistently implemented and supported by checked examples. |
| 5/5 | Sustained effectiveness, monitored outcomes and verified improvement. |
Mandatory conditions
Required authority and registrations must be evidenced. Verified serious safety/safeguarding failures or falsified evidence block approval regardless of the average. An allegation triggers a fair investigation.
Missing and excluded evidence
Missing evidence earns no positive credit. An assessor must justify any genuinely non-applicable criterion; remove its available marks from the denominator. An unassessed area prevents a complete approval decision.
A reason for every mark
Record the evidence reference, finding, reason for the mark and any corrective action/deadline. The provider can respond. Public profiles show the score, reasons, scope and assessment date, with resident feedback rated separately.
When the seal stops being active
After an authorised assessment is recorded, the system calculates eligibility using the unrounded marks. It suspends the seal if the base is below 80, any area is below 70, a mandatory condition fails, a critical risk is unresolved or a major action passes its recorded deadline. Review/validity expiry makes the seal expired. A reviewer must record evidence and reasons for permanent withdrawal or reinstatement; payment or a later better score alone cannot restore a restricted seal.
A concern alone does not deduct points. Review evidence fairly, consider the provider’s response and change the affected criterion’s 0–5 mark with reasons. For example, a fall from 4 to 2 removes 2 of that area’s 20 marks: 10 area percentage points and about 1.67 points from the six-area average when all criteria apply. No separate arbitrary fine is added.
The current public verification link and linked seal image calculate the status on every request. Printed or downloaded artwork cannot be recalled remotely; check its current verification record. This is a fictional pilot, with real seal awards disabled.
Example: 4 + 4 + 3 + 5 = 16/20, or 80/100 for one area. Audit totals inform the assessment; they do not automatically generate a score or an approval.
Noticeboard transparency bonus: +2 points
A useful, current digital noticeboard can earn 2 extra overall points after an assessor checks all four requirements below. The base six-area score, bonus, reason, evidence reference and review date must be reported separately.
- A working noticeboard is available across the assessed property scope, with a usable read-only inspector route.
- Occupancy evidence, certificate dates, maintenance targets, notices and work contacts are complete and match sampled source records.
- Staff have confirmed the information within the last 31 days and material changes are updated promptly.
- The no-code brief, sensitive-location restrictions, private record boundaries and QR disable/rotation have been privacy-tested.
Check before award and at quarterly reviews, with annual reassessment and an earlier check after a material change or concern. A dated award expires at its recorded review due date and must be removed earlier if the evidence no longer supports it. The assessor records gaps and the reason if no bonus is awarded.
Example: base 86 + transparency 2 = 88/100. Buying a plaque or powered screen, generating a QR, or paying membership alone earns no points. A safe equivalent noticeboard can qualify without purchasing HousingAssured hardware. The bonus cannot override a critical failure, a missing assessment or any base approval threshold. No real company has been awarded this bonus in the preview.
How often we check.
These are scheme reporting requirements. Actual safety, safeguarding, contact and repair deadlines follow the applicable law, assessed risks and agreed service commitments.
| When / who | What happens |
|---|---|
| Before approval | Current evidence pack, relevant authorisation checks and an internal-system audit snapshot no more than 31 days old. Normally review 12 months of practice, or the available operating period. |
| Daily / weekly · provider | Check urgent safety and safeguarding issues and overdue contacts daily. Check support-plan/STAR reviews, incomplete notes and maintenance backlogs weekly. Use the applicable legal, assessed-risk or agreed service deadline. |
| Monthly · provider | Submit a manager-confirmed organisation-wide audit return within 15 calendar days of month-end, covering the full assessed service scope, including landlord-payment timeliness, arrears and retained proof. |
| Quarterly · HousingAssured reviewer | Review trends, missing or withheld data and overdue actions. Reconcile risk-based landlord-payment samples to agreed due dates, amounts and completed payments. Include late or disputed items and expand checks where gaps appear. |
| Annually · provider | Support providers submit an annual support-quality review within 30 calendar days of their reporting year-end, before annual reassessment. Include year-end overdue-review/contact/note figures, whole-period source coverage, resident feedback and management follow-up. Newer services clearly identify a shorter operating period. |
| Annually · HousingAssured reviewer | Reassess all six areas. Review the annual support submission against month-by-month source evidence, risk-based samples of actual support and resident feedback. Record gaps, staff action owners and verified improvements; publish the new assessment date and reasons. |
| At expiry, change or concern | Refresh expiring evidence before expiry. Triage credible concerns and material changes promptly; critical risks do not wait for the next scheduled review. |
The published schedule describes the live scheme. This preview does not run continuous checks, connect automatically to providers’ systems or send monthly audit reminders. A concern or urgent hazard must use the appropriate reporting route immediately.
