There is not a right or wrong way to do Resident Scrutiny Reports. The key issue is what will best lead to outcomes that bring improvements for tenants and prospective tenants. If a key reason to involve tenants in involvement activities, including scrutiny exercises, is so that they can constructively challenge how the landlord operates so that services, value for money or other aspects of the business can be improved, then not allowing tenants to raise the points they wish to raise would seem to be counter productive and not using the potential business advantages that tenant involvement can bring. Certainly if a landlord has asked tenants to carry out a scrutiny exercise then it would be expected that their final report is agreed with the tenants involved. But it is the job of senior management to manage the information that decision makers receive. It is important that tenants understand the perspective of senior management - eg. are the challenges made in the scrutiny report constructive and designed to improve services or the business? Are conclusions made balanced, objective and based on evidence, particularly of the views of a cross section of tenants? Has the scrutiny report taken into account the views of staff and other stakeholders? Are the recommendations made coherent and practical? Is the report well written, to the point and easily understandable? If the answer to these questions is yes, then it would be concerning if senior management felt that they needed to change reports. It is the job of senior management to advise and assist tenants on these matters so that they can produce effective reports, and in most cases, it is to be hoped that scrutiny work will be done in a spirit of partnership between tenants and landlord. In a well run scrutiny exercise, it would be expected that tenants and senior management are in agreement about the conclusions of a scrutiny exercise before the report reaches the decision-makers. If this is not the case - then there could be faults on either or both sides.