Insight into procurement of construction by private clients · 2019-12-05 · • The respondents were most likely to perceive that repairs e.g. repairing a roof, conversion e.g

Prepared by the Health and Safety Laboratory for the Health and Safety Executive 2014

Health and Safety Executive

Insight into procurement of construction by private clients

RR1016Research Report

Dr Roxane L Gervais CPsychol CSciHealth and Safety LaboratoryHarpur HillBuxtonDerbyshire SK17 9JN

Homeowners when commissioning construction work within their homes may not necessarily contemplate the risks that may be involved when such work is undertaken. This present research explored the perceptions of homeowners in respect of what constituted construction work; whether they thought about health and safety issues before or during the work; and the influencing factors in choosing contractors when commissioning such work within their homes. The findings showed that the majority of the homeowners used recommendations from various sources, such as friends and family when needing to select a contractor, but that very few homeowners considered health and safety issues when such work was done within their homes. The homeowners were more likely to discuss safety concerns with the contractors if children were present in the home or if they had previous experience of poor workmanship. They were of the opinion also that new rules and regulations for contractors who work on domestic premises were not required at the present time; but those who had poor experiences were more likely to suggest that contractors should improve on their work practices.

This report and the work it describes were funded by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE). Its contents, including any opinions and/or conclusions expressed, are those of the authors alone and do not necessarily reflect HSE policy.


HSE Books


© Crown copyright 2014

First published 2014

You may reuse this information (not including logos) free of charge in any format or medium, under the terms of the Open Government Licence. To view the licence visit www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/, write to the Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, London TW9 4DU, or email [email protected].

Some images and illustrations may not be owned by the Crown so cannot be reproduced without permission of the copyright owner. Enquiries should be sent to [email protected].

Acknowledgements

The author thanks HSL colleagues David Fox, Chrysanthi Lekka and Jennifer Webster for commenting on the draft. The author also thanks the respondents who contributed to the survey and the participants who were interviewed.

ii

iii

KEY MESSAGES

The following key messages relate to the commissioning of work within the home by homeowners in the United Kingdom.

• There was consistency among homeowners as to what constituted construction work, with most perceiving this as improvements to their homes, such as a loft conversion or tasks involving repairs and renovation. They were less likely to state that maintenance work, such as painting a door or redecoration (e.g. plastering), was construction work.

• The use of a recommendation from a previous customer/family/friend in deciding to recruit a contractor emerged as a strong influencing factor for homeowners when contracting construction work within their homes.

• Very few homeowners considered health and safety issues when having ‘construction’ work done within their homes. In addition, very few monitored the contractors during the period of the work. Safety issues were discussed by some homeowners with the contractor if young children were in the home when the construction work was undertaken.

• Homeowners, generally tended not to question or ‘challenge’ the equipment used and ways of working of the contractor as they trusted that s/he, with her/his knowledge and experience, would use the right equipment and work safely during the duration of the project.

• When homeowners had previous experience of poor or unsafe workmanship, this led some of them to question or to ‘challenge’ the contractor who worked on their homes.

• Most of the participants who were interviewed were women, and a few of them highlighted the need to feel safe with the contractors, who generally were men. This impacted then on whom they chose to contract for the work.

• There was a perception among some of the homeowners that new rules and regulations, as they would relate to homeowners, were not required. A few of them who had experienced poor workmanship suggested improved practices for contractors.

1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) commissioned the Health and Safety Laboratory (HSL) to undertake research to assess the scope and scale of domestic construction activity. The project was carried out in two phases and this report presents the results from that research. Phase one of the project involved conducting a telephone survey of 800 homeowners to gather information on the types of improvements and renovations that they had undertaken in their homes over the past five years and to gain their perceptions on what they considered as ‘construction’ work. For phase two, interviews were conducted with 20 homeowners who had commissioned work over the past year and up to five years, if applicable, to assess those elements that influenced their commissioning of the work.

The aim The aim of this research was to generate primary information about the attitudes and motivations of clients commissioning small-scale domestic construction projects in the United Kingdom and the scale of that market. The objectives - phase one The objectives in this phase were to gather information from United Kingdom homeowners about:

• How small-scale construction work is commissioned in the United Kingdom; • The characteristics of that work (if commissioned), for example cost, type and duration;

and • Demographic factors such as postcode and the homeowners’ age.

The objectives - phase two The objectives for this second phase were to explore the views of householders who had commissioned and completed small-scale domestic construction work in the last five years. More specifically, this phase explored:

• Factors that are important to private clients when commissioning work; • Attitudes towards safe working; • The way in which domestic clients commission work.

The method

To gain the information required for this present project, quantitative and qualitative methods were used to ensure a holistic assessment of this area.

In respect of phase one, a survey was conducted with 800 homeowners using a telephone interview and achieved a response rate of 11%. A quantitative analysis of the data was completed under this phase. In phase two, twenty qualitative interviews were conducted to gain further insight into the homeowners’ views on domestic construction work.

The results

• The results from the first phase (a quantitative survey) showed that:

2

• The respondents were most likely to perceive that repairs e.g. repairing a roof, conversion e.g. loft conversion and renovation, e.g. installing new windows were construction work than were maintenance e.g. painting a front door and redecoration e.g. plastering.

• The cost for the majority of the projects did not exceed £5,000. For those projects that were above £10,000, they mainly included the renovation of a house or the installation of a conservatory.

• Most of the projects commissioned by the homeowners tended to last one or two days and were completed by one or two contractors.

• The homeowners tended to use a recommendation when selecting a contractor. Other ways that they used to identify contractors were through the Internet or personal knowledge of the contractor.

• The homeowners tended to use three or fewer of the quotes that they requested from contractors in deciding on the best option.

• Very few homeowners considered health and safety when having ‘construction’ work done within their homes.

• Just over half of the respondents tended to hire a single contractor or company to do the work.

The results from the second phase (qualitative interviews) showed that:

• The homeowners tended mainly to use a recommendation from a previous customer/family/friend in deciding to recruit a contractor.

• Other factors that influenced the homeowners’ decision included: cost; seeing work the contractor had done; the time when the work could be done; the homeowner unable to do the work her/himself and; the experience of the contractor.

• Very few of the homeowners interviewed considered health and safety issues when discussing the work with the contractors or monitored the work to check that the contractor was following safe procedures and processes. Some of the homeowners would check on safety issues with the contractor if young children were part of the household during the time that the work was done.

• Homeowners, generally tended not to question or ‘challenge’ the equipment used and ways of working of the contractor as they trusted that s/he, with her/his knowledge and experience, would use the right equipment and work safely during the duration of the project.

• When homeowners, had previous experience of poor or unsafe workmanship, this led some of them to question or ‘challenge’ the contractor who worked on their homes.

• Most of the participants who were interviewed were women, and a few of them highlighted the need to feel safe with the contractors, who generally were men. This had an impact on whom they chose to contract for the work.

• One of the reasons for the homeowners hiring the contractor was if the work required was something that the homeowners could not do on their own. For a few of the homeowners, if

3

capable, they noted that they did some of the preliminary work, but commissioned a contractor to finalise those aspects that were outside of their skill set.

• Some of the homeowners felt that new rules and regulations, as they would relate to homeowners, were not required. However, those who had experienced poor workmanship suggested improved practices for contractors.

Conclusions

This present research outlines the perceptions that homeowners have towards construction projects that are undertaken in or on their homes. Most of the homeowners had not considered looking into health and safety issues when they commissioned construction work on their homes. Moreover, the qualitative analysis illustrated that homeowners have some, but limited, awareness about what contractors should do during the course of a project and how they should do it, regarding health and safety. This low level of awareness about health and safety issues may have been influenced by the high level of trust that some of the participants had in the experience and abilities of the contractors. Interestingly, a few of the participants interviewed felt that they would benefit from learning more about what they should assess before commissioning the work and also what they should observe once the contractor is carrying out the work.

Most of the participants surveyed were more likely to view ‘larger’ jobs as construction work, and less likely to see other work, such as maintenance within the home as construction work. Overall, the participants relied heavily on recommendations from relatives, friends and neighbours as to the suitability of the contractor when commissioning work within their homes. They also obtained multiple quotes and it seemed that the more work that was commissioned for their homes, the more astute they became in outlining in greater detail what they expected from the contractor. Overall, they used their networks and experience to minimise any ‘risks’ in terms of quality of the work delivered.

6

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 Reasons for non-participation in the survey ................................................................... 12 Table 2 Overview of types of projects by cost - 1st project (past 12 months) ............................ 21 Table 3 Overview of projects by cost - 2nd to 5th projects (past 12 months) ............................. 23 Table 4 Overview of projects by cost (past 2 to 5 years) ............................................................ 24 Table 5 Proportion of all projects ................................................................................................ 35 Table 6 Proportion of projects only done in the past 12 months ................................................. 36 Table 7 Proportion of projects done only in the past 2 to 5 years ............................................... 36 Table 8 Proportion of work within the home seen as ‘construction’ tasks ................................. 37 Table 9 Consideration of health and safety when doing projects ................................................ 37 Table 10 Cost of projects as listed by respondents ..................................................................... 37 Table 11 Type of contractor hired by homeowners .................................................................... 38 Table 12 Number of contractors on site ...................................................................................... 38

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 Ownership of property .................................................................................................. 14 Figure 2 Respondents by age groups ........................................................................................... 15 Figure 3 Commissioning of projects by respondents .................................................................. 15 Figure 4 Projects commissioned in the past 12 months by age groups ....................................... 16 Figure 5 Commissioning of projects in the past 2 to 5 years by age groups ............................... 17 Figure 6 Perceptions of construction work .................................................................................. 18 Figure 7 Number of projects commissioned in the past 12 months ............................................ 18 Figure 8 Cost of first project (past 12 months) ........................................................................... 19 Figure 9 Cost of the second to fifth projects (past 12 months) ................................................... 20 Figure 10 Cost of most recent project - Past 2 to 5 years ............................................................ 21 Figure 11 Consideration of quotes .............................................................................................. 25 Figure 12 Number of quotes considered - Past 12 months .......................................................... 26 Figure 13 Number of quotes considered - Past 2 to 5 years ........................................................ 26 Figure 14 The reasons for selecting a contractor based on quotes .............................................. 27 Figure 15 Working days to complete most recent project - Past 12 months ............................... 28 Figure 16 Workers on site - Past 12 months ............................................................................... 28 Figure 17 Workers on site - Past 2 to 5 years .............................................................................. 29 Figure 18 Arrangements made when commissioning work ........................................................ 30 Figure 19 Number of companies / contractors on site ................................................................. 31 Figure 20 Identification of companies / contractors by homeowners ......................................... 32 Figure 21 Type of information researched during work ............................................................. 33 Figure 22 Sources of information researched .............................................................................. 34

7

1. INTRODUCTION

Small sitesa within the construction sector are seen as one of the higher risk parts of the United Kingdom’s (UK) construction industry, as around two-thirds of the industry’s fatalities occur on them1. The type of work done on these sites is quite distinct, as it tends to consist generally of specific tasks. For example, information on the construction market shows that 25% of the work done within the industry entails repair and maintenance (R&M) activities that are undertaken on domestic premises. Moreover, when all of the R&M work that is done within construction is considered, it tends to make up about half of the total output of all of the work that is undertaken within the construction industry. Further, contractors with fewer than four employees carry out 75% of domestic R&M work, but only half of these contractors have any type of professional affiliations1. Moreover, a high proportion of domestic construction projects2

are by definition small-scale and, relative to capital value, these small-scale, short duration and relatively low-cost domestic construction projects account for a disproportionate number of fatal accidents in the construction sector1, 3. Annex I provides examples of those activities and/or tasks that constitute construction work. As domestic clients do not have any legal duties under the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations (CDM) 2007 for construction projects undertaken on their premises2, and, in many cases, do not require intervention from planning or building control authorities, the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) wishes to improve its intelligence on: • The scope and scale of domestic construction activity, • Why and when domestic construction work is carried out, and • The motivations and priorities of both domestic clients and the contractors they employ to

carry out such work. The limited available information about the extent of activities in this segment of the construction sector, and the attitudes and motivations of contractors/clients towards regulatory compliance, makes it difficult to assess the magnitude of risk to both workers and clients. This lack of information means that HSE has a limited understanding of how this market segment of the construction sector operates. This lack of market intelligence on work carried out for domestic construction clients highlights the two key issues that underpin the need for this work, which are: • An impairment of HSE’s ability to target its regulatory interventions effectively, and • A limitation on HSE in assessing the impact of changes to regulations or guidance. Due to these requirements, HSE commissioned the Health & Safety Laboratory (HSL) to undertake the present two-part project to assess the scope and scale of domestic construction activity.

1.1 RESEARCH AIM The aim of this research was to generate primary information about the attitudes and motivations of clients commissioning small-scale domestic construction projects in the United

a Small Sites are defined according to the size of site, which is 5 workers or fewer. (See Health and Safety Executive (HSE), Stock-take and further development of the Small Sites Strategy, 2011. http://www.hse.gov.uk/aboutus/meetings/iacs/coniac/161111/m3-2011-2.pdf)

8

Kingdom and the scale of that market. This information would contain quantitative and qualitative aspects to ensure a holistic assessment of this area: • The quantitative information should be sufficiently representative for HSE to develop

impact assessments and to help HSE consider any possible changes to the CDM 2007 Regulations.

