Return to flip book view
CONTRACTOR COMPETENCE IN THE DELIVERY OF DISABLED ADAPTATIONS JUNE 2021 / WRITTEN BY ROY MCNALLY
FOUNDATIONS• Improving the management of contractors for DFGs is a core part of our 2020/21 workplan. • We want to see more adaptations done right rst time without delay.Contact Us:info@foundations.uk.comwww.foundations.uk.com2About UsFoundations is the National Body for Home Improvement Agencies in England. This means that we’re contracted to oversee a national network of nearly 200 Home Improvement Agencies (HIAs) and handyperson providers across the country. It’s a role we’ve held since 2000, and since 2015 we’ve also been supporting local authorities to improve how they deliver Disabled Facilities Grants (DFGs) - whether they use a HIA or not. Our vision is a thriving range of Home Improvement Agencies – supporting people to live safe, independent and happy lives in the home of their choice. Foundations’ role on informing policy and design is twofold. On the one hand we advise and support government in delivering on part of its commitments to vulnerable older and disabled people in their own home. At the same time, we help local authorities to adopt housing assistance policies and commission services sensitive to local priorities and needs.
CONTENTS3Introduction 6Executive Summary 71. Denitions 82. Methodology 10 2.1 Known Anomalies3. Quantitative Findings - General 13 3.1 Tenure of Client 3.2 Housing Authority Type 3.3 Recipient Age 3.4 Foundations Operational Support Region 3.5 Complaint Status following LGO Judgement4. Quantitative Findings – Contractor Competence 15 4.1 Scale of Adaptation/Works 4.2 Cases Where Time Delays Were Caused By 4.3 Cases Where Communication Issues Contributed to Failure, and Who Was It Caused By 4.4 Unforeseen Structural/Construction Issue 4.5 Planning / Building Control Department Issue 4.6 Issues with Technical Drawings 4.7 Relationship Breakdown 4.8 Contractor Competence
CONTENTS4 4.9 Vetting & Monitoring of Contractors 4.10 Defects 4.11 Snagging5. Quantitative Observations 18 5.1 Timescales6. Qualitative Observations 207. Quotes From LGO Judgements 228. Conclusions 25 8.1 Probability Factors 8.2 Council ‘Type’ Distribution 8.3 The Importance of Casework 8.4 The Importance of Data-Recording and Record-Keeping 8.4 How Can LGO Reports Contribute Towards Better Analysis of These Cases?9. Recommendations 30 9.1 Keeping Contractors Engaged 9.2 Support the Contractor with Regular Monitoring 9.3 Explore Registering Contractors with a TrustMark Hub 9.4 Utilise Better Data-Systems 9.5 Customer Journey Mapping
5CONTENTS10. Further Information 3311. Appendix 34
INTRODUCTIONIntroduction The following paper presents an insight into the prevalence and nature of works defects and contractor competency issues found in Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG) funded adaptations. The scale and depth of the study is necessarily limited, and seeks only to oer some helpful insights and potentially identify patterns and reasons why such issues may become more likely.The sample size of 27 cases extracted from a 24 month period, is very small, compared to the number of DFG funded adaptations completed in the same period, but it is hoped that this study will prompt a more detailed study of the issues with a more representative sample of cases in the future.The cases studied were identied via complaints concerning DFG, that were referred to the Local Government Ombudsperson (LGO), in which contractor competence and works defects had been cited as a contributing factor in the complaint. It should be noted that these cases are those that were unresolved via the individual local authority’s complaint procedure, and thus referred to the LGO. It is highly probable that the actual number of client complaints concerning DFG defects and contractor competency are signicantly higher than the sample studied here, as many more such complaints will be resolved by the local authority without being referred to the LGO. Report Aims The aims of the Report are:• To explore how contractor competency issues are reported upon in LGO adjudications.• To explore probability factors in the occurrence of contractor competency issues.• To explore the impact of tenure on the occurrence of contractor competency issues. • To dierentiate between snagging and defects.• To identify any trends and areas of concern.• To act as a starting point for a more detailed analysis at a later date.“ Contractors are an essential part of the DFG process as without them there would be no adaptations. They need to be nurtured to deliver great customer service and excellent workmanship.”Paul Smith Director, Foundations 6
