responsive repairs - homes for haringey...responsive repairs – resident scrutiny report hfh...

Confidential

Responsive Repairs

Scrutiny Report for Homes for Haringey

The following report is a review of the delivery and

management of the responsive repairs service and call

centre

Report and review completed by:

Homes for Haringey Resident Scrutiny Panel, November 2012

Responsive Repairs – Resident Scrutiny Report

HfH Scrutiny Review Report 2013-02-24 final.docx of 42

Acknowledgements

The Scrutiny Panel recognise and appreciate the support from residents, staff,

external organisations, their Scrutiny Link Officer and independent mentor

Oonah Lacey for enabling them to continue the journey of developing and

delivering effective scrutiny that will benefit both residents and those

delivering services for residents.



Contents

1. Executive summary ...................................................................................... 4

2. Introduction ................................................................................................. 5

3. Methodology ............................................................................................. 10

4. Findings & solutions ................................................................................... 13

6. Conclusion .................................................................................................. 40



1. Executive summary

1.1. The report covers the Scrutiny Panel’s review of responsive repairs from

a customer perspective. The review covered delivery and management

of the responsive repairs service and access to the call centre. The

review took place from March 2012 to November 2012.

1.2. The Scrutiny Panel began their review by carrying out a desktop review

of relevant documentation. This was followed by staff interviews, a

resident focus group, resident surveys, mystery shopping, observation

and benchmarking.

1.3. The findings have indicated that while there is an effective responsive

repairs service to which a number of significant improvements have

been made, there are a large number of issues which still need

addressing. The results have indicated that there are opportunities to

make improvements to operating processes and procedures, staff

training and development, equipment, customer-facing documentation

and processes for learning from feedback. Investing time and resources

in tackling the issues identified will help the service to be even better

and should save time and resources in the long run. Based on the

findings of their review, the Scrutiny Panel have identified 55

recommendations that they would like the Board to consider.

1.4. The Scrutiny Panel are keen that any improvement implementation plan

based on their recommendations is undertaken in conjunction with

them.

1.5. The Scrutiny Panel would also like this report to be made available to all

staff and residents.



2. Introduction

2.1. Homes for Haringey is the Arm’s Length Management Organisation

(ALMO) set up by Haringey Council, with the support of residents, to

manage over 21,000 tenanted and leasehold homes. Owned and

monitored by Haringey Council, their mission is to work with residents to

provide quality housing services and decent homes. Homes for

Haringey’s in-house repairs team employs over 250 staff including

approximately 200 tradespeople and officers. Almost 50 of the staff

started their careers as Homes for Haringey apprentices. The Haringey

Repairs Service carries out over 60,000 repairs each year. The repairs call

centre was launched in April 2008.

2.2. Homes for Haringey during the scrutiny review secured its Customer

Excellence Award scoring top marks which reflects the organisation’s

commitment to delivering excellent services. We consider that if the

findings and recommendations included in this report are embraced and

developed, Homes for Haringey can perform even better and exceed

customer expectations.

2.3. The scope of this scrutiny review has been carried out focusing on the

overall responsive repairs service including:

How customers can report a repair

Documentation available

Reporting process

Handling process

Management of repairs service

Feedback mechanisms to residents and staff

Monitoring of repairs including performance data

Use of complaints and compliments to improve service delivery

Responsive repairs training

Compensation levels and award process

Involvement of customers with developing and setting of targets and

procedures

Looking at different and new approaches being adopted by other

housing providers, benchmarking with Hounslow Homes (ALMO)



Value for money and cost effectiveness of the service

2.4. The Scrutiny Panel have not looked at the nature and outcome of

individual responsive repairs complaints but looked at the process for

reporting and the feedback system as a whole. They wanted to learn

about what it feels like as a customer (or complainant) using the

responsive repairs service, and from a staff perspective understand if the

management is as effective and efficient as it could be.

2.5. The repairs service is based on the traditional call out response times

used by the majority of housing providers in social housing. The

principles and processes were assessed by an extensive benchmarking

exercise undertaken by Homes for Haringey and HouseMark based on

performance for 2010/11 year. This indicated:

A customer-focused responsive repairs service with a range of service

standards developed and agreed with tenants

Services are accessible through the organisation’s offices, call

centre/phone service and website

The responsive repairs service is expensive compared to others

Cost of materials have increased

Productivity was low compared with others

2.6. The Scrutiny Panel when selecting responsive repairs considered a

number of other services. Four service areas including responsive

repairs, leaseholder service charges, anti-social behaviour and tenant

enforcement, and complaints handling were shortlisted as being of

particular concern to residents. Responsive repairs were selected based

on:

personal feedback and case studies provided by the Scrutiny Panel

members

the high number of complaints related to responsive repairs

the ongoing restructure and review of the responsive repairs service

being carried out by the in-house team



satisfaction with completion of responsive repairs reported in the

Dashboard Performance reports which indicated that customer

satisfaction was not meeting the corporate target.

2.7. Complaints data from the Performance Team provided a ready source of

independent, quantitative evidence that responsive repairs were indeed

a source of resident concern. Over half the stage one complaints

received between April and December 2011 related to repairs (see chart

below).

Haringey Repairs service

58.3%

Project Management

9.8%

Tenancy Management

West5.9%

Design & Engineering

7.8%

Estate Services3.5%

Tenancy Management

South4.0%

Tenancy Management

North3.6%

Home Ownership

Team2.4%

Repairs Contract

Monitoring1.1%

Income Collection

2.2%

Business Improvement

0.7%

Housing Information

Team0.1%

Finance0.1%

Communications0.3%

Stage 1 Cases by Service: April - December 2011



This performance was repeated from January to November 2012, with 56%

(963) of stage 1 one complaints relating to the Haringey Repairs Service.

