royal borough of kingston new housing model interim report ... 1 new … · substantial expertise...

Royal Borough of Kingston

New Housing Model

Interim Report (5th March 2018):

S105 Consultation, Engagement and Collaborative Design

Annex 1

New Housing Model S105 Consultation, Engagement and Collaborative Design

Contents

1 Introduction and background to the project ..................................................................................................3

1.1 Who undertook the work? .....................................................................................................................4

1.2 Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................................5

2 Approach and Methodology ...........................................................................................................................5

2.1 Research design ......................................................................................................................................5

2.2 Consultation Methodology .....................................................................................................................6

2.3 Stakeholder engagement work package ................................................................................................7

2.4 Market and community research work package ....................................................................................9

2.5 Communications and consultation work package............................................................................... 11

2.6 Delivery of Outputs and Development of Findings ............................................................................. 11

3 Who we heard from .................................................................................................................................... 13

4 What people told us .................................................................................................................................... 17

4.1 Summary of key findings from the S105 and outreach surveys .......................................................... 17

4.2 Findings from the stakeholder interviews ........................................................................................... 21

4.3 Focus Group Findings .......................................................................................................................... 21

4.4 Collaborative Design Findings.............................................................................................................. 23

5 Conclusions .................................................................................................................................................. 28

5.1 Satisfaction with the housing service .................................................................................................. 28

5.2 Six priority areas .................................................................................................................................. 29

5.3 Housing service online ......................................................................................................................... 29

5.4 Partnership exploration ....................................................................................................................... 31

5.5 Implications for communications and engagement approaches ........................................................ 32

5.6 Working Together to Build the New Model ........................................................................................ 33

Appendix 1 – Research Framework ..................................................................................................................... 34

Appendix 2 – Stakeholder List ............................................................................................................................. 36

Appendix 3 – Who we spoke to – additional demographic data and charts ...................................................... 37

Appendix 4 - Detailed survey findings ................................................................................................................. 40

Annex 1


1 Introduction and background to the project The Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames is landlord to 5,856 households (comprising of 4,334 council

tenants, 1,489 leaseholders, and 35 housing association tenancies that the council manages) and is by far the

largest landlord in the borough. Last year there were 3,500 people on Kingston’s housing register and in

2016/17 over 2,500 approached the council for help with their housing. During this time, there were only 295

permanent social housing lettings – considerably fewer than were needed to meet demand.

The Housing and Planning Act 2016 will end lifetime council tenancies, increase rents for council tenants

earning more than £40,000, and introduce provisions to force local authorities to sell off their high-value

homes. This combined with social rent reductions of 1% a year until 2019 will leave Kingston with an

estimated shortfall of £9.3 million by 2019/20, resulting in the housing service becoming financially

unsustainable in its current format.

Despite housing satisfaction in Kingston increasing among both tenants and leaseholders from 2012 to 2016,

it remains significantly below comparable landlords by 13-21% (see table below).

Tenure 2012 2016 (base/error margin)

2016 benchmark (quartile)

Tenants 69% 73% (577; +/- 3.6%)

86% (4th)

Leaseholders 48% 41% (208; +/- 6.7%)

62% (4th)

Overall satisfaction with RBKs Housing Service 2012-20161

Whilst Kingston is seen by most as a great (albeit expensive) place to live, council residents fear that increased

gentrification has led to them being overlooked. They believe there is a shortage of social housing, and that

luxury private developments (with ‘token’ social housing) are replacing demolished, poorly maintained council

houses. This is compounded by frustration that substantial growth in student accommodation does little to

address the longer-term needs for younger people seeking housing and contributes to increased density and

perceptions of a lack of land and space for residential house building.

There has been a general feeling amongst residents that Kingston Council wants to dispose of its social

housing stock, evidenced they believe, by the history of the council’s previous attempts to transfer the

housing stock. This was evident in the proposed creation of a resident-led Community Housing Trust, which

was abandoned in the face of government cuts and resident concerns.

At this time, David West of the Community Housing Trust shadow Board acknowledged this:

“Six months down the road towards creating a resident-led CHT, it seems resident support for this project is

only modest, when we had anticipated it would be almost unanimous”2

1 STAR Satisfaction Surveys ARP Research 2016 2 David West. 16.10.15 Community Housing Trust proposals halted ‘indefinitely’. Available at: http://kingstonfed.org/latest-news/community-housing-trust-proposals-halted-indefinitely/

Annex 1

http://kingstonfed.org/latest-news/community-housing-trust-proposals-halted-indefinitely/


There is a consensus that historically the numbers of residents actively participating in engagement activities

are low. This is particularly true of BAME residents and young people. The small minority of residents involved

in tenant and resident associations are more informed and knowledgeable about council proposals.

The Council has started an exercise to review the use of the resources available in Kingston and how they can

be used better – ‘No Stone Unturned’. This is a Senior Leadership Team (SLT) sponsored initiative and is led by

senior management, with collaboration from Lead Members.

Officers have been engaged in considering the best ways to review resources available to them - staff,

revenue budgets, capital, cash, borrowings, General Fund, Housing Revenue Account, internal and external

resources such as other public bodies, local communities and volunteers. All areas across the Council are

being considered, and areas to focus on this year are being prioritised. Various tools and techniques are being

used to analyse, research and identify creative and innovative ideas for working differently and delivering

services differently to achieve our community and organisational outcomes.

Through this process an opportunity was identified to explore a new housing model for landlord and property

services in Kingston. In early 2017 Tom Bremner was appointed as Lead Housing Consultant to undertake a

“transformational challenge that [reviews] the current operating model for the Council's housing function, and

to align it with the wider corporate agenda”. This challenge resulted in the proposition for a New Housing

Model for Kingston. The model would maintain the council’s position as landlord for both secure tenants and

leaseholders and would not involve stock transfer or privatisation, nor would it mean a change to the legal

rights of secure tenants or council leaseholders. This new housing model for landlord and property services in

Kingston would mean a new deal between the council and its residents:

• A new core offer with digital at its heart

• More effective demand management

• Savings on operational costs

• Investing these savings in Kingston priorities

To support community involvement in the development of the new housing model Kingston Council

commissioned this piece of work with three interlinked strands: stakeholder engagement, market and

community research, and communications and consultation.

• Stakeholder engagement - organising and helping facilitate co-design work, moving through team

building to doing, with councillors, staff and residents

• Market and community research - gauging the views and preferences of the wider community

• Communications and consultation - telling the story as it unfolds and having a collaborative dialogue

(internal and external), but also leading on the statutory S105 Housing Act consultation3.

1.1 Who undertook the work?

The work was carried out through a collaboration between Mobilise Public, a social purpose organisation

changing the relationship between public services and citizens; organisational transformation and behaviour

change agency, Social Engine, and engagement specialists Kaizen Partnership. The three organisations bring

substantial expertise in community and stakeholder engagement, experience in research and co-design, and a

3 Section 105 is derived from the requirement under section 105 of the Housing Act 1985 to consult statutoryly with tenants on matters of housing management.

Annex 1


detailed knowledge of local government and housing policy and practice. Collectively they are referred to in

this report as the ‘MSEK’ team.

1.1.1 About Mobilise Public Since 2006, Mobilise Public has provided services to local authorities, housing associations, third sector

organisations and multi-sector partnerships. Our social purpose is to change the relationship between citizens

and the public services that serve them. We specialise in engagement, empowerment and co-production to

work with communities and agencies at the local level. Our expertise includes strategy development,

evaluation and research, delivery of community and infrastructure services, community asset feasibility and

development, service improvement and undertaking feasibility and business planning for community led

delivery.

1.1.2 About Social Engine Social Engine was founded by Avis Johns and Toby Blume in 2015 to support organisations to adopt an

evidenced-based and insight-led approach. Social Engine works with charities, local authorities, social

enterprises and other social purpose organisations to overcome organisational challenges through

engagement, research and the practical application of evidence into practice.

1.1.3 About Kaizen Kaizen, founded in 2000, is an award-winning social business that specialises in designing, delivering and

facilitating cutting edge projects. Kaizen deliver work across the community sector including the areas of

regeneration, education, employment, housing and the social care field. They have worked with organisations

ranging from Local Authorities to schools, small charities to Premier League Football clubs, international

companies to the London 2012 Olympics.

1.2 Acknowledgements

The authors would like to express our thanks to the many people who willingly and freely gave up their time

to participate in the consultation, whether completing and returning surveys at home and online, or being

interviewed in the street sharing their ideas and thoughts. In particular, we would like to thank those tenants,

leaseholders, housing staff, and residents that took part in a series of sessions that formed the collaborative

design process; the Kingston New Housing model team Tom Bremner, Sharmake Abyan, Nina Burich, Sophie

Harris, the members of the steering group, the theme leads and the design user groups for both their

challenge and their ongoing support.

The review generated a large amount of data which we have sought to analyse and synthesise. We have

attempted to honestly and accurately reflect the many different opinions and perspectives of those we spoke

to, in a balanced and objective way. However any inaccuracies or misrepresentations are ours and ours alone.

2 Approach and Methodology

2.1 Research design At the outset we developed a broad set of research questions based on the Council’s brief and then designed

surveys, interview questions and topic guides to reflect these.

Five overarching research questions were defined at the outset of the project that guided the consultation

and engagement.

Annex 1

http://www.social-engine.co.uk/avis-johns/

http://www.social-engine.co.uk/toby-blume/


1. What appetite is there for a new approach to housing in Kingston where more housing services are

offered and accessed online and how can tenants and leaseholders be supported to make use of

these new online channels?

2. How could the housing service be improved including being more efficient and less bureaucratic?

3. How can the council more effectively identify those who need additional support?

4. What sort of relationship do tenants and leaseholders want to have with the council in the future?

5. What messages and engagement approaches can best be deployed to support tenants and

leaseholders to engage with the new housing model and shift channels? What will help achieve buy in

and allay fears?

Beneath the overarching research questions were a list of primary and secondary questions that were

developed for the project to explore using the mix of methods detailed below. The breakdown of how the

research methods linked to the questions can be seen in the table in Appendix 1. Not all research questions

were explored in every method we employed, but all questions were looked at across a range of methods

allowing for the triangulation of data and greater robustness for insights and conclusions.

The project design sought to capture the views of a wide range of stakeholders – including individual tenants

and leaseholders and actively engaged groups – as well as a cross section of tenants and leaseholders who

have had little current involvement with the Council’s housing service (‘the unusual suspects’). In addition to

tenants and leaseholders, the project also incorporated the opinions of Council officers and Councillors. The

full list of stakeholders we engaged at the outset of the project can be found at Appendix 2.

2.2 Consultation Methodology The consultation involved a wide mix of methods and research across three broad activity areas which were

specified by Kingston:

• Stakeholder Engagement

• Market and community research

• Communications and consultation

Annex 1


2.3 Stakeholder engagement work package Outputs: desk review, inception meeting, 12 stakeholder interviews (lead Councillors, senior staff and senior tenant and resident representatives), 3 focus groups with organised tenant and resident groups, 4 collaborative design sessions with officers, tenants and leaseholders. At the outset of this piece of work, and with input from council officers, we identified some of the key stakeholders we needed to engage in order to understand any differences in perspective, the parameters of what can or cannot be developed or changed within the proposals for the new housing model, and the opportunities to communicate to tenants and residents across Kingston using existing communication channels. The list included senior council and housing staff with responsibility for the service now, lead Members, senior tenant representatives, and strategic leads within the council (see Appendix 2). Early on in this commission, the MSEK team sought to bring together some of the discrete elements of the

engagement work package in order to ensure:

• There was one joined up process to take the discussion forward with tenants and leaseholders on the

new housing model.

• We were able to take tenants and residents engaging in the conversation on a logical journey with

each stage building on the last.

• That Kingston Council was able to gain the best possible contribution from tenants and residents at

this early stage of development of the new housing model.

