Thousands paid out after housing complaints in Cheltenham
A total of 86 complaints from Cheltenham Borough Council tenants were lodged in April, May and June this year
Thousands of pounds have been paid out to social housing tenants in Cheltenham after dozens of complaints were upheld in recent months.
A total of 86 complaints from Cheltenham Borough Council tenants were lodged in April, May and June this year. Of these, 45 were upheld, 21 partly upheld while 20 were dismissed. And the housing service received 12 complinents during those months.
The council made 14 compensation payments to residents during those three months totalling £5,801.54. Many of these relate to issues with the kitchen installation programme, according to a report presented to the cabinet housing committee meeting last week.
The report suggests the most common complaint category is service delay which accounted for 33 complaints over that period.
While poor communication was the second highest category, with 23 complaints . These complaints were typically related to a lack of updates, difficulties contacting services, or residents feeling that information had not been communicated clearly or in a timely manner.
Contractor-related complaints accounted for 11 cases with a further 11 complaints related to the quality of work carried out.
Staff-related complaints represented five cases, often relating to customer experience, service delivery, or interactions with staff members. And the lowest category was disrepair.
Ian Mason, a tenant representative, spoke of the difference in the amount of data the council has of in-house repair works compared to that which is carried out by contractors.
“The information that is available to those teams between the in-house repairs and the repairs that are done by contractors was quite startling,” he told the meeting on July 29.
“Where we’re looking at repairs being done by the in-house teams… and we looked at repairs that have been done to my flat in my block.
“They had who came, when they came, what they did, what colour paint they used, how long they were there, how many screws they put in.
“They had so much detail. It was really impressive to see. The moment it went to a contractor they had virtually no information at all.”
He didn’t think the customer services team actually have the information to communicate properly in some cases.
“The team that are trying to manage this are effectively doing it blindfolded with one hand dried behind their back when it comes to contractors,” he said.
He went on to say he could treble the number of contractor-related complaints were he minded to just by reporting issues at Monkscroft.
“With work that has been started and not completed, with contractors not turning up or contractors turning up and not doing any work or going away and never being seen again,” he said.
“I wonder maybe under the forward plan if we can look at this in future meetings. Because this is absolutely key to driving the numbers down, getting the team that are trying to manage this the information that they need to do it.”
Matt Ward, head of housing services, told the meeting that the “art of dealing with contractors” is a challenge.
He explained they are doing a huge programme of works of kitchens and bathrooms across the whole of the borough.
“There are regular contractor meetings set up in place where we go through complaints that we’ve got in and we deal with issues as and when they arise,” he said.
“But yes, you’re quite right. It is a challenge.”
Councillor Julian Tooke (LD, Pittville) said the committee was discussing two issues, whether a good job is being done and what is expected in terms of recording the work carried out.
“When it’s in-house the recordings are very detailed,” he said. “Are we setting up expectations with these contractors that they give the same detail back in terms of information?
“If not, can we?”
The meeting also heard how the council has improved the timeliness in which it deals with complaints.
The average number of days taken to investigate all closed complaints was 10.4 working days, which is the lowest average recorded to date and bringing performance closer to the Housing Ombudsman’s expected target of ten days.