Scrutiny Panel Reviews
Aids and Adaptations Review – carried out between September – December 2017
Recommendations were:
When the Disabled Adaptations Policy and leaflet are read abbreviations are used frequently without consideration to those reading it.
The recommendation is that a simple Jargon Busters should be added to all policies and leaflets for any abbreviated or complex terminology.
It has been agreed that a jargon buster will be added to the first page of the policy meaning that the reader can quickly look at the first page to see what the abbreviated term means. This should make it quicker and simpler for the resident to read. The amendment will be made when the policy is next reviewed.
Does the word ‘disabled’ have to be used within the documents, as this could be seen as discriminatory?
The recommendation is that the word ‘disabled’ be removed or exchanged for more modern terminology. For example the policy be called ‘The Aids and Adaptations Policy’ rather than the ‘Disabled Adaptations Policy’.
The word ‘Disabled’ is an internationally recognised term that is often used in policies, particularly referencing aids and adaptations. Therefore this recommendation cannot be adhered to.
Communication between tenants and some contractors was poor.
The recommendation is that if contractors repeatedly cause issues for tenants in regards to poor communication and/or poor workmanship these contractors should not be given further jobs, particularly adaptations.
WHiA will ensure that throughout the adaptation process when work is being completed the WHiA technical officer will visit the client every other day giving support if needed. The technical officer will sign off on any job and this will not be done if they are not satisfied. If clients are not happy with work being done by the contractor they must contact WHiA who will deal with the issues.
There was poor communication between contractors working on the same adaptation.
The recommendation is that if more than one contractor is being used as part of an adaptation, clearer communication needs to be guaranteed to ensure the contractors have a clear understanding of when their aspect of the job is to be started and finished.
Again WHiA will ensure that throughout the adaptation process when work is being completed the WHiA technical officer will visit the client every other day giving support if needed. The technical officer will sign off on any job and this will not be done if they are not satisfied. If clients are not happy and there are issues between the contractors they must contact the WHiA rather than causing issues for the client.
The Application Form and Process Review – carried out between February – April 2018
Recommendations were:
Clarification of property size and area on the application form.
The recommendation is if the size of properties were added to the list of areas on the application form this should increase VfM as it will decrease staff time in explaining to applicants that they cannot live in certain areas.
For example:
- Great Sankey/Hood Manor – 2, 3 and 4 bed houses, 1 bed retirement apartments and bungalows
- Lingley Green (Cronulla Drive) – 2 and 3 bed houses and 1 bed bungalows
This recommendation may be revisited at a later date, as the full application form is to be reviewed again internally, so that it can be printed properly and become more corporate. If space allows the property size and area may be added the application form at this stage.
Some changes to the general needs application form to streamline and make it easier for applicants to complete, while also providing evidence for the CSA’s so they do not always have to chase information.
The recommendation is that changes are made to the application form as this will provide the CSA’s with more information, potentially reducing the time they would need to contact applicants to ask for further information and clarification of their forms.
These changes will be made to the active application form in due course.
Clarification whether sharing bedrooms age is 15 or 16 years old.
The recommendation is that a decision needs to be made as to whether it is 15 or 16 years and the correct information needs to be put into all documents so that it is consistent.
It has been agreed that the age is ??. This has been agreed and will be changed on the relevant documents in due course.
Clarification over phrases used such as ‘retiring age’ and ‘retirement’.
The recommendation is that rather than using the term ‘retiring age’ a specific age/number should be given to provide clarity as in the ‘Retirement Living’ leaflet.
The Senior Management Team will agree a specific age, rather than using the term ‘retiring age’ and this will be incorporated into the relevant documents.
The ‘Retirement Living’ leaflet that is sent out with the retirement application form needs to be reviewed as information is no longer valid.
Members of the Scrutiny Panel current live or attend the different retirement schemes to provide the evidence and they feel the leaflet should be consistent with current living arrangements in the properties. The recommendation is that the leaflet is updated for prospective applicants and residents.
The Senior Management Team have agreed that this leaflet is outdated and it will be up dated with the relevant information in due course.
Ensuring the different documentation has the same information in regards to time scales.
In the ‘Customer Services Charter’ leaflet it says you will be contacted within 5 working days yet in the ‘Applying for a Home’ leaflet it says you will be contacted within 10 working days.
The recommendation is the time scales need to be agreed and be the same on both documents.
The Senior Management Team have agreed that the timescales need to be clarified, therefore a decision will be made between 5 and 10 days and the correct information will be included on the relevant documentation.
Not achieving timescales detailed in documentation due to confusion and lack of staff awareness.
The recommendation is clarification needs to be provided to both staff and applicants in regards to how long it will take to receive confirmation of the application and then acceptance onto the waiting list and the banding given. Clarification for applicants needs to be provided in the ‘Applying for a Home’ leaflet, so that applicants know how long they should be waiting for responses.
Timescales will be agreed with the Housing Officers and Customer Service Advisors. This timescales will then be communicated to the applicants either via letter, email or on the telephone. The correct time scales will also be included in the relevant documentation. This will be altered in due course.
Clarification of acknowledgement letter.
The recommendation is that the initial letter sent to an applicant needs to clearly detail that this is only an acknowledgement of application and NOT a confirmation of acceptance onto the waiting list. In this letter a time scale needs to be given to the applicant to show how long they will wait in regards to acceptance or rejection onto the waiting list.
This letter will be rewritten to ensure that clarity is given to applicants in regards to the acknowledgment and that it is NOT an acceptance onto the waiting list. A time scale will also be agreed that will be communicated to the applicant in this letter detailing how long they will have to wait to find out if they have been accepted or rejected onto the waiting list. This will be done in due course.
Create an initial telephone assessment system, before a detailed paper or online application is completed.
The recommendation to create a telephone based assessment system should reduce the number of paper based applications, and the number of applicants of the waiting lists for a long period of time. Thus reducing the time spent by Customer Service Advisor’s contacting applicants that are no longer suitable for properties, or having applicants contact WHA to readdress or deal with their application.
Due to the small size of the Association and the limited number of staff, this recommendation would be impossible to manage as staff would not have the time to complete the calls. We currently have a ‘loose’ vetting system where the Customer Service Advisor’s will ask potential applicants a series of questions that may determine their suitability for a property and whether they should officially apply for a property or not.
