Get documents about "FEEDBACK
Document Sample
Riversmead Housing Association
2008 Residents‟ Survey
by
Feedback Services - the resident satisfaction
survey service for social landlords
December 2008
Feedback Services
National Housing Federation
Clarendon House
52 Cornmarket Street
Oxford OX1 3HJ
Tel : 0845 872 3660
Fax : 0845 872 3661
Executive Summary
1. Context
In 2008, Riversmead Housing Association commissioned Feedback Services to carry out a
STATUS survey. The different tenures of general needs tenants, sheltered tenants and
homeowners were included in the survey, which took place between August and September
2008.
Postal surveys are an important way of gauging how satisfied residents are with service
delivery. They provide a snapshot of residents‟ views at a particular time. The advantage of
using the STATUS questionnaire used by Feedback Services is that the survey can be
repeated and results compared over a period of time. Satisfaction at Riversmead can also be
compared with satisfaction levels at other landlords that have used the STATUS survey.
2. Overall Results (general needs)
On the whole Riversmead Housing Association tenants are very pleased with their homes
and the services provided by their landlord. 57% of tenants responded to the survey and the
levels of satisfaction are demonstrated in the following key findings (*excluding no
opinions/can‟t remember):
88% are satisfied with the services provided by their landlord
86% are satisfied with the quality of their home
80% are satisfied with the general condition of their home
82% are satisfied with the neighbourhood as a place to live
79% feel they obtain good value for money from their rent
92% found staff helpful*
88% are satisfied with the overall repairs and maintenance service*
Between 87% and 93% who had a repair completed in the last 12 months rated all
aspects of the actual work as „good‟ or „very good‟*
87% feel that Riversmead keeps them well informed about things that affect them
78% think that their landlord takes account of their views*.
3. Overall Results (sheltered)
The sheltered tenants are even more satisfied with the services they receive. 76% of
sheltered tenants responded to the survey and the levels of satisfaction are demonstrated in
the following key findings (*excluding no opinions/can‟t remember):
94% are satisfied with the services provided by their landlord
97% are satisfied with the quality of their home
93% are satisfied with the general condition of their home
95% are satisfied with the neighbourhood as a place to live
Feedback Services – Executive summary Page - 1
92% feel they obtain good value for money from their rent
96% found staff helpful*
94% are satisfied with the overall repairs and maintenance service*
Between 90% and 98% who had a repair completed in the last 12 months rated all
aspects of the actual work as „good‟ or „very good‟*
95% feel that Riversmead keeps them well informed
86% think that their landlord takes account of their views*.
4. Overall Results (home owners)
The home owners are a little less satisfied with the services they receive from Riversmead.
42% of home owners responded to the survey and the levels of satisfaction are
demonstrated in the following key findings (*excluding no opinions/can‟t remember):
66% are satisfied with the services provided by their landlord
93% are satisfied with the quality of their home
92% are satisfied with the size of their home
74% are satisfied with the neighbourhood as a place to live
73% found staff helpful*
54% are satisfied with the overall repairs and maintenance service*
Between 35% and 65% who had a communal repair completed in the last 12 months
rated all aspects of the actual work as „good‟ or „very good‟*
64% feel that Riversmead keeps them well informed
51% think that their landlord takes account of their views*.
5. Stadium owned properties
Riversmead now manages a number of properties owned by a fellow group member,
Stadium. The survey included these but the results have largely been kept separate from the
bulk of the Riversmead properties. However, when looking at the results separately, the
Stadium tenants are also very pleased with the service received and generally have
satisfaction levels about the same, or a little less than the Riversmead residents. For example,
90% of general needs tenants are satisfied overall, compared to 88% of the Riversmead
tenants; 100% of the sheltered tenants are satisfied (94% Riversmead) but just 49% of the
home owners (66% Riversmead.
6. Riversmead combined results
The report also includes a chapter looking at the results from all Riversmead tenants; this
classification is also used for the comparison with the previous results and with other similar
landlords. The figures are waited to take account of the higher response rate from the
sheltered tenants. Overall, 89% of tenants are satisfied with the services received, also 89%
are satisfied with the repairs service, 79% with the account taken of their views and 87% feel
well informed by the Association.
Feedback Services – Executive summary Page - 2
7. Comparison with previous survey
Feedback also carried out a STATUS survey for Riversmead in 2005 so it is possible to see if
any differences had occurred over the last 3 years. The questionnaires have been updated
and changed a little but most of the key questions remain so direct comparisons are possible.
Generally the results have remained around the levels from the 2005 survey, or have slightly
improved. This should be seen as positive as these results were already very high and the
Association has done well to maintain this high standard. Overall, satisfaction has gone up 1%
to 89%, as has satisfaction with repairs. Also up is satisfaction that the tenants views are
taken into account, up 6%, the quality of repair work and workers keeping mess down, up
5% and 3% respectively. However, 2% fewer found it easy to contact the right person and 4%
fewer are satisfied with the general information they are given.
8. Comparison with other landlords
The results of the survey were compared against the results of eight other landlords who
have similar characteristics and who have completed STATUS surveys within the last 3 years.
Generally, Riversmead tenants recorded satisfaction levels well above the group averages and
the averages of all landlords who have completed STATUS surveys in the last 3 years.
Overall, 89% of the Association‟s tenants are satisfied, 8% better than the group and national
averages. Riversmead recorded the highest ratings of the group for the aspects of contact
and being kept informed and taking account of tenant views. 89% are satisfied with the
repairs and maintenance service, again the highest of the group and 12% higher than the
national average.
9. Conclusion and recommendations
The results from the survey demonstrate that tenants believe that Riversmead is providing a
very good housing service. Overall, 89% of tenants are satisfied with the landlord services
and tenants are clearly impressed, awarding high ratings for the quality of the home (87%),
condition of the property (81%), helpfulness of staff (92%) and all aspects of the actual repairs
service (87% - 94%). The home owners are a little less satisfied but are generally very happy
with their homes and where they live.
Compared with the previous survey‟s results (2005), satisfaction in Riversmead‟s
performance appears to have remained about the same, which should be seen as positive
given the already high level of satisfaction. Overall satisfaction increased 1% to 89%
satisfaction with the repairs service is also up 1% to 89%.
The key drivers on tenant satisfaction are the repairs service, the quality of the home and
how they are kept informed. Improvements in these areas are likely to bring improved
overall satisfaction, however, this will not be easy as satisfaction with these aspects is already
very high.
Recommendations
It is clear that the vast majority of tenants are satisfied with their landlord and the overall
services. Given the high levels of satisfaction and how well the Association compares with
others it is difficult to identify many areas in need of urgent improvement, but as the goal
must be to achieve continuous improvement the following are suggested.
Feedback Services – Executive summary Page - 3
Local problems
The residents are generally satisfied with the neighbourhoods where they live but they
complain about various problems that affect them. In particular, car parking appears to be a
problem, 47% of general needs and 22% of sheltered tenants and 37% of owners feel this to
be a fairly or very big problem. The estates would largely have been built when car
ownership was much less but residents do have concerns about safe parking areas. This may
be something the Association can do little about but perhaps further consultation could
discover the main concerns and produce some solutions. Litter and rubbish on the street is a
concern to many as are the neighbours, 23% of general needs tenants and 34% of owners feel
there is a problem. This problem is something the Association has more control over so
perhaps it needs to look more closely how instances of neighbour nuisance and anti-social
behaviour are handled.
Repairs and maintenance service
The repairs and maintenance service is the key driver for satisfaction, it is also the main
reason residents have contact with the Association. It also received very high levels of
satisfaction from the tenants, 88% of general needs and 94% of sheltered tenants but less
from the owners (see below). The day-to-day service also appears to be well received so it is
difficult to pinpoint where improvements can be made. However, the overall quality and
condition of the home is of prime importance to the residents and these aspects, whilst
good, are not the best of the peer group. If further improvements to the Association‟s
properties can be achieved through its on-going programmes, higher overall satisfaction
could be achieved.
Tenant communication
Overall, 78% of general needs and 86% of sheltered tenants and 51% of owners were
satisfied with the account taken of tenants‟ views. Also 87% general needs, 95% sheltered
and 64% of owners felt well informed. These figures compare very well with other landlords.
So on the face of it there is no problem but keeping the tenants informed is a key driver and
it was highest of all tenure groups of the services most important to be improved.
The survey revealed an increasing use of the Internet, although most residents prefer to be
contacted in writing. However, to ensure all groups receive the right information at the right
time, the Association needs to provide a wide range of methods of contact, always being
mindful of those with language or impairment difficulties.
Home Owners
In general, the home owners are less satisfied with the service received, although the type of
service is often quite different. They are very appreciative of their homes, although a number
thought storage was a problem. They also were generally satisfied with the sales process and
most would recommend purchasing their home to a friend.
They are, however, less satisfied with the repairs service and making general contact with the
Association. This problem could be to do with expectations or maybe that owners feel they
represent a small part of the Association‟s services. Further work may be needed to establish
Feedback Services – Executive summary Page - 4
why home owners are less satisfied and more consultation and involvement may also be
needed to ensure owners views are taken into account along with the tenants‟.
Demographic differences
The survey shows that certain groups of tenants are more satisfied than other groups. Older
tenants, retired tenants, long-standing tenants and unemployed tenants were often more
satisfied than medium-term tenants (3 to 5 years), working tenants and, in particular, families.
To a certain extent this is an established national pattern, but a focus on measures to
improve the opinions of these groups could be a consideration in housing and
neighbourhood management and service delivery initiatives.
Executive Summary Chart 1- Comparison with other landlords and
previous survey - Key satisfaction questions - % of tenants saying they
were satisfied/good (includes don't know, can't remember and no
opinion)
81%
Services provided by landlord 88%
89%
79%
General condition of property 84%
81%
84%
Quality of home/accommodation 87%
87%
79%
Neighbourhood 83%
84%
78%
Value for money of rent 81%
80%
72%
Ease of getting hold of right person 88%
86%
66%
Satisfaction with outcome of contact 77%
77%
78%
Repairs & maintenance 88%
89%
68%
Account taken of views 73%
79%
80%
Keeping tenants informed 91%
87%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Riversmead 2008 Riversmead 2005 Peer group average
Feedback Services – Executive summary Page - 5
Contents
1. BACKGROUND INFORMATION ....................................................................................... 9
1.1 STATUS .................................................................................................................. 9
1.2 Riversmead Housing Association ........................................................................... 9
1.3 Aims of the survey ................................................................................................. 9
1.4 Survey methodology............................................................................................... 9
1.4.1 Planning the survey................................................................................................. 9
1.4.2 The questionnaires ............................................................................................... 10
1.4.3 Property information ........................................................................................... 10
1.4.4 Sampling and subgroups ....................................................................................... 10
1.4.5 The survey process .............................................................................................. 10
1.4.6 Use of incentives and response rates .................................................................. 11
1.4.7 Sampling, response rate and statistical reliability ................................................. 11
1.4.8 Weighting and representativeness ....................................................................... 11
1.5 Guide to the survey reports ................................................................................ 11
2. RIVERSMEAD HA TENANTS & HOME OWNERS ...................................................... 13
2.1 Length of tenancy ................................................................................................. 13
2.2 Household composition ....................................................................................... 13
2.3 Age of tenants ...................................................................................................... 14
2.4 Ethnic origin.......................................................................................................... 14
2.5 Economic status ................................................................................................... 15
2.6 Income levels and sources of income .................................................................. 16
2.7 Sexual orientation ................................................................................................ 16
2.8 Religion ................................................................................................................. 17
3. RIVERSMEAD SATISFACTION RATINGS .................................................................... 18
3.1 Overall satisfaction and key services ................................................................... 18
3.2 Neighbourhood and local problems .................................................................... 21
3.3 Customer Care .................................................................................................... 23
3.4 Repairs and maintenance service ......................................................................... 25
3.5 Resident communication and information ........................................................... 26
3.6 Future plans .......................................................................................................... 27
3.7 Improving services ................................................................................................ 28
4. SHELTERED TENANTS .................................................................................................... 30
4.1 Ease of access ....................................................................................................... 30
4.2 Home help & care services .................................................................................. 30
4.3 Emergency call system.......................................................................................... 31
4.4 Scheme manager................................................................................................... 31
5. RIVERSMEAD HOMEOWNERS ...................................................................................... 32
5.1 Features of the home ........................................................................................... 32
5.2 Service standards .................................................................................................. 32
5.3 Homeowner communication ............................................................................... 33
5.4 Purchasing the property ....................................................................................... 34
5.5 Household costs ................................................................................................... 35
5.6 Future plans .......................................................................................................... 35
Feedback Services – Executive summary Page - 6
6. STADIUM OWNED PROPERTIES ................................................................................... 37
6.1 Household composition ....................................................................................... 37
6.2 Ethnic origin.......................................................................................................... 37
6.3 Economic status ................................................................................................... 37
6.4 Overall satisfaction and key services ................................................................... 38
6.5 Neighbourhood and local problems .................................................................... 39
6.6 Customer Care .................................................................................................... 40
6.7 Repairs and maintenance service ......................................................................... 42
6.8 Resident communication and information ........................................................... 42
6.9 Future plans .......................................................................................................... 43
6.10 Improving services................................................................................................ 43
7. RIVERSMEAD COMBINED RESULTS ........................................................................... 45
7.1 Household composition ....................................................................................... 45
7.2 Ethnic origin and work status .............................................................................. 45
7.3 Overall satisfaction and key services ................................................................... 45
7.4 Neighbourhood and local problems .................................................................... 47
7.5 Customer Contact ............................................................................................... 47
7.6 Repairs and maintenance service ......................................................................... 48
7.7 Resident communication and information ........................................................... 49
7.8 Improving services ................................................................................................ 50
8. DEMOGRAPHIC INFLUENCES ....................................................................................... 52
8.1 Type of Household ............................................................................................... 52
8.2 Age of tenant ........................................................................................................ 52
8.3 Length of tenancy ................................................................................................. 53
8.4 Economic status ................................................................................................... 54
8.5 Tenants with long-term illnesses or disabilities and wheelchair users ................ 55
8.6 Ethnicity ................................................................................................................ 56
8.7 Gender ................................................................................................................. 56
8.8 Property size ........................................................................................................ 57
8.9 Religion and sexual orientation ............................................................................ 58
9. KEY DRIVER ANALYSIS ................................................................................................. 59
9.1 Overall landlord satisfaction ................................................................................. 59
9.2 Customer contact ................................................................................................. 60
9.3 Repairs Service ...................................................................................................... 60
10. COMPARISON WITH OTHER LANDLORDS ............................................................... 62
10.1 Satisfaction with landlord ..................................................................................... 62
10.2 Value for money ................................................................................................... 63
10.3 Quality of the home and condition of home ....................................................... 63
10.4 Neighbourhood .................................................................................................... 64
10.5 Contact with landlord .......................................................................................... 65
10.6 Repairs and maintenance...................................................................................... 66
10.7 Communication and participation ........................................................................ 67
11. COMPARISON WITH PREVIOUS SURVEY ................................................................. 68
11.1 Changes in satisfaction ......................................................................................... 68
Feedback Services – Executive summary Page - 7
12. BEST VALUE PERFORMANCE INDICATORS ............................................................ 70
13. CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................. 71
13.1 General conclusion............................................................................................... 71
13.2 Specific recommendations for action................................................................... 71
14. APPENDICES .................................................................................................................... 72
14.1 The STATUS questionnaire (general needs questionnaire) ................................ 72
14.2 Covering letter ..................................................................................................... 73
14.3 Comparison tables ............................................................................................... 74
Feedback Services – Executive summary Page - 8
1. BACKGROUND INFORMATION
1.1 STATUS
STATUS is a standardised tenants‟ satisfaction survey developed by the National Housing Federation
funded by an Innovation and Good Practice Grant from the Housing Corporation.