It was suggested that the focus groups become part of the journey of involvement for engaged tenants and

residents as well as those on the housing needs register. The focus groups were used to:

Annex 1


• Introduce aspects of the proposed new housing model

• Undertake an initial exploration of thoughts and views

• Explore what works now and what ‘good’ would look like in the future

• Inform the stakeholder mapping and communications messaging

A process of collaborative design was set out (as opposed to co-design in order to carefully manage

expectations) to offer residents an opportunity to engage in a series of sessions that would flow from the

initial focus groups, held in early January, through to the strategic housing conference at the end of February.

Two parallel strands were set out based on a user-centred design approach (rather than the way the council

might structure services and themes). These two strands ran in tandem:

• The Housing Service

• The Relationship with the Council

This structure was designed to enable each group to have a discreet – but closely related – focus that is based

on how tenants and leaseholders (and those in housing need) experience the housing service, whilst providing

an opportunity for all of the 6 strands of the new housing model to be explored. The collaborative sessions

also invited staff from the Design User Groups (staff involved at looking at the new housing model) to bring a

shared learning and exploration of the key areas.

The initial collaborative design session invited participants to reflect on the things that work well and areas

which could be improved, in order to work together to develop a picture of ‘what good looks like’. The second

sessions both worked on the priorities emerging from the first session and worked with participants to

develop their vision for the new housing model.

The final session, held at Kingston’s Strategic Housing Conference on 22nd February, presented some of the

early findings from the research and facilitated a discussion about their implications for the future of housing

in Kingston.

The following schematic represents the collaborative design process.

Annex 1


2.4 Market and community research work package Outputs: Statutory Section 105 Housing Act Letter to 5,856 tenant and leaseholder households; online survey of tenants/leaseholders, proactive outreach and street focus groups, with a minimum of 600 tenants and leaseholders consulted.

There were three main strands to the market and community research work package:

1. S105 Housing Act consultation letter containing a hard copy of the questionnaire.

2. An electronic survey mirroring the questionnaire and promoted widely through a range of

communication channels.

3. Outreach and engagement of residents, targeted at reaching those not currently involved with a

particular focus on under-represented groups, including street interviews and focus groups.

A letter and printed survey was sent to all 5,856 tenant and leaseholder households in the Borough as part of

a Statutory Section 105 Housing Act consultation requirement. The Section 105 consultation gave all council

tenants and leaseholders the opportunity to share their views on the proposed changes to the housing model

Annex 1


for landlord and property services in Kingston. Working with the Council, in order to make it easy for tenants

to contribute, we used a variety of methods intended to make participating as accessible as possible:

- Completing a printed questionnaire and returning it with a FREEPOST envelope (provided)

- E-mailing comments to a dedicated email address

- Offering a freephone number for residents to arrange for a member of our team to come and collect a

questionnaire (particularly for more vulnerable residents, for example, people who are housebound)

- Offering to come and talk to residents or a small group of neighbours

- Completing the questionnaire online

- Being interviewed over the phone and completing the survey that way

The consultation was also used as an engagement opportunity and respondents were invited to participate

further in the collaborative design workshops and other engagement opportunities.

The targeted outreach in the community took place across Kingston, but with a particular focus on the south

and the centre of the borough. We conducted 509 individual street interviews which typically lasted from 15

to 20 minutes each. Interviews were conducted, on different days of the week (including weekends), across a

range of times of day, and in a wide variety of types of locations across the borough. To engage with those in

housing need, we conducted interviews at a hostel and sheltered housing project and at a homeless persons

unit.

We also carried out ten street focus groups4 involving 44 residents. This is a methodology, pioneered by

Kaizen as a way to have broad discussions with people who are not typically accessible through a traditional

focus group approach, such as groups of teenagers on the street, parents at the school gate or women in a

hairdressers.

Given the small percentage of the borough’s residents who are council tenants or leaseholders, door knocking

in estates was a key approach used to ensure that we were engaging with a high proportion of tenants and

leaseholders (see figure 10 for the tenure achieved). Deeper dive engagement was conducted in three estates

but other estates were also targeted as well as a range of other community locations as can be seen from the

list of places where consultation took place below:

4 See: http://wearekaizen.co.uk/blog/2013/08/kaizen-street-focus-group/

Annex 1

http://wearekaizen.co.uk/blog/2013/08/kaizen-street-focus-group/

• Cambridge Road Estate

• Mansfield Road Estate

• Gilpin House

• Cambridge Gardens

• Gloucester Road Estate

• Tots Group Cambridge Road

• Kingston Town Centre

• McDonald’s

• New Malden

• Alpha Road

• Kingsnympton Estate

• Crescent Road

• Everyday Church

• Cumberland House

• Library

• Asda

• All Saints

• Church café

• Portland Road

• Chatham Road

• Porchester Road Estate

• Perryn Road

• Norbiton Estate

2.5 Communications and consultation work package Outputs: Development and delivery of a communications strategy and delivery plan; stakeholder matrix, key

message framework, spokesperson briefings and key collateral (including images, quotes and social media

topic guide) media plan, weekly updates to narrative and key messages; final report (for internal use) and

community-facing report

Following discussion with the Council’s communications and project leads, we developed an overarching

communications strategy and plan setting out:

- Key messages – with descriptors and phrases tailored to audience and provided in a range of lengths.

- Briefing and media releases – aligned to project milestones. This allowed us to identify key media

opportunities and to ensure that internal audiences were kept informed throughout the project

delivery.

- A narrative plan, designed to frame the ambitions and consultation process, capturing the emerging

story and enhancing this during the course of activity with quotes and feedback for use as collateral

across a range of media platforms.

- Plans for reporting and dissemination of consultation and engagement findings particularly for the

community report.

2.6 Delivery of Outputs and Development of Findings

All of the intended outputs were delivered with well over 1,000 people engaged through the course of the

project. In addition to the focus groups and stakeholder interviews, over 500 individuals were engaged

through the outreach programme.

Number of people engaged across the different research and engagement strands:

Method Number

Individual street interviews 465

Street focus groups 10 (involving 44 individuals)

Online s105 survey responses 56

Paper s105 survey responses 563

Focus groups 3 (involving 8 tenants, 6 leaseholders and 2 residents in housing need)

Annex 1


Stakeholder interviews with people who are active in the current structures

12

Collaborative design sessions 20 residents and 10 staff

Workshops delivered at Kingston’s Housing Strategy conference to feedback and consult on the early findings from this work

2

Findings from all the research strands have been collated, analysed and incorporated into our findings. In

order to write a report that was readable and useful we have concentrated on extracting and presenting the

key findings and reflections from across the range of research and engagement methodologies. More detailed

findings from individual elements are provided in the appendices to the report.

2.6.1 Understanding the datasets This report draws significantly on two sets of quantitative data, the first from the statutory Section 105

consultation (both from the online and paper copy returns) and referred to ‘s105’ or ‘statutory consultation’

in the report; and the second data set derived from the interviews which were conducted with members of

the public through the outreach work referred to as ‘street interviews’.

Some questions were the same in both surveys, but many were not. Since we do not have personal data from

respondents for both data sets we cannot determine whether some individuals may have responded to the

statutory consultation and completed an interview in the street. For this reason, and due to the fact that

slightly different wording was used across the two surveys, we have not merged these two data sets. Instead

we report on them separately, indicating throughout which source the data are derived from and highlighting

where there were differences in the findings between the two sets.

Annex 1

3 Who we heard from The following demographic information is about the individuals interviewed in the community and those that

completed the Section 105 consultation survey. For further charts and data relating to this section, see

Appendix 3.

The research engaged a diverse group of Kingston residents across a range of demographic indicators,

although there were some differences in the samples compared to the overall population of the borough with

fewer children and young people engaged and more women than men consulted. These variances should not

undermine the overall reliability of the results.

For reference figures on Kingston’s population from the 2011 Census are included for comparison with survey

samples.

In total 509 people were interviewed as part of the outreach, with 465 people completing individual

questionnaires and 44 residents participating in 10 Street Focus Groups. However, the demographic

information below is formed solely from the individual interviews as less detailed information is collected

from the street focus groups. Additionally, a number of young people were engaged via street focus groups

although, for the same reason, those numbers are not reflected in the demographic information

In total 619 survey responses were received from the Section 105 consultation. 56 of these were completed

online and 563 returned completed paper copies of the survey.

More than 400 people reached through the outreach live in the borough of Kingston. 65.5% were Kingston

Council tenants and 10.0% were leaseholders. 76.7% of the statutory consultation respondents were

Kingston Council tenants and 21.0% were Kingston Council leaseholders. The outreach was made up of 56.8%

female and 43.2% male, compared to the statutory group which reached 55.4% female and 44.6% male. The

proportion of females reached in both was slightly higher than the proportion of females in the borough

(50.7% female and 49.3% male, Census data 2011).

The ethnicity of the statutory consultation respondents was broadly similar to the borough’s population as

measured by the 2011 Census with less Asian/British Asian, Arabic, and mixed race residents reached through

the statutory consultation though more Black/Black British. Through the outreach, we see fewer White

English residents reached, and a more diverse sample with still less Asian/Asian British than the Census data,

but more Black/Black British, more White Other, more Black/Black British, and more describing themselves of

‘Mixed’ ethnicity.

The age profile of the respondents to the statutory consultation was older than Kingston’s age profile of

Kingston’s residents known from the Census data. A younger and more mixed cohort was reached through

the outreach that better reflected the Borough’s population. The outreach also represented a broad mix of

people reflecting different employment statuses with 23.9% in full-time work, and a mix of people with

different length of connection to the area though with 52.7% reporting being connected to the area for 11 or

more years.

Annex 1


Ethnicity (2011 Census figures)

White British 63.1%

White other 11.3%

Asian / British Asian 16.4%

Black / Black British 2.4%

Arabic 1.5%

Mixed 3.9%

Other 1.3%

52.2%

11.5% 8.7% 5.7%

16.3%

1.7% 3.0% 0.8%0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

WhiteEnglish

Asian /AsianBritish

Black /Black

British

Mixed WhiteOther

Arabic Other I prefernot to

say

Ethnicity

Figure 1 - source: outreach interviews

Figure 2 - source: S105 survey responses

Age profile (2011 Census figures)

0-19 23.8%

20-34 23.9%

35-44 16.2%

45-54 13.3%

55-64 9.6%

65-74 7.3%

75+ 6.1%

62.8%

9.3%5.0% 1.7%

10.8%

0.9% 3.4% 6.2%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

WhiteEnglish

Asian /British Asian

Black/ BlackBritish

Mixed White other Arabic Other I prefer notto say

Ethnicity

Annex 1



Residents were asked whether they considered their day to day activities were limited due to a physical or

learning disability or health problem. These included a range of physical, learning, mental and sensory

impairments. References to ‘disability’ in the report reflect this broader definition, rather than whether

participants consider themselves disabled or not.




0.8%

13.5%16.1%

23.3%

16.3%13.5%

9.9%6.6%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

>16 16-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75+

Age

0.3%

7.4%9.4%

14.8%

22.3%26.2%

19.6%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

16 - 24 25 - 34 35 - 44 45 - 54 55 - 64 65 - 74 75+

Age

82.2%

17.8%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

No disability Disability

Disability

43.6%

56.4%

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%

Disability No disability

Disability

Among those who were engaged as part of

the outreach activity, we can see that only a

fraction had previously been consulted about

the area before, with only one in fifty people

saying they had been consulted ‘a lot’. Well

over half of those engaged (58%) said they

had not been consulted ‘at all’ before.

2.0% 7.0% 14.7% 18.2%

58.2%

0%

50%

100%

A Lot Quite A Bit A Little Not Much Not At All

To what extent have you been consulted about the

area before?

Annex 1


20.5% 16.5%

63.0%

0%

50%

100%

Definitely Possibly No thanks

Would you like to find out more about how you could get

involved?

One in five (21%) people consulted

through the outreach said that they

would ‘definitely’ be interested in

finding out more about getting involved

in the future and a further 17% said

they would ‘possibly’ be interested. This

presents a significant engagement

opportunity beyond the consultation to

work with residents to further develop

and improve the housing service.

