Value for Money Self Assessment

Transcription

1 Value for Money Self Assessment

2 Contents The past year 4 Progress made in 2015/16 6 Governance and Scrutiny 9 How we invested our savings 12 Where our Money came from and how we spent it 18 Our performance and costs for 2015/16 20 Cost Per unit Analysis 42 Return on our assets 44 Other Value for Money gains 49 Looking to the future and areas for improvement 55 The Loop, our resident forum which reviews quantitative and qualitative aspects of our service delivery, reviewed this document and inputted into its development. 2 3

3 The past year At, we remain committed to delivering value for money across all parts of our business. We are passionate about providing quality, affordable homes where people feel respected and secure, at the right price for all our customers, and in doing so to help those with housing needs feel at home. Value for Money is not about cutting costs, or about providing services at the cheapest price; it is about achieving the best possible outcomes with the best use of finite resources. This is our Value for Money report against the final year of our Corporate Strategy and it has been one of our best years yet. For our customers: Overall customer satisfaction was the highest it has ever been, improving from 79% in 2014/15 to 87% at the end of the financial year; 2,159 residents benefitted from our financial inclusion activities, and we finished the year with our lowest ever current rent arrears (a decrease from 3.81% in 2014/15 to 3.72% in 2015/16 improvement of 45,500) and former tenant arrears (which decreased from 1.03% in 2014/15 to 0.83% by the end of March 2016, in cash terms this means that we collected 77,000 more in former tenant arrears than we did in 2014/15; For every pound spent on community initiatives during 2015/16, we generated 4.59 in social value, an increase of 89p from 2014/15. We helped 231 households with their energy bills, saving our residents a potential 30,030; We helped 26 residents into work, and 183 into volunteering roles, which has a social impact value of 321,214; We trained 128 residents to improve their work readiness skills, having a social impact value of 361,931; Our tenancy fraud work returned 49 properties illegally let back to families in housing need. For every pound spent on preventing tenancy fraud we returned 36 back to the public purse; After a national water bill audit, we achieved a 74,000 rebate for our residents. For our properties: We invested 48.2 million in our properties, making sure our repairs were carried out quickly and to a high standard; We replaced 454 kitchens, 702 bathrooms and wet rooms, completed 22 rewires, and 283 homes now have new windows; We developed 307 new homes; We improved the average SAP (Standard Assessment Procedure) rating of our properties from 66 in 2015 to 69 by March 2016, meaning improved energy performance and reduced energy bills for our residents. For our business: We improved our operating and net margin compared with previous years, and had our highest ever surplus after tax of 29.8 million. This meant we were able to invest in; work to support residents to increase personal benefits 1 to 465,310; our Domestic Abuse Service resulting in an increase of 300% in the number of domestic abuse cases identified and saved 765 on every case of domestic abuse; the Academy to provide targeted, efficient, relevant training to all colleagues; an additional 500,000 in our estates; carrying out an additional 1,642 stock condition surveys. In addition to this: We secured 100 million of government backed funding that will enable us to build more new homes; We regained our G1 rating for governance from the HCA in July 2015, and our V1/G1 status (the highest possible) was re-confirmed in January This shows we are meeting our regulatory consumer and economic standards, of which Value for Money is a key component; In March 2016 we completed our exit from the supported housing market, further increasing our focus on core activities. In October 2015 we started discussions with AmicusHorizon about forming a partnership. Our aim is to deliver significant efficiency savings through economies of scale and transformation, building greater financial capacity that will allow us to build more homes and provide a greater range of services, whilst remaining committed to our core social purpose and delivering improved customer service to our residents. 4 This year we launched a new corporate strategy. It identifies the priorities to focus on if we are to remain a high-performing housing association. 1 The term personal benefits refers to welfare benefits other than Housing Benefit. We make this distinction as if we increase a customer s Housing Benefit, this money will be paid to to cover their rent and the customer is no better off in terms of disposable income. Where we have increased a customer s personal benefits this means that they have more cash left at the end of each week after their rent has been paid. 5