The STATUS questionnaire is endorsed by the Communities and Local Government department
(CLG) and the Housing Corporation. The questionnaire has been evaluated and piloted by the Audit
Commission, and the Housing Inspectorate uses STATUS as part of its review of landlords. The
STATUS questionnaire collects information used for three of the Housing Corporation‟s Key
Performance Indicators (which correspond with the CLG‟s National Performance Indicator).
The STATUS questionnaire was originally designed to be used by social landlords to survey tenants in
general needs (and sheltered housing). It is designed to be a baseline survey, which can be repeated
after a number of years, and allows for the comparison of data between different social landlords, as
an integral part of the best value regime and continuous improvement. In 2008, the questionnaire
was updated and individual questionnaires for leaseholders, Housing for Older People and supported
housing tenants were introduced.
1.2 Riversmead Housing Association
Riversmead Housing Association manages over 4,300 properties for rent and sale across
Hertfordshire, Bedfordshire and Buckinghamshire, with the head office in Hertford. The Association
is part of the Network Group which includes Community Trust Housing, London Strategic Housing,
Stadium Housing, Mitali HA and Willow Housing and Care. Riversmead also manages a number of
properties on behalf of Stadium HA. This report looks at the results of the surveys for all
Riversmead owned properties and includes a section specifically looking at the Stadium owned
properties.
1.3 Aims of the survey
The aim of the survey was to generate a benchmark on resident satisfaction, which would allow the
Association to:
Update the demographic and socio-economic profile of its residents.
Provide an up to date picture of residents‟ satisfaction with their homes and with the
services the Association provides.
Compare the performance of Riversmead as a landlord with other social landlords who have
used STATUS surveys.
Compare the results with the previous survey carried out in 2005.
Inform decisions regarding service reviews.
Feedback Services was chosen as it provides standardised survey forms, which are used by a number
of housing associations and local authorities, providing the opportunity for benchmarking.
1.4 Survey methodology
1.4.1 Planning the survey
Riversmead first contacted the Feedback Services about carrying out a tenant satisfaction survey in
Feedback Services – Main Report Page - 9
May 2008. A proposal was submitted to Riversmead and Feedback Services was commissioned to
carry out the work.
1.4.2 The questionnaires
The survey used the latest versions of the STATUS questionnaires (see Appendix 14.1) with the
addition of some specifically designed questions for the Association. The tenant questionnaire
(general needs) for example comprised of 50 questions in the following categories:
Information about the household (Q1-Q9)
Housing and services (Q10 - Q14)
Contact with landlord (Q15-Q24)
Repairs and maintenance (Q25-Q27)
Communication and information (Q28-Q32)
Anti-social behaviour (Q33-Q37)
Future plans (Q38-Q39)
Improving services (Q40-Q41)
Additional comments (Q42)
Background information (Q43-Q50)
Sheltered tenants and homeowners were sent slightly different questionnaires, which reflect the
different types of service they receive from the Association.
1.4.3 Property information
Riversmead supplied the Federation with background information, drawn from its database, on the
properties in management. This information included information on property type and size. This
information was used for the administration of the survey, to control the mailing process and to
ensure the statistical reliability of the survey.
1.4.4 Sampling and subgroups
Planning for the survey took place in July 2008. In July 2008, Riversmead managed 3,226 general
needs properties (2,698 Riversmead owned and 528 Stadium owned), 418 sheltered (392 Riversmead
owned and 26 Stadium owned) and 637 owned properties (467 Riversmead owned and 170 Stadium
owned) that fell within the groups appropriate for the STATUS survey. A decision was made to send
a questionnaire to a sample of 1,106 general needs tenants, all 418 sheltered tenants and all 637
owners. No specific subgroups were chosen for more detailed analysis but Chapter 6 looks
separately at the Stadium owned properties.
1.4.5 The survey process
The survey was planned to take place during a six-week period. Three individual mailings took place.
Feedback carried out the administration of the first mailout, which was sent out on 6th August 2008,
this consisted of a copy of the questionnaire, a covering letter written by Feedback (Appendix 14.2)
and a reply-paid envelope. All questionnaires were returned to Feedback. After two weeks, Feedback
sent any resident who had not responded a reminder postcard asking them to complete the
questionnaire. Feedback sent a second covering letter, questionnaire and reply-paid envelope to
residents who had still not returned the questionnaire after a further two weeks. The survey period
Feedback Services – Main Report Page - 10
was closed on 18th September when the final questionnaires were sent for data entry.
1.4.6 Use of incentives and response rates
Incentives were used to boost the response rate. Questionnaires were drawn at random from those
returned and three lucky winners won prizes of £50 each. The overall response rate for the general
needs tenants was 54% with 601 questionnaires returned of the 1,106 sent out. For the sheltered
tenants the response was 75% with 315 of the 418 returned and for the home owners 251 were
returned from the 637 sent out giving a response rate of 39%.
1.4.7 Sampling, response rate and statistical reliability
For the overall results, Feedback aims at +/-4% accuracy at the 95% confidence level. This means
that, for example, if 35% of tenants answered, “Yes” to a particular question, there are 95 chances
out of 100 that the correct figure for all tenants will be between 31% and 39%. For the results when
the tenant data is analysed for all the general needs tenants, 601 responses were achieved. This
response was high enough to conclude that any figures quoted at this level are accurate within +/-
3.6% accuracy for all tenants. For the sheltered tenants 315 questionnaires were returned giving an
accuracy of +/-2.8% and for the homeowners, 251 were return giving an accuracy of +/-4.8. An
accuracy of +/-10% is acceptable for subgroups. Figure 1.1 below shows the breakdown by
Riversmead and Stadium owned stock.
Figure 1.1 Tenure Type Number Sample Number Response Sampling
of size returned rate error (%)
tenants
General Needs
Riversmead 2,698 924 530 57% +/-3.8%
Stadium 528 182 71 39% +/-10.8
Total general needs 3,226 1,106 601 54% +/-3.6%
Sheltered
Riversmead 392 392 298 76% +/-2.8%
Stadium 26 26 17 65% +/-14%
Total sheltered 418 418 315 75% +/-2.8%
Home owners
Riversmead 467 467 197 42% +/-5.4%
Stadium 170 170 54 32% +/-11%
Total home owners 637 637 251 39% +/-4.8%
Total (all properties) 4,281 2,161 1,167 54% +/-2.5%
1.4.8 Weighting and representativeness
The raw data has been checked to take into account any differences between the responses and the
total resident population. The number of bedrooms was used to check the similarity between the
returned questionnaires and the property stock for each subgroup (that is the “representativeness”
of the response). For example the sheltered tenants returned questionnaires in proportionally larger
numbers than the general needs tenants, so when combining the two a waiting is applied so the
results are representative of the group as a whole. Further information can be found in the the data
tables.
1.5 Guide to the survey reports
This report forms part of a series of reports based on the surveys of Riversmead tenants and
Feedback Services – Main Report Page - 11
owners. This report is the survey report, and is based on the data found in the other reports.
Survey report (written report)
Part 1: Standard analysis of responses (data tables)
Part 2: Individual comments (text comments)
Part 3: Subgroup analysis (data tables)
Part 4: Comparative Data Analysis (data tables)
Part 5: Response by ethnicity (data tables)
Please note that throughout this report some data tables and results displayed may not
add up to 100%; this is the result of rounding up or down. This can also happen when
two percentages are added together; the percentages in the text can differ from the
percentages in the charts by 1%. Also, results are displayed, where applicable, excluding
those that gave a no opinion or don’t know response.
Feedback Services – Main Report Page - 12
2. RIVERSMEAD HA TENANTS & HOME OWNERS
The following chapter examines the different household demographics of those Riversmead general
needs and sheltered tenants and home owners. Details of those in the Stadium owned properties are
shown in Chapter 6.
2.1 Length of tenancy
The majority of tenants have been with the landlord for some time; of the general needs tenants 20%
have been tenants for 6-10 years, 20% for 11-20 years and 30% for 21 years or more. Only 11% of
tenants are new to the Association within the last 2 years, 4% have held their tenancy for less than a
year and 7% for between 1 and 2 years; 9% of tenants have been with Riversmead for 3-5 years. It‟s a
fairly similar picture with the sheltered tenants, 21% have been with Riversmead for 6-10 years and
19% between 11 and 20 years and 21% have been tenants for 21 years or more; a few more between
3 and 5 years (20%). Just 13% have become Riversmead tenants within the last 2 years, 3% within the
last 12 months.
Figure 2.1 Length of tenancy
Don't know/
5% can't remember
21%
19% 21+ years
Sheltered 21%
20% 11-20 years
10%
3% 6-10 years
9% 3-5 years
30%
20% 1-2 years
General
20%
needs
9%
Under 1 year
7%
4%
2.2 Household composition
As you might expect, the household composition varied quite considerably between the different
tenures. In the general needs properties there is quite a mix of household types and the average
household size is 2.3 people per property. 23% are adults under 60, 13% single and 10% couples,
whilst 40% are aged 60 or over, 24% single households and 16% couples. There are 23% families with
children, 11% one-parent and 14% two-parent and 12% others, which includes 10% of households
with three or more adults.
The sheltered profile is quite different, all made up of smaller households, 92% aged 60 or over (75%
single) but there are 8% a little younger. They have an average of 1.2 people per household.
The home owners are different again; there are 11% families with children but the main groups are
adults under 60 (43%) with 24% being single households and 44% older, either single (32%) or
couples (12%). Figure 2.2 shows the breakdown between the tenures.
Feedback Services – Main Report Page - 13
Figure 2.2 Household composition
Adults under 60 Older adults Families Other
Home owners (Base
43% 44% 11% 3%
197)
Sheltered (Base 298) 8% 92% 0%
General needs (Base
23% 40% 25% 12%
527)
2.3 Age of tenants
The age profile shows a mixed range, in keeping with the household breakdown, the owners being a
little younger. 47% of general needs tenants are aged 60 or over (46% of owners), whilst 18% are
under 35 (28% owners). The remainder are between 35 and 59. The sheltered tenants have 98%
aged 60 or over and 65% are aged 75 or over, suggesting pressure on the support services as these
tenants grow older. It also shows that there are a high number of older tenants within the general
needs stock and home owners and these shouldn‟t be forgotten when designing services for this age
group.
Figure 2.3 Age of principle resident
11%
15%
14%
Home Owners 6% 85+ years
6%
(Base 181) 10%
11% 75-84 years
25%
3% 65-74 years
29% 60-64 years
36%
24%
Sheltered 10% 55-59 years
2%
(Base 273) 45-54 years
35-44 years
6% 25-34 years
16%
17% 16-24 years
General needs 8%
7%
(Base 483) 13%
16%
14%
4%
2.4 Ethnic origin
The majority of Riversmead‟s residents classify themselves as „White British‟; 95% of the general
needs tenants, 97% sheltered tenants and 89% of owners. There are very few from other
backgrounds, although 3% of home owners class themselves as „other white‟. The chart below shows
the breakdown by main group classification.
Feedback Services – Main Report Page - 14
Figure 2.4 Ethnic origin of households
Home owners
89%
(Base 196)
Sheltered (Base
97%
298)
General needs
97%
(Base 527)
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Asian Black Mixed Other White British
2.5 Economic status
In terms of economic status, 39% of general needs principal tenants are in employment (25% in full-
time employment, 11% in part-time employment and 3% self-employed), while more partners or
spouses are working (52%). 34% of principal tenants are retired, as are 27% of their partners.
Unemployment is just 4% for principal tenants and 1% for partners. 21% of principal tenants are
outside employment (10% permanently sick or disabled and 11% at home looking after family). The
sheltered tenants are quite different; 88% are retired and 5% are permanently sick/disabled and very
few still work.
For the home owners, many of whom have to support a mortgage, employment rates are higher;
51% are in full-time work, 5% part-time and 3% are self-employed. However, 37% are retired, 3%
permanently sick/disabled and less than none are unemployed.
Figure 2.5 Work status of principal tenant
1% 4% 3% Other
10% 5%
Permanently sick
11% /disabled
37% At home/ looking after
family
Full-time student
34% 0%
Retired
88%
Unemployed and
available for work
3%
Government training
11%
Self-employed
In employment:part
time
1% In employment:full
time
General needs (Base Sheltered (Base 244) Home owners (Base
472) 182)
Feedback Services – Main Report Page - 15
2.6 Income levels and sources of income
The graph below (Figure 2.6) shows the distribution of the total net weekly household income for
the tenants. The vast majority of households are on incomes under £300 per week, 76% general
needs and 97% of sheltered tenants; 14% and 11% respectively get less than £100 and 43% general
needs and 62% sheltered between £100 and £199. Just 24% of general needs households have higher
incomes, with few over £500 per week (just 6%), only 3% of sheltered households have a income of
£300 or more.
