From 1 April 2027, a resident's written question can start a 30-day clock. That is when Chapter 2 of the Social Tenant Access to Information Requirements (STAIRs) takes effect. It gives housing association tenants a formal right to request information about how their homes are managed.
Most of the sector's attention so far has gone on Chapter 1, the publication scheme that went live on 1 October 2026. That was largely a content exercise: find the documents, sort them into the required classes, publish them.
Chapter 2 is different. It lands on your contact centre, your repairs teams and your contractors. It tests whether you can recognise a request, find the information, decide what to withhold and respond, all inside a fixed deadline. That makes April 2027 an operational deadline more than a policy one.
From 1 April 2027, tenants of private registered providers can ask in writing for information about how their landlord manages its social housing. Providers must respond within 30 calendar days, and can refuse only on grounds set out in the STAIRs policy statement.
The scope is wide. It covers repairs and property conditions, rent and service charges, anti-social behaviour, complaints handling, health and safety, stock transfers and energy efficiency. It also covers information that contractors or managing agents hold on your behalf.
There are limits. You don't have to create new records to answer a request. You can refuse in these cases:
For local authority tenants, much of this is already familiar through the Freedom of Information Act 2000. For housing associations, it is the first regime of its kind.
A resident doesn't have to mention STAIRs for STAIRs to apply. A valid request just needs to be in writing and come from an identifiable tenant or their representative. That means requests will turn up inside ordinary contact.
Picture a repairs email that ends: "Can you send me the damp survey for our block?" Or a portal message asking why the service charge rose 12% this year. Or a complaint letter that asks how many times the lift has failed since January. Each could be a STAIRs request, sitting in a channel built for something else.
The 30-day clock runs from receipt, not from when someone spots it. A request that sits in a shared inbox for a week has lost a week. So the first operational question is recognition: who reads each channel, who decides a message is a STAIRs request, and where it gets logged.
Recognition also means routing. A request for a resident's own personal data is a subject access request under UK GDPR, because a statutory right of access already exists. A grievance about service belongs in your complaints process. Frontline teams need to tell these apart quickly, because each runs on its own rules and timescale.
For most housing associations, the hard part won't be the decision. It will be the search. Repairs history might sit in the housing management system (HMS), contractor job sheets, email threads and a spreadsheet someone keeps for a particular block.
Contractors add a second layer. If a managing agent or repairs contractor holds the information, you must use all reasonable endeavours to get it. Few contracts written before STAIRs say how fast a contractor must hand records over. If yours don't, your 30 days depend on someone else's goodwill.
The 18-hour limit offers a way out, but a narrow one. Relying on it because your records are scattered is a weak position to defend at review. The better answer is to make the common requests quick to answer before April.
Two further rules shape the work. You must not alter or destroy requested information to avoid disclosing it. And you must make reasonable efforts to send it in a format the resident can access.
Every provider must publish a policy setting out how it decides whether withholding information is reasonable. That policy has to reflect the protections in the Freedom of Information Act 2000, data protection law and other relevant statutes.
The policy statement also closes some doors. You can't refuse because of who is asking, why they want the information, or what they will do with it. And you can't refuse because disclosure would damage your reputation.
Where information relates to a third party, such as a contractor, you must consider their view on likely harm. That takes time, so build it into the process rather than discovering it on day 25. If you need longer, tell the resident why and when they can expect a response.
The operational answer is simple to state and harder to run. Name who makes the call, record the reasons each time, and use redaction before refusal where it fits. Consistent, written reasoning is what holds up when a resident asks for a review.
A resident unhappy with how you handled a request can ask you for a review. You should normally complete it within 30 calendar days. If they are still unhappy, they can go straight to the Housing Ombudsman, and your review response must tell them so.
The Ombudsman decides individual disputes and can make orders that providers must follow. The Regulator of Social Housing looks at whether you meet the requirements across the organisation.
One detail is easy to miss. The publication scheme's performance class includes information request data. Once Chapter 2 is live, how you handle requests becomes something you publish. A slow or inconsistent process won't stay internal for long.
The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) expects information requests to cost providers around £1.8 million across the sector in year one. Over ten years, it puts the figure at £16.7 million. Setting up publication schemes adds a one-off £1.9 million across 1,366 providers (consultation response).
The sector isn't convinced. In the consultation, 36% of respondents said the government had underestimated the costs. They pointed to staffing, training, IT, monitoring and Housing Ombudsman fees. Some landlords warned the 18-hour limit could mean recruiting additional staff.
The cost of getting it wrong sits on top of that:
Some landlords told the government the 18-hour limit could mean recruiting extra staff. That is the default response to every new duty: another inbox, another coordinator, another tracker. It isn't the only option.
Most of the time a request takes won't go on judgement. It will go on searching: chasing contractors, reading email threads, reconciling records held in different systems. Cut the search, and the people you already have can make the decisions.
Three things cut it. One record per property, with every resident interaction and job update attached. Contact from every channel landing in the same place, so a request buried in a repairs email is timestamped from receipt. And a change history on every task, so the evidence for a review already exists.
askporter Housing gives you that record. It logs every resident interaction across WhatsApp, SMS, email and web, timestamped against the property. Its Activity Tracker records what changed on each task, when and by whom. It works alongside your existing HMS, so your system of record stays where it is, and the withholding decisions stay with your team.
Frequently requested information can also be tagged as publicly shareable. When a request for it comes in, your team can send it straight back to the resident, leaving more time for the requests that need judgement.
It is the same record your Awaab's Law processes rely on. If you are preparing for both regimes, start with our Awaab's Law Phase 2 guide, or talk to our team about absorbing STAIRs requests without adding headcount.
This article is general information, not legal advice.
Best FM & Housing AI Platform
PropTech Innovation
Best Repairs & Maintenance
UK government-backed · externally audited
UK data residency by default
Documented data processing · DPA on request
AI governance framework · 2024 legislation
Best FM & Housing AI Platform
PropTech Innovation
Best Repairs & Maintenance
UK government-backed · externally audited
UK data residency by default
Documented data processing · DPA on request
AI governance framework · 2024 legislation