incisive·minds·limited
Review of the Wirralhomes
Choice-based Lettings Service
Report to:
Wirral Council
by:
Hal Pawson, Caroline Brown (Heriot-Watt
University) & Mark Lordon
March 2008
Review of Wirralhomes Choice-based Lettings Service
Research Report by: Hal Pawson, Caroline Brown & Mark Lordon
Contents
Executive Summary
4
1. Introduction
14
1.1 Review Background, Origins and Scope
14
1.2 National Context for the Review
15
1.3 Review Methodology
17
1.4 Report Structure
18
2. Wirralhomes System: Origins and Operation
19
2.1 System Origins and Scope
19
2.2 Operational Arrangements and Governance
20
2.3 Costs and Cost-sharing
20
2.4 Assistance for Disabled or Otherwise Vulnerable Applicants
22
2.5 Chapter Summary
23
3. Wirralhomes Strengths & Weaknesses: Partner Agency Perspectives
25
3.1 Research Approach
25
3.2 Operational Issues
25
3.3 Housing Market Conditions and CBL in the Wirral
30
3.4 Wirralhomes Governance
32
3.5 Wirralhomes Costs, Value for Money and Cost-Sharing
36
3.6 Improving the ICT Capability of Wirralhomes
39
3.7 Chapter Summary
41
4. Choice-based Lettings and Re-letting Performance
43
4.1 Chapter Structure and Scope
43
4.2 Scope of CBL
43
4.3 CBL and Re-letting Performance in the Wirral
45
4.4 CBL and Re-letting Performance: Wirral vs. Comparator Areas
47
4.5 Re-letting Performance in the Wirral: Changes Over Time
49
4.6 Chapter Summary
50
5. Review of CBL Partnerships Elsewhere in England
52
5.1 Background and Scope
52
5.2 Survey Findings
53
5.3 Chapter Summary
57
6. Upgrading Wirralhomes: ICT System Requirements
59
6.1 Chapter Overview
59
6.2 Observations on Wirralhomes Staff Use of the Northgate System
60
6.3 Developing the Functional Requirements of Wirralhomes
62
6.4 Finalising the Functional Shopping List
65
6.5 Chapter Summary
66
7. Options for Wirralhomes ICT System Upgrade
67
7.1 Overview of Potential Options
67
7.2 The Market Assessment Exercise
67
7.3 Submissions Compliance with the Functionality Shopping List
77
7.4 Evaluation of the Options
81
7.5 Chapter Summary
88
8. Conclusions and Recommendations
90
8.1 Conclusions
90
8.2 Recommendations
97
Annex 1 National Survey of CBL Partnerships - Questionnaire
101
Annex 2 Respondents in National Survey of CBL Partnerships
104
Annex 3 Wirralhomes ICT Functionality Workshop Presentation
105
Annex 4 Market Assessment ICT Shopping List
106
Annex 5 ICT Supplier Responses
107
2
Annex 6a ICT Hosted Cost Comparisons
108
Annex 6b ICT Non-hosted Cost Comparisons
109
Annex 7 ICT Supplier Responses Functionality Assessment
110
_____________________________________________________________________
3
Executive Summary
Review Background and Methodology
Wirralhomes is a choice-based lettings (CBL) partnership scheme involving Wirral
Council and the twelve most active RSLs in the borough with a joint stock of some
20,000 properties. Wirralhomes is operated by Wirral Council on behalf of all
partners under the guidance of a Steering Group comprising all the partners. Initially
established in 2003, Wirralhomes was one of the first CBL systems operating in
England.
However, there has been concern within the partnership that the service no longer
offers value for money, and that it needs to catch up with technical developments in
the field and the changing expectations of Central Government, the Housing
Corporation, the Audit Commission and customers. Wirral Council therefore
commissioned the authors to review of the Wirralhomes system.
Research objectives, as identified in the Council s brief, included investigating:
· How other comparable local authorities and partner RSLs organise joint CBL
services and the level of service offered to customers;
· The value for money the Wirralhomes scheme offers partner RSLs and the Council
and how costs are shared across CBL scheme partners operating in similar contexts
· The housing systems currently used by Wirralhomes partner RSLs and the ability
of any potential new ICT system/s to integrate with the RSL systems.
A number of distinct elements were involved in the project:
· Interviews with key staff of Wirral Council and Wirralhomes partner RSLs
· Contacts with other Merseyside/Cheshire organisations who might potentially be
involved in the Wirralhomes partnership
· Development of a system functionality requirements shopping list
· E-mail survey covering CBL partnerships in post-transfer local authority areas
elsewhere across England (and also including in-depth interviews with four CBL
scheme lead organisations operating in these areas)
· Analysis of CORE lettings data for Wirral and comparable local authorities
· A review of the ICT marketplace to gauge options for upgrading Wirralhomes
software
Wirralhomes Origin and Operation
Wirral Council operates the joint CBL scheme as part of its strategic housing role and
on behalf of 12 partner RSLs. Collectively, member RSLs account for more than 90
per cent of social landlord lets in the borough. The Council aspires to further expand
4
the scope of the scheme to encompass remaining non-member RSLs and lets by
accredited private landlords.
On the applicant side, the scheme is limited to the extent that statutory homeless
households are subject to rehousing through direct lets and, hence, excluded from
CBL. This is unusual and arguably in conflict with Central Government guidance.
Although a Service Level Agreement (SLA) was drawn up as a framework for the
partnership in 2003/04, not all member RSLs have signed up to this document. And,
whilst there is a Steering Group which meets to discuss matters of common interest,
this is not formally constituted and lacks decision-making powers. To a large extent,
therefore, the partnership is currently run on an informal basis.
The Wirralhomes budget amounts to around £400,000 in 2007/08, with most of the
costs being salary related. For reference, annual revenue costs cited by other CBL
partnerships contacted in the research ranged from £25k to £600k although (in
contrast to Wirralhomes) there were often hidden subsidies in the form of un-costed
inputs. By adopting a more sophisticated ICT system Wirralhomes could be expected
to generate substantial economies on staff costs. However, if better technology
produces a system more efficient in terms of staff processing tasks Wirralhomes
should consider devoting some of the resulting savings to the provision of more
intensive assistance to vulnerable applicants.
There is also a medium term challenge posed by the fact that the funding for two staff
members is due to expire in 2010, implying a need for partner agencies to increase,
rather than reduce, their salary-cost contributions.
Other than salary-related and central support costs the only major budget item is press
advertising which is projected to absorb around 15 per cent of total scheme costs in
2007/08. Given the range of channels through which vacancy adverts can be
publicised, some partner agencies question whether press advertising is, in fact,
essential.
Wirralhomes Strengths and Weaknesses Partner Agency Perspectives
From interviews with stakeholders and discussions at the ICT Functional
Requirements workshop on 31 October, it is clear that many partners are proud of the
pioneering work on the Wirral Unified Waiting List Agency in the 1990s and the
early adoption of CBL in 2003. RSL partners are also supportive of the dedication and
commitment of Wirralhomes staff with many emphasising their effective and strong
operational working relationships for over a decade.
The RSL partners are a diverse group with some working exclusively in the Wirral,
others on Merseyside, while others work across the North West and beyond. The
consolidation of organisations into Group Structures is also a key dynamic on their
cultures and operational requirements. Some operate from local Wirral bases, others
are based across the water in Liverpool while others have key aspects of their void
re-servicing and allocations processes operated from shared service centres remote
from the Wirral. Arising from this diversity are differences in RSLs service
requirements from Wirralhomes, and this could suggest consideration be given to
Wirralhomes moving towards offering a tariff of service options to partners for
5
services such as pooled advertising and improved verification and references
checking.
Some partner RSLs with experience of CBL schemes elsewhere consider that the
suitability of shortlisted applicants under Wirralhomes is better than in other areas.
Nevertheless, many partners are concerned about abortive work undertaken in
contacting and verifying shortlisted households and for dealing with queries and
complaints from by-passed households. In view of this the main body of this report
considers some improvement ideas for the registration and expressions of interest
processes as well as to compiling of shortlists.
Some partners favour widening bidder eligibility and the use of first-come-first-
served approaches to allocations for Instant Homes to relet their most difficult to let
properties. There is clear support for streamlining advertising procedures and lead
times. It is also considered that the inappropriateness and apparent over-supply of
some forms of sheltered housing warrants a Wirral-wide Best Value review to address
the provision of appropriate supported housing services for elders.
Improving governance arrangements for the Wirralhomes Partnership is also seen as
desirable among RSL partners. Moving towards a strategically focused steering group
and an operationally focused practitioners forum had widespread support. Allied to
this it is suggested that formalising the Partnership around a set of defined service
standards developed with residents would provide a timely service improvement
opportunity for all partners and could re-establish the Wirral s credentials as a CBL
pioneer.
Foremost amongst partner concerns was the value for money offered by the
Wirralhomes service. All partner RSLs acknowledge that Wirralhomes is constrained
by its current ICT systems and that this inhibits efficient working practices, customer
access arrangements and the achievement of value for money. In particular,
Wirralhomes staff need to perform laborious workarounds utilising Microsoft Excel to
support bidding and shortlisting processes for non-Wirral Partnership Homes void
editions and this is undermining their ability to work effectively. Many partners
perceive Wirralhomes staff as being busy and diligent but that the inefficiency of
current operations is undermining their productivity and in need of urgent change.
Improvements to ICT for customer self-service and staff operations especially in
relation to shortlisting featuring prominently in suggested solutions. Other key ideas
for improving VFM included fully integrating the Disabled Persons Housing Register,
reducing advertising costs and reviewing central support recharges between Wirral
MBC and Wirralhomes. Key themes to emerge from partners in relation to the cost
sharing approach are also outlined in the main body of the report.
Choice-based Lettings and Rehousing Performance
According to RSL CORE returns, two thirds of all 2006/07 lets recorded by
Wirralhomes member HAs were made via choice-based lettings (see Table 4.1).
Excluding those involving statutory homeless households, some 84 per cent of
2006/07 lets by the partner landlords were made through CBL.
6
Only just over half (54 per cent) of Wirral CBL lets in 2006/07 were achieved without
the property being initially refused. In more than one in six instances lettings were
achieved only after the property had already been refused at least three times. The
significant incidence of refusals will have contributed to the relatively high overall
mean relet interval for Wirral CBL lets of 43 days. In comparison with transfer RSLs
in other comparable areas, Wirral Partnership Homes records relatively high rates of
tenancy offer refusals. However, this is true of both CBL and non-CBL lets.
Therefore, these findings do not necessarily indicate that whatever its defects the
Wirralhomes CBL system is significantly less efficient than similar systems in
operation elsewhere.
Wirral lets achieved under CBL typically take somewhat longer to achieve than the
minority of those processed as direct lettings . However, the same pattern is found in
most other comparable local authority areas and probably reflects the fact that non-
CBL lets tend to be exceptional and therefore not properly comparable with CBL
lets. For example, it may well be that such lets disproportionately involve categories
such as statutory homeless households or management transfers. Partly because of
applicants limited scope to refuse offers in such circumstances, it would be expected
that lets of these types could be relatively quickly achieved.
Comparing void management performance in 2006/07 with that recorded immediately
before the introduction of CBL it appears that virtually all partner HAs have improved
their performance a number by considerable margins. By contrast, associations
outwith the Wirralhomes partnership saw deteriorating relet performance over this
period. Overall, therefore, there is no evidence to suppose that CBL has compromised
housing management efficiency and good grounds for believing that the opposite is
true.
Review of CBL Partnerships Elsewhere in England
The e-mail survey of CBL partnerships undertaken as part of the research covered the
26 local authority areas where former council housing had been transferred and where
multi-RSL CBL systems were in operation. The survey drew responses from 22
LAs/RSLs an 85 per cent response rate.
The schemes surveyed broke down evenly between those where the lead agency was
the post-transfer local authority and where this role was played by the transfer RSL.
However, the RSL-led model was much more common in larger and urban councils,
whilst LA leadership was almost universal in (typically smaller and more rural)
districts. As a metropolitan area where the Council retains scheme leadership, Wirral
is, therefore, unusual.
In their scope, most CBL partnerships were comprehensive in that partner RSLs
processed all or most of their lets through the system. However, schemes led by
transfer RSLs tended to be partial in the sense that non-transfer RSL participants
often contributed only those lets designated as fulfilling their nomination obligations.
In only three cases did schemes involve private lettings being advertised alongside
social housing vacancies.
Less than half of the schemes could be characterised as full partnerships in the sense
of being governed by a board or steering group (as in Wirral). More commonly, there
7
was a strong scheme lead organisation which effectively retained responsibility for
operational decisions albeit in consultation with partner RSLs. In most cases it was
reported that member RSLs were bound into the arrangement by some form of
documented understanding but it may be that in some cases this was simply a
reference to a nominations agreement rather than an SLA or similar compact.
There was no single dominant approach to sharing CBL costs. Perhaps surprisingly,
some schemes were wholly or largely funded by (post-transfer) LAs. In others, by
contrast, it was reported that LAs made no financial contribution. Most cases,
however, lay between these extremes. Some involved resource contributions being
fixed according to functional divisions of responsibility e.g. where the local
authority paid staff costs whereas RSLs funded advertising. A variant of this model,
as operated in four areas, was where the local authority funded housing register
maintenance costs, whilst RSLs shared lettings-related activities (e.g. pro rata to
stock).
Eight software models were represented among the 22 schemes although the most
numerous were those supplied by Abritas, IBS and Comino/Dev. Functionality scores
for Abritas tended to be well above those for all other suppliers. This aligned with our
revised supplier functionality scores from the Market Assessment exercise, once
Scout Solutions added cost enhancements were omitted to give a better reflection of
supplier existing functionality.
Upgrading Wirralhomes: ICT System Requirements
The current lack of provision for customer self-service for either the housing register
or the placing of expressions of interest/bids for available properties contributes to the
high-level of manual processing of information by Wirralhomes. This is exacerbated
by void editions for properties being held on the core Northgate application only for
WPH properties. Consequently, for approximately 40 per cent of all CBL lettings the
Wirralhomes Team have to shortlist in property void edition specific Excel
spreadsheets. This is a time-consuming approach and undermines effective working
practices since as it entails transcribing data, it is difficult to prevent duplicate bids.
Similarly, in providing reports or dealing with queries from applicants or Councillors
it can take hours to collate the necessary data. In addition, many RSLs have
compatibility issues with the current Virtual Private Network access arrangements to
Northgate and they would prefer a web-based application.
Wirralhomes staff generally consider the functionality offered by the current
Northgate configuration is acceptable for applications functionality and Group 1 WPH
properties shortlisting, but that it offers poor support for Group 2 WPH properties
shortlisting and for recording bids for other RSL properties. However, a number of
shortcomings with the current configuration and usage of Northgate are identified in
the main body of the report in relation to applicant registrations and bids processing.
We have estimated some metrics on current transaction times to evidence where
improvements in ICT functionality for customer self-service and more effective staff
working would improve efficiency. As the next steps in the final recommendations
section makes clear, more work is needed to value current transaction costs of existing
ways of working.
8
The report outlines the process by which the ICT Functional Requirements were
developed for the market assessment, with a particular focus on the findings to
emerge from the all-day ICT Functional Requirements Workshop on 31 October
2007. This led to the preparation of a shopping list of functionality structured around
the following key themes: accessibility and systems availability (including service
standards); hosting arrangements; applications processing, verification and
assessment; the scope of properties covered and stock data held; void edition
marketing; searching for available properties and bidding; matching and shortlisting;
offer resulting; reporting and customer feedback and any interfaces required.
The functionality shopping list was refined by attending a Northgate CBL user
group and then reviewed at the Wirralhomes Steering Group meeting on 15
November. A pre-procurement market assessment document based on the functional
requirements was then dispatched to suppliers on 19 November and the findings from
this assessment are discussed below.
Options for Wirralhomes ICT System Upgrade
We consider the main options for upgrading Wirralhomes ICT to improve efficiency
and customer access arrangements as involving (a) upgrading the Northgate system,
(b) buying in a new third party system or (c) adopting a hybrid approach and retaining
Northgate for some areas of functionality, though supplemented by a third party
system. In view of the Council and WPH both having a licence for Northgate there are
then further options in relation to which database instance to consider upgrading.
Before evaluating each of these options, the report outlines the process by which the
market assessment was conducted. Based on Wirralhomes current ICT provider
(Northgate) supplemented by suppliers with niche reputations and credentials in
offering housing register and CBL functionality, six organisation were selected and
invited to participate; these included: Abritas, Capita Software Services, Home
Connections, Locata, Northgate and Scout Solutions. In the end Capita and Home
Connections declined the opportunity to provide information and the assessment was
based on comparing four suppliers offerings.
The suppliers generally self-assessed their products as having a high degree of
compliance with the functionality list. For example, three of the four companies
assessed their submission as complying with more than 90 per cent of the essential
requirements. However, suppliers own assessments were frequently undermined by
their summary of functionality or their product development proposals, making it at
times difficult to distinguish existing tangible product functionality from supplier
aspirations. We attempted to revise supplier assessments of the extent of product
compliance with Wirralhomes functionality requirements in the light of each
company s response to our specific questions. Once this had been achieved we found
the revised scores brought the new company scores into closer alignment with
Northgate s self-assessed scoring. Locata s alignment with the shopping list was most
changed by this process; however, in certain respects it was difficult to re-assess the
Scout Solutions submission.
Nevertheless, many of the key shopping list criteria relating to CBL marketing,
shortlisting and offer resulting would appear to be available in the market place,
9
suggesting that with some refinement the shopping list could form a realistic basis
for a more formal procurement specification.
Despite being provided with a spreadsheet with consistent cost estimation questions, a
number of the suppliers failed to provide all the detail requested, making consistent
comparisons difficult. We made allowance for this by trying to standardise the basis
for comparison and give a minimum and maximum estimate for each supplier s
offering to give indicative budgetary figures. On this basis we found the lowest
estimated price was in the region of £50,000 for a no frills hosted lettings service
from Locata and the upper estimates were approximately £180,000 for a Northgate or
Scout Solution based system. Abritas seemed to offer a mid market price estimation.
(See Chapter 7 for full details). We identify that further work is required in refining
the functional specification and supplier cost assumptions and estimates before firm
procurement budgets should be set.
At this stage of the Review it was not the intention to undertake an individual
assessment of the suitability of a specific supplier to provide Wirralhomes with
improved ICT; the purpose of the Market Assessment is to assist Wirralhomes in
understanding the functionality available, to assist in indicative budget setting and to
help underpin a subsequent formal tendering exercise.
Bringing together the learnings from the Market Assessment exercise,other
important factors having a bearing on each upgrade option, the report provides a
summary evaluation. From that analysis the options which seem to offer the most cost
effective and best match between Wirralhomes and its partners functional
requirements, are:
(i). Adopting a hybrid approach using WPH s Northgate application and a third party
for applications and CBL customer and RSL partner self-service (although this
has not been costed at this stage)
(ii). Implementing a new niche housing applications and CBL web-based system
with customer self-service hosted by Wirral MBC
(iii). Implementing a new niche housing application and CBL web-based system
hosted by a third party.