Figure 2.6 Household net income
0% £1,000 or
0% more
1% £700-£999
Sheltered (Base 0%
1% £600-£699
197)
3%
24% £500-£599
62%
11% £400-£499
0% £300-£399
2%
2% £200-£299
General needs 3%
£100-£199
8%
(Base 399)
10% Up to £99
19%
43%
14%
The income for owners is shown by annual salary and the chart below shows that 68% receive less
than £31,200 per year; 28% get up to £10,399, 18% between £10,400 and £20,799 and 22% between
£20,800 and £31,199. 32% get more than £31,200 per year.
Figure 2.7 Homeowners gross income
£65,000 up to £74,999 2%
£58,000 up to £64,999 3%
£52,000 up to £57,999 6%
£41,600 up to £51,999 8%
£31,200 up to £41,599 14%
£20,800 up to £31,199 22%
£10,400 up to £20,799 18%
Up to £10,399 28%
2.7 Sexual orientation
The questionnaire also asks residents to describe their sexual orientation; this is to allow monitoring
and the prevention of harassment and unfair treatment. The majority of general needs tenants (79%),
sheltered tenants (72%) and home owners (87%) class their sexual orientation as heterosexual. Just
3% of general needs tenants and 2% of owners said they are gay or bisexual, while 3% of tenants and
1% of owners described themselves as other and 15% general needs, 24% sheltered and 11% of
owners preferred not to say.
Feedback Services – Main Report Page - 16
Figure 2.8 Sexual orientation
Home owners (Base
87% 11%
142)
Sheltered (Base 203) 72% 24%
General needs (Base
79% 15%
404)
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Heterosexual Gay man Gay woman Bisexual Other Prefer not to say
2.8 Religion
The majority of tenants describe themselves as Christian, general needs 70% and 89% sheltered.
There are very few tenants from other religions, although 1% (general needs and sheltered) say they
have another religion. 24% say they have no religion (6% sheltered) and 4% preferred not to say (4%
sheltered).
For the home owners it is quite similar to the general needs tenants with 71% describing themselves
as Christian and1% Hindu. 24% said they have no religion and 4% preferred not to say.
Figure 2.9 Household religion
Home owners (Base
24% 71% 4%
168)
Sheltered (Base 270) 6% 89% 4%
General needs (Base
24% 70% 4%
462)
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
None Christian (All denominations)
Buddhist Hindu
Jewish Muslim
Sikh Any other religion
Prefer not to say
Feedback Services – Main Report Page - 17
3. RIVERSMEAD SATISFACTION RATINGS
The following analysis of results can be taken to represent the views of the Riversmead tenants and
home owners, based on those in the Riversmead owned properties, and is accurate to +/-3.8% for
the general needs survey, +/-2.8% for the sheltered survey and +/-5.4% for the owners. Please note
that the percentages quoted in the text and graphics may not always add up to 100% because of
rounding. The results for those in the Stadium owned properties are shown in Chapter 6.
3.1 Overall satisfaction and key services
The vast majority of Riversmead‟s tenants and owners are satisfied with the services provided by the
Association. The residents were asked, “Taking everything into account, how satisfied or dissatisfied
are you with the services provided by your housing association?” 88% of general needs tenants said
they are satisfied with their landlord; of these 44% feel very satisfied and 44% fairly satisfied, just 6%
are dissatisfied with the service received and 5% say they are neither satisfied nor dissatisfied. The
sheltered tenants are even more pleased, 94% are satisfied (59% very satisfied) and just 4%
dissatisfied. However, the owners are less satisfied generally with 66% satisfied overall, 13% very and
53% fairly but 19% are dissatisfied and 16% neither one nor the other.
Figure 3.1 Taking everything into account how satisfied or
dissatisfied residents are with services provided by their
landlord
Home owners (Base
13% 52% 16% 13% 5%
189)
Sheltered (Base 295) 59% 35% 1%
2%
General needs (Base
44% 44% 3%
5%3%
516)
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Very satisfied Fairly satisfied Neither
Fairly dissatisfied Very dissatisfied
Satisfaction with key services
The vast majority of tenants are satisfied with the quality of their home, 86% of general needs and
97% of sheltered tenants are satisfied. They are also very satisfied with its condition, 80% and 93%
respectively rate this as very or fairly good. The tenants also feel that they get good value for money
from the rent they pay, 79% of general needs and 92% of sheltered tenants feel this is good. There is
little dissatisfaction; although 12% of general needs tenants think the condition of their home is poor.
The sheltered tenants were also asked how they felt about the security and safety of their home,
again the vast majority (93%) are satisfied with this aspect, only 3% are dissatisfied. Figure 3.2 below
shows the responses.
Feedback Services – Main Report Page - 18
Figure 3.2 Tenant satisfaction with key services
93%
Safety and security of
92% your home
Sheltered
(Base 249)
93%
Value for money
97%
General condition of
property
79%
General needs Overall quality of home
(Base 474)
80%
86%
The home owners were asked different questions about their home and the results are summarised
in Chapter 5 below.
Satisfaction with support and advice
The tenants were asked how satisfied they are with a number of support and advice services. Figure
3.3 below show the responses excluding those that gave „no opinion‟.
83% of general needs tenants and 93% of sheltered tenants were happy with the advice received
about their rent payments, with 86% of sheltered tenants satisfied with the advice they received
about benefits. 54% general needs and 77% sheltered were satisfied with advice about moving home;
11% and 4% respectively were dissatisfied and 35% of general needs tenants neither satisfied nor
dissatisfied. On support provided to new tenants 60% and 84% respectively were satisfied and for the
support provided to vulnerable tenants 55% and 84% were satisfied, 11% of general needs tenants
being dissatisfied.
Overall, 87% of general needs and 94% of sheltered tenants were satisfied with the way enquiries
were dealt with only 5% and 4% respectively dissatisfied. There is more detail about contact with the
landlord provided in section 3.3 below.
Finally, the sheltered tenants were asked about their alarm system, and again there is high
satisfaction, 94% are satisfied, 68% very satisfied and only 5% dissatisfied.
Feedback Services – Main Report Page - 19
Figure 3.3 Satisfaction with advice and support services
94%
86% Alarm call system
94%
Sheltered 84% Advice on benefits
84%
How enquiries are dealt
77% with generally
93% Support provided to
vulnerable tenants
Support provided to new
tenants
87% Advice on moving home
General needs
55%
Advice on rent payments
60%
54%
83%
Important of services to tenants
Tenants were asked to pick which three services from a list of standard services they felt were most
important.
For both groups of tenants there is agreement that the repairs and maintenance service is the most
important service with 86% of general needs and 67% of sheltered tenants placing it in their top
three. There is then a slight difference between the groups, for the general needs tenants the next
most importance service is the overall quality of their home; this being closely linked to the repairs
issue. Third is the value for money of the rent, fourth is keeping tenants informed, then taking their
views into account, their neighbourhood and lastly dealing with anti-social behaviour.
The sheltered tenants place keeping them informed second, followed by the overall quality of their
home, their neighbourhood, value for money, taking their views into account and lastly dealing with
anti-social behaviour.
Feedback Services – Main Report Page - 20
Figure 3.4 The most important service areas for residents
(when asked to select top three)
16% Value for money for your rent
18%
Neighbourhood as a place to live
Sheltered
67%
(Base 283)
15% Dealing with anti-social behaviour
36%
36% Repairs and maintenance
37%
Taking tenants‟ views into account
28%
General
Overall quality of your home
needs (Base 86%
512)
27%
Keeping tenants informed
51%
35%
3.2 Neighbourhood and local problems
82% of general needs, 95% of sheltered tenants and 74% of owners are satisfied with their
neighbourhood as a place to live, whilst 12%, 3% and 14% respectively are dissatisfied. All residents
were then asked to indicate if a series of issues are a problem in their neighbourhood. Figure 3.5
shows the responses.
Figure 3.5 Local problems (% very big or fairly big problem)
37%
Car parking 22%
47%
34%
Rubbish or litter 14%
23%
25%
Disruptive children / teenagers 13%
20%
30%
Noisy neighbours 6%
20%
18%
Drunk or rowdy behaviour 7%
14%
14%
Vandalism and graffiti 7%
12%
13%
Pets and animals 6%
14%
8%
Noise from traffic 10%
10%
12%
Drug use or dealing 1%
14%
8%
People damaging your property 1%
7%
5%
Other crime 2%
7%
4%
Racial or other harassment
5%
1%
Abandoned or burnt out vehicles
3%
General needs Sheltered Home owners
Feedback Services – Main Report Page - 21
Generally, the general needs tenants had the most concerns about these issues with the home
owners next; few sheltered tenants felt these issues caused them much problems. The issue of most
concern for all residents is car parking, 47% of general needs tenants, 37% of owners and 22% of
sheltered tenants feel this is a very or fairly big problem in their neighbourhood. Next is litter and
rubbish and a number have problems with the neighbours, e.g. 30% of owners. Drug use and dealing
is not felt to be too serious and there are very few instances of abandoned cars.
Anti-social behaviour
8% of general needs tenants had reported anti-social behaviour to Riversmead in the past 12 months.
For those tenants who had reported the problem to their landlord 68% found it easy to contact the
right person, although 23% found it difficult. More tenants found staff helpful (82%), just 13% found
staff unhelpful. Half of tenants found staff able to deal with their problem (51%) but 39% found them
unable to deal with their problem.
With regard to the different aspects of how their report was dealt with, most were satisfied. 76%
were satisfied with the advice given by the staff about the issue and 50% were happy with the way
they were kept informed about progress, although 18% and 27% respectively were dissatisfied. With
the support provided by staff throughout the process 56% were satisfied, although 21% were
dissatisfied and 58% were satisfied with how the report was dealt with and 54% with the speed it was
dealt with. 51% of tenants felt satisfied with the final outcome of their report but 37% were
dissatisfied and 11% neither satisfied nor dissatisfied.
Figure 3.6 below shows the tenants‟ responses to how their anti-social behaviour report was
handled.
Figure 3.6 General needs tenants satisfaction
with way in which anti-social behaviour
report was dealt with
The final outcome of your report 51% 11% 37%
Speed with which your report was
54% 20% 26%
dealt with
How the report was dealt with 58% 17% 25%
Support provided by staff 56% 24% 21%
Being kept informed 50% 24% 27%
Advice provided by staff 76% 5% 18%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Satisfied Neither Dissatisfied
The sheltered tenants were also asked about anti-social behaviour, 9% said they had experienced
some form within the last 12 months. Of those 72% reported the incidents to Riversmead and 28%
to another organisation. Of those reporting to Riversmead, 83% were happy with the way it was
dealt with.
Feedback Services – Main Report Page - 22
3.3 Customer Care
The vast majority of general needs tenants (89%) and 73% of sheltered tenants had contacted their
landlord in the last 12 months. Also, 58% of owners contacted Riversmead.
Method of contact
When communicating with Riversmead the vast majority telephoned, 89% of general needs and 85%
of sheltered tenants and 69% of owners. Only 7% of general needs, 5% of sheltered tenants and 11%
of owners visited an office; 10% of owners wrote to the Association and 4% of sheltered tenants
visited the scheme manager‟s office.
Figure 3.7 How residents last General Sheltered Home
contacted the Association needs tenants owners
tenants
Phoned 89% 85% 69%
Visited Office 7% 5% 11%
Wrote 2% 2% 10%
Email 1% 1% 10%
Visited scheme manager’s office 4%
Staff visit to scheme 1%
Other 1% 2% 1%
Can't remember 0% 0% 1%
Responses 520 212 127
Reason for contact
The most common reason for the tenants to contact Riversmead was to report or enquire about a
repair, 73% of contact from the general needs tenants was for this purpose and 78% from the
sheltered tenants. 10% general needs and 4% sheltered made contact about their rent or housing
benefit, 3% from both about a transfer or exchange, 3% and 2% about neighbour issues, 4% and 3%
respectively about garden or communal areas and 6% and 8% on other issues. 1% of contact from the
sheltered tenants was about their home help/care services. For the owners, defect/repairs queries
accounted for 57% of contact, 12% was about service charges, none about a remortgage or
staircasing, 2% about buying or selling their home, 15% about the neighbours and 9% to make a
complaint.
Figure 3.8 Reason for last contact General Sheltered Home
needs tenants owners
Repairs (or defects for owners) 73% 78% 57%
Rent or housing benefit (service charges) 10% 4% 12%
Transfer or exchange 3% 3%
Garden or Communal areas 4% 3%
Home help/care services 1%
Staircasing or remortgaging 0%
Buying or selling home 2%
Make a complaint 9%
Neighbours or Neighbourhood issues 3% 2% 15%
Other 6% 8% 2%
Can’t remember 1% 2% 2%
Responses 444 198 82
Feedback Services – Main Report Page - 23
Quality of contact
The residents had a mixed experience when making general enquiries with the tenants a little more
satisfied than the owners, although the sheltered tenants were highly pleased. 85% of general needs
and 91% of sheltered tenants found getting hold of the right person easy but only 61% of owners; 9%,
5% and 24% respectively found it difficult. More found the staff helpful, 92% general needs and 96%
sheltered (73% owners) and 85% of general needs, 90% of sheltered tenants and 59% of owners felt
they could deal with their problem. On the final outcome of the enquiry 76% of general needs
tenants and 86% of sheltered tenants were satisfied but only 52% of owners; 34% of owners were
left dissatisfied.
When looking at the reasons for the general needs tenants to make contact, the issues causing the
greatest dissatisfaction with the outcome was transfer and neighbour queries; very few were left
dissatisfied with their repairs enquiries.
Figure 3.9 Satisfaction with customer contact
Satisfaction with 52%
the final 86%
outcome 76%
59%
Could staff deal
90%
with the problem
85%
73%
Helpfulness of
96%
staff
92%
61%
Getting hold of
91%
the right person
85%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120%
General needs Sheltered Home owners
Access to the Internet
The residents were asked if they had access to the Internet and, if so, where. The home owners have
greater access, 60% said they have access somewhere, compared to 44% of general needs tenants
and just 17% of sheltered tenants. It is most common that access is at home via a PC, 51% of owners
have home access as do 38% of general needs and 15% of sheltered tenants.
Figure 3.10 Access to the Internet General Sheltered Home
needs tenants owners
tenants
At home via a PC 38% 15% 51%
At home via digital TV 1% 1% 2%
At work 6% 0% 27%
At school, college or university 0% 0% 2%
Elsewhere (e.g. Internet café) 5% 1% 3%
No access at all 56% 83% 40%
Feedback Services – Main Report Page - 24
58% of owners, 37% of general needs tenants and 13% of sheltered tenants have an email address and
of those 66%, 62% and 70% respectively would be happy for Riversmead to contact them by email.