• The qualitative information will yield meaningful insight into the opinions, perspectives and

motivations of “typical” small-scale domestic construction project procurers. Combined, this information will help HSE’s Construction Division to have a more complete understanding of the current state and behaviour patterns of the domestic construction market. The research comprised two phases: • Phase one: A representative questionnaire-based survey of homeowners; • Phase two: A series of in-depth interviews with homeowners who have commissioned and

completed small-scale domestic construction work in the last five years.

1.2 OBJECTIVES OF PHASE ONE The objectives of phase one were to gather information from United Kingdom homeowners about:

• How small-scale construction work is commissioned in the United Kingdom; • The characteristics of that work (if commissioned), for example cost, type and duration;

and • Demographic factors such as postcode and the homeowners’ age.

These objectives are reflected in the initial research questions that follow: • What is the proportion of UK owner-occupied households commissioning small-scale

construction work each year? • What is the average value of the projects commissioned? • What is the range and average duration of the projects? • What is the average number of employees working on each project?

a) How many small-scale construction projects have been procured by each client household in the last five years?

• How many contractors were involved in each project?

1.3 OBJECTIVES OF PHASE TWO The objectives of phase two involved undertaking a series of in-depth interviews with owner-occupier householders who had commissioned and completed small-scale domestic construction work in the last five years. Qualitative telephone interviews were used to gain a better understanding of the opinions, attitudes and motivations of domestic clients. The interviews were designed to complement the quantitative survey, and allowed in-depth probing of issues that are important to HSE, for example:

9

• Factors that are important to private clients when commissioning work; • Attitudes towards safe working; • The way in which domestic clients commission work.

More specifically, the following initial research questions were generated when considering the objectives:

• What are the most important considerations influencing householders in the appointment of contractors?

• What are the sources that householders use to get information about potential contractors?

• What type of information do householders seek from potential contractors? • What are householders’ attitudes towards ensuring that construction work at their

property is carried out in a safe manner? • What are householder attitudes towards the possibility of increased regulation in the

domestic construction market?

11

2. METHOD

Two methods were used to collect the data for the present research. A quantitative approach was used for phase one, and for phase two, a qualitative approach was applied. The use of more than one method contributes to the robustness of the research process4 and thereby improves on the value that the data bring5 to the research. This mixed-method approach was used to allow the best understanding of the issue under investigation4.

2.1 PHASE ONE: SURVEY OF HOMEOWNERS

2.1.1 The questionnaire HSE designed a structured questionnaire to collect information from homeowners on the types of domestic construction work that they had undertaken. The questionnaire collected data within the three categories detailed in Section 1.2 of this present report. A copy of the questionnaire is shown at Annex II. In speaking with the respondents, the interviewers used a list of the types of activities that could be considered as construction work to ensure that the respondents were thinking of appropriate activities. These examples are listed as Annex I.

2.1.2 Sampling and data collection HSL commissioned a sub-contractor for this aspect of the project. The sub-contractor was tasked to generate the sample and carry out telephone interviews on a sample of United Kingdom homeowners. The sub-contractor recruited a national sample of 800 respondents using randomly generated telephone numbers. The respondents were asked to complete the questionnaire when initially contacted through the telephone call, with their responses recorded at that time. If the respondents asked to be contacted at a later time, they were accommodated.

2.1.3 The response rate

A total of 7,398 homeowners were contacted, to obtain the required sample size of 800 homeowners agreeing to participate in the survey; a response rate of 11%.

The reasons for not participating in the survey are provided in Table 1.

12

Table 1 Reasons for non-participation in the survey

Reason N

Interview complete 800

Floating appointment* 128

Refused 1973

No answer/answering machine 3237

Already interviewed 3

Not in target population 550

Persons not available during fieldwork period 6

Phone number invalid/fax 522

Wrong number/business number 161

Challenges with language 18

Total 7398

* A general call back, i.e. someone who asked if s/he could be called later but did not make a specific appointment.

2.1.4 The analysis

The analysis of the data enabled the calculation of frequency and descriptive statistics. Due to the nature of the questions, the main analyses focused on providing a descriptive assessment of the data.

The verbatim responses of the respondents were coded to collate the responses.

2.1.5 Limitations of the research While the survey achieved its required sample size (N = 800), it is recommended that caution is taken in the extrapolation of these results to a larger population of homeowners, as some of the analyses required that subsets of the data were used.

2.2 PHASE TWO: AN ASSESSMENT OF THE PERCEPTIONS OF HOMEOWNERS

2.2.1 The method

The researchers used a qualitative method in generating the data. This consisted of conducting semi-structured interviews via the telephone with homeowners.

13

2.2.2 Recruiting participants

A sub-contractor was used to recruit the 20 participants required for the study. The professional recruitment company contacted potential participants and arranged dates and times for HSL staff to interview them.

In order to obtain the desired sample size and as the participants were giving their time, a modest financial incentive was provided to assist with the interaction process. The financial incentive was a voucher not linked to any particular retailer.

2.2.3 The semi-structured question set

The interview schedule was devised by the researchers at HSL and by HSE based on the research objectives. It provided background and context of the process for the interviewees. This schedule was agreed between HSE and HSL prior to the interviews with the potential participants. A copy of the questionnaire is shown at Annex III.

2.2.4 The interviews

The researcher used telephone interviews to collect the data and these were recorded. At the start of each interview, the participants were informed of the study, its objectives and the confidential nature of the interview. The researcher recorded the interviews to ensure that all the information was collected verbatim. The participants were given the option of not having their interviews recorded, and all but one gave their permission to record the interview. For the interview for which the participant did not wish to be recorded, the interviewer made notes of the interview. The interviews lasted between 11 minutes and 34 minutes, with an average length of 19 minutes. When the interviews ended, the participants were thanked for their time, were reminded that they could contact the interviewer with any queries once they had reflected on their interview and were offered the opportunity to ask any questions.

2.2.5 The analysis

The recorded interview data were transcribed verbatim. The data were analysed by reading the transcripts to identify the main themes and/or messages to emerge for each question. For this analysis, an inductive approach was used to allow the themes to emerge from the data6, 7, 8. A structured approach to the process was taken to enable reliability and consistency9. In addition to this, the interviews were reviewed independently from the researcher’s analysis, to ensure consistency of the themes that were generated from the data10, 11.

2.2.6 Limitations of the research

A qualitative approach allows an in-depth assessment of a particular issue and as such the results should reflect the views of the particular group under investigation at that particular time. Therefore, the insights from the results from this present research, while very useful and allowing an understanding of perceptions and behaviours should not be used to generalise to all homeowners who commission work on and within their homes.

14

3. RESULTS

3.1 PHASE ONE: AN OVERVIEW OF THE RESPONDENTS AND THEIR PERCEPTIONS

This section provides information on the respondents from the survey (N = 800) undertaken in Phase one, and outlines their perceptions of construction work and the type of work that they commissioned for their homes.

The figures reflect the responses received and, depending on the issue that was investigated, will present the responses from the respective sub-sample of the respondents.

3.1.1 The respondents

3.1.1.1 Home ownership

Of those who met the first criterion for the survey when they were contacted to participate, just under one-third (29%) owned their own home and were able to continue with the survey. See Figure 1.

Figure 1 Ownership of property

§The number of responses and corresponding percentages are shown.

3.1.1.2 Demographic overview

The largest group of respondents were aged between 50 to 69 (40%) years. A small number were within the age group of 16 to 29 (4%). Figure 2 refers.

800 (29%)

1973 (71%)

Yes No

15

Figure 2 Respondents by age groups


3.1.1.3 Commissioning of projects Fewer than half of the 800 respondents had commissioned work within their homes over the past five years. In respect of those who had commissioned, less than one-quarter (22%, n = 178) had paid for work over the past twelve months, while a similar percentage (23%, n = 183) had paid for work to be done over the past two to five years.b Most of the respondents (55%) had not commissioned work. See Figure 3.

Figure 3 Commissioning of projects by respondents


b The respondents listed as doing construction work which took place in the past 5 years were those who had previously said they had done no work in the past 12 months.

35 (4%)

246 (31%)

319 (40%)

200 (25%)

16 to 29 30 to 49 50 to 69 70 and over

178 (22%)

183 (23%)

439 (55%)

Past 12 months Past 2 to 5 years

16

When the data were assessed according to age groups, those respondents in the age group of 50 to 69 were more likely to commission projects within the past twelve months and they were also more likely to commission projects over the past two to five years, than the other age groups, as shown in Figure 4 and

Figure 5. The youngest set of respondents, i.e. those in the age group of 16 to 29, was the least likely group to commission work on their homes.

Figure 4 Projects commissioned in the past 12 months by age groups

4 1 1 1 1

34

14

2 2 1

49

14

4 4 1

33

6 3 2 1

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

1 2 3 4 5 6

Age

in c

ateg

orie

s

Res

pons

es (n

)

Projects commissioned in the past 12 months 16 to 29 30 to 49 50 to 69 70 and over

17

Figure 5 Commissioning of projects in the past 2 to 5 years by age groups

3.1.1.4 Assessing perceptions

In order to gain an understanding of those activities that homeowners may view as ‘construction’ work, they were asked to comment on the five activities as outlined in Figure 6. The respondents were more likely to believe that repairs and conversions were construction work and less likely to believe that maintenance, e.g. painting a front door, was construction work.

3

62

72

46

24

131

175

109

0

50

100

150

200

16 to 29 30 to 49 50 to 69 70 and over

If co

mm

issi

oned

pro

ject

s in

the

past

2 to

5 y

ears

Age in categories

Yes

No

Res

pons

es (n

)

18

Figure 6 Perceptions of construction work

3.1.2 The numbers of projects commissioned

As discussed in Section 3.1.1.3, fewer than one-quarter of the respondents, completed projects either over the past 12-month period (22%) or within two to five years (23%) of responding to the survey. For those who had commissioned ‘construction’ work with their homes within the past twelve months (n = 178), most of these had paid for one project (67%). Less than one per cent of these respondents had paid for six projects over the year. See Figure 7.

Figure 7 Number of projects commissioned in the past 12 months

0

20

40

60

80

100

Repairs e.g. repairing your

roof

Maintenance e.g. pain=ng

your front door

Conversion e.g. loB conversion

Renova=on e.g. new windows

Redecora=on e.g. plastering

Respon

ses (%)

Types of construc:on work

No

Yes

67

20

6 5 2 1

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

1 2 3 4 5 6

Res

pons

es (%

)

Number of projects

19

For those respondents who had commissioned projects in the past two to five years, they were asked only to provide information on the most recent project.

3.1.3 An overview of the cost and the types of projects

This section displays and discusses the different types and costs of the projects commissioned by the homeowners. An overview of each of the sub-sections is provided at the start of the sub-sections.

3.1.3.1 The cost of projects

In this sub-section the figures reflect the costs only for the first five projects. This is due to the respondents being asked only to describe and provide costs for the first five projects that they had commissioned.

The ‘value’ of the cost includes a combination of those amounts that the respondents gave on first asking the question, as well as the approximate values, in ranges, given to the respondents to assist in their recollection of the costs.

For the first project that the home owners had commissioned over the past twelve months, and for which they had provided the cost (n = 153), it tended to cost generally less than £5,000, with only four projects achieving a cost of £50,000 or higher. See Figure 8.

Figure 8 Cost of first project (past 12 months)

Due to the smaller numbers involved for projects two to five, they are all illustrated in Figure 9.

53 55

24

14

3 4

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Less than £1000 £1,000 - £4,999 £5,000 - £9,999 £10,000 - £24,999 £25,000 - £49,999 £50,000+

Res

pons

es (n

)

Value of first project - Past 12 months

20

The second project (n = 45) tended to cost generally less than £5,000, with only one project achieving a cost of £50,000 or higher. For the third project (n = 17), the cost generally tended to stay around £5,000, with only one project costing between £5,000 - £9,999 and one costing between £10,000 - £24,999. A similar pattern was shown with the fourth (n = 7) and fifth (n = 2) projects, with the cost not rising above £9,999 for project four and only one of the two projects in project five attaining a cost of between £10,000 - £24,999.

Figure 9 Cost of the second to fifth projects (past 12 months)

For those respondents who had commissioned work over the past two to five years and provided the cost (n = 138), they generally tended to spend less than £5,000, with eleven projects exceeding £25,000 or more. Figure 10 refers.

25

8

4

1

12

7

1

6

1 2

1 1 1 1

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Project 2 Project 3 Project 4 Project 5

Res

pons

es (n

)

Value of second to fifth projects - Past 12 months

Less than £1000

£1,000 - £4,999

£5,000 - £9,999

£10,000 - £24,999

£50,000+

21

Figure 10 Cost of most recent project - Past 2 to 5 years

3.1.3.2 The different types of projects by costs

In this sub-section the information reflects the types of projects according to their costs. The tables refer to the individual projects as they occurred and were remembered to the best of the respondents’ ability.