EXECUTIVE SUMMARYExecutive Summary and Recommendations This paper seeks to analyse contractor competence issues as they relate to the delivery of DFG funded home adaptations, and determine if there are any common issues or trends in the propensity of such complaints to arise. The study focusses on a small sample of complaints that have been forwarded to the Local Government Ombudsman (LGO), in which issues of contractor competence issues have been stated as a reason for the complaint.The analysis suggests the following:• The local authorities involved in the complaints took on average 10 days longer than the national average to process the DFG grant from approval to completion. This may be indicative of more complex or bureaucratic contractor management arrangements.• Adaptations for children were signicantly less likely to give rise to contractor competence complaints compared to adult adaptations.• Stairlift Installations, despite their large number of installations, were signicantly less likely to give rise to contractor competence complaints, possibly because such installations are handled by specialist contractors rather than general building contractors.• Poor monitoring of contractors by local authorities during works in progress were a frequent cause of complaint.Recommendations• Local authorities are encouraged to keep their contractors engaged by providing them with skills development support.• Local authorities are encouraged to support the contractor with regular monitoring, but presented in such a way that it is not a punitive “inspection” regime, but as a means of helping the contractor get the installation right for the vulnerable person.• Explore registering contractors with TrustMark, the only safe-trader scheme with government endorsed standards.• Utilise better data systems for routine monitoring and tracking of works progress.• Explore Customer Journey Mapping techniques which explores the customer experience from the service-user perspective.7
81 DEFINITIONS1. Denitions In terms of the denition of concepts of competence, defects and snagging, the following have been used:• Competence: Has been dened in this paper as the contractor possessing the necessary skills and ability to perform a task, so that a desired, prescribed function occurs as a result of their work. • Defects: Are considered in terms of two distinct categories: a) Defects in which a manufactured part or material is itself defective or faulty, and b) defects related to the incompetent tting/use of a part or material. Defect can have the eect of preventing the adaptation being used in the way it was desired / prescribed. Whilst it is possible that both categories of defect can be present at the same time, no incidences of category ‘a’ occurred in the sample studied.• Snagging: Is dened in this paper as minor issues that have occurred as a result of sub-standard workmanship, or simple oversight on behalf of the contractor. For example, “The contractor forgot to put silicon sealant around the hand-basin”. Snagging issues are generally unlikely to prevent the adaptation being used, but if a number of snagging issues are present, they can have a cumulative impact, and be very frustrating to the client.
1 DEFINITIONS9In terms of the scale and complexity of the works being undertaken, the following categories have been used. It is commonplace for a number of cases to involve a number of dierent adaptations categories being delivered at the same time, in which case category codes are grouped together.Category Code AdaptationRAM RampSL Stair LiftSTE Step LiftTFL Through Floor LiftLAS Level Access ShowerEXT ExtensionPFW Privately Funded Works (works requested that do not form part of the DFG funded scheme)MIS Miscellaneous
2 METHODOLOGY2. Methodology A sample of 27 cases referred to the LGO in the 24 month period 2018 to 2020 inclusive were studied; in which contractor issues and defects had been cited as a contributing factor in the complaint.The LGO sets out each case in the form of a chronology of events and then provides a judgement based on the evidence presented. This narrative form of presentation tends not to contain a great deal of easily identiable quantitative data and as such, this study attempted to digest and comprehend the information and then interpret and categorise the issues into an “issue matrix”. The issue matrix contained the following upper-level qualitative categories (some of which have sub-categories):• Did the LGO uphold / not uphold the result?• Was the adaptation for an adult or child?• What was the scale/scope of the adaptations job?• What was the tenure of the client’s home?• Which local authority area?• Was there an element of time delay, and who was responsible for the delay?• Were there issues of snagging, snagging severity and delay/non-completion?• Was there a failure in materials or workmanship within 3 months?• Was there a failure in materials or workmanship after 3 months?• Were problems exacerbated by issues outside of anybody’s control?• Were problems exacerbated by communication issues, and who was responsible for this?• Were there unforeseen structural / construction issues that contributed to the 10
