Life in Scotland’s social rented sector: Survey analysis report

Our review of existing research identified a lack of recent evidence on the experiences of social renters, how those vary across characteristics of social renter, and how those compare with renters in the private rented sector. To better understand these experiences and identify where improvements to policy or practice could be made, Consumer Scotland commissioned IFF Research to undertake a representative survey of renters in Scotland’s social rented sector. The research aimed to generate robust evidence to support policy development, advocacy, and allow comparisons with the private rented sector.

The research explored key issues affecting social renters, including differences in experience across landlord types and demographic groups, to inform policy or practice changes which could strengthen renter outcomes. The research achieved a final sample of 1,402 Scottish social renters, via a blended methodology of online responses and telephone interviews to reduce digital exclusion and age bias. The survey covered landlord satisfaction, communication, property conditions, reporting and rights, accessibility and security, improvements, and demographic information.

Key findings

Most social renters are satisfied with their renting experience, but there are key demographic differences in the renter experience:

• Most (74%) social renters are satisfied with their overall experience of renting their property – including the property itself, its costs, and their dealings with their landlord
• The majority of renters are happy with their home, with 77% rating the overall condition as good
• Energy efficiency/cost to heat the property is the poorest-performing area of self-reported property condition, with only 62% rating this as good
• Most renters are satisfied with the overall repairs service (79%) but slightly less so for timeliness (76%) and communication (73%) of repairs

Certain groups consistently report worse experiences across a range of measures, even when controlling for the effects of potential explanatory variables:

• Renters who have health conditions or disabilities that limit their day-to-day activities[1]
• Renters aged 35-44
• Renters living in older unrenovated properties (that have been built over 10 years ago and have not been recently renovated)
• Renters without a known housing officer or named point of contact (do not have one or do not know how to contact them)

Problems are common, and handled poorly:

• Over half (53%) of social renters have experienced at least one problem with the condition of their property in the last six months, such as difficulty keeping the home warm, repairs not being carried out, and serious damp or mould
• Only 30% of renters who reported their condition-related problem to their landlord had it fully resolved
• A small proportion (18%) of renters made a complaint to their landlord in last 12 months
• Few renters are satisfied with their landlord interaction following a complaint – of those who made a complaint, only 30% are satisfied with the speed at which the complaint was resolved
• Around a quarter (28%) of renters reported paying for or completing a repair themselves that they believed should have been covered by their landlord
• Most renters (59%) always report issues to their landlord, but some choose not to for practical reasons – such as fixing the problem themselves or feeling it is not urgent or serious enough – rather than out of fear of landlord retaliation

Many renters are unaware of their rights and routes to redress:

• Few social renters know their rights; only 48% say that they know where to go if their landlord fails to address their issue or complaint
• Similarly, only 43% of renters with property condition problems that had not been fully resolved by their landlord sought further help or advice
• Most (71%) renters have a local housing officer or named point of contact and know how to contact them, but 29% do not

This report presents analysis of new survey data on renters’ experiences in Scotland’s social rented sector. It covers the main findings from the survey, across topics such as property conditions; repairs and maintenance; experience of problems; awareness of redress systems; and landlord relationships.

The social rented sector plays a vital role in the housing system, providing affordable and secure homes for people who might struggle in the private market. Almost a quarter (23%) of Scotland’s homes are social rented properties.[2]

A Consumer Scotland 2024 scoping study found that, while there is a range of valuable existing evidence on the social rented sector, there remains limited large-scale, representative research capturing renters’ experiences in sufficient detail to inform policy development.[3] Existing sources – including the Scottish Housing Regulator’s National Panel of Renters and Service Users,[4] the National Report on the Scottish Social Housing Charter,[5] and the Scottish House Condition Survey[6] – provide useful high-level indicators. However, because they largely focus on housing stock characteristics or rely on data reported by landlords, they offer only a partial picture of renters lived experience across the sector. This highlights a gap for more granular, solution-focused evidence to inform decision-making.

