HouseMark Final G15 Benchmarking Report 2014/15 · HouseMark Final G15 Benchmarking Report 2014/15...

Genesis Housing Association

December 2015

HouseMark Final G15

Benchmarking Report

2014/15

HouseMark 2014/15 Benchmarking Report December 2015 ____________________________________________________________________________

HouseMark 2015

1

Contents

1. Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 3

1.1. Operational context ...................................................................................................... 3

1.2. Benchmarking .............................................................................................................. 3

1.3. Key operational issues ................................................................................................. 6

1.4. Key regulatory issues ................................................................................................... 7

1.5. About this report ........................................................................................................... 8

1.6. Your peer group ......................................................................................................... 10

1.7. A note on boxplots ..................................................................................................... 12

1.8. Further information ..................................................................................................... 13

2. Cost and performance summary ....................................................................................... 15

3. Value for money scorecard ................................................................................................ 16

4. Financial indicators ............................................................................................................ 21

5. Overheads......................................................................................................................... 22

Overhead costs as a percentage of adjusted turnover .............................................................. 23

Finance .............................................................................................................................................. 26

6. Housing Management ....................................................................................................... 30

6.1. Housing management performance ........................................................................... 33

7. Voids and Lettings ............................................................................................................. 39

7.1. Housing management costs and satisfaction ............................................................. 48

8. Responsive repairs and void works ................................................................................... 49

8.1. Responsive repairs performance ................................................................................ 54

9. Major works and cyclical maintenance .............................................................................. 57

9.1. Major works and cyclical maintenance performance................................................... 60

9.2. Major works and cyclical maintenance cost and satisfaction ...................................... 63

10. Development ................................................................................................................. 64


HouseMark 2015

2

11. Corporate health ............................................................................................................ 66

12. Tenant satisfaction (STAR and transactional) ................................................................ 70

12.1. Tenant satisfaction (STAR) ..................................................................................... 71

12.2. Transactional satisfaction ....................................................................................... 72

Appendix 1 – Disclosure of information .................................................................................... 74


HouseMark 2015

3

1. Introduction

1.1. Operational context

The operating environment for housing providers is changing dramatically and rapidly. Never before has it been more important to understand your costs and performance in detail, and to find ways to drive efficiency in your business. The new government has announced a raft of new policies in its first few months in office, including in its July budget, and the Housing Bill published this Autumn. The ongoing reform of welfare, new policies on rents, the extension of the right to buy and an increasingly challenging grant regime for new housing all create significant challenges. The regulatory approach also continues to evolve – with a strong focus on governance, viability and value for money, and a firm expectation that boards will take responsibility for ensuring that they are effectively managed and comply with regulatory requirements. In this context, effective resource management remains an imperative and HouseMark’s Core Benchmarking, with its granular analysis of cost and robust validation, has never been more relevant. ‘I firmly believe that in an environment where every housing provider needs to review their costs, HouseMark members are sitting on a gold-mine of data’ – Ross Fraser, Chief Executive of HouseMark.

1.2. Benchmarking

Benchmarking is important to any business. It provides key comparisons with similar organisations, enabling understanding of strengths and weaknesses and underpinning an evidence based approach to resource allocation, cost reduction and target setting. Commercially, this information would be used to maintain competitive advantage. In social housing, particularly around the landlord function, competition is less of an issue; but understanding differences and identifying areas for improvement are essential business intelligence. This benchmarking report is one output among many drawn from HouseMark’s core benchmarking service, aimed at all levels of staff and management within our member organisations, as well as residents. It is just part of our evolving offer, which enables a changing, diversifying sector to drive efficiency and value for money, understand customers and manage risk. Other key benchmarking outputs include:

Flexible VFM Scorecard – the VFM Scorecard featured in this report is flexible and can be edited online. Members can choose from a basket of available indicators to bespoke the VFM Scorecard to their organisation. The VFM Scorecard is designed to provide you and your stakeholders with a high-level value-for-money summary of your business activities


HouseMark 2015

4

Social Housing Dashboard – developed with boards and residents in mind, this quadrant-based chart provides at-a-glance understanding of an organisation’s costs and performance across key social housing service areas. It can also be embedded directly into your own website or intranet

Spreadsheet schedules – supplied with this report, these contain in-depth figures for each organisation in the peer group and are broken down into operational service areas


HouseMark 2015

5

Online reporting – this provides full flexibility to analyse different peer groups over various timescales, look at service areas in detail, and extract charts and data. Our scenario facility also allows you to model changes in staffing and non-pay costs to assess the impact of potential changes on your relative position

Sector analysis – using aggregated benchmarking data alongside other publicly available relevant data, HouseMark’s in-house team of analysts produce several reports throughout the year to identify emerging patterns and understand the effect of external issues on the housing sector. For example, our repairs storyboard which can be viewed on-line http://www.housemarkbusinessintelligence.co.uk/data/benchmarking-repairs

http://www.housemarkbusinessintelligence.co.uk/data/benchmarking-repairs


HouseMark 2015

6

1.3. Key operational issues

Changes in the operating environment may impact on your costs and performance in a number of ways. Your benchmarking data will help you assess how you have managed these changes compared to your peers. The table below sets out a number of current issues and how the relative impact on your organisation can be analysed using benchmarking data:

Operational issue Response

The roll out of Universal Credit (UC) across the UK could have a major impact on rental income streams, as well as resulting in increased operating costs to cope with the change from dealing with housing benefit departments to Job Centre Plus offices.

Benchmarking data provides a comprehensive overview of rental income and arrears performance measures alongside the costs of collection. Peer group comparison helps you assess the effectiveness of your strategies to cope with change.

Changes to welfare benefits impact on the relative affordability or social housing for many actual and prospective tenants. This may make it more difficult to attract and retain tenants (e.g. the ‘bedroom tax’, and ‘pay to stay’).

The impact may be seen on performance in areas such as re-let times, vacancy rates and tenancy turnover. Comparisons of resourcing and costs in these areas can be utilised to assess the value for money of services such as choice-based lettings, and provide an evidence base for strategies such as change of use.

Extension of the right-to-buy to tenants of all social landlords is a key policy of the new government. Whilst the exact details are yet to be fully determined, the effects are likely to be significant; current sector estimates are that c10% of housing association tenants may take up the RTB.

Losing rented stock through right-to-buy sales will affect two key benchmarking measures – cost per property and employees per 1,000 properties. A reduction in stock without a reduction in expenditure would show as a rise in these measures, suggesting less value for money. Loss of stock in this way also impacts on rental income streams.

The new government’s first budget, in July 2015, provides for a reduction in social housing rents by 1% per year for the next four years. This will have a significant impact on housing association’s main revenue stream.

Organisations are likely to seek efficiency savings to compensate for reduced revenue. But will savings be across the board or focused on areas of lower priority, will they be sufficient to maintain operating margins – and how will this impact on performance? Benchmarking enables you to understand the impact of these changes on your own organisation compared to your peers.


