Internal Affairs for Adactus500 Scrutiny Panel Planned Maintenance: Final Report 20 January 2017
Internal Affairs for Adactus500 Scrutiny Panel
Contents page Project background ....................................................................................................................3 1.
Component replacement ...........................................................................................................4
2.
Quality and cost of components ................................................................................................8
3.
Choices .......................................................................................................................................9
4.
Informing customers ................................................................................................................11
5.
What are other housing associations doing? ...........................................................................12
6.
Customer satisfation .................................................................................................................13 What we liked ...........................................................................................................................13 What concerned us ...................................................................................................................14 Recommendations ....................................................................................................................14
Appendix: Staff Interviews ........................................................................................................................15 Spot check – Updating records .................................................................................................16 Spot check – One offs ...............................................................................................................16 Spot check – Exclusions ..........................................................................................................16 Spot check – Tenant views on components............................................................................17 Spot check – Damage to property...........................................................................................19 Spot check – CP13 ratings .......................................................................................................20 Spot check – Tenant satisfaction.............................................................................................22 Spot check – Inbound calls ......................................................................................................22 Adactus500 survey results ........................................................................................................27 Acknowledgements...................................................................................................................27
Shehnaz Akhtar and Suzannah Robinson
Page 2
Internal Affairs for Adactus500 Scrutiny Panel
Scrutiny Review: Planned Maintenance Interim Report The Project How well we deliver our planned maintenance programme in order to keep assets in good condition and meet the Decent Homes Standard.
Background Planned Maintenance includes the replacement of certain building components, which includes kitchens, bathrooms, electrical rewiring, roofs and roofline (fascia, soffit and gutter), central heating systems, windows, and internal/external decoration. Prior to 2013 components were replaced when they had reached the end of their life as guided by the Decent Homes Standard, with more emphasis on age of the components rather than the components condition. In 2013, Adactus changed its approach, whilst still maintaining the Decent Homes Standard, by only replacing components that failed both the age and condition assessment. However, there are exceptions; boilers are still replaced at the end of their recommended life (fifteen years) and all properties within a Retirement Living scheme continue to have planned maintenance at the same time to minimise disruption
What we wanted to know • • • • • •
How is the condition of components assessed? How are properties selected for planned maintenance work? Does Adactus provide quality components? What choices does Adactus offer its customers? Are customers excluded from planned maintenance work? How satisfied are our tenants with this approach?
What we looked at • • • • • • •
Information on the website. Component replacement policy. Internal audit report on planned maintenance. Choices sheets. Number of improvements completed. Rent Arrears Recovery Policy. Customers rent accounts.
Shehnaz Akhtar and Suzannah Robinson
Page 3
Internal Affairs for Adactus500 Scrutiny Panel
• •
Data records Adactus500 survey results
What we found 1. Component replacement 1a Background: • Component information is held on the Group’s stock database (Integrator), and on the housing management system Qlx. This information will be updated each time a component is replaced. A spot check revealed this was being done. • The policy for component replacement is applied consistently across all property types regardless of tenancy length and concerns the components themselves, not the aesthetics of the property (e.g. plastering / wallpaper) as per the Decent Homes Standard. • Nearly two thirds of 106 Adactus500 members surveyed felt that something in their property needed replacing. The three most common answers were kitchens, bathrooms or windows • An Adactus500 survey of 55 tenants who have had component replacements in the last two years revealed that most (over 6 out of 10) thought that the work done at their property had taken place "at the right time". • According to the data held on our system there are 889 kitchens and 405 bathrooms which are beyond their life cycle (i.e. kitchens and bathrooms in less than 10% of our properties). However, these components will have been inspected and assessed as being not in need of replacement. • Since 2013, resources have been targeted at empty properties however; it is still early days therefore there is not enough evidence to suggest that these tenancies will last longer. • Each year a survey is carried out on components as part of a property condition assessment (known internally as a CP13). If the components are considered to be in good condition then the next assessment date on the database will be changed to the following year. The surveys are completed by Gas Engineers when they access a property to carry out an annual gas service inspection. • For properties without gas (therefore no annual gas inspection or CP13) the component replacement date on the database will generate an inspection. • The repairs history is also used to determine if a component needs replacing. The history will show the number of times a repair had to be carried out to the same component therefore allowing staff to identify where a replacement would be a better option. If it is identified that a component needs replacing, an Asset Management Inspector will carry out an inspection, take photographic evidence and seek approval
Shehnaz Akhtar and Suzannah Robinson
Page 4
Internal Affairs for Adactus500 Scrutiny Panel
• •
1b.
from the Operations Director Asset Management for it to be replaced as a ‘one off’. The work is then added to the planned programme and should be completed within 6 months. If a customer causes ‘wilful’ damage to a component then Adactus will only carry out the repair if the customer pays in advance; Adactus will not replace the component. Adactus have recently started to adopt a data-led approach to predicting component failure and to help plan long-term planned maintenance requirements.
