1. Customer Satisfaction Research Produced for: Raven Housing Trust – August 2012 Presented by Emma Dallolio Customer Satisfaction Research Produced for: Raven Housing Trust – August 2012 Presented by Emma Dallolio

2. Background and Objectives Explain commissioned to carry out a research programme to track customer satisfaction Cleaning Services Repairs and Maintenance Housing Services Y2 Q1 - 150 calls Y1 - 300 calls Y2 Q1 - 300 calls Y1 - 700 calls Y2 Q1 - 300 calls Y1 - 500 calls Two research periods Y2 Q1 - April 2012 to June 2012 Y1 - September 2011 to March 2012

3. Results Cleaning Total Sample September 2011 - June 2012

4. Raven Overview Satisfaction levels remain high with overall satisfaction with Raven exceeding its target of 79% (88% overall, 94% sheltered) High in the South (91%) and Housing Services (90%) 92% among 55+ age group Patch H – Woodhatch, Reigate, Salfords, Horley (93%) KPI met for Repairs and maintenance, overall satisfaction (88%) However, below target for window cleaning, communal cleaning services, grounds maintenance and VFM NPS score of 30 overall Higher among sheltered residents (50) Repairs service (35) South (38)

5. Raven Overview As to be expected, 16-34 year olds have greater access to the internet (71% at home, 79% elsewhere). However, this group appear to be more demanding – satisfaction significantly lower across the board this age group feeling less valued their views are not listened to by Raven often citing communication issues Feeling valued has a significant impact on NPS (Yes 47% vs. No -60%)

6. Overview –Total Sample The profile of customers surveyed are detailed below Base: Repairs 966, Housing 801, Cleaning 451

7. Overall Satisfaction with Raven

8. Only 77% in the North, rising to 92% in the South 96% in the North, down to 88% and 89% South & Central 83% North & Central, increasing to 93% South

9. Overall Satisfaction with Raven

10. Net Promoter Score -2% 305032252235303122 38 NPS NPS decrease since last year Cleaning -7 to 17% Y2 Repairs -7 to 29% Y2 Housing -4 to 28% Y2 Reasons given - ‘Had problems in the past’ and ‘Poor standard of work’ (each 16%, +9% since Y1) Reasons include ‘Had problems in the past’ (+16% to 25%), ‘Communication problems’ (+2% to 10%), ‘Poor staff / workmen’ (+7% to 12%) and ‘Poor standard of properties’ (+3% to 6%) A third of detractors were ‘Generally satisfied’. ‘Need to look after properties’ (+8% to 9%), and ‘Had problems in the past’ (+4% to 7%) were other key reasons

11. Net Promoter Score -2% 3032252235303122 38 NPS Central, -10% since last year to 15% Y2 Reasons - ‘Had problems in the past (+5% this year). Although ‘General dissatisfaction’ has decreased by 9% to 19% this year

12. Net Promoter Score -2% 3047-60-81-70422123413628 NPS Little variance between surveys for feeling valued (ranging from 84% - 87%) South patch feel more valued than North and Central 16-34 year olds feel less valued than the 55+ ‘Just another number’ was mentioned more in Central than the other two patches (26% Central, compared with 14% in the North and South), although a further 38% think ‘Raven don’t care’

13. Net Promoter Score -2% 3047-60-81-70422123413628 NPS Little variance between surveys for feeling valued (ranging from 84% - 87%) South patch feel more valued than North and Central 16-34 year olds feel less valued than the 55+ ‘Repairs / maintenance still outstanding’, ‘Raven don’t listen to the views of the tenants’, ‘Poor service’ and ‘Poor customer service’ were mentioned more among this age group

14. Net Promoter Score -2% 3047-60-81-70422123413628 NPS Reasons - ‘General satisfaction’ (30%), ‘Had problems in the past’ (18%) and ‘Timescales’ (16%) Literal comments refer to the time it takes to come and do the work

15. Net Promoter Score -2% 3047-60-81-70422123413628 NPS NPS among 25-34 year olds is only 13% Y2, almost halved since last year (25% Y1) Reasons include: ‘Had problems in the past’, ‘Communication problems’ and ‘Poor standard of work’ Literal comments indicate Raven are not very good at keeping / getting back in touch

16. Net Promoter Score -2% 33322621302213344635 NPS Reasons given - ‘Had problems in the past’ and ‘Timescales’ (17%)

17. Raven KPI’s On target! Higher level of dissatisfaction for Window Cleaning (16%), Grounds Maintenance (12%) & Value for money for you rent (12%) Poor quality work Poor quality cleaning and can’t remember any / last cleaning Expensive

