Memorandum from Hanover Housing Group
(BDH 38)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
— Hanover's approach to achieving Decent
Homes, and improvements beyond this standard, is dependent on
tenant engagement. Our approach demonstrates "best practice
with wider post-2010 applicability".— All Hanover's
homes meet the Decent Home standard.
— We are now seeking to go beyond Decent
Homes—working in partnership with residents locally, Hanover
is determining the right quality standard for each estate location.
— Our approach comprises three strands:
the Hanover Quality Standard (HQS); local agreements and the "co-payment"
approach.
— The HQS is a design, environmental and
maintenance approach that looks beyond the government's Decent
Home standard.
— Local agreements are documented agreements
with residents on each of our estates, setting out the services
(and their associated costs) that Hanover provides at that location.
— Co-payments will be offered to residents
who wish to make improvements to their homes outside of the planned
works programme. Hanover will match-fund residents' contributions.
— Integral to our "beyond Decent Homes"
approach is a recognition that every estate—and every home—is
different. We seek to offer choice to our residents wherever possible—supported
by local technical expertise to do so.
— Our approach therefore complements the
localism, choice and personalisation agendas.
— We believe that our approach to Decent
Homes, particularly "local agreements" and "co-payments",
are examples of good practice that others may wish to follow.
— Hanover hopes that the Committee will
highlight our initiatives to Communities and Local Government
(CLG) to help inform future Decent Home guidance and good practice.
1. ABOUT HANOVER
1.1 Hanover Housing Association was founded
in 1963. Today the Hanover Group is one of the largest specialist
providers of retirement housing, related support and services
in England.
1.2 Hanover manages 19,000 retirement and
Extra Care properties, including 500 on behalf of external organisations.
We continue to lead the sector in building Extra Care housing,
with estates in 52 locations. Our residents comprise tenants and
home owners.
1.3 Our tenant satisfaction rating is over
91%—the highest of any landlord held by ORC International,
a research benchmark.
1.4 Our mission is "to deliver excellent
living environments and tailored services that support independence
and individuality for older people".
1.5 Hanover wants to make retirement housing
a positive choice. To do this, we've developed a four step approach:
— Providing clarity to allow choice.
— Engaging residents in determining quality
standards and priorities for improvement.
— Offering new opportunities for rent and
home ownership.
— Helping residents do the things they
want to do.
1.6 Our approach to Decent Homes directly
links to these four steps.
2. HANOVER'S
INTEGRATED APPROACH
TO DECENT
HOMES AND
IMPROVEMENTS TO
RESIDENTS' HOMES
2.1 100% of Hanover's properties already
meet the Decent Home standard (this is discounting the minority
of properties where residents have signed disclaimers to say they
do not wish Decent Homes work to be undertaken—in which
case the work will be undertaken when the properties become vacant).
2.2 However, we are committed to investing
in ongoing improvements and refurbishments—and wish to go
beyond the statutory minimum standard.
2.3 We want to provide homes that are not
just "decent"—but homes that are in line with
residents' expectations and that are attractive to prospective
residents. Our approach to Decent Homes is:
— innovative and pioneering;
— dependent on resident involvement (especially
in scope and prioritisation) on an estate by estate basis;
— based on a realism about our available
resources—this is made transparent to residents when we
consult with them;
— part of Hanover's wider asset management
strategy;
— consistent with our approach of viewing
our residents as "consumers"; and
— integral to our aim to be the number
one provider of older people's housing.
2.4 Our approach to resident involvement
has already been commended by the Tenant Services Authority and
the National Housing Federation.
2.5 We have a co-ordinated approach to Decent
Homes that includes:
— the Hanover Quality Standard;
— new "local agreements"; and
— our forthcoming "co-payments"
scheme.
3. THE HANOVER
QUALITY STANDARD
(HQS)
Unique features of the HQS
3.1 Hanover is one of the first housing
associations to begin the implementation of a new housing benchmark
ahead of any government system or standard.
3.2 What really sets us apart is our emphasis
on local consultation with residents to help decide what work
is carried out to their homes.
3.3 We give residents real say in determining
standards and investment priorities for where they live. Hanover
has recruited more technical professionals to locally support
residents in making these decisions.
A guide to the HQS
3.4 The HQS is a design, environmental and
maintenance approach that looks beyond the basic Decent Home standard.
It has a new emphasis on ensuring our properties meet contemporary
standards and expectations.
3.5 The HQS programme links Decent Homes, on-going
maintenance, investment programmes and asset management reviews.
3.6 The four main components of the scope
of the work are:
— internal features of the property;
— aesthetics and setting; and
— energy and sustainability.
3.7 The HQS process involves Hanover explaining
to residents the HQS and the thinking behind it. But importantly,
it also involves Hanover listening to and consulting with residents
to understand their thoughts and feelings on the quality of their
existing homes and how they can be improved.
3.8 The conduct of each assessment against
a clear framework will lead to a high level of standards throughout
estates by working with residents to create a "wish list"
for planned works such as improvement to communal areas, gardens
or individual units.