Review Recommendations
The following recommendations are addressed to Wirral MBC and/or partner RSLs:
(a). Consideration should be given to re-integrating homeless households within the
Wirralhomes scheme which would require resources for case management of
homeless households
(b). Expand the scope of the Wirralhomes scheme to include accredited private
landlords to be offered an advertising service at no cost (providing that
consequential marginal costs for the Council are minimal);
(c). Consider widening bid eligibility to permit people who are not eligible for a Part
VI allocation (e.g. some migrant workers) to bid for difficult to let properties
offered on first come first served basis;
10
(d). Consider commissioning a Wirral-wide Best Value review of sheltered
accommodation;
(e). Progress further integration of the Disabled Person s Housing Register (DPHR)
into Wirralhomes;
(f). Review governance arrangements for Wirralhomes including consideration of:
(i). more formalised arrangements for the conduct of partner agency meetings
(ii). creating a Strategic Steering Group alongside a Practitioners Forum
(iii). including customer representation within the governance structure;
(iv). renaming the scheme to stress its autonomy from both Wirral Council and
Wirral Partnership Homes (see Section 3.4);
(g). Wirralhomes and RSL partners should consider developing service standards
with a customer focus group;
(h). Consider arranging an event to publicise Review outcomes (once agreed) and to
launch a service standards development process;
(i). Review the current Housing Register application form and associated data
capture and processing arrangements (see section 3.2
Registration and Re-
registration);
(j). In view of the level of partner support for moving away from advertising in the
Wirral Globe to exclusive reliance on a direct marketing approach, explore this
model bearing in mind:
(i). the need for compliance with Audit Commission KLOE 7 (allocations and
lettings);
(ii). the possibility that additional expenditure on improved publicity for limited
circulation might be required and could offset some of the savings
potentially arising from abolition of paid-for press advertising ;
(k). Ensure that data sharing of personal information is conducted within the Data
Protection Act and organisational confidential policies, it is recommended that
Wirralhomes establishes an information sharing protocol with RSL partners to
underpin all areas of its activity;
(l). Recognise that if Wirralhomes adopts more sophisticated service standards it will
necessitate improvements in the information given on service outcomes (See
section 3.5 -
Service Outcomes for Wirralhomes Users and Customer Feedback);
(m). In developing the cost sharing basis for the Wirralhomes scheme in the light of
this review, it is suggested that the basis of cost sharing should:
11
(i). be transparent in relation to the costs (including internal Council support
recharges) for statutory housing allocations scheme functions and CBL
business processes;
(ii). be fair in relation to the Council covering statutory housing allocation
scheme costs; (see Section 5.2 cost-sharing )
(iii). recognise the financial contributions made through system development
investment (i.e. over and above contributions to annual running costs);
(iv). continue with the adopted proportionality approach, and dispense with the
previous system of fixed stockholding-based charges which meant that
increases in service provision costs were met entirely by Wirral Council
rather than being shared proportionately between partner agencies;
(v). examine the practicality of a fixed base annual Wirralhomes membership
fee and variable voids transactions costs (along the lines of the St Helens
scheme);
(n). To form the basis for sustainable cost-sharing, Wirralhomes partners should
explore the utility of a model where overall scheme costs are split to reflect the
distinction between activities associated with register maintenance and those
which are lettings-related activities . In our view this is preferable to alternative
approaches adopted by some CBL partnerships involving post-transfer LAs e.g.
where costs are shared on a 50/50 basis between local authority and the main
stock transfer RSL, or where the Council s share of costs is fixed with reference
to the proportion of lettings involving statutory homeless cases.
(o). The partners need to agree liability for the system development costs which will
be incurred as a result of overhauling the Wirralhomes IT infrastructure and
software. This should incorporate a mechanism to ensure that all partner
organisations contribute to these costs on an equitable basis (see Tables 8.2 and
8.3 and accompanying text).
(p). For the longer term, consideration should be given to adopting a service model
and associated costing regime based on a tariff of services where:
(i). additional service options are offered for individual RSLs to buy into ;
(ii). RSL partners agree the services offered and the associated charges.
(q). Develop activity based costing analysis to inform the business case for ICT
investment focusing especially on the inefficiencies of the Excel based shortlists
and the costs generated by the absence of customer self-service
(r). In developing and securing approval for the business case for Wirralhomes
procuring additional ICT functionality the following should be valued:
(i). Current transaction costs of existing ways of working based especially on
the inefficiencies of the Excel based shortlists and the costs generated by the
absence of customer self-service;
12
(ii). WPH s current true cost contribution to Wirralhomes operations including
its full ICT support costs
(iii). Specific interface requirements within the procurement, including source
property data, void editions data, shortlists and shortlist/offer results.
(s). Develop and secure approval for a Project Mandate to outline an agreed
procurement scope and strategy. This to include:
(i). The scope of the procurement and whether it is restricted to the options that
emerged from the market informed evaluation in this report (i.e. to either
adopt a hybrid procurement approach and supplement WPH s Northgate
Instance with niche third party functionality or to procure full niche
functionality as either a hosted or non-hosted application.)
(ii). Whether the option of considering procurement via the Northern Housing
Consortium CBL partnering option with Abritas would accord with the
Council s procurement standing orders and provide an appropriate
procurement mechanism (See Section 7.2 on Abritas).
(iii). Whether to adopt an open or closed OJEU procurement approach;
(iv). Whether to use a traditional Invitation to Tender approach or whether to
utilise an Invitation to Negotiate approach.
(v). The procurement timetable and evaluation framework.
(t). Convert the current Wirralhomes functional shopping list into a full
specification and prepare procurement documentation. This to include:
(i).
Drafting and issuing a Pre-Qualification Questionnaire.
(ii). Reviewing those items on the current functional list which current market
offerings seem unable to met;
(iii). Refining the detail on some items of functionality and reviewing whether
items are essential or desirable ;
(iv). Providing a clear statement of required interfaces;
(v). Estimating transactions metrics across possible customer self-service
channels;
(vi). Bulking up the functional requirements in relation to job role security,
appropriate segregation of duties, audit log functionality and secure data
hosting and transfer requirements;
(vii). Securing sign-off from appropriate decision fora for the procurement
documentation (i.e. the Wirralhomes Steering Group and appropriate
Council approvals).
13
1. Introduction
1.1 Review Background, Origins and Scope
Wirralhomes is a choice-based lettings (CBL) partnership scheme involving Wirral
Council and the twelve most active RSLs in the borough1 with a joint stock of some
20,000 properties. Wirralhomes is operated by Wirral Council on behalf of all
partners under the guidance of a Steering Group comprising all the partners. Initially
established in 2003, Wirralhomes was one of the first CBL systems operating in
England.
There has been concern within the partnership that the service no longer offers value
for money and that it has not kept pace with developments of CBL and the
expectations of Central Government, the Housing Corporation, the Audit Commission
and customers. Wirral Council therefore commissioned the authors to review of the
Wirralhomes system.
The Review was triggered largely by the Council s initiative in 2006 to reform the
funding of the system. This reflected the fact that RSL contributions to the scheme
cost were fixed in cash terms in 2003. Taking forward the framework already in place
for Common Housing Register (CHR) funding, cost shares were defined in terms of a
levy pro-rata to housing stock. After stock transfer, whilst scheme costs gradually
increased year on year, RSL stock gradually contracted due to RTB sales by transfer
landlords. The result was a sharply rising share of the costs falling to the Council.
Whilst the share for 2005/06 was 19 per cent, a slight reduction in HA contributions
combined with an overall increase in scheme costs in 2006/07 led to the Council share
rising to 28 per cent. This trend was clearly unsustainable.
Impetus for the Review was compounded by WPH concerns about the length of time
taken to let some properties and the association s believes that this may be partly
attributable to defects of the Wirralhomes system. A substantial proportion of
applicants highly ranked on lettings shortlists are found to be inappropriately matched
and need to be filtered out. Also, tenancy offers are refused in large numbers.
Wirralhomes staff question whether this latter problem might reflect applicant
perceptions of the WPH lettings standard. Another problem in the WPH domain is
that some properties advertised for letting turn out to be unready for occupation.
There may be issues here around the guidelines on the condition of properties
submitted for advertising.
The Review was tasked with looking at two main areas: the ICT infrastructure which
underpins the system and the way that overall service costs are shared between partner
agencies. The main aims of the Review were, therefore, twofold. Firstly, to identify a
software solution which will provide much greater functionality whilst, at the same
1 The research brief specified the scheme as involving 12 RSL partners with these listed as Arena HA,
Beechwood & Ballantyne Community HA, CDS Housing, Cosmopolitan HA, Hornby HA, Leasowe
Community Homes, Liverpool HT (Rodney housing division), Maritime HA (Regenda),
Riverside Housing, Rodney Housing, Venture HA, Wirral Methodist HA and Wirral Partnership
Homes..
14
time, economising on staffing inputs which are currently quite substantial. And,
secondly, to propose a cost-sharing rationale which is both fair and sustainable. A key
factor here is that, because Wirral Council has transferred its housing stock, it is not
tenable to divide CBL costs pro rata to stock or lettings as is often the case in multi-
landlord schemes led by LAs which retain a landlord function.
Specifically, the project was tasked with investigating:
· How other comparable local authorities and partner RSLs organise joint CBL
services;
· The level of service that modern CBL systems offer their customers;
· The value for money the Wirralhomes scheme offers partner RSLs and the
Council;
· The financial contribution of other post-transfer local authorities in similar
contexts;
· How the Wirralhomes scheme could provide a more effective service to vulnerable
customers and diverse groups;
· The regional CBL agenda
· The housing systems currently used by Wirralhomes partner RSLs and the ability
of any potential new ICT system/s to integrate with the RSL systems.
The Council s overall vision is for investment in ICT to generate the scope for
significant savings in staff time. Wirral Council believes that partner HAs should have
the opportunity to choose whether to make use of such savings through lower revenue
contributions or through re-directing staff resources into other activities e.g. more
help for vulnerable applicants, more promotion of low demand vacancies.
1.2 National Context for the Review
The research arises from the decision on part of the Wirralhomes consortium to assess
the scope for upgrading the current CBL system, to examine the potential for
achieving better value for money, and to re-consider the way that the costs of the
system are distributed across the partner agencies.
A number of factors shape the context for the research. Firstly, national housing
policy considerations as these relate to local authorities. Soon after giving its initial
backing to the CBL concept in the 2000 Housing Green Paper, Central Government
set a target for all local authorities to switch to CBL by 2010. Since 2005,
Government has placed increased emphasis on encouraging local authorities to
develop sub-regional CBL partnerships and to encompass private landlord lets within
CBL frameworks.
15
In early 2007 CLG published a consultation draft of guidance on CBL2. This aims to
reconcile the legislative provisions on housing allocation under the Housing Act 1996
with the policy steer in favour of the CBL model. Importantly, legislation and
guidance on housing allocations has placed a high priority on avoiding unlawful
discrimination which 1980s research on this area had shown to be widespread3.
Secondly, housing associations are encouraged by the Housing Corporation, as
regulator, to seek to offer a choice of home, whilst giving preference to those in
priority need 4. The Corporation has published a good practice note setting out ways
that housing associations can respond to choice-based lettings 5.
The Audit Commission s criteria for excellent provision of lettings services form
another crucial element of the national policy context for this study. The Commission,
for example, expects an excellent social landlord to:
· have a clear policy in place aimed at maximising choice for applicants in
accordance with the allocation policy such as a choice-based letting scheme.
· have staff that all demonstrate user focus in their work, who treat people with
respect at all times when assisting service users through the allocation and lettings
service.
· collect accurate information on costs and services and use it to decide priorities and
to strategically manage resources in the context of a formal procurement strategy.
· be able to demonstrate significant cost savings and/or quality improvements
through partnerships and has investigated partnerships with other organisations
wishing to procure similar services (Collective Procurement) such as other housing
associations/ councils/ ALMOs.
· have used procurement to achieve significant savings without loss of quality, e.g.
can demonstrate achievements in delivering programmes and projects on time, to
target and to service user s satisfaction, in terms of both cost and quality6.
The Housing Corporation s guidance stresses that an association considering a switch
to CBL should develop a business case for such a move. It does not, however, address
2 Communities & Local Government (2007) Allocation of Accommodation: Choice-based Lettings;
London: CLG http://www.communities.gov.uk/archived/publications/housing/consultationallocation
3 Pawson, H. (1988) Race and the Allocation of Public Housing: Changing Perspectives, Recurrent
Themes;
Housing Studies 3 (2) pp134-139
4 Para 3.5.1 in: Housing Corporation (2005)
The Regulatory Code and Guidance; London: Housing
Corporation
5 Housing Corporation (2005)
Choice Based Lettings; Good Practice Note; London: Housing
Corporation
6 Audit Commission (2007)
Housing Inspectorate Key Lines of Enquiry Landlord Services: Allocations
and Lettings
16
the question of how the set-up and ongoing costs of multi-landlord schemes should be
shared by the partner organisations. As found by earlier research, this has proved a
major bone of contention between LAs and HAs in some areas7. Dissatisfaction about
cost-share contributions has, on occasion, resulted in association withdrawal from
LA-led multi-landlord CBL schemes.
Thirdly, with the national rollout of CBL now having been ongoing for a number of
years, a growing range of ICT options has been developed to operationalise the choice
concept. This means that landlords in the original CBL vanguard (e.g. those in the
Wirralhomes consortium) are liable to be working with systems which are no longer
state of the art in terms of functionality and, possibly, cost.
Finally, national research led by Heriot-Watt University has identified both strengths
and weaknesses in CBL implementation by social landlords. In particular, the findings
highlight the challenge posed by the imperative to ensure that CBL is genuinely
transparent to housing applicants and is not detrimental to potentially disadvantaged
households (e.g. people with limited literacy, learning difficulties or visual
impairment)8.
1.3 Review Methodology
The project involved a number of distinct elements. These were as follows:
· Interviews with key staff of Wirral Council and Wirralhomes partner RSLs these
were to develop an understanding of system operation and to gauge views on its
strengths and weaknesses
· Contacts with other Merseyside/Cheshire organisations who might potentially be
involved in the Wirralhomes partnership i.e. Wirral RSLs not currently involved
in the partnership and a neighbouring local authority without existing plans to
introduce CBL
· Development of a system functionality shopping list this was achieved partly
through staff interviews and partly through discussion facilitated via an all-day
workshop session convened by the researchers and involving all partner agencies
· E-mail survey of post-transfer local authority areas with CBL partnerships in
operation
· In-depth interviews with four CBL scheme lead organisations operating in post-
transfer local authority areas
7 Marsh, A., Cowan, D., Cameron, A., Jones, M., Kiddle, C. and Whitehead, C. (2004)
Piloting Choice
Based Lettings: An Evaluation; London: ODPM http://www.odpm.gov.uk/index.asp?id=1153336
88 Pawson, H., Donohoe, A., Jones, C., Watkins, D., Fancy, C. & Netto, G. (2006)
Monitoring the
Longer-term Impact of Choice-based Lettings; London: DCLG
http://www.communities.gov.uk/index.asp?id=1503598
17
· Analysis of CORE lettings data for Wirral and comparable local authorities to
examine the relationship between choice-based lettings and housing management
performance
· A review of the ICT marketplace to gauge options for upgrading Wirralhomes
software
1.4 Report Structure
This report collates the findings from all the fieldwork elements listed above. First, in
Chapter 2, we briefly summarise the origins and existing operational arrangements of
the Wirralhomes system. This draws mainly on the research brief, the staff interviews
and documents kindly provided by Wirral Council. Next, drawing again on interviews
but also the workshop session, we set out partner agency views on the existing
system.
In Chapter 4 we report the findings of CORE analysis on relationships between CBL
and housing management performance in terms of speed of reletting empty properties.
Drawing on our survey of CBL partnerships in post-transfer local authorities, Chapter
5 discusses what might be learned from elsewhere in relation to governance, cost-
sharing and ICT issues. Chapter 6 details ICT system functionality requirements as
discussed in interviews and at the workshop session. This leads to Chapter 7 where
we set out possible upgrade options based on material drawn from supplier
submissions in response to our review of the ICT marketplace.
Finally, in Chapter 8, we attempt to draw together some conclusions from the Review.
18
2. Wirralhomes System: Origins and Operation
2.1 System Origins and Scope
Wirralhomes developed from an existing partnership, the Wirral Unified Housing
Waiting List Agency, a common housing register (CHR) launched in 1996. The CHR
was administered by Wirral Council on behalf of the partners for whom it operated a
joint waiting list and common allocations policy. The CBL scheme started on a pilot
basis in parts of the borough in September 2002 before going Wirral-wide with
around six RSLs in October 2003; subsequently the scheme has grown to include 12
RSLs. These developments were mainly driven by officer commitment to improve
customer services rather than being a process led by Elected Members.
Wirral Council completed the transfer of its housing stock to Wirral Partnership
Homes (WPH) and Beechwood & Ballantyne Community HA (BBCHA) in early
2005 but continued to operate Wirralhomes on behalf of these and 10 other RSLs.
Collectively, the partner RSLs accounted for more than 90 per cent of the 1,581
recorded RSL lettings in Wirral in 2006/07. Whilst a number of smaller associations
remain outside the partnership, only two (Family HA (Birkenhead & Wirral) and
Servite Houses9) let more than 25 properties in 2006/07). However, if these two
associations could be convinced of the benefits of joining the Wirralhomes system it
could be particularly beneficial from the Council s perspective because neither
currently consistently offers vacancies to Council nominees.
There is an aspiration on the Council s part to expand the Wirralhomes system to
encompass private lettings, possibly linked with landlord accreditation. If offered as a
free service, this could be an incentive for accreditation. It believed that RSL partners
would be unconcerned about this given that private rents are generally much higher
than RSL rents and tenancies less secure, it seems unlikely that private lets would be
seen as competition .
On the applicant side, the Wirralhomes scheme is limited in scope to the extent that it
excludes statutory homeless households. As demonstrated by national research10, this
approach is unusual and arguably in conflict with Central Government draft guidance
which stipulates that people owed the main homeless duty
should, wherever
possible, be offered a choice of accommodation and that to ensure that people owed
the main homelessness duty are not disadvantaged under a choice based lettings
system 11.
When the Wirralhomes CBL scheme was set up homeless households were initially
included and were ranked in the top priority category. However, there was immediate
9 Servite joined Wirralhomes for a six month trial in 2006
10 Pawson, H., Donohoe, A., Jones, C., Watkins, D., Fancy, C. & Netto, G. (2006)
Monitoring the
Longer-term Impact of Choice-based Lettings; London: DCLG
http://www.communities.gov.uk/index.asp?id=1503598
11 Communities & Local Government (2007) Allocation of Accommodation: Choice-based Lettings;
London: CLG http://www.communities.gov.uk/archived/publications/housing/consultationallocation
19
concern that under this approach homeless households were perceived to be accessing
a disproportionately large share of the most desirable lettings. Rather than adjusting
the structure of the scheme accordingly, homeless households were simply excluded
from it.
A number of key RSLs favour re-integrating homeless households within the
Wirralhomes system as they consider the current separation of homeless allocation
processes is distorting market behaviour with applicants believing the homelessness
route will be the quickest way to a house. It is understood that this has, in any case,
been recently recommended by a review of homelessness by Robson Rhodes.
Re-integrating the homeless group within the system could be achieved through
vacancy labelling. If this was done for 50 per cent of family size vacancies it would
resemble the current system where such vacancies are set aside for direct
nominations. However, allowing homeless households to bid for properties would
require a relatively staff intensive case management approach (with implications for
homelessness staff).
