I doubt you are really a “fan of sackings”. I think you are a fan of proper services. And again, hard agree: there do have to be consequences when they fail at the systemic level.

The line about relying on exception reporting was strange I thought. Is good governance really to drown the board in data about everything rather than report the exceptions they really need to focus on? 🤷‍♂️

Hard agree. But interestingly, the Judgement cites risk management and other things, rather than the C3, as the reason for the G downgrade. Where does the buck stop?

Two aspects to gaming - a) sampling methodology and b) resource allocation towards (especially key) TSM measures and away from non-TSM measures. The TSMs do not encompass the entire universe of services in which residents have legitimate interest.

Only if by “better” you mean that only 1 in 4 as opposed to 1 in 3 of their residents are dissatisfied. It’s a very low bar!

TSMs encourage gaming of the system. Use of averages tends to suggest that everything is ok. Metrics give Boards comfort. Displacement activity to avoid fixing (ie really changing) the system and the mindset which designs it.

Agree TSM model is flawed (we said so in our consultation response) but it is what we have. Until landlords develop the long tail of policies & practices to meet the long tail of needs that residents as individuals have, we are doomed to the crazy world in which 30% “dissatisfied” is somehow ok!

Maybe ask them about the long-tail of significant dissatisfaction levels disguised by the use of averages by landlords and averages of averages by the Regulator. For the individual that represents 100% failure, even if for the landlord it only pulls them down by 0.1%.

Voters maybe. Or alternatively the absence of an asset class that “working people” can invest in that performs as well as residential property

Is #photography allowed too?

👌. Thanks

Can I suggest The European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020?

Ooh. Hello. Somebody I know! This place might have a future…..