Repair yourself

Once upon a time, Sedgefield council thought its repairs and maintenance service was working fine. Direct labour organisation vans dashed from repair to repair and most tenants said they were generally satisfied. But in February 2002, to the astonishment of council staff, Audit Commission inspectors gave the service a "poor" no-star rating, with uncertain prospects for improvement.

The inspectors found a very different kind of service: one where tenants were ignored, there was little forward planning and information on service levels and value for money were non-existent. Perhaps most damningly, the gas servicing policy broke the law, with a 10th of annual services overdue.

"People were in shock throughout the council. The presumption was that the service was good because we did a lot of repairs very quickly. It was a bit of a reality check," admits Graham Scanlon, leader of a five-strong team set up to turn the service around.

Sure enough, Sedgefield got its act together and, a year later, scored a "fair" rating with promising prospects for improvement. In March 2003, the Audit Commission praised its willingness to admit its failings and described the transformation as "a real success story". The authority is now a model of tenant participation. It is tendering a partnering agreement for its adaptation, call-outs and voids service and gas servicing has been brought up-to-date.

Sedgefield is just one of a number of councils that have been slated by inspectors. Birmingham has just received its second no-star rating in a row (HT 19 September, page 7). Housing association repairs are also coming under the microscope, so many will be looking to emulate Sedgefield's success.

Sector's reputation at stake
Repairs and maintenance is usually the biggest service that a landlord provides, and the most important to tenants, so getting the basics right is a prerequisite for improving the sector's reputation. But given that it is one of the most well-established services and often involves a big, strongly unionised workforce, it is also the hardest to reform in line with best value and customer service ideals.

Following the first inspection report, Scanlon and his team laboriously studied the Audit Commission's recommendations and its daily feedback from the inspection, and prepared a 12-month service improvement plan, which was then agreed by the council members. The plan included which actions were to be taken, when and by whom.

One of the most important steps in preparing for reinspection, according to Scanlon, is to be in regular contact with the commission. The team at Sedgefield sent updates to the commission every two months. The commission offered formal advice and Scanlon had frequent phone and email contact with lead inspector Nick Atkin. "When they came for the second time, the inspectors had a good idea of what we'd been doing," says Scanlon. "They were very supportive. That's a feature a lot of authorities don't take up as they should."

Sedgefield's failure devastated staff partly because it came out of the blue. Provisions for analysing how repairs were undertaken were patchy and uncoordinated, so staff assumed all was well – and it's easy to see how they were fooled. As in many councils, the council's direct labour organisation – contract services – works on a bonus system, so tradespeople were rushing from one high-scoring job to another with no incentive to provide a high-quality, customer-focused service. To compound the confusion, responsibility was split between the housing department overseeing housing management, contracts services carrying out responsive repairs, and technical and property services in charge of the capital programme. These three are now being restructured into a single homes and housing department, which will smooth the path of Sedgefield's stock transfer application if it is approved by the ODPM in the new year.

Adaptations for sheltered housing were being carried out as responsive rather than planned works, and nearly half of the 40,000 repairs the council undertakes each year were being carried out as emergencies – that's more than four times the Audit Commission's best-practice target of 10% and a major drain on Sedgefield's £4m repairs budget. Now, just a quarter are done as emergencies.

"In the past, it was pretty grey as to what priority jobs were," admits maintenance coordinator Billy Trotter at contract services' central depot in Chilton. "We were a bit like headless chickens," says Scanlon. The department is now aiming for a 40:60 ratio of responsive to planned works – currently the ratio is 42:58 – a massive improvement on the 79:21 at first inspection. It has also started parcelling up outdoor repairs over £500 and including them on the capital programme to get better value for money.

Quicker and better
Repairs completed within government time limits have improved from 86% to 98%. This was achieved by cutting the amount of administration that contract services must do. For example, the list of job components has shrunk from 4500 to 1500 – where there were five or six codes for repairing guttering, this is now a single item.

At first at the focus group they used to talk down to you and not with you. Now they listen to us all the time

Lyn Leach, sedgefield council tenant

"The best thing is that we've come onto an electronic system rather than old-fashioned job cards. If you could enter details in the vehicles electronically, you could get all the paperwork done the same day," says Trotter.

The shortage of performance reports has been tackled, with an emphasis on customer services. All tenants receive a handbook setting out priorities for repairs, while a new IT system churns out pages of data that the team pore over with a tenant focus group to set new targets. "We've found that they're quite reasonable," says Scanlon.