2.2 Operational Arrangements and Governance
The Council has continued to operate the Wirralhomes system post-stock transfer. A
steering group involving Wirral MBC and all the partner RSLs meets to discuss issues
of common interest but has no formal decision-making powers. Although there is a
management agreement defining the terms of the service not all of the RSLs have
signed this. To a large extent, therefore, the partnership continues to be constituted on
an informal basis.
Wirral Council s role as scheme lead organisation could be seen as mainly reflecting
historical factors and there has been no formal consideration on the possibility that
this role could be adopted by another agency. However, whilst it is not unusual for
transfer HAs to take on CBL scheme leadership (see Chapter 5) it is believed that
RSLs other than WPH see current arrangements as preferable in that they avoid
possible conflicts of interest.
2.3 Costs and Cost-sharing
Wirral Council estimates the costs of running the Wirralhomes system in 2007/08 as
totalling just over £400,000 (see Table 2.1). This covers the maintenance of the
Housing Register as well as the administration of the lettings process. As shown in
Table 2.1, the majority of these costs involve staff salaries. The greater part of this
sum is attributable to the four (3.8 FTE) Wirralhomes Advisor posts, together with the
three (2.0 FTE) managerial posts assigned to these activities.
Importantly, the salary-related cost of the Wirralhomes services is understated by the
figures in Table 2.1 because these do not include the costs attributable to the two
relocation officers who work as integral members of the Team. This is because
associated salaries are funded from the Housing Market Renewal budget. Although
this funding is secure until 2010, it was gained rather opportunistically and there is a
need to ensure that all Wirralhomes partners are fully aware of the implications of its
time-limited nature.
20
As discussed in more detail in Chapter 3, mainly thanks to the system s
unsophisticated ICT infrastructure, Wirralhomes procedures currently involve
comparatively labour-intensive activities which raise questions about the achievement
of value for money.
Support costs account for almost a fifth of total Wirralhomes costs as set out in
Table 2.1 (£74,263 in 2007/08). As detailed in Table 2.2, four items account for three
quarters of this sum although miscellaneous expenses mainly comprises activities
connected with the annual housing register renewals process..
Table 2.1 Wirralhomes costs
Costs
2007/08
2006/07
% of
budget
projected
2007/08
estimates
outturn
costs
Staff
173,260
Managers
76,000
Employees sub-total
249,260
222,033
61.3
Travel
4,980
4,798
1.2
Supplies
Advertising
61,761
59,500
15.2
Stationery general
398
383
0.1
Printing
1,100
2,200
0.3
Computer equipment
1,142
1,100
0.3
Miscellaneous expenses (mainly.
12,062
11,621
3.0
housing register renewals)
Northgate fees
1,928
1,857
0.5
IT consultancy
0
1,800
0.0
Mobile phones
42
40
0.0
Support
Legal, ICT, HR, payroll, PR etc
74,263
72,100
18.2
support
Assessment
Medical screening
Miscellaneous
Total
406,935
377,432
100.0
Table 2.2 Breakdown of central support charges to Wirralhomes in 2007/08
Cost element
Cost to Wirralhomes
£
%
Departmental admin recharge
23,300
31
Corporate services charge
14,000
19
Legal, secretarial and accountancy charges
12,800
17
Accommodation charge
8,900
12
IT charges
8,800
12
HR, recruitment and payroll charge
3,900
5
Procurement service charge
1,800
2
Internal audit charge
600
1
Total
74,100
100
21
In total, central support and supplies costs (net of advertising) are estimated as
totalling some £90,000. Such costs can be seen as overheads partly proportional to
staff numbers. In this respect it is relevant to note that Wirralhomes overheads are
equivalent to 36 per cent of total staff costs (including employer NI and pension
contributions). Whilst there might be room to contest individual central recharges, this
does not seem an unduly high figure when set against the research contract overhead
rates normally charged by universities. Historically, such rates have typically been
well in excess of 40 per cent. Under the recently-established full economic costing
model agreed with government such rates tend to run at approximately 100 per cent of
salaries.
Property adverts in the Wirral Globe absorb a significant part of the overall
Wirralhomes budget (see Table 2.1). Evidence from the customer survey suggests that
this is how most applicants access information about available homes. However, the
newspaper does not reach all parts of Wirral. And adverts are, in any case, circulated
to many other local centres e.g. HA offices, Council one-stop-shops, mosques and
multi-cultural projects. On cost grounds there could be a case for moving away from
press advertising altogether (see also Sections 3.3 and 3.5) .
Wirralhomes annual running costs are shared between the Council and partner RSLs.
Under a Service Level Agreement established a year prior to the 2005 stock transfers
to WPH and BBCHA, RSL charges are calculated according to a per dwelling levy
which was fixed in cash terms for the duration of the SLA. Following the 2005 stock
transfer, charges for the newly established transfer RSLs were set according to the
existing formula.
Since 2005 RSL stock has diminished, hence reducing Council income receivable
from RSLs to offset Wirralhomes costs. Thanks mainly to general inflation, however,
scheme costs have risen. In plugging the gap the Council saw its financial
contribution to the scheme soar from £71,000 in 2005/06 to £107,000 in 2006/07 an
increase of over 50 per cent. These changes also pushed up the
proportion of total
annual running costs funded by the Council from 21 per cent to 28 per cent. This
framework is clearly unsustainable.
2.4 Assistance for Disabled or Otherwise Vulnerable Applicants
A disabled persons housing register (DPHR) was established in Wirral in 2004.
People on the register receive personal advice and assistance in accessing a suitable
tenancy. The scheme was run by a voluntary agency until 2006 when the
administration was taken on by the Council. However, while this is managed under
Wirralhomes, DHPR work remains separate from the mainstream Wirralhomes
activity both in organisational and budgetary terms. This is partly because DHPR
costs are met by HAs through a separate stock-related levy and this is paid only by
some associations and not others.
More fully integrating the two sets of activities would be beneficial in terms of
efficiency and effectiveness by helping to ensure that staff help is provided to all in
need of it, whether or not they are physically disabled.
22
The Vulnerable Team consists of two officers who help more vulnerable applicants
to access suitable housing. Part of this involves an identified group of 30-40 house
seekers assessed as less able to express interest in suitable properties themselves.
These include people in hospital, people with learning difficulties and very old
people. VT officers monitor properties becoming available for letting and make proxy
bids on behalf of service users.
WPH argues that there is a need for greater case management of all Urgent Need
applicants. One aspect of this could be closer working with specialist agencies with
caseloads including vulnerable people seeking housing. The Council accepts the need
for greater scrutiny of UN applicants to identify those in need of such attention, but
questions the need for a blanket approach here.
An aspect of the debate on facilitating the use of CBL for vulnerable individuals
relates to BME groups. RSLs are under pressure from the Housing Corporation to
demonstrate that they let an adequate proportion of lets to BME households. Overall
proportion of BME lets and waiting list registrations is slightly lower than the census
proportion but both are rising. The ongoing housing needs survey by Fordham shows
that BME groups tend to be in higher socio-economic groups. This would help to
account for BME households being underrepresented in social housing.
2.5 Chapter Summary
Wirral Council operates the joint CBL scheme as part of its strategic housing role and
on behalf of 12 partner RSLs. Collectively, member RSLs account for more than 90
per cent of social landlord lets in the borough. The Council aspires to further expand
the scope of the scheme to encompass remaining non-member RSLs and lets by
accredited private landlords.
On the applicant side, the scheme is limited to the extent that statutory homeless
households are subject to rehousing through direct lets and, hence, excluded from
CBL. This is unusual and arguably in conflict with Central Government guidance.
Although a Service Level Agreement (SLA) was drawn up as a framework for the
partnership in 2003/04, not all member RSLs have signed up to this document. And,
whilst there is a steering group which meets to discuss matters of common interest,
this is not formally constituted and lacks decision-making powers. To a large extent,
therefore, the partnership is currently run on an informal basis.
The Wirralhomes budget amounts to around £400,000 in 2007/08, with most of the
costs being salary related. Adoption of a more sophisticated ICT system could be
expected to help economise on staff costs. However, if better technology produces a
system more efficient in terms of staff processing tasks there could be a case for
devoting some of the resulting savings to the provision of more intensive assistance to
vulnerable applicants (and/or case management of homeless households if this group
was to be brought within the system).
There is also a medium term challenge posed by the fact that the funding for two staff
members is due to expire in 2010, implying a need for partner agencies to increase,
rather than reduce, their salary-cost contributions.
23
Other than salary-related and central support costs the only major budget item is press
advertising which is projected to absorb around 15 per cent of total scheme costs in
2007/08. Given the range of channels through which vacancy adverts can be
publicised, some partner agencies question whether press advertising is, in fact,
essential.
24
3. Wirralhomes Strengths & Weaknesses: Partner
Agency Perspectives
3.1 Research Approach
This chapter draws mainly on interviews with Wirralhomes partner RSLs and views
expressed by participants in the Wallasey Town Hall workshop session run by the
research team on 31 October 2007. Each partner RSL was interviewed face-to-face or
contacted by telephone. Some partners with few lettings in the Wirral proved difficult
to engage as they did not respond to requests for a telephone interview despite
repeated attempts via phone or email. Consequently it was not possible to fully
interview the suggested contacts at CDS, Cosmopolitan and Hornby. However, given
that the workshop session was very well attended with these organisations represented
it is believed that all the housing association partners have had the opportunity to
input into the Review process and to shape its findings.
Linked with the fieldwork described above we made contact with the largest two
RSLs operating in the Wirral but not currently members of the partnership. The
purpose was to sound out these RSLs (Family HA (Birkenhead & Wirral) and Servite
Houses) on their attitude towards joining the partnership and their recent experience
of letting properties in the locality. Jointly, the two associations own more than 700
properties in the borough, though virtually all of Servite s homes are sheltered
dwellings.
In common with other local sheltered housing providers, Servite faces significant
demand problems for some of its schemes. And, whilst FHA considers all its homes to
be lettable, some are located in less popular areas where there are demand issues. In
their responses, both these RSLs expressed interest in working with Wirralhomes, at
least on a trial basis.
3.2 Operational Issues
Division of Responsibilities Between Wirralhomes and RSLs
The partner RSLs are very diverse in terms of their operational focus. A number
operate in CBL schemes elsewhere in the North West, with Arena, Maritime and
Riverside having the widest geographic remit. In addition to the Wirralhomes CBL
scheme, these partners have experience of schemes run by Chester, Liverpool, Sefton,
St Helens, Warrington, Wigan and schemes being developed such as Halton (Runcorn
and Widnes) and Knowsley s sub-regional scheme. The other partners which are not
wholly Wirral-based have experience of some of these schemes, with participation in
Liverpool s Property Pool the most common.
From this experience the RSL partners are able to compare and contrast the cost and
quality of service Wirralhomes offers with neighbouring schemes. This experience is
drawn on throughout this Report.
As might be expected, given their diverse forms and geographical remits, RSLs also
held diverse views on whether a single service delivery model can be expected to
meet the needs of all partner landlords. At one extreme one partner, operating across
25
the North West, favours Wirralhomes providing a total service where all the
prioritisation and verification (including taking up references of those on the lettings
shortlist) is undertaken by Wirralhomes. Under this model one household would be
put forward for a void, with the household having their ability to place further bids
suspended while the RSL conducts the viewing and results the offer. This partner
would prefer to delegate to Wirralhomes all allocations-related administrative work,
thereby providing a comprehensive service . This would include adopting wholesale,
the allocations and lettings policy of the CBL service provider. This approach is
modelled on existing relationships with CBL schemes elsewhere in the North West
which have enabled the landlord to downsize its lettings administration functions
relating to these areas.
At the other end of the spectrum some partners stipulated a continuing wish to retain
control over the lettings process by subjecting shortlisted households to their own
pre-allocations process. This included, for example, completing an application form,
risk assessment for sheltered housing, taking up references and verification checks.
Another partner argued that RSLs could undertake more of the property related
functions of CBL including advertising and rely on the Council to provide the
Common Housing Register and bidding infrastructure for the RSL to then shortlist.
An additional aspect to consider here is the consolidation of North West RSLs into
Group Structures and the adoption of shared service centre models, meaning that
some RSLs retain local staff in the Wirral to administer the void reservicing and
allocations process while for other partners work on key aspects of the these processes
is provided by a shared services centre located away from the Wirral (see Table 3.1).
Table 3.1 Wirralhomes RSL Partners, Group membership and operational base for
voids and lettings processes
Partner
Group Parent
Main voids reservicing
Wirral stock
and allocation process
holding used
base
for 07/08
budget setting
Arena Housing Association
Arena Housing Group
Liverpool, L3
315
Leasowe Community Housing Arena Housing Group
Leasowe, Wirral
981
CDS
Plus Housing Group
Liverpool, L8
64
Hornby
Plus Housing Group
Liverpool, L15
117
Cosmopolitan HA
Cosmopolitan Hsg Group
Liverpool, L3
182
Maritime
Regenda
Garston L19 /Bolton BL6
1,297
Riverside (Bridge Division)
Riverside Housing Group
Birkenhead, Wirral
1,997
Venture
Liverpool, L6
475
BBCHA
Vicinity Housing Group
Prenton, Wirral
889
LHT Rodney housing division Vicinity Housing Group
Liverpool, L1
376
Wirral Methodist
Birkenhead, Wirral
610
Wirral Partnership Homes
Birkenhead & local
12,980
offices, Wirral
Total
20,283
In view of this diversity amongst partner organisations, consideration could be given
to adopting a service model based on a tariff of services offered to the RSL partner,
with differentials in the charging framework according to the level of service taken by
26
the RSL. For example Wirralhomes could offer a reference and verification service
for some partners but not others. Likewise some partners have a clear preference as to
how to market their own voids and consideration could be given to offering a tariff
of advertising services. Assessing the feasibility of such a model would form a sound
basis for evidencing VFM and for focusing Wirralhomes on enhancing its service
improvement culture.
The potential to offer this degree of service flexibility has underpinned the ICT
requirements exercise as part of this Review. However, to offer costed tariff options
would require a service costing exercise to be undertaken and could in any case prove
complex to administer.
Suitability of Shortlisted Households
Many partners find Wirralhomes to be responsive with accurate information being
provided on time , and some mentioned that the Wirralhomes scheme was better than
Liverpool s Property Pool with regard to the suitability of shortlisted applicants.
However, several interviewees commented that the CBL shortlist was not always
relevant to the property advertised, citing examples of shortlists including households
of inappropriate size or with ineligible dates of birth where schemes operate to age-
based criteria. In some instances this can lead to abortive work by the RSL partner
leading to concerns about the resulting wastage of staff time.
The need to filter out inappropriate applicants (e.g. people of the wrong age) was
mentioned by several RSL as one aspect of working with the Wirralhomes system
which generates substantial staffing costs for the RSL partners. Arena reports having
downsized its staffing in the expectation that the CBL system would reduce workload.
In the event, that did not happen to the extent predicted. The result has been hard-
pressed staff in area offices. WPH has also increased its lettings staff.
A number of partners considered that the range of applicant preference data kept on
record is insufficient and this contributes to tenancy offer refusals. Clearly, this could
be relevant issue under a traditional allocations model where available-to-let
properties are matched with housing applicants by housing staff making reference to
applicant details held on file. In general, it would not be expected that a lack of
applicant preference details would be relevant under a system where applicants
make their own bidding decisions. In practice, however, some bids may be made in
ignorance of the locality of the property concerned or its surroundings. Therefore,
being able to refer to an applicant s recorded preferences might enable staff to
highlight bidders likely to refuse before offers are made. Among the key matters
raised by partners concerned about such issues were area preferences, and mobility-
related questions, such as topographic factors (such as hill gradients). Providing more
information on property adverts could also help to alleviate this.
Most of the partners were critical of the extent to which they may waste time on
shortlisted applicants with out of date contact details , and little interest in the
property concerned. To validate and/or build on the hypotheses set out in the previous
paragraph more research is needed on why applicants bid for properties in which they
later claim to have little interest. Whilst this would be an understandable criticism of a
traditional allocations system is a less expected shortcoming under CBL where
27
applicants will appear on shortlists only where they have made a positive choice to
bid for the advertised property.
Concerns about the quality of contact information was an issue not only for the Excel
based shortlists but also applied to data held on Northgate, where it is difficult to
identify an applicant s most up-to-date contact details or their current tenure.
More than one RSL partner criticised One Stop Shop staff for accepting
inappropriate bids. These partners asserted that too many people with Urgent Need
status bid casually without any serious intent and simply to ensure that they retain
their Urgent Need status beyond the normal six month threshold. This is perceived as
contributing to tenancy offer refusals when such applicants are the highest-ranked
eligible shortlisted applicants.
WPH stressed the need to reduce abortive bids and better manage customer
expectations because there is a relationship between the number of unsuccessful
bidders and the flow of queries and complaints (e.g. councillor and MP enquiries).
It should be noted that partners operating regionally acknowledged that speculative
bidding is common in other CBL schemes such as those operated in St Helens and
Wigan.
In terms of improving contact information held the ICT functional requirements used
for the market assessment exercise include requirements for bidders to verify contact
details
before bids are placed.
In terms of policing speculative bidding, this is next to impossible with the current
Excel based shortlists. Improved ICT capability by hosting all partner void editions
and bids within one data structure will facilitate enhanced ICT reporting capability to
inform bid policing.
Applicant Verification and References
At the ICT functional requirements workshop, and as part of the stakeholder
interviews, debate on the level of service which Wirralhomes offers for applicant
verification and references checking featured prominently.
Most RSLs were critical that Wirralhomes does not undertake this function since this
is standard for other CBL scheme lead organisations, with the St Helens scheme being
held up as a good service model by some partners where verification and references
are checked at the time the RSL receives the shortlist. These partners consider they
have to expend staff time on vetting shortlisted applicants when they would prefer
that Wirralhomes assist with or undertake this process.
However, as discussed elsewhere in this chapter, the diversity of Wirralhomes RSL
partners means that not all would ideally want to buy into Wirralhomes offering a
vetting service as some RSL will always want to verify applicants themselves.
From the common verification approaches employed by RSL partners it is clear that
an improved ICT capability for Wirralhomes including the scanning of key
documents could be used to provide a partial or full service to interested RSLs to
cover:
28
· proof of identity;
· proof of residence;
· previous landlord references (tenancy conduct, arrears and ASB);
· character reference (where applicable)
· credit check;
· proof of income;
· proof of access/custody to children.
Support for improved verification services has been included in improving the ICT
functional capability of Wirrahomes. This includes the ability of all partners to add
notepad entries in relation to customer contacts. For WPH, which has no current plans
to implement Document Image Processing (scanning), the upgrading of Wirralhomes
ICT to include scanned verification documents would add value.
To ensure that data sharing of personal information is conducted within the Data
Protection Act and organisational confidential policies, it is recommended that
Wirralhomes establishes an information sharing protocol with RSL partners to
underpin all areas of activity. This would translate the principles of data protection
into the practical operations of the Wirralhomes partnership and detail the handling
and sharing of sensitive information such as applicant special needs or behaviour risk
assessments which will be relevant to partners when, for example, they are about to
meet the applicant.
Registration and Re-registration
In Chapter 6 we argue that improving customer self-service opportunities for
registration and re-registration processes would improve operational efficiency and
customer access arrangements.
Suggested changes to the current registration form and associated data capture and
processing arrangements, include:
· The addition of area preference questions;
· The addition of questions pertinent to resident mobility e.g. ability to handle hill
gradients;
· The inclusion of questions for screening Sex Offenders;
· The amendment of the question concerning action for nuisance to also refer to
anti social behaviour;
· The inclusion of questions to assist in moving towards a Housing Options based
approach whether the main and joint applicant are employed on a full or part-
29
time basis, their household income (banded & savings), and whether in receipt of
state benefits;
· The inclusion of questions covering whether anyone on the application has any
other register applications with Wirralhomes or in any other area.
