1. Transfer of Private Sewers and Lateral Drains CHC Task and Finish Group October 2011 Nigel Godfrey Private Sewer Transfer Programme Team

2. Contents  Aims and objectives of session  DCWW experience of the transfer  Housing association experience of the transfer  Next steps 2

3. Aim and Objectives of the Session 3 OBJECTIVES  To share some experiences of the transfer from a DCWW perspective and some of the numbers affecting the business  To get feedback on the operational guidelines that DCWW and CHC members prepared through August and September 2011  To identify next steps and the future of the task and finish group AIM  The working group to provide feedback on the operational guidelines and help to facilitate a smooth transfer of private sewers and lateral drains for tenants / customers

4. Contents  Aims and objectives of session  DCWW experience of the transfer  Housing association experience of the transfer  Next steps 4

5. Impact of the transfer on DCWW CALL VOLUMES  Call volumes are up by 7% overall on usual October level, on weekdays the uplift on baseline is 39%.  Most common reasons behind rise in calls:  Technical questions (e.g. Ongoing issues)  When a problem will be fixed  Insurance claims  Confirmation of responsibility  We are also getting a rise in the number of call backs (green bars)  Overall call volumes are below the expected level - this is case in most WASCs. COMMENTARY

6. Impact of the transfer on DCWW JOBS / INCIDENTS  Jobs are up 35% on usual October level of jobs.  The red bars on the chart reflect jobs classified on a transferred sewer or lateral drain. Of all jobs with a classification, 39% are jobs on transferred assets (this is 70% if we exclude private jobs).  Again, DCWW are in line with other WASCs where call – job ratio has increased across the board.  Overall we are just about hitting our low projection. COMMENTARY

7. Contents  Aims and objectives of session  DCWW experience of the transfer  Housing association experience of the transfer  Next steps 7

8. Housing association experience of the transfer 8 1. Call handling  Have housing associations seen an impact on call volumes since 1st October?  How are housing associations finding determining responsibility at the call handling stage (have the prompting questions helped)?  How have housing associations found the experience of passing jobs through to DCWW? E.g. Passing of information, job no, waiting times.  How have housing associations found DCWW’s call back process:  To tenants  To tenants and landlord when their is an excavation  Are housing associations clear about the information DCWW require to process a call? Has there been any difficulties in this area?

9. Housing association experience of the transfer 9 2. Site investigations  Have housing associations sent out crew / gangs / contractors for initial site investigation and subsequently needed to phone the job through to DCWW?  Have their been many occasions where, during the site investigation the housing association / their contractors cannot identify where the problem is and who is responsible (first responder resolves the problem)?

10. Housing association experience of the transfer 10 3. Change in responsibilities / 4. Claims and procurement  What is the approximate split of jobs across the following 4 scenarios and any issues with the 4 scenarios set out in the operational guidelines? Problem on private asset – Landlord to clear problem or DCWW will pass problem to landlord. Problem on DCWW asset – this will phoned through to DCWW providing the requested information. Problem is in an area where it is unclear who’s responsible – First responder will resolve the problem and record information should the problem become a regular event and need to be passed to the other organisation. This should only occur on the pipe which bridges a boundary and is anticipated to be only simple blockage clearance work as any follow on work identified will need to be passed the appropriate organisation. Both DCWW and landlords will respond on this basis. Problem on DCWW asset and tenant is at imminent risk of internal flooding or pollution – priority will be with mitigation work and informing DCWW immediately by the first responder. This is only permitted when the problem is within the boundary of the landlord’s property so will avoid the restrictions around working in the highway or on private property.  How has expectation setting been received, when informing a same day SLA to tenants for response by DCWW?  Have housing associations had any feedback from contractors?

11. Housing association experience of the transfer 11 5. Escalation of problems  DCWW have not received any escalations of issues from housing associations – is this because the guidelines are working, because the process is unclear, or simply not enough jobs raised yet?  Have housing associations received follow up contacts from tenants chasing the status of jobs passed through to DCWW?

12. Housing association experience of the transfer 12 6. DCWW mapping  Has the GIS web viewer made available to housing associations been useful?  Any issues with the GIS web viewer?  Have housing associations noted any potential updates to the GIS web viewer – and if so what has happened to the update?

13. Housing association experience of the transfer 13 7. Future communications  What communications have housing associations given to their tenants about the private sewer transfer and what is housing associations observations about the level of understanding about the transfer with their tenants?

14. Contents  Aims and objectives of session  DCWW experience of the transfer  Housing association experience of the transfer  Next steps 14

15. Next Steps 15 Points to consider  Based on conversations is there any need to change the content of the guidelines?  Is there anything we need to be doing in terms of further communications with landlords and / or their tenants?  Do we need to continue with the task and finish group, and if so under what format?