A Housing Association has received press attention due to the poor state of its properties...

The statement commits to two outcomes: good quality accommodation and repairs addressed in a timely manner. The documentation emphasises that performance targets and measures must be chosen carefully and should reflect not only internal views but also customer expectations; otherwise performance may look “fine” internally while failing customers. It also stresses that KPIs/targets should be SMART and monitored regularly.

Option A provides a clear, measurable proxy for property condition: if emergency repairs are needed in a high proportion of properties, that indicates poor underlying condition and reactive maintenance. Setting a target like “no more than 5%” directly measures progress toward “good quality accommodation.”

Option C translates tenant experience into a clear target: limiting complaints about condition/repairs to a defined maximum per month is specific and measurable, and it reflects the customer perspective that the press statement is trying to reassure.

Option B is a valid measure but it is not defined as a target (it has no threshold), so it is less aligned to the question asking for “targets to measure performance against.” Option D measures media coverage, which is indirect and can be influenced by factors outside operational performance; it is not a reliable operational KPI for accommodation quality or repair timeliness. Therefore, A and C are the best targets.