HouseMark 2015

7

It was announced in the budget that local authority and housing association tenants in England who earn more than £30,000 (£40,000 in London) will be required to pay up to the market rent, as opposed to the social rent they currently pay. Whilst this may provide some additional revenue for housing associations, it also introduces an administrative requirement to monitor household incomes and adjust rent levels accordingly. It may also have an adverse impact on collection rates and/or tenancy turnover as tenants migrated to market rents may struggle to pay or be more inclined to leave.

Effective assessment of the impact of these changes on your organisation (and the ability of your structures to effectively manage them) is facilitated by comparisons with your peers, backed up by shared learning.

Housing organisations are making a positive contribution to new housing supply – often building without social housing grant – but what impact is this having on key financial ratios and management and maintenance – and what will be the impact of policy changes on future plans?

The increase in development of new homes has been tracked in our sector analysis. As well as measures directly related to new-builds, financial PI calculations provide a benchmark across debt and viability ratios, while areas such as customer contact, lettings and rent collection provide a view on how operational teams are coping with the increase in new properties.

1.4. Key regulatory issues

The Homes and Communities Agency’s (HCA) regulatory focus on housing organisations’ governance, finance and value for money has continued into 2015. The adoption of a new Governance and Financial Viability Standard came into force on 1 April 2015. This strengthens the expectation on providers to actively manage risk relating to social housing assets as the sector becomes more complex and diverse. The HCA expects this standard to complement the existing Value for Money Standard and help organisations understand their return on assets and seek to optimise them. Comparative data and knowledge about what is typical for the sector is crucial to help organisations assess how they comply with these standards and demonstrate this through submissions to the HCA.


HouseMark 2015

8

The table below sets out examples of this:

Standard Expectation Action

Value for money Providers will understand the absolute and comparative costs and outcomes of delivering specific services and which underlying factors influence these costs and how they do so.

HouseMark’s benchmarking compares the costs and key cost drivers for specific services alongside key performance metrics.

Value for money Providers should have performance management and scrutiny functions which are effective at driving and delivering improved value for money.

The presentation of comparable cost and performance data in a single report, with the ability to look at trends over time allows landlords to use HouseMark data to flow between performance management and scrutiny functions in order to meet this expectation.

Governance and financial viability

Registered providers need to build their business on robust and prudent assumptions….based on past performance.

HouseMark members can access performance and cost trends over time.

Governance and financial viability

Managing and addressing risk should involve developing plausible scenarios that test the business plan against adverse movements in the operating environment.

The scenario function within core benchmarking enables landlords to model changes in operational expenditure and assess the impact on their outputs.

The data collated for this report is an asset that can be sweated like any other - the more the data is used, the better value it provides. Our data is comprehensive and robust, it balances with statutory accounts, it is validated against statutory returns as well as previous submissions and sector norms. It is the richest source of data that housing organisations have access to on a daily basis.

1.5. About this report

This is the final G15 report for 2015 and supercedes the draft report circulated in October. Following feedback from G15 members, HouseMark has made changes to the format of this report. The report now includes a range of chart types to present your data, including boxplots, bar charts and scatter charts. We would still be grateful to receive any feedback you may have. You can contact our data team on 024 7647 2707 or email [email protected]. Alternatively, your Relationship Account Manager, Sarah Whittle, would be happy to hear from you and you can email Sarah at [email protected] We have also included three-year trend where available, and importantly have included information on peer group trend over the last year.

mailto:[email protected]



HouseMark 2015

9

Finally, specifically for the G15 we have included detailed analysis in certain key activity areas:

Overheads

Rent collection and arrears management

Voids and lettings

Responsive repairs We would be delighted to carry out additional analysis on behalf of the G15 if these sections prove to be of value. This report also includes our improved VFM Scorecard. If you’d like to edit the indicators included in your VFM Scorecard, you can do so online. If you would like your final report to include a bespoke VFM Scorecard, please let us know. You can contact our data services helpline on 024 7647 2707 or email [email protected] The data used in this report is for the 2014/15 financial year. 13 of the G15 members chose to submit core data for 2014/15. Where we compare your 2014/15 costs with your 2013/14 costs, your 2013/14 costs have NOT been uplifted for inflation. For organisations in London and the South East we apply an area cost adjustment to reflect the generally higher costs experienced in these regions. Comparisons can be made with or without inflation and / or area cost adjustment by using our online reporting tool. All references to the ‘average’ in this report refer to the median average, rather than the mean. At the request of G15 data analysts, detailed information on leasehold and shared ownership units, as well as housing management performance for general needs only units, has been included in the accompanying schedules.



HouseMark 2015

10

1.6. Your peer group

The peer group used in this report is the G15 group of large HAs with significant operations in London. The table below provides the names of the organisations within your peer group alongside some key contextual information. Note that the total stock figure includes social housing units in management (including supported housing, leasehold and shared ownership units) included in the benchmarking submission as well as other units which do not form part of the benchmarking submission (e.g. non-social housing units and commercial units). On the following page we have also provided an infographic as a visual aid to understanding the profile of the G15 organisations included in this report.

Landlord name Total stock Adjusted turnover

DLO

Number of standard units

developed in the year

Genesis Housing Association (2014/2015) 32,948 187,006,906 Y 530

A2Dominion Group 34,263 178,482,709 N 579

AmicusHorizon 29,083 140,145,632 N 540

Catalyst Housing 21,474 117,489,386 N 828

Circle 60,475 358,483,755 N 674

East Thames Group 15,644 91,005,882 N 269

Family Mosaic 24,373 160,301,872 N 225

Hyde Group (The) 52,928 226,169,747 N 1,174

London and Quadrant Group 70,508 348,574,779 N 2,201

Network Housing Group 18,779 96,581,052 N 1,306

Notting Hill Housing Group 29,253 200,245,719 N 1,060

Peabody 18,080 116,595,961 N 580

Southern Housing Group 25,626 120,481,476 N 292


HouseMark 2015

11


HouseMark 2015

12

1.7. A note on boxplots

This report makes much use of boxplots in order to display your data. Boxplots are an ideal way of presenting comparative data as they provide at a glance:

Your position relative to your peers

The distribution of your peers

The medians and quartiles for your peer group

Our boxplots highlight your organisation in yellow, while each of your peers are represented by blue circles. The horizontal line at the top of the boxplot represents the maximum value in your peer group, and the bottom line represents the minimum value. The three horizontal lines within the boxplot represent the median and quartiles for your peer group. In the above example you can see that the cost per property for this fictional organisation is higher than the average, but by no means the highest in the peer group. This report also includes additional trend information. We have provided bar charts showing three year trend where available. We have also provided additional text, which compares your trend between 2013/14 and 2014/15 with the average change for the peer group over the same period.