4 Progress made in 2015/16 Key We have met our targets and delivered everything we planned We still have more work to do In September 2015, we published our 2014/15 Value for Money Self Assessment Statement, which identified our priority work for 2015/16. Focus on Procurement One of the key areas where we know we can improve Value for Money is in procuring new contracts. The following table shows the savings we have made this year. Project Spend per Annum ( ) Savings % 2015/16 Saving ( ) Stock Condition Surveys 237, % 80,135 Click Travel 528, % 5,040 VC window procurement (excl. Midlands) 1,057, % 89,381 Timber windows (Midlands) 200, % 32,569 Utilities 2,950, % 184,739 Cleaning Keyworker & Student Accommodation 720, % 54,820 Chemical Cleaning (Keyworker accommodation) 126, % 8,666 Fire Protection & detection 50, % 26,176 Reviewing and implementing a new approach to customer satisfaction We said we would: Continue better resourcing of repairs service; Implement new customer satisfaction methodology to help us reach top quartile performance among our peers. What we did: We changed the structure of the Property Services Team in May One of the key improvements was to create five technical lead posts. These operatives have increased ownership of repair jobs, which ensures we complete more repairs on the first visit; We improved the number of jobs we completed first time; in 2014/15, this was 92.5% of all repair jobs, in 2015/16 this rose to 94.4%; We reduced the average number of days it takes to complete a job from 14.4 days in 2014/15 to 11.1 days in 2015/16; By closer working between our repairs and reinvestment teams and better planning, we made the best possible use of materials, resources and time in our residents homes. This approach contributed to the increase in first time fixed jobs and the reduction in the number of days it took us to complete a repair; We developed two new approaches to monitoring resident satisfaction, which directly supports our new Corporate Plan. We have changed our approach to monitoring satisfaction with our services (transactional surveys) and we will now assess overall satisfaction with (brand recognition surveys) by speaking to a proportion of all our residents over the next three years; We appointed a new provider to help us gather feedback on our services repairs, lettings and our customer call centre. Establishing Cost and Performance Benchmarking We said we would: Update our performance management framework; Review and align our KPIs; Undertake operational service delivery cost analysis. What we did: In July 2015, we re-joined HouseMark; the leading provider of social housing data and insight. This allows us to directly compare our cost and operational performance with other housing providers. We used the service whilst developing our new Corporate Strategy and it helped us to set challenging Key Performance Indicator (KPI) targets to support its delivery. We reviewed our entire suite of KPIs to make sure we are in the best possible position to directly compare our costs and performance with other housing providers. We have now completed the full benchmarking exercise, which will allow us to carry out this comparison. Fleet Replacement Lease Costs 889, % 33,518 Total 6,759, % 515,046 We now use a range of methods to gather resident feedback (SMS text messaging and Interactive Voice Response) which maximises the responses we receive, improves the accuracy of the data we get back, as well as increasing the range of residents who respond. 6 7

5 Truly embedding value for money across We said we would: Develop a new Value for Money strategy. Establish Value for Money panels. What we did: Produced a new strategy, which clearly lays out our Value for Money priorities and targets for the next three years. Implemented new working practices including; developing detailed business plans that specify Value for Money targets for individual teams; challenging our colleagues to come up with innovative ways we can improve the services we deliver to customers and each other; devising a campaign to ensure we specifically link our Value for Money strategy and business plans with colleague objectives. We have more to do: The planned partnership discussions with AmicusHorizon has focused our resources away from some of our other priorities, but over the coming year, we will; Train colleagues to better understand Value for Money and involve more people in carrying out Value for Money assessments; Establish a Value for Money Group, where operational colleagues are able to take ownership of quick wins as well as drive bigger savings. This should make value for money part of every conversation, bringing it to the forefront of everybody s mind as they conduct business as usual; Ensure individual job descriptions include Value for Money, so that colleagues know we are all jointly responsible and can contribute to savings. Achieve efficiency savings of 10% by 2019 We said we would: Set budget targets for 2015/16, assuming 5% efficiency savings; Set targets for the following two years to deliver annual recurring savings of 2.5%. What we did: Assessed the changes to our operating methods, increasing the use of technology to reduce our costs. The 10.9m investment will give savings of 3m per annum; Improved how we procure, which will give further savings of up to 1.8m per year by 2017/18; Developed our new Corporate Plan , which sets out an efficiency target of 10% by the end of 2020 a predicted saving of 9.2m. Whilst exploring the benefits of creating a partnership with AmicusHorizon, we have continued to seek opportunities that will enable us to respond positively to the challenging external environment. An enhanced service offer to our residents is the critical determination of any partnership we consider and the following Value for Money core principles are at the centre of our discussions. We are clear that any partnership must; deliver more than we can deliver on our own; give us greater capacity to house more people; optimise Value for Money and efficiencies; maximise our assets and financial strength. We have more to do: Although we saved 2.5m this year, this isn t as much as we planned. We are now looking at all of our processes to see where we can save even more money. Governance and Scrutiny How we deliver Value for Money The Board is accountable for Value for Money. They approved the Corporate Strategy and our Value for Money Strategy. All decisions submitted to the Board must demonstrate Value for Money. Operating Board This chart shows how s Boards, committees and teams work together to ensure value for money. Resident Scrutiny Board Executive and Leadership Teams Treasury Committee Risk & Audit Committee Governance & Remuneration Committee Growth and Investment Committee Board The Board approves the annual budget which undergoes a high-level of scrutiny. Challenge is provided by our Finance team, Executive team and the Board. We also regularly monitor and review our management accounts. Four committees report to the Board, each providing more scrutiny of Value for Money. They are chaired by a Board member to ensure continuity between the work of the Board and its committees. 8 9

