The STAIRS scheme gives social housing tenants of Private Registered Providers (PRP) new rights to information related to how their homes are managed. The first phase (Chapter 1 – having a publication scheme and publishing information further to it) comes into effect on 1 October 2026. The second phase (Chapter 2 – responding to requests) – comes into force in April 2027.

The Housing Ombudsman is designated as having responsibilities for investigating complaints for STAIRs. It has recently published its revised complaints handling scheme, incorporating the special STAIRs complaints. This can be found here: Housing-Ombudsman-Scheme-October-2026-.pdf and comes into effect on 1 October.

As part of preparing for STAIRs coming into force, PRPs will want to understand how the Ombudsman will approach STAIRs complaints – further insight is provided on this in its consultation response, which can be found here: Social Tenant Access to Information Requirements (STAIRs) consultation analysis report.

Importantly, the Ombudsman has emphasised that its focus is primarily going to be on:

• whether the PRP followed a fair, rational, and transparent decision-making process
• whether the PRP showed due regard to relevant information law principles where required
• whether the PRP clearly explained and evidenced its reasoning to the tenant, and
• whether any failure amounts to maladministration under its Scheme.

The Housing Ombudsman has said it will make more resources, including training, available to landlords through its Learning Centre to support landlords.

Preparing a publication scheme

A lack of a publication scheme (or more generally a failure to publish information in accordance with it) is a matter which could itself give rise to a STAIRs complaint. The information which should be published – and how to approach publication - is listed here: Social Tenant Access to Information Requirements: policy statement - GOV.UK.

This list is not exhaustive and there is flexibility for landlords as to exactly what is published, how and where. Under paragraph 70(a) of the revised complaints scheme, the Ombudsman may investigate a failure by a landlord to proactively publish information. Under Chapter 1 of STAIRs, if a PRP has not published information that they hold and which falls within scope of the publication scheme, a tenant may complain via the provider’s STAIRs review process. A response should be provided within 30 days. If the tenant remains dissatisfied they can complain to the Ombudsman.

Who can complain

The Ombudsman’s complaints scheme sets out that social housing tenants of a PRP, or their designated representatives, are eligible to make requests for information. Requests do not need to explicitly mention STAIRs. It is therefore a responsibility of the PRP to assist applicants in making a valid request.   

Leaseholders who own 100% equity in their property, resident associations making a group requests and council tenants are excluded. Although the exclusion related to 100% equity-holders has been criticised, the Ombudsman has affirmed the exclusion and urges such 100% equity-holders to seek redress via the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 instead.

The Ombudsman explains that individuals must have been a tenant at the time of making a request but need not be a tenant at the time of issuing a complaint. The complaints pool is restricted by a 3-month limitation period to raise a complaint following completion of the PRPs review. In its Consultation, the HOS affirmed such limitation, however, adds that it may exercise its discretion in extending this limit for vulnerable applicants. The HOS intends to produce further guidance to cover this issue.   

The scope of information covered by STAIRs requests

In preparing for Chapter 2 of STAIRs, the Ombudsman’s guidance is helpful. Broadly, relevant information includes information related to the management of the PRPs social housing, and information captured and retained to support these activities. Importantly, relevant information only includes data held by the PRP at the time the request was made. In searching for such information, a PRP would be expected to search its own records and retrieve information from third parties if reasonably available. Should a request be unclear or extensive, a PRP should  liaise with the requestor to clarify the request.

Taking a reasonable, balanced approach to refusals to provide information

The Ombudsman’s Scheme sets out that they are seeking to establish whether the private registered provider has been responsible for maladministration (which includes findings of service failure, maladministration and severe maladministration) through failures to respond to STAIRs, including whether the provider behaved unfairly, unreasonably or incompetently.

PRPs therefore need to be able to show how they have had due regard to the protections afforded to classes of information under FOIA (eg. privilege, personal data, confidential information), but to also apply a test of whether it would be reasonable to withhold such information.

PRPs should therefore apply a balanced approach, taking into account the objectives of STAIRs to promote transparency, accountability and tenant scrutiny. Whilst a document containing legal advice concerning litigation may be reasonable to withhold, information related to policies, performance data and repairs information would potentially be more difficult to justifiably withhold.

A PPR may also rely upon the 18-hour limit to respond to a request as contained in FOIA. A PRP should apply this rule carefully; keeping an audit trail demonstrating why the request is disproportionately burdensome is advisable. This could include evidencing which systems have been searched, the likely number of returned documents and which staff and other departments have been consulted.

STAIRs requests may also be refused if they are repetitive, offensively communicated or part of a coordinated campaign of repeated requests. Refusals should be well documented and supported by objective evidence, such as copies of offensive correspondence or evidence that materially identical requests have been answered. However, PRPs should exercise discretion and consider whether providing the information again would be a more proportionate and pragmatic response than refusing the request.

Failure to provide an adequate response: next steps and consequences

A dissatisfied tenant (or ex tenant) may escalate matters to the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman will investigate and has broad powers to make orders for the disclosure of information and payment of compensation for distress (although in the STAIRs context this seems unlikely), inconvenience and trouble caused. The Ombudsman may also direct a PRP to review its policies and staff training to prevent future failings occurring. In extreme cases, a matter may be referred to the Regulator of Social Housing.

Preparing for STAIRs

If they have not already done so, PRPs should begin reviewing their information governance arrangements and establish a policy, process and systems to comply with STAIRs. Staff training should also be rolled out to help staff identify STAIRs requests, to understand the limits to disclosable information, and how to manage Ombudsman complaints.

How Capsticks can help

If you would like access to advice, training or further guidance on these issues or a specific case, please contact Andrew Latham or Tana Dryden-Strong.

This insight was co-authored by Charlotte Larkinson, Trainee Solicitor.