Existing social rented sector research provides valuable insights into renter experiences, but much of it is thematic or based on relatively small, non-representative samples. For example, the National Panel research in 2025 provided strong qualitative evidence from 84 individuals, but the survey element only achieved 230 responses and was therefore not representative of the wider social rented population. Our initial review also highlighted important differences across tenures – such as between council and housing association renters, and social rented sector and private rented sector renters – which have not yet been fully explored in existing research.[7]

Recent private rented sector surveys, including RentBetter[8] and Voice of the Tenant[9], allow for detailed understanding of private renters’ experiences. However, no equivalent large scale, representative data currently exists for the social rented sector.

At the same time, existing evidence indicates that many social renters continue to face issues relating to repairs, communication, influence over decisions, and landlord transparency. For example, the National Panel found that only a third (36%) of those who reported an issue felt it had been completely resolved, and many were not confident that their landlord would deal effectively with future problems.

To better understand the experiences of social renters in Scotland and to identify where improvements might be made to benefit those across both sectors, we resolved to:

• Gather quantitative evidence on the experiences of social renters, to identify what affects satisfaction levels and where improvement may be needed
• Compare our evidence with similar recent surveys of private tenants, to identify disparities in outcomes across tenure types and support advocacy for improvements in each sector

Consumer Scotland therefore commissioned IFF Research to conduct a representative survey of social renters in Scotland to get a better understanding of their experiences. This research seeks to address gaps by generating a richer, more representative picture of renter experiences across the social rented sector. This will help us identify where policy or practice change could most effectively improve outcomes for social renters.

The following report covers main findings from the survey. A separate policy briefing covers the wider policy context and recommendations based on these results.

Consumer Scotland commissioned this research to better understand the experiences of social renters in Scotland. See Appendix A for further information on methodology.

The research project began in January 2025 with a review of existing survey research. This review identified three themes central to renter satisfaction:

• Repairs and maintenance
• Communication
• Security of tenure

Three virtual focus groups were conducted in February 2025 with 18 participants from a diverse mix of demographics to further refine themes for the wider research. During the focus groups, participants expressed frustration with inconsistent waiting times and poor communication, including delays and lack of follow-up. Repairs dominated discussion, especially in older properties, with renters reporting issues around damp, mould and poor build quality. Many renters lacked awareness of their rights and wanted greater transparency and involvement in decision-making.

These insights shaped the pilot questionnaire, which was piloted in March 2025 with 100 respondents. The questionnaire covered satisfaction, communication, property conditions, problems and complaints, rights and redress routes, accessibility and security of tenure, and suggestions for improvement. Survey questions were designed to mirror existing measures, including: the Tenant Satisfaction Measures (England)[10]; the RentBetter Research Programme[11]; and the Voice of the Tenant Survey Scotland.[12]

The mainstage survey ran between July and September 2025. A blended methodology (approximately 1,050 online responses and 350 telephone interviews) was used to reduce digital exclusion and age bias. The survey achieved a sample of 1,402 Scottish social renters, with quotas to balance representation between council and housing association renters. Weighting was applied to align the sample with the age profile of social renters in the Scottish Household Survey.

IFF Research provided the raw dataset and accompanying data tables, which include descriptive statistics for all survey questions and highlight statistical significance between key groups (based on significance testing at the 95% confidence level).

Consumer Scotland conducted additional analysis on the data, including further descriptive statistics, chi-square tests and logistic regression modelling. Because subgroup analysis only considers individual characteristics in isolation, logistic regression was used to identify which demographic and household characteristics were statistically significant predictors of key outcomes (such as overall satisfaction), after controlling for other relevant factors including property age and landlord type.

To support interpretation of these results, the report only presents descriptive subgroup percentages for those characteristics that remained statistically significant in the regression models. Unless otherwise specified, subgroup differences reported in the text are statistically significant at the 95% confidence level, and remain significant after accounting for potential explanatory variables, such as property age and landlord type.[13]

For example, initial results suggested that council tenants reported poorer property conditions and renting experiences than those renting from housing associations. However, once other variables were accounted for, many of these differences were no longer statistically significant. This indicates that the gap between landlord types is largely explained by other factors – most notably property age, given that council renters are more likely to live in older properties than housing association renters.[14]

Where possible, throughout this report we compare survey results with those from private rented sector studies, RentBetter and Voice of the Tenant.