Annex 1


4 What people told us

4.1 Summary of key findings from the Section 105 and outreach surveys This section summarises the main findings from both the statutory and the outreach surveys. The detailed

findings and all charts relating to the findings can be found at Appendix 4.

4.1.1 Satisfaction with the current housing service • People are generally happy with the current housing service – with approximately twice as many

residents expressing a positive view than expressed a negative one.

• Leaseholders responding to the statutory consultation were significantly less satisfied with the

housing service than tenants, with 45% stating they were dissatisfied. Whilst this finding was not

reflected in the street surveys (which had a smaller number of leaseholders), around one in five

leaseholders were still dissatisfied.

• Older residents, over 75 years, tend to be more satisfied with the housing service than younger

residents.

• Among those responding to the Section 105 consultation we found significantly lower levels of

satisfaction among those who had accessed the Council’s housing service online compared with those

who had not. 40% of those responding to the statutory consultation that had accessed online services

expressed dissatisfaction with the housing service, compared with 18% of those who had not tried to

access online services.

4.1.2 Six priority areas of the new housing model • The six priority areas received broad support with over two-thirds of residents agreeing they were

the right areas to focus on and only around one in ten (less in the Section 105) disagreeing. Although a

quarter of those interviewed on the street neither agreed nor disagreed, suggesting there is more to

be done in engaging tenants and leaseholders with these ideas.

• Among the street interviewees, older and younger residents were most positive about the six priority

areas, with between 75% and 90% of residents under 35 and over 75 being supportive. 16% of those

aged 35-74 expressed disagreement with the priority areas compared to just 2% of those aged under

35 and over 75.

• Among Section 105 responses residents that had attempted to access online housing services were

less positive about the six priority areas than those that had not (reflecting a broader correlation

between online use and more negative perceptions). Nonetheless a majority of those who had tried

to use housing service online were still supportive of the priority areas.

Some comments made by s105 respondents about the six priority areas of the new housing model were

as follows:

“Would be great to see more support for vulnerable tenants, but doubt it will materialise.”

“Everything should be set out point by point and understood by both parties plus consequences for both if not

adhered to.”

“Well these are all things that you should be doing anyway”

“Well it all sounds good if it is carried out”

“Very good but do you have the money and quality to deliver?”

Annex 1


“They sound good on paper, if they work out in practise, will be an improvement.”

Ideas respondents had for improving the housing services included:

“Train your staff to know the answers (as best as possible). Nothing is more annoying than someone saying ‘I

will check and get back to you’ and then don't.”

“That repairs are done to a decent level and not just done as quickly and cheaply as possible, especially when a

house is looked after. I have repairs done and they have to be done again not long after they are done so

badly.”

“The current “what’s the problem” diagram when reporting repairs is hard to use!!”

“All email correspondence should be replied to, currently not happening!”

“Start with the small things then move onto the big issues. Get the small things right first then it will make it

easier for the big things to slot into place. Right now even simple things take what feels like a lifetime to get

RBK to resolve.”

“Making appointment booking for repairs easier and more accessible”

“Much better communication. Better customer service and attitude of constantly being told council don't have

the money.“

4.1.3 Exploring partnership working • Whilst between two thirds (s105) and three quarters (outreach) of residents agreed that the Council

should explore partnership working with a not for profit organisation to improve the housing service,

there was much less certainty about this among those responding to the statutory consultation. Over

a quarter were unsure and 8% said definitely not among s105 respondents. 59% of those interviewed

in the street said the council definitely should.

• We found no significant difference between tenants and leaseholders in support for the idea.

• Differences of opinion are relatively slight between ethnic groups, with Asian/Asian British

respondents to the s105 consultation slightly more positive about exploring a partnership. However

among those interviewed in the street, we find no significant difference between people from

different ethnic groups.

• Those seeking employment and those caring for family or the home were significantly more positive

about exploring a partnership than those in full or part time work. 72% of unemployed respondents

said the Council should ‘definitely’ explore partnership working, compared with 52% of those in full

time work and 48% of those in part time jobs. 11% of retired respondents felt the Council should

‘definitely not’ explore partnership working – considerably more than any other group.

• Those aged 65 years or older were somewhat less supportive of the idea of exploring a partnership,

although a majority of older people were still in favour of the idea.

Some comments made by s105 respondents about the possibility of partnership working with a not for

profit organisation were as follows:

“The council currently unable to co-ordinate and organise itself so working with other organisations is too

much for the council to deal with.”

Annex 1


“So long as this doesn’t absolve the council of its responsibilities”

“Provided they are not for profit”

“Partnering with non-profits will allow council to extend support whereas budget may not always allow”

“Not every authority or organisation has all the answer, so getting new and fresh ideas is paramount to forge

ahead with innovation.”

“I would need further info, can't comment with such brief information”

4.1.4 Online housing services • Only around one third of residents said they have tried to access the Council housing service online.

This shows that there is considerable scope to increase this figure and doing so will be crucial if the

council is to pursue, as the new housing model proposes, a more digitally-orientated service in the

future.

• Residents from a Black/Black British background are slightly more likely to have accessed online

housing services and White (other) residents interviewed in the street were less likely than average to

have attempted to do so.

• Retired people and students were significantly less likely to have accessed the housing service online

compared with other groups.

• Online use is strongly correlated with age, with younger and older residents far less likely to access

the housing service online. This finding is consistent across both the outreach and statutory

consultation – though it is more pronounced within the street interviews, where 90% of those over 75

had not used the website. By contrast, among respondents to the statutory consultation a majority of

those between the ages of 25 and 54 had accessed the council’s housing service digitally.

• Only one in ten residents described their experience of trying to access the housing service online as

‘very good’ and a significant proportion (around a quarter in the outreach and nearly half among s105

respondents) said they’d had a negative experience. Within the statutory consultation almost a

quarter described the experience as ‘very poor’. The proportion of residents reporting negative

experiences of accessing online services shows that the current online provision is very poor and

ensuring the council understand why and what would make a better online service will be critical to

improving access and satisfaction for residents.

• Within the stakeholder interviews and amongst those participating in collaborative design, a number

expressed strong (negative) views about the current digital offer with many suggesting that the site is

hard to navigate, lacks important functionality and is frustrating to use.

• Leaseholders were significantly more positive than tenants about their online experience among

outreach respondents but less positive within the statutory consultation findings.

• Among Section 105 respondents those of Black/Black British background were far more positive, with

over three-quarters (79%) saying that’d had a good experience of the service, compared to just over

one third (35%) of White English respondents and just 29% of White (other) respondents. However

among the outreach interviewees, 59% of Asian/Asian British and 60% of White (other) respondents

said they found the online service to be ‘good’ or ‘very good’, compared to just 32% of Black/Black

British respondents.

• Men were significantly more likely than women to have had a ‘very good’ experience of accessing the

housing service online. This variation was most pronounced within the responses to the street

interviews, with 15% of men and 7% of women describing their experience of ‘very good’.

Annex 1


• Among the statutory consultation responses (which had a particularly high proportion of disabled

people) those without an impairment were significantly more likely to have used the website.

• Disabled people appear to have quite different experiences of using the council’s website. Among the

section 105 responses, 26% of disabled people said they’d had a ‘very poor’ experience and among

the street interviewees 22% said their experience was ‘very poor’ compared to just 8% of those

without an impairment.

• However, 12% of disabled people reported a ‘very good’ experience in the section 105 consultation,

notably higher than the 7% among those without an impairment. We find a similar pattern from the

outreach responses, with 53% of disabled people expressing a positive experience compared with

46% of those who are not disabled.

• Unemployed people typically had more negative experiences of accessing the housing service online,

as did students (though as the numbers involved were small we should approach these findings with

some caution). A quarter (26%) of unemployed respondents said they’d had a ‘very poor’ experience

and only 37% reported a positive experience, compared with 49% of those in full time employment.

• Those aged 35-44 (among the most frequent users of online services) were more likely than other

ages to report having a less positive experience. 29% of 35-44 year olds within the outreach described

their experience as ‘poor’ or ‘very poor’ and less than half reported having a positive experience.

Among respondents to the s105 consultation 36% of 35-44 year olds described their experience as

‘very poor’.

• The street interviews showed that the primary reason why people don’t use the website is because

they prefer to speak to someone (45%) - though lack of awareness of what services are available

online is another reason. However, it appears as if poor customer service (and following through on

delivering online service requests) may be contributing to this reason. A properly functioning and

well-designed website (with high quality delivery to back it up) would go some way to encouraging

online use.

• Research participants highlighted the need for the online offer to be served by an effective database

or content management system whereby personal details (such as tenure, leasehold specifications,

disability, access or support requirements), as well as financial/rent accounts could be accessed

without difficulty and independently (without having to contact the council).

• If online services deliver a consistent, efficient and effective service that meets residents’ needs and

improve the service, take up is likely to increase as having the matter/issue resolved quickly was

identified as a strong motivation for using the website.

• It is perceived as currently being easier to talk to someone than to use the website. However,

residents reported in the street interviews, that if the website experience was improved and someone

was available to speak to if residents ‘get stuck’ this might encourage people to at least use the

website in the first instance, although they would need to be convinced to do so in the first instance.

• Residents want all housing services to be available online – though whether they would use them is

not so easily determined. Nonetheless a majority of residents (67% from the street interviews and

65% from the Section 105 consultation) expect all services to be online.

• People’s current online activity provides some valuable insight into existing behaviours - which should

be a good predictor of potential take up of council services. A number of common current behaviours

are directly comparable to housing service transactions/uses, such as paying bills and finding answers

to questions/issues – and to a lesser extent reporting issues/problems and making appointments.

Annex 1


4.2 Findings from the stakeholder interviews The stakeholder interviews allowed us to build a fuller picture of the historic, political, community, and economic backdrop to the new housing model proposals. They supported the development of a coherent collaborative design process that started with focus groups for tenants, leaseholders and people in housing need, continued with a series of collaborative design sessions for staff and residents, and ended with the sharing of the headline findings at Kingston’s housing strategy conference. The quotes below typify some the range of views and perspective uncovered through the stakeholder engagement.

• “You need to take people with you right from the beginning, they are part of it not being done to, not being used to save money. If people understand this is to improve services in the way they want, you will have a better chance of success.”

• “We need to indicate that this is a shared process, that we are working together with residents rather than doing to them.”

• “Many residents choose not to use a computer. They may be elderly, disabled, have arthritis, they may have been scammed. They don’t trust or know where their information is going.”

• “There’s a lot of fear and distrust. There’s fear that everyone will be moved out, the houses will come down, people will be spread round the country and existing residents won’t be able to afford to come back. Anything put to residents needs to be very open and honest.”

• “Everything in the new model is relevant and admirable. My concern is where the finance is going to come from?”

• “Repairs are a frustration for many – the system’s not effective, the wrong type of engineer might arrive, they may not have the right parts”

• “Something should be done to encourage tenants to look after their homes perhaps involving some kind of incentive or reward – ‘it’s our house, your home’.”

• “There is fear of change, fear of needing to go through another company rather than the Council.”

• “What will be the approach to finding a not for profit partner to work with?”

• “We need a first-class housing service, a strong team driving a proper housing strategy, staff with the right attitude giving a good service to tenants.”

• “Communication, responsiveness, having information at their fingertips, even getting my name right.”

• “Someone needs to physically visit the vulnerable and find out what their support needs are.”

• “Sheltered residents need to be responded to more quickly, it’s harder for them. Also, just buzzing on the intercom checking people are ok is not ok.”

• “Leaseholders need to know where they stand and not find themselves needing to pay large costs at short notice.”

• “Housing support must be seen in the broader context. Adult social care uses a strengths based model supporting residents work out how they can solve things for themselves rather than getting them into a system that can’t meet their needs.”