2 METHODOLOGYproblem?• Were there any issues relating to planning / building control approval?• Were there any issues due to mistakes on, or misinterpretation of technical drawings?• Was there a relationship breakdown between the parties?• Was there an issue of contractor competence (the ability to perform a given task)?• Was there an issue of contractor vetting on behalf of the local authority/HIA?It is important to note that this study has considered each issue in isolation from each other, without any implied or assumed co-dependency. For example, a complaint that has not been upheld or not investigated by the LGO may still contain legitimate issues concerning contractor competence. Indeed, 100% of the sample cases studied, showed that contractor competence was only one element within a number of issues that made up the body of the complaint. Examination of each case against the issue matrix allows some quantitative conclusions to be drawn, which in themselves are useful, but the real value comes from a qualitative interpretation of the overall results and consideration of co-dependent factors that can only be expressed via a qualitative narrative.Following the analysis of quantitative results, a qualitative narrative has been attempted, in which observations and trends are identied.2.1 Known Anomalies There are some the deciencies when attempting to extract quantiable data from what is eectively a narrative chronology, and although assumptions can be made about the likely outputs, there are some areas where such anomalies are more prevalent. For example, the standard format of the LGO reports doesn’t routinely report on the tenure of the client in question, and this information is only obtained, if the LGO has explicitly referenced it in the body of their report. As such there are a large number of cases without a stated tenure. An assumption can be made that maybe 70% of such unreferenced cases are those of owner-occupiers, as this gure would broadly correspond with the national distribution of tenures. This, however, presents a problem, as it could be possible that DFG adaptations delivered in certain tenures are more likely to generate complaints? As such wherever such a condition occurs in the paper, it is made clear that it is an unveried assumption. Quality of workmanship is not assessed by LGO, as part of their remit in adjudicating on these cases, and as such, this paper addresses the issue of quality of workmanship in terms 11
2 METHODOLOGYof ‘snagging’ and ‘defects’ as reported within the context of the LGO narrative. Only when a local authority concurs with the client that workmanship is sub-standard is it counted as either a defect or snagging issue (or both), as it would be impossible to reach such a conclusion based upon the LGO comments alone.Quantifying the ‘competency’ of a contractor using the LGO narrative is extremely problematic, as there are so many factors at play that can have an impact on the standard of the works delivered, and the client’s perception of the competency of the contractor. In this paper the incompetency of a contractor is only counted when it is explicitly stated that works were incorrectly completed by the contractor. Similarly, it is equally dicult to gauge from the LGO reports if the local authority’s contractor vetting procedures were adequate, and only one case made explicit that a contractor was selected for a job without proper vetting (recruited following a previous contractor went into liquidation before completing a job). The issue of monitoring of contractors as works progressed was slightly easier to quantify in that the LGO was critical of a number of local authorities for failing to eectively monitor contractors whilst works progressed and made explicit reference to this.12
3 QUANTITATIVE FINDINGS - GENERAL3. Quantitative Findings - General3.1 Tenure of Client The term ‘client’ refers to the client making the complaint, not necessarily the recipient of the adaptations:Owner Occupier 7 (26%)Registered Social Landlord 4 (15%)Private Landlord 2 (7%)Council Housing Tenant 1 (4%)Not stated1 13 (48%)1 In the instances stated, the LGO has not explicitly stated the tenure of the client. Although it is highly probable that the majority of the unstated tenures are actually owner-occupiers, this assumption has not been presented in this paper, as such an assumption may result in the possibly incorrect notion that more complaints result from the owner-occupied tenure, but without conclusive data, it would be erroneous to make such an assumption.2 In nearly all cases, where the adaptation is for a child, the LGO has explicitly stated the child’s age. However, in this particular instance, the LGO had referred to the adaptations being for the disabled son of a parent, but they did not explicitly state the son’s age. As such it would be incorrect to assume that the adaptation was for a child, as they could have been for an adult son living with his parents.3.2 Housing Authority Type Unitary/Metropolitan 20 (74%)District 7 (26%)3.3 Recipient AgeAdult 24 (89%)Child 2 (7%)Not Stated2 1 (4%)13