Annual checks of support people actually receive.
Current paid provider members delivering support must submit an annual support quality review through My account → Internal systems audit → Annual support quality review. Submit within 30 calendar days of your reporting year-end and before annual reassessment. Cover 12 consecutive months, or identify the actual shorter operating period for a newer service. The annual review sits alongside the routine monthly checks.
| Everyday support | What we check |
|---|---|
| Support-plan reviews | Who needs a current plan, how many reviews are overdue at year-end, how long they are overdue and whether support still matches assessed needs. |
| STAR / outcome reviews | Overdue reviews, whether goals and outcomes were reviewed with the resident and evidence of progress or revised support. Justify any genuinely non-applicable measure. |
| Contact and missed support | Overdue contact, unexplained gaps, whether valid reasons were reviewed and what staff did to re-establish appropriate contact. Submit counts and age bands, not individual reasons or last-seen dates. |
| Outstanding notes and follow-up | Missing/incomplete support entries, unresolved actions, a responsible staff member, realistic deadlines and evidence that follow-up happened. |
| Resident experience and outcomes | Resident feedback and privacy-reviewed examples showing whether promised support was delivered and helped the person. Check what changed after concerns or missed support. |
Submit the structured figures and annual evidence statuses. Retain month-by-month support/exception summaries, overdue-ageing reports, action logs, resident feedback/outcome summaries and source records for agreed reviewer sampling. A manager confirms the reporting scope, accuracy, source availability and review of follow-up. Any missing months or records must remain visible as partial or unavailable evidence.
Support-plan, STAR and contact figures are year-end snapshots. Do not add monthly snapshots together as unique people affected. Review the whole reporting period for repeat delays, missed support, gaps and sustained improvements; notes and other measures keep their published definitions. Zero overdue items at year-end or a completed policy alone does not establish the quality of support throughout the year.
Reviewers select proportionate samples across the year, including overdue work and reported improvements, and compare the records with resident feedback and the service promised. Findings feed the resident-support assessment, with recorded reasons and improvement actions. Provider submissions do not automatically change scores or approval.
Annual returns and source-evidence declarations are private to the provider and authorised reviewers. This form accepts aggregate information only, with privacy-withheld and missing statuses where needed; detailed records remain in the provider’s controlled systems for an agreed lawful source check. No routine regulator or HMRC report is produced. The private preview accepts fictional figures only.
An audit from your internal systems.
Applicants complete an organisation and service questionnaire, then add private supporting documents through My account → Supporting evidence and review. Provider evidence covers all six accountability areas, with relevant insurance and landlord-payment evidence or a proposed exclusion for reviewer consideration. Referrers supply organisation identity, authority, referral procedures and information-sharing arrangements. Files are private to the applicant and authorised reviewers; only PDF, PNG and JPEG documents are accepted, with dates and privacy confirmations. The preview accepts fictional documents only. Providers also supply a recent structured initial evidence snapshot through their account. Once approved and currently paid, provider members use the monthly audit tools; support providers also make the annual support-quality submission described above. Generate organisation-wide totals from RM or your equivalent systems and submit through My account → Internal systems audit, selecting the relevant return type. Use the member templates and improvement resources to prepare and follow up. Keep the detailed source report within your controlled system for an agreed verification check.
State the reporting period, extraction date and source type. Cover the full assessed service scope. For operational measures, report the population checked, number outstanding/overdue at period-end and the oldest overdue age band. Include valid recorded exceptions in the overall contact figure and identify unexplained contact gaps separately. The landlord-payment section separately records on-time payments, late payments, outstanding instalments and the source evidence retained for checks.
Proof that landlords are paid on time.
Timely landlord payments help protect continuity of residents’ homes. Where a provider owes rent, lease charges or other agreed payments to a landlord, we check the agreed amount and deadline against completed payments. This focused check supports stable housing; it does not assess company accounts, tax affairs or returns for a regulator. A manager declaration or payment instruction alone is insufficient.
Evidence requested
- The signed lease or landlord agreement, payment schedule and any valid documented amendments, showing agreed amounts and due dates.
- A reconciled landlord ledger showing instalments due, amounts paid, completed-payment dates and any balances.
- Completed bank-transaction evidence or landlord receipts/confirmation matched to the ledger. Pending transfers, standing-order instructions and scheduled payments do not prove completion. Where the agreement requires receipt by a date, check receipt rather than relying only on the instruction date.
What the monthly return records
- Instalments due in the period, split into paid in full on time, paid in full late, and still unpaid or part-paid at period-end.
- Older instalments still unpaid or part-paid, the oldest arrears age band and disputed outstanding instalments included within the totals.
- Which source records are retained and whether they are ready for reviewer checks, incomplete or unavailable. Declaring evidence available is not verification.
How often we check
Before approval, review the previous 12 months or the available operating period. Providers reconcile payments monthly and submit the totals within 15 calendar days of month-end. Quarterly reviewer checks select samples across landlords and include on-time, late, part-paid and disputed items. Refresh the review annually and investigate credible payment concerns sooner.
Fair findings and follow-up
Late payments remain visible after settlement. Disputed sums are identified separately and cannot simply be removed from the ledger. Review the agreed terms, valid amendments, explanation and evidence before making a finding. Require an action plan and closure evidence where gaps are confirmed. Consider the effect on residents’ housing and the provider’s response when assessing service continuity and any proportionate decision under the published process; a submitted total alone does not automatically change a score or certification.
Keep detailed evidence in the provider’s controlled systems for an agreed source check. Supply only the relevant, privacy-reviewed records through an agreed secure method; redact bank account numbers, sort codes, unrelated transactions and unnecessary personal or resident information. Preserve the amounts, due/completed-payment dates and a suitable non-identifying reference needed for reconciliation. This totals form does not accept documents or bank details, and raw financial evidence is not public directory content.
Use “not applicable” only where the provider has no landlord-payment responsibility in the assessed scope; the reviewer must confirm that exclusion. Missing evidence, withheld figures or zero payments due in one month do not establish an exemption or prove on-time payment. Earlier returns that predate this check remain marked as not collected.
Evidence that can be checked
A responsible manager confirms completeness, definitions and source accuracy. Reviewers check the underlying report/filter settings through an agreed controlled method, compare trends and request correction where needed. Small samples or missing data must be visible.
Exceptions need follow-through
Providers keep a corrective action plan with accountable owners, due dates and closure evidence. “Not recorded”, “withheld for privacy” and “not applicable” are separate statuses. They never mean zero outstanding work or automatic compliance.
Protect resident confidentiality before submitting
- Submit organisation-wide totals only. Exclude names, initials, resident IDs, addresses/room numbers, birth dates, exact last-seen dates, diagnoses, convictions and case narratives.
- Review whether small totals, rare situations or combinations of figures could identify someone. Withhold affected measures or agree a broader reporting approach with the assessor; do not invent a zero.
- Removing names or replacing them with a client code does not guarantee anonymity. Do not attach raw exports, screenshots or case files to this return.
- Audit returns are private to the company account and authorised HousingAssured reviewers. The public directory does not display these raw figures.
Providers must assess identifiability before sharing. Any separate source verification involving personal information requires an agreed lawful basis, purpose, safeguards and retention arrangements. The preview accepts fictional audit information only.