4.3 Focus Group Findings Three focus groups were undertaken: one with tenants, one with leaseholders and one with some residents in

housing need. The focus groups were designed to explore in greater depth, particularly with the more

engaged tenants and leaseholders, and also with a new sample of those in housing need the appetite for the

new housing model, the six areas of the new model, and the idea of Kington working in partnership with a not

for profit housing provider. The findings from the focus groups suggested evidence of support for the new

housing model and a desire and need for residents to be involved early on in shaping it:

- There is an appetite amongst focus group participants for a better service. The contact centre and

calling in repairs were highlighted as areas for improvement, including the length of appointment

slots – reducing them to two-hour slots, the quality of repairs and contractors turning up to

appointments on time.

Annex 1


- Participants noted the importance of the council listening and consulting with residents as well as

working alongside them in the design of the model if things are really going to be different.

- Focus group participants highlighted the challenges of using the council website and felt that it was

not user- friendly or informative. Comments related to a lack of up-to-date information and poor

navigation which made it difficult to report or track repairs online.

- There was consensus that ‘digital by choice’ should be an option in the future model. Research

participants noted the importance of retaining the call centre and personal contact, particularly for

vulnerable groups such as the elderly and those with mental health issues.

- Focus group participants agreed that the most important area of the new housing model is the core

offer – having a well maintained and settled property that is affordable to residents.

- Supporting those who need it was also highlighted as important. Frequency and type of contact

appeared variable (e.g. face-to-face, over the phone).

- Investing in council housing was also considered important to participants. There was some concern

about the scale of development related to student accommodation in Kingston.

- Concerns were expressed about young people being pushed out of the borough due to unaffordable

living costs and council estates being replaced by private accommodation which, in turn, is pricing out

a section of the community. Offering vacant student accommodation to young people at an

affordable price, as well as identifying disused land were suggested as ways to help overcome this

challenge.

- Communication was a common theme mentioned amongst focus group participants. Comments

related to the need to consult with tenants to ensure their needs are being met and the difficulties

contacting departments to deal with issues.

- Having a named contact person for different departments was suggested as a way to improve the

housing service. Having an understanding of the estate and its residents was considered important to

making things run more efficiently. It was suggested that the role of the estate managers should be

explored and that there should be more accountability for issues raised. It was suggested that

caretakers could play a greater role in picking up queries directly.

- The importance of residents, leaseholders and tenants feeling that they are being listened to, was

noted. They want to be consulted before decisions are made. There was a perception that decisions

were being made prior to consulting and that consultation was simply a tick box exercise. Focus group

participants were also keen to see the outcome of this piece of work, including what the

recommendations are.

- In general, participants felt that there is a responsibility to maintain the basics in their own home just

like private tenants, such as painting and decorating. There was also support for those who can’t carry

out such work themselves and in this instance; a ‘handy man’ service was considered a good option.

- There was a lack of awareness amongst participants about expectations in terms of where

responsibility lies for various minor repairs (i.e. tenants or council) as not everyone had received a

leaflet – this suggests the need for communication to be consistent across the board and easily

accessible.

- Some participants are open to the idea of improving the service by working with a not for profit

partner but want to be involved along the way, and others appeared more sceptical about the idea

due to negative past experiences. Most agreed that residents have got to be involved in building and

shaping it from the start. Communication and ongoing feedback are key.

- Participants are open to the idea of exploring where improvements can be made, making savings,

where there are economies of scale, and learning from how they do things better.

Annex 1


- Leaseholders particularly wanted more clarity, responsibility and transparency. Participants wanted

the council to be clear from the outset about how much repairs would cost and have these costs

clearly set out.

- Participants in housing need reported negative experiences of the housing service in Kingston.

Comments related to confusion about waiting lists and the allocation of properties to those who had

reportedly been on the list for a shorter period of time than they had. They reported a lack of

empathy from those dealing with their queries given their challenging situations. They felt that

greater empathy is required to better meet the needs of vulnerable people in temporary

accommodation. They felt that the gap between the amount of benefits received and rent costs in

Kingston was too high and resulted in significant rent arrears, as well as a negative impact on health.

Focus group participants felt their options were limited – either accepting a privately rented property

or becoming homeless.

4.4 Collaborative Design Findings The collaborative design session participants were made up of those more engaged residents (some of whom

previously engaged in the tenant and leaseholder focus groups), new residents that came through the housing

need focus group and from a fresh recruitment exercise undertaken from survey respondents who had

responded positively to the invitation to get more involved. We hoped that some tenants and leaseholders

would want to engage with the collaborative design process from start to finish, and we were impressed that

many of the more engaged and newly engaged residents did just that. They were recruited to take part in a

series of workshops in one of two themes, ‘housing service’ or ‘the relationship with the council’. It became

clear early on that these distinctions were not particularly relevant to the participants, so we encouraged a

wider reaching conversation in each session covering the areas that participants wished to cover. Even

though the sessions took place on consecutive weekday evenings, a good number of housing service staff also

engaged in the sessions from a range of grades covering repairs, estate management, landlord services, anti-

social behaviour, and resident engagement. The first sessions were designed to build a relationship between

staff and residents, explore hopes and expectations, and work together on what works well now and what

needs improving. Emerging from the work undertaken in the first sessions we built a list of priorities and

themed them as follows:

Vision and Approach • A new commitment to social housing, to our existing tenants and leaseholders and investing in new

housing.

• Using opportunities to increase the supply of housing in Kingston delivering to the needs of those that need (students who settle in the borough, those in housing need, families of tenants & leaseholders).

• An enabling housing provider supporting residents’ ambitions for change (e.g. water butts, solar panels, fitting own kitchen, community gardens).

Online/Digital • Online portal for each customer to be able to do things like check rent account, update details, report

repairs, repair status, etc.

• Accurate and useful information available online.

• Wi-Fi on estates and community centres that do not have it.

• Supporting residents that have barriers that make online access harder or more challenging.

• Useful information, such as ‘how to guides’ for residents undertaking minor repairs themselves.

• Forums for discussions about community / local matters – including centralised reporting (and progress updates) on graffiti and lift repairs.

Annex 1


Communication / Customer Service • Acknowledging emails, responding in a timely manner, following up.

• Single point of contact with trained, knowledgeable staff able to respond on the majority of issues – an empowered front line with someone that gets back to you.

Decision making, Community & Engagement • Timely consultation with residents and improved resident voice in decision making.

• Better communication following consultations.

• Alternatives to residents’ associations e.g. neighbourhood forum.

• Better community spirit with people helping each other (e.g. IT support, litter picking).

Repairs • More flexibility around repairs appointments and shorter appointment slots.

• Improved service from contractors with higher standard of work.

• Greater ability to feedback on repairs contractors on a range of areas (e.g. customer service, quality of repair etc).

• Better information about repairs – e.g. providing updates via text/email on progress, issues etc.

• Annual inspection for each home and pro-active maintenance/repairs plan

Culture & Motivation • More clarity over what can be done by staff and not, and what are responsibilities of residents.

• Better motivation and recognition of staff – for example an ‘employee of the month’.

• Sense that residents and staff are ‘on the same side’

The second sessions focussed on further team building, a prioritisation exercise on the key issues identified in

the first sessions, and working together on the vision for the new housing model. For the prioritisation

exercise, all participants were given three votes and the outcomes of the voting across the two groups were

as follows:

Annex 1


From the chart it can be seen that across tenants, leaseholders and staff, the top priority emerging for the

new housing model was communication and customer service, followed by vision and approach, and then

repairs. Interestingly, there were some differences between tenants, leaseholders and staff with staff

prioritising vision and approach and tenants putting repairs higher up their list than others. This is likely to

reflect resident opinions on what is a more pressing matter with a more personal impact on them.

In the second sessions work was undertaken on the vision for the new service and, although a single, unifying

vision was not crafted, the following elements represent some of the most significant outputs from the

groups:

• Creating an accountable and responsive service that meets the ways people want to live their lives.

• Housing is a journey, not just bricks and mortar. Residents need help at different stages of their lives.

• Strong communities, involving young people, encouraging the right behaviours and enabling residents

to do more for themselves.

• Help encourage those that don’t engage, create community and the spaces where residents can

interact and create belonging.

• Build more housing – property for those in need is a priority.

• Ensure staff have the right tools to do the job and are empowered to work effectively, giving a better-

quality service, though recognise the right culture drives everything and that housing matters often

rely on other areas of the council to be responsive.

Perhaps the most valuable and transformational contribution from the collaborative design sessions was a

significant change in how staff and residents were able to begin working together. The first group, in

10

3

5

9

6 65

1 2

45

1

8

6 6

3

10

6

23

10

13

16

21

13

COMMUNICATION AND CUSTOMER

SERVICE

DECISION MAKING, COMMUNITY AND

ENGAGEMENT

ONLINE, DIGITAL, WEBSITE

REPAIRS VISION AND APPROACH

CULTURE AND MOTIVATION

Collaborative Design Priorisation Excercise

Tenants Leaseholders Staff All

Annex 1


particular, started in session one with a typical sense ‘us and them’ and some quite overt cynicism and

frustration being expressed by residents. However, by the second session something profound changed in the

room and it became apparent that residents and staff share the same frustrations with the current housing

service and ambition for it to improve. It became clear that staff and residents share the same passion to

make things better and a desire to do things differently. Participants were able to step out of their usual roles

and work together in a more constructive way for the greater good. The culture of working achieved through

the sessions was so transformative that staff reported much conversation and a ‘buzz’ about the change

spreading amongst the housing service staff in the week that followed. A lot of hope was expressed by both

staff and residents at the end of the collaborative design sessions and a strong desire that collaborative

working should continue as the new housing model develops and the work in different themes gets more

detailed. It was also noted that change in how staff and residents can work together needs spreading through

communication of the narrative and broadening through more people being involved in the process. Much

can be taken from these sessions to help shape future approaches to communications and engagement. The

principle of ‘we’re all on the same side’, and the council being honest about limitations and collaborative

about finding solutions offers a steer for how work processes should evolve and messages framed. The

feelings of staff and residents who took part are typified by the following quotes:

‘It’s a desire for staff to deliver a good service – as much as it is for residents to receive it.’

Member of housing service staff

‘I’ve been thrilled that there are so many people here, so many backgrounds, I’ve heard some viewpoints I’ve

never heard. The whole thing has been a joy. If we don’t carry this group forward we will have lost something.

Its valuable and useful. All of us should be invited to next stage’ Resident

The final stage of the collaborative design took place at Kingston’s Housing Strategy Conference on 22nd

February 2018. Here we tested the headline findings from this work in two workshop groups asking them to

respond to the findings and share priorities for change for the new housing model. There were some

interesting points made which can be summarised as follows:

• The collaboration between staff and residents has been a positive surprise, with both sides encouraged to see barriers broken down and sharing the priority to improve the service.

• Improved communication is a high priority.

• Surprise among attendees that there is such a high level of support for online services.

• Would be good to have digital workshops at day centres for older residents.

• Discussion about ways that residents can help one another to better access online services, and the benefits of this for all.

• The digital programme developed by RHP was very well received and showed what is possible.

• Priority for older people to keep the Council as landlord.

• How can residents get more people to engage, especially if they want to see change?

• The Council needs to clarify what they can provide for residents, and what should be residents’ responsibility.

• If people are enabled and empowered then the perception of a paternalistic Council, where everything is done for you, may begin to change.

A graphic recorder was commissioned to capture the feedback from the conference overall and consolidated

graphic from that work appears below.

Annex 1

Annex 1

5 Conclusions Across the whole engagement process we see generally less positive responses within the statutory

consultation than the outreach. Although the s105 survey was sent to every tenant and leaseholder

household it still required people to decide and make an effort to respond, unlike the outreach interviews

where they were approached in the street and effectively needed to decide to opt out. It could be argued that

the self-selecting respondents to the statutory consultation appear to have been more motivated by negative

experience – if, as we believe they are, the outreach interviews are broadly representative of residents. It

would seem that the older cohort are somewhat more negative perhaps because they have longer memories

of a housing service that they may feel is not what it was or of previous attempts to deliver change.

5.1 Satisfaction with the housing service In general people are fairly happy with the Council’s housing service. Around half of tenants and leaseholders

expressed a positive view of the housing service, compared with around one quarter who expressed a

negative one. Nonetheless with around one in four residents dissatisfied with the housing service and lower

levels of satisfaction than comparable providers there is clearly scope for improvements to be made.