The different types of projects commissioned by the homeowners were compared against their costs. This information is reflected in the tables that follow. For those projects commissioned over the past 12 months, Table 2 outlines the first project, with Table 3 providing information on projects two to five. The tables show that most of the projects cost less than £1,000, and involved the decoration of homes. Construction work involving repairs or changes to roofs, windows or bathrooms were also more likely to be commissioned by the homeowners and generally were within a cost of less than £10,000; overall very few projects cost more than £10,000. The most costly projects were those involving the renovation of houses, costing £50,000 or more per house, as highlighted as part of Project 1 and Project 2 and the construction of conservatories that cost between £10,000 - £24,999, as illustrated for Projects 1, 2 and 3.

Annex IV provides more details of the types of projects that the home owners commissioned.

Table 2 Overview of types of projects by cost - 1st project (past 12 months)

Project < £1000 £1,000 - £4,999

£5,000 - £9,999

£10,000 - £24,999

£25,000 - £49,999 £50,000+ Total

Bathroom 1 3 6 1 1 12 Boiler 1 1 Cavity wall insulation 2 1 3

30

58

24

15

6 5

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Less than £1000 £1,000 - £4,999 £5,000 - £9,999 £10,000 - £24,999 £25,000 - £49,999 £50,000+

Res

pons

es (n

)

Value of most recent project - Past 2 to 5 years

22

Central heating 1 1 Chimney 1 1 2 Conservatory 3 3 Decoration 25 8 33 Doors 1 8 9 Electrical repairs 2 1 3 Fence, Garden wall 1 1 Fireplace 1 1 2 Garage 1 1 Garden/Landscaping 1 1 Guttering 1 1 House renovation 2 8 1 7 2 2 22 Kitchen 3 2 5 Loft, Attic 2 1 3 Plumbing 1 1 2 Roof 9 4 2 2 17 Downstairs toilet repairs 1 1 Shed 2 2 Solar panels 1 1 Windows 4 15 8 27

Total 53 55 24 14 3 4 153

23

Tabl

e 3

Ove

rvie

w o

f pro

ject

s by

cos

t - 2

nd to

5th

pro

ject

s (p

ast 1

2 m

onth

s)

Proj

ect 2

Pr

ojec

t 3

Proj

ect 4

Pr

ojec

t 5

<

£100

0 £1

,000

- £4

,999

£5

,000

- £9

,999

£1

0,00

0 -

£24,

999

£50,

000+

<

£100

0 £1

,000

- £4

,999

£5

,000

- £9

,999

£1

0,00

0 -

£24,

999

< £1

000

£1,0

00 -

£4,9

99

£5,0

00 -

£9,9

99

< £1

000

£10,

000

- £2

4,99

9

Bat

hroo

m

1 1

4

1

1

1

Car

pent

ry

1

1

Cav

ity w

all i

nsul

atio

n

1

C

entra

l hea

ting

1

Con

serv

ator

y

1

1

D

ecor

atio

n 8

2

1 2

D

oors

1

1

El

ectri

cal r

epai

rs

1

1

1

Fenc

e, G

arde

n w

all

1 1

1

1

1

Fire

plac

e 1

G

arag

e

1

G

arde

n/La

ndsc

apin

g

1

1 1

G

utte

ring

1

Hou

se re

nova

tion

1 1

1

Kitc

hen

2

1

Loft,

Atti

c 3

R

oof

4 1

2

Win

dow

s 1

2 2

1

1

M

obili

ty/D

isab

ility

alte

ratio

ns

Tot

al

23

11

6 1

1 7

7 1

1 4

1 2

1 1

24

The information that the respondents supplied in respect of the projects they commissioned over the past two to five years showed that most of the projects entailed cost of between £1,000 - £4,999. There were five high end projects that the respondents noted cost £50,000 or more, as shown in Table 4. Comparable with the work commissioned over the past 12 months, the work that the respondents commissioned in the past two to five years, consisted of repairs or changes to bathrooms, windows or roofs, with the decoration of homes the most likely work to be done.

Table 4 Overview of projects by cost (past 2 to 5 years)

Projects < £1000 £1,000 -

£4,999 £5,000 -

£9,999 £10,000 -

£24,999 £25,000 -

£49,999 £50,000+ Total

Bathroom 2 1 1 1 5 Carpentry 1 1 Chimney 1 1 Conservatory 3 1 4 8 Decoration 14 13 3 30 Doors 4 1 2 1 8 Electrical repairs 1 1 Fence, Garden wall 1 1 2 Garage 2 2 Gardening/Landscaping 2 2 House - Renovated, extended, repaired 5 3 2 5 3 18 House - New build 1 1 Kitchen 1 4 2 1 8 Loft, Attic 4 1 1 1 7 Roof 2 8 3 1 14 Windows 19 8 2 1 30

Total 30 58 24 15 6 5 138

3.1.3.3 Consideration of one or more than one quote

This sub-section presents the information provided by respondents regarding the number of quotes considered when commissioning projects.

Of those 178 respondents who commissioned work within the past twelve months, fewer than half of them (n = 73; 41%) considered more than one quote, as shown in Figure 11. The 172 respondents who commissioned work within the past two to five years displayed a similar pattern, with fewer than half of them (n = 71; 41%) considering more than one quote.

25

Figure 11 Consideration of quotes

As shown in Figure 12 and Figure 13 the respondents, regardless of commissioning work over the past twelve months (n = 73), or over the past two to five years (n = 71), tended to consider a similar number of quotes. Around half of the respondents across both groups (49%) tended to consider three quotes, with just under one-third (30%) considering two quotes. Only a limited number considered five or more quotes.

73 71

105 101

0

20

40

60

80

100

120


Res

pons

es (n

)

Yes

No

26

Figure 12 Number of quotes considered - Past 12 months

Figure 13 Number of quotes considered - Past 2 to 5 years

27

3.1.3.4 Decision on contracting work based on the quotes

When deciding with whom to contract the work, the respondents, for the most part, either chose the cheapest quote or chose a contractor who had been recommended to them. See Figure 14. They were less likely to consider either experience or expertise or the availability of the contractor. These reasons were similar for those who had commissioned work over the past 12 months and for those who had commissioned work over the past two to five years.

Figure 14 The reasons for selecting a contractor based on quotes

3.1.4 Project resources This section outlines the resources, in terms of days and workers that were required to complete the respective projects. For those projects that were commissioned within the past 12 months, the respondents were asked to provide information on the number of working days to complete the most recent projects. For those projects that were done within the past two to five years, the respondents were asked to outline the number of working days that were required to complete the most familiar project. Figure 15, Figure 16 and Figure 17 reflect that the most recent or familiar projects, whether undertaken within the past 12 months or the past two to five years, were not very labour intensive, as they were completed in one day and required fewer than two workers. Eleven projects or fewer took longer than three months and needed more than ten workers to complete the work.

4

5

8

7

11

7

26

27

2

5

5

9

12

13

27

29

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Availability

Experience/expertise

Friend/family

Mid-range quote

Professional

Other

Recommended

Cheapest quote

Responses (n)


28

Figure 15 Working days to complete most recent project - Past 12 months

Figure 16 Workers on site - Past 12 months

100

26 29

9 8

112

19

28

8 11

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

1 to 5 6 to 10 11 to 30 31 to 90 91+

Proj

ects

(n)

Number of working days

Past 12 months

Past 2 to 5 years

29

Figure 17 Workers on site - Past 2 to 5 years

Of the 178 respondents who commissioned work on their homes over the past twelve months, over one-half of them (n = 103, 58%) used either a single contractor or company or a single company or contractor who subsequently sub-contracted the work. See Figure 18. Comparable with the arrangements made by homeowners who commissioned work over the past twelve months, those homeowners who commissioned work over the past two to five years (n = 172) were also more likely to use a single company or contractor or one who subsequently sub-contracted the work.

30

Figure 18 Arrangements made when commissioning work

The number of different companies/contractors that worked on the site was comparable to the number of workers on site, i.e. very few homeowners required more than one company or contractor to conduct the work (see Figure 19). This was regardless of whether the work was done over the past 12 months or over the past two to five years. Only two projects within the 12 month period required the homeowners to contract more than 10 companies to do work on their homes.

75 71

103 101

0

20

40

60

80

100

120


Res

pons

es (n

)

Hired more than one company/contractor

Hired a single company/contractor who sub-contracted

31

Figure 19 Number of companies / contractors on site

The responses that outlined how the homeowners identified the companies / contractors (n = 196) over the past twelve months, reflected that the majority of these came from recommendations (n = 77), with very few homeowners using the Internet (n = 8) or the Yellow Pages (n = 5). See Figure 20. A similar pattern was shown for those responses that reflected on the projects completed over the past 2 to 5 years (n = 192). The majority of homeowners tended to identify companies / contractors from recommendations (n =83), with very few using a cold call (n = 3) or the Internet (n = 7).

120

26

11 6 5 2 1 2

115

26

11 9 2 1 2

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10+

Res

pons

es (n

)

Number of companies/contractors on site

Past 12 months

Past 2 to 5 years

32

Figure 20 Identification of companies / contractors by homeowners

3.1.5 The assessment of information before commissioning work

This sub-section presents the type of information, if any, that the respondents explored before commissioning work on their homes. The respondents were asked to state whether or not they had searched for information on three construction related areas: building control, planning permission or health and safety. As shown, in Figure 21, a limited number of respondents, just over 30 individuals per area, whether they had commissioned work within the past 12 months or over the past two to five years, checked on any of these areas. Just over one-half of the respondents who provided information to this question did not research these areas.

1

1

2

1

2

7

3

7

20

24

41

83

1

1

2

3

5

5

8

21

25

48

77

0 20 40 60 80 100

Don't know

No choice in selection

The council

Grant payment

Contacted company

Insurance company

Yellow pages

Cold call

Used the Internet

Used before

Advertisement - All types

I know them/friend/family

Recommendation

Responses (n)

Past 12 months

Past 2 to 5 years

33

Figure 21 Type of information researched during work

For those individuals who searched for information, whether they had commissioned work over the past 12 months or over the past two to three years, they tended mainly to get this from contractors, government offices and the Internet. Figure 22 refers. The homeowners were less likely to check on regulations (n = 1, past 12 months) or to use insurance companies (n = 1, past 12 months; n = 1, past 2 to 5 years)

123

31

35

30

122

36

35

33

0 50 100 150

Did not search for any of those

Searched for health & safety information

Searched for planning permission information

Searched for building control information

Responses (n)

Past 12 months

Past 2 to 5 years

34

Figure 22 Sources of information researched

1

1

1

4

1

4

15

14

15

1

1

1

3

3

4

6

14

15

16

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18

Not sure

Printed media - booklet

Checked regulations

Insurance company

Friends/relatives/neighbours

Architect

Relative in building trade

Own knowledge

Council/other government offices

Did search - e.g. Internet

Contractors

Responses (n)

Past 12 months

Past 2 to 5 years

35

3.2 PHASE ONE: ASSESSING PERCEPTIONS OF CONSTRUCTION WORK

Each of the sub-sections shows responses to the questions and the relevant information (numbers and percentages) of the respective respondents. Some of the tables may total either 99 per cent or 101 per cent due to the rounding of the figures.

In addition, some of the analyses focus on specific groups, such as those who provided costs for their respective project or searched for information before starting the project. As such, the numbers within these groups will be smaller than the larger sample. This will be noted when relevant.

The verbatim responses of the respondents were coded to collate the responses.

The results, as structured according to the questionnaire, are provided in Annex V. The results within this section focus mainly on homeowners’ perceptions of the construction work that they did within their homes. 1. Proportion of projects across the three broad categories of construction;

improvements; and repairs, maintenance and redecoration The responses to question 6 for those who had commissioned work within the past year, “Thinking about the project(s) that occurred during the past 12 months, please could you briefly describe the/each project to me?”, and for those who had commissioned work within the past five yearsc, “Thinking about the most recent project or the project you are most familiar with that occurred during the past 5 years, please could you briefly describe the project to me?”, were collated according to the three categories that follow. • Construction includes construction of a home from scratch, home renovation and building a

conservatory or other extension work. • Improvements include installing new central heating, plumbing or electrical systems,

converting attics, interiors or garages and replacing windows. • Repairs, Maintenance and Redecoration include redecoration, repairs to windows and

central heating, plumbing or electrical systems, as well as structural repairs. 1a. Categorical proportions of all projects listed by the respondents Of the 361 respondents who reported that they had commissioned work on their home, most of these projects involved repairs, maintenance and redecoration as shown in Table 5. The figures represent only this set of respondents.

Table 5 Proportion of all projects

Projects n** % Construction 114 32 Improvements 50 14 Repairs, Maintenance and Redecoration 231 64

**The respondents were asked to comment on each category and the numbers and percentages represent these responses

c Those respondents who are listed as doing construction work that had taken place in the past 5 years, were those who had previously said they had done no work in the past 12 months.

36

1b. Categorical proportions of projects listed by the respondents as completed in the previous year

When the projects listed by the respondents as completed over the past 12 months are considered (n = 178), repairs, maintenance and redecoration accounted for close to three times the amount listed for improvements and close to twice the amount for those projects they considered as construction. See Table 6.

Table 6 Proportion of projects only done in the past 12 months


**The respondents were asked to comment on each category and the numbers and percentages represent these responses 1c. Categorical proportions of projects listed by the respondents as completed in the past

five years The projects listed by the respondents as completed in the past two to five years (n = 183) show a similar pattern to those done in the previous year, with most of the projects consisting of repairs, maintenance and redecoration. See Table 7.