Privacy references: ICO data minimisation · ICO anonymisation and identification risk.
Reference frameworks are applied only where relevant: RSH standards · Supported housing expectations (England) · Housing Ombudsman Complaint Handling Code.
PLANNED LIVE-SCHEME TARGETS
When you can expect a response.
These are HousingAssured’s targets for scheme concerns and appeals. They cover our standards and certification decisions. Your landlord’s complaints process and any applicable Ombudsman or statutory deadlines continue to apply separately.
| Stage | Target and next step |
|---|---|
| Acknowledge a concern | Within 2 working days of receipt, with a reference, case contact and target response date. |
| Initial risk and scope check | Within 2 working days of receipt. Potential urgent risks are prioritised as soon as identified; routine targets must not delay protective action. |
| Provider’s response | Normally within 10 working days of our evidence request. We consider the available evidence if the provider does not respond. |
| Written concern outcome | Within 20 working days of acknowledgement, explaining the findings, reasons, any certification action and the appeal route. |
| Acknowledge an appeal | Within 2 working days of receipt, confirming the disputed decision and the independent review arrangements. |
| Independent appeal outcome | Within 20 working days of appeal acknowledgement, with a dated decision and reasons from a reviewer uninvolved in the original decision. |
If more time is needed: before the original deadline, explain the reason, confirm a revised response date and give a progress update at least every 10 working days. Any extension must be justified and recorded; it does not postpone urgent risk action.
Working days are Monday–Friday, excluding public holidays in the UK nation handling the case. The acknowledgement confirms the dates that apply. This private preview has no monitored concern or appeal service; these targets describe the planned live process.
Every concern receives fair consideration
A reported concern alone does not prove failure. You do not need to prove a failure before reporting a concern. Reviewers assess the evidence, consider the provider’s response and explain the decision. Precautionary risk action can be considered while facts are checked.
Urgent help must not wait
If someone is in immediate danger, call 999. Report safeguarding concerns directly to the appropriate adult or children’s safeguarding service for the person’s location. Report urgent property hazards through the landlord/provider’s emergency repair route and the relevant statutory service where needed.
Do not wait for a HousingAssured response. For England, see reporting child abuse and adult safeguarding advice. Use the appropriate local route elsewhere in the UK.
DRAFT APPEAL & RETURN CRITERIA
A fair challenge. A clear route back.
Providers can challenge a score or decision and can be considered for return after reassessment. An appeal does not require a current paid membership.
Grounds for an appeal
- A material factual or scoring error.
- Relevant evidence was missed, or new evidence could change the decision.
- The published procedure was not followed, or there was a conflict of interest.
- The decision was disproportionate to the findings, with reasons explaining why.
Identify the decision reference, disputed findings, supporting evidence and the outcome sought. Disagreeing with a result alone does not establish grounds to change it.
An independent, reasoned outcome
A reviewer uninvolved in the original decision must check conflicts, consider the provider’s response and record a dated outcome with reasons.
The outcome may uphold or amend the decision, or set it aside for a fresh assessment. A suspension or withdrawal continues during the appeal unless a separate, documented risk assessment justifies changing it.
Membership approval, certification status and subscription payment remain separate decisions.
Can a provider return?
- Rejected application: seek reassessment with evidence addressing the reasons for rejection, or appeal an error.
- Suspension: seek reinstatement after corrective actions and critical risks have been resolved and verified, followed by reassessment and a written decision.
- Withdrawn certification: seek a fresh assessment against the current standard. A seal can only return after a new approval decision.
Conditions for returning
The decision must state the evidence, actions and any case-specific conditions required. Re-entry is not automatic; unresolved or repeated serious failures may justify refusal, with recorded reasons.
Use the existing account and retain the decision history. Returning does not erase valid published reviews or previous findings.
Payment alone cannot restore approval, a score or a seal. Paid tools also require approved membership and a current subscription.
These are draft scheme criteria. The planned concern and appeal response targets are published above. The submission route and reviewer arrangements must be operational before launch; this preview does not provide a live appeal service.