Report - Local democracy and decision making

LC
b
LEASEHOLDERS’ COUNCIL
Date and Time: Thursday 29 January 2015 7.00 pm
Venue:
Room 8, Lambeth Town Hall, Brixton Hill, SW2 1RW
Democratic Services Officer:
Governance and Democracy
Lambeth Town Hall, Brixton Hill, SW2
1RW
Despatched: Wednesday 21 January
2015
Wayne Chandai
Tel/Voicemail: 020 7926 0029
Fax:
020 7926 2361
Email: [email protected]
Website: www.lambeth.gov.uk
COMMITTEE MEMBERS:
Marcus Dawes (Norwood), Richard Dormandy (Norwood), Bernie Tetchner (Streatham),
Brendan McAuley (Streatham), Richard Baker (Stockwell and Vassall), Councillor Mathew
Bennett, James Bowell (Stockwell & Vassall), Hazel Evans (Streatham), John Fellows
(Brixton), Gerlinde Gniewosz (Brixton), Stephen Gyte (North Lambeth), Madelaine Hannon
(Streatham), Marian Heap (Norwood), Rachel Holmes (Streatham), Mark Johnson (Brixton)
(Chair Leaseholder Council), Beryl Jones (Clapham), Isabel Patrick (North Lambeth), Kevin
Johnson (North Lambeth), Michal Szczesny (North Lambeth), Sarah Langslow (Brixton),
Melissa Madjitey (Brixton), Faye Nicholls (Stockwell and Vassall), Simon Pedley, Simon
Petley (Clapham), Malcolm Russell (Stockwell and Vassall), Jo Sathiaraj (Clapham), Mary
Sexton (Norwood), Paul Deacon Smith (North Lambeth), Jack Sutcliffe (Stockwell and
Vassall), Angela Thomas (Clapham) and John Webb (Clapham)
Help with Leaseholder issues?
Please note that a surgery will be held before the Leaseholders’ Council on Thursday 29
January 2015 between 6.30 pm and 7.00pm in Room 8, Lambeth Town Hall, Brixton Hill,
SW2 1RW.
Should you wish to raise ain individual query please raise such queries at the surgery, as
there may be no opportunity to raise the queries at the Leaseholders’ Council meeting.
If you would like a response at the surgery, please e-mail:
[email protected] or telephone Sarah Omofonmwan on 020 7926 3812 at
least three days before the meeting.
AGENDA
PLEASE NOTE THAT THE ORDER OF THE AGENDA MAY BE CHANGED AT THE MEETING
Page
Nos.
1.
Welcome and Apologies for Absence
2.
Minutes of Previous Meeting (13.11.14) and Matters Arising
1-6
3.
Lambeth Living Report Update
7 - 46
Items for discussion include:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
4.
The future of Lambeth Living and changes to senior management
LAP progress update and upcoming survey
Leaseholder Engagement Report and ALF Review
Community Facilities
Actuals 13/14 update
Estimates 15/16 updates
Major works consultation
Home Ownership Services current contact list
Home Ownership Services Response to STAR findings 14/15
(Verbal update)
London Borough of Lambeth Report Update
Items for discussion include:
1.
2.
3.
4.
DH Backlog information (Verbal update)
Estate Regeneration Principles
Myatts Field – Number remaining on estate
Future of Housing Management
For info – a) STAR survey summary
b) STAR survey report
5.
AOB
47 - 170
Page 1
Agenda Item 2
LEASEHOLDERS' COUNCIL
Thursday 13 November 2014 at 7.00 pm
MINUTES
PRESENT:
Leaseholders:
Brendan McAuley (Streatham), Richard Baker (Stockwell and
Vassall), Councillor Mathew Bennett (ex-officio), Gerlinde Gniewosz
(Brixton), Stephen Gyte (North Lambeth), Mark Johnson (Brixton)
(Chair Leaseholder Council) (Chair), Beryl Jones (Clapham), Isabel
Patrick (North Lambeth), Melissa Madjitey (Brixton) (Vice-Chair) and
Paul Deacon Smith (North Lambeth)
APOLOGIES:
Bernie Tetchner (Streatham) and Mary Sexton (Norwood) and
Lisa Keating, Head of Home Ownership Services (LL)
ALSO PRESENT:
Councillors:
Councillor Matthew Bennett, Cabinet Member for Housing
Councillor Jane Pickard, Deputy Cabinet Member for Housing
Officers:
London Borough of Lambeth:
Su Gomer, Lead Commissioner, Housing (LB Lambeth)
Mandy Green, Associate Director, Commissioning (LB Lambeth)
Tom Tyson, Housing Strategy Team Leader (LB Lambeth)
Josephine Ward, Tenant Services Officer (LB Lambeth)
Lambeth Living:
Cedric Boston, Director of Housing Services (LL)
Patience Aguor-Uche, Leasehold Manager (Collections) (LL)
Emily Wester , Leasehold Community Engagement Officer (LL)
Action
required by
1.
WELCOME AND APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
The Chair opened the meeting and welcomed attendees.
Apologies for absence were noted.
The Chair expressed his thanks to Marcus Shukla for all his hard work and
wished him well in his new role.
2.
MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING AND MATTERS ARISING
(27.07.14)
RESOLVED: That the minutes of the meeting held on 24 July 2014 be
agreed as a correct record.
Page 2
Matters Arising
Interim Bills – Page 3
Delegates raised concerns about their recently received interim bills and
felt that advance notification of impending works in sufficient time should
be made by Lambeth Living.
The Director of Housing Services emphasised that following an s20
consultation, leaseholders should expect to receive their LHS works bills
next year.
3.
LONDON BOROUGH OF LAMBETH REPORT UPDATE
Leaseholder Action Plan (LAP)
In response to questions and issues by delegates, the following points
from the Lead Commissioner, Housing and the Associate Director of
Housing Services were noted:
i.
ii.
iii.
Major works on particular estates were currently being discussed
Works on some estates, including China Walk, had been delayed
as a result of agreements by residents not being received. The
Lead Commissioner, Housing emphasised that a scheduled works
programme was available and could be circulated to delegates
A system had been devised to ensure that future works will be
covered by warrantees and guarantees. The issue of warranties
and guarantees were further discussed and a delegate requested
evidence to be provided to show that works are claimed against
existing warranties.
In response to questions, the Chair confirmed that:
i.
ii.
iii.
An independent technical expert would be engaged to discuss
issues. Joint meetings held on a quarterly basis would be
arranged to work with the expert and to monitor progress on the
LAP
The appointment of the independent technical expert would be
paid for by the council
The Lead Commissioner, Housing stated that the council is waiting
for comments on the brief from Chairs. Following agreement to
the brief, this arrangement to engage an independent expert could
be made within 3 weeks. A delegate suggested that the previous
independent expert used on the Task and Finish Group should be
approached for ideas of a suitable expert for LAP
Leaseholder Capping
The directions and briefing were considered.
Page 3
In response to questions and issues from delegates, the following points
from the Lead Commissioner, Housing was noted:i.
ii.
The new direction clearly states that the cap relates to works which
are funded through the Decent Homes Backlog Funding for
2015/16
Once the outcome of the council’s funding towards the Decent
Home programme expected on 19 November 2014, was known,
the implications for leaseholders would be reported back to
leaseholder and tenant council meetings.
A delegate strongly expressed concern regarding the high bills
leaseholders faced as a result of major works and it had been felt that
capping would address this. He urged that leaseholders should not be
requested to pay huge sums of money for works or repair
maintenance/improvements undertaken on estates.
Compact Review
In response to questions and issues from delegates, the following points
from the Strategy Team Leader were noted:
i.
ii.
He undertook to ascertain whether leaseholders were required to
pay for community facilities.
A delegate emphasised that
clarification on community halls was required in order to
comprehend what leaseholders where responsible for
A new training programme had been devised for TRA and area
housing forum members in order to encourage residents to get
more involved in their communities. A delegate suggested that
other types of training that did not solely focus on workshops and
events should be devised for residents
Survey of Tenants and Residents (STAR)
The Chair advised that the survey results would be available at the next
meeting.
Estate Regeneration Principles
Councillor Jane Pickard, Deputy Cabinet Member for Housing, provided
an overview of the item by explaining the council’s intention to develop a
set of principles to guide estate regeneration schemes.
In response to questions and issues by delegates the following points
were noted:
i.
Councillor Matthew Bennett, Cabinet Member for Housing stated
that in terms of the Myatts-Fields regeneration, residents had the
option to obtain a like-for-like property, subject to obtaining
Page 4
ii.
iii.
permission from their mortgage provider to move over their
mortgage to another property elsewhere on the estate. However,
residents also had the options to progress a buy-back to leave the
estate entirely and receive a disturbance allowance.
The Myatts-Fields regeneration when completed will result in
building 305, social rented replacement homes, 357 new homes for
sale and refurbishing 172 existing homes. The monies received as
a result of the private sale paid for the new part and community
centre
The Lead Commissioner, Housing confirmed that the overage
money from the Myatts Fields regeneration was expected to be
returned to the council in 2018/19. Following this a decision
regarding the use of the overage would be made
A delegate strongly emphasised that the estate regeneration principles
should be rejected. She gave the example of Cressingham Gardens by
stating that residents would not be able to return to their homes as a result
of not being eligible for a mortgage. In response, Councillor Pickard
acknowledged that gaps in the values of property would exist but the
council endeavoured to offer alternative re-housing options. She further
added that estates would differ from the Myatts-Fields PFI project, there
was an overall need to develop additional housing across the borough.
Every effort would be made by the council to ensure residents had the
opportunity to move back onto their relevant estates.
Future housing management arrangements
Councillor Matthew Bennet, Cabinet Member for Housing explained that
as a result of Lambeth Living being reintegrated within the Council a
significant consultation exercise to decide the format of housing services
would take place. A board, chaired by him would be set up to oversee the
process. Therefore, he sought comments from delegates.
In response to a question, the Cabinet Member confirmed that staff would
be subject to TUPE and transferred across to the council. However,
issues were being discussed.
RESOLVED:
1) That the report be noted.
2) The Lead Housing Commissioner, Housing to set out a suggested
timetable to include deadlines for sending/providing a response to
the expert brief and when the expert will commence supporting
residents in monitoring the LAP.
Su Gomer
3) The Lead Housing Commissioner, Housing to provide an update at
the Leaseholders and Tenant Council meetings, on the
implications for leaseholders in relation to the outcome of the
Su Gomer
Page 5
Decent Homes Backlog bid.
4) The Strategy and Policy Manager to provide a report to the next
Leaseholder’s Council meeting on 29 January 2015 on the
financing arrangements of community facilities.
Tom Tyson
5) The Strategy and Policy Manager to examine other training
methods for residents and report back to the next Leaseholder’s
Council meeting.
Tom Tyson
6) To present the outcome of the Survey of Tenants and Residents
(STAR) to the next Leaseholder’s Council meeting.
Tom Tyson
7) That a breakdown of statistics of each regenerated estate to
include details of the number of residents that moved or remained
on their particular estates following regeneration should be
presented at the next Leaseholder’s Council meeting.
8) That any specific comments relating to the estate regeneration
principles should be submitted to the Chair by email.
4.
LAMBETH LIVING REPORT UPDATE
Leaseholder Complaints Update
The Chair undertook to devise a suitable spreadsheet for Lambeth Living
officers to populate for future meetings.
MyLL Update
The Leasehold Community Engagement Officer advised that all residents
who had registered to use the online portal which will allow leaseholders to
pay their service charges online would be contacted by an officer in due
course.
Update on Keystone Asset Management Database
The Lead Commissioner, Housing provided an overview of this item and in
response to questions she confirmed that the asset management
database would be able to monitor warranties. There was a need to clarify
that the database aligned with the MyLL database.
Contact Centre Security Questions Update
The Associate Director of Housing Services confirmed that it was
accepted that leaseholders could provide their reference number instead
of their date of birth when contacting the council regarding their service
charge account.
Tom Tyson
Page 6
RESOLVED:
1) To note the report.
2) The Chair to devise a suitable spreadsheet in terms of leaseholder
complaints for Lambeth Living officers to populate for future
meetings.
5.
ANY OTHER BUSINESS
There were none.
CLOSE OF MEETING
The meeting ended at 9.00 pm
CHAIR
LEASEHOLDERS' COUNCIL
Date of Despatch: Tuesday 2 December 2014
Contact for Enquiries: Jacqueline Davy
Tel: (020) 7926 2167
Fax: (020) 7926 2361
E-mail: [email protected]
Web: www.lambeth.gov.uk
Mark
Johnson
Page 7
Agenda
item
Meeting
Date
Agenda Item 3
Leaseholders’ Council
29 January 2015
Lambeth Living Leaseholders’ Council Report
For
Information 
Approval
Prepared by: Lambeth Living
This report contains updates and responses from Lambeth Living requested by the
Leaseholders’ Council Executive on matters raised to be addressed at the Leaseholders’
Council meeting on 29 January 2015.
1. The future of Lambeth Living and changes to senior management
As leaseholders will know, Lambeth Council has decided to reintegrate housing services
when Lambeth Living’s management agreement ends in June 2015. We now have some
more information about the transition plans:
-
The Lambeth Living Board is expected to carry out its duties until the end of the
management agreement in June, or as it may be extended at the Council’s request.
-
Neil Litherland retired as CEO of Lambeth Living in late November 2014. The Acting
CEO is now Terry Gallagher. He was previously Director of Resources and Deputy
CEO (since August 2009).
-
Ola Akinfe, former Director of Property Services, has also left Lambeth Living. His
areas of responsibility are now divided between Terry Gallagher and Cedric Boston,
Director of Housing Services, with Terry overseeing the Lambeth Housing Standard
and Cedric taking over the planned and responsive repair service.
2. LAP progress update and upcoming survey
One of the ways we want to measure our progress on implementing the recommendations in
the Leaseholder Action Plan is through a survey of leaseholders who have had Lambeth
Housing Standard works done on their properties. We’re starting with a survey of all
leaseholders who had works during Year 1 of the LHS programme.
The survey was designed in consultation with tenants and leaseholders and is being carried
out by an independent market research company. Only around 1000 leaseholders will
receive it, so if you are one of those, please do take the time to fill in and return the survey –
your opinion really counts. Leaseholders should receive it by the end of January to their
home address, and it can be returned freepost or completed online.
Appointment of the Independent Expert - A procurement specification for the appointment of
the above was informed through observations from the Chair and Vice Chair LC. A meeting
will be held on 11February with the Chairs of Tenant and Leaseholder Council to assess the
tender returns and prepare for interview.
Procurement Interviews for the Independent expert will be held w/c 16 February.
Page 8
A forward plan for LAP monitoring will then be agreed with the Independent expert, Tenant
and Leasehold nominees and LL.
3. Leaseholder Engagement Report and ALF Review (including training)
As has been explained at the last round of Area Leaseholder Forums, the Leasehold
Community Engagement Officer has produced a report reviewing Lambeth Living’s
leaseholder engagement and recommending some changes and updates. That report can
be found as Appendix 1 to this document.
The key conclusion that we now wish to carry forward with the assistance of Leaseholders’
Council is to form a project group of leaseholder volunteers to work with the Leasehold
Community Engagement Officer review the role and format of Area Leaseholder Forums,
discuss what form formal engagement with leaseholders should take, visit other boroughs to
ascertain best practice, and produce new draft protocols for how our formal engagement
with leaseholders is structured, to be approved by Leaseholders’ Council and the LL Board.
This proposal will be brought to the next round of Area Leaseholder Forums and volunteers
will be sought from each area, but if any Leaseholders’ Council attendees wish to be
involved they can express their interest to the Engagement Officer by emailing Emily Wester
on [email protected]
Questions were also raised about training offered to leaseholders and Area Forum
committee members. What training is necessary for active leaseholders will depend on what
the future format of the engagement structure, so training requirements will form part of the
review done with leaseholders, but an update on what training is currently available is at the
end of this report as Appendix 2.
4. Community Facilities financing arrangements
A number of queries were raised at the November meeting of Leaseholders’ Council about
the policy on financing arrangements for community facilities – specifically, whether
leaseholders should be charged in their service charges for repairs and maintenance to
community halls and facilities on estates. Some leaseholders had noted that there were new
charges on their list of service charges and queried whether there had been an error.
The Service Charge Calculations team (contact information at the end of this report) have
confirmed that works carried out to community facilities are not recharged to leaseholders.
If any leaseholders believe they have been charged for such works, they should raise a
dispute with the Service Charge Collections Team who will investigate what has happened
and rectify any errors. You can email them on [email protected] or contact
any collections officer on their direct contact details below.
5. Actuals 13/14 update
The actual service charge bills for financial year 2013/14 were sent out on time so all
leaseholders should have received these by the beginning of November.
We have received around 200 contacts from people so far asking for clarification or disputing
a charge on their bill. So far upheld disputes (charges that were found upon investigation to
be in fact incorrect) total only around a quarter of the total amount from last year, which is a
positive indication that the bills were calculated with more accuracy than in the previous
Page 9
financial year. Because we are still investigating disputed charges, we will be able to provide
more detailed statistics about these at the next Leaseholders’ Council meeting if
Leaseholders’ Council would like a detailed breakdown.
The most common complaints and disputed charges this year are around poor standard of
repairs, duplicate work orders, high communal electricity charges, and poor window and
estate cleaning.
Where it is found that accounts have been overcharged, we will make adjustments. If we
have under charged, we cannot recover the difference once the accounts have been
certified and released. The statute of limitation allows 6 years of retrospective
amendments/adjustments.
6. Estimates 15/16 update
The Service Charge Calculations Team is on track to have the estimated service charge bills
for the 2015/16 financial year finalized and sent out on time (in March 2015) so these should
reach leaseholders in April 2015.
The Leasehold Engagement Officer has fully reviewed and revamped the template letters
and documents that are sent to leaseholders with their estimated bills. These were then sent
to a ‘virtual document review panel’ of around 35 leaseholders for their review, feedback and
suggestions.
We are very grateful for the leaseholders who took the time to look over these documents
and send their feedback, all of which was very helpful. Quite a few suggested changes were
taken on board and the documents went through a further edit to reflect the feedback from
leaseholders. If any other leaseholders are interested in providing their feedback on any
documents that are under review in the future, please contact Emily Wester on
[email protected]
The Service Charge Calculations team are still reviewing the data to produce the estimated
bills so cannot yet confirm figures, but they estimate that the general increase over last
year’s estimates will be around 3%.
The only possible change to the heads of expenditures for the 15/16 period that we know
about now is a new head of expenditure that may need to be created for the 15/16 period,
called Dry Riser. It is still to be confirmed, but if this charge is created, the FAQ and
information documents included with bills will be updated to provide an explanation of what
the charge covers.
There will also be a change for former URH TMOs who may not have been charged for
some of the technical services & Tree Maintenance as listed below:
Service Name
Boiler Maintenance
Communal Block & Electrical Maintenance
Communal Water Tank
Fire Ventilation
Lightning Protection
Page 10
Communal Ventilation
Tree Maintenance
There may be some other leaseholders who see a new charge on their bill, but this won’t be
because there is a new category of charge, but instead because they are either receiving a
new service or are now being charged for a service which they receive but due to an error
were not being charged for in the past.
7. Major Works Consultations
Please find below a list of Section 20 consultations undertaken between April and November
2014 (inclusive).
This list is for general information only - some consultations relate to only one or two
addresses so property numbers have been taken out for privacy reasons.
Larger consultations have taken place on Cressingham Gardens and on Mechanical and
Electrical works across the borough, so more detailed information about those consultations
can be found at Appendices 3 and 4.
If you have any questions about the consultations listed, please contact the Consultations
Team on [email protected]
8. Home Ownership Services response to STAR 2014 (Verbal)
Page 11
Notice issued
Block / property
Alexandra Drive
Salford Road
Deerdale Road
Oakbank Grove
Bonham
Hailsham
Strategic Area
SOUTH
SOUTH
CENTRAL
SOUTH
CENTRAL
SOUTH
Works Cost
£2,108.34
£2,721.54
£2,578.63
£3,724.71
£8,091.98
£5,984.35
Leaseholders
contribtion
£676.75
£2,892.18
£1,331.56
£1,899.21
Request form
received
31/01/2014
26/02/2014
15/03/2014
17/03/2014
04/04/2014
09/04/2014
04/04/2014
04/04/2014
02/04/2014
£3142.87 &
£2841.49
13/03/2014
Cherry Laurel Walk
Fairmount
CENTRAL
CENTRAL
£1,745.28 £1077.97 to £667.31
1292.99 £678.44 to £614.56
12/03/2014
12/03/2014
Hayter Road
CENTRAL
£1,179.72
05/03/2014
Kildoran Road
CENTRAL
05/03/2014
SOUTH
12/03/2014
17/03/2014
£609.51 & £644.18
17/04/2014
04/04/2014
04/04/2014
17/04/2014
04/04/2014
03/04/2014
Babington Road
Pinfold
St Johns Crescent
Loughborough Road
Loughborough
Railton Road
Kingscourt
Clive Road
£2,744.66
£1,524.17
CENTRAL
LOUGHBOROUGH
LOUGHBOROUGH
£2,427.46
£1,403.90
£1,066.14
£616.59
15/03/2014
15/03/2014
15/03/2014
CENTRAL
£1,390.64
£369.46
15/03/2014
SOUTH
SOUTH
£18,731.86
£577.17
£8,523.73
£288.59
14/03/2014
06/01/2014
n/a
01/04/2014
02/04/2014
02/04/2014
02/04/2014
n/as
17/04/2014
22/04/2014
Amesbury Ave
SOUTH
£5,671.21
£3,401.72
16/04/2014
Page 12
Dunbar Dunelm Est
Lairdale Estate – Burrow Walk,
Lairdale Close, Coaldale Walk,
Rosendale Road and Warren Close
SOUTH
04/04/2014
04/04/2014
SOUTH
04/04/2014
St Anselms Crt Estate
Valley Rd Estate – Curtisfield Rd
and Southoak Rd
SOUTH
Alexandra Drive
SOUTH
£2,485.92
£724.74
10/03/2014
Pondfield House
SOUTH
£3,054.45
£113.27
16/04/2014
CHESTNUT ROAD
04/04/2014
SOUTH
CENTRAL
£3,265.98 £564.46 to £770.05
£5,363.31
31/03/2014
£2,965.89
SOUTH
Winterwell Road
SOUTH
Hailsham Avenue
Emily Mansions
SOUTH
NORTH
£3,230.49
£21,634.30
£1,485.69
£2,283.44
02/04/2014
17/04/2014
Rollscourt Avenue
Arlingford Road
Hailsham Ave
Deerdale Road
Bedford Road
CENTRAL
CENTRAL
SOUTH
CENTRAL
CENTRAL
£1,624.18
£2,891.84
£14,962.06
£2,339.41
£4,480.79
£536.61
£1,509.02
£7,950.09
£1,220.75
£1,582.73
17/04/2014
17/04/2014
17/04/2014
17/04/2014
16/04/2014
Riggindale Road
SOUTH
1 -15 Amesbury Avenue
Auckland Hill
Lydhurst Ave
SOUTH
2800.60
17/04/2014
04/04/2014
1777.16
£2,195.13
£2,189.46
564.1260183
£1,055.35
£1,286.76
£3,714.39
17/04/2014
17/04/2014
22/04/2014
25/04/2014
£4,459.58
28/04/2014
SOUTH
SOUTH
£3,267.83
£6,000.00
588.73
£1,742.17
01/05/2014
30/04/2014
CENTRAL
SOUTH
£2,603.28
£21,070.97
£922.17
£10,640.84
07/05/2014
08/05/2014
Deronda Road
Hailsham Avenue 1-35 odd
Hailsham Avenue
PENFORD STREET
SOUTH
SOUTH
SOUTH
NORTH
£2,161.97
£15,257.71
£3,228.51
£4,295.70
£1,452.78
£6,871.14
£3,228.51
see comment box
08/05/2014
14/05/2014
21/05/2014
29/05/2014
Cricklade Ave
SOUTH
£15,487.13
£4,152.47
FRAZIER STREET 4-38 EVEN
NORTH
£17,649.36
£1,042.00
Cato Road
Knights Hill
07/04/2014
14/04/2014
6496.061
SOUTH
SOUTH
SOUTH
22/04/2014
22/04/2014
Barcombe Avenue
Arlingford Road
HERNE HILL ROAD
Hailsham Avenue
22/04/2014
12/05/2014
17/04/2014
17/04/2014
17/04/2014
22/04/2014
22/04/2014
23/04/2014
23/4/014
23/04/2014
24/04/2014
28/04/2014
29/04/2014
01/05/2014
09/05/2014
16/05/2014
13/05/2014
09/05/2014
19/05/2014
28/05/2014
02/06/2014
05/06/2014
09/06/2014
30/05/2014
15/07/2014
LOUGHBOROUGH ROAD 64-66
CENTRAL
£5,917.30
£2,096.10
10/07/2014
GLENELG ROAD
Knights Hill
Kempshott Road
CENTRAL
SOUTH
SOUTH
£3,828.00
£4,184.74
£15,663.25
£1,671.97
30/05/2014
Lilford Road
CENTRAL
Bankton Road
CENTRAL
11/06/2014
09/06/2014
23/06/2014
£8,503.60
11/06/2014
23/06/2014
£1,792.91
03/06/2014
Page 13
Luxor Street
Barcombe Avenue
CENTRAL
SOUTH
£2,960.14
MINET Rd (A&B) & Lilford Road
(A&B)
Barcombe Avenue
Lydhurst Avenue
Riggindale Road
STRATHLEVEN ROAD
Oakbank Grove
CENTRAL
SOUTH
SOUTH
SOUTH
CENTRAL
CENTRAL
£2,677.52
£7,352.01
£3,346.26
£7,325.01
£2,191.84
3,178.64
05/08/2014
01/07/2014
03/07/2014
07/07/2014
07/07/2014
03/07/2014
07/07/2014
08/07/2014
Cherry Laurel Walk
CENTRAL
7,290.58
10-Jul-14
Cherry Laurel Walk
CENTRAL
5,702.47
10-Jul-14
Loughborough Road
Leander Road
barcombe avenue
Cato Road
CENTRAL
Central
SOUTH
CENTRAL
£2,555.78
£780.24
£7,662.45
10,932.13
15/07/2014
23/07/2014
22/07/2014
Kellett Road
CENTRAL
10,037.00 5, 484.21
Conyers Road
Conyers Road
Herne Hill Road
Ostade Road
Broxholm Road
1-18 earlsfield
1-30 balcombe avenue
1-18 charlwood
1-18 Hartswood
1-12 Goodbehere
1-21 Wray house
Lydhurst Avenue
Solon Road
Amesbury avenue
Greyhound Lane
wavertree
HAILSHAM AVENUE
Clapham Manor Street
Leander Road
Moore house 1-12
Clapham Manor Street
bankside way
Hailsham avenue
Concannon Road
SOUTH
SOUTH
CENTRAL
CENTRAL
SOUTH
SOUTH
SOUTH
SOUTH
SOUTH
SOUTH
SOUTH
SOUTH
CENTRAL
SOUTH
SOUTH
SOUTH
SOUTH
CENTRAL
CENTRAL
SOUTH
CENTRAL
SOUTH
SOUTH
Central
17/06/2014
13/08/2014
10/07/2014
10/07/2014
16/07/2014
Josephine Avenue
Crescent Lane
Lambeth Road, SW2
Kellett Road, SW2
Telford
Cressingham gardens
Barcombe ave
1-30 Beauclerk House
£4,661.47
£3,824.19
08/08/2014
2709.45
£28,994.00
£33,738.02
£27,341.89
£32,020.75
£28,639.89
£18,170.39
£4,825.87
£21,582.25
£12,871.02
£28,670.06
£4,459.58
£3,416.58
£5,135.10
£2,738.15
£5,218.95
£2,864.52
£12,996.63
£2,802.50
£10,292.91
£9,622.33
£6,151.00
£10, 270.64
12/08/2014
£9,522.00
£14,804.00
£15,243.00
03/09/2014
09/09/2014
09/09/2014
11/09/2014
19/09/2014
22/09/2014
29/09/2014
30/09/2014
30/09/2014
03/10/2014
03/10/2014
09/10/2014
14/10/2014
Central
Central
£7,280.49
£5,524.00
14/10/2014
14/10/2014
Central
CENTRAL
SOUTH
CENTRAL
£1,899.25
£11,268.50
12,174.74
N/A
N/A
21/10/2014
21/10/2014
13/10/2014
28/10/2014
SOUTH
N/A
N/A
CENTRAL
Clytha Court 1-30
Norwood Road
SOUTH
SOUTH
Brook Drive
NORTH
63-73a Gleneldon Road
Lilford Road
Copley park
SOUTH
NORTH
SOUTH
£3,666.49
22/10/2014
04/012/2014
23/07/2014
24/07/2014
24/07/2014
11/08/2014
15/08/2014
15/08/2014
18/08/2014
19/08/2014
26/08/2014
19/08/2014
19/08/2014
19/08/2014
02/09/2014
02/09/2014
02/09/2014
05/09/2014
12/10/2014
15/09/2014
12/09/2014
22/09/2014
23/09/2014
29/09/2014
30/09/2014
01/10/2014
06/10/2014
08/10/2014
20/10/2014
16/10/2014
16/10/2014
16/10/2014
03/11/2014
03/11/2014
23/10/2014
30/10/2014
n/a
04/11/2014
n/a
N/A
18/11/2014
28/11/2014
19/11/2014
£9,728.44
27/11/2014
28/11/2014
Page 14
8. Home Ownership Services current contact list
LAMBETH LIVING HOME OWNERSHIP SERVICES
HAMBROOK HOUSE
RECEPTION
LEASEHOLDER LINE
CONTACT CENTRE
LAMBETH COUNCIL
SWITCHBOARD NUMBER
HOME OWNERSHIP FAX
First
Name
Lisa
Lucy
Emily
First
Name
Leeora
Timothy
Kate
Alison
Rachel
Anthony
Alla
Maria
Luke
Jackie
Linda
Monwar
a
Ferenc
Charlie
Michelle
020 7926 3537
020 7926 6700
020 7926 6000
020 7926 1000
POSTAL ADDRESS
HOME OWNERSHIP SERVICES
2nd FLOOR HAMBROOK
HOUSE
PORDEN ROAD
BRIXTON
SW2
5RW
020 7926 3482
HOME OWNERSHIP SERVICES
Surname
Position
Extensio Email Address
n
Keating
Head of Ownership
63583
[email protected]
rg.uk
Sawyer
Executive Support Officer
63812
[email protected]
org.uk
Wester
Resident Engagement
60150
[email protected]
Officer
g.uk
CUSTOMER SERVICES / RIGHT TO BUY TEAM
Surname
Position
Extensio Email Address
n
Filemu
Leasehold Manager
68936
[email protected]
g.uk
McClave
Team Leader
63711
[email protected]
.org.uk
Rhule
Service Charge Coordinator 61499
[email protected]
.uk
Tambling
Service Charge Coordinator 63487
[email protected]
.org.uk
Moocarme Service Charge Coordinator 63659
[email protected]
ng.org.uk
Malcolm
Service Charge Coordinator 63818
[email protected]
org.uk
Hill
Right to Buy Officer
69890
[email protected]
k
Shyla
Right to Buy Officer
61491
[email protected]
g.uk
Kelly
Right to Buy Officer
66320
[email protected]
g.uk
Pereira
Property Sales Officer
63434
[email protected]
rg.uk
Horgan
Property Sales Officer
63531
[email protected]
rg.uk
Begum
Property Sales Officer
63489
[email protected]
org.uk
Lendvai
Legal Instructing Officer
64237
[email protected]
g.uk
MeredithCustomer Service Officer
69398
[email protected]
Owen
living.org.uk
Murray
Customer Service Officer
63584
[email protected]
org.uk
Page 15
8. Home Ownership Services current contact list
Paul
Savage
Customer Service Assistant
67404
[email protected]
rg.uk
CALCULATIONS TEAM
First
Surname
Position
Extensio Email Address
COLLECTIONS
TEAM
Name
n
Patience AguorLeasehold Manager
63744
PaguorUche
[email protected]
uk
Ingemar Castillo
Collections Project Manager 63712
[email protected]
g.uk
Johnson Ajayi
Collections Team Leader
66266
[email protected]
uk
Chris
Ojo
Service Charge Coordinator 63743
[email protected]
k
Aina
McCallum Service Charge Coordinator 63742
[email protected]
g.org.uk
Feonia
Wildman
Service Charge Coordinator 63816
[email protected]
org.uk
Marcia
Nugent
Service Charge Coordinator 63811
[email protected]
org.uk
Rob
Gowland
Service Charge Coordinator 63740
[email protected]
.org.uk
Babatun Ogunsipe
Service Charge Coordinator 61005
[email protected]
de
g.org.uk
David
Ansah
Service Charge Coordinator 63438
[email protected]
g.uk
Armstro
Opoku
Major Works Coordinator
60460
[email protected]
ng
g.uk
Valerie
Gray
Major Works Coordinator
61085
[email protected]
uk
Rhoda
Akinde
Major Works Coordinator
63709
[email protected]
rg.uk
David
Egyiawan Major Works Coordinator
66957
[email protected]
g.org.uk
George
Ofili
Major Works Coordinator
67046
[email protected]
k
Rregjina Curaj
Customer Service Assistant 69331
[email protected]
uk
CONSULTATIONS TEAM
First
Surname
Position
Extensio Email Address
Name
n
Karen
Muldoon
Leasehold Manager
63712
[email protected]
.org.uk
John
Gargan
Major Works Project
63415
[email protected]
Manager
rg.uk
Vivienne OmoMajor Works Coordinator
63710
VomoIdahosa
[email protected]
rg.uk
Claudine Thompson Major Works Coordinator
63741
[email protected]
ving.org.uk
Hina
Pawar
Major Works Coordinator
63411
[email protected]
rg.uk
Janet
Hepburn
Major Works Coordinator
63523
[email protected]
Page 16
8. Home Ownership Services current contact list
Newton
Harvey
Major Works Coordinator
64102
Henry
Kuteyi
Major Works Coordinator
61083
Bridget
Adebajo
Finance Assistant
69711
First
Name
Sarie
Surname
Martin
Chima
Pamela
JehuAppiah
CALCULATIONS TEAM
Position
Extensio
n
Income and Service Charge 63511
Accountant
63817
Moseley
SC Calculations Team
Leader
SC Calculations Officer
Manisha
Williams
SC Calculations Officer
63814
Ines
BahSavane
SC Co-ordinator
63806
63530
First
Name
Lakhvir
Surname
Rehal
IT PROJECT TEAM
Position
Extensio
n
Technical Project Manager
64395
Johnson
Awosoji
Technical Business Analyst
61676
Michelle
Ramsam
my
Uddin
IT Project Officer
60718
IT Project Officer
60721
Shah
org.uk
[email protected]
rg.uk
[email protected]
g.uk
[email protected]
org.uk
Email Address
[email protected]
g.uk
[email protected]
rg.uk
[email protected]
.org.uk
[email protected]
g.org.uk
[email protected]
g.uk
Email Address
[email protected]
.uk
[email protected]
org.uk
[email protected]
ing.org.uk
[email protected]
org.uk
Page 17
Appendix 1
Agenda item
Meeting
Date
Lambeth Living Board Meeting
26 November 2014
Review of Leaseholder Engagement Strategy
For
Information
Approval 
Prepared by: Emily Wester
Title: Leasehold Community Engagement
Officer
Phone: 0207 926 0150
Purpose
To consider Lambeth Living’s current methods of leaseholder
engagement, and propose recommendations for changes and
improvements with the aim of improving leaseholder satisfaction.
Summary
This report considers the current position of Lambeth Living’s engagement
with leaseholders, its communications with leaseholders, and other key
factors affecting leaseholder satisfaction. It is the result of my assessment
of these areas made during my first weeks at the organisation and takes
into account views of colleagues in Resident Engagement, Home
Ownership Services, and Communications, and draws upon feedback
from leaseholders at Area Forums, Leaseholders’ Council, and individual
conversations.
Key risks
Currently leaseholder satisfaction with our services is among the lowest in
London. There is a risk that this will not improve unless a strategic
approach is taken to find new ways to engage and consult with
leaseholders and act on their feedback.
Financial
implications
I do not foresee a significant increase in costs to fund any of the
recommended activity. The main outlay will be in staff time, and possibly
overtime pay, for an increased number of evening surgeries.
Improved engagement and clearer communication with leaseholders could
lead to more accurate and prompt payment of service charges and major
works bills, as it will avoid scenarios where leaseholders fail to pay
because they do not understand what they have been sent and are unable
to speak to the correct officer to answer their questions.
I.
Introduction
a. I was appointed as a Leasehold Community Engagement Officer in Home
Ownership Services (HOS) in July 2014. It is a new role and was created to address
low leaseholder satisfaction rates by employing someone specifically to design and
implement a new engagement strategy.
i. I spent my first weeks at the organisation working closely with the Head of
Home Ownership and the Leasehold Managers; learning about Home
Ownership Services, including shadowing officers to get an idea of the role
and structure of their teams; meeting with the Resident Engagement
Manager and individually with all of the Resident Participation Officers in
their local offices to discuss the Area Leaseholder Forums (which had been
their responsibility but which I have now begun to take over – with
11
Page 18
Appendix 1
particularly helpful assistance from Erin Healy, Executive Support Officer in
the Central Area Office); attending Leaseholders’ Council, Area Leaseholder
Forums, and setting up smaller informal meetings with individual
leaseholders; discussing leaseholder communications challenges with the
Communications team; and helping with the first project of the HOS Service
Improvement Group (producing a revised homeowners’ handbook).
ii. Those meetings and discussions have all directly fed into this report, in
which I review the current status of leaseholder engagement and make
recommendations for improvement.
b. Structure of this report
i. I have divided the report into three main sections, looking separately at:
1. Engagement – the Area Leaseholder Forum meetings and formal
engagement and consultation structures.
2. Satisfaction – areas for change within Home Ownership Services
where we can improve leaseholders’ satisfaction with our services.
3. Communications – written and online communications with
leaseholders.
ii. In each section I first consider the current position and existing structure,
what is working and what isn’t; then move onto a second section setting out
my specific recommendations for change.
iii. I then conclude with a full numbered list of all the recommendations set out
in each of the three sections and propose next steps.
II.
Engagement
a. Existing engagement structure
i. Earlier this year, Mark Howarth, Resident Engagement Manager, prepared a
review critiquing the Area Leaseholder Forum format, which is our main
structure for leaseholder engagement at present. That review is clear and
informative so I will not repeat its contents here, but it can be found as
Appendix A to this report. The intention for this report is to build on the ideas
in his review and propose a way forward.
ii. There are six Area Leaseholder Forums: North Lambeth, Stockwell &
Vassall, Clapham, Brixton, Streatham, and Norwood. They are open to all
leaseholders in their area, and each forum nominates reps to Leaseholders’
Council. According to the protocols they are to meet three times a year.
iii. One of the key points in Mark’s review in May was that the Area Leaseholder
Forums (ALFs) are not fully providing meaningful leaseholder engagement,
and that no other similar organisation divides leaseholder engagement by
geographical area in this way. He questions whether it is logical to do so,
given most leaseholders will be concerned with issues that are either
particular to their own block or estate (rather than the wider neighbourhood)
or issues that are specific to leaseholders but will affect all leaseholders
equally across the borough.
iv. Mark raises the issue of ALFs replicating the function and content of AHFs
(Area Housing Forums). Some leaseholders involved in their ALF don’t
engage with their TRA and AHF, and raise issues or request
discussions/presentations at ALFs about concerns that should properly be
raised through their TRA/AHF (like pest control, estate services, anything
non-leaseholder specific). The disconnect between ALFs, AHFs, and TRAs
is reflected in complaints I have heard from leaseholders. Currently there is
no formal way of ensuring that issues discussed at an AHF are fed back to
the area’s ALF.
12
Page 19
Appendix 1
v. There is also a question of whether we are satisfied with the less democratic
style of the ALFs – whereas AHFs are delegate bodies with representatives
from the area’s TRAs, any leaseholder can go to their ALF and be
nominated to then sit on Leaseholders’ Council. So it is possible for an ALF
to be dominated by leaseholders from one particular estate, for example –
there are no in-built safeguards against this happening set out in the
protocols.
vi. As Mark pointed out in his review, until recently there has been a lack of
interest in ALFs, with most not holding the normal schedule of three
meetings per year. Interest has increased due to the LHS programme, and
now some forums have expressed a desire to meet more frequently. There
is also some confusion and inconsistency with how frequently they have
been meeting: in some areas we are servicing more than three meetings a
year and in others refusing to do so.
vii. It’s unlikely that the recent increase of interest and attendance of ALFs can
be taken as an expression of support for the format; rather what is most
likely happening is that leaseholders who have concerns or complaints about
their major works are taking every opportunity available to try and get these
resolved.
viii. Many leaseholders feel their area forum is their only opportunity to raise
issues with LL staff face to face, so the meetings are very often dominated
by attempts to raise individual issues (whether or not they were discussed at
the surgery) rather than the discussion of wider issues the forums are
intended for.
ix. As ALFs are only supposed to meet every four months (and even in areas
where meetings seem to be somewhat more frequent, there will always be at
least a couple of months between them) they are not an efficient mechanism
for raising and following up action points, given this time lapse between the
issue being raised at one meeting and officers coming back with an answer
or update at the following meeting. Leaseholders have also complained
about failure by officers to ensure issues raised are actioned as promised
and comprehensive updates provided at the following meeting. There can be
a lack of accountability for following up actions when different officers attend
the meeting each time.
x. Surgeries: each ALF meeting has a surgery either before or after the
meeting. In many cases, leaseholders are only attending to raise an
individual query, and if they cannot be seen during the surgery, will try to
raise this during the meeting itself.
xi. One issue with the surgery is that these are currently serviced by HOS
officers only but a majority of the issues raised are to do with issues for
which this team is not responsible: mostly, major works and repairs, and
some local area office issues such as ASB, estate cleaning, or key fob
failures. For surgeries to be effective the appropriate teams need to be
present and leaseholders need to be informed what kind of queries can be
answered.
xii. There seems to be a real demand for surgeries local to the area and
opportunities to speak with officers face-to-face; although some leaseholders
certainly do want to get more involved and be elected to Leaseholders’
Council etc, a significant proportion of leaseholders, as discussed above, are
more interested in access to officers and effective communication channels
than in getting involved. There’s often a feeling of frustration and people
attending meetings because they feel it’s the only way they can raise issues.
b. Engagement: recommendations
13
Page 20
Appendix 1
 Reviewing the ALF structure raises a number of questions – about the
appropriateness of the area format, the frequency of meetings, the lack
of a clear channel of communication and feedback between the ALFs
and the AHFs and TRAs – and these questions are not for me to decide
but should rightly be considered by leaseholders themselves.
 Therefore a key recommendation of this report is an endorsement of the
recommendation of Mark Howarth’s review: namely, to propose to
Leaseholders’ Council that we set up a project group with leaseholder
volunteers to consider the engagement structure and decide what
changes to make.
 Once we have some volunteers we can decide the exact remit and
timescale of the project, but it should at least review the role and format
of ALFs. It would be very helpful to visit two other boroughs and meet
with their leaseholder forum to learn about other ways of working.
 After this main project group has finished, we can consider seeking
leaseholder volunteers to form smaller working groups of leaseholders
and staff looking at specific issues in future.
 Going forward after this project group, it may be helpful for the Leasehold
Community Engagement Officer to meet occasionally and consult with a
small group of leaseholders as a ‘leaseholders steering group’ – parallel
to the casual ‘residents steering group’ who meet with the Resident
Engagement Manager. If the initial group volunteer to do this it would be
helpful to check in and update on progress etc on, for example, a
quarterly basis after their main project has concluded.
 An online forum already exists, set up in conjunction with the
Leaseholders’ Council website, and made by a leaseholder rep to
Leaseholders’ Council who is a web designer. Some leaseholder
feedback to proposals of us setting up an online forum was that we
shouldn’t ‘reinvent the wheel’ and I agree – engaging with the forum set
up by leaseholders themselves rather than trying to get people involved
in our own is preferable and demonstrates that we are willing to work
collaboratively with leaseholders rather than impose things on them from
above. I and other relevant staff can sign up to the existing forum and
post replies to questions, meeting dates, and other relevant information. I
also see no reason why the homeowners’ tab on the LL website cannot
include a link to this, as long as it has the standard disclaimers clarifying
that it’s a link to an external site and LL are not responsible for content,
etc.
 Clearly there is a demand for far more evening surgeries at local venues
convenient to leaseholders. Although these can be reviewed along with
ALFs by the leaseholder group, I think this recommendation is noncontroversial enough that we can begin to action this now, and would like
to begin scheduling and organising regular evening surgeries for
leaseholders across the borough and publicising these on the website
and through letters, e-newsletters, estate noticeboards, and automated
text messages to leaseholders whose mobile numbers we have.
 For leaseholders who might not want to come to an evening surgery or
meeting, or who don’t feel they have an urgent enough question to come
to a surgery but just want more information, we can look at doing a
series of Saturday ‘leaseholder information sessions’. These could be
done by area (possibly even at TRA level) or by topic. All we would need
to do is organise a venue, publicise the event, produce an information
pack to give people upon arrival, and have officers with the relevant
expertise on hand to answer questions – staff wouldn’t need to speak to
the whole room, just have one-on-one conversations with people. The
idea would be to offer a friendly and relaxed environment (with tea and
14
Page 21
Appendix 1
biscuits on hand) where people can get the information that’s relevant to
them and get questions answered. It would also be an opportunity to run
a survey and collect some email addresses so we can more easily
communicate with more leaseholders.
III.
Satisfaction with services
a. Current position: STAR Survey
i. The STAR 2013/14 results show that only 19% of leaseholders are satisfied
that LL listens to and acts on their views. Only 36% are satisfied with the
opportunities they have to make their views known, and only 26% are
satisfied with the opportunities they have to participate in management and
decision making.
ii. Priorities identified by leaseholders in STAR, in order of descending
importance:
1. Communal repairs, maintenance
2. Value for money in terms of day-to-day service charges
3. ASB
4. Listening to and acting on residents’ views
5. Neighbourhood as a place to live
6. Keeping residents informed
iii. We know that most leaseholders aren’t interested in overly participatory
engagement, or agreeing to become involved in anything that will be a drain
on their time. They don’t want to hear from us more than they have to and
most don’t have time or desire to participate in feedback or consultation for
its own sake. They’re most concerned with having clear channels of
communication and getting correct answers and an efficient service from us
when they do have to contact us.
iv. Other STAR questions focused on general satisfaction with leaseholders’
contact with LL also got poor responses:
1. 32% satisfied with LL services
2. 23% satisfied with maintenance and repairs
3. 20% satisfied with service charges/value for money
4. 20% satisfied with ease of contacting the right person
5. 25% said problems/queries resolved quickly/easily
b. Most leaseholders said in the STAR survey that they don’t find it easy to contact the
right person and their problems and queries aren’t resolved quickly or easily. From
this, and other feedback, we know they don’t have a clear understanding of how the
service is structured and how it fits in with the wider organisation, or who is likely to
be able to help them, and we know that communications often break down between
an enquiry being received and an answer being provided.
c. Satisfaction: recommendations
 Now that the Home Ownership Service has a new structure and new
managers in place, we can provide a HOS structure chart and a
telephone or email list, to all leaseholders: at all public meetings, with
meeting packs for area forums, in e-newsletters, on website. All HOS
staff provide customer service so there is no reason emails and phone
numbers should be kept confidential, and having a clear picture of who
their queries are being directed to and how to contact them will reduce
leaseholders’ frustration and incidences of enquiries being passed to
multiple colleagues and a full response never being issued.
 We can also implement some new policies around this: for example, if an
officer receives an email from a leaseholder that they can’t answer,
15
Page 22
Appendix 1






