Paid engagement

10-Day Regulatory Exposure Sprint

Your board is accountable for regulatory exposure it often cannot see in one place. The public record already holds the picture: Housing Ombudsman determinations, Regulator of Social Housing judgements, and the financial accounts. The Sprint assembles that picture for your organisation in ten working days and hands your board the brief that answers the questions it will be asked.

Commission the Sprint

What the 10 days deliver

A read of your full Housing Ombudsman record: volume, outcomes, and the complaint themes driving maladministration findings.
Your standardised exposure ratio: adverse findings against what the Ombudsman was upholding when your cases were actually decided, with the composite score and its confidence beneath it. Same model as every provider we score.
Your Watch Level: the public regulatory and financial signals that are firing now, in plain language.
Your position against similar providers, so a single number becomes a board conversation.
Your financial-resilience exposure against the levels the regulator uses as reference points, where your organisation files Global Accounts.
The board questions you should now be able to answer, and where similar providers who acted cut repeat findings fastest.
A reconciliation of every figure against your own board pack: its value, its as-of date, its source and its basis, and whether it should match yours.

The leave-behind

The Board Exposure Brief

The Sprint produces a named artefact your board keeps: the Board Exposure Brief. One board-ready document, covering:

A single "so what" exposure headline.
Exposure ratio, band and confidence, Watch Level, and trajectory.
Ombudsman exposure: outcomes and top complaint themes.
Financial-resilience exposure.
Peer and sector position.
Reconciliation against your own pack, figure by figure.
Methodology and provenance, so every figure is traceable.

ScoreView produces the evidence. What you are buying is the reading of it: which of your figures a regulator would ask about first, what the public record says about your themes that your own reporting cannot, and the headline a board can act on. The Data-Confidence Stress Test and the board-pack export are inputs to that, not the product.

Who it is for

Boards and executive teams at registered providers: housing associations, local authorities, ALMOs and TMOs.
Chairs and audit and risk committees who need one traceable view before an engagement or inspection.
Compliance and governance leads who are asked to evidence where the organisation stands and what lands next on the regulatory calendar, not only report the past.

Before we start

What we check before we start

Not every organisation can be given every section, and we tell you which before you pay rather than on day eight.

Record depth. The exposure ratio needs a record to stand on. Below 30 decided cases the model declines to place a provider above Watch, whatever the ratio says, because a handful of cases cannot carry that claim. Where your record is thinner, the brief leads on themes and the forward calendar instead, and we say so in the proposal.
Local authority landlords do not file Global Accounts with the regulator. There is no interest cover or gearing to read, so the financial-resilience section is replaced by complaint-driven cost exposure and the LGSCO record, agreed in writing before the engagement starts.
Entity boundary. We confirm which legal entity is in scope, and whether a published regulatory grade belongs to it or to its parent group, before any figure is written down.

Why it holds up

Trust and provenance

Public sources only. Housing Ombudsman, Regulator of Social Housing, and the published accounts. Nothing self-reported, nothing scraped from private systems.
No personal data. No tenant, complainant or staff data. No determination text stored. Every figure links back to its source.
Dated to the data, not to the printing. Every artefact carries the date the corpus was read, not the day it was produced.
Correctable, and challengeable. The brief names the correction route and your right of reply. Where the published record is corrected, we restate rather than quietly re-issue, and the brief says what moved and why.
Same model as the sector view. Your position uses the model applied across every provider we score, so peer comparison is real, not framed.
Present tense only. We report what the public record shows and how it has moved. ScoreView makes no predictive claim about any named provider, and the brief will not tell your board what a regulator is going to do.
Improvement-led. The brief leads with the move, and points to where providers who acted cleared the trajectory.

Commission

Commission the Sprint

Tell us who to talk to and we’ll be in touch to arrange your Sprint. Pricing is discussed directly, matched to your organisation.