HouseMark 2015

13

1.8. Further information

HouseMark would be delighted to receive feedback on this new report format, or any other aspect of our services. We would also be happy to provide you with further information on other services available from HouseMark. Contact us on: 02476 472 707 or email [email protected]



HouseMark 2015

14

Cost and performance

summary


HouseMark 2015

15

2. Cost and performance summary

The below table is a summary of your headline cost, performance and satisfaction measures for 2014/15. The quartile represents where you sit on this measure compared to your peer group. Note that we have provided quartile symbols for costs measures in this summary table for ease of interpretation. However, please note that high costs / investment (particularly around major works) is not necessarily a bad thing. More detail on all of these measures and more is provided in the main body of the report.

Headline measures Your value Quartile

Costs headlines

Overheads as a % of adjusted turnover 12.0

Total CPP of Housing Management 486.96

Total CPP of Responsive Repairs & Void Works 843.84

Total CPP of Major Works & Cyclical Maintenance 941.47

Operating margin 24.7

Operational performance headlines

Rent arrears of current tenants net of unpaid HB as % of rent due (HAs only)

4.05

Average re-let time in days (standard re-lets) 51.90

Rent loss due to empty properties (voids) as % rent due 1.10

Average number of calendar days taken to complete repairs 11.30

Percentage of repairs completed at the first visit 78.6

Percentage of dwellings that are non-decent at the end of the year 1.00

Percentage of properties with a valid gas safety certificate 99.56

Staff turnover in the year % 24.0

Sickness absence average working days/shifts lost per employee 10.6

Satisfaction headlines

Satisfaction with the service provided (%) NoData

Satisfaction that views being listened to (%) NoData

Satisfaction with the repairs & maintenance service (%) NoData

Satisfaction with rent VFM (%) NoData

Satisfaction with quality of home (%) NoData

Satisfaction with neighbourhood (%) NoData


HouseMark 2015

16

3. Value for money scorecard

In line with member feedback, we have improved the VFM scorecard’s functionality to enable you to choose the measures you want it to show. You will be able to select the KPIs you wish to include from a comprehensive basket of indicators available online. The scorecard overleaf displays our list of default measures unless you have customised your scorecard online and advised us to include it in your report. You can modify the PIs contained within your scorecard online at any time. Further guidance is included in the VFM Scorecard User Guide. The VFM Scorecard is designed as a business effectiveness tool that can be used by boards, executives, tenants and other stakeholders to help them understand and challenge organisational performance in the round.

In addition, it can usefully feature in housing associations’ VFM self-assessments (alongside other data outputs such as the current HouseMark social housing dashboard) to provide credible, comprehensive, absolute and comparative evidence of cost and performance.

Borrowing from accepted scorecard practice, the data is set out across four domains:

business and financial – operating efficiency, profitability and maximising income

people – getting the most out of your most important resource

process – effectiveness of key business processes

value – effectiveness of service outcomes

Each domain contains a basket of indicators. For each indicator the scorecard shows:

Value: your performance or cost value for 2014/15

Previous: the corresponding value for 2013/14

Trend: how your rate of improvement between 2013/14 and 2014/15 compares with the rate of improvement of your peer group

Median: the peer group median

KPI: how your actual performance in 2014/15 compares with your peer group

https://www.housemarkbusinessintelligence.co.uk/Documents/VFM-Scorecard-User-Guide.pdf

https://www.housemarkbusinessintelligence.co.uk/Documents/VFM-Scorecard-User-Guide.pdf


HouseMark 2015

17


HouseMark 2015

18

Key to KPI symbols

Performance Cost

= Your performance result is in the upper quartile of the peer group (top 25%)

= Your costs are lower than three-quarters of your peer group (lowest 25%)

= Your performance result is in the middle upper quartile of the peer group (between 25% & 50%)

= Your costs are less than the average for your peer group

= Your performance result is equal to the

median of the peer group

= Your costs are equal to the median of your peer group

= Your performance result is in the middle

lower quartile of the peer group (between 50% &

75%

= Your costs are higher than the average for your peer group

= Your performance result is in the lower

quartile of the peer group (between 75% &

100%)

= Your costs are higher than three-quarters of your peer group (highest 25%)

Key to trend symbols

Performance Cost

= Your performance trend (the actual change in your year-on-year performance) is upper quartile when compared to the trend for your peer group

= Your performance trend (the actual change in your year-on-year performance) is in the middle upper quartile when compared to the trend for your peer group

= Your performance trend (the actual change in your year-on-year performance) is equal to the median when compared to the trend for your peer group

= Your performance trend (the actual change in your year-on-year performance) is in the middle lower quartile when compared to the trend for your peer group

= Your performance trend (the actual change in your year-on-year performance) is lower quartile when compared to the trend for your peer group.

= The actual change in your year on year costs shows that your costs are decreasing more quickly (or increasing more slowly) than three quarters of your peer group

= The actual change in your year on year costs shows that your costs are decreasing more quickly (or increasing more slowly) than half of your peer group

= The actual change in your year on year costs shows that your costs are increasing (or decreasing) at the median rate for your peer group

= The actual change in your year on year costs shows that your costs are increasing more quickly (or decreasing more slowly) than half of your peer group

= The actual change in your year on year costs shows that your costs are increasing more quickly (or decreasing more slowly) than three quarters of your peer group

N.B. an ‘!’ indicates a small dataset – so treat the quartile results with caution.


HouseMark 2015

19

Polarity Trend and performance arrows for the cost measures in the scorecard are grey. This is because we have not applied a valuative polarity (i.e. high or low is neither good nor bad). Whilst low cost is generally considered to be good, in many cases an organisation may choose to invest more to achieve certain outcomes. As such, the direction of arrows reflects simply the direction of cost i.e. an upwards arrow in the ‘KPI’ column reflects higher than median costs. An upwards arrow in the trend column indicates costs increasing faster than average for the peer group.


HouseMark 2015

20

Main report findings


HouseMark 2015

21

4. Financial indicators

The below boxplots show your headline financial measures compared to your peer group. Viewed together they help give an overall picture of the financial health of your business.

Peer group summary

Q1 15.7

Median 10.0

Q3 1.4

Peer group summary

Q1 37.3

Median 42.3

Q3 47.9

Peer group summary

Q1 31.1

Median 27.9

Q3 26.1

Peer group summary

Q1 27,660

Median 35,424

Q3 40,470

Peer group summary

Q1 216.2

Median 171.9

Q3 134.2

Position

Your Growth in turnover is 5.0% for 2014/15. This places you in the third quartile when compared to your peer group.

Position

Your Adjusted net leverage is 48.4% for 2014/15. This places you in the fourth quartile when compared to your peer group.

Position

Your Operating margin is 24.7% for 2014/15. This places you in the fourth quartile when compared to your peer group.

Position

Your Debt per unit managed is £51,134 for 2014/15. This places you in the fourth quartile when compared to your peer group.

Position

Your Interest cover - EBITDA (MRI) is 110.7% for 2014/15. This places you in the fourth quartile when compared to your peer group.