6 Governance and Remuneration Committee The Governance and Remuneration Committee is responsible for good governance, regulatory compliance and good practice. It oversees the pay, recruitment and performance of the Board, the Committees and the Executive Team. It takes a strategic view of people-related issues, including equality, diversity and inclusion, so that we meet our duties as an employer, and colleagues reach their full potential. Treasury Committee The Treasury Committee oversees s Treasury Management Policy and Strategy. The Board delegates authority to the Treasury Committee to make certain decisions and make recommendations for approval. is funded by a mix of the surplus it generates through its operations as well as grants and loans. At the end of March 2016 we had loans of million, on which we make regular interest payments. With interest payable of 12.8 million in 2015/16, it is essential we know the amount of these payments and when they will occur. Our loans are paid for at a mix of fixed and variable interest rates. This means we can benefit from a degree of predictable loan costs while we still benefit from lower interest rates on variable rate loans. The Bank of England has been suggesting interest rates must rise soon, which would increase s interest charge. Fortunately, we can manage the interest charge by entering into separate contracts with banks, known as interest rate swaps which serve to fix the cost of the debt. We closely monitor the amount of borrowing we have that is subject to variable interest rates, and ensure the risk and consequences of a rise in interest rates is acceptable at all times. We also monitor the cost of fixing the interest rate through the selective use of the contracts described. Growth & Investment Committee The Growth & Investment Committee provides a strategic overview of activity relating to the management of s assets. It assesses financial viability, consistency with strategic objectives and return on investment performance of Commercial Operations (hostels, student accommodation, key worker and market rent properties). The Committee considers asset management, new business & development and health & safety activities relating to these areas. It has delegated financial approval of 50 million for individual new developments and bids, stock transfer or property purchases and up to 5 million for other contracts. Risk & Audit Committee The Risk and Audit Committee provides strategic overview of risk, financial reporting, internal and external audit and assurance matters. It ensures riskmanagement processes are reviewed and aligned to the corporate strategy. At each meeting, the committee reviews our top 10 strategic risks and ensures that appropriate mitigating actions are in place. is funded by its surplus as well as grants and loans. At the end of March 2016 we had loans of million. The interest on this was 12.8 million. Resident Scrutiny Board recognises that residents are in a unique position to guide us in improving services. Supporting residents to become involved and give their views is crucial to our success. Review of Customer Services Examples of RSB recommendations Action taken and Impact on Value for Money Review of Lettings Examples of RSB recommendations Action taken and Impact on Value for Money The independent Resident Scrutiny Board (RSB) can review any aspect of s business. It reports to the Operating Board, although it can engage directly with the Board if it thinks action is not being taken on its reviews. The outcomes of service reviews are reported to the Board. The Resident Scrutiny Board is assisted by our Resident Auditors and Resident Service Inspectors, and they completed three reviews in 2015/16. Review contract of satisfaction survey supplier Improve staff stability by ensuring more Customer Service colleagues are on permanent contracts. We changed our approach to satisfaction monitoring and appointed a new provider. The annual saving from moving to this new supplier is 22,000 During the year, all colleagues working in the call centre were moved to permanent contracts. This has provided greater stability to the team and saved on recruitment and training costs. Carry out regular inspections to ensure our properties are being well maintained, prevent damage by customers and identify any repairs or work required. Consider undertaking basic redecoration work of void properties where it would speed up turnaround times We are undertaking a voids pilot scheme to reduce turnaround times and have included these recommendations as part of the project. We now routinely carry out pre-termination inspections, where a housing officer and surveyor inspect a property before it becomes a void. We also offer to carry out major works after customers have moved in. This way, customers have a say in the type of kitchen and bathroom they receive as well as reducing void times. Review of Customer Communications Examples of RSB recommendations Better publicise events to increase engagement through the various Social Media channels. Promote access to our services (such as repairs) through Social Media. Action taken and Impact on Value for Money We added links to our homepage to allow direct contact through Social Media. This contributes to our strategic aim of 50% of our contact with customers coming via online self service by

7 How we have invested our savings By saving money, we were able to invest in existing and new services. By having a specialist in place, we have seen an increase of 300% in the number of domestic abuse cases identified. For our Customers What we did: Increased personal benefits to customers of 465,310 Invested in our Domestic Abuse Service resulting in a three-fold increase in the number of domestic abuse cases identified and saved 765 on every case of domestic abuse supported compared to the cost of supporting the issues through an Anti Social Behaviour approach Affordability work The economic climate is one of the biggest challenges facing our residents. Welfare Reform, low income and unemployment are major contributors to financial stress. s Financial Inclusion team reduces the impact of Welfare Reform by increasing customers incomes. This is achieved by maximising their benefits and giving budgeting advice. The team also refers people to services such as our Energy Advice team. Every new household has an affordability assessment to check if they need support to pay their rent. In total, 2,159 customers benefited from these services this year and from a total increase of 465,310 in personal benefits. We monitor the impact of changes in benefits, tax credits and policy on our current and future customers. Our Research and Innovation team has worked out the impact of all planned tax, welfare and wage reforms for different types of household up to Understanding the impact of Welfare Reform shows us which residents will struggle most, and we strive to provide the solutions that offer the most help. For example, we now know that the lowering of the benefit cap in autumn 2016 will affect larger families without work more than any other group, yet unemployed smaller families will lose a greater proportion of their income from all planned welfare changes. We are using this research to plan new services. For example, we are exploring offering discounted rents to customers under the age of 35 so they can improve their income in the longer term. We are also considering the role we could play in affordable childcare for single parents. Domestic abuse prevention service In 2013 we commissioned in-depth research with our residents to identify how we could improve our response to domestic abuse. The following year we launched a three-year domestic abuse plan, supported by an award-winning communications campaign (UKHA, 2016). We employed a domestic abuse specialist to lead this project and since then we have: Helped 75 individuals and their families; Set up advice centres and support groups for Somali, Muslim and Latin American women where English is not their first language; Given specialist training to 52 staff on how to identify, respond to and support the victims of domestic abuse. This type of training costs approximately 650 a day. By delivering it in-house, the organisation has saved 2600; Delivered healthy relationship awareness to 950 young people. By having a specialist in place, we have seen a three-fold increase in the number of domestic abuse cases identified. By correctly identifying and dealing with incidents as domestic abuse rather than investigating as anti social behaviour (ASB), we have saved approximately 765 on every case. This is based on the average cost of investigating and taking enforcement action when handling ASB cases. During 2015/16, we had 415 new ASB cases, 72 of which were identified and dealt with as domestic violence. By correctly managing these cases, we saved a potential 55,000. The dedicated Domestic Violence officer costs 38,500 to employ, making a saving of 1.42 on every 1 we spend on this service