Haringey Repairs service

56.2%

Capital Works7.6%

Tenancy Management

West6.7%

Gas5.7%

Estate Services4.1%

Tenancy Management

South4.6%

Tenancy Management

North3.9%

Surveying3.6%

Home Ownership

Team2.5%

Electrical Engineering

2.5%Income

Collection1.5%

Business Improvement

0.4%

Resident Involvement

0.3%

Finance0.2%

Communications0.1%

Stage 1 Cases by Service January - November 2012



2.8. It was recognised that this high percentage of repairs-related complaints

had been remaining broadly consistent from one year to the next.

2.9. The Scrutiny Panel developed a detailed scrutiny review proposal and

methodology (detailed in section 3) in order to complete and carry out a

robust review of the responsive repairs service. The review has been

extensive and has highlighted that although the responsive repairs

service has seen significant service improvement there are still

opportunities to refine and improve to meet the level of excellence

which the organisation is committed to achieve. It is important to note

that this review is reporting on the findings identified at the time of the

reality checking process, and some issues may have subsequently been

rectified as the organisation has been updating the service significantly

during this review period.

Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar

2009-10 151 158 140 132 122 123 139 150 126 172 164 164

2010-11 138 121 135 133 114 119 144 127 111 119 116 118

2011-12 100 117 113 89 83 120 105 108 115

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

Monthly Complaints Volumes - 3-year Comparison



3. Methodology

3.1. The scrutiny review has followed the procedures and guidance detailed

in the scrutiny operational manual developed as part of the scrutiny set

up process and amended following the pilot review completed in

September 2011.

3.2. The scrutiny review has not been completed within the original agreed

timeframe which is a reflection of the broad scope of the review. It

should be noted that the Scrutiny Panel meets monthly for three hours

and so the review has been completed in 36 hours of meeting times. The

process also included obtaining the right documentation, arrangements

for interviews and job shadowing/observation opportunities.

3.3. The Scrutiny Panel scoped the review and developed a project plan. Each

member of the Scrutiny Panel was given a role and supported through

‘on the job’ training (an approach favoured by the team). Prior to

embarking on each stage of the review a refresher training exercise was

undertaken to ensure knowledge and skills were further refined.

3.4. The Scrutiny Panel began its scrutiny exercise with a presentation from

the Head of Responsive Repairs and Call Centre and used this to inform

their line of enquiry.

3.5. Following the presentation, the Scrutiny Panel:

identified and requested 20 supporting documents including key

policies, procedures and case studies

reviewed all documentation looking for consistency of information

and accuracy

identified gaps or errors in information provided by completing the

document review matrix

interviewed a wide range of members of staff all of whom had

differing levels of knowledge and experience of dealing with

responsive repairs according to Homes for Haringey policy and

procedures

developed individual interview questions with a more strategic

approach for Management Team members and a more operational



approach for front-line staff and middle management - this allowed

for triangulation

conducted a focus group interview with residents shaped around the

Resident Involvement and Empowerment standard, seeking views and

levels of involvement with the responsive repairs service and

standard/target setting

developed an online responsive repairs survey which was placed on

the website using the SurveyMonkey facility

handed out hard copy survey forms at resident involvement events

(following a briefing by the Scrutiny Link Officer outlining the aims and

objectives of the scrutiny review)

carried out reality checking including mystery shopping of the call

centre call handling service (reporting a responsive repair through the

call centre) and visiting office reception areas

identified benchmarking opportunities with other providers who were

highly rated for their repairs services in the public sector

carried out a telephone survey with 25 residents who had used the

responsive repairs service in the last 12 months, using an agreed range

of questions

embarked on job shadowing with the responsive repairs team to

observe the operating tasks, work quality and customer care.

3.6. During the review, the Scrutiny Panel identified a number of issues that

they wished to explore in more depth, these included:

3.6.1. The percentage of calls to the call centre related to responsive

repairs: in 2007 90% of calls related to repairs

3.6.2. Checking and testing the website reporting system

3.6.3. Reviewing the Tenants Handbook using the graphical repair

reporting system

3.6.4. Reviewing communal repairs

3.6.5. Reviewing the appointments log to determine level of

cancellation

3.6.6. Testing the comprehensive repairs process map to identify

failure points to influence future training needs

3.6.7. How jobs are reallocated if a designated person is not in work



3.6.8. The number of variations to work orders placed to determine

effectiveness of the diagnostic process of the call centre

operatives

3.6.9. Compliance with service standards detailed in the Tenants

Handbook

3.6.10. Whether repairs leaflets and documents are RNIB compliant

3.6.11. Staff retention levels

3.6.12. Staff sickness levels

3.6.13. The process for re-call for responsive repairs

3.6.14. The post inspection process

3.6.15. Understanding of leaseholder responsibilities and communal

repairs

3.6.16. Effectiveness of the call centre and operating procedures

including the telephone system

3.6.17. Whether the information technology meets the needs of the

responsive repairs service

3.7. The Scrutiny Panel collated all the feedback received and have included

the findings and recommendations in this report. The Scrutiny Panel

wish to emphasise that their findings are based totally from a customer

perspective and recognise that some or part of the solutions or

recommendations detailed may not be possible to be implemented.

However, we consider that the findings offer significant opportunity to

enhance the service provided. Following our commitment to all

participants, no names will be disclosed but all statements and

recommendations have been made based only on evidence and not

hearsay.