Table 7 Proportion of projects done only in the past 2 to 5 years


**The respondents were asked to comment on each category and the numbers and percentages represent these responses 2. Proportion of respondents who consider work in their home as ‘construction’ The participants were asked, ‘Now, thinking in general terms about work which people may pay an individual or company to carry out on their home, do you think of the following activities as ‘construction’ work?’ They were asked to select from five options: Repairs, such as repairing your roof; Maintenance, such as painting your front door; Conversions, such as a loft conversion; Renovation, such as new windows and Redecoration, such as plastering. An assessment of the perception of what constitutes ‘construction’ work within the home shows that most of the respondents felt that either jobs involving conversions, repairs or those involving renovation to the home should be seen as ‘construction’. See Table 8.

37

Table 8 Proportion of work within the home seen as ‘construction’ tasks

Projects n** % Repairs 593 74 Maintenance 170 21 Conversions 666 83 Renovation 470 59 Redecoration 345 43

**The respondents were asked to comment on each category and the numbers and percentages represent these responses 3. Proportion of projects for which the respondents considered health and safety

when researching the project Of the 67 respondents who stated that they considered health and safety when doing construction work within their home, close to half of them considered it when doing construction as well as repairs, maintenance and redecoration projects, with just under one-quarter considering it when doing improvements. See Table 9.

Table 9 Consideration of health and safety when doing projects


**The respondents were asked to comment on each category and the numbers and percentages represent these responses

4. Cost of projects Overall, the respondents provided costs for 302 of the projects that they carried out in their homes. Most of the projects cost less than £10,000. See Table 10.

Table 10 Cost of projects as listed by respondents

Cost of projects All projects Projects in past

12 months Projects in past 2

to 5 years n % N % n % Less than £1,000 96 27 75 21 21 6 £1,000 to £4,999 111 31 62 17 49 14 £5,000 to £9,999 48 13 30 8 18 5 £10,000 to £24,999 31 9 17 5 14 4 £25,000 to £49,999 8 2 3 1 5 1 £50,000+ 8 2 5 1 3 1 Total cost provided 302 192 110

38

5. Contractors used by homeowners

In assessing the responses shown in Table 11, only the response about the first project that was mentioned was taken into account as the respondents were asked, “Q10. As far as you know, which of the following best describes the arrangements for this project?”

Just over half of those who responded to this question noted that they hired a single company/contracted who subsequently sub-contracted the work.

Table 11 Type of contractor hired by homeowners

Type of contractor All

projects

Projects in past 12 months

Projects in past 2 to 5

years N % n % n % You hired more than one company/contractor yourself 146 42 75 21 71 20 You hired a single company/contractor who sub-contracted 204 58 103 29 101 29 Totals for respondents for this question 350 100 178 51 172 49

In assessing the responses shown in Table 12, only the response about the first project mentioned was taken into account as the respondents were asked, “Q11. Still thinking about this one project, as far as you know, how many different companies/contractors in total worked on site during the project?”

Just over two-thirds of those who responded to this question noted that a single contractor/company was on site to do the work required.

Table 12 Number of contractors on site

Number of contractors on site All

projects

Projects in past 12 months

Projects in last 2 to 5

years n % n % n % Single contractor/company 235 67 120 34 115 33 Two or more contractors or companies 104 30 53 15 51 15 Do not know 11 3 5 1 6 2 Totals for responses for this question 350 100 178 51 172 49

39

3.3 PHASE TWO: AN ASSESSMENT OF HOMEOWNERS’ PERCEPTIONS

3.3.1 The participants

The participants consisted of fifteen women and five men. They were between the ages of 25 to 72, with an average age of 51. They mainly commissioned one project, but one individual had commissioned ten over the previous five-year period. One participant had commissioned continuous work as the house was flooded just over five years ago that required extensive work on the ground floor, while another had on-going projects due to a burst water main.

3.3.2 Types of construction projects

The projects that were commissioned by the participants were over the three main areas, but were mainly on Repairs, Maintenance and Redecoration. The types of projects are as shown.

Construction projects • Construction

o Two storey extension o Built conservatory / orangery

• Improvements o Plumbing o Electrical o Gas o Install windows o Install new bathroom o Loft insulated o Solar panels

• Repairs, Maintenance and Redecoration o Fence replaced o New kitchen o Doors replaced, e.g. new, from wood to glass o Replace ceilings o Open a fireplace o Boiler o Repair / (re)roof o Plastering/repointing o Paint/wall paper o Replace floor

3.3.3 Outlining the generated themes A thematic analysis was used to extract the main elements from the data. Eight main themes were extracted with their corresponding sub-themes. The main themes were:

1. Influencing factors in choosing a contractor 2. Influencing sources in assessing a contractot 3. Participants’ knowledge regarding construction work within their homes 4. Participants’ communication with contractors 5. Trust in the contractor when doing the work

40

6. Participants’ awareness of health and safety 7. Factors influencing decisions to recommend contractors 8. Quality Assurance

As noted in the method section, the occurrence of a theme shows an issue that the participants highlighted. However, all of the participants need not have necessarily provided information that contributed to all of the themes.

3.3.3.1 Influencing factors in choosing a contractor

The most cited influencing factor for deciding to whom the work should be contracted was the use of a recommendation. Homeowners on seeing/checking the quality of work that the contractor had completed for someone else was mentioned frequently also as influencing their decision; as was the contractor’s reputation. Another factor was the cost and/or the value for money, but the quality of the work and personal recommendations sometimes were more important than purely considering the cost. The time to complete the work was mentioned by some homeowners but this was more a decisive factor if urgent work was needed. Other criteria were mentioned but to a lesser extent. These included the contractor’s certification or the contractor being a member of an association, especially when the contractor was unknown to the homeowner; the contractor’s offering after-sales service or a product; or providing information about their approach/method of doing the work. Some of these influencing factors are discussed further below.

Recommendation

The participants reported that they depended on recommendations from family, friends, previous customers and colleagues in choosing to employ a contractor to carry out work on their homes. Some of the reasons for this choice were to ensure that the work was of a good standard, and that the contractor was known to someone.

“…The number one is that I need somebody to know something about them; I don’t want to let a stranger into my house so that would be my number one deciding factor. Number two would probably be cost.” P01d

“Yeah I had a, we had a boiler fitted when we first moved in and again I used a plumber that someone else had used. There’s always someone who has a friend who always has had some work done and that is how we find out about people. I’ve, I don’t think, I very rarely just looked in the Yellow Pages and picked a builder, I’ve always asked around.” P06

Further, the use of recommended contractors ensured that the homeowners did not inadvertently hire a ‘cowboy builder’e or a contractor who would prove untrustworthy:

“It was for ourselves because about two years before we had someone from Yellow Pages to repair our television and they ended up, actually they took the television and it was stolen, they didn’t bring it back and that was a number we got out of the Yellow Pages which was why we were reluctant to go to someone we didn’t know or somebody didn’t know.” P20

d The text in italics that is enclosed within quotation marks relates to verbatim comments from the respective participants, e.g. P01 = Participant 01 e A tradesperson, normally a builder, plumber, roofer etc who performs shoddy work at an inflated price. http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=cowboy+builder http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cowboy#Negative_associations

41

In addition, one homeowner’s approach changed after experiencing very unsatisfactory work by contractors; and even when obtaining the name of the contractor through a recommendation, when meeting the contractor, the homeowner would expect the contractor to provide the method or schedule that was to be adopted for the job.

“Normally we try and find somebody through recommendation; from somebody we know who’s had some work successfully done. Also now we tend to look at the way they approach a job when they come and quote. If somebody says oh yeah I can do that but they won’t give you either a schedule of work or a methodology on what they’re going to do we don’t tend to want to hire them. P18

Have seen contractors’ completed work

For many participants, it was essential to view work that the potential contractor had done for someone else. This was to ensure that the quality of work was as actually stated by the contractor.

“It was seeing what he’d done before.” “Because I think that gives you an idea on the quality of the workmanship that you’re going to get. It’s all right people telling you and it’s all right having references, but people can lie.” P07

Experience / reputation of contractor The experience and reputation of the contractor were influencing factors to the homeowners in assisting with their selection of a contractor, as they felt that this contributed to ensure higher quality work.

“Yes I know. I obviously wouldn’t hire him if I didn’t think the work was up to scratch or that they didn’t have high standards I wouldn’t bother.” P10

“A good reputation, a good standard of workmanship, that’s what we’re looking for when we look for a contractor.” P19

Cost of project

The cost of the project was an influencing factor when selecting a contractor, but the quality of work ascertained through the personal recommendation was sometimes more important.

“We did, we looked around at other companies but I think that the main thing for us was not just the cost, it was the recommendation.” P06

When considering the cost, participants tended to get generally more than one quote to better assist them in arriving at a decision on who to contract for the work,

“I wanted a quote to start off with. He has to have[sic] come round and assess the job, I’d tell him what I wanted and then he’d tell me if there was any problems involved in what I wanted and we would talk round it [sic] and then come to a decision and then once the decision was made I had the quote and it was a quote that could not be added to without my consent and then I got another couple of quotes from other people and then compared the three and chose which I thought was the best.” P02

42

Time - When the job could be done

Some of the participants considered the time factor, i.e., when the contractor was available to do the work, but a defined start date was only critical if it impacted adversely on the homeowner.

“Obviously if there was an emergency piece of work then obviously, you know, the availability of the contractor would be, would be an issue but in terms of building work, fencing work that I had done I was prepared, you know, once I’d found a contractor I was prepared to wait until they were ready to do the work rather than, you know, finding someone who could do it immediately.” P17

However, the element of time as it related to the project, was not as important as finding a contractor who would be able to provide a quality service.

“Obviously a timescale is important but I think both my husband and I were prepared to wait a reasonable period of time to get somebody that we think is actually gonna [sic] do the job to the best of their [sic] ability.” P18

Contractor’s certification

Checking the certification of the contractor was mentioned by some participants, as this ensured the contractor’s competency to do the work as outlined below.

“If it was for something, for example we recently had our boiler refitted and I checked that they were CORGIf registered, the people who did that even though we did know them I did check to see that they had all the relevant registration.” P01

Contractor local to the area

A few of the participants, considered only local contractors as this allowed a ‘tighter’ control on who was contracted, as the reputation of the contractor could thereby be verified.

“We live in a very small community and there’s [sic] people that you sort of know within that community as to what, what they do and whether or not they’re kind of legit.” P15

Professional/trade association membership

Some of the participants did think about the contractor’s affiliation to professional and trade associations in considering who to contract. However, others, felt that membership does not guarantee ability/skills, in the person offering their services in any particular area.

“Well most of these things are ..., you just pay the association to be a member, it doesn’t mean anything; it doesn’t mean you’re any good.” P09

One participant commented on the unhelpfulness of a professional association when s/he reported a problem to it about a contractor who had worked on the participant’s house.

“Ah well I’m a bit cynical of things like that because like if they’re registered as, I don’t know, a local Crafts Guild or have got this or that or the [named association] qualification, to be perfectly honest I don’t think they say much because they just pay to be a member and that’s it. It’s not like they’re regularly checked. I mean the first property we ever bought was built by an [named association] contractor and we had the

f CORGI registration was replaced by the Gas Safe Register

43

most horrendous problems with the lack of quality in the build. And when you go back to the [named association] they don’t want to know.” P18

3.3.3.2 Influencing sources in assessing a contractor

Several types of sources were used by homeowners to acquire information about potential contractors and ascertain their suitability. For example, having the contractor recommended or personally known was important, as this contributed to building trust about the competence of the contractor. Similarly, the trusted sources for choosing suitable contractors were drawn mostly from friends and family.

When the homeowners did not know the contractor, they conducted Internet searches to find background information on the individual. Internet checks on the contractor’s credentials and professional group membership were particularly mentioned in relation to gas/electric work (e.g. registered on the Gas Safe Register). The membership in professional groups or trade associations was not always checked, irrespective of whether the contractor was known to the domestic client or not. This was sometimes explained by the trust placed in the contractor’s appropriate qualifications. Similarly, checks were not performed necessarily on sub-contractors as the homeowners believed that this was the responsibility of the main contractor. The contractor’s years of experience was often taken as evidence of ability to do the required work.

3.3.3.3 Participants’ knowledge regarding construction work within their homes

From the participants’ accounts of contracting construction work, differences were noticed in their knowledge base, in terms of asking contractors about their qualifications and how they would do the work.

Some of the participants raised issues that showed a lack of knowledge in where or what to check for information about e.g., the experience or qualifications of contractors.

“I wouldn’t actually know what else I could do to check that they knew what they were doing, no.” P01

Other views reflected an awareness of the registration, certification sites that exist for contractors or their experience in the trade:

“Yes, yeah I would check yes that they were a member of whatever, you know body that the builder should be, so yeah I have checked that in the past when I’ve been looking for builders.” P06

“…I did know that he had been trading for over twenty years.” P07

“Yes we did yes, we had two references.” [From the contractor] P14

A few of the participants wished to improve on their knowledge about the construction process, and more specifically how this related to health and safety. One participant felt that one of the ways that s/he could improve on her/his knowledge was having access to a booklet or website that outlined the issues and risks of which s/he should be aware.

