draft report - confidential1 ealing homes draft findings – repairs and maintenance debby ounsted...

DRAFT REPORT - CONFIDENTIAL 1

Ealing HomesDraft findings – Repairs and Maintenance

Debby Ounsted

Lee Banfield

HQN


Ground rules

What we see is what you get

Staff have been honest

There has been no varnish

We are here to help you to identify areas for improvement

We must be rigorous Offer praise where it is due

Criticise where it is necessary

Motivate you to improve

Help you prioritise


How has inspection changed?

Tougher on both judgements – some KLOEs revised

Value for money – increasingly important Evidence of impact required for two stars Progress against previous inspections Piloting approach to unannounced inspections Need to keep up with current changes, eg,

digital TV, smoking ban Approach and methodology remains the same Look out for changes:

New personnel New initiatives – unannounced inspections


8

Poor Fair Good Excellent

Excellent

Promising

Uncertain

Poor

Prospects for improvement?

A good service?

Putting things into perspective – ALMO ratings under the star system as of October 2007

34

11

7

6

3

51

1

5

1

1


Overview


Our judgement

Three stars will be hard to achieve A lot will depend on repairs Strong on resident involvement but things need to bed

down and show evidence of influence and impact ASB – a great service There has been progress but perception of not keeping

up the pace Progress against previous AC recommendations –

disappointing There are quick wins – particularly in income

management The challenges:

Value for money Sheltered housing Relationship and effective working with the Council Estate services Performance management, information and monitoring External perception – customers and stakeholders


Focus groups


Organisation and observations

Four groups, mixed attendance (could be better), afternoon/evening poor attendance – morning seem more popular

Well organised, vouchers and expenses paid at time Good mix of BME, ages Perception that customers are a little detached – not

accessing many services other than repairs (source of the recruitment?):

Not really aware of housing officers and what they do Don’t recognise job title but even when other titles used they are

not aware of the role and who does what Feeling that service has slipped backwards – hopeful of more

Some groups were dominated by very negative people


Key points made

Minor repairs quick but anything that costs money takes a lot longer

Surveyors never turn up – always excuses why they were late, no shows, never apologise

Poor condition of homes – old and need modernisation thought ALMO would help but not delivering

Where new kitchens and bathrooms fitted – all done well and satisfactory

Repairs appointments 8-1/1-6pm and they do turn up, workmen ok

Main issues of inconsistency, having to chase on everything

Newsletters and magazines – not clear if these are Ealing Homes or Council, information not clear on who to go to for what and where

None had made formal complaints and did not know how/who to/what process was


Maintenance


National drivers – Repairs and maintenance

Statutory and regulatory requirements

Decent Homes standard

Construction task force: procurement and partnering

Gas safety

Communities plan

Gershon review

Comprehensive spending review (efficiency savings)


Access, customer care and user focus – What the inspectors will be looking for

Equality of access to service

Flexible operating hours

Staff with user focus

Easy to report repairs

Uses IT effectively

Extensive range of information

Good arrangements for inspections

Canvasses tenants views and uses them to ratchet up performance


Service delivery – What the inspectors will be looking for

Financially resourced plans for regular regimes of planned and preventative maintenance that support service delivery objectives

An effective and flexible responsive repairs and void service

Clear service standards Procedures which ensure tenants receive a

consistent service


Resident involvement – What the inspectors are looking for

Involvement of residents in: Shaping the service Agreeing priorities Setting standards Contractor/consultant/supplier selection Monitoring budgets and performance Project/service reviews


Customer satisfaction – What the inspectors are looking for

Valid methods of seeking, capturing and reviewing satisfaction information across all maintenance activities

Evidence of how feedback is being used to improve the service


Continuous improvement and performance management – What the inspectors are looking for

Regular reviews of service delivery targets Procurement arrangements that encourage the

‘ratcheting up’ of contractor performance Use of benchmarking to identify potential areas for

improvement Robust and systematic approach to collecting and

measuring outcomes against statutory and local targets

Performance targets that cover the short, medium and long term


Around 18,126 properties in management September 2007

4,946 leaseholder units 68 properties void for major improvement

works 15 units delayed letting due to asbestos 10 units held for decanting purposes DHS failure 40% plus Eight key estates with no future plan in place