Trend

Your Growth in turnover has increased from -9.7% in 2013/14 to 5.0% in 2014/15.This increase of 14.7% compares to an average increase of 7.2% for your peer group between 2013/14 and 2014/15.

Trend

Your Adjusted net leverage has increased from 46.2% in 2013/14 to 48.4% in 2014/15.This increase of 2.2% compares to an average increase of 1.0% for your peer group between 2013/14 and 2014/15.

Trend

Your Operating margin has increased from 24.4% in 2013/14 to 24.7% in 2014/15.This increase of 0.3% compares to an average increase of 0.5% for your peer group between 2013/14 and 2014/15.

Trend

Your Debt per unit managed has increased from £44,389 in 2013/14 to £51,134 in 2014/15.This increase of £6,745 compares to an average increase of £4,017 for your peer group between 2013/14 and 2014/15.

Trend

Your Interest cover - EBITDA (MRI) has increased from 108.3% in 2013/14 to 110.7% in 2014/15.This increase of 2.4% compares to an average increase of 2.4% for your peer group between 2013/14 and 2014/15.


HouseMark 2015

22

5. Overheads

This section looks at some key overheads ratios. We have also provided some more detailed overheads analysis for those G15 members who completed the detailed overheads module1. Overheads refers to what is generally considered ‘back-office’ functions, and includes premises, IT, finance and central overhead costs. Overheads are usually a mix of employee costs and non-pay costs. Whilst it is generally preferable to have low overheads, the right level of investment in this area is key to effectively supporting front line activities. Generally we use ‘overheads as a percentage of adjusted turnover’ for benchmarking purposes, as it provides a common measure of activity across the whole business and between different types of organisations. Even so, ‘overheads as a percentage of adjusted turnover’ is not a perfect measure and will vary with the types of activities undertaken. Some activities are more revenue-generating than others. An organisation with a significant market rent portfolio may generate more revenue relative to overhead costs than an organisation with substantial supported housing stock. In view of such differences, we believe that while it is a good broad indication of overhead cost efficiency, it is most useful when comparing organisations with a similar mix of business activities or when considering business diversification plans. For a rounded view of overheads, other ratios should also be examined. To this end we have also included a scatter chart plotting overheads as a percentage of adjusted turnover against another ratio: overheads as a percentage of direct revenue costs which shows your expenditure on overheads in relation to your direct expenditure.

1 Family Mosaic and Hyde opted to benchmark overheads at a higher level only so are excluded from the detailed overheads analysis


HouseMark 2015

23

Overhead costs as a percentage of adjusted turnover

Position in peer group

Peer group summary

Q1 10.83

Median 11.91

Q3 12.61

Position

Your Overhead costs as % of adjusted turnover is 12.01% for 2014/15. This places you in the third quartile when compared to your peer group.

Trend

Your Overhead costs as % of adjusted turnover has increased from 11.52% in 2013/14 to 12.01% in 2014/15.This increase of 0.49% compares to an average decrease of 0.24% for your peer group between 2013/14 and 2014/15.


HouseMark 2015

24

A narrow majority of G15 organisations reported a reduction in overheads as a percentage of turnover in 2014-15. For the three that reported the most significant increase, this was largely due to an increase in IT spend.


HouseMark 2015

25

Generally the largest overhead item is central overheads, which includes central corporate management, HR, PR and marketing, performance management, governance, insurance and reception. As a proportion of turnover, this was the largest element of overheads for 10 of the participating landlords. For the remaining three, the largest spend category was IT.


HouseMark 2015

26

Finance The G15 also have the option of carrying out detailed overheads benchmarking, which breaks down the above categories into greater detail. Full data can be found in the detailed schedules, but historically the G15 have been most interested in the detailed analysis of their finance teams. Family Mosaic and Hyde have opted out of the detailed overheads module for 2014-15. Circle opted out in 2013-14 but have supplied 14-15 data. The below chart shows the average cost per finance WTE compared to the previous year for each participating landlord. 13-14 figures have not been uplifted in line with inflation and the result is that 4 out of 10 landlords showed a decrease. If September RPI is applied to the 13-14 figures, 5 out of the 10 landlords that supplied data for both years showed a decrease in real terms.


HouseMark 2015

27

In terms of the number of finance employees per 1,000 properties, 8 out of 10 landlords showed a decrease. This measure is calculated by dividing the WTE working in finance by the total number of units in management (regardless of tenure). As such, this measure can decrease either because the number of staff decreases, or because the number of units in management increases (or a combination of both). In fact, all 8 landlords who reported a decrease in finance employees per 1,000 properties also reported a genuine reduction in staff numbers.


HouseMark 2015

28

The below chart and table show the breakdown of finance costs as a percentage of ajusted turnover. Note that in some cases (eg internal audit) employee costs may be lower due to the function being outsourced. In such cases these outsourcing costs will appear as non-pay costs.

Key

Upper quartile

Second and third quartile

Fourth quartile

A full breakdown for all overhead cost categories is available in Schedules (Q) for those that opted into the detailed overheads benchmarking. These also include some key overheads performance indicators, such as IT systems uptime and payments made within payment terms. For those that opted into the module we have also supplied detailed insurance data (premiums and claims split between liability and property) as an appendix.


HouseMark 2015

29

Overheads proportional to direct revenue costs and adjusted turnover compared


HouseMark 2015

30

6. Housing Management

Housing management is a core landlord function and represents collecting rent and managing arrears, carrying out lettings, managing tenancies and anti-social behaviour cases, as well as enabling resident involvement. Some organisations have specialist teams delivering some or all of these housing management services, whilst others have generic housing officers. Generally housing management costs are largely made up of staff costs, although include some non-pay costs such as legal fees and choice-based lettings fees. The total cost per property of housing management also contains an overhead allocation. This section compares your total housing management cost per property with your peer group. A breakdown of your housing management costs is also provided if you have opted into the detailed benchmarking. This section also includes some additional analysis of rent collection and arrears management, as well as voids and lettings. This analysis compares some headline performance information as well as direct costs of service delivery, and investigates any correlations. Finally, we have also included a scatter chart plotting your total housing management cost per property against satisfaction with the landlord’s services overall.


HouseMark 2015

31

Housing management total cost per property


Peer group summary

Q1 488.37

Median 588.78

Q3 665.15

Position

Your Total cost per property of housing management is £486.96 for 2014/15. This places you in the first quartile when compared to your peer group.

Trend

Your Total cost per property of housing management has increased from £478.97 in 2013/14 to £486.96 in 2014/15.This increase of £8.00 compares to an average increase of £8.00 for your peer group between 2013/14 and 2014/15.


HouseMark 2015

32

The above chart shows the breakdown of your total housing management costs compared to your peers, but will only display if you have opted in to the detailed benchmarking. Note that for the others in your peer group, medians have been used. The sum of the component medians may not necessarily equal the median of the aggregate measure. Note that Circle, Family Mosaic and Hyde opted to benchmark housing management costs at the higher level. As a result all housing management cost breakdowns exclude these three organisations.