Component Assessment - CP13 •
• • • • • •
•
•
On visiting a property, the gas engineers use a scoring system (one to four) to determine the condition of a component; one rates the component as being in very poor condition and at the end of its economic life while four rates it as being in a very good ‘as new’ condition. Kitchens, bathrooms, other internal areas and external areas are all rated. In addition, gas engineers comment on damp, any obvious electrical hazards and if applicable the condition of the balcony. For components rated “1”, inspections are raised for a maintenance surveyor to carry out a more thorough check. These inspections are currently raised in batches. In 2016, 10,941 CP13 inspections were completed. Gas Engineers do not know the age of a component so always inspect and assess purely on condition. Gas engineers do not take photographic evidence when completing the CP13. A spot check revealed that operatives completing the CP13 are not being consistent in their application of the rating system. A spot check revealed that many CP13 failures (given a rating of 1) described the condition of components as ‘poor’ or ‘in poor condition’, ‘dirty’ or ‘filthy’ without further details. Only some provided a more detailed description and advice on remedial action required. Adactus500 members were asked if they recalled having their kitchens or bathrooms inspected when the gas engineer last called to their property. Of those with gas in the property, around 4 out of 10 Adactus500 members surveyed remembered having an inspection. A spot check revealed that tenants rate their components on average just under one point lower than Adactus operatives. (Differences are 0.85 pts lower for kitchens and 0.97pts for bathrooms).
Shehnaz Akhtar and Suzannah Robinson
Page 5
Internal Affairs for Adactus500 Scrutiny Panel
1c. Inbound queries •
•
•
In the first six months of the financial year (April 16-Sept 16) 1,310 calls from tenants were made to our Connect contact centre regarding planned maintenance; 633 were to request an update, 406 were enquiries, 76 were requests for work, 21 were to make an informal complaint and the rest were for various miscellaneous reasons. A spot check revealed that inbound planned maintenance calls are being handled in an appropriate manner. There was only one call out of 9 which should have been dealt with differently. This assessment process has highlighted a change that is required to the script and this has now been altered to include advice on what to do if someone has been told they are having a replacement but have a query about it.
1d. Replacement Work • •
•
•
• •
Most planned maintenance work is carried out by Adactus staff (DLO); kitchens, bathrooms, heating systems and boilers, and internal/external decoration. Work that requires specialist skills for example, roofs and rooflines (facia and soffit), some external decoration, and replacement of windows is carried out by external contractors. These are considered as ‘high risk’ items as they involve working at heights in all weather conditions therefore Adactus reduces the risk by employing specialist contractors from an approved contractors list. A number of components are replaced while properties are empty (void); the aim from this is to provide an appealing product for new customers with a view to creating sustainable tenancies. Components identified as needing a replacement following an inspection, or due to multiple repairs to the same part are replaced as a ‘one off’ and within a six month timescale. A spot check revealed this target was generally being met (6 out of 8 met the target). The target is to replace a combined total of 480 kitchens and bathrooms in any one year. For the past two years this target has been exceeded by c20 components. Records show the number of replacements completed between 1 April 2015 and 31 March 2016 were: o 386 rooflines (all general needs). o 241 kitchens (195 general needs, 46 retirement living). o 267 bathrooms and adaptations (210 general needs, 57 retirement living). o 168 internal decorations (all general needs). In addition to this the internal areas of 6 retirement living schemes were refurbished (including decoration) costing approximately £700k. o 341 heating systems (all general needs). In addition to this two communal boiler refurbishments were carried out at Arcon House and Clayton House costing approximately £200k.
Shehnaz Akhtar and Suzannah Robinson
Page 6
Internal Affairs for Adactus500 Scrutiny Panel
o 172 fires (all general needs). o 250 windows (all general needs). o 1440 external decorations (1306 general needs, 134 retirement living in 3 schemes). o 172 fires (all general needs). • The timescale to complete a kitchen or bathroom is a maximum of five days. • DLO staff work between 8:00 am and 4:30pm. • The Group does not operate a financial scheme to reward long standing customers who look after their components, or to encourage new customers to do the same. 1e. Approved contractor • Contractors go through a rigorous evaluation process to become an approved contractor; they are required to complete an application form and supply necessary supporting documents for example, details of management, supervision, labour, insurance, health & safety, DBS clearance, up to date documents and certificates. This is validated on an annual basis. • Approved contractors are required to adhere to the Group’s Code of Conduct which requires them to observe their obligations under the law when providing their services. The standards set out for contractors are the same as those required of the Group’s own staff. • Customer satisfaction with a contractor is monitored on a monthly basis and if there are any issues, or a low satisfaction rate, then it will be investigated and if needed a different contractor will be appointed. At September 2016, the satisfaction level was high at 96.8%.