3.3 Housing Market Conditions and CBL in the Wirral
General Needs Housing
The dynamics of the Housing Market in the Wirral and its implications for CBL
operations was explored with partners. Although some saw the dynamics of the
market in the Wirral as not dissimilar from other North West local authorities, others
considered that the Wirral market is unusual in being highly polarised . They referred
to pockets of highly sought after social housing typically in the more affluent Western
areas of the Peninsula, while the eastern side of the Wirral and parts of Birkenhead
(especially in the Housing Market Renewal Areas) experience low demand. Allied to
this is the distribution of flats and houses in the available stock, as generally houses
are in higher demand than flats. In addition, some landlords reported problems with
specific blocks. For example WPH reported two high rise blocks, being used for
sheltered and single persons housing, were experiencing high void levels due to the
unpopularity of the schemes compounded in the case of the single persons scheme
by anti-social behaviour.
Some partners (such as Riverside and WPH) perceived little difference in tenancy
turnover since the introduction of CBL despite a key tenet of encouraging applicant
choice being to enhance tenancy duration and sustainability. However, other
partners with focused estate-based improvement programmes such as BBCHA and
Leasowe CH has noted reduced stock turnover figures, a decline in the number of
difficult to let properties and faster relet times. For example, Leasowe CH reported
that by 2007 low demand had disappeared, with void turnround times averaging 2.3
weeks, and a huge reduction in turnover down from 287 properties in 2000 to only
87 in 2006. This was attributed to CBL as well as to the transfer RSL investment
programme. Maritime and Wirral Methodist HAs also reported a significant drop in
void turnover levels. For a number of those with smaller stock holdings trends were
more difficult to discern.
One partner stressed the large scale of general needs social housing provision on the
Wirral alongside a large private rented sector. As perceived by this partner, the key
market issue was one of housing quality rather than quantity, with the desirability of
the location, property features and upkeep being key factors.
One partner with particular value for money concerns arising from excess void rates
favoured widening the use of Instant Homes i.e. designating difficult to let
property to be offered on a first-come-first-served basis . This partner was keen for
flexibility from Wirralhomes in being able to market difficult to let properties to client
groups ineligible for a Part VI application and therefore ineligible to join the
Wirralhomes register e.g. some migrant workers. From our perspective it would
seem logical for Wirralhomes to consider operating different rules for readily
available or known difficult to let properties.
30
The low turnover rate now achieved in some areas prompted concerns related to CBL.
One partner mentioned diminishing opportunities for people wanting to move onto
specific estates or within specific estates. Another offered the opinion that CBL is not
living up to its expectations of a choice based scheme as priority groups continue to
get the lion s share of properties. However, since Wirralhomes figures show that 68
per cent of lettings go to non-urgent need cases this view does not appear to be
consistent with the statistical evidence. An associated allegation was that certain
problem households are regularly by-passed by RSL partners and that CBL is not
meeting the needs of some of the more challenging residents. Another partner
reported evidence that some households living in flats are relinquishing tenancies to
go into the private rented sector as a precursor to applying as homeless in the quest for
securing a social sector house.
There were two distinct areas of concern for partners in relation to marketing empty
properties:
· Long void edition lead times (some partners have tried some lateral thinking to
work around this and used block adverts )
· Concern about the advertising costs of the Wirral Globe and the selectiveness of its
free circulation (See the VFM section below)
Void Edition Lead Times Speeding-up the Marketing Cycle
It is understood that voids can be registered on Property Pool within a maximum of 3
days delay and notifications are posted to applicants who have requested this service
and under this scheme each landlord is obligated to their own vulnerable tenants to
inform them bidding opportunities.
RSL partners considered that the Wirralhomes scheme has the longest lead time of all
the CBL partnerships as it can take up to two weeks before a property is advertised in
the Wirral Globe and on the Wirralhomes internet site. The way that adverts are
prepared involves the usage of Wirral Council s graphics department rather than pre-
defined templates which can be content loaded by any partner and generated directly
from the Wirralhomes own ICT system. Partners would like to see the process
streamlined and supported by ICT which they can all access.
Sheltered Housing
Partners with sheltered stock were concerned about perceived over-provision of
certain forms of sheltered accommodation. Some associations recognise the need for
radical action to address sheltered housing oversupply and are already reviewing their
provision with a view to re-designating enclosed schemes.
Suggestions for addressing the demand problem for sheltered housing included
adopting a different CBL service model to meet the specific needs of elderly people
by improving the support offered during the potentially traumatic experience of
leaving their established home.
31
Given the number of partners with concerns about sheltered housing there would
seem to be a case for commissioning a full Wirral-wide Best Value review of
sheltered accommodation.
3.4 Wirralhomes Governance
Wirralhomes Steering Group
This issue evoked mixed views. Whilst some partners were generally happy with the
current governance arrangements and the structure of the Housing Access Panel and
Steering Group, others held strong views about perceived deficiencies with the current
arrangements and made suggestions for improvements.
On the positive side, some partners saw existing arrangements as effective and
believed that the Steering Group provides a good forum for sharing views on
operational and strategic matters. This seemed to apply particularly to operationally
oriented managers with large stockholdings in the Wirral.
Among partners operating regionally or with smaller stockholdings and few lettings
there were generally greater concerns about the time commitment and benefit of
attending Steering Group meetings. Some partners acknowledged that a key
motivation in engaging with the Wirralhomes governance arrangements is to maintain
a local profile with a view to exploiting future development opportunities.
A number of partners operating exclusively within the Wirral or across the North
West Region had suggestions for improvement.
Some of the key concerns raised about the Steering Group included:
· The group tends to cover a lot of operational detail and not always retain a strategic
focus and direction of travel;
· As a consequence of the operational detail the meetings tend to be too long ;
· Papers for the meeting are not always circulated in advance, with performance data
sometimes being tabled at the meeting which does not give the RSL partner
sufficient time to investigate or address any performance issues ahead of the
meeting;
· The performance data currently presented was seen as needing refinement (such as
cross-reference with CORE, better trend analysis and customer segmentation
analysis) and it was suggested that there should be more value added analysis of
the performance of the CBL service on the partner s own relet times.
· Some decisions made by the Steering Group have remained unimplemented and
there are no action logs to keep these decisions and actions visible; this can lead to
repetitive discussions at subsequent meetings;
· The Group carries insufficient clout within the Council s hierarchy of decision
making.
Proposals for improving Steering Group operation included:
32
· Creation of a strategic forum meeting quarterly with senior staff from larger RSL
stock holding partners present (and possibly smaller stock holding partners having
pro-rata d positions);
· To create a separate operations-focused practitioners group ;
· The terms of reference for the strategic forum should cover the allocations policy
scheme, the CBL service model(s), service and performance standards, forward
plan, and finances of Wirralhomes;
· The terms of reference for the Practitioners Group should cover key operational
matters including procedures, advertising arrangements,
· Customer representation on the proposed Strategic Forum and Practitioners Group
should be considered.
The Strategic Forum was proposed as being the key decision-making group, and that
all RSL partners could retain their right to veto a policy recommendation that their
Boards do not agree.
One partner highlighted the need to promote the strengths of the Wirralhomes system
to improve its image among councillors. An event to publicise the outcomes of the
Review could help in initiating this.
Formalising the Partnership with Clear Service Standards
One theme to emerge from the interviews with RSL stakeholders was the informality
of the current working arrangements in comparison with CBL schemes in which the
partners participate elsewhere. Although there is a Service Level Agreement which
details respective roles and responsibilities of the parties this remains unsigned by
many of the partners.
Several organisations highlighted the absence of specific service and performance
standards in Schedule 2 of the current Service Level Agreement and cited other CBL
schemes (e.g. St Helens) where there are clear service standards giving all the partners
and customers of the service a framework within which to operate and to manage
expectations.
The Under One Roof scheme developed by St. Helens Council, Helena Housing and
Arena Housing Association, Maritime Housing Association, Riverside Housing
Association and YMCA has the following service standards under which the CBL
team undertakes to:
· be prompt, polite, helpful and well informed.
· answer the phone within 5 rings.
· respond to e-mails within 4 working hours.
· respond to letters within 5 working days.
33
· treat customers in a fair and consistent manner, which will be sensitive to your
situation and your need.
· deliver all services in line with our Equality and Diversity policy.
· keep any information on customers confidential in line with our Data Protection
and Confidentiality Policy.
· provide an out-of-hours message service and aim to return calls by the next
working day.
· see customers in their own homes if unable to visit a local office
· give customers refused membership of Under One Roof full reasons in writing and
the right to appeal
· review Under One Roof membership annually
· welcome feedback about CBL services and give customers every opportunity to
comment.
Other partners mentioned their Value for Money concerns and the current termination
clauses would make them reluctant to sign the Management Agreement. Some called
for a more explicit Service Level Agreement based approach to be considered.
It is known from the Housing Inspectorate s Key Lines of Enquiry and its Inspection
Reports that the Inspectorate attaches considerable importance to services having
clear standards and that service recipients should be actively involved in service
standards development12. There would seem to be a significant opportunity arising
from this Review for Wirralhomes to take the development of service standards to a
new level, in that even neighbouring good practice exemplars still lack significant
areas of detail which are of key interest to applicants.
All this suggests that Wirralhomes and RSL partners should consider developing
Service Standards with a customer focus group for:
· Registration and assessment (including for Disabled Persons);
· Re-registration;
12 For example the Riverside Housing Group Inspection Report recommended agreeing with
residents standards for what constitutes housing need (24 Aug 2006, p 7) Customers have not recently
been consulted about their service access needs and preferences, or on their views on the housing needs
criteria for the revised lettings policy
.
34
· Advertising (how the scheme is advertised, how vulnerable residents are supported
and whether block/archetype adverts will be used [as BBCHA and others
currently utilise])
· Bidding, eligibility and shortlisting;
· Verification;
· Landlords offer and viewing process how the landlord will contact the applicant
when shortlisted (including how many contact attempts and by what means), how
viewings are conducted (whether accompanied or not), what happens if they refuse
the offer (what analysis is done of refusal reason for partners to improve the CBL
system)
· Customer feedback;
· Tenancy exit interviews.
Some of these items would need joint work across RSL partners if they are to be
agreed as common standards and it may be that the partners can only agree a lowest
common denominator on some items such as contact attempts for shortlisted
households and how viewings are conducted. Despite this, all partners are likely to
benefit from this process as it will clarify the nature of the service and provide
evidence beneficial for RSLs subject to future housing inspections.
Publicity in developing these standards could then be used to explain to customers
why the standards exist and to improve the Wirralhomes standing among Councillors.
An event to publicise the outcomes of the Review and to launch a service standards
development process could help here and there would be benefits in this commencing
with an ICT enhancements programme.
Identity and Branding
An issue related to governance and which came up in the course of the stakeholder
interviews is the identity of the Wirralhomes partnership. The scheme name was seen
as potentially problematic partly in that it can lead to confusion about the project s
relationship to Wirral Council and Wirral Partnership Homes. It would be preferable
to operate under a name emphasizing the scheme s status as a joint venture owned
by all the participating agencies. This might require adopting a name which entirely
omits Wirral e.g. Merseyside Peninsula Homechoice. Alternatively, Wirral could
be retained as a specific local identifier but given less prominence as in Homechoice
Wirral. Existing stakeholders will, no doubt, be able to devise better alternatives.
Rebranding to coincide with the introduction of new software and procedures could
also have the advantage of highlighting these changes and the significant service
improvements which will result.
35
3.5 Wirralhomes Costs, Value for Money and Cost-Sharing
Value for Money
Many RSL partners are proud of the pioneering nature of the original Wirral Unified
Waiting List Agency which started in 1996 and the early introduction of CBL in
2002. They also highlight the dedication and commitment of staff in the Wirralhomes
team with many emphasising their very strong working relationships with
Wirralhomes staff.
For all RSL partners the costs of Wirralhomes and the Value for Money (VFM) of the
service was of overriding concern and is a key driver for this Review. The protracted
negotiations over the 2007/08 budget and charges, with extensive requests from
partners to justify costs, only emphasizes the importance of this issue.
All partner RSLs acknowledge that Wirralhomes is constrained by its current ICT
systems and that this inhibits efficient working practices, customer access
arrangements and the achievement of value for money. In particular, Wirralhomes
staff need to perform laborious workarounds utilising Microsoft Excel to support
bidding and shortlisting processes for non-Wirral Partnership Homes void editions
and this is undermining their ability to work effectively. Many partners perceive
Wirralhomes staff as being busy and diligent but that the inefficiency of current
operations is undermining their productivity and in need of urgent change.
Partners perceive they are not getting value for money because they consider that
many of the Wirralhomes costs are attributable to inefficient manual data processing
and excessive recharges for services such as Central Support and Legal. Many are
sceptical about the cost basis of central support recharges.
It has been suggested that the costs of the strategic enabling role retained by the
Council were not adequately estimated in relation to the move from Unified Waiting
List Agency to Wirralhomes, and at the point of transfer to WPH when the General
Fund /Housing Revenue Account split was hardened.
As is discussed in detail in Chapter 5 some CBL partnerships draw clear costs
distinctions between strategic council functions such as maintaining the housing
register and providing a common bidding infrastructure from landlord lettings-related
costs such as the advertising of void properties and the shortlisting of applicants. For
Wirralhomes such a cost distinction could help the VFM discussions with partners.
WPH laid particular stress on the need to address VFM issues although the
association was by no means alone in articulating such concerns. Arena questioned
why it should pay the same contribution rate to Wirralhomes (where it has 315 units)
as it does to Warrington where it has 1,200 units. It also questioned the absence of
verification by Wirralhomes of shortlisted applicants, and reported that Sefton is
looking to reduce Arena s cost contribution in the light of fewer than anticipated
vacancies. Other partners operating regionally stressed a view that the Wirralhomes
service is expensive in comparison with other schemes with charges such as St Helens
and Sefton.
36
WPH considers that it disproportionally contributes to Wirralhomes as it pays most
towards the costs of inefficient working practices (such as the costs of the Excel-
based non-WPH void editions and shortlisting processes) as well as having to cover,
through three extra staff posts , alleged inadequacies in the matching and
verification process by Wirralhomes.
It could be argued that WPH is contributing towards to Wirralhomes operations at an
additional uncosted level in that not all the Northgate Applications Support costs are
recharged to the Council. Cited examples include Jacinta Ousey s support for the
Housing Register aspects of the allocations module and WPH training resources
devoted to schooling One Stop Shop staff on how to process registrations. In view of
this we recommend in Chapter 7 that the business case for ICT procurement needs to
include an assessment of WPH s current true cost contribution to Wirralhomes
operations including its full ICT support costs.
Integration of DPHR into Wirralhomes
To facilitate more efficient service provision a number of partners favoured the
further integration of the Disabled Person s Housing Register (DPHR) into
Wirralhomes. The current separate charge is considered too high by some partners
and they are not participating in the DPHR scheme. At present Wirralhomes is using
an Access database which originated from the Liverpool Access scheme for
registering DPHR needs and this is separate to the Core Housing Register on
Northgate.
The Housing Register/CBL ICT market assessment detailed in Chapters 6 and 7
included specific functionality to support the integration of the DPHR within the core
ICT requirements of Wirralhomes.
Advertising costs
A number of interviewees expressed concern about the advertising costs of the Wirral
Globe and the selectiveness of its free circulation. RSLs operating with Property Pool
in Liverpool noted that this system does not use press advertisements and were
generally concerned about the advert lead times with Wirralhomes and the costs of
advertising.
Drawing on experience of other CBL schemes a number of partners saw potential in
the idea of scrapping paid-for newspaper advertising. Adverts are currently placed
weekly in the Wirral Globe. Many partners questioned the selectiveness of its free
circulation, as this is linked to the more affluent areas of the Wirral. Most partners
would probably support a model where advertising was limited to distribution of a
lets available page to community centres, voluntary agencies, libraries, RSL
receptions and council offices, with a boosted circulation of mailed-out ads being sent
to housebound individuals and other appropriate cases (e.g. people with addresses
remote from known distribution points). Some partners mistakenly believed that the
existing ad sheet circulated to community centres, and customer receptions areas is, in
any case, more informative than the newspaper display.
WPH continues to consider the business case of a funding their own property shop in
Birkenhead, which they have considered could provide a service to other RSLs and
37
potentially private landlords. However, a number of RSL partners indicated this
would not appeal because few of their potential customers would regularly visit
Birkenhead. An alternative option favoured by many RSLs would be a mobile
Wirralhomes property shop to promote lets in lower demand areas.
BBCHA and some other RSLs have developed some lateral thinking in relation to the
current usage of Wirralhomes adverts in that if they have a similar unadvertised void
in the same block or archetype it will use the same shortlist to select tenants for more
than one property.
The time-consuming nature of the existing system means that Wirralhomes staff have
limited spare capacity to work pro-actively in marketing low demand properties. One
practical impact of this is that proxy bids made by the Vulnerable Team are generally
entered without directly consulting the applicants concerned. This contributes to the
incidence of refused offers e.g. attributed to applicant being not ready to move .
In view of the level of potential partner support for moving away from advertising in
the Wirral Globe to a more direct marketing approach, it is recommended that
Wirralhomes adopts this approach.
Approach to Cost-sharing
The key themes to emerge from partners in relation to the cost sharing approach are
that the model should:
· Be transparent in relation to the costs (including central service recharges) for
statutory housing allocations scheme functions and CBL business processes;
· Be fairer in relation to the Council covering statutory housing allocation scheme
costs;
· Continue to adopt a proportionality approach, and dispense with the previous
stockholding-based shares which meant that increases in service provision costs
were met entirely by Wirral Council rather than being shared proportionately
between partner agencies;
· Consider moving towards a fixed base Wirralhomes membership cost and
variable voids transactions costs (along the lines of the St Helens scheme);
· Offer service options for the RSLs to buy into ;
· Involve the RSL partners in agreeing the services offered and the associated
charges.
It is recommended that these are borne in mind in developing the cost sharing basis
for the Wirralhomes scheme in the light of this Review.
Service Outcomes for Wirralhomes Users and Customer Feedback
Some partners mentioned that the published lettings results data is not widely
understood by applicants. Similarly, ward councillors continue to enquire about likely
waiting times without reference to the lettings results listings. Wirralhomes has
38
worked on a new leaflet which, it is hoped, will begin to address this issue by
providing an indication of likely waiting times for different types of properties in
different areas.
Other partners are keen to see more analytical information to inform customers of
their realistic prospects in bidding for scarce properties as part of managing their
expectations. They also want to see analyses of refusal reasons as this would help in
determining if voids reletting standards might need review or in identifying aspects of
the Wirralhomes service in need of improvement.
There is currently likely to be a difference of outcome for Wirralhomes service users
according to which RSL partner they bid for. This is because the partners operate
different approaches to trying to contact the bid households. WPH benefits from
having the void edition on Northgate and fully utilise Northgate for the offer process.
The other partners receive their bid lists as Excel spreadsheets and adopt a range of
approaches to contacting the bidders. Some work sequentially through the list
provided by Wirralhomes and will utilise their Virtual Private Network connection to
Northgate to check the details of applicants, however a number are only relying on the
information supplied on the spreadsheet which in terms of contact details can be
partial or out of date . Some partners will contact several of the referred bidders in
parallel. Across the partners there are no agreed standards as to how many contact
attempts should be made with the bidder, by which mediums (i.e. phone and letters)
or over what duration before a shortlisted household is by-passed.