8 Ms R was a 23 year old woman with two young children under 5 who had been in an abusive relationship for over five years. We challenged our colleagues to come up with new ideas of how we can improve services. Neighbours complained of noise coming from her flat and there were calls for us to repair a communal door, windows and the lock on her flat door at least once a month. Police had been to her home three times in one month due to disturbances and neighbours told us they felt scared and unsafe in their homes. After a meeting with our ASB team, Ms R revealed that she was frightened of her partner. She had been in a relationship with a gang member who was well known to the police for drug dealing and violence. He was physically abusive towards her and she had been playing loud music to hide what was happening. He had damaged her home, including making holes in walls and doors, breaking windows and locks and leaving kick marks all over the property. He had prevented her from working due to his jealousy and even stopped her from learning how to drive. She felt trapped and alone. took significant steps to help Ms R which included: Talking to neighbours who began to call the police anytime they saw her former partner; Installing emergency security, such as a secure flat door, new communal door locks, window alarms, window locks & extra door locks on the property; Access to specialist counselling, including a 12 week programme to educate her about healthy relationships and domestic abuse; Referring her to our financial inclusion team who were able to help her access the correct benefits and reduce her rent arrears. Home Grown Innovation Challenge We challenged our colleagues to come up with new ideas of how we can improve services. More than 50 ideas were submitted from across the business, ranging from totally new initiatives aimed at helping our residents, to improving some of our existing processes. Nine of these will be implemented, along with a series of small quick win projects. Many of these have direct Value for Money implications as they relate to simplifying processes and directly saving money for our residents. Water appointed a water audit expert to provide a national water bill validation service. This involved checking water charges across all sites to identify any historical water company overcharges and to report back with potential water savings and water bill reductions. To date, total refunds and savings due to overcharges made by water companies have totalled 72,000. This money has gone straight back to our residents. Since working with us, Ms R now feels strong enough to make the right choices for her and her children. We helped her to move and decorate her home where she feels safe, happy and positive about what the future holds