Context


Access, customer care and user focus – Strengths

The repairs handbook has repair diagrams There are a variety of ways tenants can report repairs

including freephone number, writing, via the internet and on site with officers

Phone calls are effectively monitored at the call centre

Appointments are arranged at point of contact for repairs and pre inspections

Estate surgeries undertaken by repair contractors Flag used for a variety of issues such as gas

servicing, warranties, adapted properties and investment programmes


Access, customer care and user focus – Strengths …(cont’d)

There is an operative code of conduct

Handy person service for communal areas

Handy hints section in repairs handbook

There is flexibility in the prioritisation of repairs for elderly and vulnerable

‘Repairs locator’ in use

Performance is fed back through the newsletter and tenants’ groups

Complaints on repairs 259 (1%) in first half of year

Problematic contact centre calls go through an escalation process


Chasing calls with call centre are around 30% for repairs and our feedback from customers also indicated this was an issue for them

Repair priorities are not challenging at 24 hours for emergencies, three and seven working days for urgent and 28 working days for routine

The out of hours service is not seamless to the day time number

The customer satisfaction procedure was due to be reviewed in 2006 but has not been undertaken

There is little evidence that satisfaction survey responses are robustly used to shape and improve services

Access, customer care and user focus – Weaknesses


Take steps to reduce the level of calls chasing repairs

Review the repair priorities to ensure they are challenging

Take steps to make the out of hours service seamless to the day time service

Ensure the satisfaction procedure is reviewed as a matter of some urgency

Ensure satisfaction surveys are uniform and used effectively across all service areas to improve delivery

Access, customer care and user focus – Recommendations


Aids and adaptations – Strengths

Generally aids and adaptations responsibility of LBE

EH now has two OTs

Aids and adaptations work linked to DHS

Service promoted in newsletters, leaflet and on DHDS site inspections

Post inspections 100%

RLOs involved in process

Choice offered in line with DHS

Adapted properties and aids recycled


Budget for adaptations provision out of DHS/planned

No service specific satisfaction survey

Back log of 160 OT visits

Recommendations

Establish a budget for adaptations within the DHS works and monitor spend to homes in this area

Undertake a service specific satisfaction survey

Take steps to reduce the back log of homes and customers requiring an OT assessment

Aids and adaptations – Weaknesses


Responsive repairs – Strengths

Repairs can be reported in a number of way including via the web site with ‘interfinder’

There is a freephone number for day time reporting

‘Repairs locator’ is used

Flexible appointments made for repairs and inspections

Appointments made and kept are 98.1% with a target of 97%

Pre inspections repairs are measured from the date reported by the tenant


Responsive repairs – Strengths …(cont’d)

Written satisfaction survey undertaken with a 11.4% response sent with repair receipt

91% satisfaction 2006/07 (see weaknesses)

There is a contractor code of conduct in place

Repairs completed first visit are around 98.1% with 97% target

Composite rates are used in the SOR process

Estate walkabouts used to identify repairs

Parking permits for staff and operatives

Right to repairs are achieving 97% on time


The out of hours service is not seamless to the general repairs number

Repair priorities not challenging and measured in working days

There are high levels of emergency are high at around 28.57% with emergency and urgent combined at 49.40%

The levels of pre and post inspections are not effectively monitored (16.73% post inspection but arrived late)

54.44% of repairs resulted in a variation order (VO) 2006/07

Satisfaction is not monitored against ethnicity and vulnerability though the data is gathered

Responsive repairs – Weaknesses


Repairs performance 2006/07

Priority Timescale Target Performance (general

needs)

Emergency 24 hours 95% 94.78%

Urgent Five/seven

working days 95% 96.85%

Routine28 working

days 95% 95.85%


Review the out of hours service telephone provision to make seamless to the day time number

Review repair priorities to make more challenging

Take steps to reduce the level of emergency and urgent repairs to 10% for emergency and 30% for emergency and urgent combined

Effectively monitor the service in terms of pre and post inspections and satisfaction against ethnicity and vulnerability

Responsive repairs – Recommendations


Maintenance of empty properties – Strengths

Void properties are inspected in around 24 hours and made secure

Void security is assessed against risk

Inspections made by contractors and monitored by EH

Target for repairs are set against value (see weaknesses)

Average repair time 11.5 days (relet target 26.5)

Average void cost £773

The lettable standard has been set with customers and provided at offer stage

Progress and performance meetings are held with the contractor (see weaknesses)

All locks are changed to void properties

Gas is capped on all void properties


Maintenance of empty properties – Strengths …(cont’d)

Multi skilling is used on void works Incentives are used to hand properties back in good

condition Post let satisfaction surveys are undertaken Welcome packs and air fresheners are provided but the air

fresheners left sealed in pack Local information is shown on advertisements (not in

welcome pack) Decoration of homes are undertaken for elderly or

vulnerable Decoration vouchers with local supplier (how easy is

access?) Post inspection 100% but both contractor and EH are

undertaking London void meetings attended


Empty property reality checks

Three properties ready to let were visited

The properties inspected did not meet the lettable standard

All properties had been fully decorated using wall paper

Mail left in properties

Floors not dirty

Sinks not cleaned

Cigarette but left on floor in one home

Washer waste not sealed


Empty property reality checks …(cont’d)

Spare parts to kitchen fittings and mail left in kitchen drawers

One welcome pack left in rear bedroom behind net curtain

Rubbish from an external repairs contract left in a rear garden

External gully with old debris in it

One property had the kitchen and bathroom extended under DHS works to provide circulation space


Maintenance of empty properties – Weaknesses

Targets for repairing voids are set against value only in procedures with no guidance on adjusting for high cost low work jobs

Housing management do not meet with repairs team to discuss priorities and progress

Major voids (DHS) average turn round 89.6 days

Suited of keys were used by one contractor but neither use now

None of the homes visited were well prepared and cleaned


Maintenance of empty properties – Recommendations

Review the targets for completion of void works based on value and level of works needed

Ensure housing management are effectively involved in meetings considering performance and priorities

Take steps to reduce the time taken to undertake major void works

Consider the use of suited locks or key safes to void properties

Robustly prepare and present homes for letting


Gas servicing – Strengths

Gas servicing is a three-star contract

Access begins 35 days before the CP12 expiry

First appointment visit 21 days before expiry

Translations are used on the final warning letter

Photographs taken of tape warning on door

Progress is monitored through electronic data transfer

Housing management become involved in the access procedure to take court action

Vulnerability is checked before court action commences


Gas servicing – Strengths …(cont’d)

An audit of gas servicing is undertaken non technical (4%)

A satisfaction survey is undertaken with 4% audit

Monthly monitoring meetings are held with contractors

Boiler information returned by contractor

Incentives for allowing access first appointment

Early evening and Saturday morning appointments

Outstanding gas servicing flagged


Gas servicing – Strengths …(cont’d)

There is an approach to deal with persistent offenders

Areas will be ‘blitzed’ with team evenings and weekends

Data from contractors downloaded twice weekly (IT problem)

Gas servicing is reported to board Three year checks undertaken on blocks with

no gas supply


Gas servicing – Reality checks

12,685 properties to service annually

CP12 stored electronically in two formats

The oldest last serviced on 10 November 2004

Currently 871 (14.87%) properties with no valid CP12

One property without gas servicing records from 2003, void from 2005, let 1 October 2007, CP12 (new system 17 July 2007) had to be faxed from contractor and no post let check certificate provided

Appointments made for initial visit and date recorded to EH

Evidence that not all visit dates are provided to EH in data transfer

Problems with IT not allowing data transfer


Gas servicing – Weaknesses

The timescales that are in the procedure are not robustly followed

Court action is not robustly taken to ensure access

Smoke alarms are not checked

Importance of gas servicing not set out in repairs handbook

There is an IT problem with the data transfer link

No ten year electrical testing in place

CP12s do not have full postal address

The level of gas responsive performance not be easily provided


Gas servicing – Recommendations

Effectively follow the timescales set within the access procedure

Take effective court action to enable access to properties for gas servicing

Take steps to check the effectiveness of smoke alarms

Promote the importance of gas servicing in the repairs handbook

Resolve the problems with the data transfer Introduce a ten-year programme of electrical testing Ensure all CP12s are accurately and fully completed Effectively monitor performance of the responsive

heating contract


Asbestos – Strengths

Asbestos procedures in place

An asbestos register

Asbestos awareness training provided to staff and operatives (see weaknesses)