instead of forwarding email enquiry to appropriate colleague then
responding to leaseholder advising it’s been passed on, always copy
leaseholder in so they have that person’s contact details and feel we’re
dealing with it transparently.
Collections and Consultations team already work in patches, so
leaseholders should be given information on who their assigned officers
are on relevant communications, as well as the more general
inbox/phone numbers in case their named contacts aren’t available. We
should also be ensuring that the patch officers are attending their area’s
ALFs and their contact details are on ALF packs. Clarity and consistency
on who to contact will help build productive relationships between
leaseholders and officers.
It should be arranged for customer service training to be provided for all
HOS staff, not just the customer service team. Managers might also
consider having more structured phone call guidelines (for example
officers always checking leaseholders’ contact details at the beginning of
the call, in order to keep our records up to date and capture more phone
numbers and email addresses; checking if the leaseholder has spoken to
them or someone else in their team about the matter before, etc). Having
customer service refresher training will be especially important for staff
servicing more frequent surgeries.
At present, some leaseholders do regularly come to Hambrook House to
speak to HOS staff in person; however, others do not know this is an
option, which creates an unfair disparity in access. I understand there is
reluctance to advertise this option because of the lack of appropriate and
private space in which to meet with leaseholders, but the current system
is not consistent: either we should be open to the public for the whole
working day and make this clear on all communications, or we should
have specific surgery times advertised and not see people the rest of the
time – and again, clearly communicate this. The lack of space is not ideal
but is not an insurmountable obstacle: either we can advertise certain
times as our open hours/surgery times and have a room booked for this
(in Hambrook House or elsewhere – Olive Morris House or the Town Hall
are not too far for staff to go for a few hours) or we can continue to see
people in the reception area until HOS is relocated and ensure that the
new office has an appropriate surgery space.
We should also consider whether it is appropriate to have daytime
surgery hours with HOS staff at other offices so as not to exclude those
for whom Hambrook House is not convenient – for example, we could
have a 9am-1pm leaseholders’ surgery once a week in the North area
office, once in Brixton, and once in the South area office. This would be
in addition to evening surgeries, which potentially could be held twice a
week in total (so two of the six areas covered each week, and each of
the six areas having a surgery every three weeks). Again, crucial to the
success and usefulness of these is ensuring they are communicated as
widely as possible.
After we start having daytime surgery hours and evening surgeries we
can review their attendance and topics raised in a few months to gauge
the need for these and and adjust frequency and staff represented
accordingly.
Separate to STAR, there’s a need to do more of our own surveys on
specific issues and asking leaseholders for their opinions, feedback and
priorities. People are more likely to opt in to a survey if they are told in
advance it is only a few questions, so we can devise a variety of very
brief online surveys on different topics and ask leaseholders to complete
them at relevant points: for example, one on the section 20 consultation
16
Page 23
Appendix 1
process shortly after consultation closes. Other useful survey topics
could be the right to buy process and the experience of new
leaseholders after resales. Asking pertinent questions at appropriate
times can help ensure we get useful feedback on what we can improve.
Online surveys can also tie in to collecting email addresses so we can
improve other forms of communication.
 We also need to be sure that when big mail outs are being sent or when
any policies and procedures are changed, we are updating the contact
centre and sending them a good quality brief so they are prepared for
calls about it. Responsibility for ensuring this is done should lie with the
HOS managers and briefings can be prepared with assistance from the
Leasehold Community Engagement Officer.
IV.
Communications
a. Current status of communication with leaseholders
i. Currently, there is a lack of leaseholder-specific communications except
those around major works consultations. There is not a newsletter or regular
mailout to leaseholders. The information on the website is clear but some
needs to be updated and there could be much, much more information
available. Many common queries leaseholders are likely to have could be
addressed via topical webpages and FAQs but we are not currently taking
advantage of this easy way to disseminate information.
ii. The Communications team are keen to improve information available to
leaseholders but need the cooperation of the Home Ownership Service to do
so, as they can only publicise the information they are given.
iii. Communication preferences identified by leaseholders in STAR:
1. Writing: 66%
2. Email: 56%
3. Phone: 47%
4. Newsletter: 31%
5. Open meetings: 24%
6. Visiting us at an office: 17%
7. Receiving a visit from us at home: 16%
8. Text message: 14%
9. Facebook and Twitter: 4% (combined)
 Conclusions from this?
o Social media a less popular option than might be assumed – so
probably not worth any gains that would be achieved by a big
leaseholder-specific social media drive
o There isn’t actually that big an appetite for attending meetings –
76% didn’t select this as their preferred option. It is appropriate to
consider this in light of the amount of time and labour that is
spent on organising public meetings, like the area forums. In the
long run spending the majority of the Leasehold Engagement
Officer’s time on organising meetings that only serve needs of
24% of leaseholders is unlikely to achieve the increase in
satisfaction and improved engagement we want to offer.
o Newsletter and email were both among popular options – an enewsletter could be very effective especially in terms of value
achieved (keeping in regular contact, providing updates,
improved perception of the service) vs the relatively low cost,
time and effort required.
17
Page 24
Appendix 1
Most people only want to hear from us when they have to
(evidenced by the preference for contact via letter or email, rather
than public meetings or visits).
o We know 83% of our leaseholders have internet access at home
so we need to be using email where possible.
iv. A common – and understandable – leaseholder complaint is that the letters
they receive from us, in particular with bills, are not clear or understandable.
Sometimes this is because they have too much jargon and aren’t in plain
English; sometimes enclosed documents are referred to using different titles
in the letter than that on the actual document, or aren’t consistently
numbered, which can make understanding a bundle of papers extremely
confusing. Many in Home Ownership are aware of the problems and have
worked on changing letters and documents to improve this, but there is still
much more to be done. It’s important to keep in mind that – although we
have a lot of information to send out, and don’t want to be patronising – we
can’t assume all leaseholders have a comfortable working knowledge of our
service charge billing cycle or the difference between an estimate and actual
bill, for example. So in all letters and responses to enquiries we need to give
simple explanations and not assume more knowledge than we know
someone has.
v. We have a Homeowners’ Handbook which has crucial useful information for
leaseholders, but they are not currently given a copy as a matter of course at
the point of sale or at any other time. This is being revamped by the HOS
SIG at present and it is strongly felt in HOS that once this is rewritten and
updated, it should be distributed to all leaseholders and going forward it
should be sent to all new leaseholders when they buy a property. All of the
content will also be easily accessed on the website.
o
b. Communications recommendations
 The Engagement Officer will lead on producing a regular e-newsletter to
be sent to all leaseholders with email addresses. This will include
updates on Home Ownership Services, questions and answers, short
articles, useful information that may concern leaseholders, etc.
 This needs to be accompanied by a drive to collect email addresses:
asking for updated contact information with all regular letters and bills,
capturing emails through surveys and meeting sign in sheets and
ensuring these are always updated on Northgate, etc. We can also
consider having the call centre cold call leaseholders for whom we have
mobile numbers but no email addresses to try and collect these, but they
would need to be very well briefed to ensure that this is done in a way
that doesn’t further contribute to negative perception of the organisation,
given the level of dissatisfaction with the contact centre and concerns
that leaseholders have already raised about the data they collect.
 A paper copy of the latest e-newsletter can also be sent out with yearly
bills and invitation packs to ALFs.
 As long as we are sending out paper invitations to ALFs, this is an
opportunity to communicate with leaseholders and send them useful
information, even if they are not able to attend the meeting itself.
 We also need to ensure ALF dates are being publicised on Twitter, on
the Lambeth Council and Lambeth Living websites, on the online
leaseholder forum, and in the Living Local magazine. There is a
leaseholder section in Living Local, where we can include some of the
same articles and content as in the e-newsletter, and list all upcoming
ALF and Leaseholders’ Council dates.
18
Page 25
Appendix 1
 We need to further the process of reviewing documents and template
letters used by Home Ownership Services. To make sure these are
appropriate and easily understandable, we need to consult leaseholders
and seek their approval on new templates before they are used. In order
to achieve this, the Engagement Officer will be seeking leaseholders
volunteering for a virtual document review panel. This can be done very
simply: when we need feedback on a document, we send it to all the
leaseholders on the panel via email, and those who have time send us
their feedback which we can use to improve the document.
Consideration can also be given to seeking feedback from the online
leaseholders’ forum when we need more views.
 Mark Howarth proposed we ask for leaseholder volunteers to check their
bills before they’re sent out to their whole estate. This got positive
feedback at Leaseholders’ Council in July, so we should start signing up
volunteers to do this – it can be an e-newsletter item and can feature on
the website.
 The Engagement Officer will be working with the Communications team
to produce a revamped Leaseholder section of the Lambeth Living
website. Part of this will focus on engagement – uploading minutes and
meeting packs from the ALFs, asking for sign-ups to receive the
leaseholders e-newsletter and storing archives of this, and sign-ups to
participate in the virtual document review panel – and we can also
improve, update, and add to the information already available about
various leasehold matters online.
 The website can also be used to showcase short videos introducing our
teams and explaining our processes. This would be particularly useful for
explaining processes that have to follow particular steps, for example,
the right to buy process and the section 20 consultation process.
V.
Conclusion
a. List of all recommendations
Below are listed each of the recommendations I have made in this report:
1. Work with Leaseholders’ Council to set up a project group of
leaseholder volunteers to review the role and format of Area
Leaseholder Forums, visiting other boroughs to ascertain best
practice, and produce new draft protocols for how our formal
engagement with leasheolders is structured, to be approved by
Leaseholders’ Council and the LL Board.
2. Consider expanding the scope of this project, or setting up separate
project groups after this, to look at other aspects of leaseholder
engagement, communications and satisfaction.
3. Set up a ‘Leaseholders Steering Group’ – possibly to include the
volunteers for the engagement review project – for the Leasehold
Community Engagement Officer to meet and consult with on a
regular and informal basis, including to monitor progress of the initial
group’s recommendations.
4. HOS staff to engage with the existing online Lambeth Leaseholders’
Forum and LL website to include a link to this.
5. Begin holding regular evening surgeries for leaseholders across the
borough and publicising these.
6. Ensure staff buy in to 5 by updating job descriptions where
necessary and ensuring overtime or time off in lieu are offered and
taken.
19
Page 26
Appendix 1
7. Organise a series of Saturday ‘leaseholder information sessions’.
8. Provide an up to date HOS structure chart and staff contact list to all
leaseholders at all public meetings, in written communications, and
on website.
9. Review internal HOS policies for dealing with leaseholder enquiries
in a transparent and customer-focused way: email policies,
structured phone call guidelines.
10. For HOS teams that work in patches, build relationship between
officers and leaseholders by giving leaseholders contact details for
their area’s named officers in relevant communications, on ALF
packs, on website – and those officers should attend their area’s
ALFs.
11. All HOS staff to receive customer service training with a focus on
improving satisfaction with phone calls and written communications,
as well as providing a better face-to-face service in surgeries.
12. Clarify the face-to-face service HOS offer at Hambrook House: either
set regular surgery hours and advertise these, or publicise the fact
that we are open every day during working hours and people can
come speak to an officer.
13. Consider adding a daytime surgery hours service with HOS officers
in North and South area offices. Ensure daytime open hours are
publicised widely.
14. Periodically review attendance, topics, and other statistics gleaned
from daytime and evening surgeries to ensure they are meeting
needs.
15. Carry out short surveys on specific aspects of the leaseholder
experience.
16. Ensure we are giving the contact centre useful briefing information
before leaseholders receive bills, news, etc or when policies and
procedures are changed.
17. Review the role of the HOS Customer Service team, raise their
profile, ensure leaseholders are aware of the service and how to
contact them.
18. Produce a regular e-newsletter to be sent to all leaseholders with
email addresses.
19. Collect email addresses through coordinated strategy.
20. Utilise paper ALF invitation packs as opportunity to communicate
with leaseholders: include hard copy of latest e-newsletter and any
other relevant updates or information.
21. Ensure dates for ALFs and other meetings are publicised on Twitter,
Lambeth Council and Lambeting Living websites, online leaseholder
forum, Living Local magazine.
22. Improve documents and template letters used by HOS, utilising a
virtual document review panel to consult leaseholders on these.
23. Sign up leaseholder volunteers to check their bills before they are
issued to their whole estate – publicise this in e-newsletter and on
website.
24. Produce an improved and expanded leaseholder section on the
Lambeth Living website, including eventual inclusion of short videos
about processes (RtB, S20, etc).
b. Limitations and other considerations
i. The recommendations in this report are primarily focused on leaseholder
engagement that can be enacted by Home Ownership Services. These
recommendations, therefore, do not fully address some of the other areas
that cause the most dissatisfaction among leaseholders: the contact centre,
20
Page 27
Appendix 1
the implementation of major works programmes, communal repairs, and
estate services.
ii. However, it is expected that colleagues in other teams will be apprised of the
progress of the engagement strategy and will be expected to contribute, in
particular in terms of providing information necessary for improved
communications, and attending meetings and surgeries as required.
iii. Buy in from the rest of the organisation is particularly important for surgeries
and meetings, as a frequent complaint from leaseholders is that the officers
they speak to at these are only ‘taking away’ their concerns but not able to
actually address them or answer questions there and then – this is often
because HOS staff service the surgeries but the majority of queries raised
are about major works and repairs. So more frequent and accessible
surgeries will only be successful if they are serviced by appropriate staff.
iv. It is also important to ensure we engage with TMOs and with councillors.
Once approved the leaseholder engagement strategy should be shared with
councillors, and they should be kept updated about our ongoing progress
and included in new communications to leaseholders such as e-newsletters
and information packs sent out with ALF invitations.
c. Next steps
i. Once the Board/SMT approve the above recommendations in principle, the
Head of Home Ownership, the Leasehold Managers, and the Leasehold
Community Engagement Officer can work together to decide priorities and
timescales of each.
ii. Some items can be brought to next Leaseholders’ Council (1-3).
iii. Some will be for Leasehold Community Engagement Officer to begin acting
on immediately (4, 22, 24).
21
Page 28
Appendix A
Agenda item
Meeting
Date
Title
For
Leasehold Council
May 2014
Leasehold engagement review
Information
Approval