18. Internet Access -2% As to be expected, the younger age group has greater access to the internet and own a mobile phone ‘Nokia’ and Apple iPhone owned more than any other (28% and 15%)

19. Repairs and Maintenance (Total, Y1 vs.Y2)

20. 970 interviews achieved (704 Y1, 266 Y2) Objective – explore levels of satisfaction with the repairs and maintenance services There is very little change when comparing Y1 with Y2 data High levels of satisfaction for service - 88% overall (-2% to 86% this year) With lowest satisfaction among the 16-34’s (83%, 92% among 55+) Repairs & Maintenance ‘Time taken to come out’ (35%) and ‘Communication issues / lack of communication’ (30%) ‘Poor quality repairs’ (30%) and ‘Ongoing problems’ (21%) Particularly in the North and South (35%) North (31%), only 9% South Central (32%) and 35% among 35+ yrs

21. Repairs & Maintenance NPS decrease of 7% to 29% this year Excellent NPS in South (50%), lowest in Central (23%) 35-54 year age group lowest at 20%, 51% among 55+ ‘Deal with enquiries quickly’ (15%, 12% North, 11% South) ‘General satisfaction’ (47%, 40% 35- 54, 34% 16-34) Comparing reasons among detractors, ‘General dissatisfaction’ (36%), ‘Poor standard of work’ (12%) and ‘Repairs not complete’ (7%) were mentioned more than other areas ‘Communication’ was the main reason for being a detractor (15%), other than ‘General dissatisfaction’ (33%)

22. Repairs & Maintenance Satisfaction with staff ‘Knowledge’ much improved (91% Y1, 97% Y2) Slightly more appointments were made by Raven this year (90%, 88% Y1) Providing the company name has increased by 11% this year to 74% (66% Overall) Greater in the South and among male respondents (70%) Confirmation of the repair by the tradesperson has increased by 11% to 63% this year (55% overall) Less than half (48%) 16-34 years olds received confirmation, although this does not affect satisfaction ratings Higher among the two older age groups (94% each, 89% 16-34) Higher in South 96%, Central 91%, North 92% Greatest among men and the older age group (62%, 59%)

23. Repairs & Maintenance Satisfaction with ‘Time taken to complete the work’ increased by 2% to 89% this year, with noticeable demographic differences ‘Right first time’ still an issue A slight reduction from last year (-3% down to 77%) A difference in opinion among the young and old is evident 74% 16-34 yrs, 83% 55+ (small base size) +5% in Central to 91% +6% among 35-54’s to 88% Although lowest across North patch (86% Y2) Dissatisfied due to ‘Length of time to complete the repair’ (North) and ‘Length of time taken to come out ‘ (North & South) ‘Inadequate repair work carried out’ (23% compared with 12% 35-54’s and 21% 55+) Only 11% in the North, compared with 20% and 22% Central and South

24. Repairs Service Satisfaction ‘Overall quality of repair work’ has been consistently lower this quarter compared with last year, falling to 85% among 16-34 years olds Comments explaining dissatisfaction remain the same as last year and focused on the quality of the repair and not being ‘Right First Time’. Base too small to analyse at demographic level

25. Repairs Service Satisfaction Comments explaining dissatisfaction remain the same as last year and focused on the quality of the repair and not being ‘Right First Time’ Note: Y2, small base (21), Y1 (122) ‘Poor quality of work’, and ‘Repair incomplete’ were the main reasons for dissatisfaction (each 33% Y2, 19% and 14% Y1) Other reasons include ‘Repair required again’ (29% Y2, 11% Y1)

26. Right First Time? 18% stated Raven didn’t get it right first The main reasons for this is similar to last year, with an increase of 9% indicating it is an ‘ongoing issue’ -5% Ongoing issue (32%, 23% Y1) Chasing repair (26%, 21% Y1) Communication issues (26%, 21% Y1) Two key areas – Lack of communication between Raven departments and the customer, and multiple calls made by the customer to chase 30% in the North, 23% Central 32% in the North, 15% Central 26% in the North, 18% South

27. Overall Satisfaction with Repairs Overall satisfaction with repairs remains similar (86%, 88% Y1) Difference among the demographic groups are visible North (85%) least satisfied area 16-34 (83%) and 35-54 (85%) least satisfied, 55+ (92%) -5% ‘Time taken to come out’ was the main reason in North and 16-34 groups ‘Poor quality repairs’ was the main reason for the 35-54’s (small base size)