1f. Post work inspections • Not every bathroom/kitchen job is inspected due to time constraints however, random spot checks are done and work is generally followed up with a satisfaction survey telephone call which gives the customer a chance to give feedback on whether or not they are happy with the work. • The defect period (snagging) is twelve months which begins on completion of work. • External contractor work accounts for less than 10% of all component replacements. Work is monitored by an Adactus maintenance surveyor or project manager throughout the contract and at a final visit to check the completed work. This will include a quality check, checking against the original estimate and speaking to tenants themselves
Shehnaz Akhtar and Suzannah Robinson
Page 7
Internal Affairs for Adactus500 Scrutiny Panel
1g. Exclusions from planned maintenance work • The Group’s policy prevents customers in rent arrears (except in sheltered and supported accommodation) from kitchen and bathroom planned maintenance work (not responsive repairs). • Properties listed for planned work, (excluding voids, sheltered and supported schemes) are checked against each customer’s rent account to identify those in arrears; they will automatically be omitted from the programme. Customers are required to clear their arrears in full, or enter into a payment agreement and maintain it before any replacement is agreed. • A spot check revealed the policy for omitting tenants in arrears was not applied where components were replaced in a ‘block’ for example, a whole row of houses. • The Operations Director Asset Management can use his discretion to allow a customer in arrears a new ‘one off’ component. 2. Quality and Cost of Components 2a. Overall spend • Investment in improving housing assets remains a relatively high-spend area with £9.1 million invested during the financial year 2016/17. This is 9% of total spend but just less than a third of the remaining spend when housing construction (70% of spend) is considered. This 9.1m includes staffing costs. • However, an investigation into spend by other North West Housing Associations revealed that Adactus Housing Group spent £913.95 per property in the financial year 2015/16 compared to a median cost for Housing Associations in the North West of £1361.86. • This suggests that Adactus spend considerably less on cyclical and major works compared to other associations (benchmarked against 59 other organisations of similar size within the North West). However, it is important to note that the Group has taken considerable measures over the past few years to become more efficient and reduce management costs. Other housing providers may spend more on management costs as part of their cyclical or major works. 2b. Planned maintenance materials contract • Since December 2013, all planned maintenance materials (with the exception of decorating materials) are purchased from Jewson. Purchasing from a single supplier gives buying power which significantly reduces costs and enables quality products to be purchased at a discount price. • Approximately £1.5 million is spent per annum on materials for planned maintenance. • The contract was awarded for three years initially with an option to extend for years. • The planned maintenance tender was subject to the Group’s financial regulations. As such, the tender was advertised and a decision was made based on 60% overall cost Shehnaz Akhtar and Suzannah Robinson
Page 8
Internal Affairs for Adactus500 Scrutiny Panel
•
•
•
and 40% overall delivery of the contract (including quality of fixtures & fittings, how the supply chain is guaranteed). The Group installs quality products of an above average specification. Components are of a reputable brand for example, Moores Furniture Group for kitchens, Armitage bathroom suites, and Stelrad radiators. The components are valued (using a ‘flat rate’ valuation for accounting purposes – this includes materials and labour) as; kitchens - £3,785, bathrooms - £3,785, heating systems - £2,590, electric fire - £700, roofline - £815, and internal/external decoration £500. The design brief for newbuild properties developed by the association have similar specifications to planned replacements so that repairs can be easily carried out in the future.
3. Choices •
An Adactus500 survey revealed that most people who were offered choices were satisfied with the range of choice on offer.
3a. Kitchens & Bathrooms • A range of boiler and kitchen choices was agreed in consultation with residents in 2011. Bathroom products were reviewed with residents in 2013. • All bathroom suites are standard white with an overhead shower, lever taps and a choice of white or cream wall tiles. • Customers are offered a choice of style and colour of door, worktop, floor covering, handles and wall tiles: o Door – pear, oak, apple, walnut. o Worktop – cosmic beige, lima surf, aticos gold surf, antique block walnut. o Floor covering – autumn beige, walnut black, Nordic grey, antique copper. o Handles – a choice of four different styles. o Wall tiles – white or cream. • However, it was noted during talks with the planning team that the style of kitchen tile (square) is dated and in some cases customers have requested for a more modern tile or have supplied their own tiles when their kitchen/ bathroom was replaced. • Existing appliances owned by the customer such as a cooker or fridge will be included in the kitchen design and re-installed upon completion of the works. Customers have the option to supply a new appliance for example, a hob or cooker hood which will be factored into the design but the items must be available in the property before work starts. Integrated appliances are not permissible. • Void properties are completed as quickly as possible to reduce the time the property is empty therefore Adactus is not able to offer a choice or style of kitchen to the new occupant. It is replaced with the most popular choice with customers; natural oak units
Shehnaz Akhtar and Suzannah Robinson
Page 9
Internal Affairs for Adactus500 Scrutiny Panel
with a black worktop, white wall tiles, and beige floor. If a customer is allocated a property before work begins then they may be offered a choice of worktop, wall tiles and floor, but will not be offered a choice of kitchen units due to time constraints as the units have to be ordered. 3b. Windows • All single glazed timber windows due for renewal this year are in the process of being replaced with UPVC double glazed windows. • The work has been assigned to a specialist contractor after a tendering process. • The window replacement programme for 2016/17 consists of 104 properties. At 30 September 2016, the programme was above target with 97 completions. • A letter is sent out to all customers at the beginning of the year to notify them of the impending work and provides details of the contractor, their contact details, the company who will carry out an external condition survey of the windows (sub contractor) and also the planned maintenance team. It informs customers that the contractor will contact them directly to complete an external survey of the windows. • Customers are offered a choice of colour, style and opening of windows. • In some cases a door is also included as part of the window replacement programme. Customers are offered a choice of six different style of doors (four front door choices and two rear door) and a choice of colour; black, white, red or blue. 3c. Electric Heaters • • • •
Electric heaters are fitted if a gas fire has been condemned by a Gas Engineer. Customers are offered a choice of style and colour of fire and surround where appropriate. The choices of electric fires was reduced from four to two about two years ago (due to popularity); now the two most popular choices of fire are offered. A letter and choice sheet is posted to customers asking them to complete and return with their choice of fire and surround. Once the choices are received back at Adactus an appointment is made for the installation. The whole process usually takes about three weeks to complete.
3d. upgrades: • If a customer requires more than the standard number of units provided then additional units may be supplied and fitted at the customer’s expense subject to size of the kitchen. • Customers are not offered an option to contribute towards the cost of an upgraded component of their choice. • No requests have been received from customers asking permission to upgrade their components themselves.
