Industry Viewfinder 19


Only a third of respondents said they had concerns around credibility of data, but this is clearly still a signifi cant minority and the issue needs addressing


into our questions for professionals as they remained current going forward. T e majority of our respondents said they worked for housing associations (52%), while 14% were private landlords, 14% charities, and 5% were local authority- specifi c. Most respondents described themselves as housing managers (covering housing, projects, properties and other areas including developments), while 32% were at director level. T e majority (61%) of our respondents were using remote management


in their social housing property portfolios, chiefl y for the areas of electricity usage, and monitoring security systems (including cameras and alarms). A large proportion of our cohort were looking aſt er portfolios from between 10 and 50 units (39%), but 28% were at the larger scale, overseeing between 250 and 10,000 properties. We asked what the key factors were driving adoption of digital remote


monitoring systems in social housing. Probably confi rming assumptions was the leading fi nding that tenant safety was the main driver for investing in high-tech options for gathering data on properties’ condition, with 61% choosing this option. Next in the list was proactive maintenance, some way behind but still a respectable, and expected high score at 39%. A quarter of respondents were both looking to reduce the admin burden by using remote monitoring, as well as save cost. Energy effi ciency, and tackling the issue of ageing tenants came below this, with 21% choosing these drivers. Somewhat interesting was ‘identifying security issues,’ placed at the very


bottom, with only 3%, but other more understandable reasons given were ‘availability of surveyors or other expertise’ (for managing properties), and ‘reducing the carbon footprint/reducing waste (these all had 4%). And 7%, a low but revealing fi gure, said they were using remote monitoring as part of aims to ‘improve customer satisfaction.’ T e reasons for our survey cohort in the 2021 study (undertaken immediately


aſt er the UK lockdowns) were a very diff erent distribution, with Covid 19 being chosen by 74% as a key reason for using remote monitoring. While tenant safety had assumed the top spot in 2024, in 2021, in the face of a protocol remaining in force for no face-to-face contact, safety was only third in the list at 28%, behind ‘worker convenience/reduction of hours.’ In 2021, we discovered that cost was the biggest barrier for uptake, with


45% of our sample choosing it as a key blocker for remote management and monitoring, and the ‘lack of human touch’ was seen as a major issue too, with 39% picking it, perhaps a further factor that was alienating residents in the post- Covid landscape. Finally, ‘unreliable technology’ and ‘unwilling tenants’ were also issues – with scores of 31% and 23% respectively.


GAPS & ISSUES We also asked these social housing professionals what gaps they perceived in their knowledge of remote monitoring. T e key issue was knowledge gaps around data security and privacy, which they must bridge with the help of consultants and others to feel comfortable with remote monitoring – 44% said they had gaps here. However, not far behind was integrating systems with existing infrastructure,being chosen by 37%, and the compatibility of devices being used (particularly important when IoT methods are being used). And nearly a third believed that establishing the cost versus benefi t on projects was something they were lacking ability and knowledge to do currently. What issues had our research group experienced using the various IoT devices


sensors required in their projects? While 30% reassuringly said they had not experienced problems, many (33%) said that ‘lack of standardisation across devices and sensors’ was an issue, and an equal 22% thought that ‘integration challenges with legacy building management systems,’ ‘incompatibility with


Do you believe systems can eff ectively monitor sites without having to intrude & enter into properties?


existing soſt ware platforms or applications,’ and ‘connectivity issues between diff erent IoT devices – e.g. Wi-FI or Bluetooth – were challenges. Less of a problem were ‘diffi culty in scaling devices across a wide range of property types’ and ‘complexity of integrating multiple systems’ (only 11% chose these). T ere was more reassurance on the matter of data credibility from remote


monitoring – we asked if they had concerns about the ‘independence of the data provided by remote monitoring systems,’ and only a third of respondents said they had concerns, however this is clearly still a signifi cant minority showing it’s an issue that needs addressing. In addition, two-thirds of respondents believed that remote monitoring


systems enabled them to eff ectively monitor sites without having to enter properties and intrude into residents’ lives. Despite this, there were key challenges identifi ed for residents from their part in managing digital and smart monitoring. T ese were led by ‘wireless monitoring and WiFI signal issues’ (picked by 40%), lack of digital literacy (28%), and battery replacement in devices (20%). However, a decent number (20%) said there were no issues.


CONCLUSION While our research delved into some of the important fi ndings around current practice and awareness of remote monitoring in the industry, it’s important to look at the likely future trends in the area, and how technology is leading the way. More social housing providers are looking to move towards ‘integrated’


monitoring platforms where building management systems, energy monitoring, tenant welfare, and maintenance all connect to one central hub, which can greatly improve effi ciency by streamlining operations. And, as in so many other spheres, increased use of AI is being seen in remote monitoring of social housing properties. As AI technology advances, housing providers are exploring its potential to automate decision-making based on the data collected from sensors and other monitoring systems – this could lead to faster response times and predictive maintenance. Given the UK’s commitment to reducing carbon emissions, remote


monitoring systems will be increasingly critical in managing energy consumption in social housing, improving sustainability, and helping to meet government targets. With the ongoing cost of living crisis, such systems are also, with the right tenant engagement, key to helping residents tackle the ongoing cost of living crisis, and reduce the risks of fuel poverty.


For the full white paper report on the survey, visit insights.netmagmedia.co.uk


Housing Management & Maintenance February/March 2025


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36