28. Suggested Improvements Areas for improvement for repairs and maintenance 32% suggested improvements (29% Y1) Communication (28%) Timescales to deal with repairs / enquiries (21% Y1, 24% Y2) Staff training/knowledge (19% Y1, 13% Y2) Central area (34%) in particular (23% & 27% North & South) North & South in particular (27% & 26%, 16% Central) North area (23%) in particular (18% & 9% Central & South) The areas for improvement remain the same as last year I think listen to the tenants a bit more Stay in contact if a job hasn't been completed

29. Housing Services (Total, Y1 vs.Y2)

30. Housing Services 801 interviews achieved (500 Y1, 301 Y2) Objective – explore levels of satisfaction with general housing services There are a few changes when comparing Y1 with Y2 data A slight increase in satisfaction for housing services provided (86% overall) NPS decrease by 5% since Y1 to 27% Y2 Greatest satisfaction among older age group (89%) and North patch (91%) Other than ‘General satisfaction’, ‘Never had any problems’ is the main satisfaction reason (29% & 23%) Rising to 41% among males and 38% North patch Lower among Central (25%) and 16-34 22%) Main reasons were ‘Need to look after properties’ and ‘Ongoing issues.’ Note: small base size

31. Housing Services 85% felt Raven value them a customer (84% Y1) Of those that don’t feel valued, ‘Raven don’t care’ is the main reason (55%, 41% Y1) Suggested improvements down by 2% to 31% this year 53% for 35-54 age group and North residents, 48% among 55+, only 30% among 16-34 age group ‘Home improvements’ (+7% to 18%), ‘Improve communication’ (+9% to 33%) and ‘Keep customers better informed’ (+7% to 15%) are the highest mentions this year 19% among 35-54 age group 33% 16-34’s and 31% Central patch 15% 16-34’s and North patch

32. Satisfaction with Staff A significant increase in satisfaction is visible for ‘Advice on moving home’ (+9% to 83% Y2), now in-line with other services Overall, satisfaction levels remain high with dissatisfaction levels for staff reducing or staying the same on all aspects 4% decrease (to 9%) for ‘The time it took to respond to your query / complaint’ (83% satisfied) ‘Concern / compassion for your situation’ was the only aspect to score lower than last year (-2% to 85%) ‘Time taken to deal with enquiry’ (55% Y2, 21% Y1) and also ‘Lack of concern’ (60%, 28% Y1) were the main reasons Higher among 55+ (84%) and males (83%) 13% dissatisfied in the South compared with 8% North 47% 16-34 yrs 53% 55+ group

33. Homes and Neighbourhood ‘Value for money for your rent’ has seen a 4% decrease in satisfaction this year (85% Y1, 81% Y2) Satisfaction for ‘Overall quality of your home’ differs between the demographic groups (80% Y1, 82% Y2) Satisfaction levels for ‘General condition of your property’ increases with age (82% Y1, 83% Y2) Satisfaction for ‘Neighbourhood as a place to live’ again differs between the demographic groups (86% Y1, 86% Y2) Resolution first point of contact was higher in the South (68%, 56% Central) A slight decrease this year to 60% (64% Y1) 89% among 55+ 78% 35-54 yrs, 80% 16-34 yrs Only 69% among 16-34 age group 89% among 55+ and 77% among 35-54 72% among 16-34 age group 78% among 35-54, 89% among 55+ Higher among North (93%) down to 80% Central

34. Homes and Neighbourhood Analysing by those who were dissatisfied with ‘Value for money for your rent’, produced the following reasons: Expensive (83% Y1, 81% Y2) Poor quality of properties 17% Y1, 11% Y2) “ It's my pension that covers it and it's getting a bit high now. If my son didn't live here I wouldn't be able to afford it. ” “ The rent is very high for what the property is worth ” “ The neighbours don't look after their property very well ” “ My garden is poor and they are expensive ”

35. Homes and Neighbourhood Reasons for dissatisfaction include: Expensive (30%) On going problems with property (45%) Lack of support from Raven (18%) 16-34 (45%), Male (43%) South (25%), 35-54 (26%) North (62%), Central (47%), 55+ (48%), Female (52%)

36. Resolution Similar levels of satisfaction when rating the final outcome (70% Y1, 71% Y2), although obvious differences when analysing by resolution at first point of contact

37. Resolution ‘Problem still not resolved’ has increased by 13% from last year to 65% ‘Customer not kept informed’ (16% Y2, 12% Y1) and ‘Customer waiting for call back’ (19% Y2, 4% Y2) were other reasons for dissatisfaction