Shehnaz Akhtar and Suzannah Robinson
Page 10
Internal Affairs for Adactus500 Scrutiny Panel
• However, an Adactus500 survey revealed that just over half of the 106 tenants surveyed would be willing to pay up to £1000 to upgrade the fixtures and fittings to their preference (e.g. upgrade from plain white tiles to patterned tiles or upgrade from a basic choice of worktop to a wider choice of worktop) 4. Informing customers 4a: communication of planned programme. • The planned maintenance programme is communicated via the website with a breakdown of what work will take place in geographical locations. The works are listed by the type of component replacement; kitchen, bathroom, window, gas central heating system, and decoration followed by the addresses (street names and house numbers) in alphabetical order. However, information of roof or roofline work is not available. • Only a quarter of Adactus500 members recalled seeing any information about the planned program in a newsletter, email or the Adactus website. • An Adactus500 survey revealed that only 16 out of 106 of Adactus500 members were aware that our planned program is based on component condition (21 thought it was based on component age, and 20 thought it was based on age of property). 4b: Communication with customers due a replacement • Customers due a component replacement are also communicated to in writing to inform them of the impending work. The timing of letters vary for different types of planned work. • For improvements that require access to the inside of the property (kitchen and bathroom) customers generally receive two letters, one telephone call, and a home visit before work commences. The letters are generally good with an explanation of the survey and work to be carried out: o Letter one (pre-entry survey) gives seven days notice of a survey appointment date and time. o The Site Manager visits the property to carry out a survey to establish the details of the existing layout, offer style/colour choices, and to discuss any queries the customer may have. o Letter two gives two weeks notice and informs customers of the refurbishment date, length of time it will take to complete, daily start and finish times, guidance on how they can prepare for the work, the importance of checking identification badges, and details of who they can contact to discuss any queries. o Notice for window replacement is slightly different, customers are communicated with by letter at the beginning of the year and informed they will be contacted directly be the contractor.
Shehnaz Akhtar and Suzannah Robinson
Page 11
Internal Affairs for Adactus500 Scrutiny Panel
•
•
•
In an Adactus500 survey, most people were informed of the forthcoming works via letter. In addition, over three quarters of tenants were satisfied with the way that Adactus kept in touch with them before the works started. An Adactus500 survey revealed that nearly three quarters of those surveyed were satisfied with the contact received from Adactus during the planned works. This was considerably lower for tenants receiving new roofs or rooflines (a third were satisfied) and higher for tenants receiving new kitchens or bathrooms (nearly 9 out of 10). Operation manuals are provided to tenants for fittings such as new boilers or electric showers. No information is given out on how to care for fittings such as kitchen worktops or chrome taps.
5. What are other housing associations doing? • Richmond Housing Association upgrades components within their properties before letting and offers cashback at the end of a fixed term tenancy if they have been looked after. • Irwell Valley rewards customers who pay their rent regularly and on time for 26 weeks a ‘diamond service’; they are offered a wider choice of bathroom, kitchen, door, window and fencing and entered into a weekly cash prize draw of £1,000 that is shared between five winners. • Southway Housing Association rewards their customers with a discount card that offers between 5 and 15% off goods in certain stores. Customers are also entered into a monthly cash prize draw and a lucky dip with prizes of a television, decorative room makeover and shopping vouchers to encourage and reward them to pay rent on time. • Sanctuary Housing Association rewards its customers with a cash prize draw of shopping vouchers for good behaviour and also a reward card that offers discounts in certain stores. • Rockingham Forest Housing Association try to reduce the amount of money they have to spend on a property due to damage or neglect by offering an incentive of £75 after tenants pass their property inspection (carried out every 2-3 years). • A study by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM, 2003) found encouraging outcomes of such schemes especially in relation to tenant satisfaction. However, there were more guarded findings in relation to whether these schemes actually led to changes in behaviour, with results also depending upon wider cultural change in the housing organisation administering the scheme. • In addition, whilst Charter Housing had a low take-up of the incentive scheme (only 13%) this group were the least likely to be problem tenants. This suggests this idea has the potential to change behaviour but evidence is limited and, in this case, findings were based on a very small sample. There are no recent sources of evidence of how effective these schemes are.
Shehnaz Akhtar and Suzannah Robinson
Page 12
Internal Affairs for Adactus500 Scrutiny Panel
6. Customer Satisfaction: • A spot check revealed that 91% of tenants responding to an automated telephone call about their recent planned maintenance were satisfied with the work. • Satisfaction rates were consistently high across all types of work carried out. • There was no significant difference in satisfaction based on the age of the property. • An Adactus500 survey of 106 residents revealed that around two thirds of Adactus500 members felt that their property was in good repair. This was higher amongst members living in retirement living schemes (over 8 out of 10) and lower in older, pre-war properties (just over half). • In an Adactus500 survey of 55 people who have had component replacements in the last two years, 8 out of 10 expressed satisfaction with the overall works. And for those who had kitchen or bathroom replacements, satisfaction was almost 100%. • Between 1/4/16 and 30/9/16 there were 21 informal complaints made to the contact centre. However, during this time, none became formal complaints.
