Raven Reporters
Final Draft
Report on the Inspection of Decent Homes Services
March 2009
Section
Page
1
Introduction
3
2
Methodology
3
3
Process
4
4
Summary
6
5
Findings
7
6
Recommendations
16
7
Appendices
20
2
1.
Introduction
This report details the findings of an inspection of Raven Housing Trust’s Decent
Homes Services by Raven Housing Trust’s resident inspection team “The Raven
Reporters” undertaken between January – March 2009.
The involvement of residents in scrutinising and monitoring the services that they
receive is becoming more and more accepted as both best practice and good
business sense for landlords and other organisations. Resident Inspections can
provide valuable management information for landlords, identifying where services
are being delivered well or where issues exist and can identify solutions to service
failures. Raven Housing Trust has already benefitted from Resident Inspections of its
Customer Services and Estate Services during 2008 both of which have contributed
to service improvements and a greater understanding of how policies and service
standards are being implemented and met in key areas.
The involvement of residents in inspection activity can increase their skills and
knowledge as well as attracting new residents to get involved in working with their
landlord and again there is evidence of this within the ranks of the Raven Reporters
team with an additional 6 inspectors joining the existing team for this inspection.
Increasingly, the extent to which residents are involved in these types of roles is
playing a part in assessments of the strength of resident involvement within the
organisations, of which they are tenants / leaseholders.
The Raven Reporters are a group of residents who have agreed to help Raven
Housing Trust by acting as Resident Inspectors of their services. This involves
inspecting services using a series of proven techniques and identifying strengths and
weaknesses in existing service provision.
All the Raven Reporters, including the new reporters recruited in the last 6 months
have been through a TPAS (Tenant Participation Advisory Service) training and
development programme for resident inspectors developed alongside Raven’s
Resident Involvement team. In addition existing Reporters have undertaken an
inspection of customer services and estate services and a programme of refresher
training, again supported by TPAS. This support and practical application of skills
has equipped participants with the skills and knowledge to undertake resident
inspection activity to a high standard and we are confident that this is reflected in this
report of the Inspection of Decent Homes Services.
2.
Methodology
This inspection took place between late January and the beginning of March 2009
and used a variety of inspection techniques to assess performance against Raven
Housing Trust’s published service standards, procedures and contracts relating to
Decent Homes (see Appendices 1-3). The inspection also took into consideration the
requirements set out in the Audit Commission’s Key Line of Enquiry (KLOE 4) “Asset
3
Management”. Both of these were key supporting documents during the training and
development programme and the inspection itself.
The inspection techniques used to test compliance with service standards were:

A detailed desk top review

Face to face interviews with over 25 residents

Telephone interviews with residents

Focus group of the Major Works Steering Group

Interviews with key staff including senior managers, front line staff and
contractors (Wates and Smith and Byford)

Work shadowing

Observations and visits to various properties and locations

Mystery shopping exercises using the phone and letters.
A variety of techniques was used to gain a detailed picture of how Decent Homes
Services were being delivered by Raven Housing Trust and their contractors: Wates
and Smith and Byford. In all cases, more than one technique was used to test each
service standard, to ensure as complete a picture as possible was gained from the
inspection. This “triangulation” better ensures that what Inspectors are seeing is in
fact correct. This allows for greater depth of investigation and ensures as far as
possible that no major service successes or issues are missed.
This inspection was more detailed than both the previous inspections and more
reliant on desk top evidence and detailed interviews with residents. Results are not
intended to be quantitative but rather a qualitative insight into how the decent homes
service standards and procedures are being delivered to enable management action
to be taken in response.
3.
The Process
For this inspection a training programme was planned to build skills in the inspection
techniques that would be more widely used in this project. The team also spent time
learning about ‘decent homes’ and Raven’s standards. This information was used to
design the scenarios used in the inspection.
The team also received health and safety training from Wates, who also provided the
team with protective clothing to be used during site visits.
The inspection itself was extended by over a week to allow the team to gain a clear
picture of Raven’s Decent Homes programme.
4
The Raven Reporters held an evaluation day with TPAS on Monday 30th March,
where they discussed the inspection process and decided on the key findings to be
presented from the Inspection (see Chapters 4 & 5).
It is important to be clear about how the process worked and where and how it might
be improved in the future as this ensures continuous development within the
inspection team.
What went well?

The team gelled well with new members joining and playing a full part in the
inspection. The existing reporters in particular are now able to influence the
inspections positively and suggest and implement improvements themselves

Staff and the Raven Reporters showed flexibility and responded well to some
hiccups with the planning of the inspection and this resulted in the
methodology working well
o Face to face interviews and on site inspection worked well and
provided greater depth than telephone interviews
o Using real scenarios in the Mystery Shopping worked well
o Work shadowing was helpful and broke down barriers between staff
and Inspectors

Wates and Raven Housing Trust responded quickly to enquiries during the
inspection

The team felt the inspection was really valuable

The recording of information was more consistent and this led to simpler
analysis of findings. The use of digital recorders also proved useful and
enabled more inspectors to take part in interviews. Residents had shown no
problem with their interviews being recorded.
Recommendation:
1. Voice recorders be made available for reporters to use in interviews if
needed
2. Pre-prepared forms on disk to be made available for those reporters
with PCs to enable them to write up findings electronically.
5
Learning Points

Delays to the inspection brought about by illness to key staff and a failed
attempt to run this inspection alongside the Estate Services inspection were
unfortunate and resulted in a rush towards the end of the process. However, it
is accepted that these delays were unavoidable.

The scenarios prepared by TPAS did not ring true to the Raven Reporters
who preferred to prepare their own. This had always been the intention but
more time needs to be built in to the planning process to allow for this.

Everyone needs to be clearer about what is and what isn’t included in the
methodology at the planning stage.

In future the planning process should include an outline of what is involved in
each stage of the inspection and what is required of inspectors.

Some inspectors had wanted to do more but due to changes in the
methodology found themselves relatively underused.

This was a detailed inspection and required a lot of volunteer time. However,
the Reporters enjoyed it!

Wates did not provide information on the programme as fast as was hoped
and this caused delays at key stages in the programme.

The staff supporting the inspection did not allocate enough of their time to the
Inspection at the outset and this resulted in them being overworked at times.
However, they delivered what was required despite these constraints.
Recommendations:
1. Raven need to ensure that the Resident Involvement Team are able to devote
the required time to Inspections through additional capacity or prioritisation of
Inspections within other work commitments.
2. The Desk Top review should be separate from the Planning meeting in future
and needs to be robust
3. Several planning days are required with a review meeting half way through
the inspection as well.
4. Dedicated Focus Group training is required for the team
5. A meeting is organised to discuss and review the Code of Conduct and Terms
of Reference.
6
4.
Summary
The inspection found
Results
Other than some issues with the inspection process itself, a number of issues arose
from the inspection of the decent homes services. These can be summarised as:
5.

Raven Housing Trust should have confidence that this is an accurate
reflection of their real performance across this service area

The Raven Reporters have come up with a series of queries and
recommendations intended to either clarify any service “failings” or to
overcome any perceived weaknesses in the service. These are detailed in
sections 4 and then 5