Likewise the Audit Commission has detected differences between landlords and
within landlord groups, including some operating in the Wirral, in the extent to which
accompanied viewings are offered to prospective tenants.
If Wirralhomes adopts more sophisticated service standards it will necessitate
improvements in the information given on service outcomes in order to provide
appropriate and useful information to service users, such as how quickly will
Wirralhomes reply to letters, faxes or emails, or how long will it take for registrations
to be completed (with/without medical need) etc.
3.6 Improving the ICT Capability of Wirralhomes
Potential efficiency benefits from enhanced ICT
In Chapter 6 we describe the process by which the ICT functional requirements for
Wirralhomes as part of this Review were developed. In this part of the report we
highlight key shortcomings from a VFM perspective.
ICT improvements featured prominently in all RSL partner improvement suggestions.
Lack of ICT functionality leading to manual work (Excel shortlist and lettings
spreadsheets) and swamping some aspects of Wirralhomes work were widely
perceived as a key issues.
Top priority for many partners was replacing the Excel based shortlists with shortlists
that can be run by RSL partners based on a shared ICT system which holds all partner
voids and applicant bids.
39
Handling shortlists is very time-consuming because of the need to filter out, manually,
applicants whose needs are inconsistent with the characteristics of the properties to
which they are matched. It is essential that the upgraded system sifts applicants in
relation to the characteristics of advertised properties to minimise this. Also, it is
believed that applicants need to be better advised by One Stop Shop staff who receive
and log inappropriate expressions of interest. In addition, the current arrangements
require Wirralhomes staff to chase offer results from RSL partners and this can be
time consuming. An ICT capability which can trigger workflows to chase outstanding
results would improve efficiency.
Clearly customer self-service for housing registration and re-registration and bid
processing would reap VFM improvements (as is discussed in Chapter 6).
Although Wirralhomes staff recognise that added value could be provided by working
in a more pro-active way, current arrangements are so time consuming to administer
that the scope for this is highly constrained. Existing ways of working also result in
the risk to the service through over-reliance on the operational knowledge of key staff
members, such as Diana Dennis.
Access arrangements for non-WPH partner RSLs into Northgate
Quite simply the current ICT access arrangements for non-WPH partner RSLs to
Northgate via a Virtual Private Network connection do not represent good VFM.
Despite considerable time being spent on deploying and supporting secure token
access to the Wirral Borough Network for RSL partners, a number acknowledged that
these connections are not being utilised this included Arena, Cosmopolitan, CDS,
Leasowe, Maritime (Regenda), and Rodney. For these RSLs the specifics of the
Wirral current VPN based access arrangements are problematic as they are difficult to
use and can present compatibility issues with RSLs own networks (e.g. requiring
stand alone or internal network sessions to be ended before a VPN session is
initiated). From a service outcome perspective RSLs that are not accessing Northgate
are relying only on the partial information supplied in their shortlist spreadsheets.
Even those partners currently accessing Northgate via the VPN reported similar
compatibility and usage issues, and this includes staff operating the system who had
previously worked for the Council. As discussed in Chapters 6 and 7 an ICT system
delivered as a web application would solve many of the VPN related service issues.
Updating the CBL system
Although, as already noted, one partner favours buying a total service from
Wirralhomes, most partners are keen to have better access and the opportunity to
make more effective usage of Wirralhomes ICT themselves.
Currently only certain RSL partners can add notes and many only have view only
access. The stakeholder interviews demonstrated that most Partners were open to
reviewing the split in responsibilities between themselves and Wirralhomes in terms
of RSLs:
· registering applicants onto system
40
· providing scanned copies of verification documents (proof of identity, immigration
status and proof of residence)
· viewing applicant details and updating the system for certain changes of
circumstances
· providing full initial stock extract to Wirralhomes with as many key property
elements as required for lettings
· inputting void editions into the system (and necessary stock data if not already on
system e.g. new property)
· inputting expressions of interest (bids)
· undertaking shortlisting and posting shortlist results, including refusals, by-passed
applicants and lettings.
Some partners are already undertaking these activities in CBL schemes run elsewhere
or are doing verification photocopies of documents with certification for Housing
Benefit in the Wirral.
These areas of functionality are covered in the ICT functional requirements
considered in Chapter 6.
3.7 Chapter Summary
From interviews with stakeholders and discussions at the ICT Functional
Requirements workshop on 31 October, it is clear that many partners are proud of the
pioneering work on the Wirral Unified Waiting List Agency in the 1990s and the
early adoption of CBL in 2003. RSL partners are also supportive of the dedication and
commitment of Wirralhomes staff with many emphasising their effective and strong
operational working relationships for over a decade.
The RSL partners are a diverse group with some working exclusively in the Wirral,
others on Merseyside, while others work across the North West and beyond. The
consolidation of organisations into Group Structures is also a key dynamic on their
cultures and operational requirements. Some operate from local Wirral bases, others
are based across the water in Liverpool while others have key aspects of their void
re-servicing and allocations processes operated from shared service centres remote
from the Wirral. Arising from this diversity are differences in RSLs service
requirements from Wirralhomes, and this could suggest consideration be given to
Wirralhomes moving towards offering a tariff of service options to partners for
services such as pooled advertising and improved verification and references
checking.
While some partners consider that the suitability of shortlisted applicants is better
from Wirralhomes than with respect to some other local CBL lead organisations,
many partners are concerned about abortive work undertaken in contacting and
verifying shortlisted households and for dealing with queries and complaints from
by-passed households. In view of this the Review considers some improvement
41
ideas for the registration and expressions of interest processes as well as to compiling
of shortlists.
Some partners favour widening bidder eligibility and the use of first-come-first-
served approaches to allocations for Instant Homes to relet their most difficult to let
properties. There is clear support for streamlining advertising costs and lead times. It
is also considered that the inappropriateness and apparent over-supply of some forms
of sheltered housing warrant a Wirral-wide Best Value review to address the
provision of appropriate supported housing services for elders.
Improving governance arrangements for the Wirralhomes Partnership was also seen
as desirable among RSL partners. Moving towards a strategically focused steering
group and an operationally focused practitioner s forum had widespread support.
Allied to this it is suggested that formalising the Partnership around a set of defined
service standards developed with residents would provide a timely service
improvement opportunity for all partners and could re-establish the Wirral s
credentials as a CBL pioneer.
Foremost amongst partner concerns was the value for money of the Wirralhomes
service, with improvements to ICT for customer self-service and staff operations -
especially in relation to shortlisting - featuring prominently in suggested solutions.
Other key ideas for improving VFM included fully integrating the Disabled Persons
Housing Register, reducing advertising costs and reviewing recharges between Wirral
BC and Wirralhomes. Key themes to emerge from partners in relation to the cost
sharing approach are also outlined in the main body of the report.
42
4. Choice-based Lettings and Re-letting Performance
4.1 Chapter Structure and Scope
The following analysis is based on housing association monitoring returns under the
CORE system which records all HA lettings. To explore some of the issues raised by
key stakeholders contacted in the research, we have accessed CORE data for 2006/07
and, for comparative purposes, 2001/02 the year before the introduction of the
Wirralhomes CBL system.
The first part of the chapter focuses on 2006/07 lettings activity in relation to the time
taken to relet empty properties and the numbers of tenancy offers needed to achieve
lettings. These matters are relevant to the issue of low demand for social housing and
to the possible impact of the CBL system on housing management efficiency.
Associations within Wirral are compared with each other on these two measures.
Secondly, we analyse reletting times and numbers of wasted offers in Wirral with
comparable data for selected other local authority areas where CBL is also in
operation. Finally, to gauge the impact of CBL introduction on the efficiency of the
lettings process, we compare average relet times recorded by local HAs in 2001/02
with those recorded for 2006/07.
4.2 Scope of CBL
Two thirds of all properties let by housing associations in Wirral in the last financial
year were recorded as being let under CBL (see Table 4.1). Excluding associations
with only small numbers of lets, Beechwood & Ballantyne, Leasowe CH, Maritime
and WPH recorded particularly high percentage CBL figures.
A few mainly smaller HAs remain outside the Wirralhomes partnership and it is to
be expected that these HAs would record few, if any, lets made under CBL (see Table
4.1). Associations within the partnership are normally expected to submit at least 70
per cent of their vacancies for letting through CBL. At the same time, however,
statutory homeless lettings are not included within the system. As shown in Table 4.2,
most lets of this kind (85 per cent) are indeed made outwith CBL and so the
significant percentages of lets being made outwith CBL by some associations are
attributable to the efforts of these landlords in meeting homelessness demand.
However, Table 4.2 also shows that only a minority of Wirralhomes HA lets outwith
CBL in 2006/07 were statutory homeless cases. Table 4.3 illustrates that for certain
associations particularly Arena, Riverside and Venture lets outwith CBL primarily
involved categories other than homeless cases. Analysis of CORE data shows that a
substantial proportion (40 per cent)13 of these non-CBL, non-statutory homeless lets
involved internal transfers and other moves involving households moving from one
HA tenancy to another. Some of these lets may be management transfers .
13 Note that this figure does not relate directly to any table included in this chapter.
43
Comparing the characteristics of homes let via CBL with those let outwith the system
there is no sign of any tendency to selectively process certain types or sizes of home
outwith the Wirralhomes system. For example, the proportion of 2006/07 CBL lets
which were 1-bed flats was 33 per cent as compared with 37 per cent of those let
directly. Similarly, the proportions of lets accounted for by houses were 42 per cent
and 47 per cent, respectively.
T able 4.1 Housing association lettings, 2006/07 as recorded under the CORE system
breakdown by whether let through CBL
HA
Wirralhomes
Choice-based
CBL %
Total lets
member?
lettings
Yes
No
Arena
Yes
19
16
54
35
Beechwood & Ballantyne
Yes
31
0
100
31
CDS
Yes
1
1
50
2
Community Seven
No
2
1
67
3
Contour
No
2
2
50
4
Cosmopolitan
Yes
4
6
40
10
Family Birkenhead
No
0
27
0
27
Greater Hornby
No
0
3
0
3
Leasowe
Yes
66
13
84
79
Liverpool Housing Trust
Yes
7
1
88
8
Maritime
Yes
98
26
79
124
Pierhead
No
0
25
0
25
Pine Court
No
0
2
0
2
Riverside
Yes
137
94
59
231
Rodney
Yes
1
1
50
2
Servite
No
3
72
4
75
Venture
Yes
27
26
51
53
Wirral Methodist
Yes
27
20
57
47
Wirral Partnership Homes
Yes
630
188
77
818
Not known
NA
1
1
50
2
All lets recorded via CORE
1,056
525
67
1,581
Note: All lettings enumerated in this table and included in the subsequent analysis were classed as
involving general needs housing.
Table 4.2 Lettings by Wirralhomes partner HAs, 2006/07 as recorded under the
CORE system breakdown by new tenant homelessness status
Homelessness status
Choice-based lettings?
Total
Yes
No
Number
Row %
Number
Row %
Number
Row %
Not homeless
937
84
185
16
1,122
100
Statutory homeless
34
15
190
85
224
100
Other homeless
77
82
17
18
94
100
Total lets by partner HAs
1,048
73
392
27
1,440
100
44
Table 4.3 Lettings by Wirralhomes partner HAs, 2006/07 outwith CBL as recorded
under the CORE system breakdown by homelessness status
HA
Statutory homeless
Other
Total lets outwith
CBL
Number
Row %
Number
Row %
Number
Row %
Arena
1
6
15
94
16
100
Beechwood & Ballantyne
0
0
0
0
0
100
CDS
0
0
1
100
1
100
Cosmopolitan
1
17
5
83
6
100
Leasowe
9
69
4
31
13
100
Liverpool Housing Trust
0
0
1
100
1
100
Maritime
15
58
11
42
26
100
Riverside
35
37
59
63
94
100
Rodney
0
0
1
100
1
100
Venture
2
8
24
92
26
100
Wirral Methodist
13
65
7
35
20
100
Wirral Partnership Homes
114
61
74
39
188
100
Total lets outwith CBL
190
48
202
52
392
100
4.3 CBL and Re-letting Performance in the Wirral
Wirral Partnership Homes is concerned about the length of time taken to let some
properties and believes that this may be partly attributable to defects of the
Wirralhomes system. Reportedly, a substantial proportion of applicants highly ranked
on lettings shortlists are found to be inappropriately matched and need to be filtered
out.
Table 4.4 Wirralhomes partner HA lettings, 2006/07 as recorded under the CORE
system typical relet intervals (days)
HA
Mean no of days to relet
Median no of days to relet
CBL?
All
CBL?
All
Yes
No
Yes
No
Arena
25
18
22
20
13
20
Beechwood & Ballantyne
33
.
33
28
.
28
CDS
0
14
7
0
14
7
Cosmopolitan
52
70
63
52
56
52
Leasowe
14
22
16
11
20
13
Liverpool Housing Trust
16
0
14
21
0
16
Maritime
14
10
13
7
2
5
Riverside
46
40
44
48
34
41
Rodney
10
6
8
10
6
8
Venture
26
22
24
28
14
21
Wirral Methodist
28
18
24
27
17
21
Wirral Partnership Homes
53
40
50
41
33
35
All partner HA lets
43
35
41
34
27
28
Table 4.4 shows that most HAs record somewhat longer relet intervals for lettings
recorded as having been made under CBL than for lets made outwith the system. The
45
most significant exception to this rule is Leasowe CH which, in any case, records
remarkably short relet periods. The table appears consistent with the WPH perception
that the CBL process significantly prolongs relet times for the association, with the
median figure being eight days longer for CBL lets than for other lets.
According to WPH, a factor contributing to the time taken to let properties under
CBL is that that a substantial proportion of tenancy offers made to shortlisted
households are refused. This issue is explored in Tables 4.5(a) and (b).
Table 4.5 Wirralhomes partner lettings, 2006/07 as recorded under the CORE system
breakdown by no. of tenancy offer refusals
(a) Lets through CBL
HA
No. of refusals prior to letting
Total lets
% let on
0
1
2
3+
first offer
Arena
18
0
0
1
19
95
Beechwood & Ballantyne
15
7
3
6
31
48
CDS
1
0
0
0
1
100
Cosmopolitan
1
1
2
0
4
25
Leasowe
54
11
1
0
66
82
Liverpool Housing Trust
3
1
1
2
7
43
Maritime
72
18
4
4
98
73
Riverside
76
1
21
39
137
55
Rodney
0
0
0
1
1
0
Venture
13
8
1
5
27
48
Wirral Methodist
14
1
5
7
27
52
Wirral Partnership Homes
295
151
68
116
630
47
Total lets via CBL
562
199
106
181
1,048
54
(b) Lets outwith CBL
No. of refusals prior to letting
Total
% let on
0
1
2
3+
first offer
Arena
16
0
0
0
16
100
Beechwood & Ballantyne
-
-
-
-
-
-
CDS
1
0
0
0
1
100
Cosmopolitan
3
3
0
0
6
50
Leasowe
10
3
0
0
13
77
Liverpool Housing Trust
1
0
0
0
1
100
Maritime
21
3
1
1
26
81
Riverside
76
0
10
8
94
81
Rodney
1
0
0
0
1
100
Venture
22
4
0
0
26
85
Wirral Methodist
17
3
0
0
20
85
Wirral Partnership Homes
121
42
11
14
188
64
Total lets outwith CBL
289
58
22
23
392
74
The comparison set out in Tables 4.5(a) and (b) seems to lend support to the
contention that the CBL process is associated with a greater risk of tenancy offer
46
refusal. Only just over half of all CBL lets are achieved without the need to re-offer
the property (see bottom right cell in Table 4.5(a)). One in six CBL lets are achieved
only after three or more tenancy offer refusals. In contrast, almost three quarters of
non-CBL lets (74 per cent) are achieved on first offer and well under 10 per cent of
such properties require to be offered more than twice (see Table 4.5(b)). Higher
refusal rates for CBL lets than for non-CBL lets are recorded for virtually all partner
HAs. At the same time, it is apparent that Wirral Partnership Homes records relatively
high refusal rates for
both CBL and non-CBL lets. This may reflect on the WPH
lettings standard and/or the extent to which WPH manages stock classed as low
demand or difficult to let .
The CBL/non-CBL differences here could be partly attributable to the fact that a
much larger proportion of the latter involve statutory homeless households or
management transfers for whom the scope to refuse offers may be relatively limited.
In an important sense, therefore, the CBL/non-CBL comparison may not be a like-for-
like matter.
Nevertheless, it appears likely that the tendency for longer relet intervals for CBL
lettings as shown in Table 4.4 is, indeed, at least in part a consequence of higher
refusal rates.
4.4 CBL and Re-letting Performance: Wirral vs. Comparator Areas
Within Wirral it would appear that in 2006/07 lets made via CBL were liable to take
longer to achieve than non-CBL lettings. To what extent is this typical of other areas
where CBL is operated? Tables 4.6-4.8 explore this question. Bradford, St Helens and
Walsall have been selected as suitable comparator areas in all are areas of potentially
mixed demand where all former local authority housing stock has been transferred
into housing association ownership.
Table 4.6 Wirral and comparator LAs: lets by main transfer HA, 2006/07 (as
recorded under the CORE system)
LA area
Choice-based lettings?
Total
Yes
No
Bradford
1,822
180
2,002
St Helens
844
19
863
Walsall
1,345
131
1,476
Wirral
630
188
818
Table 4.7 Wirral and comparator LAs: lets by main transfer HA, 2006/07 typical
relet intervals (days) (as recorded under the CORE system)
LA area
Mean no of days to relet
Median no of days to relet
Choice-based lettings?
Choice-based lettings?
Yes
No
Yes
No
Bradford
54
29
42
15
St Helens
38
35
30
20
Walsall
35
47
28
21
Wirral
53
40
41
33
47
As shown in Table 4.6, in 2006/07 the vast majority of transfer HA lettings in all four
areas were achieved via CBL. Table 4.7 suggests that the Wirral experience of CBL
being associated with longer relet intervals is not atypical. Table 4.8 suggests that, just
as in Wirral, this outcome results at least partly from a tendency towards higher
refusal rates for CBL lets than for non-CBL lets.
Table 4.8 Wirral and comparator LAs: lets by main transfer HA, 2006/07 as
recorded under the CORE system breakdown by no. of tenancy offer refusals
(a) Lets through CBL
LA area
No. of refusals prior to letting
Total lets
% let on
0
1
2
3+
first offer
Bradford
1,114
294
154
260
1,822
61
St Helens
534
174
56
80
844
63
Walsall
940
224
89
92
1,345
70
Wirral
295
151
68
116
630
47
(WPH)
(b) Lets outwith CBL
LA area
No. of refusals prior to letting
Total lets
% let on
0
1
2
3+
first offer
Bradford
165
7
4
4
180
92
St Helens
14
3
1
1
19
74
Walsall
117
11
3
0
131
89
Wirral
121
42
11
14
188
64
(WPH)
Table 4.8 suggests that Wirral s experience of higher refusal rates for CBL lets may
not be unusual. At the same time, however, the figures for Wirral Partnership Homes
are fairly striking in that tenancy offer acceptance rates are considerably lower than in
the other three areas for both CBL
and non-CBL lets.
