Warrington Housing Association Author WHA Scrutiny Panel July 2012 Service Review Relet Standards Relet Standards
Warrington Housing Association Scrutiny Panel report on Relet Standards Lead Contact: Available to view at: Related documents B Nicholls Community Development Officer I:\Documents\Housing\AAA new set up\community Development & Tenant Participation\Scrutiny Panel\Tenant Scrutiny Panel report on Relet Standards.doc WHASP Minutes 25 th April 2012 WHASP Minutes 26 th June 2012 Introduction Warrington Housing Association Scrutiny Panel (WHASP) has been developed with tenants and WHA staff, in response to the challenges of service and performance improvement, without Introduction regulatory compulsion or inspection. There are three main reasons for undertaking this scrutiny: To influence effective business planning To meet regulatory requirements and be accountable to tenants To guide service development, remodelling and improvement WHASP, with the assistance of WHA Community Development Officer, has identified a programme of scrutiny, with Relet Standards and relevant services provided to WHA tenants and customers being the first in the 2012/13 programme, and the first inspection carried out by the Panel. This report outlines the project brief, the methodology used and the evidence considered during the exercise. The WHASP has identified strengths and weaknesses of the service, their report gives an overview of their findings and finally makes recommendations on how improvements can be made, giving due consideration to improved value for money and customer satisfaction. Background to the review The letting standard for void properties was reviewed approximately 5 years ago but the WHASP and WHA Board felt this was an area that needed to be reviewed again. Void costs have increased over the last 3 years and the number of days void before properties are relet have also increased. Panel did recognise that WHA remain within the top quartile for performance (see appendix 1, page 10), however WHA are not meeting their own internal target of 14 days. Page2
Scope of the review The WHASP agreed the scope of the review will:- Look at current relet standards only - are standards good enough or are they too high? Assess tenant satisfaction with relet standards and what has been offered, e.g. decoration standards and allowances, cleaning standards, repairs etc Consider the impact the current void standards have on relet times i.e. could more work be done after new tenants move in? Look at areas such as decoration and cleaning and review what works are currently done and if this is necessary Assess what can be done to encourage tenants to leave their homes in good order and, Review incentives given to encourage tenants to leave their homes in a good condition The review will not:- Look at how repairs and void works are procured Look at internal lettings or the void process. Methodology The WHASP used a variety of methods to scrutinise Relet Standards. They included:- Development of a service review project brief which included the business case for the review, work scope and exclusions, timetable, performance and satisfaction levels, targets, costs and benchmarking information. Presentations and interviews with Property Services Director and Housing Services Director Holding two service review meetings and one report production meeting. These included group discussions on standard strengths, weakness, findings and making recommendations Visits to void properties Carrying out a desk top review of relevant documents as part of the exercise such as Tenant Information Leaflet Minimum Lettings Standards for Empty Properties and correspondence sent to tenants when notice is given Carrying out a telephone survey with new tenants Page3
The WHASP used a variety of documentary evidence as part of the exercise Void inspection template New tenant survey results Decorating Allowance information Minimum standards policy Void repairs How the process works Information of void repair costs Reports on performance, targets, benchmarking and satisfaction levels Strengths and weaknesses The TSP identified the following strengths and weaknesses during the review Relet Standards Strengths Local contractors who can provide a number of trades in the same organisation Incentives Low number of void days/quick turnover Good repairs performance top quartile achieved High customer satisfaction levels Weaknesses Low number of preliminary inspections achieved Surrender form needed more information Not enough access to properties (apart from 4 yearly maintenance inspections and Housing officer tenant visits done every 4 years) Not enough contact with waiting list applicants during void period. Reduction in levels of tenant feedback (Repairs & Maintenance) High costs of tipping Recharging policy- low collection rates Page4
Overview of Scrutiny Findings WHASP firstly recognised the high performance of WHA s relet standards in comparison with other organisations and when presented with customer feedback and comments. The Panel during their scrutiny did identify a number of areas that they felt were important to highlight. Recommendations for improvements are detailed on page 7. Findings were categorised into 7 different areas. These were:- 1. Prelim inspections 2. Void inspections 3. Forms and incentives 4. Access into properties 5. Waiting list contact 6. Tipping and recharges 7. General observations and comments 1. Prelim inspections - It was agreed that the number of prelim inspections presently carried out are low and need to be increased. - WHASP felt it makes sense to leave good carpets and/or flooring for the next tenant, and at the new tenants request, however the Panel do recognise that this practice can lead to additional costs. 2. Void inspections - Outside areas should be assessed and in a safe and usable condition on relet, WHASP recognised that this may involve additional cost due to removal of unsuitable trees and/or shrubs, landscaping etc. - The Panel were surprised at the number of internal doors damaged in the void properties they visited. 3. Forms and incentives - Surrender letters and forms do not sufficiently highlight available incentives such as Golden Goodbye, nor do they underline consequences of recharges or leaving property in a poor condition. - WHASP felt that the decorating allowance is important to retain and advised this should be reviewed to bring up to date and in future reviewed on an annual basis. - Minimum Standards Leaflet reviewed. The Panel found the documentation concise and used plain English, they did find the document confusing as it had been printed upside down. The leaflets need to be produced properly if being produced in house. Page5