HouseMark 2015

33

6.1. Housing management performance

Rent collection and arrears management

Arrears as a percentage of the annual rent roll

HouseMark collects a number of performance indicators in relation to arrears:

Current tenant arrears as a percentage of the annual rent due (which can be split between arrears due to late Housing Benefit payments and arrears net of HB)

Former tenant arrears as a percentage of the annual rent due

Arrears written off as a percentage of the annual rent roll Comparing one of these measures in isolation can be misleading, as a reduction in current tenant arrears could be due to better collection of those arrears, or alternatively tenancy terminations leading to a greater proportion of them becoming former tenant arrears. Similarly, former tenant arrears can reduce either because they are collected, or because they are written off. The below stacked bar chart shows the combined arrears position (current, former and write offs combined) for the G15 peer group. The amount of arrears due to late Housing Benefit payments has been split out where the organisation was able to provide this split. If the organisation was not able to provide this split, current tenant arrears are shown as ‘gross’. Using this chart, you can assess the relative total tenant debt position as at the end of March 2015.

Raw data can be found in the detailed schedules.


HouseMark 2015

34

Trend on arrears However, looking at a snapshot of arrears at the end of the period can also be misleading, as some organisations will have a history of higher arrears which they brought forward at the beginning of the year. It is therefore also useful to look at change in tenant arrears over the period. The below chart shows the change in arrears for each of the G15, as well as the average change for London and the UK as a whole. The change is calculated by looking at the total tenant debt position at the end of March 2015 (current and former arrears as well as write offs) minus the tenant arrears brought forward (current and former arrears only).

The average for the G15 shows a similar picture to the All London and All UK averages (i.e. a slight increase in overall arrears when write offs are factored in). However, there was some variation within the G15. Three G15 members reported an overall reduction in tenant arrears.


HouseMark 2015

35

Resourcing of rent collection Nationally 2014-15 saw a cross sector trend towards increasing the resourcing of income management. The below chart shows the change in direct cost per property of rent collection and arrears management across the G152. The calculation for the change is: Direct cost per property of income management for 2014-15 minus the direct cost per property of income management for 2013-14. The change is therefore in £ per property. Costs exclude any overhead allocations (they uniquely relate to front-line costs of rent collection and arrears management) and 2013-14 costs have not been uplifted to account for inflation. However, HouseMark does apply an area cost adjustment to reflect the generally higher costs of operating in London and the South East.

The above chart shows that in line with national trends, the G15 generally increased investment in the front-line income management function in 2014-15, although four organisations reported a reduction. The four organisations that reported a reduction in the cost per property of rent collection and arrears management also saw an increase in total arrears. The three organisations that saw a reduction in total arrears also reported an increase in cost per property.

2 Note that Hyde, Circle and Family Mosaic did not benchmark at the detailed housing management level so are excluded from this section of the analysis.


HouseMark 2015

36

Productivity of income management teams Measuring productivity requires comparison between inputs (resourcing) and outputs (performance). One way of measuring productivity of the income management function is to look at the cost per property, compared to the change in total arrears position.

The above chart shows a moderate negative correlation (-0.3 but with a wide spread of values) between the direct cost per property of income management and the change in total arrears. Broadly, the higher the investment in front-line rent collection teams, the greater the reduction in arrears. Reducing arrears (or minimising their growth) can provide significant additional income. As such, achieving the right balance of resources is key. A moderate increase in investment could more than pay for itself in terms of reduced arrears. Cost drivers Direct costs within the HouseMark model are made up of non-pay costs as well as direct employee costs. The bulk of costs relating to income management tend to be employee costs, collected via a HouseMark time apportionment exercise. There is some variation in how the income management function is delivered, but in a typical G15 organisation most of the employee costs are made up of a dedicated revenues team, as well as a time apportionment of contact centre staff.


HouseMark 2015

37

Non-pay costs relating to income management are generally made up of:

Legal fees

Bank charges

Cash collection charges

Swipe card costs

Payments to debt collection agencies

Recovered court costs (credit) The table on the following page gives a detailed breakdown of the costs of income management across the G15.

HouseMark 2014/15 Benchmarking Report December 2015 _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

HouseMark 2015

38

Organisation

Number of GN and HfOP

units in management

Pay costs WTE Average cost per

WTE

Employees (WTE) per 1000 units

Employee cost per property

Non-pay costs

Non-pay cost per property

Direct cost per property

of rent collection

and arrears management

(pre-ACA)

ACA factor

Direct cost per property

of rent collection

and arrears management

(ACA)

A2 Dominion

18,653 £1,750,294 46.7 £37,488 2.5 £94 £458,588 £25 £118 1.108 £107

Amicus Horizon

21,809 £1,877,272 54.8 £34,269 2.5 £86 £425,955 £20 £106 1.108 £95

Catalyst 12,802 £1,211,459 34.9 £34,702 2.7 £95 £249,884 £20 £114 1.108 £104

East Thames 8,538 £528,137 16.7 £31,625 2.0 £62 £96,660 £11 £73 1.108 £66

Genesis 17,575 £1,376,237 42.2 £32,581 2.4 £78 £255,458 £15 £93 1.108 £84

L&Q 50,816 £2,859,319 76.5 £37,401 1.5 £56 £952,130 £19 £75 1.21 £62

Network 11,569 £906,418 28.2 £32,200 2.4 £78 £132,927 £11 £90 1.21 £74

Notting Hill 17,626 £2,177,263 59.6 £36,525 3.4 £124 £171,311 £10 £133 1.21 £110

Peabody 15,253 £1,009,258 24.9 £40,532 1.6 £66 £316,222 £21 £87 1.21 £72

Southern 19,552 £1,055,165 35.4 £29,799 1.8 £54 £631,246 £32 £86 1.21 £71

Note that component costs in the above table are as supplied (i.e. no area cost adjustment has been applied). It is therefore to be expected that the average cost per employee engaged in rent collection is higher for organisations whose employees are based in central London.


HouseMark 2015

39

7. Voids and Lettings

Tenancy turnover A key driver of void loss is tenancy turnover. 2014-15 saw a decrease in median tenancy turnover rates both inside the capital and in the rest of the country. Generally, this trend was replicated across the G15 with only two organisations reporting an increase in tenancy turnover. Tenancy turnover is the number of general needs and housing for older people tenancy terminations (that resulted in a true void) divided by the number of those units in management.

The chart above shows that tenancy turnover remains far higher outside of London. Many of the G15 have significant stock outside of London, which may impact on their tenancy turnover rates. The below chart shows there is a moderate negative correlation (-0.56) between the percentage of stock in London and tenancy turnover.