This chapter presents renters’ satisfaction with their overall experience of renting their property – including the property itself, its costs, and their dealings with their landlord. While 74% of renters are satisfied with their renting experience, satisfaction was notably lower among some renters, particularly those living in older homes (over 10 years old) that have not been recently renovated and renters aged 35-44. Low satisfaction is also driven by renters’ experiences – including having had a previous negative experience, encountering a recent condition-related problem, and having made a complaint.

Overall satisfaction

Most (74%) renters are satisfied with their overall experience of renting their property – including the property itself, its costs, and their dealings with their landlord. While a minority (13%) are dissatisfied, this corresponds to a substantial number of people – equivalent to 140,000 social renters in Scotland.

Variation by demographic characteristics

Certain groups of renters are less satisfied with their overall renting experience (Chart 1):[15]

• Renters who have disabilities or health conditions that limit their day-to-day activities ‘a little’ (67%) or ‘a lot’ (69%), compared with those without (80%)
• Renters aged 35-44 (61%), compared with 65+ (84%)
• Renters living in older unrenovated properties (over 10 years old and not recently renovated, 60%), compared with those in newer (81%) or recently renovated older properties (83%)
• Single adult households (64%) compared with other household types (75%)

Why is there this dip in satisfaction among 35-44 year olds? We explored several potential explanations—such as the possibility that this age group tends to have shorter tenancies or is more likely to have children in the household, factors which could reasonably influence housing experiences. However, the trend persists even after controlling for key variables including income, tenancy length, the presence of children under 18, and whether the household is a single adult household. This suggests that the lower satisfaction among 35-44 year olds cannot be fully explained by these characteristics alone and may reflect other experiences or characteristics specific to this life stage.

This chapter explores how social renters perceive the quality of their homes and how well they meet their needs and expectations. It examines renter perceptions of specific aspects of their property, such as overall condition and energy efficiency/cost to heat the property. Renters generally rate their property well, but less so for energy efficiency/cost to heat it. Perceptions of property condition are particularly poorer among those living in older properties (over 10 years old) that have not been recently renovated.

Renter perceptions of their home

We asked renters about specific aspects of their property – including the overall condition; accessibility; state of repair; quality of fixtures and fittings; experience of neighbours; and energy efficiency/cost to heat the property – to allow comparison with the private rented sector.

Overall, social renters have positive perceptions of their homes; 77% rate the overall condition of their property as good, while 11% rate it as poor (Chart 3). The best-performing area is ease of getting into and moving around inside the property, with 85% rating this as good.

Renters are less happy with the energy efficiency/cost to heat the property, with only 62% rating this as good (and 18% rating it as poor). While this data highlights clear concerns, it is not possible to determine the extent to which these perceptions are driven by the property’s actual energy efficiency – where landlords have direct influence – or by wider energy costs, which are out with landlords’ control.

This distinction is important given that the social housing sector is generally more energy‑efficient than other tenures; with higher levels of insulation and better EPC ratings (Scottish House Condition Survey).[17] One factor explaining this is the introduction of the Scottish Housing Quality Standard in 2004, which requires social housing properties to have loft insulation if they have appropriate loft space.[18]

Despite this higher energy efficiency in the social rented sector, fuel poverty rates are significantly higher in this sector; 49% of social renters are in fuel poverty compared with 22% of private renters.[19] This highlights a structural challenge: social renters often have lower incomes and face higher rates of vulnerability, making them more exposed to energy cost pressures despite living in more energy‑efficient homes.

This chapter examines whether renters have experienced problems with the condition of their home, and how well these were resolved. Just over half of renters encountered at least one condition-related problem with their home in the last six months. The most common are heating difficulties, unresolved repairs, and serious problems with damp or mould. Although most renters report these problems to their landlord, only a minority see them fully resolved. The chapter also covers why renters may not always report issues, and whether they self-manage repairs.

