This is the third blog in our five-part series, where our experts examine the Decent Homes Standard reforms. Here, we take a closer look from a surveying perspective and explore the implications of condition-based assessments.
The Decent Homes Standard (DHS) was first introduced in 2000 to ensure social housing met a minimum level of quality and that stock condition surveys aligned with this definition of decency. However, it is widely considered that the DHS has in recent years become outdated. As a result, the Government has increased it's focus towards the provision of social housing , and the mechanisms used to improve the condition of ageing social housing stock.
The Government has published a paper entitled 'Consultation on a reformed Decent Homes Standard for social and privately rented homes, which was published in July 2025. The consultation is a welcome step, as the sector has been calling for reform for some time. It is encouraging to see the Government addressing these long-standing issues.
Whilst the direction of the reforms is largely positive, there are concerns, particularly around practical delivery, financial challenges, and the removal of key elements that surveyors rely on.
The proposed updates bring decency back into focus as a central part of housing quality. Key positives in the revised DHS include:
These are important developments, but they also introduce complexities that need careful consideration.
One of the most significant changes is the proposed removal of prescribed life cycles for key building components under Criterion B. Previously, under the original DHS, failure of assessments was based on both age and condition. For example, a front door might be expected to last 30 years; if it exceeded that age and was in poor condition, it would fail the Standard.
The updated proposals suggest that the condition alone will determine whether a component passes or fails, regardless of age. This approach raises several concerns: a relatively new component that has been deliberately damaged could be deemed as non-decent, whilst an older component in good condition may no longer be flagged for replacement.
The updates to Criterion C, covering modern facilities, also remove kitchen and bathroom age as a reason for failure. Similarly, this could allow components to remain in place far longer than is reasonable, unless visibly deteriorated or damaged.
Previously, clear age thresholds provided consistency; for example, kitchens over 30 years old were typically replaced, even if functional. This supported fair and planned investment across housing stock.
Relying solely on condition raises a number of questions that will require clear guidance to ensure consistent application:
Removing the age element places more pressure on professional judgement, increasing the risk of inconsistency, disputes, and underinvestment if not carefully managed. Component life cycles help surveyors when assessing age and condition and asset managers when calculating Decent Homes Standard failure rates, as well as producing 30-year financial forecasts; the removal of life cycles altogether would hamstring future financial planning.
Discover more about how the removal of age requirements impacts stock condition surveys in the previous blog in our expert series, ‘What the Reformed Decent Homes Standard Means for Stock Condition Surveys’, here.
These reforms will come at a cost, both financially and operationally, at a time when housing providers are already managing safety works, decarbonisation targets, disrepair claims, and development targets from the same tight budgets.
Upgrading floor coverings, installing window restrictors, and meeting the new standards are important; however, the cost of doing so will be difficult for some providers to achieve.
There is also a technical challenge. Many asset management systems are designed around the current DHS framework, including life cycle-based decency calculations. Revising survey methodologies and calculation processes to align with the new standard will take time and planning.
Whilst the ambition of the reforms is welcome, clearer guidance is essential for effective implementation.
For example, Criterion E states that “Properties are free from damp and mould”. This is a broad requirement that could overlap with existing provisions in the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS), where damp and mould is already assessed. The use of HHSRS bands A-H is a good metric to assess the new Criterion E, but there is a risk of duplicating effort.
Furthermore, without a more detailed definition of acceptable damp and mould levels, many older homes could be deemed non-decent, even where minor damp is expected due to building age. In my view, further clarity is needed to ensure consistency and fairness. In addition, much of our social housing stock, is nearing 100 years old (if not older), which by definition brings certain thermal efficiency and ventilation challenges – both of which are precursors to internal damp, mould, and condensation issues. We must therefore approach the issue of property improvement cautiously, and ensure strategic asset management principles are used for reinvestment decision making. Similarly, appropriate surveying methodologies must be encouraged, to avoid additional pressure being applied to repairs and maintenance budgets. In my view, the separation of works and services is fundamental to the correct allocation of resources.
The DHS consultation is a chance to reshape a standard that works better for residents, whilst providing a more structured yet achievable framework for providers.
But that will only happen if people share their thoughts and respond to the consultation. The Decent Homes Standard has shaped social housing for over two decades. Now, we have the opportunity to modernise it and get it right for the next 20 years.
If you need support in understanding the changes to the Decent Homes Standard, our experts are here to help. Whether you're looking to arrange a Stock Condition Survey or need strategic asset management advice, get in touch with us today.