Office opening hours
The vast majority of residents find the current office opening hours meet their expectations, 96% of
general needs tenants (who expressed an opinion) are happy with the current hours of Monday to
Friday 9.00am to 5.00pm as are 97% of sheltered tenants and 84% of owners. However, this means
that 16% of home owners feel that these hours do not meet their expectations; this may be because
a much higher percentage are working so may find it harder to get time to call in.
3.4 Repairs and maintenance service
79% of general needs tenants (excluding those that couldn‟t remember) and 75% of sheltered tenants
had reported a repair in the last twelve months and 38% of owners reported communal repairs.
Overall, 88% of general needs tenants (who had an opinion), 94% of sheltered tenants and 54% of
owners are satisfied with the repairs and maintenance service. Just 8% of general needs and 4% of
sheltered tenants are dissatisfied, however, 30% of owners are dissatisfied with the service.
With regard to the day-to-day service, satisfaction tended to be higher, particularly with the
sheltered tenants but less so with the home owners, as shown in Figure 3.11.
Figure 3.11 Satisfaction with day-today repairs
57%
Ability to minimise
95%
dirt and mess
90%
46%
Quality of repair 92%
89%
65%
Attitude of workers 98%
93%
59%
Speed at which
90%
work completed
90%
Time taken before 35%
92%
work started
87%
Being told when 48%
93%
work would start
87%
Overall 54%
94%
satisfaction
88%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
General needs Sheltered Home owners
The aspects of the work once on site were a little better than the service received before a worker
arrived. 90% of general needs and sheltered tenants felt the speed of work to be good, 89% and 92%
respectively the quality, 93% and 99% the attitude of the workers and 91% and 95% their ability to
keep dirt and mess to a minimum, however slightly fewer general needs tenants thought the
Feedback Services – Main Report Page - 25
information received about when a worker would call was good (85%) and 86% the time it took for a
worker to call.
The owners, although receiving a different type of service, were much less satisfied. Only 48% felt the
information about when work would start was good and 35% the time to start work. Once on site
satisfaction was a little higher, speed of work 59%, attitude of the workers 65%, quality of work 46%
and keeping dirt and mess to a minimum 57%.
3.5 Resident communication and information
The residents were then asked a series of questions about communication and information.
Preferred methods of communication
The residents were asked to show which methods they prefer Riversmead to use to inform them or
consult them about issues which may affect them, Figure 3.12 below shows the responses. The vast
majority of residents said that one of the preferred methods is by letter, 86% of general needs and
70% of sheltered tenants and 82% of owners chose this option; the telephone is also popular, 34%
general needs, 25% sheltered and 15% of owners like this method. A personal visit is preferred by
21% of general needs and 22% sheltered tenants (12% of owners) and 36%, 26% and 15% respectively
like to receive newsletters but fewer tenants prefer residents‟ groups and forums (8% general needs
and 20% sheltered) or open meetings (6% and 11% tenants and 21% owners). 13% of general needs
tenants and 22% of owners like to receive communication by email.
Figure 3.12 Preferred methods for landlord to use to
inform/consult residents about issues that may affect
them
On-line forums
0%
22%
Home owners Other
21%
(Base 188) 15%
15% By email
12%
82%
Residents’ groups or
1% forums
5%
Sheltered 20% Open meetings or AGM
11%
Base 289) 26%
25%
22% Magazine or newsletter
70%
3% Telephone call
1%
13%
General 8% Personal visit
needs (Base 6%
522) 36%
34%
21% By letter
86%
Feedback Services – Main Report Page - 26
Information and account taken of views
Riversmead is doing a good job in keeping its residents informed; 87% of general needs and 95% of
sheltered tenants and 64% of owners feel the Association is either very good or fairly good, only 4%
of general needs tenants feel poorly informed as do 15% of owners. 78% general needs, 86%
sheltered and 51% of owners are satisfied with the way the Association takes their views into
account. However, 9%, 4% and 24% respectively are dissatisfied.
Figure 3.13 Satisfaction with information and
consultation
48%
Keeping tenants
95%
informed
87%
51%
Account taken of
86%
views
78%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
General needs Sheltered Home owners
Riversmead Newsletter
Riversmead produce a regular newsletter and it is encouraging to discover that the vast majority of
residents read it; 93% of general needs tenants, 95% sheltered and 82% of home owners. Of those
that do read it the vast majority find it interesting, informative and easy to read, as shown in Figure
3.14 below.
Figure 3.14 Riversmead newsletter
82%
Interesting 99%
94%
92%
Informative 97%
96%
98%
Easy to read 97%
98%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
General needs Sheltered Home owners
3.6 Future plans
20% of the general needs tenants felt it was very (10%) or fairly (10%) likely that they would move
from their current home in the next 3 years. About two-thirds of tenants felt a move was unlikely
(71%) and 9% were unsure.
Feedback Services – Main Report Page - 27
Of those tenants who felt that they were likely to move in the next three years, 57% would still want
to rent from Riversmead, while 3% would like to rent from another housing association. 7% of
tenants would like to rent from a council and 1% from a private landlord. A small number of tenants
would consider buying a property outright (1%) or by shared ownership (2%). A few wanted to
move to sheltered accommodation (10%). A number of tenants did not know (15%) or would
consider other alternatives (3%).
Figure 3.15 Where tenants are likely to move
(Base 91)
Other 3% Don’t know
15%
Sheltered
accommodati Rent from this
on 10% housing
association
Shared 57%
ownership (i.e.
part rent, part
buy) 2%
Buy own
property
(mortgage, buy
outright) 1%
Rent from
Rent from
Rent from another
private
council/local housing
landlord 1%
authority 7% association
3%
3.7 Improving services
The residents were also asked which three services provided by Riversmead should be improved.
There was some agreement in that keeping tenants informed was the highest rated for improvement
by the three groups, 58% general needs, 67% sheltered tenants and 56% of owners.
Figure 3.16 Most impostant services for improvement
17%
Other
23%
29%
Home owners
10%
(Base 158) Community
44%
50% activities
56%
Tenant involvement
12%
42%
36%
Sheltered (Base Managing arrears
9%
220)
20%
30%
67% Dealing with ASB
13%
26%
31% Reporting repairs
General needs
18%
(Base 426)
38%
45% Keeping tenants
58% informed
Feedback Services – Main Report Page - 28
Next most priority for improvement for the general needs tenants and the owners is reporting
repairs and dealing with anti-social behaviour but for the sheltered tenants, they would like to see
improvements to community activities and projects and tenant involvement.
The residents were also asked to say if they felt the service has changed within the last 12 months.
The tenants were very positive with 36% of general needs and 32% of sheltered tenants saying they
felt the service had got better. 60% and 61% respectively felt the service was about the same; this
should also be seen as positive given the very high levels of satisfaction with most aspects of
Riversmead‟s service. Only 4% of general needs tenants and 7% of sheltered tenants feel the service
has got worse.
79% of the home owners feel things are about the same and the remainder are fairly evenly split
between those that think service has improved (11%) and those who think it has deteriorated (11%).
Figure 3.17 Has the service changed in the
last 12 months?
Home owners 11% 79% 11%
Sheltered 32% 61% 7%
General needs 36% 60% 4%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Improved Stayed the same Got worse
Feedback Services – Main Report Page - 29
4. SHELTERED TENANTS
The sheltered tenants were asked a number of different questions which reflects the type of services
they may receive from the Association; this chapter summarises those responses. The responses are
from the Riversmead owned properties only.
4.1 Ease of access
The vast majority of tenants said that there was good ease of access to the building, inside the
building and to their home (94% - 96%). Whilst very few are dissatisfied with the ease of access (3%
to 6%) it may suggest that for a few tenants the accommodation is no longer suitable for their needs.
Figure 4.1 Rating aspects of the scheme - residents who have
an opinion
Ease of access to your home (Base 238) 65% 29%
Ease of access inside the building (Base 226) 69% 27%
Ease of access to the building (Base 271) 66% 28%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Very good Fairly good Neither Fairly poor Very poor
4.2 Home help & care services
Three quarters of sheltered tenants stated that they do not receive any home help or care services
(78%), of those that do 18% receive these services from another agency and only 3% from
Riversmead. Sheltered tenants are on the whole satisfied with the services provided (63% - 85%),
the lower ratings being given for the more personal and sensitive care areas, however very little
dissatisfaction is expressed but a number say there are neither satisfied nor dissatisfied.
Figure 4.2 Sheltered tenants satisfaction with services
(Base 19-45)
Cleaning 85%
Dressing 78%
Preparing meals 75%
Shopping 74%
Medication 73%
Bathing 73%
Laundry 71%
Getting in and out of bed 65%
Help with using the toilet 63%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Feedback Services – Main Report Page - 30
4.3 Emergency call system
98% of sheltered tenants said they have an emergency call system. Of those tenants just under a
third (31%) had used the call system in the last 12 months, either for themselves or another member
of their household (25%) or for a visitor or a neighbour (6%). Two thirds of tenants said that the
call was answered by emergency call staff (63%), while 22% said a scheme manager (4% other and
11% not sure).
Satisfaction with the service was high in terms of the speed of response to the call (92%) and the
helpfulness of staff (86%); few tenants were dissatisfied (5% and 7% respectively).
4.4 Scheme manager
96% of the sheltered residents who responded to the survey said that they had a scheme manager
who either lived in (7%), visited every day (60%) or visited less frequently (29%). Residents were
clearly highly satisfied with face to face contact (94%), helpfulness (97%), frequency of contact (95%),
the overall service from the scheme manager (94%) and the contact via the intercom (94%). Slightly
fewer were satisfied with the promotion of social activities (74%), however few were dissatisfied
(10%).
Figure 4.3 Sheltered tenants satisfaction with scheme
manager
(Base 153-212)
Helpfulness 97%
Frequency of contact 95%
Face-to-face contact 94%
Overall 94%
Contact via intercom 94%
Promotion of social activities 74%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Feedback Services – Main Report Page - 31
5. RIVERSMEAD HOMEOWNERS
5.1 Features of the home
Homeowners were asked a number of questions about their home: the size, type (flat, house etc.),
design and construction quality as well as facilities such as security measures, the heating system,
storage space and outdoor recreational space.
Satisfaction was highest in respect of the size (92%) and design (89%) of the home. Around three
quaters of homeowners are satisfied with the quality of construction (79%), the storage space (74%)
and heating system (75%) but fewer are satisfied with the security measures (60%) and the
garden/outside space (54%). Some owners are dissatisfied with some of these aspects, 21% with the
security measures and 21% with the garden.
Figure 5.1 Satisfaction with the different aspects of
the home
Size of home 92%
The design of your home 89%
The construction quality of your home 79%
Heating system 75%
Storage 74%
Security measures 60%
Your garden/outside space 54%
5.2 Service standards
Services received
The type of services owners receive depends on the specifications in the lease and the type of
property they own. Homeowners were therefore asked how they rated their housing association in
respect of specific services offered. Over half of the homeowners who had an opinion were satisfied
with the rent/service charge information (59%) and the cleaning and upkeep of the communal areas
(54%), while slightly fewer homeowners were satisfied with the external repairs and maintenance
service (50%).
In respect of these services provided, homeowners were asked if they considered these to be good
value for money. 49% of the homeowners thought the charge they paid for cleaning of the
communal areas and 54% the rent/service charge information were good value for money, while
fewer thought that they received good value for money for the external repairs and maintenance
(47%). Relatively high percentages of homeowners who had an opinion rated the value for money of
all three aspects of their services as poor (26% - 39%).
Paying a higher service charge for more services
The services homeowners receive are limited to those specified in the lease, however there was no
Feedback Services – Main Report Page - 32
great desire to pay a higher service charge in order to obtain extra services – 88% would not be
prepared to pay a higher charge. Only 12% said that they would be prepared to pay more. The sort
of things suggested were more cleaning and gardening and window cleaning.
Awareness of service standards
Homeowners were asked if they were aware of their housing association‟s published service
standards for customer service. Only 44% of homeowners were aware of the standards, slightly
fewer were not aware of the standards (42%) and 14% didn‟t know.
46% of homeowners felt that the level of consultation they had regarding the way in which their
housing association sets the service charge was about right, while 23% felt that there was too little
and 2% too much. About a third of homeowners said that there had been no consultation (29%).
5.3 Homeowner communication
Homeowners were also asked a number of questions on how satisfied they were with different types
of communications received ranging from the homeowners‟ handbook, information on budgets,
newsletters, complaints procedure and website information. 68% of homeowners were satisfied with
the handbook, 52% with the information provided on budgets and accounts and 54% with the clarity
of the service charge statement; while the newsletter was also popular (60%). 41% of homeowners
were satisfied with the Association‟s complaints procedure; however fewer were satisfied with the
website information (30%).
Figure 5.2 Satisfaction with communication and information
(Base 138-173)
The association’s newsletter/review 60% 37% 3%
The home owner/residents handbook 68% 30% 3%
Clarity of service charge statement 54% 24% 23%
Information provided on budgets/accounts 52% 35% 14%
The association’s complaints procedure 41% 49% 10%
Website information 30% 66% 4%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Satisfied Neither Dissatisfied
The majority of homeowners prefer to get information from their housing association in writing
(82%), while a few would be happy with a telephone call (7%) or an email (9%). Only 2% would prefer
to get their information through the website and none want to receive text messages. When looking
at the best method for obtaining homeowners‟ views, 73% opted for completing a questionnaire,
while some homeowners would be interested in attending open days/conferences (9%), taking part in
telephone surveys (10%), taking part in an email panel or completing an on-line survey (21%), small
discussion groups (13%) or attending homeowners‟ groups and forums (21%). Only a small
percentage stated that they do not want to get involved at all (11%).
Feedback Services – Main Report Page - 33
5.4 Purchasing the property
Homeowners who purchased their properties within the last three years were asked for details of
their experience of the sales process. 67% of Riversmead‟s homeowners were satisfied with the
sales process (18% very satisfied and 49% fairly satisfied), 9% were dissatisfied and 25% were neither
satisfied nor dissatisfied.
The majority of homeowners were satisfied with the information and advice provided during the
sales process, information regarding the obligations under the lease, information provided on service
charges and how the scheme operates were rated the highest, 60%, 59% and 54% respectively.
Around half of the homeowners thought that, information about the financial obligations (46%), the
responsibility for maintenance (48%) and the area (46%) were good, while less were satisfied with
information on staircasing (42%), and what happens when selling the property (31%).
