This asks: of all the complaints tenants make to the landlord directly, how many end with the independent watchdog formally finding the landlord at fault? It matters because it links everyday complaints to proven failures. A high value can mean the landlord genuinely fails often — or that it barely records complaints in the first place, so the few that surface are serious; a low value suggests most complaints get resolved before reaching the watchdog.
| name | ho_escalation_yield |
|---|---|
| dataset | 09-ombudsman-lgsco |
| kind | constructed |
| type | rate |
| unit | ombudsman findings per stage-1 complaint |
| grain | landlord-year |
| role | feature |
| source | `Findings` (ho Table 1) / TSM `CH01_1_Numerator_COMB` (stage-1 complaints, TSM File 04, joined on landlord name to `ProviderName`) |
| period | 2024-25 |
| missingness | Table rows exist only for landlords with 5+ findings in 2024-25 — treat absence as missing, not zero. Join to LGSCO/TSM data is by landlord name and lossy (ALMO/association names don't match council names). TSM File 04 covers only landlords with 1,000+ homes; the name-join to `ProviderName` is lossy, so this variable is undefined for unmatched or small landlords. |
| score_note | Original escalation-funnel idea, but the TSM name-join and under-recording ambiguity make it hard to trust. |
| peer_group | registered landlords (RSH-regulated, 1,000+ homes) — not yet scored on the leaderboard |
How much of a landlord's internal complaint volume ends in an ombudsman finding. High values can mean either an unusually failing landlord or one that under-records stage-1 complaints — interpret alongside the TSM complaint volumes themselves.