What we liked: • General satisfaction levels for all planned maintenance works are high. • The planned maintenance programme is displayed on the website detailing which addresses will get what component replaced. • Annual property assessments (CP13) to inform improvement programmes. • Improvement programs are also informed by other routes (inbound queries, end of life cycle inspections). • Despite not replacing components at the end of their life cycle as a routine policy, only a small number (less than 10%) of components are over their life cycle. • Photographic evidence of components at inspection. • Flexibility of the planned maintenance programme allows responsive ‘one off’ component replacements. • Timescales have been set for ‘one off’ components to be completed. • Components are generally replaced in date order as per programme. • Components replaced in empty (void) properties means less disruption to customers. • Approved contractors go through a rigorous evaluation process and are required to follow the Group’s Code of Conduct. • Component specifications used are of a high standard therefore value for money. • Benchmarked expenditure on planned maintenance is lower than the median for the North West and despite this, satisfaction levels remain high. • Customers are offered a range of style and choice of colours where appropriate. • Letters are informative and provide customers with a point of contact. Communication with tenants when work is taking place is generally good. • Inbound queries regarding planned maintenance are dealt with efficiently.
Shehnaz Akhtar and Suzannah Robinson
Page 13
Internal Affairs for Adactus500 Scrutiny Panel
What concerned us? • There has not been any consultation on choices with a wider group of residents for some years. • Ratings given by staff during CP13 visits are inconsistent. • There are few comments made about the components, no photographic evidence taken, and a lack of awareness amongst tenants of what inspections are taking place in the home. • Assessments by the gas engineers were consistently higher than ratings given by tenants. • Inspections raised following a low CP13 rating were being batched and not raised in a timely manner. • In most cases, tenants moving into a property having a component replacement are not given any choice. • Tenants receiving window replacements are not given any update of when to expect the work during the course of the financial year. • Surveyed tenants receiving roof or roofline repairs were less satisfied with contact during the works than tenants getting other component replacements. • Tenants are not given the option to upgrade the fittings when replaced. • Most tenants are unaware that we only replace kitchens and bathrooms based on condition (as opposed to life cycle or property age). • Tenants are not given advice on how to care for fixtures and fittings once installed.
Recommendations: 1. Review choices of components with the Adactus500 to make sure they are desirable. 2. Review the CP13 procedure to ensure consistency is applied between staff and that adequate evidence is recorded. 3. Make sure inspections following CP13 visit are raised in a timely manner. 4. Review contact given to tenants before window replacements and during roof / roofline works. 5. Consider ways to inform tenants on how best to care for their new fixtures and fittings to prolong life-span. 6. Assess the feasibility of offering tenants the choice to contribute to certain fitting or fixture upgrades.
Shehnaz Akhtar and Suzannah Robinson
Page 14
Internal Affairs for Adactus500 Scrutiny Panel
Appendix Staff Interviews The following interviews were carried out with staff: Name Role Gary Heaton
Mathew George
Date Topics covered interviewed
Operations Director Asset Management
7/9/16
Operations Director Asset Management
6/10/16
6/10/16
18/10/16 21/12/16
Planned Maintenance Components Choices Sourcing materials Contractors Planned Maintenance Kitchens and bathrooms Specifications Exclusions – rent arrears Tender External contractors
Chris Tierney
Site Manager
4/10/16
Kitchens and bathroom replacements Choices Letters Exclusions – rent arrears
Anne Platt
Programme Co-ordinator
4/10/16
Kitchens and bathroom replacements Choices Letters Exclusions – rent arrears
Michelle Nuttall
Programme Co-ordinator
6/10/16
Electric heaters Choices Notification
Susan Rothwell
Planned Administration Manager
11/10/16
Window replacement Planned programme Exclusions
Shehnaz Akhtar and Suzannah Robinson
Page 15
Internal Affairs for Adactus500 Scrutiny Panel
1. Spot check - Updating records What we wanted to check: We wanted to know if QL database was updated with the correct completion date following a component replacement. What we looked at: From the planned maintenance programme we selected a sample of fifteen kitchen and bathroom components replaced between 1 April and 30 September 2016; each had a unique order number generated by QL. We checked these against QL database to determine if the orders had been updated with the correct completion date. What we found: The database had been updated with the correct completion date for all fifteen components sampled.
2. Spot check – ‘One offs’ What we wanted to check: We wanted to know if a ‘one off’ kitchen or bathroom was replaced in a timely manner (within a six month timescale) and in the order in which they were approved. What we looked at: We requested a copy of the component replacement programme for 2016/17. We filtered data to show ‘one off’ replacement kitchens and bathrooms with a target completion date by 30 September 2016 (there were eight in total). We accessed the component requests file to determine when the request was approved then cross referenced it with the completion date. What we found: Generally one offs were being completed within target and in the order they were approved. However, in two cases the target for kitchen components had passed; one had been missed off the programme and a survey date has now been arranged, and the other is scheduled for a replacement at the end of October 2016.
3. Spot check – Exclusions What we wanted to check: We wanted to know if the policy to exclude customers in arrears (not sheltered or supported customers) was being applied consistently; staff interviewed said customers in arrears would
Shehnaz Akhtar and Suzannah Robinson
Page 16
Internal Affairs for Adactus500 Scrutiny Panel
be excluded from kitchen and bathroom replacement unless they had cleared their arrears, or had maintained a payment arrangement before a replacement is agreed. What we looked at: We accessed the kitchen and bathroom replacement programme for 2016/17. The addresses of nine customers were highlighted to show they were in arrears; three had received a new component. We checked the corresponding rent accounts to determine if they were up to date at the time work was completed. What we found: All three customers received a new component due to work being carried out as a ‘block’ replacement in a row of houses. This means customers could potentially get a new component even if they are in arrears.