3 QUANTITATIVE FINDINGS - GENERAL3.4 Foundations Operational Support RegionSouth West 5 (19%)North 10 (37%)Midlands 9 (33%)London & South East 3 (11%)3.5 Complaint Status Following LGO JudgementUpheld 15 (56%)Not Upheld 6 (22%)Not Investigated3 6 (22%)3 A number of cases were recorded as being “not investigated” by the LGO, and as such neither upheld or not-upheld. The reasons for not investigating a complaint can vary, and include such cases where the client had raised a complaint a signicant time after the adaptation was delivered, or where the substance of the complaint was outside the remit of the LGO. For the purposes of this paper, these “not investigated” cases were still studied, and their issues applied to the issues matrix for analysis.14
4 QUANTITATIVE FINDINGS - CONTRACTOR COMPETENCE4. Quantitative Findings - Contractor Competence4.1 Scale of Adaptation/WorksEXT 2 (7%)EXT + LAS 2 (7%)EXT + LAS + RAM 1 (4%)EXT + LAS + PFW 1 (4%)LAS 16 (59%)LAS + PFW 2 (7%)TFL 1 (4%)RAM + STE 1 (4%)Not Stated4 1 (4%)4 This case was not investigated by the LGO and contained no details about the nature / scope of the adaptation.4.2 Cases Where Time Delays Were Caused By:Contractor, Client & Local Authority3 (11%)Client & Local Authority 2 (7%)Client & Contractor 1 (4%)Local Authority & Contractor 2 (7%)Local Authority 4 (15%)Client 3 (11%)Contractor 2 (7%)No time delay indicated 10 (37%)4.3 Cases Where Communication Issues Contributed to Failure, and Who It Was Caused By: This includes incidents where there is a stated conict in communication between parties, or where certain formal communications have not 15
4 QUANTITATIVE FINDINGS - CONTRACTOR COMPETENCEbeen recorded. For example – “the council was unable to produce a copy of the letter they say they sent to the client on x date”.Contractor, Client & Local Authority3 (11%)Client & Local Authority 3 (11%)Client & Contractor 0 (0%)Local Authority & Contractor 3 (11%)Local Authority 5 (19%)Client 4 (15%)Contractor 0 (0%)No stated communication issues9 (33%) 4.4 Unforeseen Structural/Construction Issue Works ran into problems because of unforeseen structural issues which were not known about until works commenced. For example, “asbestos was discovered in the airing cupboard”:Yes 3 (11%)No 24 (89%)4.5 Planning / Building Control Department Issue Works ran into problems because of issues concerning Planning Department or Building Control approval:Yes 3 (11%)No 24 (89%)4.6 Issues with Technical Drawings (inaccuracies and errors on drawings) Works ran into problems because of issues concerning errors or inaccuracies on technical drawings that impacted on ability to successfully deliver works. For example, “The drawings contained incorrect measurements of the bathroom”.Yes 5 (19%)No 22 (81%)4.7 Relationship Breakdown Did the relationship breakdown between the client and contractor, thus preventing timely rectication of works defects? For example, “the client refused to let the contractor return to rectify problems”.Yes 11 (41%)No 16 (59%)4.8 Contractor Competence Cases in which the technical incompetence of the contractor was identied by the local authority:Incompetence Identied 10 (37%)16
4 QUANTITATIVE FINDINGS - CONTRACTOR COMPETENCE4.9 Vetting and Monitoring of Contractors Cases in which the LGO identied issues of inadequate vetting of contractors by the local authority, and inadequate monitoring of contractors by the local authority during progress of works.Inadequate vetting identied 1 (4%)Inadequate monitoring 9 (33%)4.10 Defects Cases in which the issue could be dened as a “defect” and when did they occur?Defects identied within 3 months of installation10 (37%)Defects identied longer than 3 months of installation1 (4%)Defects identied as being down to product or material failure0 (0%)4.11 SnaggingCases in which there were snagging issues20 (74%)Cases in which there were snagging and defect issues12 (44%)Cases in which snagging was not resolved by the original contractor6 (22%)Cases in which snagging was not resolved within 1 month12 (44%)17
5 QUANTITATIVE OBSERVATIONS5. Quantitative Observations5.1 Timescales The actual time taken to process DFG funded works (from approval to completion) was examined to see if this metric had any impact on contractor issues forming part of a complaint.The following graph illustrates approval to completion times of ‘all’ DFG cases nationally (England), obtained from DELTA5 returns. The graph details just the local authorities who had LGO complaint cases studied in the sample. The hypothesis being that longer approval to completion times, may be an indicator of poor 5 DELTA returns are a set of pre-determined questions concerning DFG delivery which are posed by central government to all local authorities each year. The question set included average waiting times for adaptations (ap-proval to completion). However, it should be noted, that this average waiting time is likely to dier considerably from the lived experience of the client in that DELTA does not ask the local authority how long the client has waited to be assessed for DFG, before applying for, and being approved for the grant. Anecdotally, such “rst contact to assess-ment” times can be considerable and may negatively impact on the client’s perception on the level of service they have received.contractor management. The data suggests that most DFG cases are completed approximately 80 days following approval, with the local authorities studied in the sample cases taking approximately 90 days to complete following approval. All the sample case local authorities fall within the main distribution of overall local authority cases.18