Pre work inspections for asbestos are undertaken on planned, cyclical, void works and adaptations

Location of asbestos in variant properties is provided to operatives (see weaknesses)

Advice on asbestos is on the website but there is no leaflet

Asbestos effectively flagged where known


Asbestos – Weaknesses

Not all staff have had asbestos awareness training Data is not held against all common areas but being

gathered No asbestos leaflet for customers

Recommendations Ensure all relevant staff have undertaken asbestos

awareness training who may come into contact or provide advice on the matter

Ensure as a matter of some urgency that data is held against all common areas

Introduce an information leaflet for customer concerning asbestos


How is VfM managed? Weaknesses

Procurement strategy and asset management strategy are both at the end of their three year horizon (2005-2007):

New one in draft (include this in the documentation next time)

Have all actions been achieved?

Capital programme has 15% overspend last year after a 1.5% overspend in the previous year – what are the underlying causes and are they being resolved?

Mid-year (2007/08) £1m budget cut for response repairs (to balance HRA) – how has this outcome been managed for tenants?

Rechargeable repairs are raised however £25k in 2006/07 and £7k to date (Aug07) suggest a lack of diligence and tenacity in the process


How is VfM managed? Response repairs budget

Budget code 154415 above has almost doubled in actual expenditure – who were the winners and losers in this result?

Was this spending procured cost effectively? Ie, ordered within the most appropriate open book contract (least profit % for example)

Year Budget Actual Difference

2005/06 £2,263,000 £2,482,357 £219,357

2006/07 £2,207,525 £4,138,144 £1,930,619


How do costs compare?Housemark HM pay costs per property (exc. overheads)

Sample:2007=85

Rent arrears

Tenancy and estate

Empty properties

Responsive repairs

Major repairs

LettingsRent collection

Total Core

Upper Quartile £45 £74 £20 £68 £37 £12 £2 £314

Median £58 £93 £28 £90 £50 £18 £6 £341

Lower Quartile £68 £110 £37 £112 £74 £25 £12 £414

EH 2006/07 £35 £46 £21 £65 £78 £38 £0 £284

EH2005/06 £53 £43 £18 £62 £71 £25 £2 £274

All London landlords in the sample – top quartile core costs (ranked 11 out of 85)

Lower middle quartile

Upper middle quartileTop quartile

Lower quartile


Value for money – Strengths

Benchmarking has been undertaken across the London and three-star ALMOs

Limited repairs batching in place Planned/responsive spend around 62%/38%

respectively Spend monitored against a monthly profile Supply chain partnership developed for kitchens,

boilers and door entry systems Funding from power suppliers has been recycled

into insulation works Post contract evaluations undertaken The handy person service is batching communal

repairs


Value for money – Strengths …(cont’d)

A rebate of £79 received on each new boiler fitted recycled into further heating improvements

Contractor/partners are recycling waste products

We were informed discounts gained off the SOR for voids

Liability warranties flagged on database

Zero defects target with escalation process


Value for money – Weaknesses

Repairs are not robustly batched and reduced costs achieved

Partnering not well developed across the service

There are high levels of emergency are high at around 28.57% with emergency and urgent combined at 49.40%

54.44% of repairs resulted in a VO 2006/07 Variations allowed up to £250 without

authorisation


Value for money – Recommendations

Take steps to robustly batch repairs and reduce costs

Develop partnering across the service with incentives to ratchet up performance

Take steps to address the high levels of emergency and urgent repairs

Ensure the level of VOs and the value allowed without authorisation is reduced


Resident involvement – Strengths

There is an annual tenants conference Choices have been set with customer

involvement Customers have been involved in setting the

lettable standard and in the selection of some contractors

Limited use of tenants (2) in monitoring services, generally staff did not know about them and outcomes from their work not provided