Leaseholders tend to be particularly unhappy with the current housing service. This was particularly evident in

the statutory consultation (where 45% of leaseholders were unhappy), but even among the street interviews

there were still around one in five (18%) who were ‘not very’ or ‘not at all’ satisfied. Take together the level of

discontent among leaseholders is substantial and is something that the Council needs to address. The

qualitative work we undertook suggested that, as well as facing many of the challenges tenants face,

leaseholders are further frustrated by the significant contributions they are required to make to shared

repairs and refurbishments and in particular, being unable to get hold of timely or accurate information about

these.

Negative experiences of attempting to access the housing service online appear to be strongly correlated with

negative perceptions of the housing service more generally. Whilst this does not prove causality, it does

suggest the Council’s digital offer is closely linked to perceptions of the housing service overall. Even if we

cannot be sure about causality, it is highly plausible that poor online experience leads to, or compounds,

negative perceptions of the housing service and that an improved digital offer would be likely to improve

overall levels of satisfaction with the housing service.

Comments from leaseholders confirm the connection between a poor online experience and their overall

perceptions of the housing service, coupled with poor customer service. These are two areas that need to be

improved if perceptions of the housing service are to improve and the ambitions of the new housing model

are to be met.

“Happy to do everything online but at present the council is slow to, or does not, reply to emails.

The repair/ maintenance request website is poor; no reply or contact is generated, no work done“

Leaseholder, statutory consultation response

“The website is very poorly laid out - difficult to navigate - lots of errors”

Leaseholder, statutory consultation response

Annex 1


5.2 Six priority areas There was broad support for the six priority areas of the new housing model among tenants and leaseholders.

However, a quarter of statutory consultation responses neither agreed nor disagreed, which was considerably

higher than the 16% among those interviewed on the street. If we assume – as seems reasonable - that those

responding to the statutory consultation are likely to be more familiar and engaged with the housing service

than those randomly interviewed on the street; this suggests that greater awareness is associated with higher

levels of uncertainty about the priority areas or perhaps higher levels of cynicism.

Whilst the level of agreement over the priority areas is generally high, this might be caused by perceptions of

the six priority areas as being universally appealing – setting out broad aspirations that very few people would

be expected to disagree with. What this finding doesn’t tell us therefore is whether people feel some

priorities are more important than others and, in the absence of any great detail about precisely what they

might mean in practice for residents, whether their practical implications have (or would have) any bearing on

attitudes.

More detail is required on each of the strands and what they mean in practice in order for residents to engage

more meaningfully with them. They need to be able to understand what the implications of one priority might

be on another. Is it realistic for all six priorities to be realised? Or does there need to be some sort of trade-

off? Certainly a degree of prioritisation will be necessary, as well as considering carefully how the priorities

relate to each other and can be planned to operate in complementary and coherent ways. Whilst it is entirely

reasonable to present some high level ambitions for discussion, there now needs to be a more focussed

discussion on what they mean in practice.

Disabled people appear more positive about the 6 priority areas – perhaps as a result of the emphasis on

providing additional support to those who need it most (which might be expected to include disabled people).

Among s105 respondents, those who had not accessed online services were more positive about the priority

areas than those who had (which is consistent with the more pessimistic outlook among those with

experience of accessing the Housing Service online). However these findings are much less pronounced within

the outreach data.

5.3 Housing service online With only around one-third of people having tried to use the online service, there is clearly an opportunity for

the Council to significantly increase this figure. Since people were asked only whether they had tried to use

the housing service online, not whether they had done so or whether they did so on a regular basis, we can

assume that the actual proportion of regular users is far lower than the proportion of residents who said they

had tried to use the online services. It is probable that a number of those who said they had tried to use the

website may have had a poor experience and failed to do so, or used it only occasionally. In practice the

actual number of respondents regularly using online services is likely to be significantly lower than this

headline figure.

We may speculate that having negative views about the housing service could be a stimulus to respond to the

consultation, which would result in more negative responses among the s105 data than from the outreach.

However the fact that we still find such a significant proportion of negative online experiences among the

outreach interviewees suggests this bias cannot account for the entirety of the finding and that there is a

need to improve the digital offer and service.

Annex 1


Leaseholders are more likely to have attempted to use online housing services than tenants. Whilst this

difference is quite small among the outreach data, it is rather more pronounced within responses to the

statutory consultation. Leaseholders were significantly more likely than tenants to have used online services

and to have had a poor experience within the statutory consultation. Since the s105 sample contained

significantly more leaseholders than the street interviews, these figures suggest there may be a particular

issue among leaseholders and their online experience. The figures also support the hypothesis that higher

online use is correlated with more negative perceptions.

Men - across both the statutory consultation and the outreach - are around twice as likely as women to report

having a ‘very good’ experience of accessing the housing service online. A gender gap of this size is sufficient

to require further consideration both in understanding it and in how to address it.

Disabled people and those with impairments appear to have quite different experiences of using the council’s

website to those without disabilities. It is not immediately apparent what the reason for this is, however it

may relate to particular support or accessibility needs that disabled people might have and whether these are

currently being met or not.

Data on employment status shows that retired people and students were significantly less likely to have

accessed the housing service online compared with other groups. These findings appear to be closely aligned

to age – where older and younger residents were least likely to access online services. There is considerable

evidence of lower levels of digital literacy and use among older people, so we should not be particularly

surprised to find such a variation among retired people. Nonetheless, this presents a significant challenge to

realising the new housing model, both in terms of supporting more vulnerable residents and more emphasis

on digital services. Students (particularly those living at home with parents or carers) might reasonably be

expected to have less reason to access housing services online, which could explain their lower levels of use.

This may be considered to pose less of a risk to the new housing model and therefore not a significant

concern, although it will of course be important to ensure that young people feel they have the opportunity

to access housing services and shape the new model.

Whilst we might expect younger and older people to be least likely to access online housing services, it is

significant that those aged 25-64 had the most negative experience reported. This is the age range most likely

to use the council’s website to access the housing service and it is telling that they report having had the most

negative experience.

The fact that people say they don’t use the online housing service because they ‘prefer to speak to someone’

suggests that the barriers to online use are not technical (i.e. knowing how to do it) but more to do with

confidence in the service. Speaking to someone is likely to provide reassurance that a digital solution does

not. This is particularly pertinent if there are any doubts in residents’ minds that their issue will be dealt with

efficiently online. Common complaints about a lack of responsiveness and the fact that inquiries directed via

email or through the website are not dealt with means people are driven to seek solutions that involve direct

human contact. Whilst there are likely to be technical and functional improvements to the website that are

required, on their own these are unlikely to be effective at encouraging channel shift. Improvements to

customer service and the handling of enquiries, complaints and service requests handled online are likely to

be essential in encouraging behaviour change and channel shift to online services. However, ultimately

channel shift will require a behavioural solution rather than simply a technical one if it is to be effective as

ingrained habits, based on previous (negative) experience will need to be changed. Evidence from behavioural

Annex 1


science tells us that rationale arguments and ‘winning hearts and minds’ is likely to be far less effective than

small repeated changes in behaviour that become habit forming.

Whilst a lack of awareness was evident, with a number of respondents saying they did not know it was

possible to access these services online, it was clearly less significant than an expressed preference for

speaking to someone than use the website. Functionality and design issues (‘too time consuming’ and ‘don’t

like the website’) were of far less significance to the majority of respondents. Similarly a lack of internet

access was only an issue for a small number of people. However this appears to be somewhat at odds with

the findings when people were asked what would encourage them to access housing services online, where

we find a clear preference for technical/functional solutions (‘if it was easy to use’ and ‘if it worked well’).

However, there is often a considerable gap between what people think would encourage them to change

their behaviour and what is actually effective at encouraging behaviour change. It is worth noting that

evidence from behavioural economics has demonstrated that despite our best intentions, people are

generally not very good at predicting what would make them behave differently5.

The prospect of saving the council money was not perceived as a strong incentive for accessing housing

services online. However considerable evidence from behavioural science has demonstrated the effectiveness

of intrinsic incentives6 (such as the desire to save money and protect public services) as a positive influence on

behaviour.

‘If the matter was resolved more quickly’ was also a strong motivation for online access, which is consistent

with wider perceptions that the council does not consistently deliver in a sufficiently timely or efficient

manner.

The most frequently cited solution to help people overcome barriers to online use – ‘someone to talk to if I

get stuck’ – could provide insight that could be used to design a solution to the challenge of encouraging

channel shift that overcomes the preference to speak to someone. It may be possible to offer the reassurance

of being able to speak to someone if they ‘get stuck’ but encourage them to try online first. This would need

to be coupled with a better customer experience – both in the online user experience and in the

delivery/response to inquiries or service requests.

People’s current online activity provides some valuable insight into existing behaviours - which should be a

good predictor of potential take up of council services. Online banking and paying bills were the most

frequent responses, followed by finding answers to questions/issues. Since some of the most common current

online activity directly relates to specific online housing services (e.g. finding answers and paying bills), this

provides a clear rationale for where the initial focus should be on improving online service.

5.4 Partnership exploration Some interesting variations emerge when we look at employment status and whether the council should

explore a partnership, with those seeking employment and those caring for family or the house being

significantly more positive about exploring a partnership than those in part time and full time employment.

72% of unemployed respondents said the Council should ‘definitely’ explore partnership working, compared

1 5 See for example, ‘On the psychology of self-prediction’, Poon, Koehler & Buehler, Judgment and Decision Making, Vol. 9, (May 2014)

6 See https://www.local.gov.uk/using-behavioural-insights-encourage-channel-shift-among-blue-badge-holders-essex-county-council

Annex 1

http://journal.sjdm.org/vol9.3.html

http://journal.sjdm.org/vol9.3.html

https://www.local.gov.uk/using-behavioural-insights-encourage-channel-shift-among-blue-badge-holders-essex-county-council

https://www.local.gov.uk/using-behavioural-insights-encourage-channel-shift-among-blue-badge-holders-essex-county-council


with 52% of those in full time work and just 48% of those in part time jobs. 11% of retired respondents were

of the view that the Council should ‘definitely not’ explore partnership working – considerably more than any

other group.

One explanation of these differences is that retired people are, in general, more nervous about change than

younger residents. It may be that unemployed people seeking work are more likely to be dissatisfied with

their current situation and therefore more keen on change, whilst those in work (full time and part time) are

more likely to be happy with the status quo.

The differences according to employment status may be principally a factor of age. As we can see, among

street interviews, older people, particularly those aged 65-74, but also those aged 75 and over, were more

likely to oppose the exploration of partnership working than younger respondents. Whilst this opposition to

the proposal was not evident within the s105 responses, those over 75 were far less likely to be supportive of

the idea, with 52% saying they thought the Council should explore a partnership, compared with 68% of those

from all other age ranges.

5.5 Implications for communications and engagement approaches This review has provided a range of opportunities to learn more about the specific areas in which the housing

service can be improved but also about the ways in which the offer can be framed and stakeholders engaged.

The differing opinions and experiences of tenants and leaseholders, and the variations expressed between the

different profiles of respondents, emphasise the need to segment communications effectively – one size does

not fit all, and blanket approaches to communication can perpetuate a sense that council outreach is not

relevant or just wasteful.

The collaborative design sessions, in particular, highlighted a somewhat ‘adversarial’ relationship between

residents and council staff and a ‘weariness’ of ‘yet more initiatives’ – something that was improved by

approaches that help demonstrate that staff and residents are ‘on the same side’ and sharing the desire to

resolve problems and create a better service. Such ‘framing’ of the council position is likely to be welcomed if

used more widely.

Behavioural insights theory allows us to understand more about people’s views, motivations and influences.

This research has enabled us to learn more about what residents think about housing services but also to

understand more about why they hold certain opinions and, in some instances, what lies beneath them.