Figure 5.3 Satisfaction with the information and advice
provided when purchasing the property (Base 76 - 84)
Your obligations under the terms of the Lease 60% 26% 13%
Service charges and management fees 59% 20% 20%
How the scheme operates 54% 34% 13%
Responsibility for maintenance 48% 28% 24%
Financial obligations 46% 35% 19%
The area you live in 46% 39% 15%
Staircasing 42% 37% 21%
What happens when you sell the property 31% 46% 23%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100
%
Good Neither Poor
Homeowners also rated different aspects of the service they received while buying their home. 50%
of homeowners were satisfied with the clarity of the sales information, 49% with the politeness of
the sales staff and 44% with the time taken to process the sale. 41% were satisfied with both the
clarity of the lease and being kept informed during the sale. Only 35% were satisfied with the
knowledge of the sales staff and just 30% on how defeats are rectified. However, few were
dissatisfied, apart from 22% with the clarity of the lease and 20% with how defects are rectified.
Figure 5.4 Satisfaction with different aspects of the sales
process (Base 71 - 78)
Clarity of sales information 50% 42% 8%
Politeness of sales staff 49% 49% 2%
Time taken to process sale 44% 41% 15%
Clarity of the Lease 41% 37% 22%
Being kept informed during the sale 41% 46% 13%
Knowledge of sales staff 35% 52% 13%
How defects are rectified 30% 50% 20%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Satisfied Neither Dissatisfied
Feedback Services – Main Report Page - 34
11% of homeowners said that they had moved into a newly built property and had to report defects
which have been resolved; while 11% also said that there was a defect that had yet to be resolved
(78% of homeowners either had not moved into a newly built property or had not reported any
defects).
Encouragingly, 80% of homeowners would recommend this type of purchase to family or friends (or
have already done so), however 20% would not.
5.5 Household costs
Homeowners were asked whether they had experienced any financial difficulties in paying regular
payments/bills in the last 12 months; 86% had not but 14% did. Of those who had experienced
problems, 68% said that this was because the costs of owning their own home had been higher than
they expected (24% no higher and 8% did not know). Nearly half of homeowners stated that if they
were to get into financial difficulties they would seek help from family/friends (48%), 30% would
consider contacting the Citizens Advice Bureau, 33% from the bank or building society and 41%
would try to resolve financial matters themselves. Just 8% of homeowners would ask the
Association for assistance. Fewer would contact an independent advice agency (7%) and 6% of
homeowners would not know who to contact.
5.6 Future plans
Homeowners were asked to indicate their future plans – whether they would be likely to move
within the next few years or purchase more shares in their home (if their lease allowed) and remain
in their present location. Just under a quarter of homeowners would like to purchase more equity in
their property through staircasing if their lease allows (21%).
27% of respondents who indicated that there were issues preventing them from buying an increased
share in their home, stated they could not afford to buy further shares, while a similar number (27%)
were worried about taking on a bigger mortgage and 9% said the professional fees were preventing
them from buying an increased stake. A fifth of homeowners are still saving up (18%). Some
homeowners said that the process is too complicated (18%) or that the staircasing increments are
too high (9%). A number of homeowners are thinking of moving home (18%).
Figure 5.5 Reasons preventing homeowners from
buying an increased share in their home (Base 45)
Can’t afford to 27%
Worried about
27%
taking on a bigger
Still saving up 18%
Considering moving
18%
home
Too complicated 18%
Professional fees
9%
(conveyancing/HIPS)
The staircasing
9%
increments are too
Feedback Services – Main Report Page - 35
39% of those responding had no plans to move in the next few years, while some homeowners did
not know (25%). However, 36% of homeowners are considering moving in the next few years –
either in the next year (3%), in the next 1 to 2 years (14%), in 3 to 4 years time (9%) or in more than
5 years time (10%).
Figure 5.6 Homeowners who are considering a move
in the next few years (Base 59)
Yes, within the
next year Yes, in 1 to 2
Don’t Know 3% years time
25% 14%
Yes, in 3 to 4
years time
9%
Yes, in more
than 5 years
time
10%
No plans to
move
39%
Feedback Services – Main Report Page - 36
6. STADIUM OWNED PROPERTIES
Riversmead manages a number of properties for another group member, Stadium. This chapter looks
at the profile of these residents and their satisfaction with the main areas of service. The properties
are principally general needs and leasehold properties but there are also a small number of sheltered
units, these are included below but care should be taken as the small number of responses makes it
statistically inaccurate.
6.1 Household composition
The profile of the residents is similar to the Riversmead profile although there are generally more
younger households. 43% of general needs tenants are single or couples under 60, 18% aged 60 or
over and 28% are families with children. 94% of sheltered tenants are aged 60 or over (88% single
households and for the owners, 65% are younger small households, 24% families and just 9% older.
Figure 6.1 Household composition
Adults under 60 Older adults Families Other
Home owners (Base
65% 9% 24% 2%
54)
Sheltered (Base 17) 6% 94% 0%
General needs (Base
43% 18% 28% 9%
70)
6.2 Ethnic origin
The majority of the Stadium residents classify themselves as „White British‟; 89% of the general needs
tenants, 97% sheltered tenants and 85% of owners, although this is a little less than the Riversmead
owned properties. There are very few from other backgrounds, although 4% of general needs
tenants and 11% of home owners class themselves as „other white‟.
6.3 Economic status
In terms of economic status, 55% of general needs principal tenants are in employment (35% in full-
time employment, 16% in part-time employment and 5% self-employed), this being more thn the
Riversmead properties (39%). Just 16% of principal tenants are retired and unemployment is just 3%
for principal tenants. 22% of principal tenants are outside employment (14% permanently sick or
disabled and 8% at home looking after family). Of the sheltered tenants; 83% are retired, 8% are
permanently sick/disabled and 8% other while none work.
For the home owners, as with Riversmead, employment rates are higher; 76% are in full-time work,
Feedback Services – Main Report Page - 37
9% part-time and 4% are self-employed. Just 4% are retired, 4% permanently sick/disabled and 2% are
unemployed.
Figure 6.2 Work status of principal resident
3% 4% Other
8%
4%
14% 0%
8% Permanently sick
/disabled
8% 9%
At home/ looking after
family
16% Full-time student
5% Retired
16% Unemployed and
83% available for work
76%
Government training
Self-employed
35%
In employment:part
time
0% In employment:full
time
General needs (Base Sheltered (Base 12) Home owners (Base
63) 54)
6.4 Overall satisfaction and key services
As with the Riversmead residents, satisfaction with the overall service is high, if not a little higher.
90% of general needs tenants are satisfied with the services received, 100% of the sheltered tenants
but fewer owners, 49%. Only 6% of tenants are dissatisfied but 25% of owners are either fairly or
very dissatisfied with their services.
Figure 6.3 Taking everything into account how satisfied or
dissatisfied residents are with services provided by their
landlord
Home owners (Base
49% 26% 25%
53)
Sheltered (Base 17) 100% 0%
General needs (Base
90% 4% 6%
71)
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Satisfied Neither Dissatisfied
Feedback Services – Main Report Page - 38
Satisfaction with key services
When looking at the key issues of how the tenants consider the quality of their home, its condition
and the value for money of the rent, those in the Stadium properties are very satisfied, a little more
than the Riversmead tenants. 91% of general needs tenants are satisfied with their home, 82% with its
condition and 80% with the value for money of the rent.
The sheltered tenants are even more satisfied, 100% are satisfied with each aspect and with the
safety and security of their home.
Figure 6.4 Tenant satisfaction with key services
100%
Safety and security of
100% your home
Sheltered
(Base 249)
100%
Value for money
100%
General condition of
property
80%
General needs Overall quality of home
(Base 474)
82%
91%
With the home owners, 89% are satisfied with their home, 89% with its size, 85% with its design, but
fewer with the quality of construction, 60%, with the garden and outside space, 67%, with the storage
space, 48%, with the heating system, 45% and with the security measures 44%.
6.5 Neighbourhood and local problems
66% of general needs, 100% of sheltered tenants and 78% of owners are satisfied with their
neighbourhood as a place to live. However, as with the Riversmead tenants, they had some concerns
about different problems affecting their neighbourhoods. Figure 6.5 shows the responses.
For those in the Stadium owned properties the concerns about the various estate based problems
are quite mixed. In general, the general needs tenants have the most concerns and more feel these
issues are a problem than those in the Riversmead properties. For example, 33% think there is a
problem with litter and rubbish, compared to 23% for Riversmead and 34% have issues with their
neighbours and disruptive children compared to 20% for the Riversmead properties. The biggest
concern is car parking, the same as with the Riversmead tenants, but fewer feel this is a problem,
35% compared to 47%.
The sheltered tenants show no concern about many of these issues, although 18% think there is a
Feedback Services – Main Report Page - 39
problem with drug use and dealing, and 16% with car parking, racial harassment and other crime. The
owners are a little less concerned than the general needs tenants and are about the same as the
Riversmead owners. Their biggest concern is car parking (38%) then litter and rubbish (35%) and
noisy neighbours (30%).
Figure 6.5 Local problems for Stadium residents
(% very big or fairly big problem)
38%
Car parking 16%
35%
35%
Rubbish or litter 15%
33%
22%
Disruptive children / teenagers 0%
34%
30%
Noisy neighbours 0%
34%
18%
Drunk or rowdy behaviour 0%
20%
12%
Vandalism and graffiti 0%
16%
16%
Pets and animals 0%
17%
4%
Noise from traffic 0%
14%
4%
Drug use or dealing 18%
13%
10%
People damaging your property 0%
9%
6%
Other crime 16%
8%
0%
Racial or other harassment 16%
8%
0%
Abandoned or burnt out vehicles 0%
3%
General needs Sheltered Home owners
Anti-social behaviour
21% of general needs tenants had reported anti-social behaviour within the last 12 months, of these
86% found it easy to contact the right person but only 43% were satisfied with the final outcome of
their report; 29% were dissatisfied. Just one sheltered tenant reported a problem and they were
happy with the way it was dealt with.
6.6 Customer Care
85% of the Stadium general needs tenants, 44% of sheltered tenants and 46% of owners had
contacted the Association within the last 12 months. Most used the phone and most reports
concerned repairs.
Quality of contact
All the sheltered tenants were happy with the way their contact was dealt with as were the vast
majority of general needs tenants, although a little less satisfied than the Riversmead tenants. As with
the Riversmead properties, the owners were less satisfied, although 80% found the staff helpful.
Figure 6.6 shows the different responses.
Feedback Services – Main Report Page - 40
Figure 6.6 Satisfaction with customer contact
Satisfaction with 36%
the final 100%
outcome 70%
38%
Could staff deal
100%
with the problem
83%
80%
Helpfulness of
100%
staff
91%
50%
Getting hold of
100%
the right person
73%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120%
General needs Sheltered Home owners
Access to the Internet
There is high access to the Internet among the Stadium residents, apart from the sheltered tenants.
58% of general needs tenants and 89% of owners have access, but only 7% of sheltered tenants. Most
access is at home via a PC, as shown below.
Figure 6.7 Access to the Internet General Sheltered Home
for Stadium residents needs tenants owners
tenants
At home via a PC 42% 7% 74%
At home via digital TV 1% 0% 0%
At work 18% 0% 43%
At school, college or university 4% 0% 4%
Elsewhere (e.g. Internet café) 13% 0% 4%
No access at all 42% 93% 11%
83% of owners, 51% of general needs tenants and 6% of sheltered tenants have an email address and
of those 74%, 67% and 100% respectively would be happy for Riversmead to contact them by email.
Office opening hours
The vast majority of residents find the current office opening hours meet their expectations, 91% of
general needs tenants (who expressed an opinion) are happy with the current hours of Monday to
Friday 9.00am to 5.00pm as are 100% of sheltered tenants and 65% of owners. 35% of home owners
feel that these hours do not meet their expectations; this may be because a much higher percentage
are working so may find it harder to get time to call in.
Feedback Services – Main Report Page - 41
6.7 Repairs and maintenance service
The Stadium tenants are appreciative of the repairs service; 85% of general needs tenants and 100%
of sheltered tenants are satisfied. However, the owners are less so, just 24% are satisfied with 52%
dissatisfied; this compares to 54% satisfied within the Riversmead properties. There is also high
satisfaction from the tenants with the day-to-day service, the ratings being fairly similar to the
Riversmead results. Also, despite the low level of satisfaction shown by the owners on the overall
service, the ratings for the day-to-day work are high and better than the Riversmead owners,
although it should be noted that very few owners had had work done.
Figure 6.8 Satisfaction with day-to-day repairs from
Stadium residents
Ability to minimise 100%
100%
dirt and mess
94%
50%
Quality of repair 100%
83%
100%
Attitude of workers 100%
90%
Speed at which 100%
90%
work completed
85%
Time taken before 60%
83%
work started
83%
Being told when 40%
100%
work would start
76%
Overall 24%
100%
satisfaction
85%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
General needs Sheltered Home owners
6.8 Resident communication and information
The residents were then asked a series of questions about communication and information.
Information and account taken of views
As with the Riversmead residents, satisfaction with the information received and the account taken
of their views is high, although the owners, again, feel a little less informed. 85% of general needs and
94% of sheltered tenants feel well informed by the Association as do 56% of owners. 70%, 100% and
48% respectively think the Association is good at taking their views into account in the decision-
making process.
Riversmead Newsletter
86% of general needs tenants, 100% sheltered and 77% of home owners read the Riversmead
newsletter. The vast majority find it interesting, informative and easy to read.
Feedback Services – Main Report Page - 42
6.9 Future plans
27% of the general needs tenants felt it was very (17%) or fairly (10%) likely that they would move
from their current home in the next 3 years, 7% more than the Riversmead tenants. 58% of tenants
felt a move was unlikely and 15% were unsure.
Of those tenants who felt that they were likely to move in the next three years, 37% would still want
to rent from Stadium, while 11% would like to rent from another housing association. 16% of
tenants would like to rent from a council and 11% from a private landlord. A few tenants would
consider buying a property outright (5%) or by shared ownership (5%). None wanted to move to
sheltered accommodation but a number of tenants did not know (11%) or would consider other
alternatives (5%).