“If there was somewhere easy for people like me, not knowing enough to know what would be dangerous or what would be a risk. If there was somewhere where you could go, maybe online or maybe get a little booklet saying what to look out for, what, what

44

the potential risks are, what could go wrong and how to make sure that the person that’s doing work for you is minimising them. P01

The same participant suggested that the HSE may consider having a website for homeowners outlining the process of the work and those issues that should be considered.

“So rather than cranking out more guidelines for people, just something, an awareness, somewhere that people can go to go ‘right, what am I looking for, what do I need to know?’ So if there could be some sort of website that you could look at to give you a list of questions to ask contractors before they arrive. So for example if you need to have a new fence, if I could look up on the HSE [sic] website and see what am I looking for, what do I need to know, how it’s going to be done and how, what risks could I be looking at and then I can ask that person who’s coming to do the work how they’re gonna [sic] minimise them.” P01

3.3.3.4 Participants’ communication with contractors The communication between the homeowners and contactors before contracting the work gave an understanding of the type of information the homeowners sought. The communication focused on the requirements for the work, what the contractors would do, how the contractors would do the work and what the homeowners, expected from the contractor. These requirements included getting information on and understanding: the timescales for the work, the costs of the work, the specifications for the projects, insurance/warranty and ensuring that the work area would be cleaned at the end of the project. The quote that follows shows that this particular participant went through in detail what s/he would expect over the course of the project.

“Well I mean I would go through, because the, because the work for the roof did not require planning permission I mean effectively I asked him to come round and do a site survey so I got him to, to come round to, you know, to go into the loft. I was concerned about whether or not, well not concerned, I had a question about whether the weight of the panels and whether that was going to impact on the, you know, on the roof and whether any additional supports were needed. I also wanted to understand the timescales in which, you know, the work would be done and because they were sort of climbing up onto the roof I wanted to check to see what the impact was gonna be on my neighbours. So I mean those were the, those were the sorts of things that I discussed in that instance. If, if for the work that I’ve got coming up I would also ask, you know, about how the payments, the staged payments would be made etc., I’d also check whether or not they have insurance, the contractors have to have some sort of indemnity insurance don’t they and whatever so I would just confirm that they have got, you know, the appropriate insurance certification.” P17

The participants agreed on a cost with the contractors, but often also obtained more than one quote from different contractors to assess if the quote was within an acceptable range. Most of them did not necessarily go with the contractor who provided the cheapest quote. Sometimes, the quote given by the contractor was acceptable, so they only used one quote, in deciding to hire that individual for the project.

“I generally tend to get three quotations if I’m doing any work just to, just to make sure that, you know, the price that I’m paying is not, you know, significantly out of kilter with any one individual contractor.” P17

45

Some of the participants discussed with the main contractor if sub-contractors would be hired, but only a few of them used sub-contractors. For those who did use sub-contractors, the main contractor supplied the homeowners with a schedule of work to update on when to expect the sub-contractors. For others, they felt that the use of sub-contractors did not allow for consistency and quality in the project. Most of the participants did not discuss any safety topic prior to commencing the work. A few raised the issue of safe practices to homeowner and property, and for some this was because it directly impacted on their living conditions.

“The safety angle with regard to myself [sic] and the rest of my property, and what he was going to be doing with regards scaffolding and things like that.” P07

“Well we went through what he was going to be doing just because he had to knock through from the old house to the new house, new extension rather, and we went through how he was going to do that, what stage the building would be at when he did it, whether I would be able to stay in the house, move out, and things like that.” P07

A few of the participants explored the type of equipment that the contractor would use. However, this was not explored by most of the participants. One participant noted that this information would be discussed with the contractor depending on the project to be commissioned.

3.3.3.5 Trust in the contractor when doing the work Trust was a factor to emerge from the analysis. Several elements were associated with the homeowners displaying trust in the contractor, such as his/her experience in construction work or by the contactor working for a large firm. Conversely, the lack of trust was seen in the fact that the homeowners’ preferred choice was based primarily on their use of recommendations before deciding to hire contractors. Some participants showed that they relied on the contractor to ensure that s/he had the required qualifications, experience and ability.

“I didn’t check personally no but I would imagine it’s in their company certification. You know, they must have some, they must have something in place I mean the way they carried out the work from what I saw was perfectly safe so they must have some sort of operating procedure for that.” P08

Some of the participants noted that if contractors have experience of construction work then they trust that experience.

Further, one participant in outlining the background of the contractor, suggested that the contractor’s thirty years of experience and having worked in a specific work context was an indication that the contractor was capable of looking after his own health and safety.

“He’s worked in theatres and it’s like if you haven’t got a good sense of safety when you’re building stage sets in theatres well you’ll be dead by now, you can’t do that for thirty years and be an idiot. So I let just, you know, the laws of common sense and probability dictate that yes. I don’t have to worry about if he’s gonna [sic] look after himself because he wouldn’t be alive if he didn’t and it’s not my job, that’s his responsibility.” P09

46

Another highlighted the trust given to large companies due to the assumption that larger firms would have better standards and procedures in place:

“I think with a big company like that you just expect everything to be in order, that’s why you go with a big company. Because my husband wanted to go with some small man [sic] and I went no. ….Yeah a large company, well known, they obviously haven’t become a large company overnight by doing dodgy work.” P16

3.3.3.6 Participants awareness of health and safety

One of the objectives of this present study was to understand homeowners’ attitudes towards ensuring that construction work at their property was carried out in a safe manner and if participants had any suggestions for improving the health and safety of contractors and of homeowners during the construction process.

Across the interviews, responses suggest a common lack of awareness of health and safety. The homeowners did not discuss generally health and safety with the contractor prior to starting the work nor did the homeowner monitor the work in the home during its execution. One of the reasons for not checking on the health and safety practices that the contractors had in place were due to trusting that the contractors or their companies would have adequate procedures and practices in place as outlined by one of the participants.

“No. You assume that somebody that’s in that line of work would adhere to health and safety.” P15

For some of the participants, there was a perception that the contractor was responsible for his/her health and safety when undertaking work on a home, rather than this falling to the homeowners’ responsibility. As such, for one participant, s/he did not feel obliged to check that the contractor was working safely.

“Up to them. They’ve, I’m not their manager, I’m just a customer. That’s not my job, well it’s not my job so I’m not running them, I’m paying them, if they choose to like hang off a ladder and fall off and injure themselves then that’s their own stupidity but by and large anybody who’s actually quite good at their [sic] job won’t be doing that kind of stupid thing.” P09

Other participants reported not being aware of health and safety regulations.

“Well I mean to be frank I’m not this; I’m not totally sure what rules and regulations are in place. I mean other than, you know, for example I didn’t need planning permission or building regulations so I mean if I was having construction work done then obviously, you know, I’d have to get the plans drawn up and whatever.” P17

Health and safety awareness With respect to having some level of health and safety awareness, some of the participants were aware of the risks involved during construction work.

“Yeah. They, with the fences for example, they warned us what they were going to do, they warned us what equipment they’d need. They warned us to keep the children away

47

when they had the big saws out and they warned us that there would be nails and things like that.” P01

For some participants, awareness of health and safety was driven by having young children within the home, whilst for others it was to ensure that the work was being done in a safe manner.

“Well obviously I mean I checked that the scaffolding looked to be secure when it was installed.” P17

Another aspect of having some awareness of health and safety was that all of the participants noted that they would not hire someone who cuts corners. Their reasons for taking that decision was that it was essential to ensure that the contractors took account of the safety of the building and the safety of the homeowners, whilst the work was being done.

“Because I was a subcontractor myself and I know it’s not best practice. There’s no corners [sic] to be cut with safety.” P05

“Because you don’t know what corners they’re cutting … If they cut corners in some areas they could cut them in all areas and it’s not acceptable around children or yourself, you know, why would you endanger yourself or your children?” P07

Other participants did check/recommend that contractors have safe practices in place. For example, one participant, as a homeowner, felt that the contractor may be putting himself at risk by not using the appropriate PPE and even offered the contractor to use her/his own personal protective equipment.

“Well in his case I said to him would he like a pair of my goggles because when I mow round here I wear goggles because bits fly up and stuff and I don’t know when I’m gonna [sic] hit a stone or something and I did say to him did you want my, I’ve got safety goggles and he was only wearing glasses and I said, you know, are you sure you’re all right there and he went, ‘yeah it’ll be fine’ so I just left him to it and I thought well it’s his fault.” P04

Another participant checked that the required safety barriers were in place during the renovation on the property.

“Scaffolding up certainly, but he’d removed the ladders that went up onto the first platform of the scaffolding, those were removed every night and padlocked in the yard so that they couldn’t be put back. And as I say there was [sic] barriers around all the work so that no-one could in theory get in.” P07

Some of the checks described arose as the participants felt the contractors were engaging in work that could be deemed as unsafe.

“They had no hard hats, they had no face masks…” P18

They were concerned also by the damage that could be caused to their property.

“…they were supposed to, under the spec, to put up dust sheets and protection, they were supposed to take the radiators off the wall and take everything down, cover the, we’ve got one of these open stove fires. They did absolutely nothing.” P18

48

“And then they piled the whole wreck in the middle of the floor and decided to start taking the block and beam up at which point I stopped them because it would have damaged the integrity of the floor and I was frightened that the floor would fall in.” P18

For some of the participants, they had a perception that contractors minimise the risks as much as possible. This opinion was based on the perceived cautious behaviour of the contractor when carrying out his/her tasks, such as being careful and doing what s/he could when engaged in the task.

“Only in the way that he was conducting his movements, not, he wasn’t tethered down or anything but he was just generally careful on, when he was taking up any materials or anything you know, yeah.” P14

“But I mean obviously they, you know I watched them climbing up and down the scaffolding and whatever and they appeared to be doing it in a safe manner but, you know, I’m not a professional in that area so, you know, to my eyes it looked as if they were being careful but, I don’t know if a health and safety representative would have thought they were safe or not.” P17

Personal safety issue

A few participants highlighted the vulnerability of women in the context of contracting work. Three-quarters of the participants were women and a few of them raised the issue of being female and acknowledging their vulnerability within the home with contractors who were generally men.

“I know that you do feel quite vulnerable, particularly as a woman on your own inviting contractors in but I can’t really think what, what would make me change my mind on that or what would make me feel better other than using people that I knew and using people that I knew other people knew as well. But obviously the HSE can’t really recommend that, can they?” P01

Improving practices / rules / regulations for contractors

Some of the participants raised issues to reflect that they felt that the rules/practices were adequate at present. As such, due to this perception some felt that new rules were not required as adequate rules were already in place.

“I’m not sure about that kind of regulation if it means that people have more bureaucracy to deal with in terms of getting someone to work for them in the first place. I think that that would be a hindrance to the flexibility householders have in terms of who they use and who they don’t use. Including their own labour of course.” P03

Other participants felt that as long as contractors received adequate training/apprenticeship that this ensures that the work is done to a certain standard.

“…As long as they’ve gone through the normal training and a full apprenticeship then they should be able to do most jobs. They should be able to set out the job and do it professionally.” P05

49

This appropriate and relevant training was especially useful when one participant was advised by the contractor that the material on his/her roof contained asbestos, and needed to be removed in a safe manner. Some participants felt that contractors should be working safely and there should be no need to provide them with incentives. There was an assumption therefore that safe working should be common practice for any contractor.

“I mean the biggest incentive to most people is money. But you shouldn’t have to pay people to do safe work practicing [sic]. You know, it should be a given without really, incentive-wise, no not really. Apart from if you don’t work safely you’ll be put out of business.” P10

While a few participants felt that the rules were adequate, they felt that it would be useful to offer free courses to small contractors, as these types of contractors may struggle financially to fund relevant training or health and safety courses. Another element to arise was that compliance with practices / rules / regulations could be improved. In this respect, some of the participants felt that the contractors should use appropriate PPE. One participant mentioned that contractors would wear inappropriate footwear, such as trainers, that would not help to prevent injury. One commented it would be beneficial if they could be provided with a booklet or website for homeowners to check on contractors’ qualifications etc.

“I think so yeah, if you, when you’re looking for builders, if there was something on there [HSE’s website] that was quite straightforward, quite easy, just to recognise, if they had a list of these are our health and safety policies and we’ve been accredited and, you know, I don’t, you know, I don’t think most people normally would hunt out that information so maybe it could be more clear. On their website. And maybe like a five star rating, you know, restaurants have a five star rating for food hygiene; maybe they could have a star rating for their health and safety, you know, how they’ve done over the past year.” P06

Another view was that safety would improve if for certain jobs, there was more than one person for the job to have suitable help in place, if needed to ensure safety, during tasks such as heavy lifting.

“….I think the guys that work in the smaller firms, if there’s [sic] two of them instead of one it’s a good idea. Certainly with glass and heavy objects, you know, lifting and whatever.” P08

It was commented that some homeowners could take on the onus of proving a safe work area and thereby they should clear the area for contractors and make sure all hindrances are removed. One participant was of the opinion that homeowners should prepare the area in which the work would be done, before the contractor arrived.

Some of the participants felt that companies should check that they were up to date with any required standards and maintained any qualifications for the work in which they were engaged, especially the smaller ones.

“I think there should be more monitoring as to who does what work and stuff like that. And obviously, well I’d say that’s for more the bigger companies like, not so much the big companies no because they are closely monitored. Yeah I’d say the smaller ones

50

need more monitoring, make sure they’re keeping up with the standards and are fully qualified.” P10

In addition, one homeowner who was affected adversely by sub-contractors who were poorly trained and inexperienced, felt that there was a need to ensure that sub-contractors were aware of how to do the work and had experience in doing the type of work that they stated that they could do. This participant’s home was flooded and needed to have emergency work carried out.

Some participants noted that even large companies did not ensure that health and safety practices were in place. As one participant highlighted some large companies were only interested in getting the work done as quickly as possible to move onto the next project, and this seemed to be their primary concern, rather than adequate health and safety practices. Some participants felt that homeowners should be aware of their responsibilities when doing construction work. One of the participants mentioned that improved knowledge would allow homeowners to have more control over the process.

“Oh yes I think we, really I think householders should be a bit more clued up, yes. For example, you know, if you had gas or anything obviously you don’t want just anybody coming along, they’ve got to be, you’ve got to check their credentials and make sure they’re registered haven’t you so? Unfortunately not everybody does it.” P14

3.3.3.7 Factors influencing decisions to recommend contractors Most of the participants would recommend a contractor to someone else. This was based on the quality outcome of the work, on it being done in good time, and keeping to the agreed cost.

“Well I just think it’s nice that, you know if somebody wants a job done and you’ve actually had a good workman it’s nice that you can sort of pass on their, their card or anything. You know, if you’ve been pleased with the work they’ve produced for you it’s nice to help your friends and family you know to make sure they don’t get a cowboy.” P14

For those who provided a neutral response to the issue of recommendation, it was due to not being asked to recommend a contractor.

3.3.3.8 Quality Assurance There were varied levels of quality assurance whereby homeowners monitored the work as it progressed. Some participants reported watching closely the quality and impact of the work whilst others did not check the work, or were unsure of what to look for. For instance, one homeowner monitored the timescales and any possible damage that could happen to the neighbouring property.

“Well my husband kept an eye on, you know, the timescale was adhered to. And just that because we’re semi-detached, just to make sure that, you know, there wasn’t any liability that you know bricks were gonna [sic] fall on the next door garage roof and tear a hole in it or anything so he kept an eye on that sort of thing, yes.” P14

One participant felt that the work needed to be monitored by the homeowners due to the difficulties experienced on previous work done within the home, as detailed:

51

“I no longer go out of the way and let them get on with it because, as I say, we had major issues with what went on but after having so much problem you, you learn quite a bit about basic work that’s to be done so then when the next person comes in you’ve got a much better idea of what’s going on.” P18

For those participants who watched what was going on, they noted that while they could watch the work, they were limited in the technical knowledge they could apply to the process, as outlined in the quote that follows:

“I suppose I just kind of watched them pulling it out but there’s only so much about it I know myself. I’m not a qualified builder and whatever, I just watched them to see how it was, what it was all about basically.” P13

Quite a few of participants commented that they did not monitor/check on work. This was at times due to trusting the contractor, and having a high level of trust in the person doing the work, either through prior knowledge or real or perceived experience.

“No because it was somebody I knew very well who’d done work for me previously so he had a key to the house and he did it while I was at work.” P19

52

4. CONCLUSIONS

This research obtained information on homeowners’ attitudes and perceptions about construction work within the home through a survey and interviews from those who commission the work, the homeowners. There is limited research in this area and the information obtained allows an understanding of these issues.

This research has shown that most homeowners are unaware of health and safety practices. Both the survey and the interviews reflected this. From the interviews, it seems that homeowners become more aware of health and safety when they had been subjected to poor or hazardous work within their homes. This lack of awareness may need to be addressed if homeowners are to be asked to take a greater account of health and safety issues that may impact on work that is carried out within their homes.

From the survey of the 800 homeowners, only 8% had searched for information on building control and similar percentages were seen for planning permission (9%) and health and safety issues (8%). These small percentages reflect, to a certain extent, that many of the homeowners commissioned work without extensive search of these issues. However, it would be useful for the homeowners if they had some knowledge of these issues, as this would increase their overall level of awareness of what are good or bad practices by contractors.

For those homeowners who considered health and safety issues, they preferred that the contractor was equipped with the requisite personal protective equipment (PPE), and one of the homeowners even noted that s/he had offered PPE to a contractor working in the home. This information provides an alternative perception to the wearing of PPE by those working on domestic premises as outlined in previous research12, which showed that contractors felt they could not wear e.g. steel toe cap boots, as this would make the work done within the home messier. They felt that homeowners did not want unnecessary ‘mess’ during the project.

Most homeowners, who participated in this study, undertook one construction project in the previous five years. Those who contracted more than one project, from the interviews, seemed to do so due to the house being older and requiring more work, or due to adverse weather conditions, such as flooding, or general maintenance. In this respect, most of the projects commissioned required only one or two contractors, tended to be done over relatively short periods of time and tended to cost under £5,000.

Homeowners tended generally to use recommendations when commissioning work. This seemed to act as a ‘check’ on who is allowed into the home and could be seen as one ‘safety’ measure that the homeowners may advertently or inadvertently use. Most of the participants who were interviewed were women and a few of them highlighted their vulnerability in having to trust a contractor, usually male, in carrying out work within their homes. As such, the use of ‘recommended’ contractors assists with ensuring that the homeowners obtained a certain level of safety during the duration of the project.

For quite a few of the participants, once the contractors were hired, or sometimes before, they tended to ‘trust’ that the contractors would ensure that the work would be done to a good and safe standard. The homeowners generally did not monitor the work, the type of equipment that the contractors used, nor whether any of the work would be sub-contracted. It may be useful to challenge this level of trust displayed by homeowners to allow their awareness and responsibility of work within their homes to increase. The participants checked on the work and practices of the contractors when children were in the home during the project to ensure their safety.

53

Some of the homeowners felt that adequate rules and regulations were in place when work was undertaken in their homes, while others were not aware of the safety and health regulations that are required when doing construction work. There was the perception that it was the responsibility of the contractor to ensure that the requisite safety and health practices were done, especially as some reported not having the knowledge needed to make adequate judgements on such issues. For example, during one of the projects in someone’s home, asbestos was discovered and rather than ‘dumping’ the material in the nearby tip, as the homeowner noted would have happened due to lack of knowledge on asbestos, the contractor safely disposed of the material. A few of the homeowners acknowledged that they did not have the knowledge to comment on health and safety issues.

A few commented that the availability of information either on a leaflet or on a website, such as the HSE’s website, would prove useful to homeowners. The HSE has a leaflet13 available to download on its website and has supported another14, and may wish to consider how best to raise the profile of these to homeowners.

This research explored the perceptions of homeowners when commissioning work in their homes. There is limited research in this area and the information is useful in understanding the ways that homeowners commission work and their attitudes to the overall process. The findings reflected that the homeowners have specific interpretations of what construction work within the home entailed, and this focused on e.g. improvements to the home rather than on work that led to the maintained of the house, such as painting a door. The majority of the homeowners were ‘cautious’ in how they commissioned work and relied on recommendations when hiring contractors. They were unlikely to consider health and safety issues, with the majority of them allowing the contractor to undertake the work, due to their perceived experience in the construction industry. Overall, the homeowners used their knowledge, networks and previous experience in hiring contractors when construction work was required within their homes.

54

5. REFERENCES

1 Health and Safety Executive (HSE). Construction intelligence report. Analysis of construction injury and ill health intelligence, no date. http://www.hse.gov.uk/construction/pdf/conintreport.pdf

2 Health and Safety Executive (HSE). Domestic clients. Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2007, no date. http://www.hse.gov.uk/construction/cdm/faq/domestic.htm

3 Health and Safety Executive (HSE). New figures published of fatally injured construction workers, 2011. http://www.hse.gov.uk/press/2011/hse-fatalstatscon.htm

4 Creswell JW, Research design: qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA., 2003.

5 Johnson RB, Onwuegbuzie AJ. Mixed Methods Research: A Research Paradigm Whose Time Has Come, Educational Researcher, 2004;33(7): pp. 14-26.

6 Braun V, Clarke, V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology 2006;3(2):77-101.

7 Ritchie J, Spencer L, O’Connor W. Carrying out qualitative analysis, In Ritchie J, Lewis J. (Eds.) Qualitative Research Practice. A Guide for Social Science Students and Researchers, Sage Publications Ltd., London; 2003:220-262.

8 Aronson J. A Pragmatic View of Thematic Analysis. The Qualitative Report 1994;2(1). http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/BackIssues/QR2-1/aronson.html (accessed 15 October 2008).

9 Mays N, Pope C. Qualitative research in health care: Assessing quality in qualitative research. BMJ 2000;320:50-2.

10 Mays N, Pope C. Rigour in qualitative research. BMJ. 1995;311:109-112.

11 Armstrong D, Gosling A, Weinman J, Marteau T. The place of inter-rater reliability in qualitative research: an empirical study. Sociology. 1997;31:597-606.

12 Gervais RL, McCann P. Access equipment for construction work at height in residential properties, 2013, RR978, Health and Safety Executive. http://www.hse.gov.uk/research/rrhtm/rr978.htm

13 Health and Safety Executive (HSE). Want construction work done safely? A quick guide for clients on the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2007 INDG411 09/11, 2011. http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/indg411.pdf

14 Poole M, Preston-Hood J, Hobbs S. The Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2007. Industry Guidance for Small, One-off and Infrequent Clients, CDM07/1, Construction Industry Training Board, 2007. http://www.cskills.org/uploads/CDM_Clients4web_tcm17-4640.pdf

55

6. ANNEXES

56

6.1 ANNEX I: EXAMPLES OF CONSTRUCTION WORK Examples Aerial installation Alarm installation Alteration of a structure (i.e. building, timber, masonry, metal or reinforced concrete structure or part of a structure) Assembly of prefabricated elements to form a structure Attic/loft conversion Basement extension/conversion Block paving Boiler service (fixed to structure) Carpentry involving structure (e.g. studwork or door) CCTV installation Chimney repairs Cleaning a structure using water or an abrasive at high pressure or use of corrosive or toxic substances Conservatory Construction of a structure (i.e. building, timber, masonry, metal or reinforced concrete structure or part of a structure) Conversion of a structure Damp-proofing Decking Demolition of a structure (e.g. garage or wall) Disassembly on site of prefabricated elements which immediately before formed a structure Dismantling of a structure Drainage works Excavation (normally part of or preparatory to new build) Extension Fitting out of a structure Floor screeding Floor tiling Fuel tank (e.g. heating oil or gas) Guttering Installation Jet washing of structure/paving Maintenance of a structure New building, timber, masonry, metal or reinforced concrete structure New central heating system New roof New bathroom New brick wall New kitchen New shed/garage New windows/doors Patio laying Photovoltaic cells/panels Pipe laying Plastering Plumbing

Annex I continues,

57

Examples, cont., Preparation for an intended structure (e.g. site clearance) Redecoration Removal of gas, electrical, telecommunications or similar services fixed within or to a structure Removal of waste from demolition or dismantling of a structure Rendering/pebble dashing Renovation of a structure (e.g. windows) Repainting Repair of a structure Repair of mechanical, electrical, gas or telecommunications services fixed within or to a structure Repointing Rewiring River bank works Roof repairs Satellite dish Scaffolding used to provide support or access during construction Solar panels Swimming pool Telecomms/cable installation (if fixed within or to a structure) Temporary works used to provide support or access during construction work Underground tank Upkeep of a structure Wall tiling Wind turbine Examples of things that are NOT construction work Gardening Maintenance of fixed plant except where done as part of other construction work Marquee or tent in garden Off-site manufacture of items/pre-fabricated elements for later use in construction work Service of free-standing heater or equipment not fixed to a structure Surveying (e.g. taking measurements, examining a structure) Tree planting Wall papering Window cleaning (bucket or low pressure extending pole)

58

6.2 ANNEX II: SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE

Insight into procurement of construction by domestic clients Question set for telephone survey Introductory script: My name is_____________ I am calling from _________________ an independent research agency working on behalf of a government department. I would like to invite you to take part in a short telephone interview about any experiences you may or may not have had of having construction work done on your home. It should take no more than 10 minutes of your time. Your answers will be completely confidential and will be used to inform government policy in this area. There are no right or wrong answers, we are interested in your experiences and honest opinions. Are you happy to take part? Is now a good time for you? If not try to arrange to call back another time. Any questions? [If participants ask which department tell them HSE.] 1. Can I just check, which age group do you belong to?

a. Under 16 b. 16 to 29 c. 30 to 49 d. 50 to 69 e. 70 and over

[NOTE: If under 16 ask if there is someone older available to speak to. If not thank and close - Thank you very much for your help. Today we want to speak to people who are aged 16 and over. Unfortunately this means we are unable to continue with this survey].

2. Do you own the property that you currently live in; either outright or with a

mortgage/loan? - Yes - go to Q3 -‐ No - thanks and close -‐ NOTE: Participants with shared ownership (part own and part rent) should proceed to Q3. If the home owner is not the one to answer the phone, ask to speak to the home owner. [Thank you very much for your help. Today we want to speak to people who own the property that they currently live in. Unfortunately this means we are unable to continue with this survey].

59

3. Now, thinking in general terms about work which people may pay an individual or company to carry out on their home, do you think of the following activities as 'construction' work?" • Repairs such as repairing your roof • Maintenance such as painting your front door • Conversion such as a loft conversion • Renovation such as new windows • Redecoration such as plastering

[Interviewer will also have non-exhaustive list of examples to respond to queries] 4. The activities I asked you about in the previous question are all classed as construction

work for the purposes of this research, including the less obvious work such as maintenance and home improvements. Hopefully these examples have given you an idea about the types of activities that I am interested in discussing with you today. During the past 12 months, have you paid someone else (individual or organisation) to undertake this type of work on your home? (NOTES: Interviewer to reiterate that we are only interested in work that they have paid someone else to undertake, NOT work that they have done themselves. Interviewer to have non-exhaustive list of activities that are in scope to assist)

IF YES…. IF NO…. 5. How many different construction projects

have you paid someone else (individuals or organisations) to undertake on your property in the past year? _______________________________

5. What about in the past 5 years? If Yes proceed to Q6 If No, Collect postcode, thank and close [Thank you very much for your help. Today we want to speak to people who have paid to have construction work done on their property within the last 5 years. Unfortunately this means we are unable to continue with this survey].

60

6. Thinking about the project(s) that occurred during the past 12 months, please could you briefly describe the/each project to me?

[NOTE: If participant has had multiple projects done in the past 12 months, ask them to describe EACH project up to a total of 5 projects] PROJECT 1 ___________________________ PROJECT 2 ___________________________ PROJECT 3 ___________________________ PROJECT 4 ___________________________ PROJECT 5 ___________________________

6. Thinking about the most recent project or the project you are most familiar with that occurred during the past 5 years: a) Please could you briefly describe the

project to me? ___________________________________

b) And can you remember what year this project took place?

___________________________________

61

7. We are interested in establishing the average value of construction projects like this. Please could you tell me the approximate value of the/each project?

[NOTE: May need to remind participants what’s in scope.] Ask as an open question but if the participant is struggling to recall the value, offer them the following ranges to assist: • Less than £1,000 • £1,000 to £4,999 • £5,000 to £9,999 • £10,000 to £24,999 • £25,000 to £49,999 • £50,000 and over

PROJECT 1 _________________________

PROJECT 2 _________________________

PROJECT 3 _________________________

PROJECT 4 _________________________

PROJECT 5 _________________________

7. We are interested in establishing the average value of construction projects like this. Please could you tell me the approximate value of the project?

[NOTES: May need to remind participants what’s in scope.] Ask as an open question but if the participant is struggling to recall the value, offer them the following ranges to assist: • Less than £1,000 • £1,000 to £4,999 • £5,000 to £9,999 • £10,000 to £24,999 • £25,000 to £49,999 • £50,000 and over

________________________________

8. Now, if you could just think about the most recent project or the project you are most familiar with. How many working days did this project take to complete (approx.)? – [From start on site but excluding periods of no activity on site]

_________________________________

8. How many working days did this project take to complete? (approx.) – [From start on site but excluding periods of no activity on site]

_________________________________

9. What was the greatest number of workers present on site at the same time during this project (approx.)?

_________________________________

9. What was the greatest number of workers present on site at the same time during this project (approx.)?

_________________________________

62

10. As far as you know, which of the following best describes the arrangements for this project? a) You hired more than one

company/contractors yourself? b) You hired a single company/contractor who

subcontracted elements of the work to others?

10. As far as you know, which of the following best describes the arrangements for this project? a) You hired more than one

company/contractors yourself? b) You hired a single company/contractor who

subcontracted elements of the work to others?

11. Still thinking about this one project, as far as you know, how many different companies/contractors in total worked on site during the project? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10+

11. As far as you know, how many different companies/contractors in total worked on site during this project? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10+

12. How did you identify this/these company(ies)?

(Internet search/ Yellow pages/ Used before/ Recommendation/ Contractor was friend or relative etc….) ________________________________ ________________________________ ________________________________

12. How did you identify this/these company(ies)?

(Internet search/ Yellow pages/ Used before/ Recommendation /Contractor was friend or relative etc….) ________________________________ ________________________________ ________________________________

63

13. a) Did you consider more than one quote before deciding who to hire? Yes

No [If NO skip to Q14] b) IF YES: How many quotes did you compare (on average)? _________________________________ c) How did you decide which quote(s) to use? (Cheapest/Mid-range/etc….) _________________________________ _________________________________ _________________________________

13. a) Did you consider more than one quote before deciding who to hire? Yes

No [If NO skip to Q14] b) IF YES: How many quotes did you compare (on average)? _________________________________ c) How did you decide which quote(s) to use? (Cheapest/Mid-range/etc….) _________________________________ _________________________________ _________________________________

14. In relation to this project, at any point did you try to find information about the following: a) Building control? b) Planning permission? c) Health and safety?

15. If YES: Where did you look for this

information? _______________________________ _______________________________

14. In relation to this project, at any point did you try to find information about the following: a. Building control? b. Planning permission? c. Health and safety?

15. If YES: Where did you look for this

information? _______________________________ _______________________________

64

16. [ASK ALL] What is your postcode please? ________________________________

17. [ASK ALL] Are you happy to be contacted again to participate in further research on this subject? Yes No If yes check you have the correct name/email/phone Name ______________________________________________

Phone number __________________________________________

Email address ___________________________________________

[CLOSE] - Thank you for taking the time to participate. Your answers are very valuable and will be used to help develop future policy in this area. Do you have any final questions?

65

6.3 ANNEX III: SEMI-STRUCTURED INTERVIEW GUIDE

Private Clients Construction Work Semi-Structured Interview Guide

Introduction

State my name, position in the organisation and the purpose of the research.

• The aim of this interview is to get insight into your opinions, perspectives and motivations for deciding to move forward with construction work within your home. The information that I obtain will be used to write a report for the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) on how householders contract work.

• The data collected during this process are confidential, and I will not use any identifying information in the analysis or report. I would like to record the interview and ask your permission to do so. If you do not wish me to record it, this is fine too. Is this alright with you? No one, other than the persons doing the analysis, will listen to the recordings. Rather, I am using this recording to help me in my note taking process and to ensure that I capture everything that is said accurately.

• The HSE will not see the raw data, and will only see what has been used in the report after the analysis is complete.

• The interview should not last longer than 30 to 40 minutes.

Do you have any questions before we start? N.B. These questions serve as a guide to get an indication of the issues. The interviewer may not ask verbatim each specific question. Rather, the interviewer may wish to pursue other emerging issues that may be pertinent. Also, the interviewer may use probe or follow-up questions where appropriate. Remind participants of the definition of construction work. Questions

1. How many projects have you had done at your property over the past year/five years?

Could you list the projects please?

2. What influences you when deciding which contractor to hire to do work on your house?

Prompt: [If the person says only cost the interviewer should ask, anything else?]

Cost?

Reputation of contractor?

How soon the contractor can do the work?

Whether or not you know the contractor personally?

Whether or not someone you know knows the contractor personally?

66

Could not do the work on your own? Or with assistance from family or

friends?

The length of time the contractor has been trading?

References

Have seen previous work

Memberships?

Qualifications and experience?

2a. In your view, which of the influences given are most important and why?

3. How do you get information to determine if any potential contractor(s) is (are) suitably qualified, for example that they have experience and/or qualifications, to do the work?

Prompt:

Nowhere

Immediate family?

Extended family?

Friends?

Neighbour(s)?

The Internet - websites that list reputable contractors?

Contact trade associations to check on the credentials of the

contractor(s)?

3a. In your view, which of the sources given are most important and why?

4. Before hiring the contractor, what do you discuss with her/him?

Prompt: How would s/he do the work?

What is the cost?

The type of equipment that s/he would use?

How will s/he ensure that health and safety practices are in place?

References?

Memberships?

Experience?

Use of sub contractors?

Warranties and access?

5. Thinking about your last construction project, is there anything you monitored while the

work was in progress?

67

Prompt: What? How? When? Why?

Quality?

Time taken?

Safe practices?

6. Would you consider employing a contractor who cuts corners? Why?

7. Have you recommended a contractor who worked for you to anyone else? Why/why not?

Prompt:

Quality

Standard of work

Time taken

Appearance

Done within budget (or not)

Done in a safe manner (or not)

Tidiness

8. HSE is looking to improve safety for small contractors working on small sites. Do you

have any ideas that might help with this issue?

Prompt:

More rules for contractors?

More rules for domestic clients?

Incentive schemes?

Background Information

9. What is your age? (Provide categories if they do not wish to provide exact age)

Thank you for taking the time to answer my questions. Your assistance is greatly appreciated.

68

6.4 ANNEX IV: DETAILS FOR TABLES 2 TO 4

Details of project Bathroom - fitted, tiled, converted, replaced Boiler - fitted Carpentry - Stair case/timbers - added, replaced Cavity wall insulation Central heating Chimney - Replaced, removed Conservatory - Installed Decorated - Plastered, renovation, painted Doors - Fitted Downstairs toilet repaired Electrical repairs - power points added, light fittings, circuits replaced, alarm reset Fence, Garden wall - Installed, built Fireplace - Installed - widened to install wood burning stove Garage - Conversion, repair Gardening, landscaping Guttering - Replaced House - Renovated, extended, repaired Kitchen - Extended, fitted Loft, Attic - Conversion, insulation Plumbing - Gas leaks, water leaks Roof - Cleaned, refitted-repaired Shed - Installed, repaired Solar panels - Installed Stair life installed, disability alterations Windows - Installed, double glazed

69

6.5 ANNEX V: DESCRIPTIVES OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSES

This annex provides responses to the questions as asked and the relevant information (numbers and percentages) of the respective respondents. Some of the tables may total either 99 per cent or 101 per cent due to the rounding of the figures.

The verbatim responses of the respondents were coded to collate the responses. Some of the respondents provided information on more than one project, the numbers listed will reflect the multiple responses of information across all of respondents, as given for any particular question.

Q1. Age of Respondents

Age Groups n % 16 to 29 35 4 30 to 49 246 31 50 to 69 319 40 70 and over 200 25 Total 800 100

Q2. Do you own the property you currently live in?

Own Property N % Yes 800 100

Q3. Perceptions on whether or not respondents see activities done in the home as ‘construction’ work.

Activity Yes No Total n % n % n % Repairs e.g. repairing your roof 593 74 207 26 800 100 Maintenance e.g. painting your front door 170 21 630 79 800 100 Conversion e.g. loft conversion 666 83 134 17 800 100 Renovation e.g. new windows 470 59 330 41 800 100 Redecoration e.g. plastering 345 43 455 57 800 100

70

Q4. During the past 12 months have you paid someone else to undertake this type of work?

Paid contractor to do type of work listed n % Yes 178 22 No 622 78 Total 800 100

Q5. How many different projects have you paid someone else to do in the past year?

Number of projects N % 1 120 15 2 35 4 3 10 1 4 9 1 5 3 <1 6 1 <1 Total responses 178 22 Non-response 622 78 Total respondents 800 100

Q5b. What about the past 2 to 5 years?

Number of projects N % Yes 183 23 No 439 55 Total responses 622 78 Non-response 178 22 Total respondents 800 100

71

Q6.

Bri

ef d

escr

iptio

n of

pro

ject

(s) i

n th

e pa

st 1

2 m

onth

s

Proj

ect d

escr

iptio

n Ty

pe*

Proj

ect 1

Pr

ojec

t 2

Proj

ect 3

Pr

ojec

t 4

Proj

ect 5

n %

n

%

n %

n

%

n %

1

Bat

hroo

m -

fitte

d, ti

led,

con

verte

d, re

plac

ed

1 13

2

7 1

2 <1

2

Boi

ler -

fitte

d 2

1 <1

3

Car

pent

ry -

Stai

r cas

e/tim

bers

- ad

ded,

repl

aced

3

1 <1

1

<1

4 C

avity

wal

l ins

ulat

ion

3 4

1 1

<1

1 <1

5

Cen

tral h

eatin

g 2

2 <1

1

<1

6 C

him

ney

- Rep

lace

d, re

mov

ed

2 2

<1

7 C

onse

rvat

ory

- Ins

talle

d 1

3 <1

1

<1

1 <1

8

Dec

orat

ed -

Plas

terin

g, re

nova

tion,

pai

nted

3

40

5 15

2

5 1

9 D

oors

- Fi

tted

3 10

1

2 <1

1

<1

1 <1

10

El

ectri

cal

repa

irs -

po

wer

po

ints

ad

ded,

lig

ht

fittin

gs,

circ

uits

re

plac

ed, a

larm

rese

t 2

3 <1

1

<1

1 <1

2

<1

11

Fenc

e, G

arde

n w

all -

Inst

alle

d, b

uilt

3 1

<1

2 <1

1

<1

1 <1

12

Fi

repl

ace

- Ins

talle

d, w

iden

ed to

inst

all w

ood

burn

ing

stov

e 3

2 <1

1

<1

13

Gar

age

- Con

vers

ion,

repa

ir 2

1 <1

1

<1

14

Gar

deni

ng, l

ands

capi

ng

2 1

<1

2 <1

2

<1

15

Gut

terin

g - R

epla

ced

3 1

<1

1 <1

16

H

eatin

g 2

17

Hou

se -

Ren

ovat

ed, e

xten

ded,

repa

ired

1 28

4

3 <1

1

<1

3 <1

18

H

ouse

- N

ew b

uild

1

19

Kitc

hen

- Ext

ende

d, fi

tted

1 6

1 2

<1

1 <1

20

Lo

ft, A

ttic

- Con

vers

ion,

insu

latio

n 2

5 1

4 1

21

Plum

bing

- G

as le

aks,

wat

er le

aks

2 2

<1

6 1

22

Roo

f - C

lean

ed, r

efitt

ed-r

epai

red

3 18

2

2 <1

23

D

owns

tairs

toile

t rep

aire

d 3

1 <1

24

Sh

ed -

Inst

alle

d, re

paire

d 3

2 <1

25

So

lar p

anel

s - In

stal

led

2 2

<1

26

Stai

r lift

inst

alle

d, d

isab

ility

alte

ratio

ns

2

1

<1

* Ty

pe o

f pro

ject

: 1 =

Con

stru

ctio

n, 2

= Im

prov

emen

ts, 3

= R

epai

rs, M

aint

enan

ce a

nd R

edec

orat

ion.