Problems with property condition

We asked respondents whether they had experienced any problems with the condition of their home in the last six months, to allow us to compare with data on the private rented sector.[21]

Over half (53%) of renters have experienced at least one problem with the condition of their home (Chart 7). The most frequent problems are:

• Difficulty keeping the home warm (16%)
• Repairs not carried out (15%)
• Serious problems with damp or mould (15%)

Other notable issues include plumbing or water leaks (14%); problems with outside doors, walls, roof, or windows (14%); and difficulty keeping the home cool (11%) (Chart 7).

Among those who had experienced a condition-related problem, over half (54%) reported having multiple issues.

This chapter explores renters’ understanding of where to seek help if issues remain unresolved, their familiarity with key regulatory bodies and housing standards, and how awareness varies across demographic and property characteristics. While most renters report feeling confident about their responsibilities and ability to contact their landlord, awareness of external redress pathways is notably weaker.

Knowing where to go if landlord fails to resolve issues

We asked all renters whether they would know where to go if their landlord fails to address their issue or complaint, to allow us to compare with the private rented sector.

Although most renters were aware of at least one housing standard or body, only 48% said that they would know where to go if their landlord fails to address an issue or complaint.[22] A further 40% said they do not, and 12% said they do not know.

Variation by demographic characteristics

Certain groups of renters are less likely to know where to go if their landlord does not resolve an issue or complaint (Chart 13):

• Renters aged 55-64 (42%), compared with 65+ (57%)
• Lower-income households (up to £19,999, 44%) compared with higher income (£40,000 and over, 56%)
• Renters living in older unrenovated properties (over 10 years old and not recently renovated, 44%), compared with newer properties (58%)
• Renters without a known housing officer (29%) compared with those with one (56%)

These findings indicate that many renters are unaware about where to seek help, with particularly low levels of awareness among these groups. This gap in knowledge is especially concerning given that those living in older unrenovated properties and those without a known housing officer report poorer experiences across areas such as property condition, repairs handling and landlord relationship. As a result, the challenges they face may be further compounded by not being able to access effective routes to redress.

This chapter examines renters’ recent interactions with their landlord across four areas: repairs, complaints, anti-social behaviour (ASB) and other issues. Over half (54%) of renters reported that their landlord had carried out a repair to their home in the last 12 months. Most renters were satisfied with repairs, with positive ratings across most measures. By contrast, far fewer renters had made a complaint (18%), reported anti-social behaviour (16%), or raised another type of issue (17%) in the last 12 months. Among those who had, satisfaction with how their landlord handled these matters was significantly lower, with fewer than half of renters satisfied with any individual aspect of the process.

We asked renters about whether they had interacted with their landlord in any of the following ways in the last 12 months:

• Their landlord had carried out a repair to their home
• They had made a complaint to their landlord
• They had reported anti-social behaviour (ASB) in their neighbourhood to their landlord
• They had reported any other issue to their landlord

Just over half (54%) of renters said that their landlord had carried out a repair to their home in the last 12 months, while far fewer had made a complaint (18%), reported ASB (16%) or raised another type of issue (17%). Only 29% had not experienced any of these (Chart 16).

This chapter examines renters’ relationship with their landlord, including whether they feel listened to and treated fairly and with respect. Most renters feel that they have a good relationship with their landlord, and that they are easy to deal with. However, this was lower among some renters, particularly those aged 35-44 and those living in older properties (over 10 years old) that have not been recently renovated.

Satisfaction with landlord

We asked renters about their experience with their landlord (Chart 24). Most (70%) are satisfied that their landlord is easy to deal with, and only 15% are dissatisfied. Fewer (59%) renters are satisfied that their landlord listens to their views and acts upon them (and 18% are dissatisfied).

This chapter examines how well landlords respond or help renters with various things like general communication, repairs, and complaints. Most renters rate their landlord well, particularly around general contact, day-to-day repairs and ongoing maintenance and upkeep. Renters without a known housing officer and those living in older properties (over 10 years old) that have not been recently renovated were less positive about their landlord’s responsiveness.