9 For our Colleagues What we did: Invested in the Academy to provide targeted, efficient, relevant training to all colleagues. By delivering in-house we saved 658 for every training day delivered. For our Properties What we did: Invested an additional 500,000 in our estates Invested in an additional 1,642 stock condition surveys Academy One of the key strands of s new corporate strategy is focusing on our colleagues. We want to recruit, retain, reward and develop outstanding colleagues who feel motivated to embrace our values and deliver organisational priorities. This will ensure we deliver the best possible services for our residents. One of the key ways in which we will be able to deliver this is through setting up the Academy, providing targeted, efficient, relevant training to all colleagues. To ensure we maximise the return on investment, we will deliver training as bite sized workshops. This is considered to be best practice since it has greater impact on participants, is more cost effective, offers greater flexibility on the range of training offered and has less of an impact on productivity as colleagues are only out of the business for short periods of time. The training includes topics specific to such as our values and policies. This will help colleagues support the delivery of the corporate plan and our Value for Money Strategy. The total cost in 2016/17 is 46,000 for 2000 training places, which is a total of 500 training days. This equates to a cost of 92 per training day. Estate Improvements Works In September 2015, the Board agreed an extra 500,000 for estate improvement works with an emphasis on works which would help increase customer satisfaction and bring benefits to our residents. With the additional budget we were able to complete a range of works, from smaller jobs such as providing gardening equipment to residents and installing CCTV in communal areas, to larger projects such as replacing carpets with more suitable hard wearing flooring. We completed 84 upgrade jobs above those we had already planned for the year, spending a total of 482,000. Stock Condition surveys We aim to carry out stock condition surveys to a minimum of 20% of all our properties each year, so that by 2018, all of our homes will all have had a survey within the previous five years. Currently 81% of our homes have an up to date stock condition survey. During 2015/ 16 we planned to complete 3,966 surveys (27% of our homes). These were completed by November 2015, and at the start of 2016, the Board made additional funds available to carry out extra surveys. Between January and March 2016, we completed a further 1,642 surveys; bringing the total completed for the year to 5,608 properties (36% of our stock). This helps us understand our stock better and allows us to make better informed decisions and allows us to plan for future works and investment requirements. It avoids spending money on repairs that should be dealt with under an investment approach. Development We spent 47.7 million on building new homes, 5.1 million more than in 2014/15. We completed 307 new homes - more than last year s 298; At the end of the year we had 540 units under construction, with total scheme costs of just under 125 million; We sold 57 shared-ownership homes and had 12 outright sales, generating 13.9 million (compared with 7.7 million in 2014/15); We expect to sell 109 homes in 2016/17, for a further 19.5 million; We achieved 70 stair-casing completions, which made 2.9 million; 97% of customers were satisfied with their new home (target 95%); and In 2016/17, we expect to start building more than 450 new homes. We are on track to build 540 homes under the Mayor s Housing Covenant programme with the Greater London Authority (GLA). 127 homes are already completed, with a further 284 being built, and more are in the pipeline. We reduced our Development Allowance (the cost of managing development schemes) assumption from 3.5% last year, to 2.5%. This represents an efficiency saving of 639,000 per year. We will continue to look for further ways to improve our development management costs. Virdian won the National Housing Award for Best Design for our shared ownership scheme at Kidbrooke Village (Greenwich) and were highly commended in the Best Small Development category at the First Time Buyer Readers Choice Awards, for our development at Queens Walk in Ealing. We introduced a new defects process to improve our customer service. As a result we now know that we average less than one defect per property. We also ran a successful after-sales pilot to improve customer service from initial sale and throughout the defects period. We are looking to roll this out to more schemes in 2016/

10 Where our money came from 2015/ / /15 What we spent our money on 2015/ /15 Rents 94.5m 92.1m Service charges 9.4.m Supporting people income Shared ownership initial sales 0.4.m 0.7m 8.1m 8.5.m 33.9m 31.5m TOTAL 2015/ m 2014/ m 7.6m Open market sales Grants, fees & other Asset disposals and staircasing Fair value gains 2.6m 2.4.m 1.3.m 2.8m 5.4.m 6.6m 10.4m 12.4.m 5.9m 4.7m 9.2m 7.7m 14.4m 14.0m 8.9m 9.8m 11.4m 13.3m 9.9m 10.7m 4.7m 4.8m TOTAL 2015/ m 2014/ m Service charges 0.4m Supporting People costs 0.6m Routine maintenance Major repairs Employees Property and utilities Depreciation Interest Cost of shared ownerhip sales 2.3m Cost of open market sales 1.8m 3.0m 3.2m Other 0.5m Corporation tax 18 19

11 Our performance and costs for 2015/16 We monitor a range of cost and performance indicators to help us to assess how we have achieved Value for Money and where we can improve. Our performance in these areas for 2015/16 is outlined in this section. Growth in operating surplus We ended the year with a group operating surplus of 37.6 million (27% operating margin), up 25.9% from 2014/15. After interest and asset sales, we had a net surplus of 29.8 million (22% net surplus margin). Our surplus per home was 2,145 in 2014/15 and 2,430 in 2015/16 - a 13% increase. These surpluses are a result of tight financial management and a constant focus on Value for Money. Throughout this statement, we compare our performance with other social housing providers in the G15 2. Each section shows our performance compared with the last three years, and a comparison with other social housing providers in the G15 who have submitted shared data to HouseMark. Where there is no comparison graph, it is because there is no information available to benchmark against. Indicator We have met our targets and delivered everything we planned We still have more work to do Operating Surplus How are we doing? Operating Surplus (,000) % 95% 90% 85% 80% 75% 70% 65% 60% Satisfaction % Surplus Satisfaction Customer Services % Complaints Satisfaction Call Handling % Key Service Standards Rent Arrears Former Tenant Arrears Housing Management Cost per Property Property Services Void Management 2 This is an organisation comprising fifteen of the largest housing associations in and around London, which collectively are responsible for managing in the region of 410,000 homes. Although is not a member of the G15, most of our housing stock is located within London, among the homes of these housing providers. We know we face the same opportunities and challenges as these providers, working within the same Local Authorities and with residents facing similar challenges. We consider them to be the most useful comparator. We have only included data where the Housing Provider has made it available. Our banks look at our cash or operating surplus to make sure that we can pay the interest on our loans each year, and to determine if we are an efficient business. The more efficient we are the less we need to borrow and subsequently pay in interest. This also means that when we do need to borrow money we can secure better deals to finance our home building programme and any other priorities. Unlike commercial companies which make profits to distribute to shareholders (or to reinvest in new products & services), we make surpluses to be able to carry out more of our charitable aims. The primary use is to build more homes, and the more homes we have, the more money we can borrow to build even more homes. We also use surpluses to reinvest in our extra services or provide others that don t generate income but do provide a social benefit. Examples of these services include our work on Tenancy Fraud, Anti Social behaviour and initiatives to help people back into work