- Reduction in number of maintenance postal feedback forms received. 4. Access into properties - WHASP felt that there is a general lack of information on the condition of properties during a tenancy. Problems could be highlighted during a tenancy instead of waiting for a tenant moving out. 5. Waiting list contact - WHASP pointed out that contact with waiting list applicants during the 4 weeks void period could be improved; this would help to alert staff if a potential tenant is having problems or doubts about their move. 6. Cleaning, tipping and recharges - WHASP felt that it is important that properties are very clean on relet, giving a good impression of the property. - High cost of clearing empty properties and tipping costs need to be reduced and recovered. - Better use and information of house clearance firms, recycling schemes and landfill sites could be incorporated in information given to tenants. 7. General comments - WHASP recognised that no two properties or tenancies are alike and flexible procedures are required within a minimum framework of standards. - Gardens and the state some are left in gave concern to the panel. Additionally gardens on relet should be in a manageable condition for the new tenant. WHASP felt the tenancy agreement should be reviewed to include restrictions and guidance on planting and details of consequences if ignored. - There is generally a low take up of handyman services, does it offer the services tenants want? Presently doesn t seem to fulfil new tenants requirements. - WHASP considered that the experience of taking on a property can be daunting to new tenants and suggested looking into the possibility of offering some support or training. Page6
Recommendations WHASP have considered their findings and propose the following recommendations, which they feel will improve WHA relet standards. Area of findings Recommendation Expectations Management response Prelim Inspections To review literature, correspondence and surrender forms provided to tenants when notice is received, to provide clear information on what a tenant needs to do before moving out. Give tenants the opportunity to inform WHA if they are experiencing problems Look at alternative hours to target prelims e.g. offer evening /weekend appointments Review recharges procedure, giving clear outlines on what should be recharged for. Inform tenants before moving out of recharge costs. Void Inspections Review relet target (number of days void) & budget to allow more gardening options Review recharge procedure Forms and incentives Review all literature used. Information should include details about clearing out property and give information of house clearance firms, recycling schemes and landfill site information Better promotion of Golden Goodbye Scheme and consideration of it being increased To increase the number of prelims carried out Reduce void costs Increase % of recharges collected Achievable targets Improve void costs Improve levels of cost recovery Raise awareness of incentives to encourage leaving the property in a good condition Proposed actions Deadline
Carry out a costing exercise to look at the true costs of decorating and revise levels of allowance accordingly Update and review decorating allowance annually to at least cover inflation and VAT increases Update Minimum Standards of Lettings leaflet to ensure information up to date and the leaflet is produced properly Introduce incentives for tenants to encourage them to return their repairs feedback forms. Examine alternative methods for tenants to feedback on the service Access into properties To encourage the use of contractors and cleaners to more often report on the conditions of properties during their visits & annual checks etc Review frequency of tenancy visits and stock surveys to check condition Waiting list contact Review process of maintaining regular contact with potential tenants during the 4 week void period, keeping customers informed of progress and if possible to give earlier visits before signing up Cleaning, tipping and recharges Review standard of cleaning Review caretaking and decorating possibilities, e.g. use of Whia for cleaning and caretaking duties Improve the quality of information provided to tenants Improve consultation and involvement Improvement of void repair service. To improve the condition of properties as a whole To reduce the number of void days To better utilise the 4 weeks void period Reduce number of waiting list refusals Reduce number of waiting list refusals To reduce void repair costs Page8
Review recharge procedure Review recycling information To improve recovery of costs General Review handyman service to include services tenants need Consideration of employing caretaker Review tenancy agreement to include guidance on suitable plants and shrubs etc. Review relet target (number of days void) Consider alternative ways of gathering feedback and use of additional incentives Provision of an introduction day to inform residents about WHA and ways of involvement, giving the opportunity to raise any issues or problems with staff Improve the overall condition of properties Improve condition of gardens and reduce costs Allow potential tenants more time to move in Improve consultation and involvement WHASP Recommendation That the Board approves the content of this report and the actions agreed by WHA SMT in response to the recommendations. Date of sign off by WHASP 7 th August 2012 Date of report to SMT Date returned to WHASP 16th October 2012 Date of report to WHA Board Date of review of recommendations by WHASP Page9
Appendix 1 Showing the average relet times for a range of organisations for 2011/2012 (including general needs, older people and supported housing) Average number of days void Adullam Homes HA 37.75 Arawak Walton HA 33 Arcon HA 19.45 Ashton Pioneer Homes Ltd 14.52 Creative Support 55.05 Crosby HA 22.1 Crown Housing Association 27.5 Ekaya HA 25.27 Eldonian Community Based Housing Association 14.75 Forum HA 3.2 Hornsey Housing Trust 63 Hull Churches HA 15.25 Innisfree Housing Association 46 Lambeth & Southwark HA 38.875 Langley House Trust 15.17 Lee Housing Association 36.22 Lien Viet HA 12.61 Pickering and Ferens Homes 11.37 Shian Housing Association 38.78 Tamil Community HA 69.5
Waltham Forest Housing Association 11.79 Warrington HA 16.6 Wirral Methodist HA 40.25 Women's Pioneer 65 York HA 51.53 Group Average (based on 104 Associations) 27.84 SPBM Median 23.35 Page11