3.9 The process is as follows:
— We conduct inspections of each estate,
talking to residents about their views and perspectives.
— We then produce a report detailing the
priority works residents would like to see carried out.
— A plan is drawn up, taking into account
residents' views, as well as issues of finance and housing management,
existing planned works and the affordability of any works.
— We then return to the residents and talk
with them about the options and the feasibility of their proposals.
We explain how the proposed work could be carried out. We also
provide back-up information on options, specifications and costs
in order to provide the best possible assistance to residents
during the decision process.
— The process involves negotiation, but
is based on transparency so that residents understand the impact
of decisions they make.
— Ultimately, it is residents who are making
their own informed decisions on how they want to improve their
homes.
The benefits of the HQS
3.10 The HQS approach is rooted in our belief
that residents know what improvements are needed and that, since
they are our customers, this is good business.
3.11 We expect that this will:
— improve resident satisfaction even further;
— make units more attractive;
— focus and make the most of our resources.
Implementation of the HQS
3.12 The HQS is a rolling programme. All
Hanover's estates are to be surveyed by March 2010, resulting
in a four-year prioritised upgrade programme.
3.13 We tested the methodology with a selection
of estates. We have also learnt from QS HQS our experience gained
in Hackney—where we took over 30 retirement estates from
the London Borough of Hackney following a large scale voluntary
transfer—and worked extensively with residents in order
to carry out Decent Home improvement works.
3.14 Resident involvement in that process
ensured that the works carried out delivered what residents actually
said they wanted rather than what Hanover said they should have.
The final outcome delivered the Decent Home standard but it improved
residents' satisfaction too (eg a new front entrance door and
lobby provides more than security and disabled access for residents,
it can also improve the external aesthetics).
3.15 The key questions posed to residents
include: what they like about their home, shared spaces and external
environment, and; what they would want to change about any of
these aspects. Engagement is mainly through a combination of resident
surveys and in-depth focus groups. When our staff present the
rationale and objectives of the HQS process there is always lively
and constructive discussion and feedback.
3.16 Typical key areas that emerge from
consultation and feedback are shown below:
— the quality of bathrooms and kitchens
are top of the agenda, with concerns over long replacement cycles
affecting quality standards and residents' pride in their own
homes. Mainly, resident ask for a more contemporary look;
— the need to provide a "non-institutional"
feel to both the outside world and to residents internally is
high on the list too—residents ask for "personality"
in communal rooms and corridors;
— security, lighting or being fuel efficient
and environmentally friendly are also important topics;
— residents would like entrances to be
more secure, accessible and welcoming;
— there is a desire to improve private
amenity to homes as well as communal areas;
— residents want a reduction in energy
use and to improve estate performance;
— general access around the external grounds,
common areas and apartments has also been raised; and
— residents generally feel that too much
signage is provided on our estates.
3.17 The budget to carry out works will
be ring-fenced from sales of stock which, for strategic and other
reasons, no longer forms part of our brief.
3.18 Designs will be agreed with residents
nationally and locally and individuals will also have an input
into their kitchen and bathroom layouts, and the option to purchase
additional units and equipment.
3.19 The installation of kitchens and bathrooms
will still take place on a pre-planned cycle.
4. "LOCAL
AGREEMENTS" AT
HANOVER
Unique features of local agreements
4.1 Local agreements have been developed
by Hanover because we our residents have indicated very firmly
to us that "local" accountability matters to them.
4.2 We believe that our approach is innovative,
and chimes with the localism agenda as it involves devolving previously
centralised decisions to the people who are affected by them locally.
4.3 The agreements ensure that residents
have an opportunity to review services and costs on a regular
basis.
A guide to local agreements
4.4 Local agreements are documented agreements
with residents on each estate, which set out the services—and
their associated costs—Hanover provides at that location.
4.5 The agreement sets out the level of
service provided by the locally based Estate Manager of each scheme,
as well as the emergency 24 hour alarm service ("Hanover
On Call"), and service contracts that cover cleaning, gardening
and local repairs.
4.6 Local agreements are key to our strategic
aim of improving the clarity of the service we offer. They link
to four service classifications agreed by Hanover ("Hanover
Housing", "Hanover Retirement Housing", "Hanover
Retirement Living" and "Hanover Extra Care").
4.7 The agreements will become a key method
of engaging with residents about the services provided locally
and the ways in which services might develop.
4.8 All our estates will have an agreement
in place by 30 September 2009. It is recognised that these initial
agreements and documents will develop and change over time.
4.9 The initial local agreements will include
the results of an exercise taking place this summer to identify
local contractors for each estate as part of our responsive repairs
review.
4.10 Residents indicated that they were
concerned about the loss of local accountability and control inherent
in Hanover's previous proposals to introduce a national single
contractor for responsive repairs—residents valued having
local contractors and in having a say in works on their estate.
Hanover responded by introducing a new "responsive repairs
service" that allows local residents to actively choose their
local contractors. The agreements are a clear signal to our residents
that we listen to them.