The team is proudest of its octagonal "radar" diagrams, compiled from regular satisfaction surveys of tenants, covering the quality as well as speed of the service. For example, following a gas servicing they will be asked to rate the attitude of the workers, the level of disruption and the precautions taken to protect floors and furniture.

Contracts manager Lawrie Ord says this new vigilance in monitoring performance is behind the council's increased success in gaining entry to homes due for a service.

The number of overdue services has been reduced from 1064 to 39, and customer satisfaction is also outstripping targets on all fronts. "Our 'no entry' numbers have gone up in the summer because people are in the garden and they don't hear the doorbell," he says. "Without monitoring in place, we wouldn't know." The council also scans data for patterns, such as a particular type of boiler breaking down frequently.

Appointments mean less waiting
A new morning and afternoon appointment system has gone down well with tenants fed up of waiting in for workers to arrive – with 64% of appointments made and kept, Sedgefield is now in the top quartile. The council is looking into extending the service out of working hours. "We're looking at feedback from customers," says Ord. "You can't afford to make prescriptions. Before, we tried a pilot scheme on Saturday mornings, but it didn't take off because people want a lie-in on Saturday morning.

It didn't work because we didn't ask what people wanted."

The Audit Commission criticised the council for informing rather than involving, and staff have clearly taken the message onboard. Tenant participation has become something of a mantra for the housing department, which has expanded the tenant participation team from one to three people, and will look to increase it further in future. Sedgefield already had a cross-tenure residents' federation, representing 11 groups around the borough, that met monthly.

But for the detailed scrutiny that the repairs service needed, a dedicated focus group of 18 tenants was brought together to deconstruct the service. "There's been an amazing commitment by residents to work with us, in terms of the number and the time willing to put in," says Graham Scanlon.

One of this highly motivated group is Lyn Leach, a retired wages clerk. "At first, at the focus group, they used to talk at you, down to you and not with you. Now they listen to us all the time," she says. "We've had meetings where we've disagreed and we've told them."

Leach has noticed a vast improvement in the service. "Recently, I reported a leak in my garage and they phoned up and ask when it was convenient to come and fix it – they didn't used to do that. And when the men come, they have to clean up after themselves and tenants can refuse to let them in if they don't have shoe covers and plastic sheets."

We tried a pilot on Saturday mornings, but people want a lie-in. It didn’t work as we didn’t ask what people wanted

Lawrie Ord, Sedgefield Council

The focus group has had an impact on the smallest details of the tenant experience.

The housing department now produces a mountain of glossy literature about every aspect of the service, featuring a poem by another member of the focus group, Mary Thomson, and new tenants receive their keys on Sedgefield Housing's own branded keyrings.

The council is now heralded as a good example for others. When Chester-le-Street council failed a second inspection, its improvement team visited Sedgefield for a presentation on tenant participation from the focus group.

There is still work to be done, however. Sedgefield must further reduce the level of pre-inspections. It stands at 17%, which is better than 21% but still some way off the council's 2004/5 target of less than 10%. New software in the call centre helps to diagnose problems when they are reported and two local colleges have agreed to develop training courses for the workforce when negotiations with the union are complete. "Ultimately, we want a multiskilled workforce," explains contract services' Billy Trotter. "We have a team of inspectors, but the tradespeople are the best ones to do it." Instead, the team of inspectors will concentrate on doing post-inspections in a 10th of cases.

Staff willing to change
Sedgefield's greatest barrier is still to be overcome: the bonus system for its tradespeople, which was criticised again in the reinspection even though the service as a whole was awarded one star. Scanlon is in discussions with contract services' union representatives about moving to a salary system, and there will be further debate when the council starts looking seriously at potential partners later this year.

Not all changes to the system have met with resistance. A 13-week customer care course arranged with Bishop Auckland college had 23 sign-ups straight away.

  And though the direct labour force must still be won round, Bob Scougall, property services manager, says they accept that the service must change. "Nobody wants to be criticised.

"People are proud to deliver that service and the front line want to make sure they do a good job because they live and socialise with the people they serve," he explains. "The staff were very disappointed when the first report came out, but we've taken it on the chin and moved on."

The future of repairs and maintenance is just part of the way ahead for the council's restructured housing department. Sedgefield's repairs service will again be inspected as part of a comprehensive performance assessment in December and next year as part of housing services.

The council is now working its way through a revised improvement plan, incorporating the Audit Commission's recommendations from the reinspection. Having satisfied the inspectors that it is on the right track, however, it no longer makes reports every two months.