4. Findings & solutions

4.1. The review identified a range of different issues that the Scrutiny Panel

wish to share with the organisation. The following findings have been

generated from five key sources:

Desktop review

Residents (tenants and leaseholders)

Staff across the organisation including Management Team

Observations

Job shadowing

4.2. Overall employees consider responsive repairs as important, and

consider that increasing numbers of responsive repairs indicate success,

as this is interpreted as indicating that ‘tenants and leaseholders have

the confidence to report and access the call centre’. It is clear that

sometimes it is the personal touch which leads to the customer feeling

they have been listened to and their request handled effectively. Looking

at the performance data, the Scrutiny Panel considers that the number

of complaints shows a healthy approach to receiving feedback but there

is concern that seeing the same issues again and again, such as missed

appointments and failure to complete work correctly does not support

the organisation’s commitment to ‘learning from complaints’,

continuous improvement and value for money.

4.3. Performance data for responsive repairs is developed and distributed

according to procedures followed by the Performance Manager. The

setting of targets for responsive repair appears to be corporate-led

rather than determined through consultation and agreement with

customers. There was a view expressed that consulting with residents

“would take too long and that is why it does not happen”. Some

members of staff indicated that they were not sure of any consultation

with residents on the development and setting of responsive repairs

targets, whereas others indicated that this had happened. However,

involved residents on the repairs groups indicated that they had not

been part of the developing of targets. In addition there was no

supporting evidence provided through minutes that there is meaningful



consultation and that targets once agreed are then taken to resident

groups.

4.4. The Scrutiny Panel requested up to date performance information

related to responsive repairs to be able to prove that progress is being

made. The performance information for the period April-October 2012

is shown overleaf.

The information shows that the % of urgent repairs completed within

timescale, the % of routine repairs completed within the timescale and

the % of calls answered within 30 seconds are all falling short of the

target and graded Red on the RAG Scale (Red Amber Green). The % of

non-emergency repairs where appointments were made and kept and %

of urgent repairs completed with government time limits are showing

Amber.

Confidential

Ref Description Target Toler-

ance Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct

Month

RAG

Month

DOT Q1 Q2

Qtr

DOT YTD

YTD

RAG

GNPI

18

% of emergency

repairs completed

by HRS within

timescale

98% 95% 99.6% 99.3% 99.2% 98.8% 99.3% 98.7% 99.0% 99.2% 98.9% 98.8%

GNPI

19

% of urgent repairs

completed by HRS

within timescale

90% 87% 80.2% 89.8% 81.3% 83.8% 85.8% 92.5% 92.2% 83.0% 86.4% 85.2%

GNPI

20

% of routine repairs

completed by HRS

within timescale

93% 90% 93.7% 94.1% 95.0% 94.7% 95.2% 92.9% 94.3% 92.1% 91.4% 89.9%

RP 10

% of ALL repairs

completed by HRS

within timescale

higher

is

better

higher

is

better

93.0% 94.9% 93.9% 93.4% 94.1% 94.6% 95.0% No

target 92.6% 92.4% 91.3%

No

target

ex BV

185

% of non-

emergency repairs

where appointment

made and kept

98% 95% 97.3% 97.3% 97.3% 97.1% 97.7% 97.5% 98.8% 96.9% 97.2% 97.1%

ex BV

72

% of urgent (RTR)

repairs completed

within Government

time limits.

99% 96% 98.1% 97.4% 96.9% 97.2% 96.2% 96.9% 97.7% 97.5% 97.0% 97.4%

RP 04

% of tenants

satisfied with quality

of repair

95.0% 92.5% 97.2% 98.3% 97.3% 97.8% 97.3% 98.6% 98.8% 97.7% 98.1% 98.0%

RP03

% of communal

repairs completed

within timescales

90% 87% 95.5% 97.2% 97.0% 96.2% 95.0% 97.0% 96.4% 95.4% 93.7% 93.2%

RP05

% jobs completed

right first time (by

Audit Commission

definitions)

96% 93% 100.0% 99.4% 99.7% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0

% 99.7% 99.9% 99.6%

HMPI

100

% of all repairs first

time fixed

(Contractor Only)

not including

programmed works

80% 77% 89.8% 87.5% 88.6% 88.5% 86.9% 89.2% 87.5% 88.6% 88.2% 88.2%



Ref Description Target Toler-

ance Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct

Month

RAG

Month

DOT Q1 Q2

Qtr

DOT YTD

YTD

RAG

CA06

% of all phone calls

answered - Control

Centre (repairs)

93% 89% 96.4% 94.5% 95.1% 92.8% 96.6% 97.2% 95.9% 95.3% 95.4% 95.5%

CA07

% of calls answered

within 30 seconds -

Control Centre

(repairs)

85% 82% 53.0% 56.0% 40.2% 54.4% 52.3% 48.0% 44.3% 50.1% 51.7% 49.8%

Cm07 call volumes

(Control Centre) Trend Trend 10532 11117 9641 11121 10148 10071 12106 Trend 31290 31340 74736 Trend

Cm08 calls answered

(Control Centre) Trend Trend 10148 10507 9166 10319 9802 9788 11606 Trend 29821 29909 71336 Trend

Cm09 calls answered in

30s (Control Centre) Trend Trend 5585 6226 3872 6050 5311 4836 5357 Trend 15683 16197 37237 Trend



90.0%

92.0%

94.0%

96.0%

98.0%

100.0%

percentage of non-emergency repairs where appointment made and kept

current year performance

previous 12 month

performance

current target

current intervention point

direction of good

performance



90.0%

91.0%

92.0%

93.0%

94.0%

95.0%

96.0%

97.0%

98.0%

99.0%

100.0%

percentage of urgent repairs completed within Government time limits

current year performance

previous 12 month

performance

current target

current intervention point

direction of good

performance

Confidential

4.5. The Scrutiny Panel also requested a breakdown of compensation

payments made to residents so as to identify the levels associated with

failure to provide responsive repairs in a timely manner. The amount of

compensation paid out per month from October 2011 to September

2012 is shown in £s the bar graph below. The total amount of

compensation paid out for repair service complaints during that one

year period was £8,715.

