MAGNA HOUSING ASSOCIATION
REPORT BY THE HEAD OF NEIGHBOURHOOD SERVICES
ON THE RESIDENT CONSULTATION
OF SETTING SERVICE STANDARDS FOR RESPONSE REPAIRS
JULY 2009
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Following the recent inspection by the Audit Commission, they recommended that MHA “develop and publish a suite of measurable and challenging service standards in consultation with residents”.
1.2 We committed to undertake research with a sample of MHA residents to identify what service standards they would like to see in our repairs department.
1.3 The consultation period ran from 20 April 2009 and closed on 23 June 2009.
1.4 This report provides a summary of the resident consultation carried out along with research previously obtained through the monthly repairs satisfaction survey.
2. THE APPROACH WE USED IN THIS CONSULTATION
2.1 We targeted our audience for consultation to obtain views from 200 residents who were a match to our resident profile. There are many differing opinions on how large a sample needs to be to make it truly representative. At a HQN training session in 2008 we were informed that Harvard and Yale Universities have shown that if the views of 200 customers are received on a specific area this is enough to give quantitive and qualitative data.
2.2 Two focus groups were held on 4th & 17th June 2009.
2.3 Two hundred residents were picked from respondents to our repairs satisfaction survey. Respondents were chosen to match the resident profile.
3. THE AUDIENCE WE REACHED
3.1 We obtained the views from 212 residents through this consultation exercise, and we achieved a reasonable match to our resident profile. The only area we fell short was of people who considered themselves disabled.
Group Resident Profile % Consultation profile reached %
Male 42% 42%
Female 58% 58%
Age 16 – 24 3% 3%
Age 25-44 27% 27%
Age 45 – 59 21% 21%
Age 60- 74 27% 27%
Age 75+ 22% 22%
Disabled 51% 49%
BME 3% 3%
4. THE OUTCOME OF CONSULTATION
Residents were asked what would help
Comments from focus groups. • Saturday morning appointments for people who work.
• Evening appointments.
• Being able to report repairs later in the evening.
• Repairs to start earlier
• Communicate in plain English.
• Workmen to get sheet signed to say complete by resident.
• Does not think that talking about any of this will have any effect on Magna. Nothing will come of it as nobody listens.
What is going wrong now
• Appointments booked, stay in all day and nobody arrives, do not get a phone call to say the job is cancelled.
• Do not feel like anyone listens, when we complain or make a suggestion to make peoples lives easier.
• Missed appointments need to be monitored as it causes a bad name. Suggestion, on the bottom of the appointment letter put a tear off slip to be returned if appointment not met and not cancelled. Return this form to the monitoring officer not the dept.
How residents feel
• Want Magna to remember it’s your house but our home.
• Residents are not second-class citizens and Magna should not make them feel like this.
• Dismissed
Comments from survey • Didn’t turn up for appointment
• Have to wait too long
• Have to chase up repairs
5. OTHER RESEARCH CHANNELS
5.1 We conducted a STATUS survey of 792 residents between December 2007 and March 2008. This found that:
5.1.1 71% of respondents were satisfied with the way repairs and maintenance is dealt with.
5.1.2 93% thought the attitude of workers was good.
5.1.3 91% thought keeping dirt and mess to a minimum was good.
5.1.4 86% thought the overall quality of the work was good.
5.1.5 85% thought the speed of which work was completed was good.
5.1.6 74% thought Magna good at informing them when the workers would call.
5.1.7 67% thought the time taken before work started was good.
6. SUMMARY
6.1 Most of the issues raised and the suggestions for improving the repairs service are around communication. Not keeping residents informed of cancelled jobs or that parts have to be ordered creates negative comments.
6.2 Residents are not happy with the length of time they have to wait for a repair. In some cases, this could be because they are unaware of the standards we have in place, perhaps having them printed on the back of letters that the repairs department send out may change this expectation.
7. RESIDENT SATISFACTION WITH CONSULTATION (FOCUS GROUPS)
7.1 The feedback that we received from residents who attended these focus groups is detailed below.
7.1.1 Everyone that attended the Focus Group understood why he or she was being asked to attend and what the Focus Group could and could not influence.
7.1.2 Everyone agreed that adequate information had been provided, which was easy to read and understand.
7.1.3 All agreed the information they were given and the questions they were asked were fair and balanced.
7.1.4 All felt they had been given the opportunity to say everything they want to say and that they were given enough support to participate.
7.1.5 Everyone felt there contribution had been respected and made a difference.
7.1.6 Residents were then asked to give comments on the Focus Group and how it could be improved. All comments were positive, comments included:
7.1.6.1 Very good
7.1.6.2 Lots of helpful information
7.1.6.3 I am very satisfied with this exercise
8. HOW THE OUTCOME OF THIS CONSULTATION WILL SHAPE SERVICES.
8.1 This report will be presented to the Head of Building Services with the recommendation to discuss with the repairs working group.
|