4. Spot check – Tenant views on components What we wanted to know: We wanted to know how tenants viewed their own components (namely kitchens and bathrooms) and how this compared to the ratings given by our operatives. What we looked at: We asked Adactus500 members to submit photos of their kitchens and bathrooms and rate them. 30 out of the 42 tenants who had submitted photos had also had a CP13 inspection within the last year. The ratings were compared (the tenants rated on a scale of 1-5 which had to be adjusted to match the operative scale of 1-4; 1 being lowest in both cases). What we found: On average, the tenants rated their kitchen just under one point lower (-0.84) than the operatives. On average, the tenants rated their bathrooms just under one point lower (-0.97) than the operatives. However, in some cases the ratings were the same and in three cases the rating from the operative was higher.
Kitchen ref Kitchen01 Kitchen02 Kitchen03 Kitchen06 Kitchen07 Kitchen10
Kitchen CP13 4 4 3 4 4 4
Kitchen tenant rating (adjusted) Difference 4 0 1.6 -2.4 0.8 -2.2 3.2 -0.8 3.2 -0.8 2.4 -1.6
Shehnaz Akhtar and Suzannah Robinson
Page 17
Internal Affairs for Adactus500 Scrutiny Panel
Kitchen11 Kitchen12 Kitchen13 Kitchen14 Kitchen15 Kitchen17 Kitchen20 Kitchen21 Kitchen22 Kitchen24 Kitchen25 Kitchen26 Kitchen27 Kitchen28 Kitchen29 Kitchen32 Kitchen33 Kitchen34 Kitchen36 Kitchen38 Kitchen39 Kitchen40 Kitchen41 Kitchen42 Average difference:
Bathroom ref: Bathroom01 Bathroom02 Bathroom03 Bathroom06 Bathroom07 Bathroom10 Bathroom11 Bathroom12 Bathroom13 Bathroom14 Bathroom15 Bathroom17 Bathroom20 Bathroom21
3 4 2 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 3 4 3 4 4 3 4 4 3 3 3 4 4
2.4 4 3.2 1.6 2.4 2.4 2.4 1.6 1.6 1.6 4 2.4 4 1.6 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 4 2.4 3.2 2.4 2.4 3.2
-0.6 0 1.2 -1.4 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -2.4 -2.4 -2.4 0 -0.6 0 -1.4 -0.8 -0.8 0.2 -0.8 0 -0.6 0.2 -0.6 -1.6 -0.8 -0.84
Bathroom tenant Bathroom rating CP13 (adjusted) Difference 4 4 0 4 1.6 -2.4 3 0.8 -2.2 4 3.2 -0.8 4 2.4 -1.6 4 3.2 -0.8 3 0.8 -2.2 4 4 0 2 1.6 -0.4 3 2.4 -0.6 3 1.6 -1.4 3 2.4 -0.6 3 0.8 -2.2 4 4 0
Shehnaz Akhtar and Suzannah Robinson
Page 18
Internal Affairs for Adactus500 Scrutiny Panel
Bathroom22 Bathroom24 Bathroom25 Bathroom26 Bathroom27 Bathroom28 Bathroom29 Bathroom32 Bathroom33 Bathroom34 Bathroom36 Bathroom38 Bathroom39 Bathroom40 Bathroom41 Bathroom42 Average difference:
4 4 4 3 4 3 4 4 3 4 4 3 3 3 4 4
1.6 3.2 3.2 0.8 2.4 2.4 4 4 3.2 3.2 4 3.2 4 0.8 1.6 2.4
-2.4 -0.8 -0.8 -2.2 -1.6 -0.6 0 0 0.2 -0.8 0 0.2 1 -2.2 -2.4 -1.6 -0.97
5: Damage to property What we wanted to know: We wanted to know the extent of the problem of tenant damage and how this might impact on the planned maintenance service. What we looked at: We monitor our tenants on a monthly basis using a Pareto score which is compiled of a number of measures including their tenancy balance, anti-social behaviour cases and legal actions, recharges and repairs spend. What we found: In September 2016 (i.e. data based on Sept 15-sept 16) there were only 6 tenancies with a recharge spend of greater than ÂŁ500 and, of these, only 2 were causing other issues such as ASB. In addition, there does not appear to be any significant issues around tenants causing damage to their property as, in the first six months of the financial year there were only 18 ASB complaints received about a tenants property standard and in over half of these cases the issue was dealt with by early intervention or there was no evidence to proceed. No tenants were evicted for purely causing damage to their property during the financial year 15/16.