4.6. HouseMark Benchmarking

An extensive benchmarking exercise was undertaken by Homes for

Haringey and HouseMark based upon the 2010/11 year. 32

organisations were included in the analysis, although only two were

located in London. This benchmarking exercise was undertaken prior to

the repairs restructure. A follow up analysis on the 2011/12 data is

planned to assess the performance of the department following the

restructure.



It is important to note that while benchmarking provides a useful

indication of performance, it does not five the full picture. A range of

performance indicators (PIs) and their inter-relationships must be

considered to achieve a rounded judgement of whether a service is

offering value for money (VFM). It is important to remember that VFM

aims to achieve the optimum balance between cost and quality. It

therefore follows that the lowest cost may not always represent VFM.

Responsive repairs 2010/11

For the year 2010/11, the repairs service was found to be expensive

compared to the comparator group. There are two possible reasons for

this, one being the high proportion of homes which do not yet meet the

Decent Homes Standard, and the other being that the organisation is

London-based. During 2010/11, the contractor also recorded a loss,

indicating that costs may have been understated. Material costs had also

increased since previous periods. Productivity was found to low

compared to the comparator group. The number of repairs jobs per day

and the average time to complete non-urgent works were both below

average.

On a positive note, client and contractor management fees have reduced

and, although many of the quality PIs (satisfaction) are below the

average position, these are improving on previous HouseMark

assessments.

The follow-up benchmarking exercise for 2011/12 will hopefully show an

improvement following the repairs restructure.

Void costs 20/11

Void costs were found to have reduced, however as this area made a

loss in 2010/11 these costs may be understated. Compared with the

HouseMark group, costs remain high, although London-based

organisations typically demonstrate higher costs. Sub-contractor use is

declining and this may account for some of the cost reduction.



Void repair time increased in 10/11 from the year prior, although this

may be due to a difference in the way this item was measured. Post

inspection performance remains positive, although resident satisfaction

with their new property was only ahead of three comparator

organisations.

Future

It is intended that an assessment of 2011/12 performance will be made

by Homes for Haringey and HouseMark, and a similar comparison, both

with other organisations and their own historic performance, will be

carried out. This will further investigate the impact of the Property

Services restructure and in particular, the impact upon productivity and

profitability.

4.7. STAR Survey

The STAR Survey is a free, voluntary approach to measuring resident

satisfaction in the social housing sector, offered by HouseMark. By

offering a consistent approach, STAR provides landlords with the

opportunity to benchmark their satisfaction results with each other. It is

an optional replacement to the abolished compulsory Status Survey. The

STAR survey has a mixture of core and optional questions so that

landlords can tailor it to their needs while still being able to compare

data.

The results of the 2011 STAR Survey results indicated that satisfaction

with the repairs service had dropped by 9% from 68% to 59%. However,

Homes for Haringey’s own post repair satisfaction indicators (where

customers are asked about the service after a repair has been

completed) are consistently high at over 90%. One possible reason for

this could be the reduction in Decent Homes funding in 2011/12. The

STAR question asks ‘Generally, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with

the way [your social housing provider] deals with repairs and

maintenance?’ The question covers both responsive repairs and planned

maintenance. Homes for Haringey has a high proportion of properties



that do not meet the Decent Homes Standard. With Decent Homes

funding being cut, these residents are likely to be unhappy that major

works they had anticipated, e.g. kitchen/bathroom replacement will no

longer be carried out. This could explain why residents are satisfied with

the individual repairs carried out in their homes but not with the repairs

and maintenance service as a whole. Further consultation and analysis is

needed to investigate this further.

4.8. Out of the Scrutiny Panel’s own investigations, the job shadowing and

observations provided the most positive findings for the Scrutiny Panel.

This may have reflected the fact that staff members were aware of the

Scrutiny Panel visits and were all demonstrating excellent customer care.

Whereas the resident focus group identified both positive and negative

issues.

4.9. Good points identified from reality checking (focus group, observations

interviews, mystery shopping and job shadowing)

4.9.1. Repairs operatives are in the main polite and clear up after

completing their work

4.9.2. Repairs operatives that were involved in the observation and

job shadowing activities were happy, efficient, confident,

knowledgeable, professional, experienced and charismatic

4.9.3. Repairs operatives are happy with their new PDA system – they

like being able to call residents from it

4.9.4. Updated job descriptions on PDA system make it easier to get

the job done right first time and estimate/allocate the right

amount of time for each job

4.9.5. Repairs operatives have a generous stock of parts on board

4.9.6. There is a good system in place for replacing parts



4.9.7. Concierges provide key and accompany operatives for

elderly/sheltered residents

4.9.8. Repairs operatives are good at resolving issues/complaints at

first point of contact

4.9.9. The call centre staff are happy with the venue at Broadwater

Farm - better space, light and airy

4.9.10. When observing the call centre, calls were answered within two

rings

4.9.11. When observing the call centre, operatives answered the phone

correctly and give their name (however the mystery shopping

exercise identified that this practice is not consistent)