5 QUANTITATIVE OBSERVATIONS19
6 QUALITATIVE OBSERVATIONS6. Qualitative Observations None of the cases (including those cases not investigated by the LGO), concerned a complaint solely focussed on the issue of contractor competence. All complaints contained other factors which contributed to the complaint. As such it could be suggested that complainant’s overall perception of “competence” includes the impact, and contributory inuence of other elements of service failure. A small number of complaints contained multiple co-dependent elements which included contractor incompetence, time delays, poor monitoring and project management that led to a situation with an impact to the complainant that was greater than the sum of its individual component parts.None of the cases studied featured stairlift installations, which is interesting as in terms of numbers, stairlifts are one of the most frequently installed DFG funded adaptations. The reason for this may be because stairlifts are routinely tted by specialist contractors working for the stairlift manufacturer. This specialist knowledge may make defects less likely to occur, and if they do, issues may be resolved more quickly, and less likely to be escalated to the LGO.Communication issues are a common source of conict, and in a small number of cases it appears that poor communication on behalf of the client has contributed to the delivery failure.The study found that 6 out of 20 cases which had snagging issues were not resolved by the original contractor. This may highlight issues of the impact of relationship breakdown, 20
6 QUALITATIVE OBSERVATIONScontractor competence and contractor monitoring / management. The issue of monitoring of contractors by the local authority was a relatively frequent observation of the LGO. Eectiveness of contractor vetting was less easy to evaluate, although there was one case where a new and un-vetted contractor was called-in by the local authority to nish works left incomplete after the initial contractor walked o-site following their company going into liquidation. The stand-in contractors had issues of competence which required a further contractor to resolve the issues, that the stand-in contractor had themselves caused. Privately funded home improvements undertaken at the same time as DFG funded works, and undertaken by the same contractor can be problematic for both the client and the local authority, as the works (and any resulting defects) can be conated with each other.The process of reading and evaluating these complaints has highlighted the importance of good customer journey mapping, as there is a good chance that many of the problems detailed in these complaints could have been anticipated in advance, and if eective measures had been taken beforehand, many of these cases would have progressed smoothly without complaint. Of the sample cases, 20 (74%) local authorities utilised the services of a Home Improvement Agency, and 7 (26%) did not. However, the level of casework provided is dicult to establish, as it will vary considerably between authorities. The cases studied indicated that levels of ongoing monitoring of works and appropriate support for clients was lacking in most cases. Casework support is a critical measure of success. 21
7. Quotes From LGO Judgements The following are a small selection of quotes from the various LGO decisions. These quotes have been selected as they illustrate common themes and issues highlighted by the LGO. Quote 1: The quality of the works done by the building contractor fell below acceptable standards and the snagging works dragged on for several months. This prolonged the inconvenience and stress for Ms Y and her family.Delays in completing simple snagging tasks were a frequently quoted issue.Quote 2: The Council visited on 6 January 2018 to inspect the completed work. The ocer identied snagging issues such as the shower did not work properly and passed the snagging list to the contractor. Mrs X raised concerns about several issues including not wishing the extractor fan and light to come on at the same time.The contractor told the Council Mrs X had asked him not to t the grab rails and to replace the WC with a model like that on the ground oor.It is not uncommon for clients to be unhappy about the prescribed function of an adaptation, and occasionally ask the contractor to make changes outside the specication without being aware of the impact of these changes.7 QUOTES FROM LGO JUDGEMENTS22