Prepared by: Mark Howarth
Title: Resident Engagement Manager
Phone:
Purpose
To suggest options for improving leaseholder engagement
Summary
To consider using estate meetings, virtual forums, newsletters and
online chatrooms to improve leaseholder engagement whilst
reviewing role of Area Leasehold forums.
Key risks
Leaseholders don’t feel LL listening to their views and they are able
to influence decisions accordingly
Financial
implications
There may be resourcing issuing for supporting the online chat
facility but this should be offset by more efficient communications
and a reduction in contacts and complaints over time.
Recommendation
To set up a task and finish group from Leasehold Council to
progress options for future leasehold engagement
1 Background
The main formal consultation mechanism with leaseholders currently is through the
Area Leasehold forums (ALF) who elect representatives to the Leasehold Council.
There are six ALFS which were originally set up in response to complaints from
leaseholders their views were not getting heard in the Area Housing Forum/Tenants
Council structure established in 2004. The ALFs differ from AHFs in that any
leaseholder can attend the ALF whereas AHFs are delegate bodies with reps from
registered TRAs. ALFs nominate up to 4 reps to then sit on Leasehold Council as
well as one TMO delegate elected by the TMO: Liaison Committee.
The ALF terms of reference are called protocols and were last reviewed in 2008.
The protocol states the ALF agenda items should include major developments
affecting the whole Borough; topical issues of relevance and an update on major
works. However, it doesn’t have a specific scrutiny or consultation role, unlike the
AHFs or Leaseholders Council.
There have been problems with the lack of interest in four of the six ALF’s until very
recently with only two holding the normal schedule of meetings (three pa) whilst two
22
Page 29
Appendix A
didn’t meet for 12 months. The recent change is due to major works issues
generating a lot more interest to the extent all ALFs recently saw unprecedented
numbers attending.
We recently surveyed Leaseholder Council members regarding ALF’s and received
a response rate of 50% (10). This is a very small sample group so there can be no
significance attached to the results but most thought forums were useful and
relevant although a number said online forums and newsletters should be explored.
As can be seen from the table below the frequency and number of attendees varies
considerably but the forums do involve significant resources in terms of mail outs.
No.
leaseholders
on mailing
list
Brixton
Clapham
North
Lambeth
Norwood
S&V
Streatham
1,350
1,400
1,188
1,275
1,962
1,200
8,375
No.
meetings Date
last
in past
year
meeting
13/2/14
4
6/2/14
4
2
2
24/2/14
25/2/14
22/1/14
6/3/14
1
1
Attendance
at last
meeting
36
23
44
26
90+
45
Summary
There remains an issue whether ALFs are fit for purpose for meaningful leaseholder
engagement going forward. Benchmarking shows that no other similar organization
has an area set up similar to ours (appendix 1). It is therefore timely to review the
role and purpose of ALFs particularly given the very low satisfaction ratings of
leaseholders with services.
Leaseholder satisfaction with landlord services is generally lower than that of
tenants for all landlords. In the 2013 STAR survey of LL residents:
Satisfaction
Tenants
Leaseholders
Overall with LL as
landlord
LL listens to your views
& acts on them?
Opportunity to make
your views known?
65
32
46
19
51
33
Such a disparity between tenants and leaseholders is normal but our leaseholder
satisfaction is 11% worse than the London median. Any proposals on leaseholder
engagement need to address the very low satisfaction ratings.
2 A way forward
23
Page 30
Appendix A
As mentioned previously ALFs were set up to mirror the AHFs. There is no
geographical imperative to organize leasehold consultation on an area basis. Local
service delivery issues should be dealt with through the TRA or AHFs if they can’t
be resolved at estate level. Leaseholders can access AHFs through their TRA but
generally leaseholder issues are estate based or organisational wide rather than
area based.
As a consultative mechanism ALFs are unwieldy and untimely (eg only meeting
every four months if action points are service related) and often duplicate matters
being raised at AHF’s. Feedback suggests the surgeries held prior the ALF are
valued where leaseholders have access to staff to answer their individual queries.
There are certainly leaseholders who have attending the ALF just to access the
surgery and then not stayed on for the actual meeting.
A big driver for attendance therefore appears to be getting queries answered rather
attending meetings per se so leaseholder engagement needs to address more
effective communications.
It is clear we have not used opportunities offered by new communication tools to
make communications more efficient or effective for leaseholders. The fact we only
hold 11% of leaseholders email addresses on the housing management system is
testament to that. The residents portal will partly answer this (access to service
charge statements) but there is a need to consider virtual forums, enewsletters as
well as online chat facilities to ensure there is improved communications with our
leaseholders electronically. Many Providers organize virtual consultation forums
when needing feedback on policy or procedural issues. This suits leaseholders
rather than being tied to meetings which have to compete with work commitments.
The major works programme has meant at least one meeting per estate being
organised. In 2013/14 70 estate meetings were held and it is anticipated there will
be similar numbers in 2014/15. The importance of these meetings is that they
address estate specific issues for leaseholders in terms of the scope of works and
recharges which can’t be done at area level. Resourcing these meetings has major
implications for HOS but is a requirement of the programme.
Options for enhancing leaseholder engagement
Given the above and learning best practice elsewhere, the following are suggested
to be looked at:
i)
Estate based LHS meetings/surgeries
These have to be held and should be the principal mechanism for discussing
estate issues for leaseholders in terms of scope of works and recharges. Where
leaseholders unable to attend there should be a mechanism to ensure their
queries can be answered efficiently.
ii)
Virtual panels
Interested leaseholders could be invited to join panels looking at new policies
and procedures such as service charges and major works. This could be
extended to look at communication issues as well as other engagement
opportunities. Leaseholders could opt for the areas they would like to get
24
Page 31
Appendix A
involved in. A publicity campaign will be needed to capture as many email
addresses as possible as well as asking for leaseholders interested in joining a
virtual panel.
iii)
eNewsletter
Regular enewsletters could be sent to leaseholders providing basic updates on
services & key information regarding actual and estimated service charges.
iv)
Online chat
One of the main criticisms from leaseholders is getting answers to their
individual queries. The most effective and efficient way of doing this could be
through online chatrooms where leaseholders can get immediate answers to
queries. This has been proved to lead to high satisfaction from users in other
organizations with poor reputational issues (eg BT). It is suggested this is piloted
as part of revamping the customer service for leaseholders. Resource issues will
need assessing particularly at peak enquiry times when estimated and actual
service charge bills being sent out.
v)
Estate champions
Some Providers use key leaseholders to check draft service charge bills for their
estate before issuing to all leaseholders. This potentially saves many
subsequent queries. This option could be explored to see if there is any interest
from leaseholders to do this.
vi)
Task and finish groups
The recent success of the above looking at major works recharge policy
illustrates what can be achieved with a smaller group of leaseholders reviewing
specific policies and procedures. Going forward the Leaseholder Council could
set these up as and when it felt is was required.
Some arrangements would need to be looked at for leaseholders not on line,
particularly older leaseholders. The 2013 Star survey indicated 80%+ of
leaseholders under 65 had internet access (90%+ for those under 55) but only 41%
of those above 65 (of which there are 330). However, it should be easy to cater for
a small number of leaseholders who need hardcopies of information.
If all or some of these options are agreed, it is recommended the role of ALFs be
reviewed. As previously mentioned benchmarking shows no other landlord has area
based leasehold forums although most have a central forum.
In any review, Leaseholder Council would continue as the strategic forum for
leaseholders to be consulted with. They could set up task and finish groups as they
saw fit. Representatives could be elected directly to the Council with some controls
to limit the number from one estates or area.
3
Recommendation
A task and finish group is set up to progress these options and possibly visit other
organisations to ascertain best practice.
25
Page 32
Appendix A
Appendix 1 – benchmarking on formal leasehold engagement structures
Organisation
Brent Housing
Partnership
Hackney
Haringey
Leasehold engagement mechanism
Contacts panel by subject matter
Borough wide forum.
Borough wide Panel meeting quarterly,
forum annually (all leaseholders) &
quarterly newsletter
Lewisham
Group meeting as & when major item.
Quarterly newsletter.
Ascham Homes
Camden
Neighbourhood forums (mixed tenure)
City West
Annual forum & virtual panels as well as
estate reps to scrutinise estimates & actuals
Tower Homes
elected leaseholder forum. Meets monthly.
Has own website. Has virtual residents panel
Monthly focus group (Borough wide). key
leaseholder reps (estate champions)
26
Page 33
Appendix 2
Learning Works Programme
December 2014
We are running a series of training courses for Lambeth Living residents. These are free
but check for availability with the Getting Involved team at Lambeth Living by emailing
[email protected] or telephoning 0207 926 3401.
Community in Action Level 2 – Chartered Institute of Housing (CIH) accredited
This 20 week course will provide residents with a basic understanding of housing
management and to introduce some of the skills and knowledge necessary to participate in
housing related activities whether paid or voluntary such as running a tenants & residents
association (TRA). As an accredited course equivalent to a GCSE, this qualification can be
used to help residents get work in housing or a related field. Currently there are day
sessions held every Thursday from 9.30am-2.30pm and evenings sessions Tuesdays
and Thursdays from 6.30-9.00pm. The course is provided at High Trees Community
Development Trust, 220 Upper Tulse Hill, SW2 2NS. The next course(s) will run from
March.
Introduction to bookkeeping workshop
We are offering a basic introduction to bookkeeping workshop to ensure all treasurers
and interested committee members learn the basics of what this requires.
The evening workshop runs for 3 hours and covers the following:
 How to record income & expenditure
 Accounting for any TRA sub group’s income and expenditure eg halls/food growing
etc
 Reconciling accounts with bank statements
 Accounting for hiring of facilities including treatment of deposits
 Management of petty cash
 Good practice for committees ie making financial decisions & producing regular
reports.
The workshop will enable you to undertake these responsibilities more competently and
produce annual financial accounts.
Award in Education and Teaching (formerly known as the PTLLS qualification)
We are offering our residents who are volunteering to provide services for other residents
such as IT training or helping with youth activities, the opportunity to gain an accredited
qualification for their volunteering. PTLLS is a nationally recognised training qualification
and is being offered through our training partner High Trees Community Development
Trust. We would expect residents undertaking this qualification to agree to volunteer their
services for a fixed time in return.
DIY Skills workshop
We want to pilot a DIY workshop which involves a joint approach between the contractors
– Bryers, Mears and Keepmoat. This is a basic introduction to knowing how to turn your
stop cock off; how to change a fuse; how to replace a toilet seat; unblock a sink; and repair
a door handle.
27
Page 34
Appendix 2
If there is sufficient interest we plan to run it early in 2015.
To register you interest please contact Ivor Picardo on 0207 926 3604 or at
[email protected]
Introduction to youth work (non accredited)
The course is designed for residents who are 16+ and are interested in working with young
people in a paid or volunteering capacity. People accessing this course will be have a
good grounding to be able to access an accredited Level 1 or Level 2 Youth Work or
Social Course. Residents will explore:
Issues that affect young people
The role of youth work in addressing these issues
The different youth work settings in which the work takes place
Develop an understanding of the legislation and policies which relate to working with
young people.
Explore safe working practices for youth work.
IT courses
We don’t provide IT training directly but our training partners. High Trees, do. Their
courses include a basic introduction to using a computer and surfing the internet. Other
courses include more advanced computer skills and internet shopping. For more
information contact High Trees on 020 8671 3132 or pop in and see them at 220 Upper
Tulse Hill, SW2.
A number of our community hubs have free internet access for residents. Please see our
digital hubs leaflet for more information.
Apprenticeships/work experience
If you are interested in an apprenticeship or work experience, we do have opportunities
through our contractors and within Lambeth Living itself periodically. One of our of
contractors, Mears, runs a Skills Academy to get people work ready for jobs in
construction. Please contact Pete Murphy, our Employability Project Officer, on 0207926
9311 or email [email protected] if you are interested..
For further information on any of these courses please contact the
Getting Involved team at Lambeth Living by emailing
[email protected] or telephoning
0207 926 3401.
28
Page 35
Appendix 3
Consultation Notification: Cressingham Gardens
Properties
affected
There are 75 Leasehold & 8 freehold properties affected and these
are: Bodley Manor Way, Crosby Walk, Hambridge Way, Hardel
Walk, Longford Walk, Ropers Walk, Scarlette Manor Way, Upgrove
Manor Way & Chandlers Way. (Cressingham Gardens Estate)
Scheme No
/Contractor
8076 CP-Central14/15
N/A
Date of mailout
6/11/14
Consultation dates Start date 6/11/14 & end date 8/12/14
Financial
implications
Average cost per property: N/A no cost as present
Total anticipated amount: As above
Scope of works
The work involves work to the building envelope, balconies,
walkways, boundary walls and paving
Consultation
meeting
date/venue
N/A
FAQs
Provided with the notice
Contact officer
Claudine Thompson & Newton Harvey
Major Works Co-ordinator, Home Ownership Services
Lambeth Living Ltd, 2nd Floor Hambrook House, Porden Road,
London, SW2 1RP
Tel: 0207 926 3741 & 0207 926 4102
Email: provided on the notice
29
Page 36
Appendix 3
CRESSINGHAM GARDENS “WEATHERTIGHT” PROJECT
FAQS:
1. What does “weather tight” work mean in the context of this project?
The scope of work included within this project has been labelled “weather tight” work as it is work
that is typically required to keep the properties free of wind and water penetration. The project
should not be confused with the Lambeth Housing Standard (LHS) which has its own criteria
(reasonably modern facilities etc.). The scope of this project is not to renew internal facilities such
as kitchens and bathrooms.
2. What is the extent of the work proposed?
The project is estate-wide and will primarily include the repair and/or renewal of: standing seam
roofs and associated detailing (including glazed panels, lead work and copings); asphalt coverings
to balconies, walkways and steps; rainwater goods; drainage runs; window/door frames; and
various masonry repairs to the brickwork and concrete elements of the structure, boundary walling
and paving.
3. How was the “weather tight” work identified?
Earlier this year, an independent firm of building consultants and architects, Hunters, undertook an
estate-wide survey of Cressingham Gardens and recoded all of the elements that required repair
and/or renewal to maintain a weather tight position going forward. In addition to the 100% external
survey, 60% of homes were inspected internally for consequential damage. The work was then
incorporated into a schedule of work that was priced to inform budget/funding requirements.
4. Is any of the work subject to premature component failure?
Cressingham Gardens is approximately 40 years old and many of the components have naturally
come to the end of their maintenance-free life. The day-to-day repairs service has endeavoured to
maintain the estate but the scale/scope of the necessary work has required a planned project of
this nature to secure a medium term weather tight position.
5. Why isn’t the work being incorporated into the day-to-day repairs service?
The day-to-day repairs service was set up to deliver small low-value repairs that can typically be
completed in a single visit. Most of the work required on this project falls outside the scope of the
day-to-day repairs service.
6. Is the work being funded from the day-to-day repairs budget?
No. The work is being separately funded and incorporates a large proportion of capital renewals –
which fall outside the scope of the day-to-day repairs service.
7. Does this project mean that the day-to-day repairs service will stop?
No. Our day-to-day repair commitments will continue in the usual demand-led way. However,
during and after the work phase, the project is likely to alleviate the need for many day-to-day
repairs that would have otherwise been required.
8. How will the project impact on current Regeneration consultation?
This project is about maintaining a weather tight position for the medium term. As such, this work
is required irrespective of future regeneration options that are currently being consulted on.
30
Page 37
Appendix 3
9. Who are you proposing to undertake the work?
The work will be undertaken by an LHS framework contractor and subject the same contract
conditions and service expectations.
10. How will the project be managed?
The day-to-day project management and contract administration will be undertaken by Hunters –
supported by the Central Area asset management team.
11. Who will be responsible for liaising with Residents?
The LHS contractor will have a resident liaison officer who will work with residents to ensure that
they are kept informed and know what to expect in terms of work and timescales. Officers from the
area office (Greenleaf Close) will also be working with residents throughout the process.
12. How will quality be assessed?
We are proposing to have a separate project-based clerk of works who will be responsible for
assessing quality/workmanship and signing off work.
13. When do you propose to start the work?
Allowing for consultation, statutory implications, resourcing and project mobilisation, we are aiming
to commence on site in February 2015.
14. How long will the works last?
The works have been scheduled to last 30 weeks. The contractor will be developing a construction
phase plan and programme ahead of starting on site.
15. Will residents have to move out of their homes during the works?
We anticipate that the vast majority of residents will be able to remain in their homes during the
works. Should there be any isolated incidents (substantial/prolonged rebuilding work and/or
vulnerability) where it is not feasible for residents to remain in their homes, we will work closely
with those residents to secure temporary accommodation.
31
Page 38
Appendix 4
Consultation Notification – Mechanical and Electrical
Works
NOTICE OF INTENTION (with Invitation for Nomination of Contractors)
Properties affected
Total leasehold properties affected by these Notices is – 1490
Rydal House
Duffell House
Turnmill House
Grover
House
Elam Close
Aston House
Leary
House
Spicer Close
Goldsborough House
Waylett House
Horle Walk
Bromstone House
Broadgates Court
Sanders House
Chardin House
Oakey Lane
Windsor Close
Hanway House
Helston
House
Hillside Gardens
Hallam House
Albertina
House
Redhill Court
Kingsgate House
Walter
House
Bowlands Road
Knowlton House
Wiltshire Road
Haselrigge Road
Red Lynch House
Cubitt Terrace
Felmersham Close
Stodmarsh House
Belmont Close
Agnes House
Whiteness House
Stonhouse
Street
Beatrice House
Woodchurch House
Clapham
Manor
Street
Clare House
Paulet Road
Cresset
Street
Diana House
Virginia Walk
Clapham Manor Court
Evelyn House
Cherry Laurel Walk
Hickmore Walk
Florence House
8-12 Herne Hill
Knowles Walk
Britannia Close
St Gothard Road
Chip Street
Clapham Crescent
Gannet Court
Ilsey
Court
Rigge Place
Bournevale Road
Welford
Court
Wrights Green
Albert Carr Gardens
Allington Court
Bedford Road
Champness Close
Fovant Court
Bonneville Gardens
Saxby Road
Amesbury Tower
Deauville Mansions
Lyham Road
Durrington Tower
Deauville Court
Conway House
Annesley
House
Dan Bryant House
Bowater Close
Alvanley
House
Glanville House
Loats Road
Brickworth
House
Jewell House
Sidford House
Cliffsend House
Olding House
Wedgwood House
Downbarton House
Quennel House
Trematon House
Durlock House
Weir House
Arne House
Garlinge
House
West House
Arrowsmith House
Lauderdale
House
Anfield Close
Baddeley House
Moira
House
Calstock House
Dunbow House
Macartney House
Liskeard House
Jameson House
Penelope House
Landulph House
Malmsey House
Sacketts House
Penmayne House
Mountain House
Seasalter
House
Kennedy House
Newburn House
Gordon
Grove
Pella House
Sancroft House
Herne
Hill
House
Aveline Street
Sullivan House
Park View House
Braham House
Briant House
Fleet House
Dolland House
Brangton Road
Langbourne House
Simpson House
Coverley Point
Sharebourne
House
Vernon House
Darley House
32
Page 39
Appendix 4
Fairford House
Ebenezer House
Hurley House
Mead Row
Holst Court
Wynard House
Thomas House
Bedford House
Charles Barry Close
Ferrey Mews
Leys Court
Peckford Place
Langport House
Newbury House
Holles House
Fairfax House
Warwick House
Arlington Lodge
Ireton House
Boatemah Walk
Fiveways Road
Clowes House
Damorie House
Gye House
Morris House
Storace House
Stuart House
Sedley House
Overton Road
Scheme No
/Contractor
NOI_M&E_1415
No contractors yet appointed. Notice of Intention sent out with invitation
for Nomination.
Date of mailout
28 November 2014
Consultation dates
28 November 2014 to 2 January 2015
Financial
implications
Average cost per property: not yet known
Total anticipated amount: not yet known.
Scope of works
These notices were sent informing leaseholders of the intended works to
their properties. This being Heating works, Water Tanks Works, Lift works,
Smoke Ventillation works, Landlords Electrical works. Some leaseholders
have 1 notice (for 1 work stream), 2 Notices (for 2 work streams) and 3
Notices (for 3 work streams).
Consultation
meeting
date/venue
Not yet known/decided – this is an early stage.
FAQs
See attached for various workstreams
Contact officer
Major Works Co-ordinators of all three areas.
Home Ownership Services
Lambeth Living Ltd, 2nd Floor Hambrook House, Porden Road, London,
SW2 1RP
[email protected] – observations to the Notice should
be sent to this inbox in writing or by letter to Hambrook House. Any
phonecalls will not be accepted as formal observation.
33
Page 40
Appendix 4
28 November 2014
Leaseholders name
OR The Leaseholder(s)
Address
postcode
Our ref: property reference
Your ref: Central_1415NOI_M&E_DES
Notice of Intention to carry out qualifying works
Dear leaseholder name
As part of our ongoing commitment to improve leaseholder satisfaction we are, as promised,
tendering for the Mechanical and Electrical works to find a better deal for our residents. This was
one of the recommendations in the Report of the Joint Task and Finish Group, which was adopted
by Lambeth Council's Cabinet in July, and which has formed the basis of an action plan we are
working closely with Leaseholders' Council on.
A Notice of Intention (NOI) is attached with this letter for the work stream(s) that your property
may be affected by in future works undertaken through the Lambeth Housing Standard. We
have given a description of the works and you are invited to nominate someone from whom we
should try to obtain an estimate for the works.
We will write to you again in the next few months giving you more details about the cost of the
works and you will have another opportunity to send in your further observations at a later date.
Yours sincerely
K Muldoon
Karen Muldoon
Head of the Chief Executive's Office and
Consultations Leasehold Manager
Lambeth Living
Phone: 020 7926 3715
Email: [email protected]
1st Floor Hambrook House
Porden Road
London SW2 5RW
34
Page 41
Appendix 4
28 November 2014
Leaseholder name
OR The Leaseholder(s)
Address
postcode
Our ref: property reference
Your ref: Central_1415NOI_M&E_DES
Notice of Intention to carry out qualifying works
Section 20 of the Landlord &Tenant Act 1985 (as amended by section 151 of the
Commonhold & Leasehold Reform Act 2002) and Schedule 4(2) (Regulation 7(4) of the
Service Charges (Consultation Requirements) Regulations 2003)
The work involves:
Present door entry system will be replaced with new installation.
at PROPERTY ADDRESS
Project: WORKS – AREA
Dear leaseholders name
I am writing to tell you that Lambeth Living acting on behalf of your landlord, the London Borough of
Lambeth, intends to carry out qualifying works in respect of which we are required to consult
lessees.
Schedule 4 part 2 of the Regulations requires says that this Notice must:
a) Describe the works.
b) Say why the works are necessary.
c) Invite you to send us written observations on the proposed works and advise you of the
address where you should send observations within 30 days.
You are also invited to nominate someone from whom we should try to obtain an estimate for
the works.
Please note that this is not a bill, it is a legal notice. You should keep these documents in a
safe place. If you sell your home they should be given to your solicitor.
35
Page 42
Appendix 4
(a) Description of proposed qualifying works
In outline the elements of this work are as follows:
WORKS DESCRIPTION
(b) Reasons for carrying out qualifying works
We consider it necessary to carry out the work because: REASON FOR WORK
(c) How to make observations on these works
You are invited to make observations in writing in relation to the proposed works. Please send
them to Hina Pawar at 2nd Floor, Hambrook House, Porden Road, SW2 5RW within 30 days. This
is the relevant period specified in the regulations and will end on 2 January 2015.
Review of description of specifications
The description of proposed works will be available for inspection during normal working hours
which are 9am to 5pm Monday to Friday (excluding Bank Holidays).
If you want to see the documents, please call me to make an appointment on my direct line below.
Proposing a Contractor
You are invited to propose the name of a person from whom we should try to obtain an estimate
in respect of the matters described above. Your nomination must be made in writing and
delivered to the address below by the 2 Januray 2015.
Nominations should be sent to
Hina Pawar at 2nd Floor, Hambrook House, Porden Road, SW2 5RW.
Yours sincerely
HPawar
Hina Pawar
Major Works Co-ordinator
Direct Line: 020 7926 3411
Email: [email protected]
36
Page 43
Appendix 4
APPENDIX A
28 November 2014
Leaseholders name
OR The Leaseholder(s)
Address
postcode
Our ref: property reference
Your ref: Central_1415NOI_M&E_DES
CONTRACTOR NOMINATION FORM
DOOR ENTRY SYSTEMS - CENTRAL AREA, LAMBETH
The work involves: WORKS DESCRIPTION
At: PROPERTY ADDRESS
I would like to nominate the following contractor for the proposed area of works:
NAME OF CONTRACTOR
ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR
CONTACT DETAILS
EMAIL
TELEPHONE NUMBER
37
Page 44
Appendix 4
DOOR ENTRY & CCTV
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
1. Why does the door entry system need to be changed? Why does it cost so much more
than a ‘normal’ home?
Over time door entry equipment becomes obsolete and difficult for us to maintain as it becomes
more costly to get replacement parts for systems which are not made any more.
When this happens we upgrade the system, as it saves both us, and residents, money in the long
term. We will also replace the main entrance doors, if needed or if we can we will refurbish the
existing door.
When we install new doors they will meet current requirements for access (for example they may
be wider to accommodate wheelchairs) and security. We install “bespoke” doors which are built
specially for each individual entrance and exit. Door locks are magnetic with the hinge “Head to
Toe” (from top to bottom) of the door. The locks are very strong and so improve security, having a
holding strength of 600lbs per lock (of which there are two).
The cost covers the replacement/refurbishment of the doors, installation of suitable locks (and
provision of keys/tokens) to ensure residents’ security, and the installation costs of any door entry
systems (such as video phones etc).
2. Why does it cost so much for new videophones/entry phones and call panels?
Before we do any work with videophones and/or entry phones we will survey the hand set in your
home to see whether it is compatible with the new system. If it is we will adjust any costs.
Due to advances in technology older access control systems are becoming obsolete or costly to
maintain and need to be replaced. In most cases it makes more sense to upgrade the system than
spend a lot more money maintaining an old system.
3. When will the work start and how long will it last?
The estimated start on site date is February 2015. We will provide a more comprehensive
programme nearer this time, and residents will be regularly updated. We will keep you informed by
delivering letters and newsletters and, where possible, displaying notices around the estate and/or
blocks.
4. Will there be much disruption?
We will work with our contractors to minimise any disruption. Parts of the door entry system may
not work for periods of time during the work but we will always let you know in advance when this
will happen by putting notices through your doors and around the estate and/or blocks.
If we need to come into your homes to do any work the contractor’s Resident Liaison Officer will
work with you to try and find a convenient time to do this work.
5. Have you conducted any independent surveys?
Our Technical Services Team at Lambeth Living employs engineers who assess what work is
needed, which is also supported by feasibility studies. We can provide maintenance logs and
photos which will help put the scope and context of the work in perspective.
6. Why hasn’t this work been tendered and why can’t I appoint my own contractor?
We are proposing to tender this work, and leaseholders will have an opportunity to nominate their
own contractor. Although residents can’t appoint a contractor, you can nominate a contractor
during the 30 day consultation period after you receive the first Notice (i.e. the ‘Notice of Intention’
38
Page 45
Appendix 4
stage). Providing the nominated contractor complies with all the necessary requirements, they will
be considered.
7. Can the Existing Framework Contractors put in a tender for the works?
We have told our Technical Services contractors about the proposed tendering procedures. When
tendering a workstream, the main mechanical and electrical contractors will be invited to submit a
tender together with a similar contractor chosen from Lambeth approved contractors to act as a
benchmark costing. In addition, any suitable contractor suggested by the leaseholders during the
“Notice of Intention” period will also be invited to submit a price.
8. Why do tenders include payments to the contractor for overheads and profit?
Overheads and profit will be included in any tender the contractor completes. Contractors tender
against a schedule of rates, which is composed of costs plus an agreed overhead and profit.
9. Why do tenders include payments for professional fees?
Professional fees are payments to specialist Technical Consultants who carry out the design and
contract administration of the work. They also act as CDM-C (Construction, Design and
Management Co-ordinator) which is a health and safety function we are legally required to provide
by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE).
10. Why do we need to have site storage and welfare facilities?
We will always try to keep costs down. We have to have storage for equipment and material
needed by our contractors. Legally we also have to provide welfare facilities and toilets on each
site. When we are undertaking a co-ordinated programme of works we will save money by
avoiding any duplication of these facilities.
11. Why do I have to pay against an estimated figure?
We are legally required to send invoices based on an estimated cost. Residents can pay against
this estimate which will be reconciled at the ‘Final Account’. Final Account is the actual cost
provided after the 12 month defects liability period (DLP) ends.
12. What do I do if I can’t afford the work?
Home Ownership Services (HOS) offer various payment options to suit the individual needs of our
customers. For further details please contact HOS via our call centre number
0207 926 6000 or email the team [email protected]
39
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 47
Agenda item
Purpose
Meeting
Date
Presented by
Agenda Item 4
London Borough of Lambeth
update
Information and discussion
Leaseholder Council
Thursday 29 January 2015
1.0
Decent Homes Backlog Funding (verbal update)
2.0
Estate Regeneration Principles
2.1
Background
2.2
In September a group was established to develop a set of principles for regeneration on Lambeth’s
housing estates. The group has been chaired by Cllr Jane Pickard, deputy cabinet member for
housing, Jennie Thomas (Chair TC), Glen Hellen (Vice Chair TC), Mark Johnson (Chair LC), officers
from Lambeth Council in housing delivery and commissioning and a resident board member and
leaseholder from Stockwell Park. Stockwell Park was transferred from Lambeth Council to a housing
association and is in the middle of a regeneration programme.
2.3
The principles cover how we will work with residents to coproduce options for their estates and then
the respective ‘offers’ which will be made to tenants and homeowners.
2.4
The group met several times to produce a set of principles which was then discussed as a workshop at
the October housing conference, the November Leasehold Council and provided to cabinet as a draft
on 8 December. Leaseholders were asked to pass on any further comments at the November meeting
but none were received. The current draft is set out below; delegates are invited to provide further
comments. Following consultation at Tenants Council (15 January) and Leasehold Council (29
January) the intention is to adopt the principles as council policy.
2.5
The principles document is kept short intentionally and provides both an initial guide to residents
whose estates are in the programme and a framework for more detailed agreements which will be
developed on an estate by estate basis. Below follows a more detailed explanation of some of the
questions and concerns raised during the consultation process which will be of relevance to
leaseholders.
2.6
Can we see a guarantee of an equivalent actual size and standard of build?
2.7
Properties will not necessarily be exact replacements in terms of square footage, outside space or
views and any difference will be reflected in the property valuations. Lambeth has appointed a
consultant to work with residents on developing a design brief that will cover the standards for the new
homes. The brief will cover areas including internal space, ventilation, insulation etc. The new homes
will be of a high standard and meet the standards as set out in the Mayor’s London Housing Design
Guide.
2.8
The principles should be explicit about the homeloss and all other payments
2.9
The payments are set by central government as part of the Compulsory Purchase Order guidance and
change from time to time.. The details are omitted from the principles paper in order for it to remain a
concise high level document. The current situation is that for resident homeowners, who have been
living at the property for at least 12 months, the homeloss payment is 10% of the market value up to a
maximum of £49,000. Disturbance payments are paid on top of homeloss and are to cover
reasonable costs associated with the move to the new home. These could include conveyancing
costs, stamp duty, removal costs, lifting and refitting carpets, disconnecting and connecting appliances
and post re-direction. Non resident homeowners are entitled to 7.5% as a homeloss payment up to a
maximum of £75,000. Full details will be provided in the Decant Policy.
Page 48
2.10
Homeowners need a better deal so they can afford stay on the estate
The difficulty facing leaseholders is the increased value in the new properties which can leave an
equity gap, as in the diagram underneath.Lambeth is offering the statutory payments in line with
government guidance. In addition to the statutory minimum we also offer options for residents who are
unable to afford to buy the new homes in their entirety and wish to remain on the estate.
Shared Equity
Shared Ownership
Lease swap with other
property not scheduled
for demolition
The option of buying a proportion of the value of the property
and the homeowner purchases the rest. Rent is not paid on the
proportion of property owned by the Council. The Council
claims its portion of the value of the property when it is sold.
This option should be available to most home owners although
may be more difficult for those unable to obtain a mortgage or
who have bought recently or re-mortgaged to release equity.
The table below shows a worked example of how this might
work.
The purchase of a share of the property and payment of rent to
the council for the remainder.
Lease swapping with another property on the estate not
scheduled for demolition may be available in limited numbers.
Existing
value
Value plus
10%
Homeloss
New build
value
Difference
Homeowner
equity
Council
equity
£325,000
£357,500
£425,000
£67,500
84%
16%
Table 1 - An example of equity sharing
2.11
The exact details of what can be offered, in terms of the minimum percentages available for shared
ownership / share equity may vary from scheme to scheme. It is not possible to repeat the offer made
to leaseholders at Myatt’s Field North as this was a Private Finance Initiative with the benefit of
substantial subsidy which is not available for new estate regeneration projects. The better the offer
made to leaseholders the less money available to build new homes at affordable rents and an impact
on the financial viability of developments.
2.12
Leaseholders are being forced out of London
We do not think that this should ever be the case. For homeowners that are unable to stay on the
estate or choose to move away there is a good supply of other housing at comparable prices that are
available to buy.
2.13
2.14
Using a central Lambeth estate as an example, an indicative market valuation has been carried out as
in the table below. Taking 2 beds as an example, in November 2014 there were 74 2 bedroom
properties for sale within a 1 mile radius of the estate through Rightmove for £350k (asking price) or
less. With the radius expanded to 3 miles, there are almost 600 properties to choose from, including
124 with gardens.
Type
Flat
Flat
Flat
Flat
House
Beds
0
1
2
3
4
Value
£175,000
£250,000
£325,000
£350,000
£500,000
+10%
Homeloss
£192,500
£275,000
£357,500
£385,000
£550,000
Table 2 - Average indicative values
Page 49
2.15
The council should provide options for those unable to attain a mortgage
Most homeowners, if unable to pay for the full purchase price will be able to enter into a shared equity
arrangement. Some homeowners, particularly those who are not in work, may find it very difficult to
secure the new mortgage required to enter into this arrangement. For some people in this situation it
may be possible to invest the equity from the buy back of the property + 10% homeloss and rent the
remainder from the council in a shared ownership arrangement. Housing benefit is available for the
rental element in the same way as for fully rented tenancies.
2.16
The council is not set up to be a lender and offer mortgages. To do so would be expensive and likely
to require setting up a new team to administer, the on costs of this service would need to be fully
recovered from the users as the Council is not in a position to fund. There is also a financial risk
associated with becoming a ‘lender of last resort’.
Homeowners with shared equity / shared ownership should only pay for their relevant proportion of
repair costs
Major works and planned maintenance costs are charged in accordance with the lease. For shared
equity and shared ownership, all internal repairs and decoration are the responsibility of the
homeowner. Homeowners pay a proportion of major works bills inline with the proportion they own.
2.17
Could people be offered leaseholder swaps with council properties on other estates
2.18
No, although it should be noted that there is a large supply of properties for sale (including ex-local
authority homes) on the open market. Swaps to other estates would be costly to administer and in
terms of increased void times.
All legal costs should be included (at the point when plans are announced on the estate) so that
leaseholders can get the appropriate legal advice at the beginning of the process
2.19
The principles include a commitment to provide specialist independent advice, but are not intended to
go beyond this.
Will the council consider triangulating estate regeneration projects to academic studies to understand
the impact on communities?
2.20
Impacts are being considered (for instance a SLAM wellbeing report is being commissioned on
Cressingham Gardens), however, this does not require a specific commitment in the principles
There should be an estate vote
2.21
No, while we are keen to work closely with residents ultimately this is a decision which will be taken by
the Council.
Prospective homeowners should be made aware at the point of putting in a RTB, or during searches
when purchasing from a homeowner, of the possibility of estate regeneration
Options have been considered and it has been decided that the best time to do this is after a formal
decision has been taken by cabinet. There is a balance to be reached. Doing so at an earlier stage
could cause difficulties for existing homeowners trying to sell their properties or put off tenants from
exercising RTB without a reasonable degree of certainty that schemes will be progressed.
2.22
Draft Principles for Estate Regeneration
Lambeth Council is committed to making sure that all council tenants and homeowners live in good
quality homes. For the majority this can be achieved through the Lambeth Housing Standard (LHS).
Page 50
For some estates, particularly those with poor design or construction the LHS may not be enough.
Regeneration can mean redevelopment, refurbishment or a mixture of both.
Estate regeneration can be an opportunity to address social issues and provide much needed
additional homes at a council rent as well as improving the quality of housing.
Inevitably estate regeneration is going to make residents feel anxious about what might happen to
their homes and communities. We will be open and honest about the advantages and disadvantages
regeneration can present.
Lambeth is a cooperative council – this means we do things with you, working together. This document
provides a set of principles – a guarantee of what you can expect. It sets the basis for more detailed
agreements on individual estates.
COPRODUCTION
The Council will give all local residents the opportunity to coproduce options for the future of their
homes and the estate by:
 Agreeing a vision for the future of the estate & being clear about what is and isn’t possible
 Listening to what local people think about the place, their homes and sharing information about
the condition of their estates
 Enabling local people to take part in the project at the level they choose
 Establishing a project team to ensure that all residents are fairly represented and have the
opportunity to get involved
 Providing clear and open information to all residents throughout the process including
information packs and manuals
 Where appropriate, information will be translated or made available in other accessible formats
 Providing access to specialist independent advice and offer guidance so that residents can
make informed decisions, including visits to other schemes
 We will review schemes at the end and during delivery to learn where improvements can be
made
 We will discuss and agree essential ‘meanwhile’ works
 We will be clear about the timescales involved. Regeneration is not a quick process.
 The Council will ensure that the commitments of the Regeneration Principles are reflected in
the final scheme
 There will be a council officer to liaise between residents and the contractor
 Council officers will work with residents in line with Lambeth’s Cooperative Council ethos and
ways of working
 Consultation with residents will begin once there has been a recommendation from the Cabinet
Member for Housing to consider regeneration on the estate
 Residents will be encouraged to take an active role in the monitoring of quality and progress
both of building works and service provision including resident liaison, programme of moving
home, quality of works/build
 The Council will keep continuity of staff where possible
THE TENANT OFFER
 Secure tenants who have to move because of a regeneration scheme will be offered a new tenancy
of a lifetime home charged at Lambeth Council rents on the estate they live unless they choose a
secure tenancy elsewhere. Council rents are based on government guidelines.
 The new/alternative home will meet tenants’ housing need according to Council policy
 The Council will pay the statutory home loss payment, currently £4,900 (December 2014) plus
reasonable costs of removal and disturbance.
 The Council will provide help with rehousing to all affected households during the process
 Tenants who do not choose their own property through Choice Based Lettings within a defined
period will be made two reasonable direct offers
Page 51
 The Council will provide extra assistance for vulnerable residents
 The Council will make every effort to ensure that people only have to move once by phasing
developments so that some new homes are built before existing homes are demolished
 A proportion of new homes will be made available to local residents on the estate in housing need
THE HOMEOWNER OFFER
 To help keep communities together, we will seek to offer options to homeowners whose properties
are to be demolished, such as a lease swap to a remaining property on the estate where possible
or a new home on the redevelopment, purchase of a new home outright, through shared ownership
or an equity share. Some of these options will be dependent on leaseholders being able to obtain a
mortgage.
 The exact package will be worked out on an estate by estate basis; leaseholders will be offered
tailored financial advice
 We will seek to negotiate the purchase of freehold and leasehold properties planned for demolition,
only using a Compulsory Purchase Order where necessary
 We will cover reasonable costs for homeowners to instruct their own surveyor if they disagree with
the Council’s valuation of their home
 Homeowners will be entitled to Home Loss and disturbance as set down in the Compulsory
Purchase Order guidance so that homeowners do not suffer financial loss
 Where homeowners have properties in blocks to be retained and works are proposed, the Council
will carry out formal Section 20 consultation as well as the informal consultation outlined above.
Flexible payment options will be offered in accordance with Council policy
OTHER RELEVANT DOCUMENTS
This set of principles provides the basis for specific estate-based agreements for both tenants and
homeowners which will link to resident engagement and decant plans to be co-produced with
residents.
3.0
Myatts Field – Number remaining on estate
3.1
On Myatt’s Field North of approximately 200 tenants to be decanted, about a quarter have moved
offsite, mainly through their own choice. As a result, we expect that only few of these will exercise
their right to return, resulting in a net outflow of tenants from the estate of approx. 40 households,
about 20%. These numbers are still only approximate, as the decant programme is still in progress.
3.2
For the leaseholders, the numbers are actually strikingly similar, with 12 out of 58 (20.6%) accepting a
buyout to date.
4.0
Future of Housing Management
4.1
The Council are recruiting for a Delivery Director for Housing Management – a permanent role that will
involve overseeing the transition of services and heading up housing within the Council once
reintegration is complete. It is expected this director will be in post by May 2015.
4.2
4.3
For
info
A Project Board is being set up with tenant and leaseholder representatives to oversee the transition
and help shape the future of the housing service.
Consultation with residents on the Future of Housing Management within the council has started.
Councillor Bennett attended the December area forums and will be attending those in February. A
survey will also go out to all residents in February.
a) STAR Survey Summary
b) STAR Report
Page 52
Page 53
STAR Survey Summary
M·E·L Research was commissioned to undertake a Survey of Tenants and Residents
(STAR) for Lambeth Living and Lambeth TMOs, on behalf of Lambeth Council. The method
of approach consisted of selecting a random, stratified sample frame of 5,670 Lambeth
Living residents, and a census of 4,513 Lambeth TMO residents. This approach was
designed to produce a sample of responses of sufficient size to allow robust analysis of the
results by tenure (i.e. tenant or leaseholder) and for the combined TMO stock. A mailing of
the questionnaire to the selected sample of residents was sent, followed by a postcard
reminder two weeks later; this was followed by a further full mailing of the questionnaire to
non-respondents after a further two weeks. Sampled tenants were also given a website
address to complete the survey online. Due to the lower than expected response rates
telephone booster surveys were then undertaken. The achieved number of responses was
2,896.
Key results from the survey, for the 7 core questions, are as follows:

Overall, taking everything into account 56% of residents are satisfied with the service
provided by their service provider. 67% of general needs tenants are satisfied
compared to 86% of sheltered and 28% of leaseholders. TMO residents (71%) are
considerably more likely to be satisfied with the overall service provided than
Lambeth Living residents (54%).

Overall, 65% of residents are satisfied with the quality of their home. 66% of general
needs tenants are satisfied compared to 86% of sheltered and 61% of leaseholders.
TMO residents (71%) are more likely to be satisfied with the quality of home than
Lambeth Living residents (64%).

Overall, 78% of residents are satisfied with their neighbourhood as a place to live.
80% of general needs tenants are satisfied compared to 91% of sheltered and 71%
of leaseholders. There is no difference in overall satisfaction with the neighbourhood
as a place to live when comparing results between Lambeth Living residents (78%)
and Lambeth TMO residents (78%).

Overall, 68% of tenants are satisfied that their rent provides value for money. 67% of
general needs tenants are satisfied compared to 88% of sheltered. There is no
difference in overall satisfaction that rent provides value for money when comparing
results between Lambeth Living residents (68%) and Lambeth TMO residents (68%).

Overall, 41% of residents are satisfied that their service charge provides value for
money. 52% of general needs tenants are satisfied compared to 78% of sheltered
and just 18% of leaseholders. TMO residents (48%) are more likely to be satisfied
with the value for money service charge provides than Lambeth Living residents
(40%).