We asked renters how well their landlord responds or helps them with various things like general communication, repairs, and complaints. This question was taken from RentBetter, to allow us to compare with the private rented sector.

Most renters rate their landlord’s responsiveness well, but there are differences across measures (Chart 32).

Renters generally feel that their landlord responds well to:

• General contact (72%)
• Day-to-day repairs (64%)
• Ongoing maintenance and upkeep (59%)

Other aspects were rated slightly lower, largely because many respondents responded “Don't know / not applicable” to these questions – such as difficulties paying rent, advice about social issues, and response to adaptions. For example, while only 40% of renters feel their landlord responds well to property adaptions, 38% of renters responded “Don't know/not applicable” to this question. When excluding these responses, this rises to 65% of renters rate this well and 16% rate it poorly.

However, even when taking these into account, smaller proportions of renters feel that their landlord responds well to dealing with complaints and disputes, and advice about social issues, such as neighbourhood or community problems. This is unsurprising, as landlords are unlikely to have much control over social issues.

This chapter examines whether renters have a housing officer or named point of contact, and their experience of contacting them. Most (71%) renters have a housing officer or named point of contact whom they know how to contact. However, a sizeable minority (29%) do not – they do not know how to contact them, do not have one, or do not know whether they have one – and this is associated with a more negative renting experience overall. Among those who do have a housing officer or named point of contact, around half say that it is always easy to get in touch with them. And three-quarters of renters who have contacted them are satisfied with the experience.

Presence and awareness of housing officer

In the social rented sector, a housing officer or named point of contact is a frontline staff member responsible for day‑to‑day management of rental properties. Their responsibilities include supporting housing applications, organising repairs, and assisting with neighbour problems and rent arrears. Social landlords are not legally required to provide a housing officer or named point of contact.

Most renters (71%) report having a housing officer or named point of contact whom they know how to contact. The remaining 29% fall into three roughly equal groups (Chart 35):

• 9% have one but do not know how to contact them
• 9% do not have one
• 11% do not know whether they have one

These results may reflect a combination of landlord communication and tenant engagement. For example, some tenants who say they do not know how to contact their housing officer may not recall being informed, while others who report hot having a contact may in fact have one but are unaware.

Although the provision of a housing officer or named point of contact is not mandatory, renters with one and know how to contact them consistently report a more positive renting experience across multiple measures, including property condition, repair handling and landlord relationship. While we cannot determine whether the presence of a housing officer directly improves outcomes, the strength and consistency of the association indicates that accessible frontline support plays an important role in shaping tenants’ experiences.

Taken together, these findings suggest that improving the visibility and accessibility of housing officers or named points of contact – whether through clearer communication, increased engagement, or expanding provision – could help ensure that more tenants benefit from this support.

Throughout this chapter, we draw on findings from the RentBetter Research Programme and SafeDeposits Scotland’s Voice of the Tenant survey to provide comparisons with the private rented sector. However, social and private renters differ substantially in socio‑economic characteristics, including household income and the types and cost of the properties they rent. As a result, differences between sectors should be interpreted with caution, as they may reflect these underlying demographic and financial factors rather than tenure alone. Where possible, we explored comparisons by income bands to help mitigate these differences.[23]

Property conditions

Private renters tend to be more positive than social renters about the condition of their property (Chart 38). For example, 87% of private renters rate the overall condition of the property as good, compared with 77% of social renters (RentBetter survey).

While this may reflect true differences in landlord practice, differences between sectors may reflect underlying demographic and financial characteristics of the renter populations rather than from tenure alone, so should be interpreted with caution.

This research provides one of the most comprehensive recent assessments of the experiences of renters in the Scottish social rented sector. Renters are generally positive about their renting experience, including property condition, repairs and maintenance. However, there are areas for improvement, such as complaints handling and awareness of rights and redress pathways. Moreover, certain groups of renters – particularly those with disabilities or health conditions that limit their day-to-day activities, those living in properties over 10 years old, and those without a known housing officer – consistently have poorer experiences overall.