7 QUOTES FROM LGO JUDEGMENTSQuote 3: The Council says the contractor could not gain access between March and April 2018. Mrs X allowed access on 11 April and the Council says the contractor carried out remedial works. The Council wrote by email on 20 April 2018 asking Mrs X to allow sta access to sign o the works. The Council says Mrs X refused access to inspect and sign o the works until August 2018. Mrs X wrote to the Council in June 2018 in response to its email of 20 April 2018 saying she found the work unsatisfactory and would contact the Council when in better health. Vulnerable people can struggle to cope with the stresses of having contractors in their homes, and gaining access to rectify problems, especially after a breakdown in client/contractor relationship can be problematic.Quote 4: The Council has overall responsibility for ensuring Mr X’s assessed social care needs are met. It says it had progress meetings with the Housing Association and was given assurances, but it has not provided any notes of these meetings or dates of when they took place. This lack of records is fault. Without this evidence I cannot be sure the Council appropriately monitored progress of the DFG. The Council says it now has meetings at least fortnightly with the Housing Association. It should ensure it documents these.Poor communication and record keeping on behalf of the local authority was a frequently quoted issue. 23
7 QUOTES FROM LGO JUDEGMENTSQuote 5: The evidence in this case shows the Council had no awareness of Mr G’s complaint until 2018 (I explore this matter further below). However, between 2015 and 2017 Mr G had pursued a complaint about the works to the family home with the RSL (who act for the HIA) and the HOS. I nd this was because all his direct dealings in 2015 were with RSL employees. They either acted for the RSL as agent for the HIA or as his landlord. I have seen no evidence they signposted Mr G to Council complaint procedures or this oce. Or that they alerted the Council directly to Mr G’s complaint.This resulted in Mr G pursuing all his grievances through a single-track complaint procedure. This was inappropriate as that procedure could not look at the Council’s role in events. But it was not Mr G’s fault he followed this route as he had no reason to think he was not following the correct procedure. There are special reasons therefore to exercise discretion to investigate Mr G’s complaint.Another example of poor communication and record keeping by the local authority, but this time combined with an inappropriate complaint procedure. Quote 6: The Council commissioned a contractor to complete the work on Mrs X’s bathroom and was responsible for overseeing the work and ensuring it was of a good standard. The work started on 3 October 2017 but the rst time the Council inspected any work was 16 October, after Mrs X rst complained about the standard of work. The Council has accepted it should have visited Mrs X to inspect the work within one week to ensure she was satised with the work. It did not and is at fault.An example of poor monitoring of ongoing works by the local authority, and no clear sign-o of works on completion. 24
8 CONCLUSIONS8. Conclusions8.1 Probability Factors Based on the data analysed, it is clear that the competency of a particular contractor is only part of the story in terms of the client’s lived experience. Indeed, in the cases studied, contractor competence issues (beyond minor snagging) occurred in 37% of the sample cases. It was also clear that there appeared to be certain conditions, which are known about at the commencement of the DFG process, that indicate a high probability of a complaint concerning contractor competence will be received. Local authorities should be mindful of such cases, and the risks they present so as to implement measures to prevent or minimise issues occurring.Level Access Shower adaptations, for adults living in owner occupied accommodation present the greatest probability of generating a complaint in which contractor competence is a stated issue. But caution is advised when interpreting this data, as level access Fig 1: Conditions exhibiting high probability of complaint concerning contractor competence.25
8 CONCLUSIONSshowers delivered for adult owner-occupiers also happen to be the most common form of major adaptation type, and as such, this gure almost certainly reect that prevalence. However, by contrast, and possibly more signicantly, adaptations for children produced just 7% of complaints concerning contractor competence. Children’s adaptations are typically regarded by professionals as more complex cases compared to those delivered for adults. Does this nding indicate that the way children’s adaptations are approached and managed by local authorities goes some way to reducing the probability of complaints 6 Foundations Review of DFG 2018 https://www.foundations.uk.com/assets/PDFs/dfg-review-2018-main-report-nal-nov-2018a.pdf concerning contractor competence occurring? When comparing the distribution of adaptations found in the sample cases, with national distribution found in the Foundations DFG Review of 20186, we nd that Level Access Showers show a 10% higher distribution, and Extensions a 15% higher distribution.Fig 2: Distribution of Adaptation Types.26