Overall, 47% of residents are satisfied with repairs and maintenance. 56% of general
needs tenants are satisfied compared to 81% of sheltered and just 21% of
leaseholders. Satisfaction levels increase to 61% for TMO residents. However,
general satisfaction is still low, at 44%, for Lambeth Living residents.

Overall, 42% of residents are satisfied that their service provider listens to their views
and acts upon them. 50% of general needs tenants are satisfied compared to 73% of
sheltered but just 19% of leaseholders. TMO residents are more likely (57%) to be
satisfied that their service provider listens to their views and acts upon them, than
Lambeth Living residents (39%).
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 55
LAMBETH STAR SURVEY 2014
RESEARCH
M·E·L
Lambeth Survey of
Tenants and
Residents
FINDINGS REPORT
November 2014
MEASUREMENT  EVALUATION  LEARNING: USING EVIDENCE TO SHAPE BETTER services
Page 56
LAMBETH STAR SURVEY 2014
M·E·L RESEARCH
Contents Page
Summary .................................................................................................................................... 1
Project details and acknowledgements ................................................................................. 5
1)
Introduction ................................................................................................................... 6
2)
Core questions.............................................................................................................. 8
3)
Benchmarking and historical trends........................................................................ 36
4)
Key Drivers analysis .................................................................................................. 38
5)
General services ......................................................................................................... 43
6)
Service priorities......................................................................................................... 59
7)
Advice and support .................................................................................................... 61
8)
Contact and communication ..................................................................................... 65
9)
Neighbourhood ........................................................................................................... 68
10)
Repairs ......................................................................................................................... 70
11)
Anti-social behaviour ................................................................................................. 72
12)
Complaints .................................................................................................................. 74
13)
Estate Services ........................................................................................................... 75
14)
Leaseholders............................................................................................................... 78
Appendices .............................................................................................................................. 81
Appendix 1 – Sample composition ....................................................................................... 82
Appendix 2 - Tenants questionnaire..................................................................................... 83
Appendix 3 – Leaseholder questionnaires .......................................................................... 99
Measurement  Evaluation  Learning: Using evidence to shape better services
Page 57
LAMBETH STAR SURVEY 2014
M·E·L RESEARCH
Summary
M·E·L Research was commissioned to undertake a Survey of Tenants and Residents (STAR) for
Lambeth Living and Lambeth TMOs, on behalf of Lambeth Council. The method of approach consisted of
selecting a random, stratified sample frame of 5,670 Lambeth Living residents, and a census of 4,513
Lambeth TMO residents. This approach was designed to produce a sample of responses of sufficient size
to allow robust analysis of the results by tenure (i.e. tenant or leaseholder) and for the combined TMO
stock. A mailing of the questionnaire to the selected sample of residents was sent, followed by a postcard
reminder two weeks later; this was followed by a further full mailing of the questionnaire to nonrespondents after a further two weeks. Sampled tenants were also given a website address to complete
the survey online. Due to the lower than expected response rates telephone booster surveys were then
undertaken. The achieved number of responses was 2,896.
Key results from the survey, for the 7 core questions, are as follows:

Overall, taking everything into account 56% of residents are satisfied with the service provided by their
service provider. 67% of general needs tenants are satisfied compared to 86% of sheltered and 28%
of leaseholders. TMO residents (71%) are considerably more likely to be satisfied with the overall
service provided than Lambeth Living residents (54%).

Overall, 65% of residents are satisfied with the quality of their home. 66% of general needs tenants
are satisfied compared to 86% of sheltered and 61% of leaseholders. TMO residents (71%) are more
likely to be satisfied with the quality of home than Lambeth Living residents (64%).

Overall, 78% of residents are satisfied with their neighbourhood as a place to live. 80% of general
needs tenants are satisfied compared to 91% of sheltered and 71% of leaseholders. There is no
difference in overall satisfaction with the neighbourhood as a place to live when comparing results
between Lambeth Living residents (78%) and Lambeth TMO residents (78%).

Overall, 68% of tenants are satisfied that their rent provides value for money. 67% of general needs
tenants are satisfied compared to 88% of sheltered. There is no difference in overall satisfaction that
rent provides value for money when comparing results between Lambeth Living residents (68%) and
Lambeth TMO residents (68%).

Overall, 41% of residents are satisfied that their service charge provides value for money. 52% of
general needs tenants are satisfied compared to 78% of sheltered and just 18% of leaseholders. TMO
residents (48%) are more likely to be satisfied with the value for money service charge provides than
Lambeth Living residents (40%).

Overall, 47% of residents are satisfied with repairs and maintenance. 56% of general needs tenants
are satisfied compared to 81% of sheltered and just 21% of leaseholders. Satisfaction levels increase
to 61% for TMO residents. However, general satisfaction is still low, at 44%, for Lambeth Living
residents.

Overall, 42% of residents are satisfied that their service provider listens to their views and acts upon
them. 50% of general needs tenants are satisfied compared to 73% of sheltered but just 19% of
leaseholders. TMO residents are more likely (57%) to be satisfied that their service provider listens to
their views and acts upon them, than Lambeth Living residents (39%).
Measurement  Evaluation  Learning: Using evidence to shape better services
Page 58
LAMBETH STAR SURVEY 2014
M·E·L RESEARCH
Comparison is made below between the general needs results from this year’s STAR survey and previous
satisfaction surveys. This shows that there has been a significant increase in general needs tenants
satisfaction for the quality of home, and the value for money rent provides between 2013 and 2014. For all
other key indicators, although the changes in satisfaction are not significant, there is the indication that
there has been an increase in satisfaction on the previous year.
Historical trends (2008, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014) – General needs tenants only
Core questions
Overall satisfaction
2008
(STATUS)
55%
2011
2012
2013
2014
54%
64%
64%
67%
Quality of home
58%
55%
58%
60%
▲66%
Neighbourhood
64%
68%
75%
76%
80%
Value for money for rent
57%
57%
62%
61%
▲67%
-
-
47%
49%
52%
Repairs and maintenance
51%
56%
52%
54%
56%
Listens to views *
49%
48%
47%
47%
50%
Value for money for service charges
* Care should be taken with this comparison due to a change of wording between STATUS and STAR
▲ = statistically significant change at 95% confidence level
Measurement  Evaluation  Learning: Using evidence to shape better services
Page 59
LAMBETH STAR SURVEY 2014
M·E·L RESEARCH
Project details and acknowledgements
Title
Lambeth STAR Survey
Client
Lambeth Council
Project number
14112
Client contact
Barbara Grant
Author
Jack Harper
Contract Manager
Jack Harper
M·E·L Research
8 Holt Court
Aston Science Park
Birmingham B7 4AX
Tel: 0121 604 4664
Fax: 0121 604 6776
Email: [email protected]
Web: www.m-e-l.co.uk
MEASUREMENT  EVALUATION  LEARNING: USING EVIDENCE TO SHAPE BETTER SERVICES
5
Page 60
LAMBETH STAR SURVEY 2014
1)
M·E·L RESEARCH
Introduction
M·E·L Research was commissioned to undertake a Survey of Tenants and Residents (STAR) for Lambeth
Living and Lambeth TMOs, on behalf of Lambeth Council. The method of approach consisted of selecting a
random, stratified sample frame of 5,670 Lambeth Living residents, and a census of 4,513 Lambeth TMO
residents. This approach was designed to produce a sample of responses of sufficient size to allow robust
analysis of the results by tenure (i.e. tenant or leaseholder) and for the combined TMO stock.
Survey response
Fieldwork was undertaken during September to November 2014. A mailing of the questionnaire to the
selected sample of residents was sent, followed by a postcard reminder two weeks later; this was followed
by a further full mailing of the questionnaire to non-respondents after a further two weeks. Sampled tenants
were also given a website address to complete the survey online. Due to the lower than expected
response rates telephone booster surveys then undertaken. Table 1 presents a breakdown of the survey
responses and method of data collection.
Table 1 Stock totals, survey resonses and resultant confidence intervals
Organisation
Lambeth TMOs
Overall
Tenancy
Tenants
Mailout
size
3,130
Postal
responses
948
Online
responses
16
Response
rate
31%
Telephone
booster
49
Leaseholders
2,540
404
31
17%
125
Overall
5,670
1,352
47
25%
174
Tenants
3,337
1061
13
32%
Leaseholders
1,176
206
8
18%
0
35
Overall
4,513
1,267
21
29%
35
Tenants
6,467
2,009
29
32%
49
Leaseholders
3,716
610
39
17%
160
Overall
10,183
2,619
68
26%
209
Statistical reliability and reporting conventions
As Table 2 overleaf shows, the overall results in this report are accurate to ± 1.7 at the 95% confidence
level. This means that we can be 95% certain that the results are between ± 1.7% of the calculated
response, so the ‘true’ response could be 1.7% above or below the figures reported (i.e. a 50% agreement
rate could in reality lie within the range of 48.3% to 51.7%). The results for tenants are accurate to ± 2 at the
95% confidence level. The results for leaseholders are accurate to ± 3.3 at the 95% confidence level. Other
confidence interval levels are shown in the table.
.
Measurement  Evaluation  Learning: Using evidence to shape better services
6
Page 61
LAMBETH STAR SURVEY 2014
M·E·L RESEARCH
Table 2 Stock totals, survey resonses and resultant confidence intervals
Organisation
Lambeth TMOs
Tenure
Stock total
Response number
Confidence Interval
Tenants
20,129
1,013
± 3.00
Leaseholders
8,439
560
± 4.00
Overall
28,568
1,573
± 2.40
Tenants
3,337
1,074
± 2.50
Leaseholders
1,176
249
± 5.50
Overall
4,513
1,323
± 2.30
General needs
22,697
1,986
± 2.10
769
101
± 9.10
Tenants
23,466
2,087
± 2.00
Leaseholders
9,615
809
± 3.30
Overall
33,081
2,896
± 1.70
Sheltered
Overall
In line with HouseMark’s guidance, the survey results have been weighted to ensure that responses are
representative by tenancy, area, and organisation. This is also in line with the approach taken for the 2013
and 2012 STAR surveys.
In many cases the actual base size being reported is smaller than the overall response rate due to some
respondents not answering specific questions; the confidence interval will be higher for these questions.
We report decimal places rounded to the nearest whole number. If specific response options are then
totalled, this can result in slight rounding differences in the figures reported. Owing to the rounding of
numbers, percentages displayed visually on graphs may not always add up to 100%; this may also apply to
some of the percentages reported for ‘total satisfaction’. For example, 51.4% plus 44.2% equals 95.6%.
Rounded to the nearest whole number this total would be reported as 96%. But in the report this would be
shown as 51% plus 44% equalling 96%, giving the appearance that the reported total is incorrect.
Please note that care should be treated when comparing the results for Lambeth Living and Lambeth
TMO’s as they are not directly comparable organisations.
Measurement  Evaluation  Learning: Using evidence to shape better services
7
Page 62
LAMBETH STAR SURVEY 2014
2)
M·E·L RESEARCH
Core questions
This section presents findings on residents’ satisfaction with the services provided by Lambeth
Council.
Overall satisfaction with service provided
All respondents were asked how satisfied they are with the service provided by their service provider.
Taking everything into account, 56% of residents are satisfied with the service provided by their service
provider. Nearly one third (31%) express some degree of dissatisfaction.
The results for sheltered residents should be treated as indicative only due to a low base size for this group.
Nevertheless, the contrast between sheltered residents’ satisfaction levels and those of other groups is
marked; 86% are satisfied compared to 67% of general needs tenants and just 28% of leaseholders.
Figure 1 Overall satisfaction with the service provided by your service provider / tenure
Percentage of respondents
17%
21%
Very satisfied
Overall = 56%
46%
5%
39%
45%
40%
Fairly satisfied
23%
Neither
General needs = 67%
Sheltered = 86%
Leaseholders = 28%
13%
12%
4%
16%
Fairly
dissatisfied
15%
12%
6%
24%
16%
Very dissatisfied
10%
4%
32%
Overall
General Needs
Sheltered
Leaseholders
MEASUREMENT  EVALUATION  LEARNING: USING EVIDENCE TO SHAPE BETTER SERVICES
8
Page 63
LAMBETH STAR SURVEY 2014
M·E·L RESEARCH
By organisation
When analysing by organisation, at 71%, TMO residents are more likely to be satisfied with the overall
service provided than Lambeth Living residents (54%). Notably, on-third (33%) of Lambeth Living residents
express some degree of dissatisfaction with the overall service provided, in comparison to 18% of TMO
residents.
Figure 2 Overall satisfaction with the service provided / organisation
Percentage of respondents
15%
Very satisfied
54% of Lambeth
Living residents
are satisfied
compared to 71%
of TMO residents
30%
38%
41%
Fairly satisfied
13%
11%
Neither
16%
Fairly dissatisfied
9%
Lambeth Living
17%
Very dissatisfied
8%
Lambeth TMO
Lambeth Living – Overall satisfaction with the service provided
At 67%, general needs and sheltered tenants at Lambeth Living are considerably more likely to be satisfied
than leaseholders at Lambeth Living (24%) with the overall service provided. Notably, 60% of Lambeth
Living leaseholders express some degree of dissatisfaction.
Figure 3 Overall satisfaction with the service provided by Lambeth Living / tenure
Percentage of Lambeth Living respondents
Very satisfied
21%
Tenants = 67%
3%
46%
Fairly satisfied
Neither
Fairly dissatisfied
Very dissatisfied
Leaseholders = 24%
21%
12%
16%
12%
25%
General Needs & Sheltered
10%
35%
Leaseholders
Measurement  Evaluation  Learning: Using evidence to shape better services
9
Page 64
LAMBETH STAR SURVEY 2014
M·E·L RESEARCH
TMO’s – Overall satisfaction with the service provided
75% of general needs and sheltered tenants at the Tenant Management Organisation’s (TMOs) are
satisfied with the overall service provided in comparison to 60% of leaseholders at the TMOs.
Figure 4 Overall satisfaction with the service provided by TMO / tenure
Percentage of TMO respondents
34%
Very satisfied
19%
41%
41%
Fairly satisfied
Neither
Fairly
dissatisfied
Very dissatisfied
Tenants = 75%
Leaseholders = 60%
10%
15%
7%
16%
8%
9%
General Needs & Sheltered
Leaseholders
Measurement  Evaluation  Learning: Using evidence to shape better services
10
Page 65
LAMBETH STAR SURVEY 2014
M·E·L RESEARCH
Demographics
As Table 3 overleaf illustrates when analysing by sub-group it shows the following:

Residents living in an estate property are more likely to express satisfaction and less likely to indicate
dissatisfaction with the overall service provided than residents living in a street property.

There is a direct correlation between age and satisfaction levels with older residents expressing higher
levels of satisfaction; 43% of residents aged between 16 and 34 express satisfaction compared to 71%
of residents aged over 65.

Residents who have a health problem (64%) express higher levels of satisfaction than residents who
do not have a health problem (51%).

Residents who receive housing benefit (71%) are more likely to be satisfied with the overall service
provided than those residents who do not receive housing benefit (64%).