12 3000 Operating surplus per unit ( ) - comparison with G15 Customer Service Operating surplus per unit ( ) London & Quadrant Housing Trust Peabody Family Mosaic Metropolitan Housing Trust Limited Affinity Sutton Homes Limited Genesis Housing Association Limited Network Stadium Housing Association Southern Housing Group Limited AmicusHorizon Catalyst Housing Limited Notting Hill Housing Group A2Dominion Group Hyde Group Circle Operating surplus per unit ( ) Top Quartile Customer Satisfaction This year we surveyed nearly 6,500 residents and asked their views on: repairs; Customer Service Centre; complaint outcome; lettings; reinvestment. 100% Customer satisfaction Operating Margin (%) End of year operating margin comparsion with G15 Percentage operating margin Top Quartile Percentage satisfaction 95% 90% 85% 80% 75% 70% Repairs Customer Service Centre Complaint outcome Lettings Reinvestment 2013/ / /16 The above graph shows a comparison of s operating margin at the end of 2015/16 compared with social housing providers in the G15. Compared with our peers, we finished the year with the third best operating margin Notting Hill Housing Group Hyde Group (The) AmiscusHorizon Peabody A2Dominion Group Family Mosaic Circle East Thames Group Satisfaction in all areas improved during 2015/16 compared to the previous year. 23

13 Complaints We use a two-stage complaint process, where operational teams take ownership to resolve issues at the first point of contact. In 2015/16 we received nearly 10% fewer (388) formal complaints than in 2014/15 (429). Satisfaction with handling of complaint 2015/16 comparison with G15 Complaints received Vs number referrals to Housing Ombudsman 100% 90% 80% Number Complaints Received Number referred to Ombudsman Service Complaints received Number of referrals to the Housing Ombudsman Service Percentage satisfaction 70% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% AmiscusHorizon A2Dominion Group Catalyst Housing Newtwork Housing Group Peabody Hyde Group (The) East Thames Group The percentage of complaints upheld this year also fell compared with 2014/15. In 2015/16, 21.4% of all closed complaints were upheld compared to 25% in 2014/15. There were seven referrals this year compared to two in 2014/15. For four of these no maladministration was found. The remaining three are still under investigation. Satisfaction with handling Top Quartile The slight fall in satisfaction with the outcome of complaints (see Customer Satisfaction graph above) resulted in more referrals to the Housing Ombudsman Service. Resident satisfaction with most of our service areas improved during 2015/16. This coupled with our falling complaint numbers, shows that we are listening and responding to residents concerns. We developed our complaints process in consultation with residents. Understanding what is important to them, e.g. resolving issues quickly and permanently, has helped us ensure residents remain the most satisfied with the handling of their complaint when we compare ourselves with members of the G

14 Call Handling Service Level Commitments We closely monitor the time we spend and the cost to the business of resident interactions, especially calls to our Customer Services Centre. Over the last few years, we have been investing in our call centre colleagues, upskilling them to deal with queries first time. Each month we measure our First Call Resolution rate which shows the proportion of calls the team were able to resolve without having to refer the resident to specialist staff. Between 2014/15 and 2015/16, this rate increased from 76% to 84%. Increasing the rate of calls resolved by the initial call handler reduces the number of avoidable contacts created by customers, and shortens the time and cost of the call. Both of these factors lead to increased resident satisfaction. At we are committed to providing the best possible services we can. To demonstrate this to our customers, we publish a series of customer service standards. These standards include answering and returning calls and completing maintenance work within agreed times. Compliance with key service standards Calls resolved first time (%) 86% 84% 82% 80% 78% 76% 74% 72% % of contacts to our CSC resolved first time Vs resident satisfaction with call centre 81% 80% 79% 78% 77% 76% 75% Satisfaction with call centre (%) Percentage compliance 100% 95% 90% 85% 80% 75% 70% Calls answered Calls returned Emergency repairs 2013/ / /16 70% % calls resolved first time Satisfaction with Customer Service Centre 74% In 2015/ 2016, we answered 75% of calls to our customer service centre within five rings. All areas have shown an improvement on last year s performance. Two years ago, our CSC received 150,000 calls per year. During 2015/16, we received 118,000 calls; 21% fewer. This is a result of improving our call handling and encouraging residents to use alternative channels, such as