A collective desire to improve community and environment is important to many residents but such a

message may be more effective if its relevance is seen demonstrated in the immediate locality. In practice this

would suggest phrasing such as ‘Improving the environment in your <named> road/estate’, as opposed to

‘improving the environment in Kingston’ more generally. It may also be possible to explore the use of

localised social norms to help improve community vision and cohesion, using similar approaches.

Throughout this research we experienced considerable frustration about ‘lack of communication’ or ‘lack of

timely response’. Whilst some of these issues may be addressed by digital improvements (such as the ability

to track repairs or view personal accounts online) others may benefit from a ‘you said, we did’ approach,

enabling people to see how their feedback has prompted action by the council. Whilst some lamented the

demise of newsletters, other channels such as online forums and a more dynamic website may go some way

to provide new and improved channels of communication.

Annex 1


5.6 Working Together to Build the New Model The qualitative research demonstrated a desire to protect what people now have. A number of resident

participants expressed a fear that council housing stock is subject to underinvestment and some wanted to

hear the Council make a new commitment to social housing. For some in housing need, the disparity

between supply and demand might mean that they will not benefit from a significant part of the housing offer

for generations to come. Whilst this may be partly addressed by creating a strong (and shared) vision for the

future, it is also worth reflecting that some residents feel threatened by what they perceive to be changing or

diminishing services. This is something felt more acutely by those whose health or circumstance may mean

they feel more vulnerable. A more segmented approach to communication and outreach, informed by this

understanding, will assist the council in bringing more people with them.

The stakeholder interviews, focus groups and collaborative design process highlighted much frustration on

the part of tenants and leaseholders regarding how the housing service operates now. Significant attempts in

the past to change the service (stock transfer, community housing trust) have led to a sense of mistrust of the

council. Many service areas were highlighted as lacking, in particular, the repairs service but also customer

service, leasehold information, website and digital offering, sheltered housing support, and support for those

in housing need. Better customer service and communication was the top priority that emerged from the

collaborative design process though this will require both a change in the culture and response of those

dealing with frontline queries, alongside improvements to the systems that support them to undertake their

role. It was telling that the collaborative design sessions drew out both a shared sense of frustration amongst

staff and residents regarding how the service operates now and how things have been, alongside a shared

ambition for change and improvement. With Kingston’s residents also showing a considerable sense of civic

pride and collective responsibility with 9 out of 10 street interviewees agreeing they feel people have a

responsibility to improve their community and local area, there is considerable scope to engage many more in

the change.

These early signs of hope and willingness to work together alongside qualified support for the new housing

model and the proposal to partner with a not for profit provider suggest that Kingston has begun to the create

the conditions for future collaboration between staff and residents in building a new housing model that is

sustainable and fit for purpose.

Annex 1


Appendix 1 – Research Framework

GENERAL RESEARCH AREAS S105 CO SFG FG SI O DR CD

What appetite is there for a new approach to housing in RBK where more housing services are offered and accessed online and how can tenants and leaseholders be supported to shift channel?

How could the housing service be improved including being more efficient and less bureaucratic?

How can the council more effectively identify those who need additional support?

What sort of relationship do tenants and leaseholders want to have with council in the future?

What messages and engagement approaches can best be deployed to support tenants and leaseholders to engage with the new housing model and shift channels? What will help achieve buy in and allay fears?

PRIMARY QUESTIONS S105 CO SFG FG SI O DR CD

To what extent does the community agree that encouraging a move to more housing services being accessed online is the right approach?

To what extent does the community agree that the 6 areas for the proposed new housing model are the right priorities to focus on?

What support would tenants and leaseholders need to be able to access housing services online?

What ideas do tenants and leaseholders have for making the housing service generally more effective so that it better meets their needs while also being more efficient?

What do community members think about the idea of Kingston exploring more innovative models for delivery such as working in partnership with other housing providers/not for profit organisations?

How can the council better meet the needs of vulnerable tenants, such as older people, and people with mental health issues?

Annex 1


SECONDARY QUESTIONS S105 CO SFG FG SI O DR CD

Have people tried before to access housing services online, and if so what was their experience

What are the perceived barriers to accessing housing services online?

What would motivate people to access housing services online?

What interest is there among tenants in being involved in further discussion and helping to shape the future of housing services?

How can the council help vulnerable people to sustain their tenancies and lead independent lives?

S105= Section 105 consultation CO = Community Outreach SFG = Street Focus Group FG = Focus Group SI = Stakeholder Interview O = Online Consultation DR = Desk Research CD = Co-Design

Annex 1


Appendix 2 – Stakeholder List

Name Role

Councillor Cathy Roberts Portfolio Holder, Adults, Social Care and Health

Councillor Liz Green Leader of the Opposition, Opposition Spokesperson: Treasury

Councillor Margaret Thompson Opposition Spokesperson: Adults Social Care and Health

Councillor Linsey Cottington Leader of the Labour Group

Tom Bremner Lead Housing Consultant

Stephen Taylor Director of Adult Social Services

Libby Goodsearls Leaseholder Representative on the Housing Sub-Committee

Charlie Aden Chief Executive Officer

Councillor Maria Netley Lead Member Adults, Social Care and Health

5 residents From KRISP and residents associations

Annex 1


Appendix 3 – Who we spoke to – additional demographic data and charts




0

200

400

600

Live Work Study

Connection to the area

65.5%

10.0% 10.8%4.9%

0.8% 2.3%5.7%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

RBK Tenant RBK Leaseholder Owned/mortgage Rent Live in homebought from RBK

HousingAssociation

Other

Housing tenure

21.0%

76.7%

2.3%0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Kingston Councilleaseholder

Kingston Counciltenant

Other

Housing tenure

Annex 1


56.8%

43.2%

0%

20%

40%

60%

Female Male

Gender

Gender (2011 Census figures)

Male 49.30%

Female 50.70%





55.4%

44.6%

0%

20%

40%

60%

Female Male

Gender

4.9% 1.1%

94.0%

0%

50%

100%

I'd prefer not to say No Yes

Is your gender identity the same as the gender you were

assigned at birth?

23.9%

15.0%18.9%

13.0%9.1%

11.7%

5.7%2.6%

0%5%

10%15%20%25%30%

F/T work P/T work Retired Unemployed Studying Lookingafter

children /home

Other Prefer not tosay

Employment status

Annex 1



9.9%

13.6%10.9%

12.8%

21.5%

31.2%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

<1 year 1-3 years 4-6 years 7-10 years 11-20 years 21+ years

Length of connection to the area

Annex 1

Appendix 4 - Detailed survey findings Residents overwhelmingly feel positive about Kingston as a place to live and work. When asked to rate the

area on a scale of 1 (terrible) to 10 (great) the average score was 7.1 out of 10 and the most common answer

given was 8. Only 5% of residents gave a score of 3 or less and 78% of respondents gave a score of 6 or above.


Kingston’s residents also show a considerable sense of civic pride and collective responsibility with well over half (58%) saying the feel people have a responsibility to improve their community and local area ‘very much so’. In total 9 out of 10 respondents agreed, with only one in fifty (2%) saying they did not agree ‘at all’.


Satisfaction with the Housing Service People are broadly satisfied with the Council’s housing service, with just under half (47%) of those

interviewed on the street and just over half (56%) of those responding to the statutory consultation stating

that they were either ‘quite satisfied’ or ‘very satisfied’. However, despite the generally positive response,

there is still considerable scope to improve with just over a quarter of respondents (27% outreach and 29%

s105) saying they were dissatisfied (‘not very’ or ‘not at all’ satisfied).

Overall, those responding to the statutory (S105) consultation were more likely to express a firm opinion of

the housing service than those surveyed on the street, with a greater proportion of respondents who were

0%

10%

20%

30%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

How positive a place do you think this area is to live/work?

(1=terrible, 10= great)

57.5%

32.7%

6.6%2.4% 0.9%

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%

Very much so To someextent

Not much Not at all Don't havean opinion

People have a responsibility to improve their community

Annex 1


both more satisfied and less satisfied. Those interviewed in the street were more likely to say they were

neither satisfied nor dissatisfied with the housing service.



We combine positive responses (‘very’ and ‘quite’) and negative responses (‘not very’ and ‘not at all’) to

generate net results. Alongside the more detailed breakdown of perceptions, these demonstrate the broad

sentiment among residents in satisfaction with the housing service.

15.4%

31.6%

25.6%

16.7%

10.6%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

Very Quite Neither/nor Not very Not at all

Satisfaction with the Housing Service

21.0%

34.5%

15.7%19.7%

9.1%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%


Satisfaction with the Housing Service

Annex 1




Does satisfaction with the Housing Service vary between different groups? We looked to see whether different groups had different levels of satisfaction with the housing service in

order to better understand how the service is felt to be performing. This analysis can also help to determine

whether targeted improvements might be made to address lower satisfaction among particular groups.

Disabled people We found little difference in satisfaction levels between disabled people and those without disabilities, both

across the street interviews and the statutory consultation respondents, although disabled people were

slightly more likely to be very satisfied with the housing service. Among those interviewed on the street

disabled respondents were more likely to have stronger views – being slightly more likely to be ‘very satisfied’

and ‘not at all satisfied’ than those without disabilities. Among statutory consultation respondents (which

included a particularly high proportion of disabled people) this difference is less pronounced, beyond those

who were ‘very satisfied’ with the housing service.

47.6%

25.7% 26.6%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Positive Neutral Negative

Net satisfaction (tenants and leaseholders)

55.6%

15.7%

28.8%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%


Net satisfaction

Annex 1




Gender We find that men are slightly more likely to be ‘very satisfied’ with the housing service than women, but

slightly less likely to be ‘quite satisfied’. Overall however around half of men and women expressed positive

levels of satisfaction with the housing service – one exception to this was among men interviewed on the

street, where only around 40% said they were satisfied. This difference is the result of higher proportion of

men who are neither satisfied nor dissatisfied with the housing service, as among street interviews there is

little difference between men and women in the proportion of dissatisfied respondents. Among statutory

consultation respondents, men appear more likely to have more extreme views than women as they are more

likely to be both ‘very satisfied’ and ‘very dissatisfied’.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%


Satisfaction with the Housing Service(disability)


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%


Satisfaction with the Housing Service(disability)

Disability No disability

Annex 1




Housing Tenure When we look at differences in satisfaction according to housing tenure, we can see some differences emerge

between leaseholders and tenants, but also in the responses from the statutory consultation and the street

interviews.

The outreach work engaged with people across a range of tenures, whereas the S105 responses were almost

exclusively from tenants and leaseholders. Even so the number of responses from people who were not

Kingston tenants or leaseholders was (with the exception of owner occupiers) very small and the views from

these groups may therefore not be particularly representative.

Among those interviewed on the street, we find that overall leaseholders are generally slightly more satisfied

with the housing service than tenants (though slightly less likely to be ‘very satisfied’) and significantly less

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%


Satisfaction with the Housing Service(gender)

Female Male

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%


Satisfaction with the Housing Service(gender)

Female Male

Annex 1


likely to ‘not at all satisfied’. More than one in ten (11%) tenants said they were ‘not at all satisfied’ with the

housing service.

However among respondents to the statutory consultation the findings are quite different, with leaseholders

significantly less satisfied than tenants. Only 7% of leaseholders say they are ‘very satisfied’ with the housing

service, compared with 25% of tenants and whilst 62% of tenants expressed positive views (‘very satisfied’

and ‘quite satisfied’) of the service, only 32% of leaseholders did so. Conversely leaseholders were three times

as likely as tenants to say they were ‘not at all’ satisfied (17% compared to 6%) and 45% of leaseholders

expressed dissatisfaction (‘not at all’ and ‘not very’) with the housing service overall.