HouseMark 2015

40


HouseMark 2015

41

Average re-let time Another key driver of void loss is average re-let time (in days). The headline HouseMark measure is based on standard re-lets (i.e. those that did not undergo major works while void). 2014-15 also brought about a reduction in re-let times both inside and outside the capital. The G15 generally replicated this trend although five organisations reported an increase.


HouseMark 2015

42

Void loss Reducing the rent lost due to vacant dwellings is likely to be a key priority for housing providers in the current climate. In line with reductions in tenancy turnover and re-let times, void loss both inside and outside the capital showed a reduction in 2014-15. This trend was replicated across most of the G15, although four organisations reported an increase.


HouseMark 2015

43

Void loss drivers Whilst there are other drivers for void loss (such as the percentage of vacant dwellings at the start and end of the period, as well as time spent awaiting and undergoing major works) the two main drivers are tenancy turnover and average re-let time. The below chart shows the percentage change on all three measures, to illustrate how these drivers are impacting on your bottom line. The percentage change is calculated by: (1415 actual – 1314 actual) / 1314 actual *100

Typically within the G15, a reduction in tenancy turnover combined with a reduction in re-let times to significantly reduce void loss. This is in line with sector trends. However, three of the five G15 that reported increases in re-let times also saw an increase in void loss. The remaining two may have mitigated the impact of increased re-let times on void loss with a larger than average drop in tenancy turnover. Resource analysis Within the HouseMark model, two direct functions are likely to have the biggest impact on re-let times:

The lettings function

The void works management function


HouseMark 2015

44

Typically the bulk of costs within these two functions are employee costs, although Choice-Based lettings fees will feature as a non-pay cost within the lettings function. The below chart shows the cost per property of lettings and void works management combined3.

3 Note that Circle, Family Mosaic and Hyde are excluded from this analysis as they opted out of the detailed housing management benchmarking module.


HouseMark 2015

45

Lettings and void works management productivity The below chart plots the combined cost per property shown above with the percentage change in void loss.

The chart shows a moderate negative correlation (-0.37 but with a fairly wide spread of values) between the cost per property of these two functions and the reduction in void loss. Broadly, the more investment in this area, the greater the reduction in void loss. This indicates that additional investment may in fact partially pay for itself in terms of minimising void loss. Getting the right balance of resources is likely to be critical.


HouseMark 2015

46

Vacant dwellings at the end of the period This stacked bar chart shows the percentage of units vacant at the end of the period, split between available and unavailable to let. This is then compared to the average for your peer group.


HouseMark 2015

47

ASB resolution rate This is the percentage of closed ASB cases that were resolved. An ASB case counts as resolved if the landlord has evidence that the ASB is no longer a cause for concern. This figure can be affected by differing practices in ASB case management. For example, some landlords will not close a case until they know it has been resolved.


Peer group summary

Q1 94.39

Median 88.17

Q3 80.94

Position

Your ASB resolution rate is 94.39% for 2014/15. This places you in the first quartile when compared to your peer group.

Trend

Your ASB resolution rate has increased from 93.18% in 2013/14 to 94.39% in 2014/15.This increase of 1.21% compares to an average increase of 0.08% for your peer group between 2013/14 and 2014/15.


HouseMark 2015

48

7.1. Housing management costs and satisfaction The chart below shows housing management costs and tenant satisfaction with the landlord’s services overall compared, along with your position relative to your peer group. Your results will not appear in this chart if you have not provided a figure for the satisfaction with the overall service provided measure.


HouseMark 2015

49

8. Responsive repairs and void works

Carrying out responsive repairs and void works is a core landlord function. Responsive repairs and void works costs can be split into management (client side) costs and service provision (contractor side) costs. Some organisations outsource some or all of the service provision side to contractors, whereas others may have a DLO (direct labour organisation). Total costs should be comparable no matter the service delivery vehicle, but when carrying out more detailed analysis, organisations with a DLO will have a greater proportion of their costs as employee costs. In this section we compare your total cost per property of responsive repairs and void works to your peer group. We also look at some other key cost drivers such as the average cost per responsive repair and the average cost per void repair. We have included some headline repairs performance measures, as well as a scatter chart comparing total cost per property of responsive repairs and void works with satisfaction with repairs. Scatter charts are a useful way of showing correlation (if any) between cost and performance. We have also included a bespoke dashboard for the G15, showing the change in peer group medians between 2013/14 and 2014/15 for a number of key measures, as well as a breakdown of the change in average cost per responsive and void repair by G15 member. We have also included a chart showing the proportion of all maintenance spend that relates to responsive and void works.


HouseMark 2015

50

Responsive repairs and void works total costs per property


Peer group summary

Q1 843.84

Median 904.73

Q3 938.49

Position

Your Total CPP of responsive repairs and void works is £843.84 for 2014/15. This places you in the first quartile when compared to your peer group.

Trend

Your Total CPP of responsive repairs and void works has decreased from £972.26 in 2013/14 to £843.84 in 2014/15.This decrease of £128.42 compares to an average increase of £58.93 for your peer group between 2013/14 and 2014/15.


HouseMark 2015

51

Note that for the others in your peer group, medians have been used. The sum of the component medians may not necessarily equal the median of the aggregate measure.


HouseMark 2015

52

Cost per repair

Peer group summary

Q1 132.75

Median 170.80

Q3 185.24

Peer group summary

Q1 2,092.51

Median 2,850.12

Q3 3,789.47

Position

Your Cost per responsive repair is £160.06 for 2014/15. This places you in the second quartile when compared to your peer group.

Position

Your Cost per void repair is £1,101.77 for 2014/15. This places you in the first quartile when compared to your peer group.

Trend

Your Cost per responsive repair has decreased from £185.53 in 2013/14 to £160.06 in 2014/15.This decrease of £25.46 compares to an average increase of £3.88 for your peer group between 2013/14 and 2014/15.

Trend

Your Cost per void repair has decreased from £1,590.68 in 2013/14 to £1,101.77 in 2014/15.This decrease of £488.91 compares to an average increase of £281.13 for your peer group between 2013/14 and 2014/15.


HouseMark 2015

53

Average number of responsive repairs per property


Peer group summary

Q1 2.85

Median 3.13

Q3 3.77

Position

Your Average number of responsive repairs per property is 2.66 for 2014/15. This places you in the first quartile when compared to your peer group.

Trend

Your Average number of responsive repairs per property has decreased from 3.01 in 2013/14 to 2.66 in 2014/15.This decrease of 0.36 compares to an average decrease of 0.10 for your peer group between 2013/14 and 2014/15.


HouseMark 2015

54

8.1. Responsive repairs performance

Average number of calendar days taken to complete repairs


Peer group summary

Q1 11.73

Median 13.70

Q3 15.82

Position

Your Average number of calendar days taken to complete repairs is 11.30 for 2014/15. This places you in the first quartile when compared to your peer group.

Trend

Your Average number of calendar days taken to complete repairs has increased from 11.00 in 2013/14 to 11.30 in 2014/15.This increase of 0.30 compares to an average increase of 0.94 for your peer group between 2013/14 and 2014/15.