Shehnaz Akhtar and Suzannah Robinson
Page 19
Internal Affairs for Adactus500 Scrutiny Panel
6. Spot check - CP13 ratings What we wanted to know: We wanted to know how consistent are inspections carried out by operatives when doing CP13s. What we looked at: We produced a report detailing all of the CP13 inspections carried out in 2016. The ratings were for kitchens inspected at the time of the gas service. These were grouped by operative. We also looked at the comments provided at the time of rating. What we found: 10,941 inspections were carried out by 24 different operatives. Looking at the 10 operatives who had carried out the most inspections in figure 6a, only four of them used the whole 1-4 scale. Operative 1 gave 100% of kitchens inspected a “4”; operative 3 gave nearly all (98%) kitchens a “3” and operative 8 gave most (82%) kitchens a “2”. This suggests that different operatives are using the rating scales in different ways and that there are inconsistencies in their approaches. Figure 6b shows that comments about the kitchen conditions were provided in only 1% of cases. However, 100% of kitchens given a rating of 1 had comments. Figure 6c shows that the comments varied in the amount of detail provided. Some comments were about the cleanliness of the kitchen but did not provide detail of the condition of the fixtures themselves. Fig 6a: Kitchen ratings 1/1/16-31/12/16 by operative: CP13 ratings (1 - lowest; 4 - highest)
Operative 1 Operative 2 Operative 3 Operative 4 Operative 5 Operative 6 Operative 7 Operative 8 Operative 9 Operative 10 Operative 11 Operative 12 Operative 13
1
2
3
1 8 4
9 10
29 967
14
39 5 360 113 583 87 44 224 285
3 1 2 3 1
4 550 1 15 5 15 32
Shehnaz Akhtar and Suzannah Robinson
4 1054 1014 1 918 795 695 330 2 5 482 505 190 23
Grand Total 1054 1053 986 922 848 700 694 668 589 585 556 432 341
Page 20
Internal Affairs for Adactus500 Scrutiny Panel
Operative 14 Operative 15 Operative 16 Operative 17 Operative 18 Operative 19 Operative 20 Operative 21 Operative 22 Operative 23 Operative 24 Grand Total
1
4
258 4 21 254 113 19 15 67 40 10
1 4 5 2 4 1 1 1 25
677
3537
16 272 251
279 276 273 258 146 77 73 68 43 13 7 10941
28 56 54 2 2 7 6702
6b: Number of comments by rating:
Rating 1 2 3 4 Grand Total
Number of inspections with comments 25 37 49 6 117
Total number of inspections 25 677 3537 6702 10941
% of inspections with comments 100.00% 5.47% 1.39% 0.09% 1.07%
Figure 6c: Comments provided for kitchens rated “1�: Cockroaches present Contact cleaners on site. Damp Dirty Filthy Filthy and in poor condition Filthy Filthy, needs a deep clean. Kitchen falling apart. Doors hanging off, some missing Kitchen in poor condition, we are going to replace according to tenant. Leak under sink rotting unit. Poor Poor condition Poor house keeping. Poor state Rubbish Tenants dogs have started to destroy units and doorframes. Flooring gone. Unit doors falling off Very dirty, poor condition
Shehnaz Akhtar and Suzannah Robinson
Page 21
Internal Affairs for Adactus500 Scrutiny Panel
Very outdated and mis-matched units Very poor condition.
8: Spot check - Tenant Satisfaction What we wanted to know: We wanted to know how satisfied tenants are with the planned works carried out in their homes. What we looked at: We measure tenant satisfaction using automated calls made through the Housing Contact Company shortly after the work is completed in a tenant’s property. Any tenants who indicated that they were dissatisfied receive a follow up call from a member of staff to enquire about the reasons behind their response. What we found: In the first 6 months of the financial year (April-Sept 16) 787 automated calls were made to tenants who had work done in their homes. 368 tenants responded to the survey and, of these, 335 indicated they were satisfied (91%). Encouragingly, of those who indicated they were dissatisfied, only 31.3% were dissatisfied with the quality of the work and less than 5% were dissatisfied with the conduct of the operatives. Due to small sample size and the various different types of work being done identifying trends can be difficult but the percentage satisfied is always consistently high irrespective of the component replaced. In addition, the percentage rating the quality of the work is consistently low. When a small sample of 160 planned questionnaires from 2016 were analysed, there was little difference in the tenants response by age of property (i.e. satisfied (average property age -46 years) / dissatisfied (average property age - 40.6 years old). This suggests that there was little correlation between satisfaction with planned works and property age. However it is important to note there may be a mix of factors at play here. For example, the average age of tenants in new build properties (built 1990+) is slightly younger than those living in older properties. Older tenants in general tend to be more satisfied than those younger which may off-set any lower satisfaction with planned works in their older properties.
9. Spot check - inbound calls What we wanted to know: We wanted to establish how well inbound calls made to the contact centre are handled by staff.
Shehnaz Akhtar and Suzannah Robinson
Page 22
Internal Affairs for Adactus500 Scrutiny Panel
What we looked at: We have a scripting system which guides the call handler through the calls we receive. All customer service officers (CSOs) are expected to keep to these scripts to ensure consistency as well as handling the call in a courteous manner. Connect’s Quality and Improvement Officer listened to a selection of planned maintenance enquiries to check how those calls are being handled and whether they are being dealt with in line with the above script. Below is the assessment of those calls: What we found: 8 out of the 9 calls assessed were handled in an appropriate manner. There was only one call which should have been dealt with differently. This assessment process has highlighted a change that is required to the script and this has now been altered to include advice on what to do if someone has been told they are having a replacement but have a query about it. 30 August 2016
2:43pm
Property 1
Enquiry/concern
Handling of call
Outcome of call
State of the kitchen – tiles falling off wall, kickboards popped out, worktops inadequately fitted
Further questioning needed at the start of the call to determine the nature of the enquiry. The call was transferred to Planned team when it should have been dealt with in the Contact Centre. The call was transferred back to the Contact Centre and from that point on the call was dealt with very efficiently. The CSO taking the call used good questioning skills to determine the issues and their customer focus was excellent.
Customer asked to eScript followed mail in pictures of the in full kitchen and advised that these pictures will then be assessed to determine what the next steps should be (inspection or repair work). An inspection was raised as a result of the pictures being sent in
16 November 2016
10:44am
Script followed?
Property 2
Enquiry/concern
Handling of call
Outcome of call
Script followed?
