Skip to content

Agenda item

Housing Communications Scrutiny Review: Witness Evidence

Minutes:

a)    Evidence from the Communications Team

 

The Committee received a presentation from Lynn Stratton, Deputy Head of Communications and Change, which provided introductory information on communication channels, resident priorities, and document accessibility. This supported the evidence circulated in the agenda pack.

 

The following main points were noted in the discussion:

 

·         The Committee considered the infographic detailing how the housing service communicated with residents and external partners. It was noted that residents received a mixture of localised, targeted, and broadcast communications.

·         The housing service had worked to develop its digital communications in recent years, including online systems for repairs and housing options.  

·         Social media presented opportunities to offer more localised communications, perhaps on an estate basis.

·         At present the service did not make use of SMS communications on a regular basis, but it was thought that this could be a useful tool in future.

·         The Communications section did not routinely review housing communications as a form of quality control, however major communications were developed in partnership between Housing and Communications.

·         Resident feedback on housing communications had previously highlighted the need for simplicity and a more empathetic tone.

·         Training on letter writing and customer service was available for staff. This was provided by the Corporate Learning and Development Team. The Communications team made guidance available to staff through the intranet.

·         The Committee welcomed that communications guidance was available, but queried if the contents of this guidance was well known by staff. Officers advised that the take up of this guidance was not evaluated. The Committee suggested that key messages about local issues and events were not always communicated effectively.

·         Customer service training was compulsory for staff in certain front-facing areas, but not for all housing staff.

·         Language translation services were available on request. It was preferential to translate verbally rather than in writing, as this allowed any questions to be answered immediately.

·         The Committee noted the Islington Council Brand Guidelines, and that they contained standards for accessibility.

·         Members suggested that residents may find regularly updated FAQs helpful. Officers commented that these would also be useful to the Communications section.

·         Officers advised that there was no plan to introduce chat bots at present, although commented that these would be useful for residents. 

·         The Committee considered the reach of online communications. Whilst some residents did not have regular access to the internet, others only wanted to communicate online.

·         Members commented that they had received housing casework which highlighted a lack of coordination, respect and empathy in communications from council staff. Officers acknowledged that this could be a problem, and commented that it was particularly difficult to monitor verbal communication between staff and residents.

·         The Housing Operations section was reviewing its ways of working, with the aim of being more responsive to the welfare needs of residents.

·         The Committee expressed concern that some vulnerable people did not have regular access to the internet to access online services. Officers advised that the council’s Digital Champion Scheme supported residents to get online, and indicated that further information would be provided to a future meeting.

·         A member commented that she worked as a translator for residents and remarked that the tone and attitude of council staff was sometimes poor, and this could have a detrimental effect on vulnerable people. It was suggested that front-line staff should receive compulsory training on tone of voice and empathy.

·         The Committee suggested that staff awareness of communication guidelines could be assessed through the appraisal process.

·         The Committee suggested that some level of communications training should be mandatory for all staff.

·         Members of the public commented on the importance of written communication, as this ensured that residents and the council had a paper trail for reference.

 

The Committee thanked Lynn Stratton for her attendance.



b)    Evidence from Property Services on complaints management

 

The Committee received a presentation from Lorenzo Heaune, Productivity and Compliance Group Leader, on how Property Services handles and learns from complaints.

 

The following main points were noted in the discussion:

 

·         The Property Services Customer Services Team received and investigated complaints and member enquiries. These were responded to in line with council procedures and Ombudsman guidance.  

·         It was commented that there had been some confusion following the ‘Customer Excellence’ team being renamed the ‘Customer Services’ team, as there was also a separate, council-wide Customer Services team.

·         All staff in the Property Services Customer Services Team were required to attend customer services training.

·         The number of complaints had decreased in recent years. The most frequent complaints were related to protracted repair works and issues not being resolved, which demonstrated the importance of achieving a ‘first time fix’.

·         Customer satisfaction was independently evaluated by Kwest. This sometimes identified issues which required follow-up action, and such issues were dealt with promptly. Any negative feedback that did not require action was evaluated on a monthly basis.

·         Following a question, it was advised that Partners had their own complaints processes, however did consult with the council on customer service issues from time to time. It was suggested that Partners should be required to mirror the council’s own processes, and report their performance to the Housing Scrutiny Committee on a quarterly basis, as the council’s housing services do. The Executive Member for Housing and Development advised that he was meeting with Partners every six weeks and would ask them about further engagement with the Housing Scrutiny Committee.

·         It was suggested that all staff should have an objective in their appraisal related to providing high-quality customer services, and this should be regularly reviewed in one-to-one meetings with management.

·         Officers understood that property repairs was a highly emotive area. It was commented that staff do care about residents’ experiences, and perhaps this point needed to be emphasised more.

·         Following a question, it was advised that staff turnover in the Customer Services Team was fairly steady, although there were two posts which were currently filled temporarily whilst permanent staff were sought. Although working in the team could be challenging, staff reported that they felt motivated and committed in their role.

·         Officers understood that residents could get frustrated, but abusive behaviour towards staff was not tolerated. It was advised that staff were offered emotional support through the Employee Assistance Programme.

·         Following a question, it was advised that residents were able to log a complaint about their repair up to 12 months after the completion date; however this was not an absolute deadline.

·         Following a question related to lifts repeatedly needing maintenance work, it was confirmed that officers investigated patterns in repairs and any assets which repeatedly failed were reviewed thoroughly. It was commented that the new repairs management system would make it easier to identify trends in repairs.

·         Dr Brian Potter, Chair of the Islington Leaseholders Association, commented that leaseholders should not be required to contribute towards the cost of repairs required due to vandalism, as this should be covered through the council’s insurance.

·         Dr Brian Potter, Chair of the Islington Leaseholders Association, commented that leaseholders should not be charged for the cost of incomplete repairs, for example the cost of when a repairs operative is unable to carry out a repair as they did not have the correct information or equipment.

·         It was commented that the council should use the terms ‘tenant’ and ‘leaseholder’ and not ‘customer’.

 

The Committee thanked Lorenzo Heaune for his attendance.

 

 

c)    Scrutiny Initiation Document and Witness Evidence Plan

 

The Committee agreed to amend the scrutiny initiation document, to include the ‘organisational culture relating to communications’ within the scope of the review.

 

RESOLVED:

 

That the scrutiny initiation document be amended, to include the ‘organisational culture relating to communications’ within the scope of the review.

Supporting documents: