Annex 1

1

Investigation Review: Royal Borough of Kingston Council’s Contact Centre October 2014

Annex 1

2

Table of Contents

Page no.

1. Introduction 3

2. Executive Summary 4

3. Methodology 7

4. Findings and recommendations 8

5. Conclusion 16

6. Appendices 17

Annex 1

3

Introduction The Kingston Residents’ Scrutiny Panel (KRiSP) is an autonomous panel of council tenants and leaseholders set up by Kingston Council in conjunction with the Kingston Federation of Residents’. The role of KRiSP is to investigate and review aspects of the Council’s housing services and to propose improvements that will be of benefit to all residents. KRiSP is central to the Council’s ‘Resident Involvement Framework’ and a commitment to co-regulation; it was formed in October 2013 and currently comprises 12 tenants and leaseholders. The role of KRiSP is to carry out service investigations and report on them to the Council. The Contact Centre is KRiSP’s second investigation and it was chosen because it was mentioned a number of times during the first survey into the garage service. Due to the complexity of the whole Contact Centre operation it was decided to concentrate on the ‘repair reporting’ element, the customer experience and the potential for more digital and self-service options. The KRiSP Panel comprises Raewyn Hammond (Chair), Andrea Walker, Mohamed Ali, Halima Sentamu and Jackie Paddon. Other members of KRiSP, Rita Tibbs, David Miller, Herbie Paddon, Geof Yates and David West offered their valuable assistance due to the complexity of the investigation. The Panel was once again ably supported by Cathy Kempadoo from Kingston Council along with training and mentoring support from Jane Eyles and Phil Morgan. The Panel is very grateful for this support and would also like to thank all the tenants and members of staff who gave their time both freely and openly to assist them in their investigation.

Annex 1

4

Executive Summary

Kingston Residents Scrutiny Panel received a tremendous amount of support throughout their investigation from the Contact Centre staff and appreciated the positive approach shown by them to their work and recognises the commitment they share with their managers to improving customer satisfaction.

Tenants being unaware of some of the complex issues involved in manning a Contact Centre dedicated to a “one Council” system are suffering increasing levels of frustration which can be addressed by making the system more user friendly. After a thorough investigation KRiSP believe that there is considerable room for improvement in the mechanics of how incoming calls to report repairs are managed with particular concern as to the initial reception of calls and difficulties in subsequently tracking repairs. The most often repeated complaints revolved around;

• Long periods waiting to speak to "a person"

• Confusion as to whether the "call-back" feature was working

• Different styles of operator responses ranging from talking too fast to not listening, not understanding, being brusque or a lack of technical knowledge.

• Long waits while operators speak to contractors

• Recommendations 1, 2, 3, & 4 refer to these several concerns.

• It was also felt that the process of collecting "feedback" could be improved as outlined in Recommendations 5 & 6.

Many issues associated with the Contact Centre at the present time are being accredited to the inability of their computer system to interface with Axis, the main contractor. The KRiSP Investigation Panel has been assured that this problem will soon be resolved and that they will then see a distinct improvement in call handling and response times. In light of the importance of this issue one of their key recommendations is that, along with the Group Manager for Housing Strategy, KRiSP should monitor the progress made and then conduct a formal review six months after the IT problems have been resolved. This is covered in Recommendation 7 which also mentions possible alternative methods of tenant repair reporting that could be considered if the Contact Centre and Axis continue to experience difficulties communicating effectively. KRiSP notes the existence of a training plan for Contact Centre Advisors (CCAs) but following their interviews with staff they do have concerns about the delivery of any structured ongoing training. Recommendation 8 specifically addresses this issue. KRiSP has become aware that there is a perceived drive towards investment into developing a more comprehensive digital access system and while we welcome any enhanced means of communication we do have reservations. As a result of the surveys during this investigation KRiSP would expect that the demographic profile of Kingston's tenants in terms of digital accessibility, be used rather than national averages when assessing the value for money of any plans at the present time. Our final Recommendation 10 fully expresses our concerns. Having consulted with tenants, RBK staff, managers from Axis and other housing authorities KRiSP has ten key recommendations for RBK to note and implement, the aim being to improve the overall customer experience and provide value for money.

Annex 1

5

They are:

Recommendation 1.

• The telephone answering service should be made more ‘user friendly.

• If the ‘call-back’ function is selected a message is given to the caller that their request has been received and when they might receive a call-back.

Recommendation 2.

• That when answering the phones the advisors are given a universal ‘corporate’ greeting and a universal ‘corporate’ closure.

Recommendation 3.

• That RBK produce a handbook which includes diagnostic pictures for both the residents and the CCAs to identify the caller’s problem.

• The Readers Panel and CCAs review the handbook before it is published.

Recommendation 4.

• That Axis provides the Contact Centre with on-site technical support. (Refer to Appendix 4)

Recommendation 5.

• Revise the ‘feedback’ questions at the end of the telephone calls and on the leaflets.

Recommendation 6:

• The information collected from this feedback goes directly to the Performance Manager for evaluation. (Refer to Appendix 4)

Annex 1

6

Recommendation 7.

• That the Axis and Universal Housing Interface be monitored by the Group Manager Housing Strategy and KRiSP when the current problem has been resolved.

• KRiSP will review this again formally in six months from that date but no later than eight months from the date of this report.

Recommendation 8.

• That the Service Manager Customer Contact puts forward a business case to enable on-going training with emphasis on customer care.

Recommendation 9.

• The RBK website be reviewed and made more user friendly.

• Before the improvements to the website are released KRiSP recommends that a panel of residents should be asked to test it.

Recommendation 10.

• That before serious investment is made into developing a comprehensive digital access a full survey of all Council residents should take place to find out how many will be prepared to use it.

Annex 1

7

Methodology

The panel agreed the following aims:

• To understand the residents’ experience when contacting the Contact Centre about the need for a housing repair.

• To investigate the use of digital and self-service options as an alternate medium for reporting the need for a repair.

The Panel carried out the following tasks:

1. A Desk top review 2. Interviews with CCAs 3. Interview with Contact Centre Service Manager 4. Interview with Contact Centre Manager 5. Interview with Director of Finance 6. Interview with Axis the repairs contractor 7. Interview with Repairs Manager 8. Visit to London and Quadrant (L&Q) HA Contact Centre including presentation and

interview 9. Interview with the Supervisor of the Call Centre, Sutton Housing Partnership 10. Surveyed 734 tenants and residents of which 80 responded 11. Interviews with 7 Chairs of Tenants and Residents Associations. 12. Observed CCAs at work 13. 5 mystery customer experience exercises 14. Informal contact with Swan Housing Association.

Annex 1

8

Findings and recommendations

Recommendation 1.

• The telephone answering service should be made more ‘user friendly’.

• If the ‘call-back’ function is selected a message is given to the caller that their request has been received and when they might receive a call-back.

The Investigation Panel compiled and sent out a survey to 700 tenants and leaseholders and received 80 responses. (Refer to Appendix 6) They interviewed seven Chairs from Residents’ Associations, carried out a number of ‘mystery’ customer experiences and interviewed a number of residents. The Investigation Panel found that in spite of using a variety of means in order to collect a broad range of views and experiences there were a number of common concerns which were repeatedly voiced. (Refer to Appendix 3 & 5) The overriding concern was about the mechanics of the telephone system. There is a great deal of frustration and irritation felt by the callers from the moment they contact the Contact Centre. When they used the call-back option they had no way of knowing if their call-back request had been logged and how long they would have to wait. A number of residents stated that they never received a call-back. Many residents from our customer experience exercise and interviews with the Resident Associations and Kingston Federation stated that they had to wait for a long period of time before they were able to get through to an advisor. Once they did get through to an advisor there was still a lot of hanging on and sometimes their request was not passed on correctly to the contractor. (Refer to Appendix 3 & 5)

Annex 1

9

The graph shows in red the number of times RBK have not reached the target of 60 seconds. Only six times were calls answered in 60 seconds or less in 18 months. The wait times ranges from 43 seconds in June 2013 to 257 seconds in December 2013.

The graph above shows the average target time that RBK, Sutton and L&Q seek to answer telephone calls. Sutton’s time increases from 20 seconds to 36 seconds during a lunch period as they only have half the number of staff answering calls. L&Q aim is that no more than 5% of calls are abandoned.

Recommendation 2.

That when answering the phones the advisors are given a universal ‘corporate’ greeting and a universal ‘corporate’ closure. Many residents stated that CCAs spoke too fast, did not answer the phone in a professional way that would reassure the caller, neither did many CCAs give their name or a ‘work order number’. A number of residents stated the call overall had taken too long. In some cases they had had to wait for the CCA to call Axis and the call overall had cost them so much time and money that they were not prepared to hold on any longer to answer the survey questions. (Refer to Appendix 3 & 5) In our interviews with CCAs one member told us they did not have a script to follow. One staff member gave KRiSP a copy of the ‘Contact Centre Call Handling Standards of Excellence’, which starts with a Greeting and finishes with the CCA summarising the call back to the caller. KRiSP were informed all staff should be using this. During our observation KRiSP saw and heard one person using this out of a team of seven.

Recommendation 3. That RBK produce a handbook which includes diagnostic pictures for both the residents and the CCAs to identify the caller’s problem. The Readers Panel and CCAs review the handbook before it is published.

Annex 1

10

By providing this the Panel believes that it would alleviate some of the frustration caused by being sent the wrong person with the wrong tools for the job. When we interviewed the CCAs it was stated this would be mutually beneficial to them and to residents because the CCAs had used it previously and it had proved to be invaluable. (Refer to Appendix 2) The reason for this is due to the lack of knowledge of both residents and staff in relation to specific areas of maintenance. The staff also stated this would prove helpful when handling enquires from residents for whom English is not their first language.

Recommendation 4.

That Axis provides the Contact Centre with on-site technical support. (Refer to Appendix 4)

KRiSP were surprised to learn that although comprehensive technical training was offered by Axis to the CCAs this offer was not taken up. (Refer to Appendix 2) KRiSP were amazed when they were informed by Contact Centre staff that the newest, less experienced members of the team were allocated the role of handling repair enquires. (Refer to Appendix 2) There is also a potential impact in terms of Value for Money. The training at L&Q is very comprehensive. In the first six months a CCA Trainee is expected to spend a day with a surveyor as part of their training. Between months six and eighteen they are cross-trained on Housing Services and Maintenance, plumbing and electrical repairs. Also, at any given time the CCAS’s can go and seek advice from a surveyor. L&Q also have a permanent Axis employee in their Contact Centre which their advisors have reported helped them to improve their service. Sutton Housing Partnership had three of their Contractor Repairs Admin Team temporarily based in their Contact Centre which the advisors found very helpful. They have consequently requested that they be retained. (Refer to Appendix 4)

Recommendation 5. Revise the ‘feedback’ questions at the end of the telephone calls and on the leaflets as the current questions give little useful information. The questions currently being used are:

• Which service were you contacting?

• How easy was it to find and access the Council service you needed during your visit today?

The following questions or similar could be considered in order to provide useful feedback when a resident telephones the Contact Centre:

Annex 1

11

• Did the advisor introduce him/herself

• Was the advisor polite and courteous

• Did they understand your problem and allow you time to explain

• If your telephone call was related to a repair were you given a reference number?

Recommendation 6.

The information collected from this feedback goes directly to the Performance Manager for evaluation. (Refer to Appendix 4) In our interviews with the Resident Associations and Kingston Federation many stated that they did not believe the performance figures accurately reflected their experiences. (Refer to Appendix 3) Two possible alternative methods for producing these figures are dealt with below;

• The Sutton Housing Partnership has a system which automatically generates a letter to the resident for feedback relating to both the call and the repair. This feedback is sent directly to the Housing Performance Manager.

• L&Q outsource their feedback which is collected then analysed fortnightly in arrears and also sent to their Performance Manager for evaluation. (Refer to Appendix 4)

KRiSP would like the Housing Performance Manager to be sent the information directly as in the example from Sutton. KRiSP is of the view this would provide residents with more assurance that they can accept the performance figures from the Contact Centre.

Recommendation 7.

That the Axis and Universal Housing Interface be monitored by the Group Manager Housing Strategy and KRiSP when the current problem has been resolved. KRiSP will review this again formally in six months from that date but no later than eight months from the date of this report.

Throughout the investigation the main underlying issue for the frustrations faced by the CCAs and residents has been the incompatibility problems with Axis and the Universal Housing Interface (RBK IT system). (Refer to Appendix 2 & 4) ‘The result of the problem with the interface has allegedly led to delays when calling the Contact Centre for updates of existing repairs, the CCAs have to put them on hold while phoning Axis for information instead of accessing it on their IT system.’ The most recent performance information for call handling shows an increase in call waiting time and the survey KRiSP carried out also emphasised this as a problem. There are concerns being expressed about communication between Axis and the Council including views expressed by staff.

Annex 1

12

The Investigation Panel feel that it was only fair and reasonable to give the bedding in of the interface time to improve. In the Panel’s interview with the Service Manager, Maintenance and Facilities, he stated RBK might want to consider residents being able to contact Axis directly. This opinion was also expressed by some TRA Chairs and in the interview with Axis. This question was raised with the Director of Finance who advised “The Council need to keep the function and manage the contractor’s performance as they are responsible to the customer”. To improve the customer experience RBK might wish to consider the example of Swan Housing who currently employ Axis and allow their residents direct access to report repairs and follow up existing repairs. Although KRiSP do not have full knowledge of the accounting procedure it has been stated by Swan that although they pay extra for overheads for providing this service it has given them value for money. The Sutton Housing Partnership also had some settling in issues with a new contractor and is currently looking at giving residents the option to contact the contractor directly when the enquiry relates to an existing repair. L&Q has an Axis employee based in their Contact Centre. These are possible solutions that RBK might wish to explore. (Refer to Appendix 2 & 4)

Recommendation 8. That the Service Manager Customer Contact puts forward a business case to enable on-going training with emphasis on customer care.

Many residents from our survey, customer experience exercise and interviews with Resident Associations expressed they were very happy with the help the advisor gave them and with their overall experience when reporting a repair. The KRiSP survey showed that 46% of residents thought their experience was good or very positive but 37% thought that their experience had been poor or very negative. Whilst the result is encouraging the Investigation Panel felt that by having ongoing training in relation to customer care this would help to improve the overall customer experience. (Refer to Appendix 6)

Annex 1

13

The Panel was also made aware from the desktop review documents, through the survey and interviews with RA chairs that some of the staff had a negative attitude towards the caller and were not always courteous or polite. (Refer to Appendix 3 & 6) The Panel’s visit to L&Q Housing Association provided the opportunity to visit another Contact Centre. KRiSP were informed that L&Q inducted their new staff over the course of 18 months and all the staff was given NVQ 2 level training. They captured the customer experience through answer rates, proportion of jobs done right first time, quality assessment and helpfulness of staff. KRiSP also noted the full time presence of an Axis staff member.

In our interview with Axis we were informed that all Axis employees undertake NVQ Level 2 training in Customer Satisfaction plus the company provides regular monthly Training Road Shows that visit all of their sites and that attendance is mandatory. (Refer to Appendix 4)

It appears due to time constraints the current system of training of CCA appears to be very confusing with conflicting responses from both managers and staff. (Refer to Appendix 2)

Recommendation 9.

• The RBK website be reviewed and made more user friendly.

• Before the improvements to the website are released the Panel recommends that a panel of residents should be asked to test it.

The Panel was informed by CCAs that the information on the RBK website in relation to repairs was not consistent with what they have in front of them. The Investigation Panel were informed by a number of residents that the RBK website was poorly designed because it was difficult to access what was needed and that the Contact Centre information was far too complicated with too many steps to follow. (Refer to Appendix 2 & 3)

Annex 1

14

Recommendation 10. That before serious investment is made into developing a comprehensive digital access a full survey of all Council residents and leaseholders should take place to find out how many will be prepared to use it.

The KRiSP survey showed that to the question ‘would you use digital access/self service to contact the Contact Centre’ 36% said no, 33% said they didn’t understand the question and 31% said yes they would. (Refer to Appendix 6)

Annex 1

15

Of particular concern to the Panel following its many interactions with residents and their representatives and from our survey is that they have remained aware of the large number, currently, who use the telephone and face-to face as their preferred method of contacting RBK and we hope they would remain aware of this prior to committing to any major investment. If the results of the KRiSP survey were replicated by a full resident/leaseholder survey the Investigation Panel are concerned whether the cost of covering all aspects of digital communication would prove to be value for money.

Annex 1

16

Conclusion

We have reviewed RBK’s Contact Centre service regarding the customer experience when reporting a repair and the potential for more digital and self-service options. The investigation involved looking at the Contact Centre procedures, policies and performance reports, interviewing staff and residents, carrying out a survey with residents who had recently reported a repair, conducting customer experiences and a benchmarking exercise with external organisations. On the basis of our findings we feel that the following changes are needed to improve the Contact Centre Service on a number of issues. These are as follows; Improving customer satisfaction

• Implementing changes to the initial contact regardless of method being used

• Adopting a more corporate and consistent approach

• Ongoing consultation with residents RBK Staff

• Improved communication between the Contact Staff and Axis

• Improved customer care by way of compulsory training, for example the voluntary Positive Customer Experience training currently being offered to staff to be mandatory.

Digital and Self-service options

• Survey to be conducted

• Improvements to the website

• Consider the value for money implications of any future investment.

We are aware that to implement the changes needed the following must be taken into consideration:

• Providing adequate training both in customer care and repairs

• IT interface issues between RBK and Axis is dependent upon resolving the IT On the basis of the recommendations contained in this report KRiSP anticipate this will result in the following:

• Improve the overall customer experience

• Reduced cost due to increased ‘first fix’ visits

• Improved environment for residents and staff

Annex 1

17

Appendices (Available upon request)

1. Desktop Review

2. Interviews with RBK Staff and Axis (Contractor)

3. Interviews with RBK Residents Associations

4. Benchmarking with Sutton Housing Partnership and London and Quadrant Housing

Association

5. Customer Experience Exercise

6. Survey Results from residents who had recently contacted the Contact Centre regarding a

repair

Annex 1

18