Overall, renters in the social rented sector are satisfied, with most reporting positive experiences of their homes and landlord interactions. However, satisfaction is not universal, and our research also revealed that there are key areas where improvement is needed.

Problems with property condition are common, and resolution is often slow, incomplete, or poorly communicated, with some renters taking on the cost or work of repairs themselves. Complaints handling presents similar challenges, with low satisfaction at every aspect of the process, particularly for speed of resolution. At the same time, many renters are unaware of their rights or of where to seek help when landlords fail to act, limiting their ability to pursue redress or challenge unresolved issues.

Certain groups of renters consistently report poorer experiences across multiple measures, even after accounting for other characteristics. These include renters who have disabilities or health conditions that limit their day-to-day activities; younger and middle‑aged renters (particularly those aged 35-44); those living in older properties (over 10 years old) that have not been recently renovated; and those without a known housing officer or named point of contact. By contrast, renters aged 65 and over were overwhelmingly positive about their renter experience; they repeatedly reported having a better experience across many measures.

Comparisons with private rented sector data highlight several notable differences between sectors. Private renters are more likely than social renters to report experiencing condition‑related problems, yet they are also more likely to have their problems fully resolved. Social renters show far lower levels of concern about retaliatory eviction than private renters. And while awareness of where to go if their landlord fails to address an issue or complaint is low across both sectors, it is even lower among social renters. However, these differences should be interpreted with caution, as social and private renters vary substantially in their socio‑economic characteristics – including income and the types and costs of the properties they rent.

Taken together, the evidence points to a sector that works well for many, but where significant vulnerabilities remain. Ensuring a more equitable renting experience for different groups, improving complaint handling, and increasing awareness of rights – particularly for disabled renters, younger and middle‑aged tenants, and those in older homes – will be essential to ensuring more equitable outcomes and improving renter confidence across the sector.

Following completion of a scoping study which identified a need for in-depth, quantitative research with a representative sample of social renters, Consumer Scotland commissioned IFF Research to conduct this survey research. The overall aim of this research was to develop a better understanding of the experience of social renters in Scotland and to identify what factors would help improve their renting experience.

Research objectives  

The objectives of the research were to:

• Gather quantitative evidence on the renting experience of social rented sector tenants to allow us to generate policy recommendations and conduct advocacy aimed at improving outcomes in the social rented sector
• Compare evidence from the social rented sector with existing evidence around the experience of private rented sector tenants, to allow the identification of disparities in outcomes across tenure types or across groups of consumers. This will support advocacy to improve outcomes in both sectors

Research questions

The key research questions were:

• What are the key issues affecting social rented sector tenants that could be addressed through changes in policy and/or practices?
• How does experience differ across tenures (e.g. between tenants with council and housing association landlords, and between private and social renters) and demographics?

Method

Consumer Scotland commissioned IFF Research to conduct this research in two stages. A design and pilot stage was carried out between January and April 2025, with mainstage fieldwork commencing in July 2025.

Review

The first stage of the research design was to review existing surveys of both social and private renter experiences and relevant publications including:

• Consumer Scotland (2024), A Fairer Rental Market: Consumer challenges in the private and social rented sectors: Scoping study[26]
• Scottish Housing Regulator (2025), National Panel of Tenants and Service Users 2024 to 2025[27]
• Scottish Housing Regulator (2024), National Report on the Scottish Social Housing Charter - Headline Findings - 2023-2024[28]
• SafeDeposits Scotland Charitable Trust (2024), Living in the Private Rented Sector in 2024: The Voice of the Tenant Survey Scotland (Wave 1)[29]
• Indigo House in association with IBP Strategy and Research (2024), Rent Better: Wave 3 Tenants survey analysis report[30]
• Regulator of Social Housing (2024), Tenant Satisfaction Measures 2023/24: Key findings[31]
• IFF Research (2024), Tenant Satisfaction Measures: Key trends and Insights from the first year[32]

Analysis from this phase was collated into a framework by IFF Research, identifying key topic areas to take forward into the primary research stages. The review identified three key service areas – repairs and maintenance, tenant communication, and security of tenure – as central to overall tenant satisfaction. It also highlighted affordability and accessibility challenges for private rented tenants, which were explored further in social renters focus groups.