4.9.12. Call centre operatives avoid jargon

4.9.13. When observed the call centre customer service/engagement

was excellent, staff were efficient, sympathetic, courteous and

able to provide necessary information

4.9.14. Call centre staff are good at resolving issues at first point of

contact (complaints)

4.9.15. There is excellent support & teamwork amongst call centre staff

4.9.16. Call centre staff had lots of praise for their managers

4.9.17. Call centre managers are good at providing feedback and

keeping morale strong

4.9.18. Call centre staff are happy with the health and safety provisions

made for them



4.9.19. Call centre staff are happy with the quality of information

provided to them

4.9.20. Changes in the way Estate Services report responsive repairs

have been made and the service is improving

4.9.21. Duplicate reporting of repairs has now stopped so leaseholders

are not getting charged twice

4.10. Key issues identified from reality checking (focus group, observations

interviews, mystery shopping and job shadowing) and

recommendations

4.10.1. Repairs documentation - Homes for Haringey documents and

leaflets are not RNIB compliant (including the Tenants

Handbook). The size of print, style and colour of documents

should follow the complaints leaflet that meets the RNIB

standard. The Scrutiny Panel suggest that a resident monitoring

group is set up to review and approve all leaflets. In addition all

documents must be written in plain English and in a format and

style that is accessible to the visually impaired.

4.10.2. The repairs leaflet does not state times for repairs to be

completed. This means that the tenant will have no

understanding as to what is classified as an emergency and the

timescales for the work to be completed. The leaflet does not

cover leaseholder repairs and there is no indication as to

whether a leaseholder is able to buy into the repairs service.

4.10.3. It was noted that some repairs and call centre operatives have

difficulty talking to tenants where English is not the first

language. This may result in the tenant misunderstanding

instructions from the technician. There are also concerns that

some tenants due to language barriers are not reporting repairs

until their children are home from school. It may be an option

to provide direct telephone numbers of those members of staff



able to speak specific languages so that these tenants are not

reliant on their children to report repairs. There could also be a

priority given to employing technicians and call centre staff with

multilingual skills. In addition there could be staff training on

cultural differences and etiquette as one technician was

observed not following the request of the resident to remove

shoes prior to entering the home or cover the shoes. Staff could

also be encouraged as part of their personal development plan

to learn a new language. The Scrutiny Panel suggest that

interpreters should be used where this is a known problem

likely to be faced using the tenant profile data to identify

potential problems. In addition there could be standard cards in

a range of languages available to the repairs operatives to

explain for instance how to use the central heating system or

report a leaking tap etc.

4.10.4. The post job inspection rate is 3% and the process of creating a

paper form is manual and very convoluted, requiring a lot of

cutting and pasting. It is not clear how or if the result of the

feedback is recorded or chased up if no response is received.

The Scrutiny Panel considers that the post job inspection form

should be created automatically and responses tracked as part

of the repairs IT system.

4.10.5. Repairs operatives complained that it can take between five and

twenty minutes to get through to Homes for Haringey on the

dedicated non-public phone number. The Scrutiny Panel

recommend that there is a review of call handlers available to

handle calls from technicians. The length of time taken will have

a negative effect on the productivity of the technicians.

4.10.6. Technicians experience difficulty with the volume of traffic,

parking and having to go back on oneself travelling to and from

jobs, especially for out of borough located homes. The Scrutiny

Panel understand that travel at certain times is more difficult



and tracking of vehicles may help this problem by being able to

know where vehicles are and ensuring that adequate stocks are

carried. It may be useful to review parking problem hotspots

and look into whether any provision can be made e.g. parking

permits or use of parking space.

4.10.7. It was noted that a number of residents are unsure where the

stopcock is located. It is felt that every tenant should have

details written in their tenancy pack of where the stopcock is

located written down. Details for each home should be

recorded on the property database and always be made

available to the technician via the PDA.

4.10.8. There is no facility for residents to cancel an appointment prior

to 9am. The Scrutiny Panel recommends that Homes for

Haringey reviews and modifies the telephone system

switchover times between the emergency call centre and the

main repairs call centre.

4.10.9. There are still a high number of occasions where a technician

will visit a tenant and they are not at home even though an

appointment has been made. The Scrutiny Panel recommends

that Homes for Haringey introduces a penalty system to fine

tenants for persistent missed appointments. The level of fine

should be the same as that paid to residents when a technician

misses an appointment. This recommendation should however

be put on hold until tenants have the opportunity to cancel

appointments prior to 9am. The Scrutiny Panel also

recommends that Homes for Haringey reinstate or repair

automatic appointment reminder texts and institute or

reinforce a consistent practice of operatives calling in advance

of arrival at a property using the resident’s contact number.

4.10.10. Rescheduled appointment texts do not feature the relevant

repair reference, so if you have more than one repair due to



take place confusion ensues. The Scrutiny Panel recommends

that the repair reference be included.

4.10.11. Mystery shopping identified that call centre operatives do not

routinely give their name as part of their initial greeting (with

the exception of one operative). The Scrutiny Panel

recommends that Homes for Haringey institutes the best

practice of call handlers routinely giving their name as part of

their greeting, retraining staff and monitoring regularly.

4.10.12. Mystery shopping also identified that issues are not always

correctly escalated. The Scrutiny Panel recommends that

Homes for Haringey ensures call handlers are aware of the

correct escalation process to Team Leader and beyond (not to

TMOs) and that this pathway is actively offered to residents in

circumstances where a repair is initially rejected as internal

decoration etc.