15 At, we aim to have 100% of our properties with up to date gas safety inspections at all times. Access to our residents homes can be difficult, and we use all of the options available to us including enforcement to ensure the safety of our residents. The following chart shows the percentage of our properties with valid inspection certificates as of the 31st March 2016 over the past three years. Percentage of properties with gas safety certificates % 99.95% 99.90% 99.85% 99.80% 99.75% 99.70% Gas safety compliance Rent Collection As with all registered social housing providers, most of s income is generated through rent and service charges. The biggest challenge we faced in 2015/16 continued to be the difficult economic climate and Welfare Reform. The roll out of Universal Credit has been slower than expected, but will impact on the ability of some of our residents to pay their rent. The benefit cap affects a smaller number of our residents but has had an immediate impact. Our Financial Inclusion team have worked with individual customers to help them find the most appropriate solution for their needs. Our income management performance continues to be effective, with arrears performance remaining strong, ending Current arrears (GN) the year with our lowest ever figure of 3.72% for General Needs. We have kept our focus on income management and arrears collection, establishing a payment culture amongst our residents. We have also improved our profiling of customer payment patterns to help us understand trends in their ability to pay. This helps us to predict and manage arrears performance % 3.90% Gas safety compliance comparison with G % 3.80% Percentage of properties with gas safety certificates % 99.90% 99.80% 99.70% 99.60% 99.50% 99.40% 99.30% 99.20% 99.10% Network Housing Group AmicusHorizon Family Mosaic Southern Housing Group Peabody Notting Hill Housing Group Catalyst Housing East Thames Group Hyde Group (The) A2Dominion Group Circle Gas safety certificate % Top Quartile 3.75% 3.70% 3.65% 3.60% Our rent arrears have improved by 0.18% over the past 3 years. We have achieved this by improving and automating many of our rent collection processes, changing our policy to require customers to pay in advance and establishing a strong Financial Inclusion team who advises customers about income maximisation, housing benefits, welfare benefits and energy cost savings. Our Volunteer and Employment service aims to move customers from benefit dependency into paid employment. We have introduced Rent Sense software which analyses arrears behaviours on a customer by customer basis, and helps us to focus on those customers whose payment behaviours have changed and prioritises them for targeted support While our robust arrears policies are working well to decrease the amount of money we are owed, our affordability support outlined in the How we invested our savings section has reduced the number of customers being evicted due to arrears by 13% between 2014/15 and 2015/16. Eviction is a last resort but is sometimes necessary either because a person can t or won t pay their rent. We are closely monitoring the impact of Universal Credit on our customers' ability to pay. Currently we have 46 customers on Universal Credit, with rent arrears of 15%; 10% lower than indicated in the Universal Credit pilots, which had average rent arrears of 25%. We think our approach to Welfare Reform is working and we will continue to monitor as more customers come under the umbrella of Universal Credit

16 The following graph shows a comparison of s end of year arrears performance compared with social housing providers in the G15. Former Tenant Arrears (FTA) General needs current arrears comparison with G15 housing providers / % Former tenant arrears The range of end of year current arrears values across the G15 in 2015/16 was between 2.75% and 5.97%. Our end of year performance of 3.72% put us just outside the best performers in the G15 (top quartile 3.51%). 30 Percentage current arrears 7.00% 6.00% 5.00% 4.00% 3.00% 2.00% 1.00% 0.00% Circle AmicusHorizon Catalyst Housing Network Housing Group Southern Housing Group East Thames Group Hyde Group (The) A2Dominion Group G15 Housing Association Member General needs current arrears comparison with G15 housing Providers. Family Mosaic Peabody Notting Hill Housing Group Top Quartile % former tenant arrears 1.50% 1.00% 0.50% 0.00% We wrote off 322,412 as bad debt in , compared to 731,528 in This is equivalent to an improvement of 56%. We continue to use the services of a specialist in-house colleague to collect our FTAs. We finished 2015/16 with our General Needs FTAs at an all time best performance of 0.83%. This is equivalent to 422,000; an improvement of 77,000 from the end of March We have invested circa 30,000 in the service this year. So for every 1 we have invested in this team, we have recovered an additional 2.56 in former tenant arrears. We will be expanding the FTA service in 2016/17 by adding one more full time post to this service, introducing competition between our debt recovery agencies, and reviewing probate files where we have FTAs due to a deceased customer and there may not be funds in the estate to settle our debt In 2015/16 we introduced our affordability assessments which don t just look at income versus rent, but also include other living costs. This helps us ensure we only let our properties to customers who can genuinely afford them. We do everything possible to ensure the financial, social and personal costs of having a home are not so high as to make residents fall into financial debt. For example: We help customers affected by the bedroom tax to downsize, reducing arrears and ensuring our customers are in accommodation they can afford. Our MoveMaker home swap service makes it easy for social housing residents who want to swap their properties to find more suitable accommodation in areas they want to live in. So far, nearly 2,500 customers have registered and are using the service to find a new home. 2013/ / /16 Our work around domestic abuse has shown that in all cases significant rent arrears have accrued, usually because financial abuse was a part of the domestic abuse. Part of our Domestic Violence Support service is to offer support to the resident with their finances. 31