On the face of it the findings set out in Tables 4.4-4.8 might be interpreted as
suggesting that CBL is an inherently less efficient approach than direct lettings .
Given the status of CBL as a government-backed policy, such an interpretation could
raise some awkward questions. An alternative interpretation of these findings would
be that these reflect the fact that lettings processed via CBL and outwith CBL are not
directly comparable. Lettings being achieved outwith CBL as an exceptional
procedure may often have some specific characteristics making them inherently more
likely to be achieved quickly, perhaps partly because of being at less risk of tenancy
offer refusal. For example, utilisation of direct lets for management transfers could
result in this outcome. For this reason the findings as set out above should not
necessarily be interpreted as evidence that CBL is less efficient than a traditional
direct lettings approach. Indeed, as shown below, there is evidence suggesting an
opposite conclusion (see Chapter 4.5).
48
To set the Wirral findings in a broader context Table 4.9 compares typical relet
intervals for CBL and non-CBL lets as recorded by transfer HAs in all post-transfer
local authorities where there is a CBL partnership in operation i.e. a joint CBL
scheme involving four or more partner HAs. The Wirral figure included in this table
differs from that in Table 4.7 because in this case it represents lets by all three transfer
HAs operating in the borough (WPH, BBCHA and Leasowe), rather than WPH alone.
Typical relet intervals in Wirral are not the highest in the table but they are at the
higher end of the spectrum. In a few authorities transfer HAs recorded typical relet
intervals of less than half the Wirral values. While most of these were operating in
more pressured housing markets in the South of England this does indicate that multi-
landlord CBL systems are not inherently a brake on lettings service efficiency.
Table 4.9 All post-transfer LAs with CBL partnerships: lets by transfer HAs,
2006/07 as recorded under the CORE system typical relet intervals (days)
Local authority area
Mean
Median
CBL?
CBL?
Yes
No
Yes
No
Bath & NE Somerset
40
38
33
27
Bradford
54
29
42
15
Carlisle
60
44
55
32
Cotswold
24
4
14
0
Eastleigh
19
74
14
84
Herefordshire
27
16
21
13
Kennet
18
.
14
.
Lichfield
7
2
4
2
Middlesbrough
56
47
49
42
Peterborough
22
20
21
14
Reigate & Banstead
25
21
20
13
Restormel
7
30
5
30
Rushcliffe
30
22
35
20
Rushmoor
20
14
21
6
South Shropshire
28
1
21
0
St Helens
38
35
30
20
Test Valley
15
15
14
15
Torbay
31
22
27
0
Trafford
33
56
20
27
Vale of White Horse
24
26
27
27
Walsall
35
28
28
14
West Wiltshire
23
24
21
13
Wirral*
48
39
35
28
*See text for definition
4.5 Re-letting Performance in the Wirral: Changes Over Time
Finally, drawing on historic CORE data, we can compare re-letting performance
recorded by Wirralhomes member HAs in 2006/07 with 2001/02, the year prior to the
introduction of CBL. As shown in Table 4.10, in virtually every case, performance
has improved on both measures. At the collective level, mean relet intervals have
been cut from 36 days to 28 days, with the median figure reduced from 28 days to 20
days.
49
In the interests of comparability, figures for Beechwood & Ballantyne and WPH have
been excluded from the authority-wide figures for 2006/07 as shown in Table 4.10.
This reflects the fact that neither of these associations had yet been created in
2001/02. However, as a local authority housing department, Wirral recorded an
average relet interval of 61 days in 2001/02 (Audit Commission performance
indicators). On this basis the 2006/07 mean figures for BBCHA and WPH (33 days
and 50 days) represent a considerable improvement for these associations, in keeping
with the trend for other Wirralhomes partner HAs.
Improvements in housing management unrelated to the lettings system have no doubt
contributed to the general improvement in performance as shown in Table 4.10.
However, with gains having been made across the board rather than by a few
exceptional landlords it would seem a reasonable supposition that CBL as a factor to
which all member HAs have been subject has played a significant part in producing
this outcome. Generally more favourable housing market conditions may also have
been a significant factor at least for associations with appreciable numbers of
properties classed as difficult to let in 2001/02.
Table 4.10 Typical relet intervals for Wirralhomes member HAs in 2001/02 (pre-
CBL) and in 2006/07 figures from CORE data
HA
Mean
Median
2001/02
2006/07
2001/02
2006/07
Arena
29
22
21
20
Beechwood & Ballantyne
-
33
-
28
CDS
127
7
83
7
Cosmopolitan
85
63
56
52
Leasowe
18
16
14
13
Liverpool Housing Trust
62
14
49
16
Maritime
30
13
25
5
Riverside
49
44
42
41
Rodney
18
8
11
8
Venture
35
24
35
21
Wirral Methodist
24
24
14
21
Wirral Partnership Homes
-
50
-
35
All partner HA lets*
36
28
28
20
Wirral Council
61
-
n.a.
-
*Excluding Beechwood & Ballantyne HA and WPH for 2006/07 see text for explanation
Also consistent with the interpretation that the Wirralhomes CBL system has
contributed to improved relet times are findings on changes in the relet performance
of the two largest HAs operating in Wirral but not members of the Wirralhomes
partnership. Collectively, these two associations (Family HA (Birkenhead) and
Servite Housing) recorded a median relet interval of 20 days in 2001/02 but 27 days
in 2006/07. The corresponding mean figure increased from 45 to 57 days.
4.6 Chapter Summary
Two thirds of all 2006/07 lets recorded by Wirralhomes member RSLs were made via
choice-based lettings. Excluding those involving statutory homeless households, some
84 per cent of 2006/07 lets by the partner landlords were made through CBL.
50
Only just over half (54 per cent) of Wirral CBL lets in 2006/07 were achieved without
the property being initially refused. In more than one in six instances lettings were
achieved only after the property had been refused at least three times. The significant
incidence of refusals will have contributed to the relatively high overall mean relet
interval for Wirral CBL lets of 43 days. In comparison with transfer RSLs in other
comparable areas, Wirral Partnership Homes records relatively high rates of tenancy
offer refusals. However, since this is true of both CBL and non-CBL lets it does not
necessarily indicate that whatever its defects the Wirralhomes CBL system is
significantly less efficient than those in operation elsewhere.
Wirral lets achieved under CBL typically take somewhat longer to achieve than the
minority of those processed as direct lettings . However, the same pattern is found in
most other comparable local authority areas and may well reflect the fact that non-
CBL lets tend to be exceptional and therefore not properly comparable with CBL
lets. For example, it may well be that such lets disproportionately involve categories
such as statutory homeless households or management transfers. Partly because of
applicants limited scope to refuse offers in such circumstances, it would be expected
that lets of these types could be relatively quickly achieved.
Comparing void management performance in 2006/07 with that recorded immediately
before the introduction of CBL it appears that virtually all partner HAs have improved
their performance a number by considerable margins. By contrast, associations
outwith the Wirralhomes partnership saw deteriorating relet performance over this
period. Overall, therefore, there is no evidence to suppose that CBL has compromised
housing management efficiency and good grounds for believing that the opposite is
true.
51
5. Review of CBL Partnerships Elsewhere in England
5.1 Background and Scope
This chapter summarises results from an e-mail survey undertaken as part of the
research. It also incorporates findings from four follow-up telephone interviews with
survey respondents. Two key research tasks were to investigate:
· how other local authorities and housing associations organise combined CBL
services, and
· the level of service that modern CBL systems offer to customers.
These questions were addressed through a national survey carried out in Autumn
2007. The CBL schemes included in the survey were those being operated in
institutional contexts similar to that in Wirral i.e. those:
· in post-transfer areas
· involving numerous housing association participants.
Local authority annual statistical returns to CLG showed that in summer 2006 there
were 34 post-transfer LAs where CBL was in operation. Of these (and excluding
Wirral itself), 23 of these involved four or more participating housing associations.
Our survey included CBL schemes being operated in each of these LA areas plus
three other schemes known to the researchers as fulfilling the basic eligibility criteria
and having been established since summer 2006.
In all, therefore, our survey covered 26 CBL schemes. In each case we contacted the
lead organisation by e-mail with a request for the completion and return of a short
questionnaire (attached at Annex 1). The 22 responses received equate to a response
rate of 85 per cent (see Annex 2 for respondents).
As well as addressing the issues cited above, the questionnaire also asked respondents
about the IT system facilitating their CBL operations and its functionality. The
partnerships covered by the survey are listed in Table 5.1. Respondents kindly
agreeing to take part in the follow up interviews were:
· Bradford Community Housing Trust
· Helena Housing
· Kennet DC
· West Wiltshire DC
52
5.2 Survey Findings
Geographical coverage and scheme leadership
With one exception (Ocean Housing s East Cornwall scheme) all of the partnerships
covered by survey responses were specific to a single local authority area. However, a
number of respondents mentioned ongoing development work on sub-regional
partnerships, with some of these expected to go live in summer 2008.
The schemes covered by survey responses were split evenly between those
administered by post-transfer local authorities (11) and by the respective stock
transfer housing association (11). There was a strong tendency towards the former
arrangement in district councils, with councils being the lead agency in nine of the 12
district status authorities from which responses were received. Conversely, in unitary
and metropolitan authorities the transfer housing association tended to play the lead
role this being true in eight out of ten instances. In this context, therefore, Wirral is
somewhat unusual in that it is a larger metropolitan authority where operational
responsibility for lettings was retained by the Council at the time of the main transfer.
The typical district/met (or unitary) contrast could be related to organisational size.
This alludes to the fact that stock transfer landlords in unitary and metropolitan
authorities have typically taken on somewhat larger numbers of transferred homes
than their counterparts operating in district council areas. These larger landlords may
typically feel more confident than smaller transfer associations about managing a
specialist function such as CBL. Alternatively it may be that smaller district
councils which have ceased to operate as landlords may tend to feel that retention of
the lettings function provides an important opportunity for maintaining an active role
in housing.
Whilst it would have been interesting to explore the pros and cons of local authority
versus transfer RSL scheme leadership this was unfortunately beyond the scope of the
survey.
Scope of CBL systems
Most of the schemes (13 of 21 responses on this question) involved participating
housing associations submitting all (or almost all) their vacancies to be let via CBL.
In other schemes most associations participated to the extent of submitting only those
vacancies designated as contributing towards an association s nominations obligation
(usually amounting to 50 per cent of net lettings). Under this model other vacancies
were retained for direct lets to households registered on an association s own
waiting list or transfer list (and prioritised according to the association s own
allocations policy). A fairly common scenario was for the transfer RSL to let all its
vacancies via CBL whilst other partners contributed only nomination vacancies .
Schemes encompassing all RSL lettings were more common among those run by
local authorities rather than where transfer RSLs took the lead. The typically limited
engagement of non-transfer RSLs in schemes run by their LSVT counterparts could
be interpreted as suggesting the former see such an arrangement as potentially
subservient to a transfer RSL s own housing management interests. Alternatively, it
could result from a stronger local authority emphasis on securing full participation.
53
Three schemes advertised some private lets alongside social housing vacancies. In
two of these schemes this was linked with local landlord accreditation schemes and
was offered as a free service to encourage participation. In at least two cases
(Bradford and Kennet) private lets are advertised free of charge since private landlord
involvement is considered a local authority strategic priority. Ten respondents
reported plans to expand their existing CBL system to encompass private lettings.
CBL partnerships
Well under half of the schemes covered by the survey (eight of 21 responding on this
point) could be characterised as full partnerships in the sense of being governed by a
board or steering group representing all participating RSLs and with decision-making
powers (as in Wirral). Twelve schemes were characterised as having a strong scheme
lead organisation effectively retaining responsibility for operational decisions albeit
in consultation with partner RSLs. Which of these contrasting models was operated
did not appear to be associated with the organisational type of the lead agency (LA or
RSL).
The status of governing boards or steering groups varied from scheme to scheme. In
some cases, such bodies met only infrequently or functioned only as a discussion
group . In others, arrangements were more formalised. In Bradford, for example, there
were two separate bodies with complementary remits. A steering group , responsible
for policy issues (e.g. allocations policy or cost-sharing), met quarterly. A
development group , responsible for nuts and bolts issues such as software
functionality and staff procedures, met 3-6 monthly.
Most respondents (14 of 19 on this point) reported their scheme as involving all
participating RSLs being tied into the partnership via a documented contract or
similar device. In only two cases was the relationship described as an entirely
informal matter. Nevertheless, only two respondents reported a specific notice period
in case of a partner wishing to withdraw (three months in one instance, six months in
the other). It is not clear whether this means that few schemes involved defined notice
periods or that defined periods did exist but respondents were in ignorance of their
exact duration. One variant, as represented by the St Helens/Helena scheme, was
where the formality of the partnership involved the contractual relationship between
local authority and transfer RSL as service provider. Examples of schemes governed
by a set of SLAs covering all participating RSLs included Kennet and West Wiltshire.
A number of respondents noted that scheme governance arrangements were likely to
become more formalised under sub-regional CBL schemes being developed at the
time of the research. Others envisaged introducing greater formality to their local
partnership via Service Level Agreements (SLAs) or bringing more local associations
within formal partnership frameworks.
Cost sharing
How CBL scheme costs are shared between local authorities and housing associations
can be a particularly problematic matter in CBL partnerships where the local authority
has ceased to operate as a landlord in its own right, since this rules out the option of
simply sharing costs pro rata to housing stock or lettings. Consequently, investigating
54
approaches to setting LA financial contributions to CBL schemes was an issue of
particular interest in the survey.
The first question here is what constitutes scheme costs . The survey findings
confirm that in some but not all partnerships there was a clear distinction between
the costs of managing and maintaining the housing register and the costs of
administering the lettings process (including associated costs such as advertising and
the maintenance of websites).
There was no single dominant approach to the calculation of local authority financial
contributions. As shown in Table 5.1, at least seven different approaches were
discernible across the 21 schemes covered in survey responses. The models identified
range from cases where authorities funded schemes in their entirety to those where
they made no recorded financial contribution.
Table 5.1 Local authority contribution to CBL scheme costs
Model
No. of
schemes
All costs
3
All staff costs (advertising costs paid by RSLs)
3
Equal shares with transfer RSL (usually other RSLs make small contributions)
4
Fixed share of total scheme costs scaled to reflect statutory duties
4
Individual staff member costs only
1
Register costs only (little or no contribution to CBL running costs)
4
No recorded financial contribution
2
Total
20
Between these extremes one commonly operated model was where the council and
the transfer RSL paid equal shares typically totalling around 80 per cent of defined
scheme costs. However, these tended to be areas where the transfer RSL was very
dominant in terms of social housing stock numbers because, historically, the district
had seen relatively little housing association activity. Because such conditions do not
hold true in Wirral this model would not appear to be particularly appropriate in this
context.
In at least two schemes (Restormel/Ocean and St Helens/Helena) RSL cost
contributions were made up of two distinct elements a membership fee and a per
advert charge. A similar approach is used by the Locata partnership in West London.
In four areas the local authority paid a fixed share of the gross cost. This latter
arrangement may be justified by the argument that a proportion of lettings made via
the scheme enable the authority to discharge statutory duties towards homeless
households. A different justification cited by one scheme lead housing association
was that its CBL administration included assisting vulnerable individuals, an activity
qualifying for local authority financial support funded from the Council s Supporting
People budget. There are some similarities with the existing Wirral arrangement,
although with council shares tending to be fixed in percentage terms such formulae
were arguably more sustainable than the Wirral scenario.
55
Given that lettings constitute a fundamental landlord activity it is perhaps surprising
to identify instances where all or most CBL costs are reportedly paid by the post-
transfer local authority (see Table 5.1). Some authorities see it as appropriate that they
subsidise RSL participation on the grounds that CBL is a strategic priority. Whilst it
is practised in only a few areas, the model involving local authority responsibility for
register management alongside housing association liability for all lettings-related
costs looks like the neatest and most logically defensible cost-sharing rationale from a
council viewpoint.
Housing association cost shares were also calculated in a variety of ways. As implied
by Table 5.1, the transfer association was often treated differently from other
landlords, perhaps for no other reason than that it was the agency running the scheme
and therefore initially liable for the administrative costs involved. Also, in such
circumstances, transfer RSLs sometimes demonstrated greater commitment to CBL
than their smaller counterpart associations (e.g. by processing via CBL all rather than
just a proportion of their lettings).
Relatively few respondents were able to specify CBL start-up costs. However, the
huge variations in amounts cited (6k-375k) raise questions about whether like was
always being compared with like. Also perhaps of interest are the very large
variations in the share of start up costs accounted for by IT costs. In by no means
every case did ICT costs reportedly form the bulk of the total.
A slightly larger number of respondents specified annual CBL running costs but in
only a very few cases was this broken down into constituent elements. As with set-up
costs there was a huge variation in reported running costs (from £25K-600k). Only
part of this variation can be accounted for by whether or not the figure included
housing register management costs.
IT systems and functionality
Respondents were asked about their IT software and its functional capabilities. As
shown in Table 5.2, a range of software providers were represented.
Whilst most systems facilitated online bidding automated phone bidding was less
common (see Table 5.3). The question about interfaces with local authority strategic
systems was intended to refer to corporate databases such as the council s land and
property gazetteer or council tax records. In practice, where respondents indicated that
such interfaces existed, this tended to refer only to links with housing management
systems.
Table 5.2 CBL software suppliers
Supplier
No of schemes
Avg
functionality
score
Abritas
6
3.8
IBS
4
2.75
Comino/Dev
3
2.3
Anite
1
1
Microsoft Access
1
3
56
Northgate
1
2
In-house
1
2
Scout solutions
1
1
Total
17
2.6
Combining the responses on system functionality (see Table 5.3) we produced a crude
overall functionality score (0-5) and calculated an average value for each of the
main system suppliers (see Table 5.2). As well as being used in more places than
other systems, Abritas scored significantly better than its nearest rivals on this
measure. One organisation was in the process of switching to Abritas (following an
open tender process), having determined that their existing software was unfit for
purpose. Also in tune with these positive assessments, two respondents noted that the
new sub-regional schemes being developed in their area were using Abritas systems
and that these were expected to be superior to the software infrastructure currently
used at local authority level.
Table 5.3 IT software functionality
Whether CBL system IT software provides
Yes
No
Interactivity - web-based online bidding
20
2
Interactivity - automated phone bidding
8
14
Effective interfaces with partner RSL IT systems
6
16
Effective interfaces with LA strategic systems
6
16
Flexibility in specifying reports
17
4
5.3 Chapter Summary
The e-mail survey of CBL partnerships undertaken as part of the research covered
local authority areas where former council housing had been transferred and where
multi-RSL CBL systems were in operation. The survey drew responses from 22
LAs/RSLs an 85 per cent response rate.
The schemes surveyed broke down evenly between those where the lead agency was
the post-transfer local authority and where this role was played by the transfer RSL.
However, the RSL-led model was much more common in larger and urban councils,
whilst LA leadership was almost universal in (typically smaller and more rural)
districts. As a metropolitan area where the Council retains scheme leadership, Wirral
is, therefore, unusual.
In their scope, most CBL partnerships were comprehensive in that partner RSLs
processed all or most of their lets through the system. However, schemes led by
transfer RSLs tended to be partial in the sense that non-transfer RSL participants
contributed only those lets designated as fulfilling their nomination obligations. In
only three cases did schemes involve private lettings being advertised alongside social
housing vacancies.