4.10.13. Mystery shopping identified that there is a real problem when

diagnosis is not straightforward and the job is complex as

opposed to small and simple. This sort of situation brings out all

of the classic failings in the repairs service particularly as

regards communication. The Scrutiny Panel recommends that

Homes for Haringey carries out a review into number of case

studies where things have gone wrong to identify the key points

where things go wrong.

4.10.14. There are often discrepancies between the job order

description and the actual fault found or fixed. The Scrutiny

Panel suggest that there is improved diagnostic training for call

centre operators so that they know the right questions to ask

and are able to record information correctly. It could also be an

idea to run repairs workshops where residents can come and

learn about common repair issues and even encourage basic DIY

to be carried out by the tenant.



4.10.15. Carpentry and plastering appear understaffed and have very

long waiting times. The whole experience is very different to

what the Scrutiny Panel saw in their observations of a plumber

and an electrician. The Scrutiny Panel recommends that Homes

for Haringey review staffing resources for carpentry and

plastering.

4.10.16. The repairs technicians appear to get called out to very simple

jobs that could be completed by the tenant. It is suggested that

articles could be published in the newsletter giving tips on basic

home repairs and look at holding estate workshops where

incidents are high. It may be necessary to periodically reinforce

to tenants what their responsibility is and indicate that they will

be charged for calls relating to repairs that they could and

should have completed. Call centre operatives should also be

reminded about which jobs are the resident’s responsibility so

that they do not book them in.

4.10.17. It was reported that in some circumstances technicians are

forced to carry out work in homes that are untidy, unsanitary,

and unventilated. The Scrutiny Panel recommend that there

should be a notice on all appointment cards/letters reminding

tenants that if they are having a repair completed the area

where the work is to be carried out is tidy, accessible and

ventilated. There should be an option for operatives to be able

to refuse to carry out work where the conditions are unsafe, or

unhealthy. There could be a penalty for those that do not make

the necessary arrangements to allow the work to be carried out.

Any cases that occur should be logged on the repair database

and the housing management teams advised that maybe a

home visit to check the condition of the home is carried out.

4.10.18. There were some residents who displayed anger or

dissatisfaction with other aspects of the repairs service or other



operative. It might be appropriate to investigate whether there

are any particular issues that keep being raised with operatives

and use them to review service delivery and maybe customer

care issues. Consider developing a system where the operative

will log any issues or complaints raised against other operatives

or parts of the service. It may appear time consuming in the

short-term but may save time and improve the service in the

longer term.

4.10.19. The vans used by the repairs team are not fitted with air

conditioning and are an unnecessary length (long wheelbase

rather than short). The proposal is to ensure that when vans are

replaced that the cost/benefit of air conditioning is considered

and short wheelbase vans are looked at and checked for

suitability.

4.10.20. There were concerns raised regarding the effectiveness of the

telephones provided in the call centre. It was stated that they

were unable to transfer calls and the monitoring screen does

not provide correct information. Also it was noted that

telephone calls are not able to be recorded. It is the Scrutiny

Panel members understanding that a new modern telephone

system is being considered to address these issues. We consider

the ability to record calls is essential to effective management

and training as it provides an opportunity to check information

and randomly check the quality of service provided. It is clear

that a call recording and monitoring system would assist with

complaints handling and give assurances to the staff. Despite

‘rudeness from call centre staff’ being a top complaint and

residents also telling the Scrutiny Panel that the call centre can

sometimes be unhelpful, there is no facility for recording and

monitoring calls.

4.10.21. The call centre reported that staff resources are tight and are

easily disrupted where sickness occurs. There must be adequate



resources to handle peak call times, e.g. Mondays and it may be

that other staff from other areas can be used when there is a

fall in numbers. It might be necessary to consider bringing

additional staff resources from around the organisation to

handle the calls. Preventing staff from having Mondays off may

help as well. In addition, providing effective working procedures

and processes could make the service work more efficiently

allowing more calls to be handled in a shorter time.

4.10.22. The layout of the call centre could be reviewed to address the

distraction from people constantly going in and out of the call

centre. This adds to the noise factor that was identified at the

time of the observation visits. There needs to be a review to

look at ways of reducing the impact of noise and making staff

visiting aware of the need to be quiet and respectful that some

calls are difficult and stressful.

4.10.23. The call centre operatives reported that the IT system is not

effective and that they are periodically logged out. This

indicates that a new improved IT call handling system is a

priority.

4.10.24. Many residents complained that when calling the call centre

they are cut off after twenty minutes. This was confirmed by the

call centre staff who said that this meant they often had to deal

with very angry residents. This issue needs to be addressed.

4.10.25. The call centre receives a high number of calls from residents

wishing to speak to Haringey Council (60%). It may be useful to

promote through the Homes for Haringey newsletter details of

who to call for what service so that residents understand the

difference between the two organisations. There could be an

opportunity to add to the call waiting message the services that

each organisation manages so that fewer wrong calls are

received. It may be worth investigating whether both



organisations form one joint customer contact centre that

covers all the main queries.

4.10.26. It was noted that the recreation and refreshment areas in the

call centre are potentially a bit small and could get

overcrowded. It may be an idea to survey the staff to identify

whether this is a real problem and if necessary consider the

option to expand the designated area.

4.10.27. The Adams Road call centre was considered to be in need of

repair and decoration. Paint is peeling off the ceiling due to a

leak. It is felt that the work is stressful and so effort must be

made to improve the working environment.