HouseMark 2015

55


HouseMark 2015

56

Repairs cost and satisfaction The chart below shows repairs costs and tenant satisfaction with the repairs service compared, along with your position relative to your peer group. Your results will not appear in this chart if you have not provided a figure for the satisfaction with the repairs and maintenance service measure.


HouseMark 2015

57

9. Major works and cyclical maintenance

This section compares your cost per property of major works and cyclical maintenance with your peer group. Major works and cyclical maintenance spend can more accurately be called investment, and high costs in this area are not necessarily a bad thing. Major works and cyclical maintenance costs can be split into management (client side) costs and service provision (contractor side) costs. Major works spend includes capital spend on major works, as well as any revenue spend. We have included some headline performance measures, as well as a scatter chart comparing total cost per property of major works and cyclical maintenance with satisfaction with the overall quality of home. Scatter charts are a useful way of showing correlation (if any) between cost and performance.

Major works and cyclical maintenance total cost per property


Peer group summary

Q1 1,133.10

Median 1,543.61

Q3 1,795.06

Position

Your Total cost per property of major works and cyclical maintenance is £941.47 for 2014/15. This places you in the first quartile when compared to your peer group.

Trend

Your Total cost per property of major works and cyclical maintenance has increased from £803.72 in 2013/14 to £941.47 in 2014/15.This increase of £137.75 compares to an average increase of £136.63 for your peer group between 2013/14 and 2014/15.


HouseMark 2015

58

Major works total cost per property

Peer group summary

Q1 738.70

Median 1,015.24

Q3 1,360.79

Position

Your Major works total costs per property is £657.55 for 2014/15. This places you in the first quartile when compared to your peer group.

Trend

Your Major works total costs per property has increased from £535.68 in 2013/14 to £657.55 in 2014/15.This increase of £121.87 compares to an average increase of £121.87 for your peer group between 2013/14 and 2014/15.



HouseMark 2015

59

Cyclical maintenance total cost per property

Peer group summary

Q1 286.16

Median 372.67

Q3 469.49

Position

Your Cyclical maintenance total costs per property is £283.92 for 2014/15. This places you in the first quartile when compared to your peer group.

Trend

Your Cyclical maintenance total costs per property has increased from £268.04 in 2013/14 to £283.92 in 2014/15.This increase of £15.88 compares to an average increase of £15.88 for your peer group between 2013/14 and 2014/15.



HouseMark 2015

60

9.1. Major works and cyclical maintenance performance

Percentage of dwellings that are non-decent


Peer group summary

Q1 0.00

Median 0.37

Q3 0.80

Position

Your Percentage of dwellings that are non-decent is 1.00% for 2014/15. This places you in the fourth quartile when compared to your peer group.

Trend

Your Percentage of dwellings that are non-decent has decreased from 8.00% in 2013/14 to 1.00% in 2014/15.This decrease of 7.00% compares to no average change for your peer group between 2013/14 and 2014/15.


HouseMark 2015

61

Average SAP rating


Peer group summary

Q1 71.80

Median 70.00

Q3 69.00

Position

Your Average SAP rating is 71.80 for 2014/15. This places you in the first quartile when compared to your peer group.

Trend

Your Average SAP rating has decreased from 72.69 in 2013/14 to 71.80 in 2014/15.This decrease of 0.89 compares to an average increase of 0.31 for your peer group between 2013/14 and 2014/15.


HouseMark 2015

62

Dwellings with a gas safety certificate


Peer group summary

Q1 99.97

Median 99.83

Q3 99.68

Position

Your Dwellings with a gas safety certificate is 99.56% for 2014/15. This places you in the fourth quartile when compared to your peer group.

Trend

Your Dwellings with a gas safety certificate has increased from 99.44% in 2013/14 to 99.56% in 2014/15.This increase of 0.12% compares to an average increase of 0.01% for your peer group between 2013/14 and 2014/15.


HouseMark 2015

63

9.2. Major works and cyclical maintenance cost and satisfaction

The chart below shows total costs per property of major works and cyclical maintenance and tenant satisfaction with the overall quality of the home compared, along with your position relative to your peer group. Note that the satisfaction measure used in this chart is a STAR satisfaction measure based on a random sample of all tenants. This differs from the transactional measure included in the VFM Scorecard (satisfaction with the quality of new home) which is asked of tenants/leaseholders of new build properties only. Your results will not appear on this chart if you have not provided a figure for the satisfaction with the overall quality of home measure.


HouseMark 2015

64

10. Development

Standard units developed as a percentage of current stock


Peer group summary

Q1 3.58

Median 2.13

Q3 1.97

Position

Your Standard units developed as a percentage of current stock is 1.97% for 2014/15. This places you in the fourth quartile when compared to your peer group.

Trend

Your Standard units developed as a percentage of current stock has increased from 0.83% in 2013/14 to 1.97% in 2014/15.This increase of 1.14% compares to an average increase of 1.02% for your peer group between 2013/14 and 2014/15.


HouseMark 2015

65

Affordable units developed as a percentage of current stock


Peer group summary

Q1 2.13

Median 1.60

Q3 0.98

Position

Your Affordable units developed as a percentage of current stock is 1.17% for 2014/15. This places you in the third quartile when compared to your peer group.

Trend

Your Affordable units developed as a percentage of current stock has increased from 0.09% in 2013/14 to 1.17% in 2014/15.This increase of 1.09% compares to an average increase of 0.76% for your peer group between 2013/14 and 2014/15.


HouseMark 2015

66

11. Corporate health

Staff are a key business asset and this section provides some headline staffing measures compared to your peer group. Staff turnover includes voluntary and involuntary turnover. Whilst low staff turnover is generally considered to be a good thing, some staff churn may be desirable for your business. Analysis of staff turnover split between voluntary and involuntary is available online. Sickness absence includes both long and short term sickness absence. Staff turnover


Peer group summary

Q1 16.6

Median 21.7

Q3 24.0

Position

Your Staff turnover is 24.0% for 2014/15. This places you in the third quartile when compared to your peer group.

Trend

Your Staff turnover has increased from 18.5% in 2013/14 to 24.0% in 2014/15.This increase of 5.5% compares to an average increase of 2.8% for your peer group between 2013/14 and 2014/15.

2014-15 saw an increase in the median staff turnover both in London and nationally, although turnover in London showed a greater increase and is higher than in the rest of the country. This picture is replicated across the G15 with 9 organisations reporting an increase in overall staff turnover, and only 3 reporting a decrease (London and Quadrant did not supply 14-15 figures). However, G15 staff turnover is generally higher than the London average, with 9 organisations reporting more leavers as a percentage of total staff then the London median.


HouseMark 2015

67


HouseMark 2015

68

Average number of days lost to sickness


Peer group summary

Q1 7.37

Median 8.38

Q3 10.65

Position

Your Average number of days lost to sickness is 10.65 for 2014/15. This places you in the third quartile when compared to your peer group.