Black residents express the highest levels of satisfaction (65%) and the lowest levels of dissatisfaction
(23%) in comparison to residents from other ethnic groups.
Table 3 Overall satisfaction with service provided by your service provider / age, health, housing benefit,
ethnicity
Percentage of respondents
Sub-group
Property location
Age
Health problem
Receive housing benefit
Ethnic group
Satisfaction
Dissatisfaction
Estate
60%
28%
Street
41%
46%
16 to 34
43%
39%
35 to 44
47%
38%
45 to 54
54%
36%
55 to 64
58%
28%
65 or over
71%
20%
Yes
64%
23%
No
51%
36%
Yes
71%
17%
No
64%
27%
White
53%
34%
Black
65%
23%
Asian
57%
26%
Mixed*
54%
35%
Other*
56%
28%
Map 1 on the following page shows the proportion of residents that are satisfied with the service provided
mapped at Ward level. As this illustrates, the lowest overall satisfaction level is expressed by residents living
in Thornton. Whilst the highest levels of satisfaction levels are expressed by residents living in: Bishop’s,
Prince’s, Clapham Town, Brixton Hill, and Knight’s Hill.
Measurement  Evaluation  Learning: Using evidence to shape better services
11
Page 66
LAMBETH STAR SURVEY 2014
M·E·L RESEARCH
Map 1 Overall satisfaction with the service provided by your service provider – Mapped at Ward level
Bishop’s
Prince’s
Clapham Town
Brixton
Hill
Thornton
Knight’s
Hill
Measurement  Evaluation  Learning: Using evidence to shape better services
12
Page 67
LAMBETH STAR SURVEY 2014
M·E·L RESEARCH
Overall quality of the home
Around two-thirds of residents (65%) are satisfied with the quality of their home, whilst one out of four
residents (25%) indicates some degree of dissatisfaction.
At 86% satisfaction, sheltered residents are considerably more likely than their counterparts in general
needs accommodation (66%) and leaseholders (61%) to be satisfied with the overall quality of their home.
Notably 50% of sheltered residents state they are very satisfied with the quality of their home.
There is a large variation in satisfaction levels when comparing estate and street properties; 69% of
residents living in an estate property are satisfied with the
quality of their home compared to 49% of
residents living in a street property.
Figure 5 Satisfaction with quality of the home / tenure
Percentage of respondents
19%
19%
Very satisfied
Overall = 65%
50%
15%
General needs = 66%
46%
47%
Fairly satisfied
35%
46%
Neither
Sheltered = 86%
Leaseholders = 61%
10%
9%
3%
14%
Fairly
dissatisfied
Very dissatisfied
12%
13%
7%
12%
12%
13%
4%
13%
Estate properties = 69%
Street properties = 49%
Overall
General Needs
Sheltered
Leaseholders
As Figure 7 on the following page shows, when analysing by organisation, Lambeth TMO residents (71%)
give the indicate of expressing higher levels of satisfaction with the quality of their home than Lambeth
Living residents (64%).
Measurement  Evaluation  Learning: Using evidence to shape better services
13
Page 68
LAMBETH STAR SURVEY 2014
M·E·L RESEARCH
Figure 6 Satisfaction with quality of the home / organisation
Percentage of respondents
18%
Very satisfied
25%
46%
46%
Fairly satisfied
64% of Lambeth
Living residents
are satisfied
compared to
71% of TMO
10%
9%
Neither
Fairly dissatisfied
13%
11%
Very dissatisfied
13%
10%
Lambeth Living
Lambeth TMO
Lambeth Living – Satisfaction with quality of home
At 66%, Lambeth Living general needs and sheltered tenants are slightly more likely to be satisfied with the
overall quality of their home in comparison to Lambeth Living leaseholders (60%). Both tenancy types
express similar levels of dissatisfaction; 25% of Lambeth Living tenants are dissatisfied compared to 26% of
Lambeth Living Leaseholders.
Figure 7 Satisfaction with quality of the home / tenure
Percentage of Lambeth Living respondents
20%
Very satisfied
46%
46%
Fairly satisfied
Neither
Tenants = 66%
14%
Leaseholders = 60%
9%
14%
Fairly
dissatisfied
13%
13%
Very
dissatisfied
13%
13%
General Needs & Sheltered
Leaseholders
Measurement  Evaluation  Learning: Using evidence to shape better services
14
Page 69
LAMBETH STAR SURVEY 2014
M·E·L RESEARCH
TMO’s - Satisfaction with quality of home
There is limited difference in satisfaction levels for the quality of home expressed by Lambeth TMO tenants
and leaseholders.
Figure 8 Satisfaction with quality of the home / tenure
Percentage of TMO respondents
26%
Very satisfied
21%
Fairly
dissatisfied
Very dissatisfied
Leaseholders = 71%
44%
Fairly satisfied
Neither
Tenants = 71%
50%
8%
13%
11%
9%
10%
8%
General Needs & Sheltered
Leaseholders
Map 2 on the following page illustrates, residents in Thurlow Park are least likely to be satisfied with the
quality of their home, while residents living in Prince’s express the highest levels of satisfaction/
Measurement  Evaluation  Learning: Using evidence to shape better services
15
Page 70
LAMBETH STAR SURVEY 2014
M·E·L RESEARCH
Map 2 Satisfaction with quality of the home – Mapped at Ward level
Prince’s
Thurlow
Park
Measurement  Evaluation  Learning: Using evidence to shape better services
16
Page 71
LAMBETH STAR SURVEY 2014
M·E·L RESEARCH
Neighbourhood as a place to live
Overall, 78% of residents are satisfied with their neighbourhood as a place to live, with only 14% indicating
some degree of dissatisfaction.
At 80%, general needs tenants are less satisfied compared to sheltered residents (91%) however more
satisfied compared to leaseholders (71%). Notably, nearly two-thirds of sheltered tenants (59%) are very
satisfied with the neighbourhood as a place to live.
There is limited difference in satisfaction expressed by residents living in an estate (77%) or street (80%)
property.
Figure 9 Satisfaction with the neighbourhood as a place to live / tenure
Percentage of respondents
29%
31%
Very satisfied
Overall = 78%
59%
General needs = 80%
19%
49%
49%
Fairly satisfied
32%
52%
Neither
Sheltered = 91%
Leaseholders = 71%
9%
7%
5%
12%
Fairly
dissatisfied
9%
8%
2%
12%
5%
Very dissatisfied 5%
2%
5%
Estate properties = 77%
Street properties = 80%
Overall
General Needs
Sheltered
Leaseholders
As Figure 10 on the following page shows, there is no difference in overall satisfaction with the
neighbourhood as a place to live when comparing results between Lambeth Living residents and Lambeth
TMO residents.
Measurement  Evaluation  Learning: Using evidence to shape better services
17
Page 72
LAMBETH STAR SURVEY 2014
M·E·L RESEARCH
Figure 10 Satisfaction with the neighbourhood as a place to live / organisation
Percentage of respondents
29%
28%
Very satisfied
49%
49%
Fairly satisfied
Neither
9%
9%
Fairly dissatisfied
9%
8%
Very dissatisfied
5%
6%
78% of Lambeth
Living residents
are satisfied
compared to
78% of TMO
residents
Lambeth Living
Lambeth TMO
Lambeth Living – Satisfaction with neighbourhood as a place to live
80% of Lambeth Living general needs and sheltered tenants are satisfied with the neighbourhood as a
place to live compared 71% of Lambeth Living leaseholders.
Figure 11 Satisfaction with the neighbourhood as a place to live / tenure
Percentage of Lambeth Living respondents
33%
Very satisfied
48%
52%
Fairly satisfied
Neither
7%
12%
Fairly dissatisfied
8%
12%
Very dissatisfied
Tenants = 80%
19%
5%
5%
Leaseholders = 71%
General Needs & Sheltered
Leaseholders
Measurement  Evaluation  Learning: Using evidence to shape better services
18
Page 73
LAMBETH STAR SURVEY 2014
M·E·L RESEARCH
TMO’s – Satisfaction with neighbourhood as a place to live
There is little variation in satisfaction levels with the neighbourhood as a place to live for TMO general
needs and sheltered tenants (79%) and TMO leaseholders (73%).
Figure 12 Satisfaction with the neighbourhood as a place to live / tenure
Percentage of TMO respondents
31%
Very satisfied
20%
48%
53%
Fairly satisfied
Neither
9%
9%
Fairly dissatisfied
7%
10%
Very dissatisfied
Tenants = 79%
5%
7%
Leaseholders = 73%
General Needs & Sheltered
Leaseholders
Map 3 overleaf shows, residents living in: Oval, Tulse Hill, and Streatham South, indicate the lowest levels
of satisfaction with the neighbourhood as a place to live. Thurlow Park residents express the highest levels
of satisfaction with the neighbourhood as a place to live.
Measurement  Evaluation  Learning: Using evidence to shape better services
19
Page 74
LAMBETH STAR SURVEY 2014
M·E·L RESEARCH
Map 3 Satisfaction with the neighbourhood as a place to live – Mapped at Ward level
Oval
Tulse
Hill
Thurlow
Park
Streatham
South
Measurement  Evaluation  Learning: Using evidence to shape better services
20
Page 75
LAMBETH STAR SURVEY 2014
M·E·L RESEARCH
VfM for rent
Overall, 68% of tenants are satisfied that their rent provides value for money, with 28% stating they are very
satisfied. 18% of tenants are dissatisfied with the value for money rent provides.
Sheltered residents (88%) are considerably more likely than those living in general needs accommodation
(67%) to be satisfied with the value for money rent provides.
Tenants living in estate properties (70%) are more likely to be satisfied with the value for money of rent
compared to those living in street properties (60%).
Figure 13 Satisfaction with value for money for rent / organisation
Percentage of applicable respondents
28%
26%
Very satisfied
54%
Overall = 68%
General needs = 67%
40%
40%
Fairly satisfied
35%
14%
15%
Neither
2%
Fairly
dissatisfied
Very dissatisfied
Sheltered = 88%
10%
10%
5%
8%
8%
5%
Estate properties = 70%
Street properties = 60%
Overall
General Needs
Sheltered
When analysing the value for money that rent provides by organisation it shows there are very similar levels
of satisfaction for each organisation, with overall satisfaction levels expressed by both TMO and Lambeth
Living residents being the same (68%).
Measurement  Evaluation  Learning: Using evidence to shape better services
21
Page 76
LAMBETH STAR SURVEY 2014
M·E·L RESEARCH
Figure 14 Satisfaction with value for money for rent / organisation
Percentage of applicable respondents
28%
26%
Very satisfied
40%
42%
Fairly satisfied
14%
14%
Neither
Fairly dissatisfied
Very dissatisfied
68% of Lambeth
Living residents
are satisfied
compared to 68%
of TMO residents
10%
10%
8%
8%
Lambeth Living
Lambeth TMO
Map 4 overleaf presents satisfaction with value for money for rent mapped at Ward level. As this illustrates,
residents living: Stockwell, Clapham Town, St Leonard’s, Streatham Wells, and Knight’s Hill, express the
highest levels of satisfaction with the value for money rent provides. While residents living in Thornton and
Streatham South express the lowest levels of satisfaction.
Measurement  Evaluation  Learning: Using evidence to shape better services
22
Page 77
LAMBETH STAR SURVEY 2014
M·E·L RESEARCH
Map 4 Satisfaction with value for money for rent – Mapped at Ward level
Stockwell
Clapham
Town
Thornton
Streatham
Wells
St Leonard’s
Knight’s Hill
Streatham
South
Measurement  Evaluation  Learning: Using evidence to shape better services
23
Page 78
LAMBETH STAR SURVEY 2014
M·E·L RESEARCH
Service charges
Residents who pay a service charge were asked how satisfied or dissatisfied they are that their service
charges provide value for money. Only 41% of those residents who pay a service charge express that they
are satisfied that it provides value for money. Notably, a similar proportion of residents express
dissatisfaction (38%), than express satisfaction (41%), with nearly one out of four (23%) expressing that
they are very dissatisfied in the value for money their service charges provide.
Leaseholders are considerably less likely than their counterparts in general needs and sheltered
accommodation to be satisfied that their service charge provides value for money; 78% of sheltered tenants
are satisfied compared to 52% of general needs tenants and just 18% of leaseholders. Over two-thirds of
leaseholders (68%) express some degree of dissatisfaction with their service charge providing value for
money.
Residents living in an estate property (44%) are more likely to be satisfied than their counterparts living in a
street property (27%) that their service charge provides value for money.
Figure 15 Satisfaction with value for money of service charges / tenure
Percentage of applicable respondents
12%
15%
Very satisfied
Overall = 41%
41%
3%
General needs = 52%
30%
Sheltered = 78%
37%
37%
Fairly satisfied
Leaseholders = 18%
15%
21%
25%
Neither
11%
Estate properties = 44%
14%
Fairly
dissatisfied
Street properties = 27%
15%
12%
2%
22%
23%
Very dissatisfied
11%
9%
46%
Overall
General Needs
Sheltered
Leaseholders
Measurement  Evaluation  Learning: Using evidence to shape better services
24
Page 79
LAMBETH STAR SURVEY 2014
M·E·L RESEARCH
When analysing by organisation it indicates that Lambeth TMO residents (48%) are more likely express
satisfaction with the value for money service charges provide then Lambeth Living residents (40%). 39% of
Lambeth residents express dissatisfaction with the value for money service charges provide, compared to
33% of Lambeth TMO residents.
Figure 16 Satisfaction with value for money of service charges / organisation
Percentage of applicable respondents
11%
14%
Very satisfied
40% of Lambeth
Living residents
are satisfied
compared to 48%
of TMO residents
29%
Fairly satisfied
34%
21%
19%
Neither
16%
14%
Fairly dissatisfied
Lambeth Living
24%
Very dissatisfied
19%
Lambeth TMO
Lambeth Living – Satisfaction with value for money of service charge
Satisfaction levels vary considerably when comparing Lambeth Living results by tenure with; a very low
proportion (16%) of Lambeth Living leaseholders are satisfied with the value for money service charges
provide whilst 53% of Lambeth Living general needs and sheltered tenants express satisfaction. Notably,
nearly half (48%) of Lambeth Living leaseholders express that they are very dissatisfied.
Figure 17 Satisfaction with value for money of service charges / tenure
Percentage of applicable Lambeth Living respondents
Very satisfied
Fairly satisfied
Neither
Fairly dissatisfied
16%
Tenants = 53%
3%
38%
Leaseholders = 16%
13%
25%
14%
12%
23%
General Needs & Sheltered
Leaseholders
Very dissatisfied
10%
48%
Measurement  Evaluation  Learning: Using evidence to shape better services
25
Page 80
LAMBETH STAR SURVEY 2014
M·E·L RESEARCH
TMO’s – Satisfaction with value for money of service charge
Just over half (55%) of TMO general needs and sheltered tenants are satisfied that their service charges
provide value for money, while around one-third of TMO leaseholders (32%) are satisfied. 50% of TMO
leaseholders indicate some degree of dissatisfaction with the value for money service charges provide.
Figure 18 Satisfaction with value for money of service charges / tenure
Percentage of applicable TMO respondents
Very satisfied
18%
Tenants = 55%
6%
37%
Fairly satisfied
26%
20%
17%
Neither
Fairly dissatisfied
Leaseholders = 32%
13%
16%
General Needs & Sheltered
Very dissatisfied
11%
35%
Leaseholders
Map 5 overleaf shows satisfaction with value for money provided by service charges mapped at Ward level.
As this illustrates, residents in: Bishop’s, Prince’s, Stockwell, St Leonard’s, and Knight’s Hill, express the
highest levels of satisfaction. Whilst residents living in Streatham South express the lowest.
Measurement  Evaluation  Learning: Using evidence to shape better services
26
Page 81
LAMBETH STAR SURVEY 2014
M·E·L RESEARCH
Map 5 Satisfaction with value of service charge – Mapped at Ward level
Bishop’s
Prince’s
Stockwell
St Leonard’s
Knight’s Hill
Streatham
South
Measurement  Evaluation  Learning: Using evidence to shape better services
27
Page 82
LAMBETH STAR SURVEY 2014
M·E·L RESEARCH
Repairs and maintenance
All respondents were asked how satisfied they are with the way their service provider deals with repairs and
maintenance. Overall only 47% of residents are satisfied with how repairs and maintenance are dealt with.
A similar proportion (42%) express some degree of dissatisfaction with the way repairs and maintenance
are dealt.
Leaseholders (21% satisfaction) are considerably less likely to be satisfied than general needs (56%) and
sheltered (81%) tenants; nearly two thirds (65%) of leaseholders are dissatisfied with the repairs and
maintenance service.
At 50%, residents living in an estate property are considerably more likely to be satisfied with the repairs
and maintenance service than residents living in a street property.
Figure 19 Satisfaction with how their service provider deals with repairs and maintenance
Percentage of respondents
16%
20%
Very satisfied
Overall = 47%
42%
General needs = 56%
5%
Sheltered = 81%
30%
36%
39%
Fairly satisfied
Leaseholders = 21%
16%
Neither
11%
10%
2%
Estate properties = 50%
14%
Fairly
dissatisfied
Street properties = 33%
17%
16%
9%
20%
26%
Very dissatisfied
18%
8%
45%
Overall
General Needs
Sheltered
Leaseholders
Measurement  Evaluation  Learning: Using evidence to shape better services
28
Page 83
LAMBETH STAR SURVEY 2014
M·E·L RESEARCH
When analysing by organisation it shows that satisfaction levels increase to 61% for TMO residents
however drop to 44% for Lambeth Living residents. Notably 45% of Lambeth Living residents indicate some
degree of dissatisfaction with the repairs and maintenance service.
Figure 20 Satisfaction with how Lambeth Council deals with repairs and maintenance / organisation
Percentage of respondents
15%
Very satisfied
25%
29%
Fairly satisfied
36%
44% of Lambeth
Living residents
are satisfied
compared to 61%
of TMO residents
11%
12%
Neither
18%
Fairly dissatisfied
11%
27%
Very dissatisfied
Lambeth Living
16%
Lambeth TMO
Lambeth Living – Satisfaction with repairs and maintenance
At 56%, Lambeth Living general needs and sheltered tenants are considerably more likely than Lambeth
Living leaseholders (18%) to be satisfied with how Lambeth Living deals with repairs and maintenance.
Only 3% of Lambeth Living leaseholders indicate that they are very satisfied with how Lambeth Living deals
with repairs and maintenance, whilst 48% state they are very dissatisfied.
Figure 21 Satisfaction with how Lambeth Living deals with repairs and maintenance / tenure
Percentage of Lambeth Living respondents
Very satisfied
Fairly satisfied
Neither
Fairly dissatisfied
20%
3%
Tenants = 56%
36%
Leaseholders = 18%
14%
10%
13%
16%
21%
General Needs & Sheltered
Very dissatisfied
Leaseholders
18%
48%
Measurement  Evaluation  Learning: Using evidence to shape better services
29
Page 84
LAMBETH STAR SURVEY 2014
M·E·L RESEARCH
TMO’s – Satisfaction with repairs and maintenance
TMO general needs and sheltered tenants (67%) are more likely than TMO leaseholders (43%) to be
satisfied with how their TMO deals with repairs and maintenance.
Figure 22 Satisfaction with how TMO deals with repairs and maintenance / tenure
Percentage of TMO respondents
29%
Very satisfied
14%
Tenants = 67%
38%
Fairly satisfied
Neither
Fairly dissatisfied
Very dissatisfied
29%
8%
22%
11%
13%
General Needs & Sheltered
14%
22%
Leaseholders
Map 6 below illustrates, satisfaction with the repairs and maintenance service is lowest in Thorton, whilst
the highest levels of satisfaction are expressed in Bishop’s, Prince’s, Brixton Hill, and Knight’s Hill.
Measurement  Evaluation  Learning: Using evidence to shape better services
30
Page 85
LAMBETH STAR SURVEY 2014
M·E·L RESEARCH
Map 6 Satisfaction with how the service provider deals with repairs and maintenance – Mapped at
Ward level
Bishop’s
Prince’s
Brixton
Hill
Thornton
Knight’s
Hill
Measurement  Evaluation  Learning: Using evidence to shape better services
31
Page 86
LAMBETH STAR SURVEY 2014
M·E·L RESEARCH
Listens to your views and acts upon them
Around four out of ten residents (42%) are satisfied that their service provider listens to their views and acts
upon them. 37% of residents express some degree of dissatisfaction, with one in five (21%) stating that
they are very dissatisfied.
At 73%, sheltered tenants express the highest level of satisfaction, by comparison 50% of general needs
tenants and only 19% of leaseholders express satisfaction that their service provider listens to views and
acts upon them. Notably six out of ten leaseholders express some degree of dissatisfaction.
As seen with other findings, residents who live in an estate property (45%) express higher levels of
satisfaction than residents who live in a street property (27%).
Figure 23 Satisfaction that Lambeth listens to views and acts upon them
Percentage of respondents
Very satisfied
12%
15%
Overall = 42%
32%
4%
General needs = 50%
30%
35%
Fairly satisfied
41%
15%
Neither
Sheltered = 73%
Leaseholders = 19%
21%
22%
12%
21%
Estate properties = 45%
Street properties = 27%
16%
14%
8%
Fairly
dissatisfied
21%
21%
Very dissatisfied
14%
7%
39%
Overall
General Needs
Sheltered
Leaseholders
Measurement  Evaluation  Learning: Using evidence to shape better services
32
Page 87
LAMBETH STAR SURVEY 2014
M·E·L RESEARCH
57% of TMO residents are satisfied that their TMO listen to their views and act upon them, while 39% of
Lambeth Living residents express satisfaction that Lambeth Living listen to views and act upon them.
Notably, 39% of Lambeth Living residents indicate some degree of dissatisfaction; by comparison, 25% of
TMO residents are dissatisfied.
Figure 24 Satisfaction that Lambeth listens to views and acts upon them / organisation
Percentage of respondents
11%
Very satisfied
22%
29%
Fairly satisfied
35%
39% of Lambeth
Living residents
are satisfied
compared to 57%
of TMO residents
22%
Neither
18%
16%
Fairly dissatisfied
11%
Lambeth Living
22%
Very dissatisfied
14%
Lambeth TMO
Lambeth Living – Satisfaction that service provider listens to views and acts upon them
There is a high degree of variation when analysing by tenure type for Lambeth Living residents; only 15% of
leaseholders express satisfaction compared to 50% of tenants. Notably, 42% of leaseholders state that
they are very dissatisfied that Lambeth Living listen to their views and act upon them.
Figure 25 Satisfaction with how Lambeth Living listens to views and acts upon them / tenure
Percentage of respondents
Very satisfied
Fairly satisfied
14%
Tenants = 50%
3%
13%
22%
21%
Neither
Fairly dissatisfied
Very dissatisfied
Leaseholders = 15%
36%
14%
22%
14%
42%
General Needs & Sheltered
Leaseholders
Measurement  Evaluation  Learning: Using evidence to shape better services
33
Page 88
LAMBETH STAR SURVEY 2014
M·E·L RESEARCH
TMO’s – Satisfaction that service provider listens to views and acts upon them
General needs and sheltered TMO tenants (61%) are more likely than TMO leaseholders (45%) to be
satisfied with their views being listened to and acted upon.
Figure 26 Satisfaction with how TMO listens to views and acts upon them / tenure
Percentage of respondents
Very satisfied
26%
13%
Tenants = 61%
36%
Fairly satisfied
32%
17%
Neither
Fairly dissatisfied
Very dissatisfied
Leaseholders = 45%
22%
10%
14%
12%
20%
General Needs & Sheltered
Leaseholders
Map 7 overleaf shows satisfaction with how the service provider listens to views and acts upon them
mapped at Ward level. As this illustrates, the highest levels of satisfaction are expressed by residents living
in: Brixton Hill, Bishop’s, and Prince’s. Whilst the lowest levels of satisfaction are expressed by residents
living in: Herne Hill, Thurlow Park, Streatham South, Clapham Common, and Thornton.
Measurement  Evaluation  Learning: Using evidence to shape better services
34
Page 89
LAMBETH STAR SURVEY 2014
M·E·L RESEARCH
Map 7 Satisfaction with how the service provider listens to views and acts upon them – Mapped at Ward
level
Bishop’s
Prince’s
Clapham
Common
Brixton
Hill
Thornton
Herne Hill
Thurlow
Park
Streatham
South
Measurement  Evaluation  Learning: Using evidence to shape better services
35
Page 90
LAMBETH STAR SURVEY 2014
3)
M·E·L RESEARCH
Benchmarking and historical trends
Benchmarking
Table 4 shows results for general needs tenants; overall, and by organisation, benchmarked against 13-18
London Boroughs and ALMOs for the period 2012-2014. Satisfaction expressed by all general needs
tenants with the neighbourhood as a place to live compares favourably falling around the peer group
median. Satisfaction expressed by Lambeth TMO tenants for listening to views and acting upon them also
compares favourably falling near to the peer group upper quartile. However satisfaction with all other
aspects rated below compares poorly falling within the bottom quartile.
Table 4 Benchmarking against eighteen London Boroughs and ALMOs (2012/14) – General needs tenants*
Lambeth
Overall
STAR
2014
Lambeth
Living
STAR
2014
Lambeth
TMO
STAR
2014
Peer group 2012 - 14 London
ALMO / LA (over 5,000
stock)*
Bottom
Upper
Median
quartile
quartile
Overall service provided
66.74%
60.77%
65.98%
74.25%
76.00%
78.30%
Quality of home
65.52%
64.72%
70.27%
73.75%
76.05%
80.33%
Neighbourhood as a place to live
79.64%
79.74%
79.05%
75.85%
80.50%
83.20%
Rent provides VfM
66.67%
66.56%
67.35%
73.40%
74.00%
78.00%
Service charge provides VfM
52.00%
51.55%
54.81%
58.00%
62.90%
65.00%
Repairs and maintenance
55.75%
53.87%
66.97%
67.28%
69.80%
74.10%
Listen to views and acts upon them
49.85%
47.83%
61.81%
49.00%
55.00%
61.90%
Core question
*Eighteen London Boroughs and ALMOs were used for benchmarking apart from quality of home (16 organisations),
rent VFM (17 organisations), service charge provides VFM (13 organisations), and listening to views (17 organisations).
= Upper quartile
= above median
= below median
= Lower quartile
Table 5 shows results for leaseholders; overall, and by organisation, benchmarked against five London
Boroughs and ALMOs for the period 2012-2014. With the exception of neighbourhood as a place to live
satisfaction falls above the peer group median for Lambeth TMO leaseholders, however falls within the peer
group lower quartile for Lambeth Living leaseholders.
Table 5 Benchmarking against London Boroughs and ALMOs (2012/14) – Leaseholders
Peer group 2012 - 14 London ALMO
/ LA (over 5,000 stock)*
Bottom
Upper
Median
quartile
quartile
35.00%
49.00%
55.00%
Lambeth
Overall
STAR
2014
Lambeth
Living
STAR
2014
Lambeth
TMO
STAR
2014
Overall service provided
28.21%
23.84%
59.92%
Quality of home
61.26%
59.94%
70.77%
-
-
-
Neighbourhood as a place to live
71.27%
71.00%
73.24%
71.00%
78.00%
80.00%
Service charge provides VfM
17.71%
15.72%
32.16%
26.50%
34.00%
41.00%
Repairs and maintenance
20.83%
17.78%
43.08%
25.00%
36.50%
48.25%
Listen to views and acts upon them
18.96%
15.39%
44.98%
19.00%
31.00%
47.00%
Core question
*Please note data was only available for 5 organisations
= Upper quartile
= above median
= below median
= Lower quartile
Measurement  Evaluation  Learning: Using evidence to shape better services
36
Page 91
LAMBETH STAR SURVEY 2014
M·E·L RESEARCH
Historical trends
General needs
Comparison is made below between the general needs results from this year’s STAR survey and previous
satisfaction surveys. This shows that there has been a significant increase in general needs tenants
satisfaction for the quality of home, and the value for money rent provides. For all other key indicators,
although the changes in satisfaction are not significant, there is the indication that there has been an
increase in satisfaction on the previous year.
Table 5 Historical trends (2008, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014) – General needs tenants only
2008
(STATUS)
55%
Core questions
Overall satisfaction
2011
2012
2013
2014
54%
64%
64%
67%
Quality of home
58%
55%
58%
60%
▲66%
Neighbourhood
64%
68%
75%
76%
80%
Value for money for rent
57%
57%
62%
61%
▲67%
-
-
47%
49%
52%
Repairs and maintenance
51%
56%
52%
54%
56%
Listens to views *
49%
48%
47%
47%
50%
Value for money for service charges
* Care should be taken with this comparison due to a change of wording between STATUS and STAR
▲ = statistically significant change at 95% confidence level
Lambeth Living
Comparison is made below between the Lambeth Living results from this STAR survey with the previous
year’s STAR survey. This shows for tenants there is the indication that there has been a rise in satisfaction
with all of the key indicators. However for leaseholders, although not the changes are not statistically
significant, there appears to be a decline in satisfaction with: the overall service provided, value for money
service charges provide, the repairs and maintenance service, and Lambeth Living listening to views and
acting upon them.
Table 6 Historical trends (2013 and 2014 – Lambeth Living)
Lambeth Living
2013
Core questions
Overall satisfaction
2014
Resident Tenant Leaseholder Resident Tenant
Leaseholder
57%
65%
32%
54%
67%
24%
Quality of home
61%
60%
59%
64%
66%
60%
Neighbourhood
73%
76%
62%
78%
80%
71%
Rent provides VfM
62%
62%
-
68%
68%
-
Service charge provides VfM
40%
49%
20%
40%
53%
16%
Repairs and maintenance
47%
54%
23%
44%
56%
18%
Listens to views
40%
46%
19%
39%
50%
15%
Lambeth TMO
Measurement  Evaluation  Learning: Using evidence to shape better services
37
Page 92
LAMBETH STAR SURVEY 2014
M·E·L RESEARCH
Comparison is made below between the Lambeth TMO results from this year’s STAR survey with the
previous year’s STAR survey. This shows that there has been a statistically significant increase in
satisfaction for TMO tenants with the overall quality of their home, while for there is also the indication in a
rise in satisfaction expressed by tenants with all of the other key indicators. However for leaseholders there
appears to have been a decline in satisfaction for all of the key indicators, although it should be noted that
this decline is not statistically significant.
Table 7 Historical trends (2013, 2014 – Lambeth TMOs)
TMO
2013
2014
Resident
Tenants
Leaseholders
Resident
Tenants
Leaseholders
69%
71%
63%
71%
75%
60%
Quality of home
68%
65%
76%
71%
▲71%
71%
Neighbourhood
77%
77%
76%
78%
79%
73%
Rent provides VfM
64%
64%
-
68%
68%
-
Service charge provides VfM
49%
54%
37%
48%
55%
32%
Repairs and maintenance
58%
62%
48%
61%
67%
43%
Listens to views
55%
57%
50%
57%
61%
45%
Core questions
Overall satisfaction
▲ = statistically significant change at 95% confidence level
4)
Key Drivers analysis
Measurement  Evaluation  Learning: Using evidence to shape better services
38
Page 93
LAMBETH STAR SURVEY 2014
M·E·L RESEARCH
Looking at the statistical relationship between overall satisfaction with the service provider and satisfaction
with repairs and maintenance and a range of other variables collected as part of the survey can provide
insight into the underlying factors influencing satisfaction.
Tenants
Overall satisfaction
M·E·L Research conducted key drivers analysis on the tenant survey results. This analysis identifies the
factors that drive tenants’ overall satisfaction with their service provider (i.e. the factors which have the
biggest impact on overall satisfaction levels), showing that satisfaction with the repairs and maintenance
service has a significant impact on their satisfaction with the overall service provided. The analysis also
shows that satisfaction with how enquiries generally are dealt with, how likely a tenant is to recommend
Lambeth to family or friends, and perceptions around treating residents fairly also influence overall
satisfaction.
Figure 27 Key drivers analysis on overall satisfaction with service provided – 64% of variance is explained in
the model
Satisfaction with overall service provided
70%
Overall quality of
home
Satisfaction score
65%
Enquiries generally
60%
Treats residents fairly
Recommend to family
or friends
55%
Repairs and
maintenance
Complaints
50%
Service charges
provide value for
money
45%
40%
.000
.020
.040
.060
.080
.100
.120
.140
.160
.180
Strength of Influence
Repairs and maintenance
The same analysis was carried out for tenants’ satisfaction with repairs and maintenance. This shows that
tenants perception that their views are being listened to and acted upon has a very strong influence on
satisfaction with the repairs and maintenance service.
Figure 28 Key drivers analysis on satisfaction with the repairs and maintenance service – 62% of variance is
explained in the model
Measurement  Evaluation  Learning: Using evidence to shape better services
39
Page 94