T

able

for Q

6 co

ntin

ues,

72

Q6.

Bri

ef d

escr

iptio

n of

pro

ject

(s) i

n th

e pa

st 1

2 m

onth

s, cont.,

Pr

ojec

t des

crip

tion

Type

* Pr

ojec

t 1

Proj

ect 2

Pr

ojec

t 3

Proj

ect 4

Pr

ojec

t 5

n

%

n %

n

%

n %

n

%

27

Win

dow

s - In

stal

led,

dou

ble-

glaz

ed

3 30

4

7 1

1 <1

2

<1

28

Can

not r

emem

ber t

he o

ther

pro

ject

1 <1

To

tal n

umbe

r of p

roje

cts d

one

20

0 25

55

7

20

3 10

1

4 1

Tota

l res

pons

es to

the

ques

tion

17

8 22

54

7

20

3 10

1

3 0

To

tal n

on-r

espo

nses

to th

e qu

estio

n

622

78

746

93

780

98

790

99

797

100

To

tal r

espo

nden

ts

80

0 10

0 80

0 10

0 80

0 10

0 80

0 10

0 80

0 10

0 *

Type

of p

roje

ct: 1

= C

onst

ruct

ion,

2 =

Impr

ovem

ents

, 3 =

Rep

airs

, Mai

nten

ance

and

Red

ecor

atio

n.

73

6a. Brief description of the most recent project (past 2 to 5 years) Project description Type* n % 1 Bathroom - fitted, tiled, converted, replaced 1 6 1 2 Boiler - fitted 2 2 <1 3 Carpentry - Stair case/timbers - added, replaced 3 1 <1 4 Cavity wall insulation 3 1 <1 5 Chimney - Replaced, removed 2 1 <1 6 Conservatory - Installed 1 12 2 7 Decorated - Plastered, renovation, painted 3 40 5 8 Doors - Fitted 3 18 2 9 Electrical repairs - power points added, light fittings, circuits replaced,

alarm reset 2

2 <1 10 Fence, Garden wall - Installed, built 3 2 <1 11 Garage - Conversion, repair 2 2 <1 12 Gardening, landscaping 2 2 <1 13 Guttering - Replaced 3 1 <1 14 House - Renovated, extended, repaired 1 28 4 15 House - New build 1 1 <1 16 Kitchen - Extended, fitted 1 11 1 17 Loft, Attic - Conversion, insulation 2 13 2 18 Roof - Cleaned, refitted-repaired 3 19 2 19 Stair lift installed, disability alterations 2 1 <1 20 Windows - Installed, double glazed 3 45 6 Total number of projects done 208 26 Total responses to the question 183 23 Total non-responses to the question 617 77 Total respondents 800 100 * Type of project: 1 = Construction, 2 = Improvements, 3 = Repairs, Maintenance and Redecoration. Q6b. Year in which the most recent project was done (past 2 to 5 years)

Year n % 2012 4 1 2011 24 3 2010 61 8 2009 24 3 2008 36 5 2007 23 3 Before 2007 11 1 Total responses 183 23 Non-response 617 77 Total respondents 800 100

74

Q7a. Approximate value of Project 1 (past 12 months)

Value n % Less than £1000 44 6 £1,000 - £4,999 46 6 £5,000 - £9,999 23 3 £10,000 - £24,999 14 2 £25,000 - £49,999 3 <1 £50,000+ 4 1 Total responses 134 17 Non-response 666 83 Total respondents 800 100

Q7a_1. Value of project 1 (prompted) (past 12 months)

Value n % Less than £1,000 9 1 £1,000 - £4,999 9 1 £5,000 - £9,999 1 <1 Do not know/Refused 25 3 Total responses 44 6 Non-response 756 95 Total respondents 800 101

Q7b. Approximate value of Project 2 (past 12 months)

Value n % Less than £1000 19 2 £1,000 - £4,999 10 1 £5,000 - £9,999 6 1 £10,000 - £24,999 1 <1 £25,000 - £49,999 1 <1 £50,000+ Total responses 37 5 Non-response 763 95 Total respondents 800 100

75

Q7b_1. Value of project 2 (prompted) (past 12 months)

Value n % Less than £1,000 6 1 £1,000 - £4,999 2 <1 Do not know/Refused 13 2 Total responses 21 3 Non-response 779 97 Total respondents 800 100

Q7c. Approximate value of Project 3 (past 12 months)

Value n % Less than £1000 7 1 £1,000 - £4,999 5 1 £10,000 - £24,999 1 <1 Total responses 13 2 Non-response 787 98 Total respondents 800 100

Q7c_1. Value of project 3 (prompted) (past 12 months)

Value n % Less than £1,000 1 <1 £1,000 - £4,999 2 <1 £5,000 - £9,999 1 <1 Do not know/Refused 6 1 Total responses 10 1 Non-response 790 99 Total respondents 800 100

76

Q7d. Approximate value of Project 4 (past 12 months)

Value n % Less than £1000 4 1 £1,000 - £4,999 1 <1 £5,000 - £9,999 1 <1 Total responses 6 1 Non-response 794 99 Total respondents 800 100

Q7d_1. Value of project 4 (prompted) (past 12 months)

Value n % £5,000 - £9,999 1 <1 Do not know/Refused 6 1 Total responses 7 1 Non-response 793 99 Total respondents 800 100

Q7e. Approximate value of Project 5 (past 12 months)

Value n % Less than £1000 1 <1 £10,000 - £24,999 1 <1 Total responses 2 <1 Non-response 798 100 Total respondents 800 100

Q7e_1. Value of project 5 (prompted) (past 12 months)

Value n % Do not know/Refused 2 <1 Total responses 2 <1 Non-response 798 100 Total respondents 800 100

77

Q7f. Approximate value of Project 6 (past 2 to 5 years)

Value n % Less than £1000 21 3 £1,000 - £4,999 49 6 £5,000 - £9,999 18 2 £10,000 - £24,999 14 2 £25,000 - £49,999 5 1 £50,000+ 3 <1 Total responses 110 14 Non-response 690 86 Total respondents 800 100

Q7f_1. Value of project 6 (prompted) (past 2 to 5 years)

Value n % Less than £1,000 9 1 £1,000 - £4,999 9 1 £5,000 - £9,999 6 1 £10,000 - £24,999 1 <1 £25,000 - £49,999 1 <1 £50,000 and over 2 <1 Do not know/Refused 34 4 Total responses 62 8 Non-response 738 92 Total respondents 800 100

Q8a. Now, if you could just think about the most recent project or the project you are most familiar with. How many working days did this project take to complete (approx.)?

Number of days n % 1 to 5 112 14 6 to 10 19 2 11 to 30 28 4 31 to 90 8 1 91+ 11 1 Total responses 178 22 Non-response 622 78 Total respondents 800 100

78

Q8b. How any working days did this project take to complete (approx.)?

Number of days n % 1 to 5 100 13 6 to 10 26 3 11 to 30 29 4 31 to 90 9 1 91+ 8 1 Total responses 172 22 Non-response 628 78 Total respondents 800 100

Q9. What was the greatest number of workers present on site at the same time during this project (approx.)?

Number of workers n % 1 80 10 2 150 19 3 63 8 4 23 3 5 12 2 6 10 1 7 4 1 8 3 <1 10 2 <1 99 3 <1 Total responses 350 44 Non-response 450 56 Total respondents 800 100

Q10. As far as you know, which of the following best describes the arrangements for this project?

Number of companies/contractors n % You hired more than one company/contractor yourself 146 18 You hired a single company/contractor who sub-contracted elements of the work to others 204 26 Total responses 350 44 Non-response 450 56 Total respondents 800 100

79

Q11. How many different companies/contractors worked on site during the project?

Number of workers n % 1 235 29 2 52 7 3 22 3 4 15 2 5 7 1 6 3 <1 7 3 <1 10+ 2 <1 Do not know 11 1 Total responses 350 44 Non-response 450 56 Total respondents 800 100

Q12. How did you identify this/these company(ies)?

How identified Yes Non-response Total n % n % n % Did an Internet search 13 2 787 98 800 100 Recommendation 157 20 643 80 800 100 Saw their van/board at other houses in the area 10 1 790 99 800 100 Used before 41 5 759 95 800 100 Yellow pages 12 2 788 99 800 100 I know them/friend/family 85 11 715 89 800 100 Seen ad/listing in local paper 36 5 764 96 800 100 Other 34 4 766 96 800 100

80

Q12. How did you identify this/these company(ies)? - Other ways contractor identified companies

How identified - Other n % Advertisement - van 1 <1 Advertisement - printed media 2 <1 Cold call 8 1 Contacted company 2 <1 The council 4 1 Familiar to owner 4 1 Grant payment 1 <1 Insurance company 3 <1 No choice in selection 2 <1 Online system to check/find reputable contractors 2 <1 Recommendation 3 <1 Don’t know 2 <1 Total responses 34 4 Non-response 766 96 Total respondents 800 100

Q13a. Did you consider more than one quote before deciding whom to hire?

Consider quotes n % Yes 144 18 No 206 26 Total responses 350 44 Non-response 450 56 Total respondents 800 100

81

Q13b. How many quotes did you compare (on average)?

Number of quotes n % 1 3 <1 2 43 5 3 71 9 4 19 2 5 4 1 6 3 <1 10 1 <1 Total responses 144 18 Non-response 656 82 Total respondents 800 100

Q13c. How did you decide which quote(s) to use?

Decision Yes Non-response Total n % n % n % Went for cheapest quote 56 7 744 93 800 100 Went for mid-range quote 16 2 784 98 800 100 Because they were recommended 53 7 747 93 800 100 Because they are a friend/family 13 2 787 98 800 100 Because their availability fitted in with my schedule/could start the quickest 6 1 794 99 800 100 Because they seemed more professional 23 3 777 97 800 100 Because they had more experience/expertise 10 1 790 99 800 100 Other 20 3 780 98 800 100

82

Q13c. How did you decide which quote(s) to use? - Other ways to decide

Decided - Other n % Fair (Quote seen as) 2 <1 Gut feeling 1 <1 Insurance company refused all others 1 <1 Local 2 <1 Only company that wanted to do the work 1 <1 Personable 2 <1 Quality 5 1 Reputation 2 <1 Size of company 1 <1 Time 1 <1 Used before 1 <1 What they wanted 2 <1 Total ways to decide 21 3 Total responses to the question 20 3 Non-response 780 98 Total respondents 800 100

Q14. In relation to this project, at any point did you try to find information about the following:

Information Yes Non-response Total n % n % n % Find out about building control 63 8 737 92 800 100 Find out about planning permission 70 9 730 91 800 100 Find out about health & safety 67 8 733 92 800 100 None of these 245 31 555 69 800 100

83

Q15. Where did you look for this information?

Information - Other n % Architect 7 1 Checked regulations 1 <1 Contractors 31 5 Council/other government offices 29 4 Did search - Internet, asked individuals, telephone director 29 2 Friends/relatives/neighbours 4 <1 Insurance company 2 1 Own knowledge 10 1 Relative in building trade 6 1 Not sure 1 <1 Total number of areas look for information 120 15 Total responses to the question 105 13 Total non-responses to the question 695 87 Total respondents 800 100

Published by the Health and Safety Executive 08/14



RR1016

www.hse.gov.uk

Homeowners when commissioning construction work within their homes may not necessarily contemplate the risks that may be involved when such work is undertaken. This present research explored the perceptions of homeowners in respect of what constituted construction work; whether they thought about health and safety issues before or during the work; and the influencing factors in choosing contractors when commissioning such work within their homes. The findings showed that the majority of the homeowners used recommendations from various sources, such as friends and family when needing to select a contractor, but that very few homeowners considered health and safety issues when such work was done within their homes. The homeowners were more likely to discuss safety concerns with the contractors if children were present in the home or if they had previous experience of poor workmanship. They were of the opinion also that new rules and regulations for contractors who work on domestic premises were not required at the present time; but those who had poor experiences were more likely to suggest that contractors should improve on their work practices.

This report and the work it describes were funded by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE). Its contents, including any opinions and/or conclusions expressed, are those of the authors alone and do not necessarily reflect HSE policy.

Documents

Insight into procurement of construction by private clients · 2019-12-05 · • The respondents were most likely to perceive that repairs e.g. repairing a roof, conversion e.g