When we look at just responses from tenants and leaseholders:


0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


Satisfaction with the Housing Service(housing tenure)

Tenant Leaseholder Owned Rent HA Bought from RBK Other

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%


Satisfaction with the Housing Service(tenants and leaseholders)

Leaseholder Tenant

Annex 1



Ethnicity While the general trend – of residents being broadly satisfied with the housing service – is fairly constant

across all ethnic groups among the outreach and statutory consultation, we find some variation in the level of

positivity between groups. Among those interviewed on the street, Asian respondents tend to be more

positive than other those from other ethnic groups, with two-thirds expressing a positive view of the housing

service. We see similar figures (of positive opinions from around two-thirds of respondents) across all major

ethnic groups among the s105 respondents, but somewhat less positive responses among the outreach

interviewees. This difference is most pronounced among Black/Black British respondents, who were the most

satisfied respondents in the s105 (with 65% ‘very satisfied’ or quite satisfied) but the least satisfied (36% ‘very

satisfied’ or ‘quite satisfied’) within the outreach responses.


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%


Satisfaction with the Housing Service (housing tenure)

Leaseholder Tenant

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

White English White Other Asian / AsianBritish

Black / BlackBritish

Mixed Arabic Other

Satisfaction with the Housing Service(ethnicity)

Very Quite Neither satisfied nor unsatisfied Not very Not at all

Annex 1



The following charts combine ‘very satisfied’ and ‘quite satisfied’ responses to produce an agggregated

positive and negative response figure, based on combining ‘not very’ and ‘not at all’ responses.


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

White English White other Asian / BritishAsian

Black/ BlackBritish

Mixed Arabic Other

Satisfaction with the Housing Service(ethnicity)

Very Quite Neither satisfied or unsatisfied Not very Not at all

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%

WhiteEnglish

Whiteother

Asian /BritishAsian

Black/Black

British

Mixed Arabic Other

Outreach


Annex 1



Employment status Employment status was only collected from the outreach interviews. We find little significant variation in

satisfaction between groups, though those currently seeking work are slightly more likely to have extreme

views – being slightly more likely to be ‘very satisfied’ and ‘not at all satisfied’ than other groups.


Age When looking at age, again we find some variation between the responses to the statutory consultation and

those interviewed on the street. Among those responding to the s105 consultation, younger residents tend to

be less satisfied than those aged 55 and older, whilst among those interviewed on the street respondents

aged 34 and younger tended to be slightly more satisfied. Among both the statutory consultation and the

outreach residents aged over 75 tended to be slightly more satisfied than all other age groups.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

WhiteEnglish

Whiteother

Asian /BritishAsian

Black/Black

British

Mixed Arabic Other

S105


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%


Satisfaction with the Housing Service(employment status)

F/T work P/T work Retired Carer / home maker Studying Unemployed Other

Annex 1




Online access We looked at whether having accessed housing services online was a predictor of satisfaction with the

housing service overall. Among those interviewed on the street we found no significant difference in

satisfaction between those who had accessed online services and those who had not. However among those

responding to the s105 consultation we found significantly lower levels of satisfaction among those who had

accessed the Council’s housing service online compared with those who had not. Whilst 29% of those that had

not used online housing services said they were ‘very satisfied’, only 12% of those who had used it were

similarly positive. Conversely, 12% of those who had used online housing services were ‘not at all satisfied’

compared with just 5% of those who had not done so. In total 40% of those responding to the statutory

consultation that had accessed online services expressed dissatisfaction with the housing service, compared

with 18% of those who had not used the website to access the housing service.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%


Satisfaction with the Housing Service(age)

>16 16-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75+

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Very Quite Neither / Nor Not very Not at all

Satisfaction with the Housing Service(age)

16 - 24 25 - 34 35 - 44 45 - 54 55 - 64 65 - 74 75+

Annex 1




Six priority areas The new housing model proposes six priority areas which the Council will focus on:

1. A new core housing offer - ‘A well maintained, affordable and settled home’

2. Digital by choice - an improved 24/7 digital offer for council tenants and leaseholders, but by choice

not compulsion.

3. Supporting those who need it - targeted services for our more vulnerable council tenants

4. Being upfront about what the council does and doesn’t do and what’s expected of residents

5. Reducing paperwork and bureaucracy - saving money on the council’s operating costs so we can

spend more on the things that matter

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%


Satisfaction with the Housing Service(online access)

No Yes

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%


Satisfaction with the Housing Service(online use)

No Yes

Annex 1


6. Investing in council housing - building more desperately needed new council homes and investing in

improving current homes

The six priority areas of the new housing model as set out in the consultation received strong support from

respondents – both through the statutory consultation and engaged in the street – with over two-thirds of

respondents (73% outreach and 68% s105) saying they ‘agree’ or ‘strongly agree’ that these were the right

priority areas. Only 6% of responses to the statutory consultation and 11% of the street surveys disagreed or

strongly disagreed that these were the right priority areas and only a tiny proportion (3% outreach and 2%

s105) ‘strongly disagreed’. A quarter of statutory consultation responses (26%) neither agreed nor disagreed,

which was considerably higher than the 16% among those interviewed on the street.



29.4%

43.7%

15.9%8.1%

2.9%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Strongly agree Agree Neither/nor Disagree Stronglydisagree

To what extent do you agree the six points are the right priority areas?

18.0%

50.0%

25.7%

4.5% 1.7%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%



Annex 1


Do views on the six priority areas vary between different groups?

Disabled people and those with health problems When we look at responses from disabled residents and those defining as having ‘health problems’, we can

see that they are slightly more positive about the six priority areas than other respondents, however there

was little difference overall in the widespread support for the priorities among both groups.



Housing tenure Opinions on the six priority areas are broadly consistent across leaseholders and tenants – though tenants

responding to the statutory consultation were more likely to be strongly supportive than leaseholders (21%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%



(disability)


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%



(disability)


Annex 1


compared with 11%). However within the outreach, tenants were more likely to disagree (9%) than

leaseholders (0%).



0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

Strongly agree Agree Neither/nor Disagree Strongly disagree


(housing tenure)


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%



(housing tenure)

Leaseholder Tenant

Annex 1



Ethnicity Opinions vary only slightly among the larger ethnic groups (White English, White other, Asian/Asian British

and Black/Black British). Among the street interviewees those from Black/Black British backgrounds are

slightly less positive about the priority areas, however this finding is reversed within the s105 responses,

where they are slightly more positive than those from the majority of other ethnic backgrounds. The

exception to this is responded from Asian/Asian British backgrounds who were equally positive about the

priority areas.


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%



(housing tenure)

Leaseholder Tenant

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%



(ethnicity)

White English White Other Asian / Asian British Black / Black British Mixed Arabic Other

Annex 1



Gender We find very little difference between the views of men and women across both the s105 surveys and

outreach interviews, although men were somewhat more likely to ‘strongly agree’ and women more likely to

‘agree’ among the statutory consultation responses. However the overall support for the priority areas was

equally clear among men and women.


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%



(ethnicity)

White English White other Asian / British Asian Black/ Black British Arabic Mixed Other

0%

20%

40%

60%



(gender)

Female Male

Annex 1



Age Among responses to the street interviews, we find that the most enthusiasm for the six priority areas comes

from the youngest and oldest respondents, with those in the middle less positive about the proposals. 90% of

respondents aged 75 and over expressed support for the six priorities, as do 75% of 16-24 year olds and 84%

of 25-34 year olds. Although 100% of responses from those under 16 strongly agreed with the priority areas,

there were only 4 young people who completed the street interviews and so these figures cannot be regarded

as particularly reliable. Those aged 35-64 are generally less positive, with 64% of those aged 55-64 and 63% of

those aged 65-74 expressing support for the priorities. By contrast 16% of those aged 35-74 expressed

disagreement with the priority areas compared to just 2% of those aged under 35 and over 75.

These findings are not repeated among the S105 responses where there is greater consistency across age

ranges.


0%

20%

40%

60%



(gender)

Female Male

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%



(age)

>16 16-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75+

Annex 1



Employment status Whilst we can observe some variations in response across employment status, there appears to be no

particular pattern to this and the overall proportion of those expressing positive or negative views is fairly

constant, with positive views expressed by around three-quarters of all groups. The exception to this was

‘other’ where only two thirds (67%) expressed a positive view; however this was the smallest group within the

sample and as a catch-all group cannot really be regarded as a coherent cohort.


0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


To what extent do you agree the six points are the right priority areas

16 - 24 25 - 34 35 - 44 45 - 54 55 - 64 65 - 74 75+

0%

20%

40%

60%



(employment status)


Annex 1


Online use Among s105 respondents, those who had not accessed online services were more positive about the priority

areas than those who had (a finding which appears to be consistent with a generally more pessimistic outlook

among those with experience of accessing the Housing Service online as mentioned previously). However

these findings are much less pronounced within the outreach data.



Exploring partnership When asked whether the council should explore the opportunity to enter into a partnership with a not-for-

profit organisation in order to improve the housing service, we see a major variation in responses from the

statutory consultation and people engaged on the street through our outreach work. Whilst the street

interviewees were overwhelmingly supportive of this approach – with 59% saying they ‘definitely’ thought the

council should explore it, fewer than a quarter (24%) of s105 respondents were so definitive in their views. 8%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%



(online use)

No Yes

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%



(online use)

No Yes

Annex 1


of those responding to the consultation felt the council should ‘definitely not’ explore such a partnership,

twice as many as from the outreach.

We also see a much higher proportion of uncertain respondents from the statutory consultation with over a

quarter (27%) saying they were ‘not sure’ compared with just 11% from the street interviews.



Do views on whether Kingston should enter into a partnership to improve the housing service differ among different groups? Next we looked at whether views of whether the council should enter into a partnership with a not for profit

organisation to improve the housing service differed according to gender, housing tenure, age, ethnicity,

disability and online use. Overall the idea received strong support, so we were particularly keen to understand

whether particular groups were less enthusiastic about the proposal.

59.1%

24.9%10.6%

1.7% 3.7%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

DefinitelyYes

Possibly Yes Not sure Possibly Not DefinitelyNot

Should the council explore partnership working to improve

the housing service?

23.4%

41.3%

27.3%

8.0%

0%

20%

40%

60%

Definitely yes Possibly yes Not sure Definitely not

Should the council explore partnership working to improve

the housing service?

Annex 1


Housing tenure We find very little difference in responses to the idea of exploring a partnership between tenants and

leaseholders across both the outreach and the s105 consultation, although home owners do seem slightly less

keen on the idea (albeit from a fairly small sample).



0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

Definitely Yes Possibly Yes Not sure Possibly Not Definitely Not

Should the council explore partnership working to improve the housing service?

(housing tenure)


0%

20%

40%

60%

80%



(housing tenure)

Tenant Leaseholder

Annex 1



Ethnicity Differences of opinion are relatively slight between ethnic groups, with Asian/Asian British respondents to the

s105 consultation slightly more positive about exploring a partnership. However among those interviewed in

the street, we find no significant difference between people from different ethnic groups.


0%

20%

40%

60%

80%



(housing tenure)

Leaseholder Tenant

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%



(ethnicity)


Annex 1



Gender The differences views expressed by men and women to the question of partnership exploration are also very

similar, though within the outreach data men are very slightly more positive than women. 86% of men

responded positively to the proposal compared with 81% of women. Within the s105 responses, men

expressed slightly more polarised views than women – with men slightly more likely to say a partnership

should ‘definitely’ or ‘definitely not’ be explored, whilst women were somewhat more circumspect in their

responses.


0%

20%

40%

60%

80%


Should the council explore partnership working to improve the housing service


0%

20%

40%

60%

80%



(gender)

Female Male

Annex 1



Disabled people and those with health problems Disabled residents or those with health problems were slightly more likely to feel that the council should

‘definitely not’ explore a partnership across both the s105 consultation and outreach, although the

differences were quite small and both groups were broadly supportive. Within the street interviews however,

those identifying as disabled or with a health problem were somewhat more likely to strongly support the

idea, with 68% saying the council should ‘definitely’ explore the partnership, compared with 58% of those

without a disability.


0%

20%

40%

60%

80%



(gender)

Female Male

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%



(disability)


Annex 1



Employment status Some interesting variations emerge when we look at employment status, with those seeking employment and

those caring for family or the house being significantly more positive about exploring a partnership than those

in part time and full time employment. 72% of unemployed respondents said the Council should ‘definitely’

explore partnership working, compared with 52% of those in full time work and just 48% of those in part time

jobs. 11% of retired respondents were of the view that the Council should ‘definitely not’ explore partnership

working – considerably more than any other group.