17 The following graph shows a comparison of s former tenant arrears performance for 2015/16 with members of the G15. The range of former tenant arrearss among this group was between 0.68% and 3.34%, with our performance in the top three best performers. General needs former tenant arrears comparison with G15 Housing management Improving efficiency and reducing the money we spend on Housing Management functions 3 continues to be a focus for us. Using the calculation we have used for the past four years, we can see that the amount of money we spent per unit improved in 2015/16 compared with 2014/15, falling to 434 an improvement of 6 per property. Percentage of former tenant arrears 3.50% 3.00% 2.50% 2.00% 1.50% 1.00% 0.50% 0.00% Former Tenant Arrears (General Needs) Housing management cost per property ( ) Hyde Group (The) A2Dominion Group Catalyst Housing East Thames Group Southern Housing Group Circle Notting Hill Housing Group Family Mosaic Network Housing Group Peabody Top Quartile Our general needs FTA performance remains excellent compared to the registered providers in the G15. We finished this year in the top 25% of housing providers when we compare ourselves to members of the G15. In last year s statement, we said we wanted to fully understand how other providers measured Housing Management cost per property, to ensure we can align our costs and performance. Having re-joined HouseMark this year and completed a full cost and performance benchmarking process, we are now able to do this. We will: Increase operational efficiency by using a case work prioritisation tool. This will help our Housing Teams identify residents most at risk of accruing debt, so we can intercede and offer assistance. 32 Continue to invest in our in-house Financial Inclusion Team. This team both works with customers in financial difficulty and leads on our analysis of Welfare Reform, including layering the impact of the various different benefit changes that are included within the reforms. Celebrate the top performers in the business and share lessons learnt to increase effectiveness of arrears work. Expand the range of income functions carried out by the Customer Services Centre, taking advantage of their contact centre environment. 3 Housing Management functions include rent arrears and collection, resident involvement, anti-social behaviour, tenancy management and lettings. 33

18 The following graph shows that s cost per property 4 is about average compared with our peers in the G15. 4 This graph shows the Housing Management Cost per Property using the HouseMark methodology. 34 Total Housing Management Cost per property ( ) Housing management cost per property compared with G15 ( ) Family Mosaic Notting Hill Housing Group East Thames Group We will: Expand the range of tenancy and housing management functions that can be resolved by the Customer Service Centre. Southern Housing Group Peabody A2Dominion Group AmicusHorizon Catalyst Housing Hyde Group (The) Network Housing Group Identify opportunities to develop mobile/ digital working. For example our housing officers are currently piloting an on-line tool that allows them to update our housing management records in relation to estate services while they are out on estates. This improves Value for Money through reducing duplicated work and unnecessary travel time. Consider outcomes of our recent process review to identify efficiencies. Circle Total housing management cost per property Top Quartile Establish how the housing management service for the new organisation should be structured. In designing the housing management service we will consider both the cost and the needs of our customers, creating a service which provides good value for money. Property Services Repairs and Maintenance Service Housing has an in-house labour service which carries out over 90% of all responsive repairs and gas servicing works. We also have a unique in-house planned and major works service that we use to complete over 90% of all voids work (both major and minor) and 55% of all planned and major works each year. Both these services provide Housing with the flexibility to meet the needs of our customers whilst delivering high levels of satisfaction and financial efficiency. Repair cost per property ( ) In May 2015, the Board approved additional funding to the Property Services team to invest in extra management and supervisory resources to improve service delivery to 90% customer satisfaction, whilst reducing our costs to 464 per property by March During the year, 35,223 responsive repairs were completed with 99.8% of emergency jobs and 96.8% of all routine repairs delivered within agreed timescales. Our first time fix rate for repairs was 94.4% and our average time to complete a repair was 11.1 days. Responsive Repair Cost per Property Repair cost per property Satisfaction with repair Since the introduction of these changes, we have seen a significant improvement in maintenance performance, and both key targets set by Board were exceeded, with the team reaching 91% satisfaction at a reduced cost of 451 per property Satisfaction with repair (%) 35

19 The following graph shows a comparison with repairs satisfaction at Housing with registered providers in the G15. Satisfaction with repair comparison with G15 The following graph shows how we compare with members of the G15 on repair cost per property. 100% 90% 80% At 451, we had the third lowest repair cost per property when compared with members of the G15. Our challenge in 2016/17 will be to reduce our cost per property to 428 whilst maintaining the quality and delivery of service standards achieved last year. To 36 Repair cost per property ( ) Repair cost per property compared with G15 East Thames Group Hyde Group (The) Network Housing Group Circle A2Dominion Group Family Mosaic AmicusHorizon Peabody achieve this target we will continue to reduce the use of specialist contractors by expanding our existing in-house services so we can internally deliver works such as drainage, pest control and roofing by improved procurement methods. Notting Hill Housing Group Southern Housing Group Catalyst Housing Repair cost per property Top Quartile Percentage satisfied 70% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% AmiscusHorizon Notting Hill Housing Group Hyde Group (The) Circle Catalyst Housing Southern Housing Group Network Housing Group This graph shows that when we compare ourselves with the social housing providers in the G15, our performance is in the top quarter, and is third highest. Average cost per repair comparison with G15 Average cost ( ) East Thames Group Hyde Group (The) Network Housing Group A2Dominion Group Peabody Notting Hill Housing Group Southern Housing Group Peabody A2Dominion Group Our average repair cost of is the fourth lowest when we compare ourselves with those providers in the G15 that share this information. Family Mosaic East Thames Group Family Mosaic Average repair cost Top Quartile % Satisfaction Top Quartile 37