8 CONCLUSIONSA combination of poor contractor competence, inadequate monitoring of contractors, and poor communications by the Local Authority, indicate a high probability of a complaint concerning contractor competence being generated.Interestingly, of these elements, contractor competence was less signicant at 37%, than poor communication and record keeping at 52%. Indeed, in the sample studied, the local authority was responsible for poor communication and record keeping more frequently than any other party, with the next most frequent element being the client at 37% and contractor at 22%. It should be noted that some cases had elements where two or more parties had contributed to communications failure, hence the reason for the three percentage values resulting in a total value above 100%.Fig 3: Skills and management conditions exhibiting high probability of complaint concerning contractor competence.27
8 CONCLUSIONS8.2 Council ‘Type’ Distribution The distribution of DFG between council types (District or Unitary) was signicant. It could be expected that the distribution in the sample would broadly align with national distribution, but this was not the case. Using data obtained from DELTA around 55% of all DFGs were completed by Unitary councils. The distribution of completed DFG by council type from sample data was signicantly dierent to national data, with Unitary councils accounting for 74% of cases.Fig 4: National distribution of DFG completed by council type.28
8 CONCLUSIONS8.3 The Importance of Casework Although the data contained in LGO reports does-not allow for analysis of the level of casework provided to the client, it is clear from those areas that have been analysed, such as communications issues leading to time delays etc, that casework is probably lacking in many of the sample cases.Foundations describes caseworkers as keyworkers who work with clients from beginning to end in the adaptations process, providing continuity of care. Every engagement between caseworker and client will be unique, but generally casework will follow these seven stages:• Introduction and establishing trust.• Discussion and exploration of the issues and options.• Assessment and agreement to favoured solution.• Deliver support.• Monitoring and evaluation.• Follow-up.• Close.This intensity of support, will help mitigate issues caused by poor communication, misinterpretation of information provided, and ongoing monitoring. Whilst the competency of the contractor is seemingly outside this sphere of inuence, routine and ongoing monitoring of contractors will (it is hoped), promote a general raising of standards with contractor workmanship.8.4 The Importance of Data-Recording and Record-KeepingThe quality of recording of information by the local authority was a frequently stated issue in the LGO reports. Robust recording of DFG funded cases in local authorities is variable.Whilst some make good use of specially designed software packages, that allow all professionals involved in the case to view and update information, including whilst in the eld using mobile devices, many more struggle with poorly suited systems, or even spreadsheets and manual systems. Poor recording and reporting systems make life dicult for professionals and increase the risk of important elements of the client case being lost, or mis-reported.29
9 RECOMMENDATIONS9. Recommendations In order to address the issue of problems resulting from contractor competence, the obvious solution would be to improve the skill-set of contractors employed on DFG funded adaptation work. This, however, is not as simple as it may sound. Many local authorities struggle with the recruitment and retention of contractors onto their lists, and anecdotal evidence suggests that working for local authorities may not be as attractive to some contractors, who may have experienced slow payment processes, and a potentially more dicult client-group. As such it is important that local authorities try to explore ways to facilitate a more transparent and ecient system that benets clients and contractors. The following suggestions may help local authorities seeking improvements in their contractor/DFG delivery.9.1 Keeping Contractors Engaged Local authorities can support contractors by having bi-annual contractor meetings, where existing and prospective contractors are invited to a central location, and given demonstrations of developments in the adaptations world. Most manufacturers and suppliers of adaptation systems would be happy to support local authorities in these activities. Also, inclusion in these meetings of service users will add an emotional component to proceedings and highlight how important the contractor’s role is in transforming a person’s life with adaptations.30