The inspection was rigorous and has painted a broad picture of performance
of the decent homes service. However, this is a large service area and as
such the inspection has also identified some areas of the service that require
further exploration. Where these arise, they are identified within this report.
Findings
Raven Housing Trust found a traffic light system helpful in previous reports and so
this has been used again to identify full and partial compliance with service
standards and where service failures occur. Findings are coded as Green (pass),
Amber (partial) and Red (Fail) according to the findings of the Raven Reporters. The
techniques used to inspect the service are also detailed.
Additional comments and suggestions from the Raven Reporters are included
against each service standard to add context. A template for responding to these
comments / recommendations is included in Section 6.
1. Tenants and residents will be consulted about and involved in the setting
and monitoring of decent homes priorities?
Methods used: (Desk Top Review, Residents Focus Group, Staff Interviews)
This was a good area with documentary and interview evidence of involvement of
residents throughout the planning process for the Decent Homes Program through a
Steering Group and various focussed sub-groups. Involvement ranged from
selection of materials and options and designing communications to procurement.
However, it was felt that resident involvement was absent in the recent change from
a geographically targeted to pepper potted approach to the programme and the
rationale for this had not been made clear to the residents interviewed. This is a
7
major policy change and as such it would be expected that residents would have
been consulted on this and/or informed of the reasons why the change was made.
2. Contractor ID / Company Clothing standards are adhered to
Methods used: (Observation, Work Shadowing, Mystery Shopping, Residents
Interview, Staff Interview)
Identification
Identification is worn but is not shown consistently as required in the guidance. There
is again a lack of clarity among residents about what is expected in terms of showing
ID and this is an issue that needs picking up. There was some evidence given of
workmen being reminded of their responsibilities regarding identification.
Clothing
Staff Interviews and observation suggest that this was generally adhered to
particularly by Smith and Byford and mystery shopping and interviews show Raven
staff were aware of the policy regarding this. However there are examples of the
numbers not being on the back of jackets and in some cases the same number
appearing on different jackets, both of which do not comply with the procedures.
Also, hard hats or baseball caps also not always being worn.
The contractors need to review the way RLOs brief and inform staff of their
responsibilities in these areas to ensure that they fully explain to residents and
contractors what is expected in terms of showing ID and wearing company / safety
clothing.
3. Staff / Contractors demonstrate user focus in their work and treat people
with respect at all times.
Methods used: (Interviews, Mystery Shopping, Observation)
There was a generally positive response in this area with lots of good examples
cited, particularly with regard to Raven Housing Trust Staff. However, interview,
Mystery Shopping and observational evidence suggests that there are some
significant anomalies including:

Disrespect (RLO entering a property half way through a mobile phone
conversation walking past the tenant without a greeting into their kitchen)

Properties being left open by contractors after they leave (at least 2 examples
of this)