38. Grounds Maintenance Satisfaction ratings have decreased for grounds maintenance, (-8% to 73%) when comparing Y1 with Y2 ‘Attitude of the workers’ down 29% to 67% this year (high proportion, 30% neutral, 0% Y1) Dissatisfaction only 3% (4% Y1) ‘Overall quality of the grass cutting’ down 10% to 81% Y2 ‘Keeping dirt and mess to a minimum’ down 2% to 85% Lower among Central and South patch (74%) Higher in North (81%) Lower in North (77%) and 55+ (74%) Higher in Central and 16-34 yrs (89%) Higher in Central and 16-34 yrs (93% & 90%) Lower in North (83%) and 55+ (82%) ‘Poor quality work’ is the main reason for dissatisfaction (33%). 48% among 55+, 57% Males and 40% in the North Note: Small dissatisfaction base size (49)

39. Grounds Maintenance Over half (57%) had grass cutting carried out in the last 4 weeks (+22% from Y1) A decrease of 10% stated Burley’s litter picked before cutting the grass (50% Y1, 40% Y2) 85% (Y1) stated Burley’s blew the grass away from paths back onto grass areas, a slight decrease this year (83%) 79% thought grass cutting is carried out often enough, slightly less this year (73%) Those that didn't think it was carried out often enough thought it should be fortnightly or monthly -2%

40. Suggested Improvements Areas for improvement for Housing Services 31% suggested improvements (33% Y1) Communication (33%, 24% Y1) Home improvements / maintenance (18%, 11% Y1) Keep customers better informed (15%, 8% Y1) Employ more staff, less contractors (8%, 2% Y1) Higher in Central (31%) and 16-34’s (33%) Higher in South (17%) and 35-54’s (19%) Higher in North and 16-34’s (15%) Higher in Central (10%) and Males (9%)

41. Cleaning Services (Total, Y1 vs. Y2)

42. Cleaning Services Overview 451 interviews achieved (300 Y1, 151 Y2) Objective – explore levels of satisfaction with the cleaning service NPS has decreased by 7% since Y1 to 17% Y2 Lowest among 16-34 year olds at 11% North 12%, Central 17% Rising to 33% in South and among males and 30% among 55+ Main reasons are ‘Raven are a good / helpful company’) and ‘Good service’

43. A slight increase for overall satisfaction with the window cleaning service, main reasons provided was ‘good quality cleaning’ +3% to 79% Y2 77% Raven Overall No change when analysing residents feeling valued as a customer year on year (85%) Although demographic difference are evident Note: small base size Window Cleaning Services 79% aged 16-34 feel valued compared to 90% among 55+ With ‘Poor customer service’ and ‘Repairs / maintenance still outstanding’ each mentioned by 30% of this sample

44. Window Cleaning Services 32% have suggested improvements for window cleaning service (42% Y1, 26% Y2) ‘Attitude of workers’ remains lowest rated (72% Y2, 75% Y1) ‘Overall quality of window cleaning’ receives the most dissatisfaction (+6% to 18%) North patch are again less satisfied with the staff ‘Keeping dirt and mess to a minimum’ (81% vs. 89% South) 10% Difference between Central (68%) and North/South (78%) Satisfaction higher in South (81%), lower in North (72%) Dissatisfaction levels among the younger age group are much higher than the other groups (+14% at 16% compared with 35-54 age group) ‘Clean more often’ was the main suggestion, particularly among Central and South (43% and 36%) and younger residents (41% 16-34, 43% 35-54).

45. Window Cleaning Overview 20% know what day their windows should be cleaned (18% Y1) Of those, almost half (45%) of residents were made aware via ‘Raven notice board’ (14% Y1) and only 7% aware via ‘Poster’ (22% Y1) 24% Y2 compared with 10% Y1 thought their windows should be cleaned weekly Looking at the full YTD sample, 17% overall would be willing to pay an additional fee Over half Y2 (53%) would like their windows cleaned ‘monthly’ compared with 41% Y1.

46. A slight increase for overall satisfaction with Communal Cleaning (88% Y1, 89% Y2) 88% Raven overall 16-34 year age group less satisfied with communal cleaning (83% compared with 90% 35-54’s and 92% 55+ 32% have suggested improvements for communal cleaning (base: 81) Of those dissatisfied ‘Poor quality cleaning’ was the main reason Communal Cleaning Overview Key reason was ‘Good quality cleaning’ However, among those satisfied, 54% 16-34’s said ‘Good quality cleaning’ was the reason for being satisfied, higher than any other age group, 51% 35-54, 41% 42% ‘More effort / more time needed’ was the main reason, more so in the South Literal feedback indicated the staff do a reasonable job but they don’ t have enough time