9 RECOMMENDATIONS9.2 Support the Contractor with Regular Monitoring The LGO made frequent reference to the issue of insucient monitoring of works by the local authority, leading to problems occurring that may have been addressed. Monitoring does not need to be seen as a harsh inspection regime by contractors, and instead should be presented as a way of supporting them to make sure the job progresses quickly and to specication. Additionally, if contractors are expectant of regular monitoring, it should minimise the risk of any corners being cut and maximise time on-site.9.3 Explore Registering Contractors with a TrustMark Hub The TrustMark Regional Hub allows a single organisation such as a Home Improvement Agency or a Local Authority Adaptations Team to become a TrustMark “Framework Provider”. A Framework Provider is able to register “Registered Businesses” (Building Contractors) onto the TrustMark register.The hub model allows the Framework Provider to register contractors onto TrustMark (for a fee), and those contractors are then contractually obliged to adhere to TrustMark core requirements, including insurance requirements, nancial management, works inspections, and provisions for dispute resolution. These standards are the highest in the trusted-trader sector, and are the only standards that are endorsed by government.The hub model allows the Framework Provider to register contractors over a wide geographic area, as such the model is very suitable for a local authority operating within a wider combined authority, or a district council operating within a county council area. This has the advantage of ensuring contractors work to a common set of high standards, and allows for the contractors to be pre-approved to work in other local authority areas served by the regional hub. This will help with better contractor capacity management. 9.4 Utilise Better Data-Systems Poor communication on behalf of most parties (especially the local authority), appear to have a signicant impact on the way issues are handles and are a strong indicator of service failure. The LGO made frequent references to situations where incorrect information was relayed, or where key communications were not identied. A true case management system, with portal access to clients and contractors would provide everybody involved with up to date situation reports, and allow issues to be logged, allocated and actioned with a full audit trail.31
9 RECOMMENDATIONS9.5 Customer Journey Mapping Local authorities should invest some time in mapping the customer experience through their adaptations process. Being cognisant of the issues that arise with dierent customer types (personas) and the probability factors impacting on the successful delivery of an adaptation, can provide the local authority with a pro-active means of countering potential issues before they arise.Recommendations• Local authorities are encouraged to keep their contractors engaged by providing them with skills development support.• Local authorities are encouraged to support the contractor with regular monitoring, but presented in such a way that it is not a punitive “inspection” regime, but as a means of helping the contractor get the installation right for the vulnerable person.• Explore registering contractors with TrustMark, the only safe-trader scheme with government endorsed standards.• Utilise better data systems for routine monitoring and tracking of works progress.• Explore Customer Journey Mapping techniques which explores the customer experience from the service-user perspective.32
FURTHER INFORMATION1010. Further Information TrustMark is the only safe-trader scheme with government endorsed standards: www.trustmark.org.ukThe Local Government & Social Care Ombudsman Service: www.lgo.org.uk Foundations DFG Quality Standards: www.foundations.uk.com/dfg-quality.php Foundations Adaptations Design Guides: www.foundations.uk.com/dfg_design.phpAcknowledgements With thanks to my Foundations colleagues Yasmeen Hussein for her assistance analysing DELTA returns data; Isobel Knight for her assistance with statistical analysis, and Daniel Rankine for the design of the report.33
11 APPENDIX11. AppendixImagesUnsplash:Cover: Credit to photographer Sergey Zolkinp.2: Credit to photographer Jay Mullingsp.8: Credit to photographer Anton Dariusp.9; 20; 25; 33: Credit to photographer Brett Jordanp.10: Credit to photographer Sven Miekep.13: Credit to photographer Carly Kewleyp.15: Credit to photographer KJ Stylesp.18: Credit to photographer Nicolas Weldingp.22: Credit to photographer Maranda Vanderp.23: Credit to photographer Honey Yanibelp.24: Credit to photographer Bernard Hermantp.30: Credit to photographer Sam Clarkep.34: Credit to photographer Erik McCleanBack: Credit to photogrpaher Lukas Skoe34
Trading as FoundationsCollective Enterprises LimitedCompany no:02131825Astral PS LimitedCompany no:0781835622 Norfolk StreetGlossop Derbyshire, SK13 8BS0300 124 0315info@foundations.uk.cominfo@lt.org.uk ©Foundations, June 2021