Resident involvement – Weaknesses

Customers are not robustly involved in the planning, delivery and monitoring in this service area

Recommendations Take steps to more robustly involve customers

in the planning, delivery and monitoring of services


Equality and diversity – Strengths

Repair priorities are flexible for elderly and vulnerable

Satisfaction survey forms ask diversity Handy person service assisting elderly and

vulnerable with maintenance Language line is used Diversity profile of customers shown on work

orders Welcome pack statement in eight languages


Equality and diversity – Weaknesses Language flash cards are not used The language skill of staff is not generally known Satisfaction surveys are not robustly monitored against

ethnicity

Recommendations Ensure all staff and contractors use language flash cards

on site Ensure all staff are aware of the available language skills

across the organisation Effectively monitor satisfaction surveys against ethnicity

and the broad customer profile


Service improvement plan (SIP) in place (see weaknesses)

JPS appraisals in place One to one meetings undertaken Performance is reported to board and gas servicing is

included Quarterly asset meetings for full team and monthly local

team Performance is addressed with contractors at the monthly

core meetings Strategic core group meetings quarterly Annual away day with partners in responsive repairs Zero defects target with escalation process

Continuous improvement and performance management – Strengths


A suite of KPIs set in partnerships but not incentivised Benchmarking has been undertaken across the London

and three-star ALMOs Involvement in London R&M forum Contractors using local labour and apprentices Pro master is to be implemented to provide greater

reporting in asset management Repairs scrutinised by LBE Toolbox talks are used with operatives by contractors (EH

not robustly involved) Health impact assessment commissioned with positive

findings

Continuous improvement and performance management – Strengths …(cont’d)


During interviews staff generally did not provide feedback that the organisation is performance driven

Targets are not all challenging (repairs satisfaction target 90% with 91.2% achieved)

Service plans are not SMART, too many actions (RM1) and progress is not clear

Lack of incentives in partnership working The lack of robust resident involvement in planning, delivering

and monitoring service delivery will impact greatly on the ability to continuously improve

Handheld technology not adopted by both responsive repairs partners

Handheld technology not adopted by EH for data collection

Continuous improvement and performance management – Weaknesses


Effectively embed a performance management ethos within the organisation

Review the targets across the service area and ensure they are challenging to ratchet up performance

Review the service plans to ensure they are SMART and progress clearly monitored and updated

Introduce incentives within partnership working framework to ratchet up performance

Involve customers more robustly in the planning, delivery and monitoring of services

Ensure hand held technology is introduced across partners and staff

Continuous improvement and performance management – Recommendations


Priorities before September 2008

Develop the wider use of open book accounting and try to introduce some incentives

Introduce handheld technology for data collection by staff and ensure both contractor are using them to increase efficiency

Review the satisfaction survey procedure Review the priorities for responsive repairs Make the out of hours service seamless to the day time Develop a strategy for batched repairs and the reduction of

emergency and urgent repairs Review the post inspection process of voids Take steps to improve the standard of void properties


Priorities before September 2008 …(cont’d)

Reduce the level of variation orders on responsive repairs and reduce the £250 allowance

Effectively monitor satisfaction against ethnicity and vulnerability Involve tenants in the delivery and monitoring of services Resolve the long standing problems of outstanding CP12 Ensure all CP12s are fully and clearly addressed Introduce a ten-year electrical testing programme Provide residents with a leaflet concerning asbestos Ensure all service plans are SMART and effectively monitored

noting progress Provide staff and contractors with language flash cards and

ensure they know in house language skills Ensure all relevant staff have undertaken asbestos awareness

training


Priorities longer term

Increase the involvement of customers at a formative stage in the planning, delivery and monitoring of services

Effectively evidence the reduction of home failing the DHS Resolve the issue of uncertainty on the eight key estates

and undertake works following option appraisals Develop void completion times based on value of works

and the volume of work required Develop an affordable warmth strategy Introduce an overarching procurement strategy Establish supply chain partnering with the involvement of

tenants Take steps to reduce the level of chasing calls from

customers

draft report - confidential1 ealing homes draft findings – repairs and maintenance debby ounsted...

Documents