47. Communal Cleaning Overview Satisfaction for ‘Attitude of the workers’ remains highest (90% Y2, 92% Y1) ‘Cleanliness of your communal areas’ receives the most dissatisfaction (+5% to 13%) Dissatisfaction levels are much higher in Central (14%) patch for ‘Overall quality of communal cleaning’, compared with the South patch (4%) Again, dissatisfaction levels are higher in the Central patch for ‘Keeping dirt and mess to a minimum’, compared with the other two patches(+6%) Particularly in the North (95%), lowest in the South (89%) 8% among 35-54’s compared with 12% North and 14% among16-34’s Similarly, the 16-34 age group are more dissatisfied than 55+ (15% compared with 6%) Central dissatisfaction equals 10% compared with only 4% across the other two areas

48. Communal Cleaning Overview An increase of 8% state their communal areas are cleaned weekly (75% Y2) with 87% believing this to be sufficient (91% Y1) A greater division for preference of when communal areas should be cleaned overall 30% Weekly 18% Fortnightly (8% Y1) 16% Monthly (8% Y1) Note small base size (13 Y1 and 37 Y2)

49. Conclusions

50. Repairs and Maintenance - Overview North – Least satisfied area. Dissatisfaction due to time taken to complete / come out for repairs. Improvement to timescales, staff training / knowledge and communication were main suggested improvements Central – Seen an increase in satisfaction, but has a lower NPS. Ongoing / past problems, poor quality / inadequate repairs. Improved communication key area of improvement South – Excellent NPS due to enquiries being dealt with quickly. However, comments around inadequate repair work and timescales highlighted as an area of improvement 16-34 year olds – Least satisfied, especially with time taken to come out (North & South), ‘Right first time’ and lack of communication (North). Also highlighting repairs are not right first time and issues with overall quality of repair work Overall satisfaction high and on target Significant improvement for staff knowledge and appointment making system (although this has no impact on satisfaction levels)

51. Overall slight increase in satisfaction, but below target. Higher satisfaction and NPS seen in North Increased satisfaction with ‘Advice on moving home’ All staff ratings have remained consistently high Areas for consideration; Concern / compassion for your situation scored slightly lower this quarter Satisfaction with value for money for rent also decreased Stating it was expensive, struggling to pay or the homes were poor quality Resolution at first point of contact has increased (especially in the South) Increase overall in those stating the problem is still not resolved Waiting for a call back or feeling they were not kept informed NPS has also seen a decline overall Housing Services - Overview

52. North – Highest NPS. Keep customers better informed and mentions of on-going problems Central – Lowest NPS and mentions of ongoing issues. Look after properties better and improve communication South – Lack of support from Raven mentioned by some 16-34 year olds – Lower NPS. Dissatisfied with value for money for rent. Suggested improvements ‘keep customers better informed’

53. Grounds Maintenance - Overview North – Higher satisfaction overall. Lower satisfaction with quality of grass cutting and keeping dirt and mess to a minimum. Respondents suggested keeping customers better informed Central – Lower satisfaction overall. Higher with overall quality of grass cutting and keeping dirt and mess to a minimum. Suggested improvements include employing more staff/less contractors and improving communication South – Lower satisfaction. Respondents suggesting improvements to home /maintenance Overall decrease in satisfaction for grounds maintenance (below target), main reason stated as poor quality work Significant decrease in satisfaction with ‘Attitude of workers’, however most rating indifferent and dissatisfaction levels similar year on year Most ratings have seen a decline overall since last quarter

54. Cleaning Services - Overview North – Lower satisfaction with overall quality of window cleaning and keeping dirt and mess to a minimum. Higher satisfaction for ‘Attitude of workers’ re communal cleaning Central – ‘Attitude of workers’ received lower rating for window cleaning. ‘Clean windows more often’, a key suggestion for improvement. Lowest satisfaction levels for communal cleaning South – Higher NPS and satisfaction for overall quality of window cleaning. Lower satisfaction for ‘Attitude of workers’ re communal cleaning 16-34 year olds – Lower NPS and lower satisfaction levels with both window and communal cleaning. Poor quality of cleaning as the reason Comments around cleaners doing reasonable job but needing more time to clean communal areas Slight increase in overall satisfaction with window and communal cleaning ‘Attitude of workers’ remains low for window cleaning, yet high for communal

55. Homeowners

57. -31 NPS

58. 48 Leazes Park Road Newcastle Upon Tyne NE1 4PG T 0191 261 5261 emma@explainresearch.co.uk www.explainresearch.co.uk