4.10.28. The call centre can get very hot and ventilation is poor, so a

cooling system needs to be considered

4.10.29. A large number of calls, about 60% are passed to other

departments. As these departments are not always good at

getting back to the tenant there are often repeat calls coming

through to the call centre. It might be better for staff to hand

out their direct telephone line numbers where they can to help

reduce these calls coming into the call centre.

4.10.30. The call centre is able to provide tenants with details regarding

their rent account but is not able to take payments. So these

calls have to be transferred to the rent section. It would be

more efficient for the tenant to be able to make only one call

and be able to get information and make payments.

4.10.31. The call centre operatives are not able to add flags to the

database, and have to refer it to the Tenancy Management

Officers to update the system. It would be more efficient to give

the updating facility to the call centre staff.



4.10.32. Training for call centre staff is considered inadequate and they

would prefer a more formal classroom approach. It is

recommended that a review of the training provided is carried

out with staff and an improved approach adopted. This may

help reduce the number of emergency jobs that get wrongly

booked by new staff in the call centre. Training could be more

case studies based and allow for more reasoning and decision

making in a controlled learning environment. It could be useful

to encourage repairs technicians to provide some training as

they have the technical knowledge and could help make sure

that there is a greater understanding of the potential problems

that can occur and result in a wrong diagnosis.

4.10.33. Call centre staff reported that they do not have job appraisals,

and one to ones can vary from two to four weeks to once every

six months. It is suggested that call centre team leaders work

with Human Resources to develop an effective approach that

links training and personal development.

4.10.34. The Call Centre Team Leaders do not currently meet with the

repairs team and there is a blame culture. There are issues such

as lack of timely feedback, time required to do a repair, co-

ordinating multiple repairs and wrong technicians deployed to

attend a job or in a wrong order. It is suggested that it might be

useful for call centre team leaders to set up regular meetings

with the repairs teams to address issues and find solutions.

4.10.35. Residents reported that they were told to call the call centre

rather than the repairs technician reporting back themselves so

the process took longer. There may be a need to instruct the

repairs staff to take responsibility as they will know exactly

what work is required and it would represent good customer

care. The interim report by Value Added Consulting identified

that 42% of repairs related calls were related to previously



logged repairs. This generates additional work and increased

dissatisfaction for tenants.

4.10.36. Graffiti removal is reported as having deteriorated since it was

outsourced and now targets are not being met and it is

considered expensive compared with the in-house service. It

may be worth monitoring performance and cost, and

considering bringing in-house when the contract expires.

4.10.37. The Call Centre Team Leaders had no knowledge of customer

satisfaction or complaints related to the call centre, so they

could not demonstrate that they are learning from complaints

or know if they are delivering an effective service. It is felt that

the Team Leaders should have monthly updates on customer

feedback to share with their teams during monthly meetings.

4.10.38. Communal repairs suffer from a lack of feedback and the person

reporting the repair has no opportunity to feedback on the

work completed. The Scrutiny Panel recommend that you send

a customer satisfaction form to the person who reported the

repair.

4.10.39. There can be a delay in communal repairs being reported.

Through mystery shopping the Scrutiny Panel identified this at

Tudor Close relating to a fence repair. The fence was broken for

some three months before being reported by the leaseholder.

We suggest that Estate Services Officers be trained to identify

and report communal repairs and on a monthly basis place a

notice stating what work has been completed.

4.10.40. It was reported that there are problems with repairs operatives

not tidying up properly after repairs and not disposing of waste

correctly, e.g. dumping a toilet in estate bins. The panel suggest

that repairs operatives are reminded of the standards for



tidying up work areas and that reality checking is carried out via

customer satisfaction surveys or mystery shopping.

4.10.41. Residents told us that work is not always carried out to the right

standard. The panel suggest that repairs operatives are

reminded of the standards for repairs completion and that

reality checking is carried out via inspection, customer

satisfaction surveys or mystery shopping.

4.10.42. Residents also told us that work failures are not routinely

corrected. Homes for Haringey should look into why this is

happening and identify a solution.

4.10.43. Residents also told us that there are problems with jobs not

being done right first time. The panel recommend that Homes

for Haringey look into why jobs aren’t being done right first

time, perhaps through looking at a number of case studies and

consultation with staff, and then identify a solution.

4.10.44. Residents reported that follow up is not always carried out on

jobs reported. Further investigation needs to take place to

determine why jobs are not being followed up and to identify a

solution.

4.10.45. Residents reported that repairs appointments are not always

kept by repairs operatives. The Scrutiny Panel suggests that

Homes for Haringey look into why appointments are not being

kept. It is important to tackle the issue at root cause instead of

just paying out compensation which is not value for money.

4.10.46. Residents reported that issues are not effectively cascaded from

the repairs service to Housing Managers. The panel recommend

that Homes for Haringey look into this problem and identify an

effective process for cascading information.



4.10.47. Residents reported that they sometimes get through to the

wrong number when calling to report a repair. Further

investigation is needed to understand the cause of the problem.

4.10.48. Decent Homes work has stopped but residents are not aware.

The Scrutiny Panel believe it is important that this is

communicated to residents.

4.10.49. Residents want to improve their homes but are not helped to

achieve this. Homes for Haringey should look into what kind of

help they could offer residents to improve their homes.



