Agenda item

The Housing Strategy and Development Officer presented the report on Tenant Satisfaction Measures (TSMs) 2024/25 to the Board.

As reported at the previous meeting, the Council was undertaking the second year of data collection and the 2024/25 survey was underway.

The initial mailout was 1^st October to 27^th October 2024.  Key points to note after this mailout included:

·       3,179 emails, 2,233 texts and 794 letters had been circulated (in the previous year, contact had been by post with emails used as reminders);

·       394 responses had been received as of 5^th November 2024 (the Council ideally needed around 550, as set out by the Regulator);

·       Current responses did not mirror the stock profile with 57.4% from Housing for older people, 40.1% from General Needs and 2.5% from Sheltered.  The stock profile at the end of March 2024 was General needs (53%), Housing for older people (43%) and Sheltered Housing (4%).  A higher response rate from General Needs and Sheltered was needed;

·       The largest number of responses were from single tenants – 42.5%;

·       There was limited interest in downsizing;

·       There was a significantly higher response from tenants in Clowne, with the other three areas more equal (Clowne had the highest concentration of Council properties, so to be expected).  The lowest response at the end of the initial mailout was South Normanton;

·       Over 60% of respondents were female; and,

·       Over 66% of respondents were 65+.

An update on satisfaction levels so far received from returned surveys was attached at Appendix 1.

Of the 12 TSMs listed, 10 were above the national average for 2023/24 – the percentages may change as the Council collected the necessary level of responses as required by the Regulator (approximately 550 – the required figure was calculated based on the stock held on 31^st March).

It was noted, due to the Council gathering this data differently for this second year, the combination of methods used had potentially impacted the level of tenant satisfaction.  Responses received by post tended to provide higher levels of satisfaction than other methods (according to the Regulator’s national analysis) – as such, due to the increased use of emails and texts, tenant satisfaction would likely be lower than the previous year.

The Assistant Director of Housing Management & Enforcement added, with post utilised in 2023/24, only 50% of tenants had been contacted due to cost.  For 2024/25, all tenants had been contacted.

A Tenant asked, of the two TSMs below national average, were they lower than 2023/24.  The Housing Strategy and Development Officer explained they were currently lower.  It was reiterated, however, that the current data still required more responses to be reflective of tenant experiences – it was not yet a true comparison.

Management Information for the first three quarters was attached at Appendix 2.

The Board were informed some data had been delayed when the reports were produced.  It was noted, for NM01 (1), “Anti-social behaviour cases relative to the size of the landlord – Number of anti-social behaviour cases per 1,000 homes”, the actual figure was 52.5 for Quarter 3 2024/25, and for NM01 (2), “Anti-social behaviour cases relative to the size of the landlord – Number of anti-social behaviour cases that involve hate incidents per 1,000 homes”, the figure was 1.2 for the same period.

To a question on what water checks were being made, the Housing Strategy and Development Officer explained this was for Legionella and these checks were taking place in communal water supplies.

To a question on what definition of Anti-Social Behaviour (ASB) was being used, the Housing Services Manager explained the general definition for ASB was a negative act that involved 1-2 people outside of a household.  However, the definition was overall vague and perceptions of ASB could be varying (poor car parking or acts of littering could be seen as ASB) – the data could be subjective.

The Housing Strategy and Development Officer added, as noted in previous meetings, the question asked in the survey, as required by the Regulator, was likely in need of being rephrased (this was not in the Council’s control).

A Tenant added the perception of an ASB act being appropriately handled could also be different between tenants.  A Tenant agreed, providing an extreme example of ASB to the Board – the matter was resolved when the Council had replaced windows and installed CCTV.  Another Tenant added dogs barking at high visibility jackets was an example of something that some might also term ASB.

The Board were informed ASB was now being handled by a different department at the Council with a new Assistant Director recently recruited.

To a question on the revision of the above figures (NM01 (1) and NM01 (2)), the Housing Strategy and Development Officer explained the Community Safety and Enforcement Manager had been contacted to clarify the increase in the rate of cases.  One reason offered for the change was the reclassification and recording of ASB data (the Council had reviewed its approach to ensure it was in line with police recording – consequently more cases were now being recorded).

The first reminder was completed from 4^th December to 29^th December 2024, with 1,919 emails sent.  These was sent to General Needs properties in order to create a more balanced response.

Key points to note at this stage were:

·       The reminder round had improved response numbers, but the Council still needed more responses from General Needs Housing (an improved response rate from Independent Living Scheme tenants for 2024 was due to visits by the Tenant Engagement Officer);

·       The largest number of responses were from single tenants (over 75% of those were 65+);

·       There was limited interest in downsizing;

·       Responses were not equal across the four contact centre areas, with a higher response from Clowne and Shirebrook;

·       Nearly two thirds of respondents were female;

·       Nearly 60% of respondents were 65+; and

·       458 responses had been received as of 6^th January 2025.

The Board was advised that the Regulator had now released national analysis of the 2023/24 TSM returns.

It was noted not all large housing providers (landlords with 1,000+ homes) submitted data that was weighted.  The Council did have to weight responses, as did 24% of large providers, but this allowed the Council to compare results with these other local authorities.

For the first year of running the survey, 65% of providers used telephone surveys and their main collection method to contact tenants.  The Council, in contrast, had used post.

A Tenant asked how many providers submitted and how many responses did the Regulator receive.  The Housing Strategy and Development Officer stated this information was in the main report and informed post meeting that the analysis was based on 360 submissions from large landlords (over 1000 homes).  Landlords had completed over 480,000 surveys, so around one in ten households of social housing owned by registered landlords fed into the 2023/24 set of TSMs.

A Table was attached at Appendix 3 which showed the Council’s tenant satisfaction performance against the national average.  Of the 22 measures, 4 were broken down into two parts.  The Council had exceeded the national average in 16 and succeeded in part for 2 more measures.  4 of the indicators had calculated a ‘rate’ for which there was no clear indication of what ‘good’ performance looked like – the Council had assumed low was good compared to the national average.

For TSM BS04, “Water safety checks”, and TSM BS05, “Lift safety checks”, these had not been on track due to other works taking place – they had subsequently been completed after works had finished in 2024/25.

One of the final tasks that remained in relation to the 2023/24 data was to design and launch a tenant version of the final outcomes.  The Board had reviewed examples at the previous meeting, and a final draft for approval was attached at Appendix 4.  A further example was handed out at the meeting for the Board’s input.

The Board discussed both options.  It was decided another example would be produced and presented to most of the Tenants in attendance at another meeting that week for their approval – an email was also circulated after the meeting to collect feedback from those unable to attend.

The Chair stated, while the Council’s results were high and above the national average, improvements could still be made.  The Assistant Director of Housing Management & Enforcement noted the Council was also above the local average across Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire, and the Housing Services Manager agreed with the Chair that the Council’s aim should always be to achieve 100%.

RESOLVED that: 1) the performance for 2024/25 documented in the attached reports is reviewed and acknowledged;

2)    The Board review how the Council performed in 2023/24 compared to the national average and advise of any action to be taken; and,

3)    The Board review the draft tenant version of the 2023/24 data, and agree the final format.