30 Industry Viewfinder


were for decarbonising the existing social housing stock in the UK. In all three, cost was the biggest issue to overcome for managers. T e dominance of cost as an obstacle did seem to be proportionally reducing (from a score of 262 in 2003, to 208 in 2024, to 166 in 2026), potentially as other issues showed themselves to be greater challenges than previously. T ere were a few potentially revealing disparities between the results in


2024 and the results in the previous studies, suggesting a changing context, and resulting shiſt ing priorities for social housing teams. Tenants refusing improvements was the third most commonly picked barrier


for our survey cohort this year, and this was a higher position than 2024, when it was fourth from bottom (out of 11 factors). Clearly the right of tenants to refuse access had become a more prominent issue in the past two years, given its having climbed several places in our list. In both 2023 and 2024 studies, and despite the availability of SHDF


funding, “lack of Government support” was the second highest barrier cited, but this had dropped to third from bottom in 2026. Also reassuring was the dropping of “lack of internal skills” from the third placed barrier in 2024 to one from bottom in 2026, showing that our respondents believed that social housing teams had adequately upskilled so this was not one of the worst obstacles they were facing. Less positive was the fairly high placing (at number fi ve) of ‘lack of resident


education’ as a barrier to tackle this year, revealing potentially that, as more and more retrofi ts were delivered, residents were not becoming more aware of the benefi ts of the measures. More has to be done in order both explain why they may have to be decanted temporarily, for example, but also why the works are needed, and the likely benefi t for their aff ordability as well as comfort. ‘Supply chain issues’ scored a relatively high 96 points, which was only a


negligible concern for our cohort in 2024, at the bottom of the list with only 26 points. Gaining access to homes, and the increased maintenance requirements caused by installing low energy retrofi t technologies remained near the bottom list in 2026, as in 2024.


METHODS & SOLUTIONS Common retrofi t measures include roof and wall insulation, draught reduction, improved windows, and low-carbon heating technologies such as heat pumps. However, installation costs remain a major barrier, particularly for technologies requiring additional upgrades to building fabric or heating systems.


IAQ, VENTILATION & UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES Ventilation design is a particularly important consideration, with indoor air quality a potential unintended negative consequence of fabric improvements. As homes become more airtight through insulation and draught reduction, adequate ventilation is required, also in order to control moisture and overheating. Mechanical extract ventilation systems are widely used, alongside passive solutions such as air bricks and trickle vents. In some cases, more advanced systems such as mechanical ventilation with heat recovery (MVHR) are installed. T e research corroborated the fact that retrofi ts can lead to such performance


issues. Some housing providers reported recurring damp, mould, overheating, or indoor air quality concerns following upgrades, linked to a failure to provide adequate ventilation. Although 37% reported ‘no issues,’ 13% said that ‘more moisture had been introduced,’ and complaints about air quality were reported by 18%. More worryingly, 18% said that pre-existing damp and mould had returned post-retrofi ts, and a not-insignifi cant number (16%) said that overheating was now an issue. T e ventilation solutions which were being used were spread evenly across


the respondents, with mechanical extract fans narrowly coming out on top. We asked ‘which ventilation solutions were commonly used’; mechanical extract fans were picked by 61% of respondents, whereas MVHR was only picked by 38%. Passive measures such as air bricks/trickle vents, and opening windows were picked by 59%. Also, hybrid and/or automated ventilation systems were a chosen solution for 23%.


Respondents estimated the average cost of a whole-house retrofi t for a typical three-bedroom home as £43,358, with most estimates ranging between £30,000 and £60,000


COST INCREASES & ANTICIPATED SAVINGS Respondents estimated the average cost of a whole-house retrofi t for a typical three-bedroom home as £43,358, with most estimates ranging between £30,000 and £60,000. Despite these costs, retrofi t measures are expected to reduce tenants’ energy bills by an average of around 37%. T ese are very strong potential ROI fi gures for tenants, and also for the


long-term resilience of their properties against rising energy prices. However, the substantial estimated cost upliſt is going to be diffi cult, or potentially preventative for many authorities and individuals.


TENANT ENGAGEMENT Ensuring communication with residents is done sensitively and eff ectively is an important part of delivering retrofi ts, particularly given their legal freedom to refuse entry for retrofi t work to take place. T e research found that overall, providers saw improving communication with residents was the key to reducing complaints from residents post-retrofi t (67% picked this), as well as educating them on how to operate their improved homes and associated tech. T ey commonly use in-person meetings (half of respondents), as well as phone calls and text messages (45%) and printed materials (33%) to explain upcoming work and provide guidance on new systems. While demonstrations and workshops to explain the new retrofi ts were


used, it was a low number (16%), although using apps and messaging was even lower at 13%. However, providers not currently having any ‘formal engagement’ was, concerningly, placed above these at 17%, although this may include organisations not currently planning or undergoing a retrofi t. A response to the earlier question around potential post-retrofi t issues found that 24% of respondents believed that “resident confusion or misuse” had occurred, potentially endangering the benefi ts of retrofi t works.


EVALUATING OUTCOMES Housing providers reported several methods being used to evaluate retrofi t outcomes, including tenant satisfaction (the most popular choice with 56% of respondents picking it). Alongside this others were using upliſt in EPC ratings as a key measure (53%). Energy consumption data was a metric for only half of respondents, but measuring tenants’ lifestyles was a relatively high fi gure at 47%. Some also use sensor-based monitoring systems to track indoor environmental conditions, but many lacked suffi cient resources or infrastructure to carry out comprehensive monitoring. However, most (46%) were carrying out annual monitoring of retrofi ts post-completion, whereas 25% were only doing a single monitoring exercise. As well as standard spreadsheets and manual tracking, respondents were


using a mix of bespoke asset management systems (35%), and Internet of T ings (IoT) and sensor dashboards, within their mix of tools for monitoring the performance and eff ectiveness of their retrofi ts. Lack of ‘internal capacity’ was the number one constraint, with nearly half picking it, but lack of funding and issues with resident cooperation were also key (43% and 35%). Also, however, respondents candidly admitted that the lack of a ‘mandatory requirement’ to evaluate projects, plus the lack of best practice guidance, was making it diffi cult to make this a priority for organisations (25% and 23% respectively).


SKILLS T ere were clear signs that our survey cohort of housing professionals’ organisations were putting signifi cant investment into inhouse retrofi t skills as


Housing Management & Maintenance Spring 2026


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  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52