Figure 6.9 Where Stadium tenants are likely to
move (Base 19)
Other 5% Don’t know Rent from this
Sheltered
11% housing
accommodati
on 0% association
37%
Shared
ownership (i.e.
part rent, part
buy) 5%
Buy own
property
(mortgage, buy
outright) 5%
Rent from
another
Rent from housing
private Rent from association
landlord 11% council/local 11%
authority 16%
6.10 Improving services
There is a little disagreement between the different groups of residents on what they see are the
most important service areas to improve. For the general needs tenants keeping the tenants
informed and dealing with anti-social behaviour are of prime importance with 53% choosing these
options. Keeping tenants informed is also the most important to the sheltered tenants (73%) but for
the home owners, it is the repairs service (56%). Tenant involvement and community activities are
the next most important to the sheltered tenants, but these are less important to the other groups.
Whilst most residents feel that the service is about the same as it was 12 months ago, encouragingly,
many more residents feel the service has improved than has got worse, particularly the sheltered
tenants, 53% of whom feel things have improved. Figure 6.10 below shows the responses for the
different groups.
Feedback Services – Main Report Page - 43
Figure 6.10 Stadium residnets - has the
service changed in the last 12 months?
Home owners 13% 81% 6%
Sheltered 53% 47% 0%
General needs 17% 82% 2%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Got better Stayed the same Got worse
Feedback Services – Main Report Page - 44
7. RIVERSMEAD COMBINED RESULTS
This chapter looks at an overview of the results of the survey from the perspective of all of
Riversmead‟s tenants, general needs and sheltered and excluding those in Stadium ownership. It will
look briefly at the overall tenant profile and then look at the key satisfaction questions, but only
includes those that are common to both the general needs and sheltered questionnaires. This will
show how the tenants feel as a whole and will also be the basis of the comparisons with the previous
survey in 2005 and with a group of other landlords, as combined results were used for these. The
results are waited to reflect the different response rates for the two groups so they truly represent
the tenants as a whole.
7.1 Household composition
The dominant group within the tenant profile are those households with a tenant aged 60 or over,
they represent nearly half of all households (46%), with 30% being single households and 16%
couples. There are 22% of families with children, 12% two-parent and 10% one-parent families and
21% are smaller households under 60. Overall, there is a average of 2.1 people per household, this
includes 0.5 children and 0.7 people aged 60 or over.
Figure 7.1 Riversmead combined tenant group -
Household composition
Adults under 60 Older adults Families Other
All tenants (Base
21% 46% 22% 11%
810)
The majority of tenants have been with Riversmead for some time, in fact, nearly half (49%) have
been tenants for 11 years or more; 29% for 21 years or more. Only 11% are new to the Association
in the last 2 years. The age profile also reflects this profile with 54% aged 60 or over; the majority of
principal tenants are female (56%).
7.2 Ethnic origin and work status
As shown above in the breakdown by tenure type, the vast majority of residents are White British,
95% of tenants class themselves as this; 2% say they are „Other White‟ and 1% Irish with only small
numbers from other categories.
Whilst 34% of tenants are working, 40% are retired with 10% permanently sick or disabled and 10%
at home looking after a family. Just 4% are unemployed.
7.3 Overall satisfaction and key services
The tenants are very happy with the services provided by Riversmead; overall 89% are either very
(46%) or fairly satisfied (43%). Just 6% are dissatisfied and 5% are neither satisfied nor dissatisfied.
Feedback Services – Main Report Page - 45
Figure 7.2 Taking everything into account how satisfied or
dissatisfied residents are with services provided by their
landlord
All tenants (Base 795) 46% 43% 3%
5%3%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Very satisfied Fairly satisfied Neither
Fairly dissatisfied Very dissatisfied
Satisfaction with key services
The tenants are also very happy with their home (87%), its condition (81%) and the value for money
represented by the rent (80%). There are a few dissatisfied, for example, 11% feel the condition of
their home is poor.
Figure 7.3 Tenant satisfaction with key services
Value for money 80% 13% 7% Satisfied
General
Neither
condition of 81% 8% 11%
property
Dissatisfied
Overall quality
87% 6% 8%
of home
Satisfaction with support and advice
The tenants are also generally pleased with the quality of the support services and advice they
receive from the Association. 85% (excluding no opinions) feel the advice they get on rent payments
is good and 88% are satisfied with how enquiries are dealt with. However, fewer are satisfied with
advice on moving home (57%), the support given to new tenants (63%) and the support to vulnerable
tenants (58%), but few are actually dissatisfied.
Feedback Services – Main Report Page - 46
7.4 Neighbourhood and local problems
84% of tenants are satisfied with their neighbourhood as a place to live, although 11% are dissatisfied
and 6% neither satisfied nor dissatisfied. Some of the dissatisfaction may be linked to their perception
of various problems that exist in the area, as shown in Figure 7.4 below.
Figure 7.4 Local problems (% very big or fairly big problem)
Car parking 44%
Rubbish or litter 22%
Disruptive children / teenagers 19%
Noisy neighbours 18%
Drunk or rowdy behaviour 13%
Drug use or dealing 13%
Pets and animals 12%
Vandalism and graffiti 11%
Noise from traffic 10%
Other crime 7%
People damaging your property 5%
Racial or other harassment 4%
Abandoned or burnt out vehicles 2%
All tenants
By far the biggest problem is car parking, 44% feel this is a very or fairly big problem, litter and
rubbish is next with 22% and disruptive children/teenagers third with 19%. Noisy neighbours cause
problems for 18% and drug use in the area is a concern to 13%. Only 4% feel there are problems
with racial harassment and just 2% see abandoned cars as an issue.
7.5 Customer Contact
87% of tenants made contact with Riversmead during the last 12 months. 89% of those used the
telephone with just 8% visiting the office and 2% writing; email is not yet very popular with only 1%
using this method. Repairs was by far the biggest reason for contact, 74% of all contact was regarding
a repair issue, however, 9% concerned rent/HB, 3% about a transfer or exchange, 3% about the
neighbours, 4% about garden or communal areas and 6% for other reasons.
Quality of contact
There was high levels of satisfaction with quality of service on making contact, and as will be shown
below, the ratings compare very well with other landlords. 86% found contacting the right person
easy, although 7% found it difficult and 92% thought the staff were helpful, just 3% unhelpful; this is a
Feedback Services – Main Report Page - 47
testament to those, mostly frontline staff, who deal with the initial enquiries. There is also confidence
that the staff could deal with the enquiry (85%) and 77% were satisfied with the final outcome,
although 17% were left dissatisfied.
Figure 7.5 Satisfaction with customer contact
Satisfaction with
the final 77% 6% 17%
outcome
Could staff deal
85% 3% 12%
with the problem
Helpfulness of
92% 5%3%
staff
Getting hold of
86% 7% 7%
the right person
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Satisfied Neither Dissatisfied
Access to the Internet
41% of tenants have Internet access through one route or another. Most common is access via a PC
at home but 6% have access at work and 5% elsewhere
Figure 7.6 Access to the Internet All tenants
At home via a PC 35%
At home via digital TV 1%
At work 6%
At school, college or university 0%
Elsewhere (e.g. Internet café) 5%
No access at all 59%
34% of tenants have an email address and of those 62% would be happy for Riversmead to contact
them by email.
Office opening hours
96% of all tenants find the current office opening hours meet their expectations, just 4% say they
don‟t. There would appear to be little support for changing these.
7.6 Repairs and maintenance service
There is also high regard for the Association‟s repairs and maintenance service, 89% (with an
opinion) are satisfied, 47% very satisfied. Just 7% are dissatisfied with the service and 4% neither
satisfied or dissatisfied.
Feedback Services – Main Report Page - 48
The day-to-day service also receives high praise with the attitude of the workers particularly
appreciated with 94% saying this is good. Prior to work starting on site, 87% feel that both the
information about when a worker would call and the time to wait is good. Once started, 90% said
the speed of work, the quality and clearing up was good.
Figure 7.7 Satisfaction with day-today repairs
Ability to minimise
90% 4% 6%
dirt and mess
Quality of repair 90% 3% 8%
Attitude of workers 94% 4% 3%
Speed at which
90% 3% 7%
work completed
Time taken before
87% 5% 8%
work started
Being told when
87% 2%10%
work would start
Overall
89% 4%7%
satisfaction
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Good Neither Poor
7.7 Resident communication and information
The tenants were asked a series of questions about communication and information.
Preferred methods of communication
A letter is the preferred method to receive information about things that affect them, 84% chose this
option. However, there is fairly equal support for receiving newsletters (35%), telephone calls (33%)
and personal visits (27%). Fewer would like to receive information by email (12%) or on-line forums
(3%) and there is relatively little support for attending meetings, 6% would attend open meetings and
9% would go to residents‟ groups. This does show, however, that the Association must continue to
use a range of methods to ensure all groups needs are met.
Information and account taken of views
87% of tenants feel that Riversmead is doing a good job in keeping its residents informed, only 4%
feel the Association is poor at informing them about things that affect them and 9% feel it is neither
good nor poor.
79% are satisfied that the Association takes account of their views in the decision-making process; 9%
are dissatisfied and 12% neither one nor the other.
Feedback Services – Main Report Page - 49
Figure 7.8 Satisfaction with information and
consultation
Keeping tenants
87% 9% 4%
informed
Account taken of
79% 12% 9%
views
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Satisfied Neither Dissatisfied
Riversmead Newsletter
92% of tenants read the Riversmead newsletter; 94% find it interesting, 96% informative and 94% find
it easy to read.
7.8 Improving services
Keeping tenants informed is the service area which the tenants feel should most be improved, this is
despite the high levels of satisfaction with this area. Next is reporting repairs and third dealing with
anti-social behaviour.
Figure 7.9 Most impostant services for improvement
Keeping tenants
informed
59%
Reporting repairs
43%
Dealing with ASB
36%
All tenants Tenant involvement
31%
(Base 648)
28% Community
activities
17%
Managing arrears
13%
Other
The tenants are very positive about the service received in the last 12 months, 36% feel this has
improved while 60% feel it has remained about the same, but this should be seen as good given the
high level of satisfaction already shown. Just 4% feel the service has got worse.
Feedback Services – Main Report Page - 50
Figure 7.10 Has the service changed in the
last 12 months?
All tenants
36% 60% 4%
(Base 688)
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Improved Stayed the same Got worse
Feedback Services – Main Report Page - 51
8. DEMOGRAPHIC INFLUENCES
The Feedback database contains data for more than 500,000 social housing residents. Analysis of this
data shows that some types of households tend to have higher levels of satisfaction with their
housing services than other types of households and the Riversmead survey proved to be no
exception. This chapter shows the influences on all Riversmead tenants (general needs and
sheltered), excluding the Stadium properties against the key measures of satisfaction as an indication
of how the demographics effect satisfaction. The demographics will also affect the home owner
results in much the same way as with the tenants; their full responses are included in the attached
data tables.
8.1 Type of Household
With Riversmead the results follow the pattern found in other STATUS surveys but the differences
are small as generally satisfaction is high across all household groups. The smaller households are the
most satisfied, 90% of both single households under 60 and 94% aged 60 or over are satisfied with
the overall services provided and couples are also highly pleased, 86% under 60 and 91% 60 or over.
Families are marginally less satisfied, which is consistent with other STATUS surveys, although still
84% of one-parent and 81% of two-parent families are satisfied overall.
Figure 8.1 Satisfaction with overall landlord service by
household type (% very or fairly satisfied)
All households 89%
One adult under 60 90%
One aged 60 or over 94%
Two adults both under 60 86%
Two adults, at least one over 60 91%
Three or more adults 17 or over 89%
1-adult family with child/ren 84%
2-adult family with child/ren 81%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
8.2 Age of tenant
There is a more obvious difference when looking at the age of the tenants, satisfaction gets higher
with age. On each measure shown in Figure 8.2 below, the older tenants are the most satisfied
followed by those aged 35-59 and those under 35 are the least satisfied.
The difference between the younger age group and the older group ranges from 11% with the overall
service to 26% with the condition of their property. The 35-59 group are 2% to 13% below the older
group. This result backs up the results from the sheltered survey which shows higher levels of
satisfaction across the board.
Feedback Services – Main Report Page - 52
Figure 8.2 Difference in satisfaction ratings by age
Keeping tenants 94%
85%
informed 76%
Account taken of 87%
74%
views 60%
Repairs & 94%
88%
maintenance 76%
Satisfaction with 81%
79%
outcome of contact 63%
89%
Ease of contact 87%
76%
86%
Value for money 80%
69%
90%
Neighbourhood 79%
76%
91%
General condition 76%
65%
94%
Quality of home 85%
71%
93%
Services provided 89%
82%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Up to 34 years old ) 35 to 59 years old Over 60 years old
8.3 Length of tenancy
The pattern found at other landlords as regards satisfaction and length of tenancy is that new tenants
are generally around the average in satisfaction and then satisfaction falls after the first year before
rising as the tenure grows longer. However, the pattern with Riversmead is a little different with
satisfaction from the new tenants and those of 1-2 years about the same, then rising between 3-5
years, the lowest from 6-10 years before reaching the highest levels for those of 21 years tenure or
more.
As an example, on the overall satisfaction with the repairs and maintenance service, 84% of new
tenants are satisfied, 5% less than the average across all groups. This then rises a little to 87% of
those with the Association for 1-2 years are satisfied, then rises again to 88% for 3-5 years, back to
81% for 6-10 years, 84% 11-20 years and right up to 96% for 21 years or more. This may be that
tenants are very pleased to receive an offer of a home initially, some of whom will have waited for
some time, but perhaps expectations rise a little after a few years. However, the pattern is a little
different for overall satisfaction where 76% of new tenants are satisfied but this then jumps to 95%
for the 1 to 2 year tenants this being the highest; 92% of those of 21 years or more are satisfied.
Feedback Services – Main Report Page - 53
Figure 8.3 Difference in satisfaction ratings by time with
landlord
93%
Keeping tenants 85%
79%
informed 85%
90%
81%
89%
Account taken of 78%
71%
views 70%
72%
75%
96%
Repairs & 84%
81%
maintenance 88%
87%
84%
81%
Satisfaction with 79%
75%
outcome of contact 78%
80%
70%
92%
86%
Ease of contact 81%
84%
73%
77%
82%
77%
Value for money 82%
83%
74%
80%
93%
88%
Neighbourhood 76%
77%
73%
90%
88%
79%
General condition 73%
84%
82%
77%
91%
89%
Quality of home 78%
86%
85%
91%
92%
90%
Services provided 81%
90%
95%
76%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Under 1 year 1-2 years 3-5 years
6-10 years 11-20 years 21+ years
8.4 Economic status
For the Riversmead tenant population those in work are less satisfied than the other economic
groups and in particular the self-employed. The most satisfied groups being the retired tenants then
the unemployed and those who are permanently sick or disabled; the least satisfied are those at
home looking after a family. This could very much be linked to the age issue as much as anything.
