Agenda item

To receive a Tenant Scrutiny Review report and action plan in respect of satisfaction with the repairs and maintenance service.

Consideration was given to a report reviewing tenant satisfaction in respect of tenants’  experience of council housing. The review focused on performance measures, value for money, and tenant satisfaction. Relevant legislation and regulations were also noted in relation to the review work. Priorities assessed by the review included ease of reporting, quality of repair, and timeliness of repair. An account of complaints received in relation to the delivery of repairs services was also provided. The framing of questions and survey methods were also discussed.

Regarding the framing of the survey questions, Members agreed the surveys should be standardised. Officers noted that in terms of right first time and customer satisfaction, the questions are standardised. Previously, a partner asked some of their own questions but has since reverted back to the standard form.

Members noted the importance of tracking responses to all recommendations, even where these responses serve only to explain why a requested action could not be taken. The response from Rotherfed noted that during scrutiny reviews, the Tenant Scrutiny Panel will often set as a recommendation at least one aspirational suggestion where inroads may not be possible due to budget or legal implications. Officers invited feedback of specific instances where recommendations had not received response so that any such instances could be tracked down and examined.

Clarification of the category of Right first time was also requested. The example was given that, in situations where plastering could not be completed on the same day, there was often a need for additional visits. Sometimes further repair issues that are needed become clear once work has started. It was noted that 9 of 10 are right first time. The definition and the KPI responses received scrutiny, as interrogating these categories was important. Jobs which require additional work were not to be shut down but regarded as follow on work until completion. Examples of the operational process were given.

In respect of the customer contact centre, clarification was requested as to flexibility around requests from residents who were in exceptional circumstances. Although not raised by the scrutiny Panel as part of the review, the response from officers noted that sometimes the need is not one size fits all. Customer exceptions need to be reported in a timely way so that the service can respond, for example in circumstances of palliative care. The desire of the service to prioritise calls from vulnerable people and people with exceptional circumstances was emphasised. Furthermore, there was a senior officer prioritising specific types of repairs, for example, asbestos, and for those with immediate risk of life and property. There was also a senior officer within the contact centre to deal with points of escalation for repairs matters.

Further details were requested in terms of challenges around communications. The response from officers acknowledged that communications issues occasionally arise. For example, in reference to any temporary fix, there is always a future planned repair. A small wall may have collapsed in a garden, for example; the initial repair is to make the area safe. The next phase is to replace and rebuild. A reduction in these specific kinds of cases was observed, where communal repairs were being undertaken and customers were not always informed, especially during the previous two years where there was a reduction in face-to-face communications. This process was refined based on learning. The service was also working closely with the IT systems and call centre to obtain high quality requests for repairs. It was the operational view of the service that if the wrong trade attends a job, that job should not be shut down but should be referred to the planner to be sorted with the contractor.

Members also expressed interest in knowing more benchmarking information in relation to the repairs and maintenance service. Officers noted that Sheffield City Council had come to speak to the team about voids processes. The goal was to deliver a world class service, and direct comparisons through Housemark had shown the service were in the top quartile for Repairs and Maintenance. Key Performance Indicators (KPI) were consistently monitored, showing “right first time” had increased, and customer satisfaction stayed high. Further, the service were geared up to incentivise KPI delivery. The teams worked closely with tenants and partners and other authorities to drive quality.

Thanks for the updates to the scrutiny group were expressed, as well as recognition of the large amount of work performed by the scrutiny panel in a short span of time to ensure the voices of tenants were incorporated in the proceedings and to expand the involvement of tenants going forward.

Resolved:-

1.    That the report and action plan be noted.

2.    That the outcome of the forthcoming “You Said, We Did” publications be circulated to Members with a view to sharing widely the learning as evidence of the impact of tenant engagement.