5.0 Recommendations

5.1 Table of recommendations

No. Recommendation Priority

to

residents

Priority

to

business

1 Improve repairs documentation and leaflets Yes 2 Update the Tenants Handbook Yes

3 Consider providing direct telephone numbers of call centre staff that speak the same language as a resident that speaks limited English

Yes

4 Give priority to employing multi-lingual repairs and call centre operatives

Yes Yes

5 Provide staff training on cultural differences and etiquette

Yes

6 Encourage staff to learn another language as part of staff development

Yes Yes

7 Use interpreters when needed Yes 8 Create a number of standard cards in a range of

languages, e.g. to explain how the central heating works

Yes

9 Improve the post job inspection system so that the form is created automatically and responses are tracked as part of the repairs IT system

Yes

10 Take action to address the length of time it takes repairs operatives to get through to the call centre using the direct line

Yes

11 Review parking problem hotspots and look into whether any provision can be made, e.g. parking permits or use of a parking space

Yes

12 Details of stopcock location for each home should be recorded on the property database and available on the PDAs

Yes Yes

13 Review and modify the telephone system switchover times between the emergency call centre and the main repairs call centre to provide the facility for residents to cancel a

Yes Yes




to

residents

Priority

to

business

repair before 9am. 14 Introduce a penalty system to fine tenants for

missed appointments (but wait until tenants have the facility to cancel appointments prior to 9am)

Yes

15 Reinstate or repair automatic appointment reminder texts and institute or reinforce a consistent practice of operatives calling in advance of arrival at a property using the resident’s contact number.

Yes Yes

16 Rescheduled appointment texts should include the repair reference.

Yes

17 Institute the best practice of call handlers routinely giving their name as part of their greeting (retrain staff and monitor regularly)

Yes

18 Ensure call handlers are aware of the correct escalation process to Team Leader and beyond (not to TMOs) and actively offer this pathway to residents when appropriate

Yes Yes

19 Carry out a review into number of case studies where diagnosis has not been straightforward/the job has been complex and things have gone wrong to identify the key points where things go wrong.

Yes Yes

20 Improve diagnostic training for call centre operators

Yes

21 Remind call centre staff about repairs which are tenants’ responsibility

Yes

22 Include DIY tips in the residents’ newsletter Yes 23 Run repairs workshops where residents can

learn about common repair issues and encourage basic DIY to be carried out

Yes

24 Remind residents about repairs which are their responsibility and recharge residents when operatives are called out to repairs which are tenants’ responsibility

Yes




to

residents

Priority

to

business

25 Remind all tenants on appointment cards/letters that work areas need to be tidy, accessible and ventilated. Consider fining tenants who do not make the necessary arrangements. Any issues should be logged and reported to the housing management teams.

Yes

26 Investigate whether particular issues keep being raised with operatives. Consider developing a system where operatives log any complaints raised against other operatives or parts of the business.

Yes

27 The Scrutiny Panel recommends that Homes for Haringey review staffing resources for carpentry and plastering.

Yes

28 When replacing the repairs vans, look at getting vans with a shorter wheelbase and air conditioning

Yes

29 Replace telephone system and bring in call monitoring

Yes Yes

30 Improve IT system Yes

31 Review call centre staffing resources Yes Yes 32 Review call centre premises Yes

33 Use the residents’ newsletter to promote who to contact for what service, e.g. Haringey Council/Homes for Haringey

Yes Yes

34 Investigate whether there could be a shared contact centre between Homes for Haringey and Haringey Council

Yes

35 Consider encouraging staff to provide direct telephone numbers rather clogging up the call centre

Yes Yes

36 Consider enabling the call centre to take rent payments

Yes

37 Enable call centre staff to create flags on the database

Yes




to

residents

Priority

to

business

38 Improve training and induction process for call centre

Yes Yes

39 Improve one to ones and appraisals for call centre staff

Yes

40 Call centre team leaders should meet regularly with the repairs team to address issues and find solutions

Yes

41 Consider instructing repairs operatives to report follow up work to the call centre rather than asking residents to do so

Yes

42 Review graffiti removal contract and consider bringing in-house

Yes

43 Send job satisfaction form to residents reporting a communal repair or complaint

Yes

44 Train estate services officers to identify and report communal repairs and place a notice on a monthly basis explaining what work has been completed

Yes

45 Provide the call centre team leaders with monthly updates on customer feedback to share with their teams during monthly meetings

Yes

46 Remind operatives of standards for tidying up after repairs and carrying out reality checking

Yes

47 Remind repairs operatives of the standards for repairs completion and carry out reality checking

Yes Yes

48 Identify why work failures are not routinely corrected and identify a solution

Yes

49 Look into why jobs are not being done ‘right first time’ and identify a solution

Yes Yes

50 Investigate why jobs are not being followed up and identify a solution

Yes Yes

51 Look into why repairs operatives are not keeping appointments and tackle

Yes Yes




to

residents

Priority

to

business

52 Investigate why issues are not being effectively cascaded from repairs to housing management and identify an effective process for this

Yes Yes

53 Investigate why residents appear to sometimes get through to the wrong number when trying to report a repair

Yes

54 Inform residents that Decent Homes work has stopped

Yes

55 Look into what kind of help Homes for Haringey could give residents to improve their homes

Yes

6. Conclusion

6.1 The Scrutiny Panel can confirm that Homes for Haringey manages

responsive repairs in the main well, and the development of improved

call centre services will facilitate the process. There is definitely a need to

tighten up on using feedback information as a learning tool for the

organisation.

6.2 There is willingness from all staff and residents interviewed to take a

more radical approach to making sure that residents are charged for

missed appointments that will help to reduce the cost of the responsive

repairs service.

6.3 The Scrutiny Panel have enjoyed carrying out this review and are grateful

to all staff and residents for being honest, open and taking the

opportunity to bring forward new ideas and recommendations.

Confidential

responsive repairs - homes for haringey...responsive repairs – resident scrutiny report hfh...

Documents