As an example, on overall satisfaction with the landlord‟s services, 89% are satisfied across the
groups, but only 85% for those in full-time work and 84% self-employed, 95% unemployed, 94%
retired and 82% at home with the family. It is a similar position with the repairs service, 87% in full-
time work are satisfied, 95% unemployed and retired and 77% at home.
Feedback Services – Main Report Page - 54
Figure 8.4 Difference in satisfaction ratings by economic status
77% 87%95%
Keeping tenants informed 82% 95%
81%
82%
62% 85%
Account taken of views 89%94%
52% 64%
70% 87%
74% 95%
Repairs & maintenance 83% 95%
86%
87%
71%
72%
Satisfaction with outcome of contact 87%
86%
62%69%
76%80%
79% 90%
Ease of contact 86%
91%
82%89%
69% 79%
Value for money 74%78% 87%
68% 80%
84%
85%
Neighbourhood 62% 91%
75% 92%
77% 88%
66%
General condition 60% 84% 92%
73%
77% 89%
74% 95%
Quality of home 76% 90%
79%85%
88%
82% 94%
Services provided 84% 95%
88%
85%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100
%
In employment:full time In employment:part time
Self-employed Unemployed and available for work
Retired At home/ looking after family
Permanently sick /disabled
8.5 Tenants with long-term illnesses or disabilities and wheelchair users
The results of the survey were analysed to see if there were any differences between tenants with
long-term illnesses or disabilities and wheelchair users and those without long-term illness or
disability and non-wheelchair users. The results show that tenants with long-term illnesses or
disabilities are on most occasions more satisfied than tenants without long-term illnesses or
disabilities – in fact, they are between 1% and 7% more satisfied on all the measures shown on the
chart below except for 1% less with the ease of contact and 4% less with the outcome of contact.
The results also show that wheelchair users are generally more satisfied than non-wheelchair users,
often quite considerably so – awarding higher ratings for all these measures; 14% more were satisfied
with the condition of their home and 8% more with repairs and maintenance and account taken of
views. The exception to this trend is about the neighbourhood where they live and the value for
money of the rent, both 1% less than the non-wheelchair users. This is also likely to be linked to the
age issue as more older tenants are likely to be disabled or wheelchair users.
Feedback Services – Main Report Page - 55
Figure 8.5 Difference in satisfaction between general needs tenants
with and without long-term illnesses and disability and wheelchair
and non-wheelchair users
87%
Keeping tenants informed 92%
88%
89%
78%
Account taken of views 86%
76%
83%
89%
Repairs & maintenance 97%
87%
92%
77%
Satisfaction with outcome of contact 83%
79%
75%
85%
Ease of contact 88%
86%
85%
80%
Value for money 79%
78%
82%
83%
Neighbourhood 82%
82%
85%
81%
General condition 95%
79%
86%
86%
Quality of home 92%
86%
90%
90%
Services provided 90%
88%
92%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120%
Long-term illness or disability No long-term illness or disability
Wheelchair user Non-wheelchair user
8.6 Ethnicity
The number of tenants from ethnic groups other than White British is very small and comparison is
statistically very unreliable. The only other group with more than just a handful of people is the
„Other White‟ group and there are only around 16 of them. They show satisfaction levels broadly
similar to the White British tenants, perhaps a little less but not significantly.
8.7 Gender
The results of the survey were analysed to see if there was any difference in responses between
households made up of different genders. The survey found there were only minor differences.
Overall findings suggest that male only households are marginally more satisfied than and female only
households and they are generally a little more satisfied that the mixed households. On overall
satisfaction, the range is very small, 90% of mixed households are satisfied, 90% female only and 91%
male only, however with the condition of their property the male only households are 9% and 11%
respectively more satisfied than the other two groups.
On contact issues, the mixed gender households were a little more satisfied with the ease of
contacting the right person, but the male only households were more satisfied with the outcome of
Feedback Services – Main Report Page - 56
their contact, 88% with 74% mixed and 76% female only. The male only households are also a slightly
more satisfied with the repairs service and being kept informed.
Figure 8.6 Difference in satisfaction between gender of general needs
tenants
89%
Keeping tenants informed 88%
88%
86%
Account taken of views 84%
72%
91%
Repairs & maintenance 89%
87%
88%
Satisfaction with outcome of contact 76%
74%
85%
Ease of contact 85%
89%
84%
Value for money 81%
78%
77%
Neighbourhood 85%
89%
90%
General condition 79%
81%
94%
Quality of home 85%
87%
91%
Services provided 90%
90%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Mixed Male/female tenanted households Female only tenanted households
Male only tenanted households
8.8 Property size
The results of the survey were also analysed to see if there was any difference in responses between
tenants with larger or smaller properties, measured by the different numbers of bedrooms. Overall
tenants in the bedsits awarded ratings about the same as those in the three bedroomed properties,
although there are few bedsits. The most satisfied are those in the one-bedroomed properties, this
is, perhaps, again a reflection of the satisfaction by household groups; as shown above the single adult
households are the most satisfied and most of these are likely to live in one-bedroomed properties.
However, this pattern is not entirely repeated on overall satisfaction where the most satisfied are
those in the one-bedroomed properties but only 1% more than those in the two bedroomed and the
three-bedroomed properties (both 89%). It is very close on repairs, with 91% in the one-bedroomed
properties and 89% in the two-bedroomed satisfied; 87% in the three-bedroomed properties and
79% in the bedsits.
However, generally the less satisfied are those in the larger properties, particularly with value for
money where 73% are satisfied compared to 87% in the one-bedroomed properties and 82% in the
two-bedroomed. They are also the least satisfied with the quality of their home and its general
Feedback Services – Main Report Page - 57
condition.
Figure 8.7 Difference in satisfaction by number of
bedrooms
Keeping tenants 84%
90%
informed 88%
91%
Account taken of 80%
77%
views 80%
95%
Repairs & 87%
89%
maintenance 91%
79%
Satisfaction with 78%
73%
outcome of contact 79%
100%
89%
Ease of contact 86%
83%
86%
73%
Value for money 82%
87%
78%
82%
Neighbourhood 86%
85%
43%
73%
General condition 84%
90%
78%
82%
Quality of home 87%
93%
80%
89%
Services provided 89%
90%
80%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120%
Bedsits 1 Bedroom 2 Bedrooms 3+ Bedrooms
8.9 Religion and sexual orientation
While the survey collected information on religion and sexual orientation, the numbers of
households with a religion other than none or Christian and with a sexual orientation other than
heterosexual were too small for the data to be analysed.
Feedback Services – Main Report Page - 58
9. KEY DRIVER ANALYSIS
The report to date has examined the survey results using very simple analysis, and the results simply
show how satisfied tenants are with various aspects of the service they receive. In order to
understand fully which services are key to tenants‟ overall satisfaction, the statistical process called
Key Driver Analysis is used to examine the relationship between the different variables (the
questions asked in the survey) and to determine which elements of the service are the key drivers
for customers‟ overall satisfaction. Tenants who did not have an opinion are excluded from this
analysis. The following analysis is based on the Association‟s general needs tenants only.
9.1 Overall landlord satisfaction
In order to examine the relationship between various aspects of the service and tenants‟ overall
satisfaction with their landlord, the following aspects were compared: satisfaction with the repairs
service, value for money, quality of home, condition of property, neighbourhood, keeping tenants
informed and account taken of views. The chart below shows the results - the greater the number
for the measure of influence, the more important this aspect of service is. Tenants who are satisfied
overall are more likely to be satisfied with the aspects with the greatest influence.
The chart indicates that, in terms of overall satisfaction with the service provided by Riversmead, the
key driver is the repairs and maintenance service, followed by the overall quality of the home.
Satisfaction with keeping tenants informed and the condition of their home are slightly influential; and
to a lesser extent by the account taken of tenants‟ views and value for money. Satisfaction with the
neighbourhood was not found to be a key driver.
Figure 9.1 Key drivers for overall satisfaction with
landlord services (tenants with opinion)
100
95
Keeping tenants Repairs and
Informed maintenance
Performance (100%)
90
85
Quality of the
Value for money
80 home
Condition of
75 Account taken home
of views
70
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25
Measure of influence
These findings clearly show the link between overall satisfaction with the landlord and satisfaction the
repairs service and general quality of the home, which are clearly linked, and any improvements with
this are likely to result in higher levels of satisfaction overall.
Feedback Services – Main Report Page - 59
9.2 Customer contact
Key Driver Analysis was also used to examine the relationship between overall satisfaction with the
landlord and the various aspects of customer contact measured in the survey. The findings indicate
that, in terms of overall satisfaction with the landlord, the most influential aspects of service are
satisfaction with the final outcome – which has a lower rating than some of the other measures of
customer care and the helpfulness of staff. The remaining aspects of customer care were not as
influential, although the ease of contact is more of a driver than the ability to deal with problems. It is
hard to see how the Association can improve much further with the helpfulness of staff as 92% think
they are already helpful, however, Riversmead should consider reviewing tenant satisfaction with the
final outcome, which has a lower rating, in order to increase overall tenant satisfaction.
Figure 9.2 Key drivers for overall satisfaction
- Customer contact (tenants with opinion)
100
Helpfulness
95
90
Performance (100%)
Ability to deal
85
with problem
80 Ease of contact
75
Final outcome
70
65
60
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30
Measure of influence
9.3 Repairs Service
Key Driver Analysis was also used to examine the relationship between various aspects of the repairs
service for the last completed repair and tenants‟ overall view of the service. The findings indicate
that, in terms of overall satisfaction with the repairs and maintenance service, the most important
aspect of service is the quality of the repair work, followed to a lesser extent by the time taken
before the repair work started and being told when work would start. The analysis found only a
weak relationship between satisfaction with the speed of work.
This suggests that, although satisfaction with the quality of the work, and the other aspects of the on-
site work, is high (89%), the Association would benefit by trying to improve this aspect further. Also,
improvements in those aspects prior to work starting on site should also bring dividends in terms of
overall satisfaction. This would also link, to some degree, with the findings above about
communication and information; any dissatisfaction with repairs could be linked to a lack of
information about the process.
Feedback Services – Main Report Page - 60
Figure 9.3 Key drivers for overall repairs and maintenance
service
100
95
Speed of work
Time before work
90 started
Performance
(100%)
85
Quality of work
Told when worker
80 would call
75
70
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40
Measure of influence
Feedback Services – Main Report Page - 61
10. COMPARISON WITH OTHER LANDLORDS
The results of key satisfaction questions in the Riversmead survey have been compared with eight
other housing associations that have undertaken the STATUS survey in the last three years. The
landlords in the peer group were selected to match Riversmead as closely as possible; mainly stock
transfers landlords operating in similar areas of the country. The results are compared with the best
and poorest performing landlords and the average score for all landlords in the peer group and the
national average of all landlords completing STATUS surveys within the last 3 years. The names of
the landlords have been withheld to protect their confidentiality. The Federation holds a full report
containing the data tables and information on the landlords chosen for the comparative analysis.
Notes: (1) Some of the other landlords were surveyed using the old style STATUS questionnaire so
this chapter only includes those questions that match exactly with the current
questionnaires.
(2) The comparative data displayed in this chapter gives a combined rating for both general
needs and sheltered tenants as most landlords had not separated the different types. Where
both types were surveyed within the group, the combined results are shown.
(3) The figures are for Riversmead owned properties only (not including Stadium) and
combine the general needs and sheltered results, to be consistent with the other landlords.
(4) Figures in this chapter include „no opinions/don‟t knows‟ and may differ slightly from the
results reported to the actual landlords where they are excluded.
10.1 Satisfaction with landlord
89% of Riversmead‟s tenants were satisfied with their landlord („fairly‟ or „very‟ satisfied). The result
is higher than that of the peer group average and the national average, both being 81%. The best of
the other landlords was only a little higher than Riversmead with 91% satisfied; the lowest rating
being 62%. Only 6% of the Association‟s tenants are dissatisfied with the services they receive, 5%
better than the group and national averages.
Figure 10.1 How satisfied are you with the overall
service provided by your landlord?
Riversmead 89% 5% 6%
Riversmead’s
performance is Group Average 81% 8% 11%
8% above the
average for
the peer group Best landlord 91% 5% 5%
and the
national
Poorest landlord 62% 12% 27%
average.
National average 81% 8% 11%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Satisfied Neither Dissatisfied
Feedback Services – Main Report Page - 62
10.2 Value for money
Tenants were asked whether they thought the rent for their property represented good or poor
value for money. A good percentage of Riversmead‟s tenants are satisfied, 80% and this is 2% above
the peer group average (78%) and just 4% below the best landlord. The lowest of the group has only
60% of tenants saying their rent represents good value for money and the national average is 77%.
Figure 10.2 Is the rent good value for money?
Riversmead 80% 13% 7%
Group Average 78% 12% 10%
Riversmead’s
performance is
Best landlord 84% 10% 6% 2% higher than
the group
average.
Poorest landlord 60% 17% 23%
National average 77% 12% 11%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Good Neither Poor
10.3 Quality of the home and condition of home
The vast majority of Riversmead‟s tenants are satisfied with the quality of their home (87%) and the
rating is the third highest in the group which has an average of 84%. The highest this time is 89%
satisfied and the lowest is 71%. The result is also higher than the national average of 84%.
Figure 10.3 Satisfaction with the home
Riversmead 87% 6% 8%
Group Average 84% 5% 11%
Riversmead is the
third highest of Best landlord 89% 4% 7%
the group.
Poorest landlord 71% 6% 23%
National average 84% 6% 10%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Satisfied Neither Dissatisfied
81% of Riversmead‟s tenants are satisfied with the condition of their property; the rating is 2% higher
than the peer group average (79%) but 7% below the best of the group (88%). The lowest rating in
Feedback Services – Main Report Page - 63
the group is 64% and the national average is 80%. 11% of Riversmead‟s tenants are dissatisfied with
their properties condition.
Figure 10.4 How would you describe the general
condition of the property?
Riversmead 81% 8% 11%
Group Average 79% 7% 14%
Riversmead is again
higher than the
group and national Best landlord 88% 6% 7%
averages.