Telephones not answered or messages not replied to

Letters not replied to
8

Language problems between tenants and contractors leading to unclear
communication about key issues (see other areas of findings for details).
The contractors need to review their training and procedures in the light of these
findings.
4. Communication from the contractor
Methods used: (Desk Top Review, Residents Interview, Staff Interview, Observation
/ Visit, Work Shadowing / Mystery Shop)
This was considered to be a weak area with lots of examples of poor communication
being given. Interview evidence suggests residents were unclear about the
timescales for the work being undertaken and confusion existed over when people
would be attending or not. It was not always explained to residents why changes
were made to agreed appointments and when revised visits would take place. The
language problems described previously contributed to this poor communication.
Examples were cited of rudeness when tenants asked when contractors would be
turning up. One example was given of a tenant phoning the free-phone number and
being told to ring back (though this is disputed by Wates).
The Resident Liaison Officers were clear about how communication should work and
said that as a last resort they would put a note through the door of tenants if no other
contact could be made. Residents commented that they felt the communication was
poor as the RLOs were “spread too thin”.
The focus group and some interviews asked why the programme for improvements
had been changed and why no-one had been informed of the reasons why.
The contractors need to review their training and procedures in the light of these
findings.
5. Communication from / with Raven Housing Trust – was this effective?
Newsletters, letters, meetings etc
Methods used: (Desk Top Review, Residents Interview, Staff Interview, Observation
/ Visit, Work Shadowing/ Mystery Shop)
Interview and Mystery Shopping findings suggest this is a strong area with Raven
staff at all levels being able to provide accurate information about the programme
and deal with complaints and enquiries. One Mystery Shop by letter did not receive a
response but the other did and this is an isolated case.
Wates indicated that better information on “problem tenants” from Raven would aid
the programme and stop delays in some cases.
9
6. Communication from / with the Site Manager / RLO: was this effective? How
did this work? Is it clear what works would be done and to what standard?
Methods used: (Desk Top Review, Residents Interviews, Staff Interviews)
The RLOs “know the job” but different views were expressed on their role with regard
to communication with residents. Resident feedback suggests some RLOs are well
regarded whereas others are not, with examples of rudeness and unprofessional
behaviour cited alongside poor communication (this clearly needs to be investigated
in a fair and robust manner). Frequency of contact with RLOs also seems to vary
and difficulty in contacting them a recurring theme. Some RLOs are able to help
tenants though and positive examples of this have been given.
RLO interviews suggested that some felt they were not listened to sufficiently to by
contractors and this got in the way of their job.
7. Keeping of appointments
Methods used: (Staff Interview, Residents Interviews, Work Shadowing, Visits)
There is lots of non-compliance in this area with interview evidence of missed
appointments being widespread (over half of interviews cited this) and leading to
hardship in some cases for residents who were left without cooking facilities against
procedure. However, many people were completely happy with appointments being
kept. Communication is again a key issue here with residents not feeling informed
about the changes themselves, the reasons for them and when work would be
carried out.
One resident cited being phoned to ask where he was after contractors turned up
several hours late and others indicated a perception among contractors that tenants
should be fitting in with them rather than the other way round.
The issue of appointments needs to be looked into and a more effective method of
communicating changes implemented a.s.a.p.
8. Queries / Complaints – were they dealt with in an efficient / prompt manner?
Methods used: (Desk Top Review, Staff / Residents Interviews)
Not many complaints have been made and evidence suggests that those that have
been made have been dealt with according to the procedure. The Desk Top Review
suggested there were some issues with record keeping. One finding was that many
complaints were given during the residents interviews but few of these were made as
formal complaints using the procedure. A number of reasons for this are suggested
including overall satisfaction once the work is completed leading to less concern of
the journey to that point. It may also be that the Complaints procedure is
insufficiently clear.
10
Look into the complaints process and try to make it simpler for residents to voice
concerns (verbally to Raven for example?)
9. Care of household belongings / fixtures and fittings
Methods used: (Desk Top Review, Staff and Resident Interviews, Work Shadowing,
Visits)
Clear procedures exist and in lots of cases people were satisfied that this had been
followed. However, examples of properties being left open and damage or lack of
care to property were given, though some of these were addressed through
consultation with the RLO or site manager. One example was given of a boiler
cupboard being damaged by contractors who said it was a Raven issue to resolve
when it wasn’t.
Contractor reviews its training and briefings to staff / sub-contractors to ensure
procedures are followed more closely.
10. Use of tenants facilities
Methods used: (Desk Top Review, Residents Interviews, Staff Interview, Visits)
Clear procedures exist and staff were able to confirm these. Compliance with this is
again inconsistent with many examples given of contractors complying with
procedures but sufficient non-compliance to make this a fail. Lots of examples were
given of facilities being used with permission but this is still against procedure. Other
cases of electricity and equipment being used without permission were cited,
including central heating being used without permission to dry decorating work.
There is an additional issue with residents again being unclear about what their
rights are and what contractors should and shouldn’t be using and/or asking for.
Contractor reviews its training and briefings to staff / sub-contractors to ensure
procedures are followed more closely.
11. Quality of work – resident satisfaction with this. Reasons for
dissatisfaction?
Methods used: (Observation, staff / resident interviews, Desk Top Review)
