Who holds the power?
Thursday 12th of February 2026
Kai Jackson, Special Membership Project Lead, Tpas
Three years on from the Social Housing (Regulation) Act, two years since the introduction of Tenant Satisfaction Measures, and with Awaab’s Law in force since October 2025, the sector has reached a natural pause point. These reforms were designed to rebalance power in social housing, to ensure tenants are heard, engaged meaningfully, and able to influence the decisions that shape their homes and communities.
The ambition was clear: a shift away from a fractured, inconsistent engagement landscape towards one where tenants have real leverage. The question now is whether that ambition has been realised, or whether power has simply been redistributed elsewhere.
When policymakers and legislators came together in the aftermath of Grenfell, they were responding to a system where tenant voices could too easily be ignored.
The solution they chose was not to redesign governance structures from the ground up, but to strengthen oversight and accountability. The Regulator of Social Housing was given stronger consumer powers, the Housing Ombudsman was positioned as a credible route to redress, Tenant Satisfaction Measures were introduced to make tenant experience visible and comparable, and Awaab’s Law removed landlord discretion where safety is concerned.
This was a conscious choice to rebalance risk and accountability rather than to mandate shared decision-making.
As these reforms bed in, different perspectives emerge depending on where you sit in the system. Tenants increasingly articulate a clear understanding of where power still lies. Many point out that whoever controls the purse strings ultimately controls the decisions that matter. Others are blunt that co-production, as it is commonly practised, is not the same as power sharing.
There is also a growing recognition that the information tenants receive is often partial, curated, and framed by landlords, limiting their ability to challenge or influence outcomes meaningfully.
Staff perspectives tell a different, but equally valid, story. Many feel that residents now have more power because they are backed by the Regulator and the Housing Ombudsman. Low TSM scores are taken seriously, complaints feel weightier, and the consequences of getting things wrong are more immediate and more visible. From within organisations, this can feel like a genuine shift in tenant power, particularly when regulatory scrutiny is intense.
What has changed is that tenants now have stronger leverage. They have clearer routes to escalation, greater narrative power through published data and complaints, and legally enforceable rights that remove the option of delay in critical situations. This has led to real improvements in safety, responsiveness, and organisational behaviour. However, this form of power is largely reactive. It is exercised when something goes wrong, not when long-term priorities are being set. Tenants may be able to compel action, but they rarely shape direction.
This is where the limits of current engagement models become most visible. Co-production is widely referenced, but in practice it is often constrained. Agendas are typically set by landlords, boundaries are clearly defined, and final decisions remain firmly within executive or board control. Without shared authority, shared risk, and shared accountability, participation risks becoming consultation under a different name.
Information remains a critical fault line. Despite improvements in transparency, tenants are rarely given access to the same depth of information that underpins strategic decisions. Financial modelling, asset data, risk registers, and strategic options are seldom shared in full. Without this knowledge, tenants are structurally disadvantaged in decision-making spaces, regardless of how well-designed engagement frameworks appear.
So where does power sit now? It has not moved wholesale to tenants. Instead, it has shifted upwards. The state, through regulation and law, sets non-negotiable standards and sanctions. Landlords retain control of resources, data, and strategy. Tenants hold leverage through escalation, scrutiny, and reputational risk. They have voice with teeth, but not hands on the wheel.
If the ambition of reform was safer homes, faster responses, and fewer opportunities for tenants to be ignored, then progress has been real and meaningful. If the ambition was shared power, democratic influence, and tenants shaping strategic and financial decisions, then that goal remains largely unmet. It was never fully legislated for.
The sector now faces a choice. It can treat tenant empowerment primarily as a compliance issue, something to be managed and mitigated in response to regulatory pressure. Or it can move voluntarily towards structural power-sharing by redistributing information, influence, and decision-making authority. The law does not compel this second path, but trust, legitimacy, and long-term sustainability increasingly will.
We are not witnessing the end of landlord power. We are witnessing the end of unaccountable landlord power. Whether the next phase is genuine power-sharing or simply better-managed control is no longer a question for Parliament. It is a question for the sector itself.