An accessible URL is not proof of a new observation. The last verified data are kept when a source check fails.
Latest recorded source checks
Source
Checked
Outcome
Filling the blind spots
What would turn this into operational intelligence?
Ask for an anonymised monthly area extract
Confirmed damp/mould hazards and reported cases, separately, by ward or 2021 LSOA, tenure and month; distinguish cases, properties and hazard observations.
Inspected property counts and total stock or households for each area, to show coverage and calculate defensible rates.
Report, acknowledgement, inspection, safety-work and final-resolution dates, with repeat cases and cancelled/no-access outcomes.
HHSRS category, damp type, diagnostic findings and repair action; clarify the Q1 repair KPI discrepancy and historical complaint totals.
HMO licensing and current council stock aggregates, with stable geographic codes and survey dates.
Join referral postcodes or UPRNs privately to geographic codes, then publish only suitable area aggregates. Compare who is reached, what support is delivered, and whether the underlying condition is resolved.
Referral date, referrer type, tenancy, actions, outcome, time to resolution and repeat referral.
Independent follow-up: confirmed damp type, repairs completed and resident-reported condition after support.
Indoor temperature and relative humidity with sensor placement, measurement period and sampling protocol. No public Thanet indoor sensor dataset was identified.
Weather can contextualise seasonal patterns; outdoor humidity cannot substitute for indoor readings.
The dashboard contains public area statistics only. No private case records or household locations are included.
Methodology & reuse
Transparent joins, separate denominators
How the map was assembled
Official ward polygons are joined to the 2023 report using the exact 23 ward names, normalised for case. Kent ward data are joined by ward code. Official 2021 LSOA polygons are joined to deprivation, fuel poverty and five census tables using exact LSOA codes. All 86 neighbourhoods match every embedded LSOA indicator.
Ward labels for LSOAs follow Kent Analytics’ published lookup. A label assigns an LSOA to a ward for comparison; it does not establish that the two boundaries align exactly. No LSOA statistics have been automatically transferred to wards or allocated to individual properties.
Map geometry is downloaded official geometry, rather than a schematic. Wards use super-generalised coastline-clipped boundaries; LSOAs use generalised coastline-clipped boundaries. Display uses a local longitude/latitude projection corrected for latitude, with north at the top. Centroid dots are not used as mould locations.
What the numbers can support
Modelled damp, recorded cases, predicted housing hazards and vulnerability indicators have different populations and dates. They are shown separately. Census household and resident percentages use each table’s own denominator; small differences arise from disclosure controls. Percentages are rounded for display; downloads retain four decimal places.
Ward serious-hazard rate = predicted hazardous PRS dwellings / modelled PRS dwellings × 100. Complaint rate = appendix complaints / modelled PRS dwellings × 100, an exploratory measure from inconsistent source totals. Bedroom overcrowding combines occupancy ratings of −1 and −2 or below. Disability percentages are crude, not age standardised. IMD deciles use national ranks; Kent-only ward deciles are not displayed as national deciles.
No composite mould score, causal effect or false precision from local confidence intervals is produced. The hosted evidence is refreshed by a scheduled review. A check date does not change the underlying reference period. Failed checks preserve the last verified observations and are listed in the evidence monitor.
Quarterly works tables and narrative disagree; neither establishes statutory compliance.
The 2025/26 annual report gives an October phase-2 date. Current government guidance proposes 30 November 2026, subject to Parliamentary approval.
The annual complaints report gives timely stage 1 / 2 responses as 86% / 95.3%; the published tenant-satisfaction methodology gives 97.2% / 100%. Definitions and exclusions remain unreconciled.
The tenant-satisfaction survey had 628 responses, with fieldwork July–November 2025. That total is not the denominator for complaint-handling satisfaction, which covers respondents who complained.