4.11 There will be some issues, including
the tendering of repairs contracts and also the retention of an
estate manager service, where it would be considered unreasonable
to review more than every two or three years.
4.12 However, Hanover believes that local
agreements should otherwise be reviewed annually—and more
often if requested by residents.
Benefits of local agreements
4.13 Local agreements give residents surety,
and clarity, about the services that they can expect to receive
from Hanover in a given period.
4.14 Local agreements will also aid clarity
for older people seeking to rent or buy a home from us.
4.15 There may be particular repairs, or
planned works, where residents value the choice of being able
to select their own local contractor. While residents may not
need the services of a plumber very often, for example, the estate
may have a regular gardener whom residents do see often.
4.16 With regard to planned works, having
some say over local contractors who could be used is likely to
offer reassurance and more control over what might otherwise be
an inconvenient process for residents.
Implementation of local agreements
4.17 Hanover is nearing the end of the first
phase of implementing local agreements.
4.18 Residents are working with their Estate
Manager to come up with an agreement that accurately reflects
the services and amenities that their estate currently has—or
the residents would like them to have.
4.19 Hanover will measure the success of
local agreements via satisfaction surveys. This will indicate
the extent to which residents have found them meaningful and a
helpful clarification of the services on offer locally.
5. INTRODUCTION
OF CO
-PAYMENTS
Unique features of the co-payment proposal
5.1 Hanover is possibly the first landlord,
or certainly among the first landlords, to be close to introducing
a co-payments policy.
5.2 The policy will extend choice to our
residents, help to boost the quality of our stock and is yet another
example of innovative thinking that other housing providers may
wish to follow.
5.3 Co-payments increase options and provide
an incentive for tenants to make improvements to their homes outside
of the planned works programme.
A guide to the co-payment proposal
5.4 Residents will be eligible for a "co-payment"
if they wish to replace their kitchens and bathrooms sooner than
Hanover's planned works programme allows.
5.5 Hanover will match-fund a resident's
contribution. Residents will have a choice of who they want to
supply, how they want it fitted and when they want the work completed.
5.6 The match-funding ratio is to be determined,
and will vary according to the individual home. However, Hanover
intends to use a sliding scale approach, to reflect the period
since the kitchen or bathroom was last replaced. If the replacement
was undertaken very recently then the current installation will
be seen as fit for purpose and no contribution will be made by
Hanover. Conversely, if the replacement is due in the near future,
Hanover should meet the full cost. Between these extremes the
resident's contribution will decrease over time as the replacement
date comes nearer and Hanover's will increase.
5.7 Hanover's current replacement cycle
for kitchens and bathrooms is 27 years and 37 years respectively.
This is not considered acceptable. In the meantime, we believe
that co-payments may be attractive to some residents who recognise
the ability to enhance their property by utilising to some extent
their own resource.
The benefits of co-payments
5.8 The policy proposal has emerged from
residents themselves—and complements Hanover's approach
of viewing residents as customers with choices, rather than passive
recipients of services.
5.9 The proposal began as a "kitchen
pilot" in our north region—we replaced kitchens over
10 years old in void properties to enhance let-ability. Existing
residents felt this approach was exclusive, so the pilot was extended
to these residents. Using Hanover's preferred suppliers and contractors,
residents were able to have 50% of their costs met by Hanover.
5.10 The pilot results suggested that residents
wanted more choice—having to use our supplier and contractors
was restricting and did not result in economies of scale for Hanover
anyway. However, the concept of co-payments seemed strong enough
to develop nationally.
5.11 The approach makes best use of the
RSL's resources—although start-up costs may be high, in
the longer term we believe this will save Hanover money on its
capital works programme.
5.12 The new approach will be extended nationally
to all rental retirement housing and Extra Care residents where
the onus is on Hanover to provide planned works.
Planned implementation of co-payments
5.13 Planning is on-going but Hanover intends
to offer co-payments by the end of the financial year (2009-10).
5.14 There is significant work to do before
then:
— Co-payments will need to be clearly explained
so that residents can make an informed and sensible choice. This
includes information on costs, benefits and timescales.
— Residents must then be able to rely on
this information. We are aware that in the event that we are able
to bring forward a kitchen or bathroom replacement programme,
this may displease residents who have made a co-payment on the
basis that improvements are not scheduled for several years.
— Hanover needs to publish a "reasonable
cost figure" for kitchen and bathroom replacement—representing
the likely amount that Hanover would spend on a Hanover Quality
Standard replacement in that location.
5.15 Residents will have two options:
(a) To ask Hanover to fit a standard kitchen/bathroom
and to arrange and project-manage the works. The resident will
be invoiced at the end of the process and will have the same right
to involvement in the design process as any other resident.
(b) To choose the design and the units and to
arrange the installation themselves. Hanover would then contribute
the appropriate percentage towards the cost at the end of the
process.
5.16 The second option will require more
administration and technical oversight to ensure the replacement
is appropriate for our property, in terms of:
— risk management, eg for other residents;
and
— satisfactory completion before Hanover
pays its contribution.
September 2009
| 
