Housing Scrutiny

Housing Scrutiny Caretaking Presentation - Meric Apak September 2007

Caretaking presentation to Housing Scrutiny Committee – September 2007 Research • Camden - Survey results of residents in Artisan Dwellings (2004) • Artisan Dwellings TRA - Residents Survey results (2006) • Straw poling of Caretakers perceptions (2007) • Monitoring systems in place • Summary

Caretaking presentation to Housing Scrutiny Committee – September 2007 Conflict Resolution Toolkit developed by Compas@TPAS in association with the Housing Ombudsman Service and the Housing Corporation (Extract) It's important to note that although both Camden and council tenants want the same outcome, they approach this from their differing perspectives – provider and receiver. It is this dynamic that makes resident involvement such an essential business activity. Without both perspectives there is always only half a story.

Caretaking presentation to Housing Scrutiny Committee – September 2007 A – Yes 46% B – No 50% Sometimes 4% Are you happy with the standard of caretaking? Council door knocking exercise – April 2004 Those answering NO made the following comments: 7 residents complained that the communal floors weren’t cleaned properly and of those two residents said that the caretakers only clean the ground floor. 2 residents noted the problems with rough sleepers and drug takers cause e.g. urinating in the lifts.

Caretaking presentation to Housing Scrutiny Committee – September 2007 Observations of staff carrying out the survey. Ray Allard, Area Manager, South Team, Kentish Town DHO. I was verysurprised by the commentsI have heard about the standard of caretaking in these blocks, having just visited every block and going on to every floor I can say I can seenothing wrongwith the standard of caretaking. I must say thewhole estate looked clean and tidy. If I were to express any concern it would be about the large number of bicycles and other furniture that seems to be stored on the landings. However, this is not something that falls under the control of caretakers. Mandy Berger, Estate Officer, South Team, Kentish Town DHO. I was veryimpressedby the cleanliness of the blocks. I recognise that the floor coverings can look marked even if they have just been washed so this may look like the work is not being done when in fact it actually is. The lifts were very clean and did not smell either.I agree about the number of items left on the landings. These should be cleared by their owners. Natasha Dickinson, Deputy Area Manager, South Team, Kentish Town DHO. On the whole I thought the blocks were in avery good and clean condition; all paintwork and walls looked very clean. Some of the upper floors in the middle blocks had slightly dusty/grubby floors, but some of this could have been down to the items, especiallybikes, stored in these communal halls. Also we saw a tenant using a communal hall as a smoking room, (although she did use an ashtray). I did wonder if some of the residents we questioned hadunrealistic expectations of the service we provide,and others complained about drug users/vagrants using the blocks at night and leaving a mess. This is obviously not the fault of the caretaking service, but a wider problem, as long as any mess is cleared/cleaned in the next working day. Matthew Shaw, Project Officer, Kentish Town DHO. I wasimpressedwith the cleanliness of the blocks in Royal College Street. I did note that some of the residents that were questioned referred to rough sleepers causing a number of problems (e.g. urinating in the lifts, sleeping in communal areas). Obviously this would have an impact on the amount of caretaking required to bring the cleanliness of the block up to an acceptable standard. I also noted that there were anumber of bicyclesbeing stored in communal areas.On one landing there were four bicycles and given the recent amount of rainfall this would also have an affect on the amount of caretaking required.

Caretaking presentation to Housing Scrutiny Committee – September 2007 Artisan Dwellings TRA (September 06) Residents questionnairePlease rate the following council services

Caretaking presentation to Housing Scrutiny Committee – September 2007 Artisan Dwellings TRA (September 06) Residents surveyPlease rate the following council services

Caretaking presentation to Housing Scrutiny Committee – September 2007 Caretakers SurveyJanuary – March 2007 I undertook a questionnaire for caretakers. I wanted to find out if they had any contributions to make for perceptions of tenants in general, about allegations of poor caretaking services.Under a promise of anonymity I managed to interview 13 caretakers.

Caretaking presentation to Housing Scrutiny Committee – September 2007 Summary of Caretaker’s Survey • Demoralisation due to staff shortages and unrealistic expectations • Inadequate/inappropriate supervision/monitoring protocols • Tenants are mislead by bureaucracy, therefore their expectations of the service is unrealistic • Lack of effective and transparent involvement of all partners • Some districts deal with these issues and the resulting stresses in different ways, resulting in better outcomes then others. • This fragmented approach results in inconsistent service delivery and differing levels of quality.

Caretaking presentation to Housing Scrutiny Committee – September 2007 In more detail Demoralisation: • Holiday and sickness – inadequate cover. • Being shifted from estate to estate. • Expectations beyond the call of duty (clearing up drugs paraphernalia and bodily fluids). • Inadequate equipment to do the work.

Caretaking presentation to Housing Scrutiny Committee – September 2007 In more detail Monitoring / Supervision 1) Desired Cleanliness 2) Attainable Cleanliness 3) Attainable = 100% 4) 75% is acceptable

Caretaking presentation to Housing Scrutiny Committee – September 2007 In more detail • DMCs, DMPs, the Executive, and this very committee, has received reports from HASC, claiming that Caretaking continues to be a high quality service. • How is it then that not all residents would agree with this statement? • How is it that HASC’s bench mark of 75% satisfactory threshold is not believed by residents? • What if that 75% could in fact be equal to 47%?

Caretaking presentation to Housing Scrutiny Committee – September 2007 In more detail Monitoring / Supervision 1) Desired Cleanliness

Caretaking presentation to Housing Scrutiny Committee – September 2007 In more detail Monitoring / Supervision 1) Desired Cleanliness 2) Attainable Cleanliness

Caretaking presentation to Housing Scrutiny Committee – September 2007 In more detail Monitoring / Supervision 1) Desired Cleanliness 2) Attainable Cleanliness 3) Attainable = 100%

Caretaking presentation to Housing Scrutiny Committee – September 2007 In more detail Monitoring / Supervision 1) Desired Cleanliness 2) Attainable Cleanliness 3) Attainable = 100% 4) 75% is acceptable But 75% = 47% ?

Caretaking presentation to Housing Scrutiny Committee – September 2007 What Tenants Suggested ! • A simple tick-box check list similar to those used in Motorway Stations. • This has been rejected by the Portfolio Group as “not practical or suitable for this application”. • Why then is it suitable for the sixth floor in Bidborough House? • When asked as to no tenant involvement in the set up or participation in the Portfolio Group, the same reason was given!

Caretaking presentation to Housing Scrutiny Committee – September 2007 At Artisan Dwellings we have now resorted to seek a resolution to our Caretaking issues through setting a Local Compact I can’t help feeling that unless the defensive attitudes on both sides give way to taking a leap of faith to understand each others’ perspectives, and accepting them, and without a directive from senior management to have an ‘open mind’ about exploring different and effective monitoring systems for cleaning, the deadlock would continue and it is highly likely that there will be no agreed resolution to this issue.

Housing Scrutiny