LAMBETH STAR SURVEY 2014
M·E·L RESEARCH
Satisfaction with repairs and maintenance service
80%
Satisfaction score
75%
Gas servicing
arrangements
70%
Quality of home
65%
Treats residents fairly
60%
Recommend to family
or friends
55%
50%
Listen to views and
act upon them
45%
40%
.000
.100
.200
.300
.400
.500
Strength of Influence
Listen to views and act upon them
The same analysis was carried out for tenants’ satisfaction with listening to views and acting upon them.
This shows that satisfaction with the repairs and maintenance service has the biggest influence on
satisfaction with listening to views and acting upon them. Tenants perceptions around their opportunity to
make their views known and whether they are treated fairly also significantly influences satisfaction with this
variable.
Figure 29 Key drivers analysis on satisfaction with listening to views and acting upon them – 69% of variance is
explained in the model
Satisfaction with listen to views and acts upon them
75%
Keeping residents
informed
Satisfaction score
70%
65% Enquiries generally
Treats residents fairly
Condition of home
60%
55%
Repairs and
maintenance service
Opportunity to makes
views known
50%
Complaints
45%
40%
.000
.050
.100
.150
.200
.250
.300
.350
.400
Strength of Influence
Measurement  Evaluation  Learning: Using evidence to shape better services
40
Page 95
LAMBETH STAR SURVEY 2014
M·E·L RESEARCH
Leaseholders
Overall service provided
Key drivers analysis was also conducted on the leaseholder survey results. Similar to tenant satisfaction,
this shows that leaseholder satisfaction with the overall service provided is strongly influenced by
leaseholders satisfaction with the repairs and maintenance service, and whether they would recommend
Lambeth to family or friends.
Figure 30 Key drivers analysis on overall satisfaction with service provided – 69% of variance is explained in
the model
Satisfaction with overall service provided
50%
Keeping residents
informed
Satisfaction score
45%
40%
Obligations under the
terms and conditions
of the lease
35%
30%
Treats residents fairly
Enquiries generally
25%
20%
Complaints
Repairs and
maintenance
Recommend to family
or friends
15%
10%
5%
0%
.000
.050
.100
.150
.200
.250
Strength of Influence
Repairs and maintenance service
The same analysis was carried out for leaseholders’ satisfaction with repairs and maintenance. As Figure
31 overleaf shows, listening to views and acting upon them has the biggest influence on satisfaction with
repairs and maintenance. Whether a leaseholder would recommend Lambeth to family or friends, and
satisfaction with the value for money service charge provides also influences leaseholders satisfaction with
the repairs and maintenance service.
Measurement  Evaluation  Learning: Using evidence to shape better services
41
Page 96
LAMBETH STAR SURVEY 2014
M·E·L RESEARCH
Figure 31 Key drivers analysis on satisfaction with the repairs and maintenance service – 63% of variance is
explained in the model
Satisfaction with repairs and maintenance
70%
Satisfaction score
60%
Quality of home
50%
Condition of home
40%
30%
Listen to views and
act upon them
Recommend to family
or friends
20%
Service charges
provide value for
money
10%
0%
.000
.100
.200
.300
.400
.500
Strength of Influence
Listening to views and acting upon them
The same analysis was carried out for leaseholders’ satisfaction with listening to views and acting upon
them. This shows that satisfaction with the repairs and maintenance service has the biggest influence on
satisfaction with listening to views and acting upon them. Satisfaction that Lambeth listen to views and act
upon them is also affected by various aspects of communication that leaseholders have with Lambeth;
satisfaction is significantly influenced by satisfaction with: how enquiries are dealt with, how complaints are
dealt with, if leaseholders have an opportunity to make their views known, if they feel residents are treated
fairly, and if they would recommend Lambeth to family or friends.
Figure 32 Key drivers analysis on satisfaction with listening to views and acting upon them – 73% of variance is
explained in the model
Satisfaction with listen to views and act upon them
50%
Service charge
statement easy to
understand
Satisfaction score
45%
40%
Opportunity to makes
views known
35%
30%
Enquiries generally
Treats residents fairly
Recommend to family
or friends
25%
20%
Repairs and
maintenance
Complaints
15%
Service charges
provide value for
money
10%
5%
0%
.000
.050
.100
.150
.200
.250
.300
.350
.400
Strength of Influence
Measurement  Evaluation  Learning: Using evidence to shape better services
42
Page 97
LAMBETH STAR SURVEY 2014
5)
M·E·L RESEARCH
General services
Condition of the home
Respondents were asked how satisfied they are with the condition of their home, overall nearly six out of
ten (59%) are satisfied. Comparing this by organisation, TMO residents are more likely to be satisfied with
the condition of their home (66%) than Lambeth Living residents (58%).
Figure 33 Satisfaction with the condition of the home
Percentage of respondents
Very satisfied
16%
16%
20%
43%
42%
46%
Fairly satisfied
Neither
Fairly dissatisfied
Very dissatisfied
Overall = 59%
Lambeth Living = 58%
Lambeth TMO = 66%
11%
11%
10%
16%
17%
13%
14%
14%
11%
Overall
Lambeth Living
Lambeth TMO
Measurement  Evaluation  Learning: Using evidence to shape better services
43
Page 98
LAMBETH STAR SURVEY 2014
M·E·L RESEARCH
Lambeth Living - Condition of the home
Lambeth Living tenants (62%) express higher levels of satisfaction with the condition of their home then
leaseholders (46%). 37% of leaseholders express some degree of dissatisfaction.
Figure 34 Satisfaction with the condition of the home / tenure
Percentage of respondents
Very satisfied
18%
Tenants = 62%
10%
44%
Fairly satisfied
Leaseholders = 46%
36%
9%
Neither
17%
15%
Fairly dissatisfied
21%
General Needs & Sheltered
14%
16%
Very dissatisfied
Leaseholders
TMO’s - Condition of the home
There is limited difference in satisfaction levels expressed by TMO tenants (65%) and TMO leaseholders
(67%) for the condition of their home.
Figure 35 Satisfaction with the condition of the home / tenure
Percentage of respondents
21%
Very satisfied
16%
Fairly dissatisfied
Very dissatisfied
Leaseholders = 67%
44%
Fairly satisfied
Neither
Tenants = 65%
51%
8%
15%
14%
11%
13%
7%
General Needs & Sheltered
Leaseholders
Measurement  Evaluation  Learning: Using evidence to shape better services
44
Page 99
LAMBETH STAR SURVEY 2014
M·E·L RESEARCH
Opportunity to make your views known
Respondents were asked how satisfied they are with the opportunity to make their views known. Overall,
just under half (49%) of residents are satisfied, this rises to 61% for TMO residents but drops to 47% for
Lambeth Living residents.
Figure 36 Satisfaction with the opportunity to make views known
Percentage of respondents
16%
14%
Very satisfied
Overall = 49%
26%
Lambeth Living = 47%
34%
33%
36%
Fairly satisfied
Lambeth TMO = 61%
29%
30%
Neither
22%
Fairly
dissatisfied
11%
12%
8%
Very dissatisfied
11%
12%
9%
Overall
Lambeth Living
Lambeth TMO
Lambeth Living - Opportunity to make your views known
At 54%, general needs and sheltered tenants at Lambeth Living are more likely to be satisfied than
leaseholders (31%) with the opportunity to make their views known. Notably, 42% of leaseholders express
some degree of dissatisfaction in comparison to 15% of tenants.
Figure 37 Satisfaction with opportunity to make views known / tenure
Percentage of respondents
Very satisfied
17%
Tenants = 54%
6%
37%
Fairly satisfied
25%
31%
Neither
Fairly dissatisfied
Very dissatisfied
Leaseholders = 31%
27%
8%
21%
7%
22%
General Needs & Sheltered
Leaseholders
Measurement  Evaluation  Learning: Using evidence to shape better services
45
Page 100
LAMBETH STAR SURVEY 2014
M·E·L RESEARCH
Opportunity to make your views known - TMO
TMO tenants (64%) are more likely than TMO leaseholders (54%) to express satisfaction with the
opportunity to make views known.
Figure 38 Satisfaction with opportunity to make views known / tenure
Percentage of respondents
27%
Very satisfied
20%
Tenants = 64%
37%
34%
Fairly satisfied
21%
Neither
24%
7%
Fairly dissatisfied
12%
General Needs & Sheltered
Leaseholders
9%
10%
Very dissatisfied
Being kept informed about things that affect them as a resident
Overall 62% of residents express that their service providers are good at keeping them informed about
things that affect them as residents. When comparing this by organisation a higher proportion of TMO
residents (71%) feel that their service provider is good at keeping them informed in comparison to Lambeth
Living residents (60%).
Figure 39 how good is Lambeth Council at keeping residents informed about things that affect them as a
resident
Percentage of respondents
20%
19%
Very good
Overall = 62%
31%
Lambeth Living = 60%
41%
42%
40%
Fairly good
Neither
Fairly poor
Lambeth TMO = 71%
16%
16%
13%
12%
13%
8%
Overall
Very poor
10%
11%
8%
Lambeth Living
Lambeth TMO
Measurement  Evaluation  Learning: Using evidence to shape better services
46
Page 101
LAMBETH STAR SURVEY 2014
M·E·L RESEARCH
Lambeth Living - being kept informed about things that affect them as a resident
At 70%, general needs and sheltered Lambeth Living tenants are considerably more likely to feel that
Lambeth Living are good at keeping them informed about things that affect them as residents compared to
Lambeth Living leaseholders (38%).
Figure 40 how good is Lambeth Living at keeping residents informed about things that affect them as a
resident / tenure
Percentage of respondents
Very good
24%
6%
Tenants = 70%
46%
Fairly good
14%
Neither
21%
10%
Fairly poor
Very poor
Leaseholders = 38%
32%
20%
General Needs & Sheltered
Leaseholders
6%
21%
TMO - Being kept informed about things that affect them as a resident
When comparing tenure type at TMO, general needs and sheltered TMO tenants (75%) are more likely to
express that TMO’s are good at keeping residents informed than leaseholders (59%).
Figure 41 how good is TMO at keeping residents informed about things that affect them as a resident / tenure
Percentage of respondents
34%
Very good
41%
38%
Fairly good
Very poor
Leaseholders = 59%
11%
Neither
Fairly poor
Tenants = 75%
21%
18%
7%
12%
7%
11%
General Needs & Sheltered
Leaseholders
Measurement  Evaluation  Learning: Using evidence to shape better services
47
Page 102
LAMBETH STAR SURVEY 2014
M·E·L RESEARCH
Treats residents fairly
Respondents were asked how satisfied they are with the council treating residents fairly, just over half
(54%) of residents are satisfied. When comparing by organisation type TMO residents are more likely to be
satisfied (65%) with this aspect compared to Lambeth Living residents (52%).
Figure 42 Satisfaction that Lambeth Council treats residents fairly
Percentage of respondents
16%
15%
Very satisfied
Overall = 54%
27%
Lambeth Living = 52%
37%
37%
38%
Fairly satisfied
21%
21%
18%
Neither
Fairly
dissatisfied
Lambeth TMO = 65%
13%
14%
8%
Overall
12%
13%
Very dissatisfied
Lambeth Living
Lambeth TMO
8%
Lambeth Living - Treats residents fairly
At 62% general needs and sheltered tenants are considerably more likely to be satisfied with being treated
fairly by Lambeth Living compared to leaseholders (28%). Notably 45% of leaseholders express some
degree of dissatisfaction that Lambeth Living treats residents fairly.
Figure 43 Satisfaction that Lambeth Living treats residents fairly / tenure
Percentage of respondents
Very satisfied
19%
4%
Tenants = 62%
43%
Fairly satisfied
23%
19%
Neither
Fairly dissatisfied
Very dissatisfied
Leaseholders = 28%
27%
10%
22%
9%
23%
General Needs & Sheltered
Leaseholders
Measurement  Evaluation  Learning: Using evidence to shape better services
48
Page 103
LAMBETH STAR SURVEY 2014
M·E·L RESEARCH
TMO - Treats residents fairly
A higher proportion of general needs and sheltered TMO tenants (70%) are satisfied with being treated
fairly compared to TMO leaseholders (52%). Notably, around three out of ten (30%) general needs and
sheltered tenants at TMO are very satisfied with being treated fairly.
Figure 44 Satisfaction that TMO treats residents fairly / tenure
Percentage of respondents
30%
Very satisfied
19%
Tenants = 70%
40%
Fairly satisfied
33%
15%
Neither
Fairly dissatisfied
Leaseholders = 52%
27%
7%
13%
General Needs & Sheltered
Very dissatisfied
8%
8%
Leaseholders
Recommend to family or friends
Overall just under half (48%) of residents are likely to recommend their service provider to family and
friends. The likelihood of recommending their service provider to family or friends is highest among TMO
(57%) residents. While only 46% of Lambeth Living residents are likely to recommend their service provider
to family or friends, with 35% unlikely to do so.
Figure 45 Likelihood of recommending their service provider to family or friends
Percentage of respondents
18%
17%
Very likely
Overall = 48%
26%
30%
30%
30%
Fairly likely
Lambeth TMO = 57%
19%
18%
21%
Neither
Fairly unlikely
Lambeth Living = 46%
13%
13%
11%
21%
22%
Very unlikely
12%
Overall
Lambeth Living
Lambeth TMO
Lambeth Living - Recommend to family or friends
Measurement  Evaluation  Learning: Using evidence to shape better services
49
Page 104
LAMBETH STAR SURVEY 2014
M·E·L RESEARCH
Nearly six out of ten (59%) general needs and sheltered tenants are likely to recommend Lambeth Living to
family or friends. Interestingly, a considerably higher proportion of leaseholders are unlikely (65%) to
recommend Lambeth Living to family and friends than are likely (17%) to do so.
Figure 46 Likelihood of recommending Lambeth Living to family or friends / tenure
Percentage of respondents
Very likely
22%
Tenants = 59%
4%
13%
19%
18%
Neither
Fairly unlikely
Very unlikely
Leaseholders = 17%
37%
Fairly likely
10%
20%
General Needs & Sheltered
12%
45%
Leaseholders
TMO - Recommend to family or friends
General needs and sheltered tenants (61%) are more likely to recommend TMO to family and friends, this
compares to 45% of leaseholders.
Figure 47 Likelihood of recommending TMO to family or friends / tenure
Percentage of respondents
28%
Very likely
20%
32%
Fairly likely
Very unlikely
Leaseholders = 45%
25%
20%
Neither
Fairly unlikely
Tenants = 61%
23%
9%
16%
General Needs & Sheltered
11%
16%
Leaseholders
Measurement  Evaluation  Learning: Using evidence to shape better services
50
Page 105
LAMBETH STAR SURVEY 2014
M·E·L RESEARCH
Anti-social behaviour
Overall, 48% of residents are satisfied with how anti-social behaviour is dealt with. When compared by
organisation type, 59% of TMO residents are satisfied with how anti-social behaviour is dealt with compared
to 46% of Lambeth Living residents.
Figure 48 Satisfaction with how anti-social behaviour is dealt / organisation
Percentage of respondents
16%
15%
Very satisfied
Overall = 48%
25%
Lambeth Living = 46%
32%
31%
34%
Fairly satisfied
Lambeth TMO = 59%
29%
31%
Neither
21%
Fairly dissatisfied
11%
12%
9%
Very dissatisfied
12%
12%
11%
Overall
Lambeth Living
Lambeth TMO
Lambeth Living - Anti-social behaviour
When compared by tenure type, Lambeth Living leaseholders are least satisfied with how Lambeth Living
deals with anti-social behaviour with just over a quarter (27%) satisfied. Compared to just over half (54%) of
general needs and sheltered tenants being satisfied.
Figure 49 Satisfaction with how anti-social behaviour is dealt / tenure
Percentage of respondents
Very satisfied
19%
5%
Tenants = 54%
35%
Fairly satisfied
26%
Neither
Fairly dissatisfied
Very dissatisfied
Leaseholders = 27%
22%
41%
9%
17%
General Needs & Sheltered
10%
15%
Leaseholders
Measurement  Evaluation  Learning: Using evidence to shape better services
51
Page 106
LAMBETH STAR SURVEY 2014
M·E·L RESEARCH
TMO - Anti-social behaviour
TMO tenants (64%) are more likely than TMO leaseholders (46%) to express satisfaction with how antisocial behaviour is dealt with.
Figure 50 Satisfaction with how anti-social behaviour is dealt / tenure
Percentage of respondents
28%
Very satisfied
Tenants = 64%
15%
35%
Fairly satisfied
18%
Neither
Fairly dissatisfied
Very dissatisfied
Leaseholders = 46%
31%
27%
8%
13%
General Needs & Sheltered
10%
14%
Leaseholders
Complaints
Satisfaction with how complaints are dealt with is lowest with Lambeth Living residents with just 41% being
satisfied. TMO residents are most satisfied with how complaints are dealt with (57%) compared to Lambeth
Living residents (39%).
Figure 51 Satisfaction with how complaints are dealt with / organisation
Percentage of respondents
Very satisfied
13%
12%
Overall = 41%
22%
Lambeth Living = 39%
28%
27%
Fairly satisfied
Lambeth TMO = 57%
34%
24%
24%
21%
Neither
16%
17%
Fairly dissatisfied
9%
Overall
19%
20%
Very dissatisfied
13%
Lambeth Living
Lambeth TMO
Measurement  Evaluation  Learning: Using evidence to shape better services
52
Page 107
LAMBETH STAR SURVEY 2014
M·E·L RESEARCH
Lambeth Living - complaints
At 19% satisfaction, leaseholders are least satisfied with how complaints are dealt with at Lambeth Living
compared to 48% of general needs and sheltered tenants. Only 3% of Lambeth Living leaseholders are
very satisfied with how complaints are dealt with, with 56% expressing some degree of dissatisfaction.
Figure 52 Satisfaction with how complaints are dealt with / tenure
Percentage of respondents
Very satisfied
16%
3%
Tenants = 48%
32%
Fairly satisfied
Leaseholders = 19%
16%
24%
25%
Neither
15%
Fairly dissatisfied
22%
13%
Very dissatisfied
34%
General Needs & Sheltered
Leaseholders
TMO - Complaints
TMO tenants (61%) express higher levels of satisfaction with how complaints are dealt with than TMO
leaseholders (46%).
Figure 53 Satisfaction with how complaints are dealt with / tenure
Percentage of respondents
25%
Very satisfied
Tenants = 61%
15%
36%
Fairly satisfied
31%
19%
Neither
Fairly dissatisfied
Very dissatisfied
Leaseholders = 46%
26%
8%
13%
12%
15%
General Needs & Sheltered
Leaseholders
Measurement  Evaluation  Learning: Using evidence to shape better services
53
Page 108
LAMBETH STAR SURVEY 2014
M·E·L RESEARCH
Enquiries generally
Overall 53% of residents express satisfaction with how enquiries in general are dealt with. When comparing
organisation satisfaction with how enquiries are generally dealt with is highest with TMO residents (67%),
by comparison 51% of Lambeth Living residents indicate satisfaction.
Figure 54 Satisfaction with how enquiries generally are dealt / organisation
Percentage of respondents
17%
15%
Very satisfied
Overall = 53%
29%
Lambeth Living = 51%
36%
36%
38%
Fairly satisfied
Lambeth TMO = 67%
17%
17%
14%
Neither
14%
15%
Fairly dissatisfied
9%
Overall
16%
17%
Very dissatisfied
Lambeth Living
10%
Lambeth TMO
Lambeth Living - Enquiries generally
Over double the proportion of general needs and sheltered tenants (62%) are satisfied with how enquiries
are dealt with at Lambeth Living compared to just 26% of leaseholders being satisfied. Notably, over half
(57%) of leaseholders express some degree of dissatisfaction.
Figure 55 Satisfaction with how enquiries generally are dealt / tenure
Percentage of respondents
Very satisfied
21%
42%
Fairly satisfied
Very dissatisfied
Leaseholders = 26%
22%
17%
17%
Neither
Fairly dissatisfied
Tenants = 62%
4%
11%
24%
10%
33%
General Needs & Sheltered
Leaseholders
Measurement  Evaluation  Learning: Using evidence to shape better services
54
Page 109
LAMBETH STAR SURVEY 2014
M·E·L RESEARCH
TMO - Enquiries generally
70% of TMO general needs and sheltered tenants express satisfaction with how general enquiries are dealt
with compared to 57% of TMO leaseholders.
Figure 56 Satisfaction with how enquiries generally are dealt / tenure
Percentage of respondents
31%
Very satisfied
Tenants = 70%
21%
39%
36%
Fairly satisfied
Leaseholders = 57%
14%
16%
Neither
8%
11%
Fairly dissatisfied
9%
Very dissatisfied
General Needs & Sheltered
Leaseholders
15%
Moving or swapping home
Overall 25% of tenants express satisfaction with how moving or swapping home is dealt with. It is worth
noting that there is a high proportion (54%) of tenants that express they are neither satisfied nor dissatisfied.
When analysing by organisation 25% of Lambeth Living tenants, and 30% of Lambeth TMO tenants
express satisfaction.
Figure 57 Satisfaction with how moving or swapping home is dealt with/ organisation
Percentage of respondents
10%
9%
12%
Very satisfied
Overall = 25%
Lambeth Living = 25%
16%
15%
18%
Fairly satisfied
54%
55%
52%
Neither
Fairly dissatisfied
Lambeth TMO = 30%
6%
6%
5%
Overall
Very dissatisfied
15%
15%
13%
Lambeth Living
Lambeth TMO
Measurement  Evaluation  Learning: Using evidence to shape better services
55
Page 110
LAMBETH STAR SURVEY 2014
M·E·L RESEARCH
Energy efficiency of home
All respondents were asked how satisfied they are with the energy efficiency of their home. 58% of
residents express satisfaction with the energy efficiency of their home. Overall as Figure 61 shows, 72%
are satisfied with the opportunities to recycle, whilst 25% express some degree of dissatisfaction. Lambeth
TMO residents (64%) are slightly more likely than Lamb eth Living (57%) residents to express satisfaction.
Figure 58 Satisfaction with energy efficiency of home / organisation
Percentage of respondents
22%
21%
Very satisfied
Overall = 58%
28%
Lambeth Living = 57%
36%
36%
37%
Fairly satisfied
17%
18%
15%
Neither
Fairly dissatisfied
13%
13%
11%
Very dissatisfied
12%
13%
9%
Overall
Lambeth Living
Lambeth TMO
Opportunities to recycle
73% of residents are satisfied with the opportunities to recycle, with only 13% dissatisfied with this. There is
limited difference in satisfaction levels when comparing by organisation.
Figure 59 Satisfaction with opportunities to recycle / organisation
Percentage of respondents
32%
32%
35%
Very satisfied
Overall = 73%
Lambeth Living = 74%
41%
42%
38%
Fairly satisfied
13%
13%
14%
Neither
Fairly dissatisfied
Very dissatisfied
Lambeth TMO = 73%
8%
8%
7%
6%
6%
6%
Overall
Lambeth Living
Lambeth TMO
Measurement  Evaluation  Learning: Using evidence to shape better services
56
Page 111
LAMBETH STAR SURVEY 2014
M·E·L RESEARCH
Resident Engagement Strategy
Lambeth Living tenants were asked to select, from a list, which types of local activities they would be
interested in getting involved in to support the new resident engagement strategy. Overall, 31% would be
interested in tenants and residents associations. While, around a quarter would be interested in
employment and training opportunities (25%), social events (26%) and food and community gardens (23%).
32% of residents indicate that they would not be interested in any of the types of local activity.
Figure 60 Residents Engagement activities of interest (Lambeth Living tenants only)
Percentage of respondents – multiple responses
Food and community
gardens
23%
Employment and training
opportunities
25%
Social events
26%
Tenants and Residents
Associations
31%
Activities for young people
21%
None of the above
32%
Involvement with TMOs
Lambeth TMO tenants were asked to select, from a list, how they would like to be involved with their TMO.
Around a third (34%) state they would be interested in getting involved through residents meetings. 21%
state they would also get involved by participating in surveys (telephone and written). Whilst 36% indicate
that they would not like to be involved in any of the ways listed.
Figure 61 Involvement with your TMO
Percentage of respondents – multiple responses
Become a shareholder
14%
Observe board meetings
14%
Surveys (telephone and written)
21%
Focus groups
10%
Social events
Becoming a board member
14%
7%
Residents meeting
Estate walkabouts
None of the above
34%
11%
36%
Measurement  Evaluation  Learning: Using evidence to shape better services
57
Page 112
LAMBETH STAR SURVEY 2014
M·E·L RESEARCH
Participation in events or activities
All respondents were asked if they had attended or participated in any activities run by Lambeth Living, their
local Tenants and Residents Association or their TMO in the last 12 months. Overall 31% had attended or
participated in activities in the last 12 months. When comparing this by organisation, TMO tenants are more
likely to be involved (39%) in comparison to Lambeth Living Tenants (30%).
Figure 62 Attended or participated in events or activities
Percentage of respondents
31%
Lambeth Living = 30%
Attended or
participated
in events/
activities
Lambeth TMO = 39%
69%
Yes
No
Measurement  Evaluation  Learning: Using evidence to shape better services
58
Page 113
LAMBETH STAR SURVEY 2014
6)
M·E·L RESEARCH
Service priorities
This section presents residents service priorities.
Tenant service priorities
All tenant respondents were asked to select from a list their top three service priorities. As the results show,
at 70%, repairs and maintenance is clearly the top priority, followed by the overall quality of the home
(57%). When analysing by organisation it shows there is limited difference in the service priorities between
Lambeth TMO tenants and Lambeth Living tenants.
Figure 63 Priorities for Lambeth tenants…
Percentage of respondents – multiple responses
70%
71%
64%
Repairs and maintenance
57%
58%
51%
The overall quality of your home
35%
35%
36%
Keeping residents informed
34%
35%
32%
Listening to tenants' views and
acting upon them
27%
26%
32%
Dealing with anti-social behaviour
23%
23%
25%
Value for money for your rent (and
service charges)
19%
18%
23%
Your neighbourhood / estate as a
place to live
Support and advice on claiming
welfare benefits and paying rent
8%
8%
8%
Overall
Lambeth Living
Lambeth TMO
Measurement  Evaluation  Learning: Using evidence to shape better services
59
Page 114
LAMBETH STAR SURVEY 2014
M·E·L RESEARCH
Leaseholder service priorities
All leaseholder respondents were asked to select, from a list, their top three service priorities. With 71%
selecting it, the top priority for leaseholders is communal repairs and maintenance, followed by value for
money of service charges (61%). When comparing priorities for each organisation it shows that Lambeth
TMO leaseholders see the value for money of service charges to be more of a priority than the communal
repairs and maintenance.
Figure 64 Priorities for leaseholders…
Percentage of respondents – multiple responses
71%
74%
Communal repairs and
maintenance
52%
61%
61%
62%
Value for money for your day
to day service charges
51%
51%
50%
Listening to residents’ views
and acting upon them
40%
39%
Dealing with anti-social
behaviour
Your neighbourhood as a
place to live
47%
27%
27%
30%
Overall
Keeping residents informed
27%
26%
Lambeth Living
36%
Lambeth TMO
Measurement  Evaluation  Learning: Using evidence to shape better services
60
Page 115
LAMBETH STAR SURVEY 2014
7)
M·E·L RESEARCH
Advice and support
This section presents residents satisfaction with the advice and support they receive
Advice on claiming housing benefit and other welfare benefits
Overall, 65% of tenants are satisfied with the advice on claiming housing benefit and other welfare benefits,
it is worth noting that 26% state they are neither satisfied nor dissatisfied, with only 10% dissatisfied. There
is little variation in satisfaction between Lambeth Living residents (65%) and Lambeth TMO residents (61%)
with the advice and support they receive on claiming housing and other welfare benefits.
Figure 65 Satisfaction with advice on claiming housing benefit and other welfare benefits / organisation
Percentage of respondent – non applicable removed
31%
31%
31%
Very satisfied
Overall = 65%
Lambeth Living = 65%
34%
34%
Fairly satisfied
30%
Lambeth TMO = 61%
26%
25%
Neither
29%
Fairly dissatisfied
5%
4%
5%
Very dissatisfied
5%
5%
5%
Overall
Lambeth Living
Lambeth TMO
Measurement  Evaluation  Learning: Using evidence to shape better services
61
Page 116
LAMBETH STAR SURVEY 2014
M·E·L RESEARCH
Advice on managing finances and paying rent and service charges
Nearly two-thirds (63%) of tenants are satisfied with the advice on managing finances and paying rent and
service charges, with 27% stating they are neither satisfied nor dissatisfied. A similar proportion of TMO
tenants (63%) and Lambeth Living tenants (57%) are satisfied with the advice and support on managing
finances and paying rent and service charges.
Figure 66 Satisfaction with advice on managing finances and paying rent and service charges / organisation
Percentage of respondents- non applicable removed
23%
23%
23%
Very satisfied
Overall = 63%
39%
40%
Fairly satisfied
34%
Lambeth Living = 63%
Lambeth TMO = 57%
27%
27%
Neither
31%
Fairly dissatisfied
Very dissatisfied
6%
6%
6%
Overall
Lambeth Living
Lambeth TMO
4%
4%
6%
Advice on moving home
31% of tenants are satisfied with the advice on moving home, with a high proportion (49%) stating they are
neither satisfied nor dissatisfied. This limited difference in satisfaction levels when comparing organisation.
Figure 67 Satisfaction with advice on moving home / organisation
Percentage of respondent – non applicable removed
Very satisfied
12%
11%
15%
19%
19%
19%
Fairly satisfied
Very dissatisfied
Lambeth Living = 30%
Lambeth TMO = 34%
49%
49%
48%
Neither
Fairly dissatisfied
Overall = 31%
7%
7%
6%
13%
14%
12%
Overall
Lambeth Living
Lambeth TMO
Measurement  Evaluation  Learning: Using evidence to shape better services
62
Page 117
LAMBETH STAR SURVEY 2014
M·E·L RESEARCH
Advice and support for vulnerable tenants
35% of tenants are satisfied with the advice and support for vulnerable tenants, with a high proportion
(45%) stating they are neither satisfied nor dissatisfied with the advice and support for vulnerable tenants.
Four in ten (40%) of TMO tenants are satisfied with the advice on support for vulnerable tenants compared
35% of Lambeth Living tenants.
Figure 68 Satisfaction with advice and support for vulnerable tenants / organisation
Percentage of respondents
12%
12%
Very satisfied
Overall = 35%
18%
Lambeth Living = 35%
23%
23%
22%
Fairly satisfied
Lambeth TMO = 40%
45%
46%
43%
Neither
8%
8%
7%
Fairly dissatisfied
Overall
Lambeth Living
Lambeth TMO
12%
12%
11%
Very dissatisfied
Debt and financial advice
Overall one out of four tenants state they are struggling with debt.
Figure 69 Proportion of residents struggling with debt
Percentage of respondents
25%
Are you
struggling
with debt?
Lambeth Living = 25%
Lambeth TMO = 24%
75%
Yes
No
Measurement  Evaluation  Learning: Using evidence to shape better services
63
Page 118
LAMBETH STAR SURVEY 2014
M·E·L RESEARCH
Overall nearly four in ten (37%) tenants would find debt and financial advice helpful, with 17% stating it
would be very helpful. 55% of tenants state that they would find debt and financial advice neither helpful nor
unhelpful. This is limited difference in the proportion of tenants who would find this advice helpful when
comparing organisation.
Figure 70 Proportion of residents who would find debt and financial advice helpful
Percentage of respondents
17%
17%
16%
Very helpful
20%
20%
22%
Fairly helpful
Overall = 37%
Lambeth Living = 37%
Lambeth TMO = 39%
55%
55%
53%
Neither
Fairly unhelpful
3%
3%
3%
Very unhelpful
5%
5%
5%
Overall
Lambeth Living
Lambeth TMO
All respondents were asked to select, from a list, if any resources would make it easier for them to access
the housing service. As shown below a relatively small proportion of residents feel that any of the resources
would make it easier for them to access their housing services.
Figure 71 Resources which would make it easier to access housing services
Percentage of respondents
Hearing loops
Translation services
5%
4%
7%
8%
7%
8%
Ramps and rails to
offices
8%
8%
8%
Information in accessible
formats e.g. Braille,
audio, large print
8%
8%
8%
Other
7%
7%
6%
None of the above
73%
73%
74%
Overall
Lambeth Living
Lambeth TMO
Measurement  Evaluation  Learning: Using evidence to shape better services
64
Page 119
LAMBETH STAR SURVEY 2014
8)
M·E·L RESEARCH
Contact and communication
This section presents findings on how residents feel about the contact they have had with their
service provider
Three out of four residents (78%) had contacted Lambeth Council in the last 12 months. Of these:

43% found getting hold of the right person easy, with 45% finding it difficult

58% thought the member of staff who dealt with their query was helpful, and over a quarter (26%)
found the member of staff to be unhelpful

53% thought that their query was answered in a reasonable time
Figure 72 Contact with Lambeth…
Percentage of respondents / Percentage of respondents who contacted Lambeth in the last 12 months
Helpful
Unhelpful
15%
Neither
26%
The
member
of staff
was….
58%
22%
Contacted
Lambeth
Council in
the last 12
months
47%
78%
Query
answered
in a
reasonable
time
53%
Yes
Yes
No
No
13%
45%
Getting
hold of the
right
person
was….
43%
Easy
Difficult
Neither
Measurement  Evaluation  Learning: Using evidence to shape better services
65
Page 120
LAMBETH STAR SURVEY 2014
M·E·L RESEARCH
Ability of staff to deal with the query quickly and efficiently
52% of residents who contacted Lambeth Council in the last 12 months were satisfied with the ability of staff
to deal with the query quickly and efficient. Satisfaction rises to 67% for Lambeth TMO residents, this
compares to half of Lambeth Living residents.
Figure 73 Satisfaction with the ability of staff to deal with the query quickly and efficiently/ organisation
Percentage of respondents who had contacted Lambeth Council in the last 12 months
21%
19%
Very satisfied
Overall = 52%
34%
31%
31%
33%
Fairly satisfied
Neither
Lambeth Living = 50%
Lambeth TMO = 67%
10%
11%
9%
Fairly dissatisfied
13%
16%
16%
Overall
Lambeth Living
Lambeth TMO
21%
23%
Very dissatisfied
12%
Final outcome of the query
45% of residents who contacted Lambeth Council in the last 12 months were satisfied with the final
outcome of the query. Six in ten of TMO residents were satisfied with the final outcome of queries. Under
half (43%) of Lambeth Living residents were satisfied with the final outcome of their query, with 45% stating
they were dissatisfied.
Figure 74 Satisfaction with the final outcome of the query / organisation
Percentage of respondents who had contacted Lambeth Council in the last 12 months
18%
17%
Very satisfied
Fairly dissatisfied
29%
27%
27%
Fairly satisfied
Neither
Overall = 45%
Lambeth Living = 43%
31%
Lambeth TMO = 60%
11%
12%
10%
14%
15%
13%
Very dissatisfied
18%
29%
30%
Overall
Lambeth Living
Lambeth TMO
Measurement  Evaluation  Learning: Using evidence to shape better services
66
Page 121
LAMBETH STAR SURVEY 2014
M·E·L RESEARCH
Internet Access
Overall 63% of residents have access to the internet at home, 24% have access to the internet at work,
34% have access by other means, and 27% of residents state they do not have access to the internet.
Figure 75 Access to the internet…
Percentage of respondents
Yes, at home
Yes, at work
63%
24%
Yes, other (e.g. smart phone,
tablet etc)
No
34%
27%
Measurement  Evaluation  Learning: Using evidence to shape better services
67
Page 122
LAMBETH STAR SURVEY 2014
9)
M·E·L RESEARCH
Neighbourhood
This section presents findings on how residents feel about their neighbourhood
Respondents were presented with a list of potential problems and asked if these are a problem in their
neighbourhood. Rubbish and litter tops the list with 60% stating this is a minor (35%) or major (28%)
problem. This is followed by noisy neighbours with 49% stating this is a minor (32%) or major (17%)
problem, whilst a similar proportion feel car parking (48%) is a problem in their neighbourhood.
Figure 76 Extent to which the following are a problem in their neighbourhood
Percentage of respondents – multiple responses
Total
Rubbish or litter
35%
Noisy neighbours
32%
Car parking
26%
Noise from traffic
27%
Drug use or dealing
17%
21%
13%
23%
Disruptive children /
teenagers
26%
Other crime
26%
Vandalism and graffiti
26%
Drunk or rowdy
behaviour
23%
Pets and animals
23%
People damaging your
property
25%
15%
Racial or other
harassment
11%
Abandoned or burnt out
vehicles
10%
16%
13%
49%
48%
40%
40%
39%
35%
8%
34%
8%
33%
10%
32%
10%
22%
7%
15%
4%
14%
4%
Minor problem
60%
Major Problem
Measurement  Evaluation  Learning: Using evidence to shape better services
68
Page 123
LAMBETH STAR SURVEY 2014
M·E·L RESEARCH
When comparing problems in the neighbourhood by organisation it shows that Lambeth Living residents
are more likely to state that rubbish or litter is a problem in their neighbourhood compared to Lambeth TMO
residents. While Lambeth TMO residents are more likely than Lambeth Living residents to state that: noisy
neighbours, noise from traffic, disruptive children/ teenagers, and pets and animals, is a problem in their
neighbourhood.
Figure 77 Extent to which the following are a problem in their neighbourhood / organisation
Percentage of respondents – multiple responses
61%
Rubbish or litter
55%
Noisy neighbours
48%
Car parking
48%
46%
57%
40%
44%
Noise from traffic
39%
42%
Drug use or dealing
38%
Disruptive children/teenagers
45%
35%
36%
Other crime
Vandalism and graffiti
34%
32%
Drunk or rowdy behaviour
33%
34%
31%
Pets and animals
37%
22%
22%
People damaging your property
Racial or other harassment
Abandoned or burnt out cars
15%
17%
14%
15%
Lambeth Living
TMO
Measurement  Evaluation  Learning: Using evidence to shape better services
69
Page 124
LAMBETH STAR SURVEY 2014
M·E·L RESEARCH
10) Repairs
This section sets out views from tenants regarding repairs and maintenance
As the chart below shows, nearly seven in ten (69%) tenants had a repair to the home in the last 12
months. There is limited difference in the proportion of residents who had a repair completed in the last 12
months when analysing by organisation.
Figure 78 Repairs to home in last 12 months
Percentage of respondents
31%
Repairs to
home
in the last
12 months
Lambeth Living = 69%
Lambeth TMO = 66%
69%
Yes
No
Satisfaction with the repairs and maintenance
Respondents who had a repair to their home in the last 12 months were asked how satisfied they were with
various aspects of the service. As Figure 79 overleaf shows, at 80%, the highest level of satisfaction is
expressed for the overall quality of work, while a similar proportion express satisfaction for the repairs
service received on this occasion. At 59%, the lowest level of satisfaction for the repairs and maintenance
service is with the operatives doing the job they expected, although a similar proportion (61%) express
satisfaction with being able to make an appointment.
Measurement  Evaluation  Learning: Using evidence to shape better services
70
Page 125
LAMBETH STAR SURVEY 2014
M·E·L RESEARCH
Figure 79 Satisfaction with…
Percentage of respondents who had repairs done to their home in the last 12 months
Total
Attitude of workers
35%
Keeping dirt and mess to
minimum
38%
Being able to make an
appointment
36%
Being told when workers
would call
34%
Overall quality of work
35%
The speed of completion of
the work
34%
Repairs service you
received on this occasion
29%
Time taken before work
started
30%
Repair being done 'right first
time'
31%
71%
33%
61%
24%
32%
65%
45%
80%
36%
37%
Operatives doing the job
you expected
69%
34%
69%
39%
77%
30%
59%
35%
65%
35%
Fairly Satisfied
67%
Very Satisfied
Gas servicing arrangements
Respondents were asked how satisfied they are with the gas servicing arrangements, of which 74% stated
they are satisfied. When comparing levels of satisfaction by organisation TMO residents are most likely to
be satisfied (79%) compared to Lambeth Living residents (73%).
Figure 80 Satisfaction with gas servicing arrangements
Percentage of respondents
38%
37%
42%
Very satisfied
Overall = 74%
Lambeth Living = 73%
36%
36%
37%
Fairly satisfied
Lambeth TMO = 79%
14%
14%
12%
Neither
Fairly dissatisfied
6%
7%
5%
Very dissatisfied
6%
6%
4%
Overall
Lambeth Living
Lambeth TMO
Measurement  Evaluation  Learning: Using evidence to shape better services
71
Page 126
LAMBETH STAR SURVEY 2014
M·E·L RESEARCH
11) Anti-social behaviour
This section sets out how their service provider deals with anti-social behaviour
The chart below shows that only a small proportion (14%) of residents had reported anti-social behaviour in
the last 12 months. There is limited difference in the proportion of residents who reported anti-social
behaviour in the last 12 months when analysing by organisation.
Figure 81 Residents who reported anti-social behaviour in the last 12 months
Percentage of respondents
14%
Reported
anti-social
behaviour
in last 12
months
Lambeth Living = 14%
Lambeth TMO = 15%
86%
Yes
No
Of the 14% of respondents who had reported anti-social behaviour within the last 12 months, 41% were
very (13%) or fairly (28%) satisfied with the advice provided by staff. 35% were satisfied with: how well they
were kept up to date with what was happening throughout the ASB case, and the support provided by staff.
31% were satisfied with the speed with which the ASB case was dealt with, and 29% were satisfied with
how well their landlord kept to the agreed action plan. It is worth noting that 54% of residents who reported
anti-social behavior in the last 12 months were dissatisfied with the speed with which the ASB case was
dealt with.
Measurement  Evaluation  Learning: Using evidence to shape better services
72
Page 127
LAMBETH STAR SURVEY 2014
M·E·L RESEARCH
Figure 82 Satisfaction with aspects of reporting anti-social behaviour
Percentage of respondents
Satisfied Dissatisfied
Advice provided by staff 13%
28%
How well you were kept up to
date with what was happening 13%
throughout your ASB case
How well your landlord kept to
13%
the agreed action plan
The support provided by staff
Very satisfied
22%
15%
16%
14%
The speed with which your
ASB case was dealt with 12%
overall
14%
23%
21%
19%
19%
17%
41%
45%
15%
35%
35%
50%
14%
34%
29%
48%
13%
33%
35%
46%
31%
54%
14% 12%
Fairly satisfied
28%
Neither
42%
Fairly dissatisfied
Very dissatisfied
Despite a high degree of dissatisfaction expressed by residents with the anti-social behaviour service, 66%
of residents state they would be very (46%) or fairly (19%) willing to report anti-social behaviour again in the
future.
Figure 83 Willingness to report anti-social behaviour again in the future
Percentage of respondents who reported anti-social behaviour in the last 12 months
Very willing
46%
66%
Fairly willing
Neither
Fairly reluctant
Very reluctant
19%
8%
10%
17%
Measurement  Evaluation  Learning: Using evidence to shape better services
73
Page 128
LAMBETH STAR SURVEY 2014
M·E·L RESEARCH
12) Complaints
This section sets out awareness from residents that their service provider has a formal complaints
procedure
55% of residents are aware that their service provider has a formal complaints procedure. When comparing
by organisation there is no difference in the proportion of residents who are aware of the formal complaints
procedure.
Figure 84 Awareness that Lambeth Council has a formal complaints procedure
Percentage of respondents
45%
Aware of
complaints
procedure
Lambeth Living = 55%
Lambeth TMO = 55%
55%
Yes
No
Measurement  Evaluation  Learning: Using evidence to shape better services
74
Page 129
LAMBETH STAR SURVEY 2014
M·E·L RESEARCH
13) Estate Services
This section sets out satisfaction with the estate services provided.
Respondents were asked how satisfied they feel with the value for money of the overall estate services
provides, overall just over half (51%) are satisfied. Six in ten (60%) TMO residents are satisfied with the
value for money of the overall estate services, this compares to 50% of Lambeth Living residents.
Figure 85 Satisfaction with the value for money of the overall estate services provided
Percentage of respondents
16%
15%
Very satisfied
Overall = 51%
24%
Lambeth Living = 50%
35%
35%
36%
Fairly satisfied
Lambeth TMO = 60%
20%
20%
18%
Neither
14%
14%
10%
Fairly dissatisfied
Overall
15%
16%
Very dissatisfied
Lambeth Living
11%
TMO
82% of TMO residents are satisfied with the grounds maintenance service, with 48% stating that they are
very satisfied with the grounds maintenance service.
Figure 86 Satisfaction with the grounds maintenance
Percentage of respondents
Very satisfied
48%
Fairly satisfied
34%
Neither
82%
Satisfaction
9%
Fairly dissatisfied
4%
Very dissatisfied
5%
Measurement  Evaluation  Learning: Using evidence to shape better services
75
Page 130
LAMBETH STAR SURVEY 2014
M·E·L RESEARCH
TMO residents were asked how satisfied they are with aspects of the cleaning service. Over seven in ten
tenants (71%) said they are satisfied with the cleaning of the internal communal areas (e.g. landing,
corridors and stairs), with 36% very satisfied. 74% state they are satisfied with the cleaning of the external
communal areas, with 36% very satisfied.
Figure 87 Satisfaction with cleaning of internal and external communal areas
Percentage of respondents
Very satisfied
36%
36%
Fairly satisfied
34%
38%
Internal = 71%
External = 74%
12%
9%
Neither
8%
8%
Fairly dissatisfied
9%
9%
Very dissatisfied
Internal communal areas
External communal areas
All respondents were asked how they satisfied they are with the condition of the estate roads. Overall 64%
express satisfaction with the condition of estate roads. Lambeth TMO residents (76%) are more likely than
Lambeth Living residents (62%) to be satisfied with the condition of estate roads.
Figure 88 Satisfaction with the condition of estate roads
Percentage of respondents
22%
20%
Very satisfied
Overall = 64%
33%
Lambeth Living = 62%
42%
42%
43%
Fairly satisfied
Lambeth TMO = 76%
16%
17%
Neither
11%
Fairly
dissatisfied
Very dissatisfied
11%
12%
7%
9%
9%
6%
Overall
Lambeth Living
TMO
Measurement  Evaluation  Learning: Using evidence to shape better services
76
Page 131
LAMBETH STAR SURVEY 2014
M·E·L RESEARCH
All respondents were asked how they satisfied they are with the condition of the estate paths. Overall 60%
are satisfied with the condition of estate paths. Over three quarters of TMO residents (76%) are satisfied
with condition of the paths, this compares to 58% of Lambeth Living residents.
Figure 89 Satisfaction with the condition of estate paths
Percentage of respondents
21%
20%
Very satisfied
Overall = 60%
31%
Lambeth Living = 58%
39%
38%
Fairly satisfied
45%
Lambeth TMO = 76%
15%
16%
Neither
10%
13%
14%
Fairly dissatisfied
8%
Overall
11%
12%
Very dissatisfied
Lambeth Living
6%
TMO
Tenants were asked how safe they felt in their estate. Around nine in ten tenants felt safe at home during
the day (91%), walking around the estate by themselves during the day (88%) and at home by themselves
at night (87%). Only 64% of tenants felt safe walking around the estate by themselves at night.
Figure 90 Satisfaction with aspects of estate safety
Percentage of respondents
Safe
At home by yourself during
the day
59%
At home by yourself at night
49%
Walking around the estate by
yourself during the day
Walking around the estate by
yourself at night
Very safe
37%
53%
26%
Fairly safe
5%4% 4% 87%
35%
38%
Neither
4%3% 2% 91%
32%
13%
Fairly unsafe
6%4% 2% 88%
14%
9%
64%
Very unsafe
Measurement  Evaluation  Learning: Using evidence to shape better services
77
Page 132
LAMBETH STAR SURVEY 2014
M·E·L RESEARCH
14) Leaseholders
This section sets out views from leaseholders.
12% of leaseholders state that their property is not their principle home. Of which, 90% sublet the property.
Figure 91 Is the property their principle home and do they sublet the property
Percentage of leaseholder respondents
10%
88%
Is the
property
their
principle
home
Do they
sublet
the
property
12%
Yes
90%
No
Yes
No
Leaseholder respondents were asked how satisfied they are with aspects of their service charges. Just
under four out of ten (39%) leaseholders are satisfied with how easy it is to understand their service charge
statement, with 46% dissatisfied with how easy it is to understand. Around one third (32%) of leaseholders
are satisfied with the information provided on how service charges are calculated, notably 51% indicate
some degree of dissatisfaction with how service charges are calculated.
Figure 92 Satisfaction with…
Percentage of leaseholder respondents
Satisfied Dissatisfied
How easy it is to understand
7%
the service charge statement
The information about how
5%
service charges are calculated
Very satisfied
32%
15%
27%
17%
Fairly satisfied
Neither
24%
24%
22%
27%
Fairly dissatisfied
39%
46%
32%
51%
Very dissatisfied
Measurement  Evaluation  Learning: Using evidence to shape better services
78
Page 133
LAMBETH STAR SURVEY 2014
M·E·L RESEARCH
40% of leaseholders are satisfied with the obligations under the terms and conditions of the lease, while
30% state they are dissatisfied with the obligations under the terms and conditions of the lease.
43% of leaseholders are satisfied with managing their finances and paying their service charges, while 30%
state they are dissatisfied with managing their finances and paying service charges.
Figure 93 Satisfaction with…
Percentage of leaseholder respondents
Satisfied Dissatisfied
Obligations under the terms and
8%
conditions of the lease
Managing finances and paying
10%
service charges
Very satisfied
32%
32%
Fairly satisfied
Neither
31%
15%
15%
40%
30%
27%
14%
16%
43%
30%
Fairly dissatisfied
Very dissatisfied
Leaseholders were asked if they had any Section 20 major works carried out to their home in the last 12
months. Around one quarter (26%) of leaseholders has had section 20 major works being undertaken in the
last 12 months.
Figure 94 Section 20 major works to the home in the last 12 months
Percentage of leaseholder respondents
26%
Section 20
major
works in
the last 12
months
74%
Yes
No
Measurement  Evaluation  Learning: Using evidence to shape better services
79
Page 134
LAMBETH STAR SURVEY 2014
M·E·L RESEARCH
Leaseholders who had a Section 20 repair carried out were then asked how satisfied they were with various
aspects of the work. At 42% indicating satisfaction, leaseholders were most satisfied with the attitude of the
workers. Whilst with 11% indicating satisfaction, leaseholders were least satisfied with the work providing
value for money. It is worth noting that there are high levels of dissatisfaction being expressed by
leaseholders for: the information provided before the work commenced (63%), the consultation process
(67%), communication whilst the work was being carried out (62%), the response received from staff if they
raised a query or issue (66%), and the work providing value for money (72%)
Figure 95 Satisfaction with…
Percentage of leaseholder respondents who had section 20 major works in the last 12 months
SatisfactionDissatisfaction
The attitude of the workers
11%
32%
The amount of notice before the
5%
work commenced
The overall quality of the work 8%
32%
15%
22%
18%
The information provided before
3% 24%
the work commenced
15%
The options for payment 4%17%
4%
14%
16%
30%
17%
The work providing value for
3%
9% 17%
money
Very satisfied
14%
9% 17%
Communication whilst the work
4%20%
was being carried out
Fairly satisfied
27%
37%
47%
30%
46%
27%
55%
47%
27%
63%
50%
24%
67%
23%
62%
21%
49%
15%
18%
66%
16%
11%
72%
Neither
20%
33%
17%
10% 16%
The consultation process 3%21%
42%
7%
15%
24%
The timescale for completing
3% 24%
the work
The response you received
from our staff if you raised an
issue or query
31%
28%
41%
47%
10%
39%
50%
56%
Fairly dissatisfied
Very dissatisfied
Measurement  Evaluation  Learning: Using evidence to shape better services
80
Page 135
LAMBETH STAR SURVEY 2014
M·E·L RESEARCH
Appendices
Measurement  Evaluation  Learning: Using evidence to shape better services
81
Page 136
LAMBETH STAR SURVEY 2014
M·E·L RESEARCH
Appendix 1 – Sample composition
Un-weighted
Weighted
Estate
87%
82%
Street property
13%
18%
16 to 34
13%
15%
35 to 44
20%
21%
45 to 54
24%
22%
55 to 64
17%
17%
65 or over
26%
25%
Male
43%
44%
Female
57%
56%
Yes
36%
36%
No
64%
64%
Yes
63%
63%
No
37%
37%
White
54%
52%
Black
41%
37%
Asian
5%
5%
Mixed
4%
4%
Other
3%
2%
Property location
Age
Gender
Health problem
Housing benefit
Ethnicity
Measurement  Evaluation  Learning: Using evidence to shape better services
82
Page 137
LAMBETH STAR SURVEY 2014
M·E·L RESEARCH
Appendix 2 - Tenants questionnaire
Measurement  Evaluation  Learning: Using evidence to shape better services
83
Page 138
LAMBETH STAR SURVEY 2014
M·E·L RESEARCH
Measurement  Evaluation  Learning: Using evidence to shape better services
84
Page 139
LAMBETH STAR SURVEY 2014
M·E·L RESEARCH
Measurement  Evaluation  Learning: Using evidence to shape better services
85
Page 140
LAMBETH STAR SURVEY 2014
M·E·L RESEARCH
Measurement  Evaluation  Learning: Using evidence to shape better services
86
Page 141
LAMBETH STAR SURVEY 2014
M·E·L RESEARCH
Measurement  Evaluation  Learning: Using evidence to shape better services
87
Page 142
LAMBETH STAR SURVEY 2014
M·E·L RESEARCH
Measurement  Evaluation  Learning: Using evidence to shape better services
88
Page 143
LAMBETH STAR SURVEY 2014
M·E·L RESEARCH
Measurement  Evaluation  Learning: Using evidence to shape better services
89
Page 144
LAMBETH STAR SURVEY 2014
M·E·L RESEARCH
Measurement  Evaluation  Learning: Using evidence to shape better services
90
Page 145
LAMBETH STAR SURVEY 2014
M·E·L RESEARCH
Measurement  Evaluation  Learning: Using evidence to shape better services
91
Page 146
LAMBETH STAR SURVEY 2014
M·E·L RESEARCH
Measurement  Evaluation  Learning: Using evidence to shape better services
92
Page 147
LAMBETH STAR SURVEY 2014
M·E·L RESEARCH
Measurement  Evaluation  Learning: Using evidence to shape better services
93
Page 148
LAMBETH STAR SURVEY 2014
M·E·L RESEARCH
Measurement  Evaluation  Learning: Using evidence to shape better services
94
Page 149
LAMBETH STAR SURVEY 2014
M·E·L RESEARCH
Measurement  Evaluation  Learning: Using evidence to shape better services
95
Page 150
LAMBETH STAR SURVEY 2014
M·E·L RESEARCH
Measurement  Evaluation  Learning: Using evidence to shape better services
96
Page 151
LAMBETH STAR SURVEY 2014
M·E·L RESEARCH
Measurement  Evaluation  Learning: Using evidence to shape better services
97
Page 152
LAMBETH STAR SURVEY 2014
M·E·L RESEARCH
Measurement  Evaluation  Learning: Using evidence to shape better services
98
Page 153
LAMBETH STAR SURVEY 2014
M·E·L RESEARCH
Appendix 3 – Leaseholder questionnaires
Measurement  Evaluation  Learning: Using evidence to shape better services
99
Page 154
LAMBETH STAR SURVEY 2014
M·E·L RESEARCH
Measurement  Evaluation  Learning: Using evidence to shape better services
100
Page 155
LAMBETH STAR SURVEY 2014
M·E·L RESEARCH
Measurement  Evaluation  Learning: Using evidence to shape better services
101
Page 156
LAMBETH STAR SURVEY 2014
M·E·L RESEARCH
Measurement  Evaluation  Learning: Using evidence to shape better services
102
Page 157
LAMBETH STAR SURVEY 2014
M·E·L RESEARCH
Measurement  Evaluation  Learning: Using evidence to shape better services
103
Page 158
LAMBETH STAR SURVEY 2014
M·E·L RESEARCH
Measurement  Evaluation  Learning: Using evidence to shape better services
104
Page 159
LAMBETH STAR SURVEY 2014
M·E·L RESEARCH
Measurement  Evaluation  Learning: Using evidence to shape better services
105
Page 160
LAMBETH STAR SURVEY 2014
M·E·L RESEARCH
Measurement  Evaluation  Learning: Using evidence to shape better services
106
Page 161
LAMBETH STAR SURVEY 2014
M·E·L RESEARCH
Measurement  Evaluation  Learning: Using evidence to shape better services
107
Page 162
LAMBETH STAR SURVEY 2014
M·E·L RESEARCH
Measurement  Evaluation  Learning: Using evidence to shape better services
108
Page 163
LAMBETH STAR SURVEY 2014
M·E·L RESEARCH
Measurement  Evaluation  Learning: Using evidence to shape better services
109
Page 164
LAMBETH STAR SURVEY 2014
M·E·L RESEARCH
Measurement  Evaluation  Learning: Using evidence to shape better services
110
Page 165
LAMBETH STAR SURVEY 2014
M·E·L RESEARCH
Measurement  Evaluation  Learning: Using evidence to shape better services
111
Page 166
LAMBETH STAR SURVEY 2014
M·E·L RESEARCH
Measurement  Evaluation  Learning: Using evidence to shape better services
112
Page 167
LAMBETH STAR SURVEY 2014
M·E·L RESEARCH
Measurement  Evaluation  Learning: Using evidence to shape better services
113
Page 168
LAMBETH STAR SURVEY 2014
M·E·L RESEARCH
Measurement  Evaluation  Learning: Using evidence to shape better services
114
Page 169
LAMBETH STAR SURVEY 2014
M·E·L RESEARCH
MEASUREMENT  EVALUATION  LEARNING: USING EVIDENCE TO SHAPE BETTER SERVICES
1
This page is intentionally left blank