Poorest landlord 64% 7% 28%
National average 80% 7% 13%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Satisfied Neither Dissatisfied
10.4 Neighbourhood
The neighbourhood is very popular with Riversmead‟s tenants (84% satisfied); the rating is 5% above
the group average (79%) and 6% above the national average (78%). The lowest rating is 72% and the
highest is 87%. Riversmead has 11% who are dissatisfied with their neighbourhood; 2% below the
average for the group.
Figure 10.5 How satisfied are you with this
neighbourhood as a place to live?
Riversmead 84% 6% 11%
Group Average 79% 8% 13%
Riversmead’s rating is
5% above the group Best landlord 87% 5% 8%
average.
Poorest landlord 72% 12% 17%
National average 78% 8% 14%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Satisfied Neither Dissatisfied
Feedback Services – Main Report Page - 64
10.5 Contact with landlord
The level of contact made by Riversmead‟s tenants during the past 12 months (87%) is a little higher
than many of the other landlords in the peer group (79% average). The highest level of contact was
89% and the lowest 71%.
Ease of contact
86% of Riversmead‟s tenants found it easy to contact the right person at their landlord, this is 14%
more than the average for the group and is highest of the other landlords. The lowest rating is just
49% at one landlord who found it easy to make contact and the national average is 73%. Just 7% of
Riversmead‟s tenants found contact difficult, 11% lower than the group average.
Helpfulness of staff
92% of Riversmead‟s tenants found the staff helpful. The result was again the highest in the group of
landlords and 9% above the average for the group (83%). The next highest rating was 90% and the
lowest 64%. The Association‟s rating is also 9% above the national average of 83%.
Ability to solve problems
Staff at Riversmead were able to deal with many of the tenants‟ problems - 85% of tenants
considered staff were able to deal with their problem; this is considerably higher than the average in
the group (75%), and again is the highest rating in the group. The national average is 76% and the
lowest in the group, 56%.
Satisfaction with outcome
77% of Riversmead‟s tenants were satisfied with the outcome of the contact, again the highest in the
group, and 11% higher than the average for the peer group (66%). The lowest rating this time was
just 44% satisfied and the national average 67%. 17% were dissatisfied compared to the average of
25% and the poorest of 45%.
Figure 10.6 Satisfaction with customer contact
Riversmead 77% 85% 92% 86%
Group Average 66% 75% 83% 72%
Best landlord
All of Riversmead’s
75% 81% 90% 85%
ratings for customer
contact rated the
Poorest landlord 44% 56% 64% 49% best in the peer
group.
National average 67% 76% 83% 73%
Satisfied with final outcome Able to solve problems
Helpful Ease of contact
Feedback Services – Main Report Page - 65
10.6 Repairs and maintenance
89% of Riversmead‟s tenants are satisfied with the way their landlord deals with repairs and
maintenance overall. This is 11% above the group average and the highest of the other landlords in
the group. The lowest of the group is 59% and the national average is 77%. There are just a few of
Riversmead‟s tenants who are dissatisfied with the service, 7%; much lower than the group average
of 16% and the poorest of the group, 34%.
Figure 10.7 How satisfied are you with the way your landlord
deals with repairs and maintenance?
Riversmead 89% 4% 7%
Group Average 78% 5% 16% Riversmead’s rating
is 11% above the
peer group average
Best landlord 88% 3% 9%
and highest of the
group.
Poorest landlord 59% 7% 34%
National average 77% 6% 17%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Satisfied Neither Dissatisfied
The chart below shows performance levels for different aspects of the last completed repair. Tenants
at Riversmead rated all aspects of the work above average (1% to 8% higher). All ratings were also
above the national averages but did not quite match the best.
Figure 10.8 Satisfaction with individual
aspects of last repair (%)
Riversmead 91% 90% 94% 90% 87% 87%
Group Average 89% 84% 92% 85% 79% 84%
Best landlord 94% 92% 97% 94% 90% 94%
Poorest landlord 75% 72% 80% 67% 60% 73%
National average 88% 83% 91% 84% 76% 81%
Dirt to a minimum Quality of work
Attitude of workers Speed work completed
Time before work started Told when workers would call
Feedback Services – Main Report Page - 66
10.7 Communication and participation
87% of Riversmead‟s tenants consider that their landlord keeps them informed; the figure is 7%
above the average in the peer group and the highest rating. The lowest rating in the group is 70%
and the national average is 80%. Also, 79% of tenants felt that Riversmead takes account of their
views, 11% above average for the group (68%) and again the highest rating. Just 54% of tenants felt
informed at the lowest rated landlord. The national average is 67%. At Riversmead, 9% are
dissatisfied with the account taken of their views, 5% below the group average.
Figure 10.9 Satisfaction with tenants informed and
views taken account of (%)
Riversmead 87% 79%
Group Average 80% 68%
Best landlord 86% 76%
Poorest landlord 70% 54%
Keeping tenants informed Account taken of views*
Feedback Services – Main Report Page - 67
11. COMPARISON WITH PREVIOUS SURVEY
Feedback carried out a customer satisfaction survey in 2005 for Riversmead. However, it should be
noted that the STATUS questionnaire has changed a little since then so not all current questions can
be compared. Also the previous survey results included responses from both the Association‟s
general needs and sheltered tenants. Therefore to get some continuity the results quoted below for
the current surveys have also been combined, excluding the Stadium properties which the
Association now manage.
This chapter focuses on the key measures of satisfaction and highlights the main differences between
the previous and current surveys. In 2005 there was a response of 60%; this compares to the current
survey where there was a response of 57% from the general needs tenants and 76% from the
sheltered tenants.
11.1 Changes in satisfaction
The tenant profile has changed a little since 2005, there are now 46% of small households aged 60 or
over compared with 52% in 2005 and families have increased from 19% to 22%.
When looking across the range of service areas it shows that in general the Association has been
able to maintain the high level of satisfaction demonstrated in 2005 or slightly increase it. There have
been some changes but these are relatively small ranging from a 6% increase in satisfaction with the
account taken of tenants views to a decrease of 4% on keeping them informed. The demographic
changes could account for some changes but on the whole the Association should see this as a
positive result.
In terms of overall satisfaction 88% of tenants were satisfied with the services received from
Riversmead in 2005 and this is now 89%, a rise of 1%.
With regard to repairs, 89% are satisfied, also up 1% from 2005 and there has been an increase in
satisfaction for some aspects of the day-to-day service; the quality of work sees a rise of 5%, the
ability to keep dirt to a minimum up 3% and the speed of work up 1%. The attitude of the workers
has also increased 1% from the already very high level of 93% to 94% satisfaction. The aspects before
work starts shows a slight reduction in satisfaction, on the information about when a worker would
call 2% fewer are satisfied and also 2% fewer with the time to start work, although both are high at
87%.
When making contact with the Association the tenants are generally pleased with the service
received. However, 2% fewer found it easy to contact the right person, 1% fewer felt the staff could
deal with their enquiry but the same number were satisfied with the final outcome (77%); 92% felt
the staff were helpful, the same as in 2005.
Finally, there is a mixed view about communication issues, on the one hand 4% fewer feel well
informed but 6% more feel their views are being taken into account by the association.
Figure 11.1 below summarises the responses from the different years.
Feedback Services – Main Report Page - 68
Figure 11.1 Changes over time for standard satisfaction
questions - percentage of tenants saying they were
satisfied/good (*excludes don't know, can't remember and
no opinion)
6%
Account taken of views 79%
73%
5%
Quality of work 90%
85%
3%
Dirt to a minimum 91%
88%
1%
Speed work completed 90%
89%
Services provided by 1%
89%
landlord 88%
1%
Repairs & maintenance 89%
88%
1%
Neighbourhood 84%
83%
1%
Attitude of workers 94%
93%
Accommodation/quality 0%
87%
of home 87%
0%
Helpfulness of staff 92%
92%
Satisfaction with 0%
77%
outcome of contact 77%
-1%
Value for money of rent 80%
81%
Staff's ability to deal
-1%
85%
with problems 86%
Time before work -2%
87%
started -2% 89%
Told when workers
87%
89%
Ease of would call -2%
getting hold of
86%
right person 88%
-3%
General condition of
81%
property -4% 84%
Keeping tenants
87%
informed 91%
-20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Riversmead (2005) Riversmead (2008) Difference
Feedback Services – Main Report Page - 69
12. BEST VALUE PERFORMANCE INDICATORS
The STATUS questionnaire contains Performance Indicators (PIs) as specified by the Housing
Corporation. The methodology used by the Feedback service conforms to the criteria
recommended by the Housing Corporation. The figures below are those for all tenants in the
Riversmead managed stock, i.e. combining general needs and sheltered and including the Stadium
owned properties.
What was the percentage of tenants that were very or fairly satisfied
89.3%
with landlord services?
What was the percentage of tenants that stated they were very or fairly
satisfied that their views were being taken into account? (Excluding 78.4%
those with no opinion)
From your tenant satisfaction survey, what percentage of tenants
replied that they were very satisfied or satisfied with the way their
88.4%
landlord deals with repairs and maintenance? (Excluding those with no
opinion)
Performance Indicators Information– Based upon the Registry and Statistical Return for 2009 as at 31
July 2008. Please note the return question relates to “managed stock (general needs, supported
housing and/or housing for older people)”. Figures given above will need to be adjusted if necessary
to comply with this definition.
Feedback Services – Main Report Page - 70
13. CONCLUSION
The survey for Riversmead Housing Association using the STATUS questionnaires has been
successful; both in terms of the opinions tenants have of their landlord, and in the administration of
the survey.
13.1 General conclusion
The results from the survey demonstrate that the tenants believe that Riversmead is providing a very
good housing service. Overall, 88% of general needs tenants, 94% of sheltered tenants and 66% of
Home Owners are satisfied with the landlord services. When looking at all Riversmead tenants,
satisfaction is 89%. The tenants are also clearly impressed with the quality of the home, condition of
the property, helpfulness of staff and all aspects of the actual repairs service. The home owners are a
little less satisfied.
The results of the survey were compared against the results of eight other landlords who have
similar characteristics and who have had STATUS surveys within the last 3 years. Generally,
Riversmead tenants recorded satisfaction levels well above the group averages and the averages of all
landlords who have completed STATUS surveys in the last 3 years. Overall, 89% of the Association‟s
tenants are satisfied, 8% better than the group and national averages. Riversmead recorded the
highest ratings of the group for the aspects of contact and being kept informed and taking account of
tenant views. 89% are satisfied with the repairs and maintenance service, highest of the group and
12% higher than the national average.
Compared with the previous survey‟s results (2005), satisfaction levels have remained around the
previous very high levels of satisfaction, or slightly increased, and this should be seen as positive to
maintain such a high standard. On most measures there has been little change, for example overall
satisfaction is up 1% and repairs is also up 1% to 89%. The biggest changes are for the account taken
of views where 6% more are now satisfied and the quality of the repair work with 5% higher
satisfaction. However, there is a fall in satisfaction with the information provided; down 4% and 3%
fewer found it easy to contact the right person.
13.2 Specific recommendations for action
It is clear that the majority of tenants are satisfied with their landlord and the overall services. There
are areas and opportunities where performance and service delivery can be improved further (as set
out in the Executive Summary) and Riversmead should use the results of the survey to undertake
service improvements and promote the Association.
Feedback Services – Main Report Page - 71
14. APPENDICES
14.1 The STATUS questionnaire (general needs questionnaire)
Feedback Services – Main Report Page - 72
14.2 Covering letter
6 August 2008
Dear
Your views count…
Please find enclosed a copy of our Tenants Satisfaction Survey which the National Housing
Federation’s Feedback Service is carrying out on our behalf.
You may recall receiving a flyer from Riversmead telling you about the survey, why it’s
important and what improvements we’ve made since the last survey.
We want to know what you think about your home and how satisfied you are with the
services we provide. We value your views as without your feedback we could not improve
our services for you.
To make your views count, please complete the enclosed survey and return it in the pre paid
envelope to Feedback by 20 August 2008
All completed surveys returned will be entered into a prize draw and three lucky tenants will
win £50 each.
All answers are confidential and will be used to help us improve our services.
If you have any questions or would like help in completing the survey, please contact
Elizabeth Lill on 01992 514514, ex.274.
Yours sincerely
Paul Huckstep
Deputy Chief Executive
Feedback Services – Main Report Page - 73
14.3 Comparison tables
14.3.1 Comparison between tenure types (excluding no opinions) – Riversmead
owned properties only.
Question General Sheltered Home
needs tenants tenants owners
Services provided by landlord 88% 94% 66%
Quality of your home 86% 97% 93%
General condition of property 80% 93% n/a
Neighbourhood 82% 95% 74%
Value for money of rent 79% 92% n/a
Ease of getting hold of right person 85% 91% 61%
Helpfulness of staff 92% 96% 73%
Staff's ability to deal with problems 85% 90% 59%
Satisfaction with outcome of contact 76% 86% 52%
Repairs & maintenance 88% 94% 54%
Told when workers would call 87% 93% 48%
Time before work started 87% 92% 35%
Speed work completed 90% 90% 59%
Attitude of workers 93% 98% 65%
Quality of work 89% 92% 46%
Dirt to a minimum 90% 95% 57%
Account taken of views 78% 86% 51%
Keeping tenants informed 87% 95% 64%
Feedback Services – Main Report Page - 74
14.3.2 Comparison of tenant responses (general needs and sheltered
combined, excluding Stadium owned properties) with previous survey in 2005
and national averages – excludes ‘no opinions’.
Question Riversmead Riversmead National
2008 2005 averages
Services provided by landlord 89% 88% 81%
Quality of your home 87% 87% 84%
General condition of property 81% 84% 80%
Neighbourhood 84% 83% 78%
Value for money of rent 80% 81% 77%
Ease of getting hold of right person 86% 88% 73%
Helpfulness of staff 92% 92% 83%
Staff's ability to deal with problems 85% 86% 76%
Satisfaction with outcome of contact 77% 77% 67%
Repairs & maintenance 89% 88% 77%
Told when workers would call 87% 89% 81%
Time before work started 87% 89% 76%
Speed work completed 90% 89% 84%
Attitude of workers 94% 93% 91%
Quality of work 90% 85% 83%
Dirt to a minimum 91% 88% 88%
Account taken of views 79% 73% 67%
Keeping tenants informed 87% 91% 80%
Feedback Services – Main Report Page - 75