General enquiry about why they have not had a new kitchen or bathroom fitted
Excellent questioning of the caller to determine if there were any issues with the kitchen. There were 2 unit doors not closing properly. Explained that there is no planned programme of works anymore and assessments are made on a
Repair raised to repair 2 unit doors and report back on the overall condition of the kitchen
Script followed in full
Shehnaz Akhtar and Suzannah Robinson
Page 23
Internal Affairs for Adactus500 Scrutiny Panel
property by property basis. Information given to the caller was very clear and concise. The call was dealt with courteously. (Call transcribed at Appendix 1)
17 November 2016
1:20pm
Property 3
Enquiry/concern
Handling of call
Outcome of call
Script followed?
Reporting some repairs to the kitchen and enquiring about possibility of a replacement kitchen (mutual exchange property)
Detailed questioning of the caller to obtain all the information needed in order to raise an accurate repair request. Good customer focus throughout.
Repair raised to refix cupboard door, repair worktop and loose tiles and also report back on the overall condition of the kitchen
Script followed in full
21 November 2016
10:38am
Property 4
Enquiry/concern
Handling of call
Outcome of call
Script followed?
Checking when work due to start on the replacement of their kitchen
Call handled very efficiently.
Caller advised that the replacement of their kitchen had not yet been scheduled in
The script does not cover the scenario for someone who is having a replacement – it is included in the Asset Management quick guide but this will be added
21 November 2016
10:54am
Property 5
Enquiry/concern
Handling of call
Outcome of call
Script followed?
Checking when work due to start on the replacement of their kitchen and bathroom – tenant stated that all neighbours had received notification but not him
Really good questioning of the caller. Call very well handled throughout.
Referred to Planned Maintenance to look into and call tenant back
The script does not cover the scenario for someone who is having a replacement – this will be
Shehnaz Akhtar and Suzannah Robinson
Page 24
Internal Affairs for Adactus500 Scrutiny Panel
added
24 October 2016
9:09am
Property 6
Enquiry/concern
Handling of call
Outcome of call
Script followed?
Enquiring about replacement of bathroom – strong smell in bathroom, enamel eroded in the toilet and rotting skirting boards
Good questioning of the caller to determine the nature of the issues with the bathroom. Good customer focus. There were a few long silences during the call whilst the appointment was being scheduled which could have been managed better by advising the caller of progress i.e. “I’m just going to look for an appointment for you now”
Inspection booked for inspector to assess the bathroom
Script followed in full
27 October 2016
10:55am
Property 7
Enquiry/concern
Handling of call
Outcome of call
Script followed?
Asking about getting the bathroom replaced
This call could have been handled much better. The customer was advised that “we don’t do bathroom replacements” when this is not the case. We don’t do planned programmes of replacement now but this is different. The customer was rightly advised that we will aim to repair bathrooms (and we do ask operatives to assess the state of the bathroom when they are there). The customer knew neighbours having their bathrooms replaced so was not happy and asked to speak to a manager. Customer focus at the start of the call needed improvement but towards the end of the call this improved massively. They were on hold for over 2 minutes trying to connect them to a manager and
Inspection booked for inspector to assess the bathroom
Not in full – the tenant was not asked if they could send in pictures of the bathroom before an inspection was raised.
Shehnaz Akhtar and Suzannah Robinson
Page 25
Internal Affairs for Adactus500 Scrutiny Panel
then the Customer Services Officer came back to them and apologised because they had been wrong about saying we did not do bathroom replacements. Had the script been followed from the outset of the call this call would have progressed completely differently. 5 September 2016
3:06pm
Property 8
Enquiry/concern
Handling of call
Outcome of call
Script followed?
Asking about getting their kitchen replaced – asking for an appointment with a surveyor
Excellent questioning of the customer to see if there were any repair issues with the kitchen. Excellent customer focus throughout the call. Flexibility shown to meet customer request.
Customer originally agreed to send in photos of the kitchen but then decided they would like an operative who was attending to a repair at the property to take the photos when they attended.
Script followed in full
14 September 2016
4:05pm
Property 9
Enquiry/concern
Handling of call
Outcome of call
Script followed?
Enquiring about having the whole property refurbished because they refused at the time the CCH improvement programme was taking place
This was a difficult call to handle because the tenant was referring back to when the CCH improvement programme was underway which was over 5 years ago. The tenant kept making reference to CCH programme and was told you would have to speak to Chorley office – Connect is the Chorley office as far as CCH customers are concerned. Towards the end of the call progress was made and it was determined that the tenant was enquiring about a replacement bathroom, kitchen and gas central heating system.
A message was sent to the Customer Services Manager for repairs in the Contact Centre to see how to progress with this enquiry
Script not followed, however because of the complexity of the enquiry referral to a manager for advice was the best course of action
Shehnaz Akhtar and Suzannah Robinson
Page 26
Internal Affairs for Adactus500 Scrutiny Panel
Adactus500 survey results: The scrutiny panel commissioned two surveys. Links to the results are below. Survey 1: Targeted at all tenants (106 responses): goo.gl/wug9Ka Survey 2: Targeted at tenants who have had a component replacement within the last two years (55 responses): goo.gl/HKpu9S
Acknowledgements: Planned Maintenance Scrutiny Panel Members (Without their effort, the completion of this scrutiny project would not have been possible) Stephen Barbara Jane Sharon Lesley Dorothy Gordon Victoria Alan Frank Lesley
Darcy Allen Wilcock Bone Barrow Shepherd Turner Atkinson Hardman Caddick Harris
Staff: Thank you to the following staff who contributed to the final report to ensure it met the new deadline: Heather Taylor Ceri Walker Ryan Hague
Shehnaz Akhtar and Suzannah Robinson
Page 27