Less than half of the schemes could be characterised as full partnerships in the sense
of being governed by a board or steering group (as in Wirral). More commonly, there
57
was a strong scheme lead organisation which effectively retained responsibility for
operational decisions albeit in consultation with partner RSLs. In most cases it was
reported that member RSLs were bound into the arrangement by some form of
documented understanding but it may be that in some cases this was simply a
reference to a nominations agreement rather than an SLA or similar compact.
There was no single dominant approach to sharing CBL costs. Perhaps surprisingly,
some schemes were wholly or largely funded by (post-transfer) LAs. In others, by
contrast, it was reported that LAs made no financial contribution. Most cases,
however, lay between these extremes. Some involved resource contributions being
fixed according to functional divisions of responsibility e.g. where the local
authority paid staff costs whereas RSLs funded advertising. A variant of this model,
as operated in four areas, was where the local authority funded housing register
maintenance costs, whilst RSLs shared lettings-related activities (e.g. pro rata to
stock).
Eight software models were represented among the 22 schemes although the most
numerous were those supplied by Abritas, IBS and Comino/Dev. Functionality scores
for Abritas tended to be well above those for all other suppliers.
58
6. Upgrading Wirralhomes: ICT System
Requirements
6.1 Chapter Overview
The primary means by which the functional requirements for Wirralhomes were
developed as part of the Review were from shadowing Wirralhomes staff and the
ICT functionality workshop held at Wirral Town Hall on 31 October 2007.
As discussed in Chapter 3 all Wirralhomes RSL partners have concerns about the
effectiveness and customer access arrangements for Wirralhomes current ICT. Before
outlining the functional requirements to improve Wirralhomes ICT, we explore some
of the current deficiencies in the existing ICT arrangements.
In summary, the key identified deficiencies identified are:
Lack of provision for customer self-service for either the housing register or the
placing of expressions of interest/bids for available properties;
· To join the register applicants must either download an Adobe Acrobat file,
manually complete it and post it to Wirralhomes, or phone into Wirralhomes
during office hours or visit a One Stop Shop during their hours of business;
· Customers can only view available properties on the Wirralhomes website;
bidding entails emailing or telephoning Wirralhomes or a visit to a service outlet
such as a One Stop Shop or partner RSL reception;
Only void editions for WPH are held on the core Northgate application, so for
approximately 40% of all CBL lettings the Wirralhomes Team have to shortlist in
property void edition specific Excel spreadsheets. This is a time consuming approach
and undermines effective working practices since:
· it is entails transcribing data from Northgate to Excel which is time consuming and
susceptible to human error;
· bidders cannot be restricted across different access channels from duplicating bids
and this regularly occurs;
· it is difficult to determine if an applicant has used their two eligible bids in any
bidding period;
· it prevents a joined-up analysis of bidding activity and tenancy turn-over;
· dealing with queries from applicants or Councillors on bidding activity and
shortlist position across void editions can be very time-consuming to collate.
Other than WPH, which benefits from wide area based secure network connections to
the Northgate applicants, other RSL partners can connect to the Housing Register to
check applicant details only via a Virtual Private Network (VPN) connection to
Northgate. This presents issues for all the non-WPH partners and many of them do not
59
utilise their VPN connection and rely solely on the partial information in the Excel
shortlist file. This has significant CBL service outcome implications as bidders are
liable to be processed in different ways by different RSL partners.
6.2 Observations on Wirralhomes Staff Use of the Northgate System
Functionality of the Current Northgate Configuration for Wirralhomes Staff
Wirralhomes staff consider the functionality offered by the current Northgate
configuration is acceptable for applications functionality and Group 1 WPH properties
shortlisting, but that it offers poor support for Group 2 WPH properties shortlisting and
for recording bids for all RSL properties.
From sitting alongside an experienced Wirralhomes staff member (Paula Winter) the
following shortcomings were identified:
· Significant levels of address duplication and a lack of standardisation of address
formats (Road, Rd, Close, Cl etc).
· National Insurance numbers (although sought on the housing registration form of
the main applicant) are not widely used leading to instances of person data
duplication.
· Group 2 (Non-urgent need) shortlists for WPH properties are not sorted on the
shortlist screen in date of registration order; this means that when applicants ask for
their position on the list the staff member has to manually work this out. In a busy
One Stop Shop environment a mistake could easily be made by a staff member
attempting to answer a query and therefore they are asked not to attempt to provide
this information.
· There are significant levels of duplicate bidding whereby applicants bid for the
same property at One Stop Shops, via phone and email, requiring time-consuming
manual deletions.
· Significant numbers of bids by people ineligible for specific properties (e.g. too
small household size or wrong age criteria); again these require manual deletion.
· Duplication of the Equal Opportunities ethnic origin question since it is held as an
application question and against the person s party record since the deployment of
version 5.12 of Northgate (albeit that the current housing registration form on the
website only seeks ethnicity details for the main applicant so the faith/belief,
sexuality, disability/health or special communications needs of the applicant are
asked as supplementary questions).
· No systems validation of the date of birth of the applicant and the age required to be
eligible to bid for the property.
· No usage of person-based alerts for vulnerability or potential violence,
· Concerns in being able to identify the most up-to-date contact details and the
current tenure for a shortlisted applicant on Northgate.
60
· Some non-contacts for high-ranked bidders, suggesting the need for bidders to
confirm contact details.
Some Estimated Metrics on Registration and Recording Bids
Registration
A very experienced member of the Wirralhomes Team, Paula Winter, estimated that to
register a hard copy form for a single applicant takes approximately five minutes if the
applicant s current address is on the system. Cases involving people whose current
address is not held on the system require additional time. For each additional
household member a further two minutes or so may be required. When Wirralhomes or
One Stop Shops staff are undertaking the registration the process either over the phone
or on a face-to-face basis the process will take longer as it will be necessary to record
details from verbatim responses and the applicant may give extensive information
about their life history. In these circumstances registrations can take as long as half an
hour.
During 2006/07 there were 7,867 registrations/re-registrations; moving some of these
onto a customer self-service channel available 24 hours by 7 days a week would
clearly generate efficiencies and improve customer access arrangements.
Bidding
In the 2006/07 re-registration survey of applicants with a return of over 5,000 replies
32 per cent replied that they bid each week, 48 per cent indicated that they bid
occasionally and 21 per cent answered that they rarely bid.
In terms of how applicants currently make enquiries about their Wirralhomes
application or express interest in an advertised vacancy, the survey found:
(a). At a One Stop Shop - 54%
(b). By telephone during office hours - 31%
(c). By telephone out of office hours or weekends - 2%
(d). By email - 6%
(e). By post using the response coupon in the Wirral Globe (local newspaper) - 7%
Paula Winter estimated that for an experienced Wirralhomes staff member to log an
expression of interest for a non-WPH property from a coupon, email or answer phone
message takes approximately 2.5 minutes utilising Northgate to confirm the
applicant s details and Excel to record the bid in the shortlist spreadsheet. During
2006/07 there were 1,234 lettings via CBL14 and with an average of 37 bids per
property, equivalent to over 45,600 bids. Making allowance for 764 CBL lets to
14 Note that this is significantly greater than the numbers of lets recorded as being made via CBL
according to RSL CORE returns see Table 4.1
61
WPH15 where the expressions of interest can be loaded more quickly against a
Northgate void edition by Wirralhomes (or One Stop Shop) staff, the average time to
record a bid may be in the order of two minutes across the CBL scheme from the point
the member of staff has the bid. Based on 2006/07 data this suggests that more than
1,500 hours of the Wirralhomes and One Stop Shop staff team s time is taken up in
recording expressions of interest. That is equivalent to one FTE for approximately 44
weeks of the year and additional time in the One Stop Shop context for the face-to-face
communication will be needed before the bid is made.
Clearly, encouraging customer self-service in bidding on a system available 24 hours
by seven days a week would reap a potential considerable efficiency saving, allied to
considerable benefits in terms of customer convenience. If the bidding process also has
inbuilt validation to prevent duplicate and ineligible bids this would further assist with
efficiency savings.
Customer and Councillor Enquiries and Complaints
To answer a complex enquiry, complaint or members enquiry can involve searching
across multiple void edition property Excel files and across multiple weeks. Compiling
the data required to make an answer can therefore take several hours. Clearly, holding
all the data in a single core database would significantly improve staff efficiency in
this area of work.
6.3 Developing the Functional Requirements of Wirralhomes
Initially these were developed by bringing together the findings from the RSL
stakeholder interviews, an awareness of housing register and CBL functionality in the
market place and work undertaken in preparing for the Northgate CBL mini-Special
Interest Group (SIG) meeting at Nottingham on 2 November 2007.
The timing of the Northgate CBL user group meeting was fortuitous as it meant that
the Wirralhomes ICT Functionality Workshop on 31 October could feed into the
discussion with Northgate. It also made it possible for the emerging Wirralhomes
functional requirements shopping list to be informed by a memorandum prepared for
the Northgate CBL meeting by Ron Whittle of Twin Valley Homes.
ICT Functional Requirements Workshop Session
The absolutely key event in developing the functional requirements was the day long
workshop on 31 October to which all Wirralhomes partners were invited. The event
was well attended with all partners represented and it enabled a lot of ground to be
covered as illustrated by the presentation attached at Annex 3.
The day began with an overview of the policy and legislative context for CBL and then
moved into setting ICT based service improvement for Choice based lettings in the
Wirral. As part of this session the delegates considered the finding from the 2006/07
Wirralhomes re-registration survey that 35 per cent of respondents had home internet
15 Again, somewhat more than recorded by WPH itself via CORE see Table 4.1
62
access, and that 67 per cent would use the internet at home or elsewhere to express
interest in vacancies if this service was available.
A workshop group exercise involved participants splitting into two groups (one
Landlord and one Strategic) to consider the overarching questions from the Audit
Commission s KLOE 7 (Allocations & Lettings) and KLOE 6 (Tenancy and Estate
Management) and any other factors to identify the key objectives which should
determine any ICT functional improvements to Wirralhomes services.
Improving customer access, operational efficiency and the value for money offered by
Wirralhomes were key themes to emerge from the group exercise. In addition, there
was considerable diversity in the operational culture and priorities of the RSL partners
implying that a one size, fits all Wirralhomes service might not meet all partner
needs and that the underlying ICT functionality for Wirralhomes would need to
provide for flexible service offerings.
In the next session some interim findings were shared from the
stakeholder interviews
on current working arrangements. The workshop then divided into two groups to
consider (a) What do you like about the current working arrangements - things you
would want to keep , and (b) Shortcomings with the current working arrangements
and improvement ideas things you would want to ditch or change .
These discussions generated considerable material to inform the emerging functional
requirements.
Another session reviewed some of the web-based offerings in the market place. This
was also used to highlight the importance of data security and web-site accessibility.
Group exercises were then conducted to address developing an ICT functional
shopping list. Delegates were invited to:
Build on the objectives for ICT based service
improvement, the arrangements that currently work and the improvement ideas
identified earlier in the day to develop a functional shopping list to market test .
The groups were given a framework within which to develop their requirements, this
was based on the following themes:
· Accessibility and systems availability (including service standards)
· Hosting arrangement
· Applications processing and verification
· The scope of properties covered and stock data held
· Void edition marketing
· Searching for available properties and bidding
· Matching and shortlisting
· Offer resulting
63
· Customer feedback
· Interfaces required
· Any technology essential requirements (e.g. true web application with secure http
sessions?)
This exercise provided invaluable insights into Wirralhomes, Wirral Council and RSL
partner perspectives and their functional requirements.
Attendees were also asked to identify whether aspects of desired functionality were
essential, desirable or gimmicky. These judgements were used to assign importance to
each item in the Wirralhomes functionality shopping list .
The Workshop closed with a technical session with ICT delegates to identify:
· Each RSL s ICT infrastructures, including networks configuration and housing
management system and the use of Document Image Processing (DIP) and
Workflow software (see Table 6.1).
· Any specific issues they could foresee based on the functional shopping list that
emerged in the earlier session.
Key findings from the business and technical sessions around infrastructure
preferences included:
· Ongoing concerns in relation to the ease of use, support and compatibility of the
current Virtual Private Network (token) based approach to accessing Wirralhomes
core system;
· A strong preference for a true web application ;
· Confirmation that there was considerable diversity in ICT infrastructures and core
applications across Wirralhomes partners, reinforcing non-WPH partner preferences
for a true Web Application.
· Generally low levels of data interface usage between RSLs and local authorities
elsewhere across the North West, suggesting that the business case for extensive
interfacing between Wirralhomes and non-WPH RSL partners may not be strong.
64
Table 6.1 Wirralhomes Partner Key Applications
Partner
Wirralhomes IHMS/ System
DIP/ Workflow
adverts 2006/07
Arena / Leasowe CH
51
IBS
Alchemy (Captaris)
Cosmopolitan
6
Aeron QLX 3.62 service patch 4
InVu.net
for finance, 5 for Housing (hot fix 1) (post scanned
mainly, invoice
processing)
Plus Housing Group
1
Universal Housing
In IHMS
(CDS/Hornby)
Regenda (Maritime)
107
Orchard
Not known
Riverside
115
Academy
Valid V8 not
used locally
Venture
21
Universal Housing
In IHMS but not
used
Vicinity BBCHA, LHT,
61
Orchard
Planned
Rodney
Wirral Methodist HA
38
SDM (implementing)
Planned
Wirral Partnership Homes
719
Northgate
No
Wirralhomes
1,119
Northgate
No
6.4 Finalising the Functional Shopping List
After the workshop the functional items were consolidated and tabled at the Northgate
CBL mini-SIG on 2 November. This enabled participants from Wirralhomes, WPH,
Wirral Council, along with Twin Valley Homes, to lead the Northgate user
community s discussion with Northgate.
During the mini-SIG meeting, other Northgate customers were invited to add any
additional functional items to supplement the combined Wirralhomes and Twin
Valley s functional shopping tabled list. Only Nottingham City Council identified
some minor additional items, implying that the requirements that emerged from the
Wirralhomes workshop were comprehensive.
Following the Northgate event, the shopping list was refined further with particular
consideration being given to the importance to Wirralhomes of the functional item
(essential or desirable) ahead of the listing being considered at the Wirralhomes
Steering Group on 15 November 2007.
In the light of Steering Group member comments the importance of a number of
shopping list functional requirements items was re-assessed. Allied to this work was
the development of the market assessment documentation to supplement the functional
requirements. This involved providing key contextual information and metrics to
inform suppliers in providing cost estimates. A set of general questions for suppliers
65
were also developed and refined with Karen Laird , ahead of Catherine Green and
Karen Laird approving the Wirralhomes Review - Information and Communications
Technology Pre-Procurement Market Assessment documentation.
As Chapter 7 details, the Market Assessment documentation was dispatched to
suppliers on 19 November 2007. This forms Annex 4 of this report and includes the
ICT functional requirements developed as part of this Review of Wirralhomes.
6.5 Chapter Summary
The current lack of provision for customer self-service for either the housing register
or the placing of expressions of interest/bids for available properties contributes to the
high-level of manual processing of information by Wirralhomes. This is exacerbated
by void editions for properties being held on the core Northgate application only for
WPH properties. Consequently, for approximately 40 per cent of all CBL lettings the
Wirralhomes Team have to shortlist in property void edition specific Excel
spreadsheets. This is a time-consuming approach and undermines effective working
practices since it entails transcribing data and it is difficult to prevent duplicate bids.
Similarly, in providing reports or dealing with queries from applicants or Councillors it
can take hours to collate the necessary data. In addition, many RSLs have
compatibility issues with the current Virtual Private Network access arrangements to
Northgate and they would prefer a web-based application.
Wirralhomes staff generally consider the functionality offered by the current Northgate
configuration is acceptable for applications functionality and Group 1 WPH properties
shortlisting, but that it offers poor support for Group 2 properties shortlisting and for
recording bids. However, a number of shortcomings with the current configuration and
usage of Northgate are identified in the main body of the report in relation to housing
registrations and bids processing. We have estimated some metrics on current
transaction times to evidence where improvements in ICT functionality for customer
self-service and more effective staff working would improve efficiency. As the next
steps in the final recommendations section makes clear, more work is need to value
current transaction costs of existing ways of working.
The report outlines the process by which the ICT Functional Requirements were
developed for the market assessment, with a particular focus on the findings to emerge
from the all-day ICT Functional Requirements Workshop on 31 October 2007. This
led to the preparation of a shopping list of functionality structured around the
following key themes: accessibility and systems availability (including service
standards); hosting arrangements; applications processing, verification and assessment;
the scope of properties covered and stock data held; void edition marketing; searching
for available properties and bidding; matching and shortlisting; offer resulting;
reporting and customer feedback and any interfaces required.
The functionality shopping list was refined by attending a Northgate CBL user group
and then reviewed at the Wirralhomes Steering Group meeting on 15 November. A
pre-procurement market assessment document based on the functional requirements
was then dispatched to suppliers on 19 November and the findings from this
assessment form the next chapter.
66
7. Options for Wirralhomes ICT System Upgrade
7.1 Overview of Potential Options
In our view the main options to consider in upgrading Wirralhomes ICT to improve
efficiency and customer access arrangements are:
(a). Upgrade the existing Northgate housing application under the WPH hosting
arrangements to support all CBL partner voids and acquire Northgate-based
housing register and CBL customer self-service functionality.
(b). Utilise the Wirral MBC Northgate housing application instance under its existing
Wirral MBC hosting arrangements and upgrade this to support all CBL partner
voids and acquire Northgate-based housing register and CBL customer self-
service functionality.
(c). Adopt a hosted Northgate option utilising a new Northgate housing application
instance supporting all CBL partner voids and acquire Northgate-based housing
register and CBL customer self-service.
(d). Maintain the existing Northgate housing application under the WPH hosting
arrangements to support all CBL partner voids and acquire non-Northgate-based
housing register and CBL customer and RSL partner self-service functionality
(i.e. a hybrid approach).
(e). Implement a new niche housing applications and CBL web-based system with
customer self-service hosted by Wirral MBC
(f). Implement a new niche housing applications and CBL web-based system with
customer self-service hosted by a third party.
A do nothing option has not been considered as it is widely acknowledged that
deficiencies in existing working arrangements are a major cause of operational
inefficiency, that customer access is currently inadequate and that these problems
cannot remain unaddressed. Likewise, an option of simply adding CBL partner stock
and void editions to the WPH Northgate housing application instance has not been
separately costed as this would do little to address the fundamental efficiency and
customer access concerns.
7.2 The Market Assessment Exercise
Given the range of possible options for upgrading the ICT utilised by Wirralhomes the
Market Assessment exercise has focused on Northgate and non-Northgate based
configurations rather than to adopt a hybrid based approach (see (d) above) whereby a
mixed configuration is considered. This is because the main purpose of the Market
Assessment is to understand the functionality available in the market place and its fit
with Wirralhomes ICT requirements and to inform budgetary parameters. It was also
concluded at this stage that requesting a hybrid based set of options and costs would
be too complex and off-putting for suppliers at this stage in Wirralhomes assessing
the market.
67
Chapter 6 discussed how a functionality shopping list was developed and agreed at
the 15 November 2007 Wirralhomes Steering Group meeting. A pre-procurement
market assessment document was prepared based on the shopping list and approved
by Catherine Green and Karen Laird to send to an agreed select list of suppliers. This
was dispatched on 19 November 2007 with a return deadline of 14 December 2007.
