Customer voice is one of those phrases that gets used endlessly in housing, but when you scratch beneath the surface the question is simple: are we really listening, and does it make a difference?
At last week’s Housing Summit in Manchester, I sat with a group of senior leaders who were brave enough to be honest about where things stand. It was clear from the start that nobody doubted the importance of hearing from residents. What they doubted was whether current approaches genuinely influence decision-making.
Some landlords now invite tenants directly into the boardroom to tell their story. There’s no advance script, just a lived experience presented raw and unfiltered. Directors squirm as they hear about a missed repair, a dark stairwell or a complaint that went nowhere. One leader described it as “a leveller” – a stark reminder that board papers don’t always reflect reality. But others questioned whether a single anecdote should be allowed to shape strategy. Powerful stories stir emotions, but they can also skew priorities. The real value, many argued, lies in combining those moments with hard data, trends and thematic analysis.
Representation is another thorny issue. Do resident board members or customer committees truly reflect the breadth of tenant experiences, or do they simply bring the perspectives of a vocal few? Some executives admitted that leaseholders and shared owners are now dominating discussions, while the voices of general needs tenants – the majority – are harder to capture. Others reflected that supported housing residents are almost invisible in engagement structures. One suggestion was to move away from blunt categories like tenure or age and instead think in terms of health, vulnerability and income. After all, those are the factors that most directly shape need.
Then came the subject that divides every boardroom: Tenant Satisfaction Measures. Almost everyone around the table expressed frustration. Methods of collection vary wildly, from face-to-face interviews to online surveys, producing wildly different results. Comparisons across organisations are almost meaningless, yet boards still cling to league tables. Some leaders are now taking their boards on a journey to understand the difference between perception measures and transactional data – and to focus on what matters locally rather than chasing national benchmarks. As one voice put it bluntly: “Benchmarking is a waste of time. What matters is what’s relevant to our organisation.”
Another underexplored area is colleagues who are also customers. In some organisations they make up 10% of the workforce. This group lives in the homes and delivers the services, offering an unusually rich dual perspective. Some see this as a gift, others as a risk. Should their voices carry more weight, or does their insider knowledge distort the picture? Few organisations have set clear policies, but most agreed it is an opportunity the sector has yet to properly grasp.
The conversation became most serious when it turned to safeguarding. Leaders described thousands of daily interactions where vulnerability is evident, from gas engineers spotting neglect to call centres picking up signs of abuse. The difficulty is not spotting the issues but systematising them. How do you capture vulnerability accurately, update it when circumstances change, and ensure subcontractors are held to the same standard as in-house staff? One housing association has trained every employee to flag risks and built a governance framework to track them. Others admitted their systems are too fragmented, their data unreliable and their resources stretched. And beneath it all was a bigger question: with levels of vulnerability rising, is the traditional landlord model still fit for purpose? Some argued that “general needs” is already becoming supported housing by another name.
If that is true, then the role of customer voice becomes even more pressing. It cannot be a box-ticking exercise. It must be about proving that feedback drives change. Did it lead to a better service? Was a complaint turned into learning? Did it make tenants safer? Transparency matters too. Several leaders argued that housing associations should be more open when they choose not to act on feedback – and explain why. Trust, after all, is built on honesty.
What struck me most from the discussion is that the sector is not short of voices, stories or data. The problem is how to bring them together in a way that is representative, consistent and actionable. And perhaps the most provocative question of all is this: are we listening to the right voices, or are the loudest ones drowning out the silent majority?
As one participant concluded: “We talk to our residents every single day. The question is not whether we’re listening. It’s whether we’re hearing – and acting – in a way that truly changes lives.”