Residents are generally very satisfied with the finished work with examples of
excellent workmanship being given. Some problems do exist with the finish and
painting and some snagging and fixing of defects has not been carried out.
Examples given of broken parts, incorrectly connected cookers and unfinished
painting given but these are the minority. Again lack of communication is cited as an
issue in these examples.
11
12. How are defects dealt with? Is this timely? Satisfaction with defects
procedure
Methods used: (Interviews, Desk Top Reviews, Shadowing)
Interview evidence suggests defects are taking a long time to be resolved in some
cases, though examples were also given of quick response through either the
surveyor or site manager. Again, consistency seems to be the issue with some
defects falling through the sign off system and communication with tenants in some
cases being a problem.
Recommend: The sign-off, snagging process is explored to check that is picking up
all issues.
13. Choice – was this sufficient or to much? What could be done to improve
the process?
Methods used: (Interviews, Focus Group, Desk Top Review)
Other than some concerns where residents had requested special adaptations (see
16.) this is an area of strength. Focus Group, interview and Desk Top Review
evidence supports this as being a good area of performance with some residents
genuinely surprised at the amount of choice and the quality on offer.
14. Is the programme delivering improvements to the homes in the right place
at the right time?
The inspection was unable to test this as this is more of a perception issue than a
reality check. However, there was a widely held view from staff and residents that
the programme would work more effectively if it was geographically focussed as
originally planned.
Suggest consultation takes place to answer this question.
15. Were translations / interpretations available?
Methods used: (Desk Top Review, Residents Interview, Mystery Shopping, Staff
Interview)
Staff were able to identify a process for picking up language / translation needs and
this has recently been improved on through a new form being produced. Interviews
suggested that this wasn’t an issue though none interviewed had specific
requirements in this area. The issue of little spoken English among various
tradesmen has had an adverse affect on communication. Though some basic
language training has been made available, the examples given in interviews show
this has not been sufficient to allow adequate communication which has a major
impact on the customer experience both in terms of knowing what is planned and
when and being able to highlight special requirements.
12
Recommendation: Raven do further interviews with tenants whose first language is
not English to test the effectiveness of this area of the service.
16. Were individual customer needs catered for during works?
Methods used: (Desk Top Review, Observation, Mystery Shopping, Resident/Staff
Interviews)
Lots of residents did not need this but where they did examples are given of these
needs not being met. Thermostats were placed on walls in a place inconvenient to
residents. Residents cited examples of being left without essential cooking and
heating facilities. Appointments not being kept also inconvenienced residents who
had made special arrangements to wait in for them. This got in the way of work,
childcare and other issues. Leaving properties open is clearly in breach of meeting
individual customer needs. Communication about what is on offer was also felt to be
unclear on occasions with language difficulties with contractors being one of the
contributing factors to this.
Contractor reviews its training and briefings to staff / sub-contractors to ensure
procedures are followed more closely.
17. General causes of satisfaction or dissatisfaction
Satisfaction:
1. Workmanship / quality of finish
2. Choice
3. Resident Involvement in the programme
4. Communication with Raven Housing Trust
Dissatisfaction:
1. Communication with RLOs and workforce
2. Missed appointments / timekeeping
3. Use of facilities
4. Length of time to complete works
13
Recommendations for improvement
Recommendation
1. Raven agrees a timetable for future major works
programmes, in consultation with residents. If
changes have to be made then residents should be
consulted wherever possible and residents should
be kept informed of the changes
2. Raven & its contractors need to make sure that the
standards for identification and company clothing
are routinely adhered to by all staff. The contractor
should also clearly explain these standards to
residents during the survey meeting
3. The workforce are largely non-english speaking and
this caused considerable problems for residents.
Residents need to have easy and quick access to
someone who can speak English and/or interpret for
the work force
4. Further training should be given to staff to ensure
that residents and their homes/property are
respected at all times
Response from Raven
Housing Trust
Officer
Responsible
Completion Date
5. Properties should always be inspected and secured
at the end of each day and this should be recorded
6. The contractor needs to improve its response to
communications to ensure the free-phone number is
always answered and messages are replied to
7. Where changes are made to appointments or the
programme of works, that this is clearly explained to
the resident. That the programme as far as possible
works around residents’ needs – tailoring the
service. Residents are kept informed at all times
8. Raven shares its cause and alert register with
Wates
9. The RLOs should be trained to a high standard and
deficiencies need to be thoroughly investigated.
The RLO function must deliver a consistent service
to residents
15
10. Look into the complaints process and try to make it
simpler for residents to voice concerns (verbally to
Raven for example?)
11. Contractor reviews its training and briefings to staff /
sub-contractors to ensure procedures are followed
more closely.
12. Residents’ facilities should not be used, except in an
emergency, and then only with the residents’
permission. Where this happens the resident is fully
reimbursed.
This is made very clear to residents at the time of
the site survey visit and should be more clearly
stated in the residents information leaflet
13. The sign-off/snagging process is explored to check
that is picking up all issues and residents are kept
informed of all actions that remain outstanding
This is monitored to ensure all outstanding works
are completed within a reasonable timescale
14. Raven do further interviews with tenants whose first
language is not English to test the effectiveness of
this area of the service.
16