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%



(disability)


0%

20%

40%

60%

80%



(employment status)


Annex 1


Age Among those interviewed in the street, older people (particularly those aged 65-74, but also those aged 75

and over), were more likely to oppose the exploration of partnership working than younger respondents.

Whilst this opposition to the proposal was not evident within the s105 responses, those over 75 were far less

likely to be supportive of the idea, with 52% saying they thought the council should explore a partnership,

compared with 68% of those from all other age ranges.



Online use Whether respondents had accessed the housing service online made little difference to views on whether the

council should explore partnership working among outreach data. Among those who had accessed the

housing service online 84% expressed support for the idea, an identical figure to those who had not use the

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%



(age)

>16 16-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75+

0%

20%

40%

60%



(age)

16 - 24 25 - 34 35 - 44 45 - 54 55 - 64 65 - 74 75+

Annex 1


website. Although the figures were lower among responses to the statutory consultation, there was still little

variation between online users supporting the proposal (67%) and those who had not accessed online services

(63%).



Housing service online Just over one-third of people said that they had tried to access the Council’s housing service online among the

outreach respondents (35%), however this figure rose to nearly half (48%) among the statutory consultation

respondents.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%



(online use)

No Yes

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%



(online use)

No Yes

Annex 1




Among those who had accessed the council website to access the housing service, people’s experience was

not particularly positive. Only around one in ten residents described their experience as ‘very good’ and whilst

35% (outreach) and 26% (s105) respondents said their experience was ‘good’ there were still a majority who

did not describe their experience as positive.

14% of those interviewed in the street and 24% of statutory consultation respondents described their

experience as ‘very poor’ – a figure far higher than might be hoped for. In the s105 consultation nearly half of

respondents (46%) said they’d had a poor experience of using the housing service online – which should be a

cause for concern. Among the street interviews we see a smaller proportion with a poor experience but even

this is still almost a quarter of (24%) respondents.

“Happy to do everything online but at present the council is slow to, or does not, reply to emails.

The repair/ maintenance request website is poor; no reply or contact is generated, no work done.“

Leaseholder S105 response

“Most times we email the council about any concerns they reply but do NOT act on it. I would be nice as

Leaseholders are listened to as we pay a lot of service charges”


64.9%

35.1%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

No Yes

Have you accessed the housing service online?

51.6% 48.4%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

No Yes


Annex 1


“In my experience I have never had any problem resolved on my first contact with RBK, it always takes 3 or 4

attempts to get anything resolved. During this time generally if I speak to 3 different people I will get 3 totally

different answers and a lack of interest and willingness to help, sometimes I’m made to feel like I’m a nuisance

just because I’m trying to services carried out which I’m paying for. “


“The website is very poorly laid out - difficult to navigate - lots of errors”




Further detail on online use Our outreach and street interviews allowed us to investigate online use in more detail – both the experience

and views of using the council’s housing service online and to better understand their online activity more

broadly.

10.4%

35.0%30.7%

10.4%13.5%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

Very good Good Neither/nor Poor Very poor

Experience of housing service online

9.0%

26.0%

19.4% 21.5% 24.0%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%



Annex 1


By far the most common reason why people don’t use the housing service online was that people preferred to

speak to someone about their issue. 75 respondents gave this as a reason for not using the website – almost

twice as many as the next most frequent response (‘I didn’t know it was possible’ which was given by 41

people). Whilst a lack of awareness was evident, with a number of respondents saying they did not know it

was possible to access these services online, it was clearly less significant than an expressed preference to

speak to someone than use the website. Functionality and design issues (‘too time consuming’ and ‘don’t like

the website’) were of far less significance to the majority of respondents. Similarly a lack of internet access

was only an issue for a small number of people.



When asked about the barriers to online use, again we find that people are keen to talk to someone, which is

by far the most frequent response. Whilst internet access and the council website being poor are more

common answers than were given as reasons for not using the housing service online, they were still far less

common than the desire to speak in person to someone (whether face to face or over the phone).

24.7%

13.3%

45.2%

9.6% 9.0%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Didn't knowpossible

No internetaccess

Prefer tospeak

Too timeconsuming

Don't like thewebsite

Reasons for not using housing service online

24.7%

13.3%

45.2%

9.6% 9.0%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Didn't knowpossible

No internetaccess

Prefer tospeak

Too timeconsuming

Don't like thewebsite

Reasons for not using housing service online

Annex 1




It is abundantly clear that people feel there is no reason for services not to be available online, with the vast

majority of respondents saying they felt all services should be online. In fact among the outreach interviews

considerably more people selected ‘all services’ (70%) than every other answer combined (52%). Whilst the

number of other services that people wanted to see was significantly higher among the s105 responses, a

similar proportion of people (65%) felt that all services should be online.

12.5%

8.4%12.0%

9.0%

25.4%

5.2%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

Internetaccess

Don'tthink it will

be easy

Councilwebsite

poor

Uncertainif issuelogged

Easier totalk to

someone

Don'tknow how

Barriers to online use

8.8% 8.2%

22.4%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

Access to a PC Being shown how Someone to talk to ifstuck

What would help overcome barriers to online use?

Annex 1



Figure 80 – sources: S105 survey responses

66.9%

7.7% 6.7% 8.6%5.2% 7.7% 6.9%

2.8%6.5%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

All services Repairappointments

Utilities serviceappointments

Reportingproblems/issues

Makingcomplaints

Checking rentaccount

Payments Web chat Advice/support

Which housing services should be online?

64.8%

45.7%

34.0%

43.5% 42.5% 42.3%37.2%

22.7% 25.4%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

All services Repairappointments

Utilities serviceappointments

Reportingproblems/issues

Makingcomplaints

Checking rentaccount

Payments Web chat Advice/support

Which housing services should be online?

Annex 1


Annex 1


People’s current online activity provides some valuable insight into existing behaviours - which should be a

good predictor of potential take up of council services. Online banking and paying bills were the most

frequent responses, followed by finding answers to questions/issues.


Do use and experience of accessing housing services online vary between different groups?

Housing tenure Leaseholders are more likely to have attempted to use online housing services than tenants. Among outreach

respondents this difference is quite small, but among s105 responses, the difference is rather more

pronounced with leaseholders significantly more likely to have used online services than tenants.


49.7%

78.3%

68.8%

33.4% 35.7%

20.1% 22.3%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

Finding answers Online banking Paying bills Reportingproblems/issues

Appointments Web chat Local discussion

Current online activity

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

No Yes


(housing tenure)


Annex 1




When we look at people’s experience of accessing online housing services, we find some variation between

the s105 responses and those from the outreach. Leaseholders were significantly more positive than tenants

among outreach respondents but less positive within the statutory consultation findings.

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

No Yes


(housing tenure)

Leaseholder Tenant

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

No Yes


(housing tenure)

Leaseholder Tenant

Annex 1




Ethnicity Among the larger ethnic groups, we find that those from a Black/Black British background are slightly more

likely to have accessed online housing services among the outreach responses. Even allowing for the lower

levels of online use among those interviewed on the street, White (other) respondents were less likely to have

accessed online services within the outreach responses. Other observed differences can be accounted for by

the underlying lower levels of online access among the outreach responses.

Among the s105 responses, we see some variation in the experience of using online housing services. Those of

Black/Black British background were far more positive, with over three-quarters (79%) saying that’d had a

good experience of the service, compared to just over one third (35%) of White English respondents and just

29% of White (other) respondents.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%


Experience of housing service online(housing tenure)

Leaseholder Tenant

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%


Experience of housing service online(housing tenure)

Leaseholder Tenant

Annex 1


The findings are somewhat different among the outreach interviewees, with 59% of Asian/Asian British and

60% of White (other) respondents saying they found the online service to be ‘good’ or ‘very good’, compared

to just 32% of Black/Black British respondents. Meanwhile, around one quarter of White (other) respondents

Black/Black British respondents among the outreach interviewees said that they had had a negative

experience of accessing the housing service online.



0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

No Yes

Have you accessed the housing service online?(ethnicity)


0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

No Yes

Have you accessed the housing service online?(ethnicity)


Annex 1




Gender We found very little difference between men and women in the likelihood of accessing the housing service

online – although men were slightly more likely to have done so within the statutory consultation responses.

Across both the statutory consultation and the outreach, we find that men were more likely than women to

have had a ‘very good’ experience of accessing the housing service online. This variation was most

pronounced within the responses to the street interviews, with 15% of men and 7% of women describing

their experience of ‘very good’.

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%


Experience of housing service online(ethnicity)


0%

20%

40%

60%

80%


Experience of housing service online(ethnicity)


Annex 1





0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

No Yes


(gender)

Female Male

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

No Yes


(gender)

Female Male

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%



(gender)

Female Male

Annex 1



Disabled people and those with health problems Among outreach respondents, disabled people and those with a health problem were very slightly more likely

to have accessed the housing service online, whilst among the statutory consultation responses (which had a

particularly high proportion of disabled people) those without a disability or impairment were significantly

more likely to have used the website. Uniquely, a majority of s105 respondents without a disability (60%) had

accessed the housing service online.

Among the s105 responses, disabled people had more polarised views, with a quarter (26%) saying they’d had

a ‘very poor’ experience, whilst 12% reported a ‘very good’ experience, significantly higher than the 7% of

respondents without a disability.

We find a similar pattern from the outreach responses, with 53% of disabled residents expressing a positive

experience (compared with 46% of those with no impairment) and 22% saying their experience was ‘very

poor’ compared to just 8% of disabled respondents.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%



(gender)

Female Male

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

No Yes


(disability)


Annex 1





0%

20%

40%

60%

80%



(disability)

No Yes

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%


Experience of housing service online (disability)


Annex 1



Employment status Data on employment status was only collected through the street interviews. When we look at those data we

see that retired people and students were significantly less likely to have accessed the housing service online

compared with other groups. There is considerable evidence of lower levels of digital literacy and use among

older people, so we should not be particularly surprised to find such a variation among retired people.

Students (particularly those living at home with parents or carers) might reasonably be expected to have less

reason to access housing services online, which could explain their lower levels of use.

Unemployed people typically had more negative experiences of accessing the housing service online, as did

students (though as the numbers involved were small we should approach these findings with some caution).

A quarter (26%) of unemployed respondents said they’d had a ‘very poor’ experience and only 37% reported a

positive experience, compared with 49% of those in full time employment.


0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%


Experience of housing service online (disability)

No Yes

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

No Yes

Have you accessed the housing service online?(employment status)


Annex 1



Age Online use appears, as might be expected, fairly strongly correlated with age, with younger and older

residents far less likely to access the housing service online. This finding is consistent across both the outreach

and statutory consultation – though it is more pronounced within the street interviews, where 90% of those

over 75 had not used the website. By contrast, among respondents to the statutory consultation a majority of

those between the ages of 25 and 54 had accessed the council’s housing service digitally.

Experience of using the online service varied somewhat according to age. In the outreach responses, those

aged 35-54 – who are more likely than other ages to use the service – had a less positive experience. 29% of

35-44 year olds and 26% of 45-54 year olds described their experience as ‘poor’ or ‘very poor’ and less than

half reported having a positive experience. Among respondents to the s105 consultation 35-44 year olds were

again the least positive age group (not including a single ‘poor’ response within the 16-24 age range) just 6%

of respondents describing their experience as ‘very good’ and 36% describing it as ‘very poor’.


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%


Experience of housing service online(employment status)


0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

No Yes


(age)

>16 16-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75+

Annex 1




0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

No Yes


(age)

16 - 24 25 - 34 35 - 44 45 - 54 55 - 64 65 - 74 75+

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%


Experience of housing service online(age)

16-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75+

Annex 1



0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


Experience of housing service online(age)

16 - 24 25 - 34 35 - 44 45 - 54 55 - 64 65 - 74 75+

Annex 1

royal borough of kingston new housing model interim report ... 1 new … · substantial expertise...

Documents