The review emphasised the need to examine tenant engagement, trust in landlords, and how easily tenants can navigate the housing system within the mainstage survey. Addressing these topics would provide meaningful insights to inform improvements in housing services and policy across both sectors.

Focus groups

As part of the design phase Consumer Scotland also wanted to include the perspective of Scottish social renters themselves on what issues might require further research. We therefore commissioned IFF Research to conduct three focus groups with 18 tenants in total. The focus groups explored the following topic areas:

• Accessibility, affordability, and security of tenure
• The landlord–tenant relationship
• Tenant interactions
• Reporting issues and renters’ rights
• Engagement and communication

Focus group participants were recruited by Taylor McKenzie Research. A structured sampling framework and detailed screening process were applied to ensure a diverse mix of tenants, capturing a broad range of perspectives across demographic groups. Participants received incentive payments of £50 in recognition of their time.

Fieldwork took place during the week commencing 10 February 2025 and comprised three virtual focus groups conducted via Microsoft Teams, each with 5-7 participants and lasting 90 minutes.

Participants were selected to be representative across key demographics, including age, gender, ethnicity, urban/rural location, income level, employment status, disability status, property type, and landlord type (council vs. housing association).

During analysis, each group discussion was mapped against the initial thematic framework. For each topic, both the importance (the extent to which the issue shaped or influenced their overall renting experience) and the impact (the severity or consequences experienced when problems arose) were assessed.

The focus groups highlighted several areas for inclusion in the pilot survey, centred on tenant experiences with housing allocation, repairs, communication, landlord relationships, and overall satisfaction.

Key findings included:

• Frustration with inconsistent waiting times for accessing or moving within social housing, with tenants feeling that individual needs were not always recognised
• Repairs dominated discussion, with many reporting damp, mould, and poor build quality – issues more common in older properties than newer ones
• Communication challenges were widespread, including delays, lack of follow-up, and reliance on online channels. Tenants expressed a need for more personal and consistent contact with housing officers
• Many tenants lacked awareness of their rights, particularly around repairs, and wanted greater transparency and involvement in decision-making
•  Accessibility was less of a concern, though waiting times remained an issue. Tenants felt rent offered good value but were more sceptical about service charges

Pilot

Following the analysis of review and focus group findings, a pilot survey of approximately 15 minutes in length was developed. A key consideration in design was to ensure that key questions would generate data comparable with existing measures, including the Tenant Satisfaction Measures for Social Housing tenants, the Rent Better Research Programme, and the SafeDeposits Scotland Voice of the Tenant Survey Scotland, which capture insights from private rented sector tenants.

Fieldwork was conducted between 20 and 27 March 2025. A total of 100 responses were collected, with representation across age groups and a balanced mix of Local Authority and Registered Social Landlord tenants.

After reviewing results of the pilot, minor changes were made to the questionnaire to be taken forward to the mainstage.

Mainstage

Fieldwork for the mainstage of the research was conducted between July and September 2025.

Questionnaire

• The final survey included the following areas:
• General satisfaction with the social housing landlord
• Communication with the social housing landlord
• Property conditions and standards
• Issues, complaints and rights
• Accessibility and security of tenure
• Thoughts for improvement
• Property and tenancy details
• Demographics

Sampling

The mainstage survey used a blended online panel approach supplemented with CATI Lifestyle telephone interviews to achieve a total sample size of 1,400 Scottish socially renting tenants.

It was important that the survey achieved responses from across the social housing sector and was not overly skewed towards council or housing association tenants. Therefore, a quota was set on the proportions of council and housing association respondents. Other demographics were allowed to fall naturally in the sample but were monitored throughout the fieldwork.

The blended panel approach was used to maximise the number of participants. 3 online panels (Savanta, Yonder, and Norstat) were used to gather a sample of 1,050 Scottish tenants in the social rented sector.        

In order to minimise digital exclusion in the sample, a further 350 participants were surveyed by IFF Research via telephone with the sample supplied by Sagacity. Monitoring of the online sample showed a bias towards younger participants, so the telephone interviews were initially targeted at older social renters to boost this demographic before being opened up more widely.   

Profile of respondents

Comparison with demographics for Scotland’s social rented sector from the 2022 Census and 2022 Scottish Household Survey (SHS) provided that, while our sample was broadly representative, the age profile differed slightly from what would be expected.

The age profile of the achieved sample being slightly older than other large data sets would suggest. We therefore applied weighting to adjust the sample to be in line with the age profile suggested by the Scottish Household Survey 2022.

Property characteristics  

Within the social rented sector, there has been a significant shift from council stock to housing association stock. As of 31st March 2024, there were 633,030 social rented properties in Scotland, roughly evenly split between council (325,477) and housing association homes (307,553).[33]

In line with these published figures, survey respondents are roughly evenly split between homes managed by councils and those managed by housing associations (Table 14.3).

The properties themselves vary in age and condition. While fewer than one in five (18%) respondents describe their home as a newer building (built within the last 10 years), 41% live in recently renovated older properties (over 10 years old but recently renovated), and a third (33%) live in older unrenovated properties (over 10 years old and not recently renovated).[34] A 10‑year cut‑off was used as it provides respondents with a clearer and more meaningful way to assess the age and condition of their property, reducing uncertainty for those who may not know the exact year their home was built or last upgraded.

Flats (including tenements, maisonettes, apartments, and bedsits) make up over half (54%) of all property types, while houses and bungalows account for just under half (44%).[35]

Analysis 

Frequency tables were produced to summarise overall patterns in the survey data, providing a clear view of tenant responses across key measures. Cross-tabulations were then used to examine differences between demographic and tenancy groups, supported by chi-square tests to identify statistically significant associations. This approach enabled a robust assessment of how experiences and perceptions vary across the tenant population.

To explore this further, we performed logistic regression analyses to model the probability of an outcome variable (such as overall satisfaction), as a function of various explanatory variables. Unless otherwise specified, all demographic differences reported are statistically significant at the 95% confidence level, and remain significant after accounting for relevant factors, including: renter age; known housing officer; children under 18 in household; limiting disability or health condition; household income; landlord type; property age and condition; property type; tenancy length; single adult household.

Where comparable, findings are compared to published results from two recent surveys of private rented sector tenants – the Rent Better Research Programme, and the SafeDeposits Scotland Voice of the Tenant Survey Scotland. It is important to note that social and private sector renter populations differ in several socio‑economic characteristics, including household income and the nature and cost of the properties they rent. As a result, differences between sectors should be interpreted with caution, as they may reflect these underlying demographic and financial factors rather than differences in tenure alone. Where possible, we compare results across income bands to help mitigate these differences.

Fuller information about the survey is available on request and in an accompanying report.

[1] Survey respondents were asked “H7. Do you have any physical or mental health conditions, lasting or expected to last for 12 months or more?” and “H8. Do any of your conditions or illnesses reduce your ability to carry out day-to-day activities?” The definition is based on the Scottish Government’s harmonised disability and long‑term conditions questions. For the purposes of discussing the findings, we have used the wording that was used in the survey. The policy briefing that accompanies this analysis primarily uses identity first language, referring to disabled renters rather than renters with a disability or health condition. This identity first language reflects the social model of disability which recognises that people are disabled by society not by their impairment or condition.

[2] Scottish Government (2024). Housing Statistics for Scotland, 2022-23. Available at: https://www.gov.scot/news/housing-statistics-for-scotland-2022-23/

[3] Consumer Scotland. (2024). A Fairer Rental Market: Consumer challenges in the private and social rented sectors. Available at: https://consumer.scot/publications/a-fairer-rental-market-consumer-challenges-in-the-private-and-social-rented-sectors/