Agenda item

Michelle Reynolds, Group Commercial Director at Affinity Sutton, and John Bell, Managing Director of CBS, made a presentation to the Committee on the Affinity Sutton repairs service.

• Affinity Sutton was a national housing association with 57,000 homes throughout England. The organisation offered an in-house responsive repairs service carried out by two wholly-owned service providers, CBS and ASR. The repair organisations carried out 140,000 repairs annually. CBS had provided repairs to dispersed stock nationwide since 2000; ASR was established in 2015 to provide repairs to Affinity Sutton properties in London and Kent.
• The Committee noted the challenge of providing an in-house repairs service on a national scale to dispersed housing stock. To achieve this Affinity Sutton had invested in mobile working and multiskilling operatives in order to ensure a high proportion of “first time fixes”. Since bringing the repairs services in-house the organisation had also adopted a flatter management structure and had empowered operatives to take personal responsibility for repairs.
• Before repairs in London and the Kent were brought in-house the organisation’s repair service would operate from local offices and depots. Since coming in-house, Affinity Sutton operatives worked from home, with details of repairs sent remotely to their PDAs and tablets. The service was organised on a regional basis, with sub-regional local teams each covering a specific area. Operative salary bands were competency-based in order to promote up-skilling.
• Affinity Sutton allowed residents to report repairs online; however the majority of repairs were reported via telephone.
• The importance of a “first time fix” was emphasised, as this led to improved efficiency, a positive customer experience, and improved financial performance. It was noted that 88% of Affinity Sutton customers were satisfied with their most recent repair; this very closely correlated to the organisation’s “first time fix” rate of 88%. The organisation considered a “first time fix” to be completing the repair on the first visit without having to leave the property.
• The average completion time for a repair was seven days. The organisation had worked to improve its reporting and diagnostic processes to ensure that all required information was collected at the first point of contact. In 90% of cases all of the required information was received  at the first point of contact.
• Affinity Sutton communicated with customers via text message, sending a reminder the evening before a repair and when the operative was on route to the property.
• Affinity Sutton was keen to learn from specialist logistics operations in other sectors, such as Autoglass, AO.com and Ocado. It was noted that those receiving windscreen repairs through Autoglass usually did not pay as this cost was covered through their insurance; this was likened to a housing association repairs service, as tenants did not directly pay for repairs to their property. Affinity Sutton had worked with Autoglass to establish how customers valued a service without assigning a direct financial value to it.
• Affinity Sutton had worked to improve the customer focus of operatives. Trade staff were personally responsible for the satisfaction associated with each individual repair.
• The Committee noted the organisation’s ways of working, including customer focus, personal responsibility, and being collaborative, open and friendly. The organisation was keen to minimise “silo working” and retain key staff.
• Affinity Sutton commented on the challenge of managing tenant expectations. Some tenants demanded more from the service than others; the organisation carried out around 3 repairs per property, however one third of tenants never reported a repair.
• It was clarified that on average it took Affinity Sutton 11 days to complete the repair element of voids.
• Following a query on the use of new technologies, it was advised that all staff received formal training on the use of tablets. Operatives familiar with the technology had been selected as “tablet champions” to assist other operatives. This had reduced operative dependence on the ICT service.
• Very few complaints were received by Affinity Sutton’s central complaints department as area and regional managers were required to take personal ownership when tenants were dissatisfied.
• Operatives had access to performance and benchmarking statistics and could evaluate their performance against others.
• The Committee queried how the proposed merger of Affinity Sutton and Circle Housing would impact on the repairs service, especially due to the reported backlog of Circle Housing repairs. It was advised that Affinity Sutton could not comment on the arrangements of other housing associations, however ensuring a high quality repairs service would be a key element of any merger.
• Following a query from a member of the public, it was advised that Affinity Sutton was able to track operatives from its central repairs office and this was essential to scheduling work and reducing travel to make the service as efficient as possible.
• Following a query from Dr Brian Potter of the Islington Leaseholders Association about centralising housing stock, it was advised that Affinity Sutton was not seeking to participate in housing stock swaps.
• Affinity Sutton’s two in-house repairs companies carried out joint procurement exercises to realise efficiencies.
• It was noted that Affinity Sutton had two categories of repair: emergency and non-emergency. Emergency repairs were completed the same day and non-emergency repairs were carried out within seven days.

The Committee thanked Ms Reynolds and Mr Bell for their attendance.