Trend

Your Average number of days lost to sickness has increased from 10.30 in 2013/14 to 10.65 in 2014/15.This increase of 0.35 compares to an average increase of 0.53 for your peer group between 2013/14 and 2014/15.


HouseMark 2015

69

Sickness absence 2014-15 also saw a slight increase nationally in the average days per employee lost to sickness absence. The increase was greater in London although London sickness absence levels remain lower than in the UK as a whole. The trend was generally replicated across the G15, with 9 landlords showing an increase in sickness absence and only 4 showing a decrease. Generally the G15 experiences lower levels of sickness than London as a whole, with 9 landlords reporting a figure that was lower than or equal to the London median. The average days lost to sickness absence per employee includes both short and long-terms sickness absence.


HouseMark 2015

70

12. Tenant satisfaction (STAR and transactional)

The next two pages contain satisfaction results for your organisation compared to your peer group. The first six boxplot charts are all sourced from STAR surveys that have been carried out. STAR is a sector wide methodology for measuring satisfaction in a comparable way and is robustly validated by HouseMark to ensure the criteria are adhered to. Crucially, STAR surveys are based on a random sample of all tenants. This is referred to as ‘perceptional’ satisfaction. The second set of boxplots show transactional satisfaction survey results. Transactional satisfaction surveys are carried out following an interaction with the landlord (for example a repair). HouseMark has recently launched StarT, a framework for collecting and comparing transactional satisfaction survey. More information on StarT can be found on our website www.housemark.co.uk Whilst all of the G15 carry out some form of satisfaction monitoring, not all do it in a way that is compliant with the HouseMark methodology. To this end we have also included a survey profile table for the G15.

http://www.housemark.co.uk/

HouseMark 2014/15 Benchmarking Report December 2015 __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

71

12.1. Tenant satisfaction (STAR)

Peer group summary

Q1 79.7

Median 77.3

Q3 73.8

Peer group summary

Q1 66.0

Median 62.6

Q3 59.6

Peer group summary

Q1 73.2

Median 69.9

Q3 66.4

Peer group summary

Q1 77.4

Median 75.2

Q3 74.2

Peer group summary

Q1 78.2

Median 77.0

Q3 76.6

Peer group summary

Q1 85.7

Median 83.2

Q3 80.0

Position

You did not submit 2014/15 data for this indicator.

Position


Position


Position


Position


Position


HouseMark 2014/15 Benchmarking Report December 2015 __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

72

12.2. Transactional satisfaction

Peer group summary

Q1 88.0

Median 87.1

Q3 82.7

Peer group summary

Q1 90.0

Median 87.0

Q3 84.5

Peer group summary

Q1 90.5

Median 84.0

Q3 78.3

Peer group summary

Q1 63.0

Median 40.0

Q3 23.5

Peer group summary

Q1 75.1

Median 68.0

Q3 61.5

Peer group summary

Q1 NoData

Median NoData

Q3 NoData

Position


Position


Position


Position


Position


Position


Trend


Trend


Trend


Trend


Trend


Trend


HouseMark 2014/15 Benchmarking Report December 2015 ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

73

Survey profile

Organisation Year Frequency Provider Method Scale Number of completed surveys / interviews

Comment

Amicus Horizon 2014/15 On-going In-house (Not SNAP)

100% Telephone

5 point descriptive

2352 Submission includes transactional satisfaction data for repairs, lettings, complaints and ASB.

Catalyst Housing 2014/15 On-going Other 100% Telephone

5 point descriptive

1041 Submission includes transactional satisfaction data for repairs.

Circle Conducted Star but did not submit data. Submission includes transactional satisfaction data for repairs.

East Thames Group

Do not carry out a Star survey. Submission includes transactional satisfaction data for repairs, lettings, complaints and ASB.

Family Mosaic 2014/15 One-off VisionOne Research

100% Telephone

5 point descriptive

1097 Submission includes transactional satisfaction data for repairs and ASB.

Genesis Housing Association

Collect satisfaction information but not to the HouseMark methodology

Hyde Group (The) 2012/13 One-off Ipsos MORI 100% Postal 5 point descriptive

1868 Submission includes transactional satisfaction data for repairs, lettings and ASB.

London and Quadrant Group

2012/13 One-off 100% Postal 5 point descriptive

1310 Submission includes transactional satisfaction data for repairs and lettings.

Network Housing Group

Do not carry out a Star survey. Submission includes transactional satisfaction data for repairs and lettings.

Notting Hill 2014/15 On-going In-house (not SNAP)

GN 100% Telephone HfOP 100% Postal

5 point descriptive

2558 GN and HfOP data is unconsolidated. Submission includes transactional satisfaction data for repairs and complaints.

Peabody 2014/15 One-off Other 100% Telephone

5 point descriptive

1590 Submission includes transactional satisfaction data for repairs, lettings, ASB and complaints.

Southern 2013/14 On-going KWEST 100% Telephone

5 point descriptive

2530 Submission includes transactional satisfaction data for repairs, lettings and ASB.


74

Appendix 1 – Disclosure of information

The information and data contained in this report are subject to the following clauses in HouseMark members' subscription agreements. These refer to future and further use of the information. Where any compilations of Benchmarking Data or statistics or Good Practice Examples produced from data (other than Data submitted by the Subscriber) stored on the database forming part of the System are made for internal or external reports by or on behalf of the Subscriber, the Subscriber shall ensure that credit is given with reasonable prominence in respect of each part of the data used every time it is used (whether orally or in writing) and such credit shall include the words ‘Source: HouseMark’. The Subscriber shall use best endeavours to ensure that any and all uses of the System shall be made with reasonable care and skill and in a way which is not misleading. The Subscriber may not sell, lease, license, transfer, give or otherwise dispose of the whole or any part of the System or any Copy. The provisions of this clause shall survive termination or expiry of this Agreement, however caused. The Subscriber shall not make any Copy or reproduce in any way the whole or a part of the System except that the Subscriber may make such copies (paper based or electronic) of the data and information displayed on the System as are reasonably necessary to use the System in the manner specifically and expressly permitted by this Agreement. The Subscriber agrees not to use the System (or any part of it) except in accordance with the express terms and conditions of this Agreement.

Further information For further information visit our website

www.housemark.co.uk or call 024 7646 0500.

HouseMark, 4 Riley Court, Millburn Hill Road,

University of Warwick Science Park, Coventry CV4 7HP.

About HouseMark HouseMark is the leading provider of integrated data and analysis, insightful

knowledge transfer, high quality consultancy support and via Procurement for

Housing, cost effective procurement services to the social housing sector.

HouseMark Final G15 Benchmarking Report 2014/15 · HouseMark Final G15 Benchmarking Report 2014/15...

Documents

Transcript of HouseMark Final G15 Benchmarking Report 2014/15 · HouseMark Final G15 Benchmarking Report 2014/15...