Spend to save

Without a doubt we get most complaints from tenants just after they have moved in.

They expect to find a house in good order, where everything works and they can get down to the business of everyday life without any fuss. We think we provide that for them. All our void works should be finished and the utilities should work properly. Occasionally we mess up, but most of the time, that is how it is.

But it doesn’t stop the complaints.

Even on those rare occasions that tenants are moving into a brand new house, something will be wrong. It could be marks left on the walls by builders. It could be snagging works. It can even be that they don’t like the colour of the paint. For housing officers, who know how hard it is to provide their home, carping about small things can be desperately annoying.

Of course we do our best to avoid complaints. We explain that houses may not be in good decorative order, to try to smooth the process. We used to give decoration allowances but now we are moving to self-help packs. In part, because in the past money was often was siphoned off the allowance to pay other council debts.

But the packs are not really the answer. We find that some tenants’ DIY skills are not up to scratch and their inability to decorate is matched by their total lack of interest. So half stripped walls, peeling paper and semi-painted rooms are becoming the norm. Sometimes houses stay like that for the length of the tenancy, making the property much harder to let when the tenants move out.

So what should tenants expect from us and how can we manage their expectations to meet what is practically possible?

“We should spend a little to save a lot.”

Perhaps we could seek inspiration form the private letting market? There, if you don’t like the look of the property the agent is showing, you say no. Even with choice based letting, that isn’t feasible for us though. There is a limit to the properties we will offer, because applicants can only bid successfully three times.

We have a captive market. We may provide a semblance of choice but in reality we are letting to people who often have few if any other options.

But that doesn’t let us off the hook for offering a good customer experience. After all, we want to have a long term relationship with a tenant and help them to look after the property. We are not going to encourage that by handing them a paint pot and a set of brushes and saying, yes, we know it looks c**p, but you can fix it for yourself.

Does this indicate a different attitude between public and private housing, I wonder? Do we think we can provide a poorer quality product because it is cheap, indeed virtually free, for some?

Clearly it isn’t as simple as that because there is some abysmal housing in the private sector, despite efforts to enforce standards. There is also, at the middle and top end of the private market, some superb housing for those who can afford it. Given that the government wants us to sell our own high quality housing, we are never going to compete with that.

But here is a thought: why not spend a bit more upfront, so we hand over houses in not just adequate but sparkling condition?

It doesn’t need to cost a fortune. Proper, professional decoration, especially of older stock, would be a quick win. What is the point in meeting government-imposed standards on our houses, which the tenant is usually unaware of, when they look terrible?

It doesn’t encourage them to bond with the house, let alone care for it. And it engenders bad attitudes. They see the property as something to move out of as soon as possible. It gives the impression that ‘the authorities’ really aren’t bothered and are letting houses only because they must, rather than because they understand their needs. If we can’t be bothered to look after it, why should they?

Of course that isn’t our viewpoint - but it is easy to see why it might be assumed.

Instead, why not ensure every void is decorated and carpeted to a reasonable standard - and even put a bunch of flowers on the mantelpiece (£5 at your local supermarket) to welcome tenants to their new homes?

I ran these ideas past my team before writing them. There was some sympathy but, “We do too much for the tenants already,” was one jaded comment.

Sorry, but I really don’t agree. This is about relationships. We spend serious money training staff in customer service. Why do we do this? To give a good impression and ensure the tenants feel respected and valued. Then we put them into houses with bare floorboards and the ugly remains of the previous tenants’ decoration disasters.

This is inconsistent and short sighted. We should spend a little to save a lot. I know some tenants will not appreciate our efforts; some may even trash them. That is not the point. It is a mark of our respect for them. They are not supplicants, to ‘get what they are given’. They are customers. If we value them, they will value the property - and that is bound to save us money in the long-term.

Mr Anonymous, our insider on the frontline