It is important to appreciate that the information gathered by this assessment is not
under formal procurement procedures (such as under a pre-qualification questionnaire
or a tender), and as such it is indicative, with some suppliers specifying caveats to their
answers and cost estimates. As is discussed in the costings section, the ways that some
suppliers responded makes it difficult for definitive cost estimates to be achieved.
The select list was drawn up based on Wirralhomes current ICT provider (Northgate),
supplemented by suppliers with niche reputations and credentials in offering housing
register and CBL functionality, and in the case of Capita (who provides the Academy
Housing System and has been known to provide competitive CBL quotations) it was
included to provide a similar supplier type to Northgate for comparator proposes.
The following suppliers were invited to respond to the market test of the functionality
available for Choice Based Lettings Systems and to provide an indicative pricing for a
hosted and non-hosted solution:
· Abritas
· Capita Software Services.
· Home Connections
· Locata
· Northgate
· Scout Solutions
The Market Assessment document provided context and required suppliers to provide
answers to a number of general questions and to indicate their compliance or otherwise
with a functionality shopping list drawn up with input from the RSL partners. Key
metrics were provided in relation to the number of partners involved, transactions
volumes and the number of likely systems users to aid suppliers in pricing
recommended configurations.
The Market Assessment document stressed that for some requirements the absence of
detailed specifications would require estimation by the suppliers :
Clearly, for some areas where functionality may need to be developed, suppliers may
have difficulty in providing precise costings without an agreed detailed specification.
Nevertheless, we would be grateful for a 'best estimate' so that Wirralhomes can gain
'budgetary' insight before embarking on a formal procurement exercise.
In the end Capita declined to respond since they do not provide the core housing
application for the Council or WPH.
68
There were two telephone conversations with Home Connections prior to the return
deadline and which indicated a response would be made. In the event, however, Home
Connections emailed on the last day indicating that they would respond in another
week and when advised that this would not allow time for the analysis they sent a
further email declining to respond but asking to be considered if a full tender process
was initiated.
The analysis has therefore been limited to the four responses received.
This section of the Review report considers their responses to the general questions
and pricing, especially in relation to future developments and implementations, before
addressing the overall compliance with the different elements of the shopping list and
providing an evaluation of the options.
General Questions
The assessment pack included a set of general questions to elicit basic financial and
company information as well as to summarise the likely overall costs and inputs
relating to implementation. In addition these questions addressed the supplier s
technology; support and maintenance as well as their approach to product upgrades,
enhancements and user groups.
Annex 5 provides a matrix comparing the answers to the general questions from the
suppliers.
Some key themes to emerge were:
Options price estimated Locata only offers a hosted service, and Scout only price
estimated for a hosted option. Abritas costed both hosted and non-hosted options,
while Northgate quoted for a WPH and Wirral MBC hosted option and mentioned that
it could provide costs for a Northgate-hosted option but would need more information.
Core technologies Apart from Northgate all the suppliers front and back-office
offerings are web applications. Northgate utilises its additional CBL and e-Services
configuration to offer public access. Abritas, Locata and Scout Solutions all utilise
Microsoft SQL server and .NET applications; by contrast Northgate utilises Oracle and
Java based applications.
Plans to change underlying technology None of the suppliers reported any plans to
fundamentally change their core technologies.
User Group and plans for enhancements Scout Solutions was the only supplier to
have no user group and an active development programme informed by the system
user community. Scout s response highlighted that their CBL modules are tailored to
each customer s requirements and that enhancements are therefore led by a customer s
specification and they are offered to others via vision days .
Licensing Locata, in offering a central lettings service, charges no licence fees.
Abritas uses a geographical basis for licensing. Northgate uses a stock number basis
and Scout Solutions licensing charge is based on the volume of concurrent back office
users. This can lead to quite different pricing outcomes with Northgate and Scout
proving relatively expensive in their approach.
69
Implementation timescale All of the suppliers stressed that the implementation
timetable would depend on the complexity of the eventual solution ; ahead of this
Abritas would expect implementation to take about 3 months, Locata estimated 3-6
months, Scout 4-6 months and Northgate 6-9 months.
Implementation timing Suppliers were asked
If Wirralhomes ran a procurement
exercise during the Spring of 2008, and your company was selected how quickly would
your company be able to start implementing your system for Wirralhomes? . Abritas
could commence in Summer 2008, Locata three weeks after selection, Northgate
immediately on contract signature and Scout assumed a three month procurement
timetable and could start on 1 June 2008.
Suppliers Responses and Costings (all are VAT exclusive)
Although the Market Assessment document sent to suppliers provided a consistent
format against which cost estimates were sought, suppliers did not all follow the
structure provided. This has made it difficult in some instances to fully cost the
supplier responses as, for example, none provided hardware quotations for the non-
hosted options and some left the detailed cost breakdown questions blank. In addition,
anticipated bidding metrics on potential bidding activity across different access
channels (web, text, automated phone or DigiTV) for Wirralhomes were not available
for the Market Assessment exercise, so pricing the full costs of utilising these channels
is not yet possible.
The cost information provided has also been heavily caveated by the suppliers as
estimated or based on assumptions , and as such it should be seen as indicative .
Further work on anticipated metrics will be required before a firm procurement budget
can be set.
In this section we consider each of the supplier s cost estimates in turn before
comparing them for hosted and non-hosted options. Annexes 6a and 6b provide a
fuller breakdown of the costings summarised in this part of the report. In these
Annexes we have attempted to make the basis of cost estimation as consistent as
possible across the suppliers by for example including the costs for bid channel
infrastructure for telephone and SMS Texts where the supplier has provided these.
Abritas
Abritas completed all sections of the assessment document either on the spreadsheet or
by reference to other accompanying documents, albeit that one referenced document
was not attached. They have an extensive customer portfolio, including Property Pool
in Liverpool and in September 2007 the company won an OJEU open procurement
exercise arranged by the Northern Housing Consortium (NHC) to offer its members a
CBL service offering. Abritas highlighted in their response that utilising the
partnership approach through the NHC could provide a cost-effective procurement
option for Wirralhomes. According to Abritas Wirral BC is a member of the Northern
Housing Consortium. Depending on Wirral BC s procurement standing orders there
might be an option to purchase the system without the need to tender, saving time and
money on purchasing. In addition, Abritas mentioned the possibility of larger
discounts on the licences because of their very competitive pricing policy with the
NHC.
70
Current system improvements offered by Abritas include the introduction of Digi-TV
based bidding for Sky Interactive and Virgin Media users, integration with Local Land
and Property Gazetteer data for easy address validation, enhancements to drag and
drop reporting and enhancing user group arrangements.
Abritas indicated a possible implementation commencement timescale from Summer
2008 and estimated a comparatively low level of client input being required 15 days
plus 1 day per week for liaison throughout the period of the implementation, which
they estimate typically would take 3 months.
They stressed a wide number of Housing Systems to which they have provided
interfaces.
A separate pricing document was provided which gave the most detail of any supplier
on their cost components and the document included the following headline overall
costs for hosted and non-hosted services (see Table 7.1).
Table 7.1 Abritas cost estimates
Type of service
Basic initial cost
Annual cost
in first year
Hosted
£38,550
£11,595
Non-hosted
£42,192
£7,460
In addition to the basic costs set out in Table 7.1, the submission specified potential
optional costs relating to elements of the CBL system (e.g. single language telephony
bidding service setup (0845 number) at £1,300) and up to £12,350 for the Housing
Register module. The company has also indicated that additional costs of £5,000
would be levied for contract review unless their standard contract was used. There are
also minor additional costs relating to an Escrow agreement.
In Annexes 6a and 6b we have attempted to calculate a minimum and maximum range
in possible costs for a hosted and non-hosted Abritas-based system. This includes
adding to the core costs the set-up and annual costs as well as some items such as
support which Abritas had made optional. These costs are summarised in Table 7.2.
Table 7.2 Estimated maximum and minimum Abritas costs
Min
Max
Hosted
Summary
Set up costs
£38,550
£38,550
Annual minimum
£17,895
Annual maximum
£23,995
Optional extras - initial costs
£40,890
Optional extras - ongoing costs
TBD
TBD
Total
£56,445
£103,435
71
Min
Max
Non-Hosted (excludes hosting server hardware costs)
Summary
Set up costs
£42,192
£42,192
Annual Minimum
£13,760
Annual Maximum
£16,360
Optional Extras - Initial costs
£40,890
Optional Extras - Ongoing costs
TBD
TBD
Total
£55,952
£99,442
Please note it has not been possible to estimate ongoing optional costs across suppliers as anticipated
volumes of transactions across bid channels are not known, Abritas provided an option at - £7,370
We have also highlighted in the Annexes some of the costing issues remaining to be
resolved in relation to the Abritas submission.
For the
hosted option, these were: Training; Transaction take-up costs by Automated
Telephone or SMS; Housing Register hosting fee; any advertising costs; DigiTV
(Kirklees costs); and any Private Sector Property Transaction Costs.
For the
non-hosted option these were: Hardware acquisition and licenses cost;
Training; Transaction take up costs by Automated Telephone or SMS; Housing
Register hosting fee; any advertising costs; DigiTV (Kirklees costs); Any Private
Sector Property Transaction Costs.
Depending on what Wirralhomes decides to procure and utilise there might be other
possible hidden costs for example the Abritas response stated
Note that a separate
per property charge applies for the letting of private sector properties . The charge for
this is £9 per property advertised.
Locata
As an agency established specifically to implement CBL, Locata Home Schemes
(LHS) sees itself as a Central Lettings Agency rather than a conventional IT
developer/provider. LHS was the only supplier to evidence significant value added
services in their submission. They mentioned they
will facilitate the design and
production of a professionally produced User Guide and also the design and
production of freesheets (magazines) that can be printed professionally and distributed
by around the scheme regions, or provided locally in the CBL back office so that they
may be printed out by staff on demand . LHS also includes in its implementation cost
the direct mailout of a welcome pack to all applicants just before Go Live (postage
additional). This includes a copy of the user guide, a set of coupons and a letter on the
organisation's letterhead, welcoming applicants to the new scheme and informing them
on how they can engage.
LHS is a limited company with no shares and is owned by five local authorities and
three RSLs. It operates as a not-for-profit organisation. Currently, the West London
scheme comprises six London boroughs (Brent, Ealing, Hammersmith and Fulham,
Harrow, Hillingdon and Hounslow) and nine housing associations (PCHA, Catalyst,
Paradigm, Acton, Notting Hill, Shepherds Bush, Stadium, Thames Valley and
Westway Housing Associations). Locata and its IT partner Sector UK Limited are
currently developing services on behalf of sub-regional CBL schemes in
72
Cambridgeshire, Derbyshire, Herts & Essex, Sussex, West Berkshire as well as serving
local authority based schemes in Brighton and Hove, Harlow, Medway, Stevenage,
Southampton and Stoke.
All information for the response was contained within the assessment document
spreadsheet. The Company is currently developing the following new functionality:
homelessness module; private landlords module; Accessahome register for people with
disability issues; Ability Housing register to record adaptations (existing and possible)
for all properties held by partner schemes. The company is also enhancing the CBL
Choice Manager module (e.g. re-writing the security aspect to provide greater security
against all user logins) and has recently added letter generation, enhanced search
facilities and Customer Relations manager that can be linked into existing CRM
functionality.
LHS indicated a capacity to commence implementation within 3 weeks of being
selected and anticipated a 3 to 6 month contract period dependent upon client
responses and inputs. They have estimated the client input at 4 weeks for each project
team member.
Several of the general questions relating to pricing were not completed (detailed
breakdown) and the overall section was not clear with a different overall cost figure
being given in their summary column and the system details column. Having analysed
the information, it is clear that the figure in the detail is the correct one and the system
cost as shown in Table 7.3 is therefore for a hosted system:
Table 7.3 Locata cost estimates
Hosted Service
Cost
Overall Cost (hosted back office and
£59,000
hosted web site)
Annual support cost in first year
£11,000
The overall cost figure includes a number of additional requirements such as a mutual
exchange module and automatic bidding but excludes the annual hosting fee payable to
Kirklees Council of £12,000 for buying into their DigiTV hosting service.
We have therefore separated these enhancements into a maximum cost estimate as
summarised in Table 7.4.
Table 7.4 Estimated maximum and minimum Locata costs
Min
Max
Hosted
Summary
Set up costs
£38,600
£38,600
Annual minimum
£11,000
Annual maximum
£11,000
Optional extras - initial costs
£24,000
Optional extras - ongoing costs
TBD
TBD
Total
£49,600
£73,600
73
We have also highlighted in the Annex some of the costing issues that remain with the
information they supplied.
For the
hosted option, these were: Specific costs breakdowns; Transaction take-up
costs by Automated Telephone or SMS; and expenses.
It is worth noting that the Locata scheme offers all the cost pooling and standardisation
advantages of joining a club along with the disadvantages of the common
denominator should other club members not want an enhancement that Wirralhomes
has identified it requires.
Northgate
As acknowledged at the mini-SIG in Nottingham on 2 November, Northgate
recognises the demands of its user community to enhance the functionality of its CBL
system. To some extent the Northgate customer base is moving towards the
requirement for a true web application and the supplier is attempting to transition their
product set in this direction. The key product development issue is the extent to which
processing of applications and shortlists is done in the core Northgate Allocations
Module and requiring CBL partners to access the Northgate application as opposed to
processing being undertaken outside the core application and meaning that CBL
partners do not need to open a secure channel to access the Northgate Housing
Application.
Northgate identified their key CBL reference sites as: Nottingham City Homes, The
Gateshead Housing Company, New Charter Housing Trust, Trafford Housing Trust,
Chester and District Housing Trust and Pembrokeshire County Council.
Information was provided on the submission spreadsheet and in several supporting
documents. The Company provided a detailed explanation of how it deals with product
development but did not give any indication of any specific CBL developments either
current or planned within the next 12 months, as it is understood these are yet to be
approved by the Northgate Board.
Northgate indicated a capability to commence implementation immediately after
contract signing with an anticipated project timescale of 6 to 9 months. An estimate of
the likely level of client input into the implementation process has yet to be made.
Northgate suggested three possible options for Wirralhomes and specified indicative
prices for two of them. The options are:
· Option 1 Wirralhomes to have a totally new CBL environment taking advantage
of the licences that the Council currently holds.
· Option 2 Wirralhomes could work in partnership with WPH to expand the current
environment to include the management of all RSL partner properties. This would
offer some cost saving benefits.
· Option 3 Wirralhomes to have a totally new CBL environment hosted by
Northgate. This option is not costed and would require further discussion in order to
reach a price.
74
Their headline estimates by Northgate were as shown in Table 7.5.
Table 7.5 Northgate cost estimates
Non-hosted configurations
Basic Initial Cost
Annual Cost in first year
Option 1 Wirral MBC
£122,400
£15,750
instance
Option 2 WPH instance
£86,250
£10,750
The costs for each option are also accompanied by a number of notes of clarification
and assumptions made.
Both configurations are likely to require additional optional services (e.g. estate
module reconfiguration, data migration etc) implying costs additional to the figures
quoted. In order to give a better idea of these costs we have estimated a minimum and
maximum range and included the anticipated consultancy and Oracle licensing costs
which were treated as optional in their indicative costings see Table 7.6.
Table 7.6 Estimated maximum and minimum Northgate costs
Min - WPH hosted
Max - WirralBC hosted
Non-Hosted*
Summary
Set up costs
£89,250
£137,400
Annual minimum
£11,500
Annual maximum
£19,500
Optional extras - initial costs
£30,000
£22,000
Optional extras - licence costs**
£1,500
£1,500
Optional extras - ongoing costs
TBD
TBD
Total
£132,250
£180,400
*exclude telephony integration and hosting server hardware costs ** CTI Telephony integration licence
It should also be stressed that Northgate s indicative costings exclude a key cost area
which the others have included which is the telephony integration infrastructure
required for automated phone and SMS text access channels. This is partly because
Northgate do not currently provide this service and expect their clients to put in place
this infrastructure with third party companies. So for example Greenwich and
Nottingham have both used the company C3 to provide telephony integration
.
We have also highlighted in the Annex some of the Northgate costing issues that
remain to be resolved.
For the
non-hosted option, these were: Telephony infrastructure costs, server hardware
acquisition cost; would Task Manager (workflow) also be required, training;
transaction take-up costs by Automated Telephone or SMS and expenses.
Scout Solutions
Scout Solutions offers a traditional ICT developer based approach and list some of
their key CBL clients as Aberdeen, Bromford Housing Group, Calico (Burnley),
75
Carrick, Fosseway HA, Glasgow, Rochdale, and Sunderland Housing Group
(www.gentoosunderland.com).
Information was provided on the Market Assessment spreadsheet and in several
supporting documents. Scout Solution deals with product development on a per
customer basis and the system is tailored to each individual customer. There is
therefore no indication of any current planned enhancements.
Scout indicated that the project would take 4 to 6 months to implement from contract
signing. They estimated a minimum client side input of five days for design of the
functional specification, five days for user acceptance testing and 10 days training
(times the number of staff to be trained). These requirements could be increased when
the project plan and functional specification have been drawn up.
Scout gave detailed breakdown of costs within the general questions of the spreadsheet
and has indicated that the overall cost could be significantly less than that quoted
dependent upon the detail of the functional specification to be agreed. The overall cost
estimated for a hosted system is shown in Table 7.7.
Table 7.7 Scout Solutions cost estimates
Hosted Service Initial Cost
Annual Cost (after first year)
£177,413
£29,722 (plus annual uplift based on the RPI)
The estimate shown in Table 7.7 is based on purchase of all of the modules required to
meet the specification as it stands and in the absence of a detailed functional
specification they have assumed a high level of complexity.
Within Scout Solutions submission there were price anomalies for example:
Qu 3.19: Please provide details of the
Qu 3.7: Please describe your
costs of hosting the service on
recommended server configurations and
Wirralhomes behalf and the basis on
provide an indicative cost
which this is charged
Within our annual fee we supply the
Within our annual fee we supply the
hardware and internet access for the live
hardware and internet access for the live
CBL system, a staging version for user
CBL system, a staging version for user
acceptance testing, a secure FTP server,
acceptance testing, a secure FTP server,
SMS text service and Automated
SMS text service and Automated
Telephone service.
Telephone service.
The annual price is as follows: -
The annual price is as follows: -
£2,400 p.a. for the live and staging CBL
£3,000 p.a. for the live and staging CBL
server up to 5gb data traffic per month
server up to 5gb data traffic per month
(each additional 5gb is charged at £50 per
month)
(each additional 5gb is charged at £50 per
month)
£600 p.a. for a secure FTP server
76
£1,200 p.a. for an SMS text server
£600 p.a. for a secure FTP server
£1,200 p.a. for an automated telephone
£1,500 p.a. for an SMS text server
system server
£1,500 p.a. for an automated telephone
All ex-VAT.
system server
All ex-VAT.
The way in which the company has quoted makes it difficult to identify a minimum-
maximum range of costs based on different options. However, it is worth noting that if
we assume that the annual costs for hosting are £6,600 then annual support and
maintenance costs are £30,322.
Table 7.8 Estimated maximum and minimum Scout Solutions costs
Min
Max
Hosted
Summary
Set up costs
£147,091
£147,091
Annual minimum
£30,322
Annual maximum
£30,322
Optional extras - initial costs
Optional extras - ongoing costs
TBD
TBD
Total
£177,413
£177,413
We have also highlighted in the Annex some of the costing issues that remain with the
information in the Scout Solutions submission.
For their
hosted option, these were: Specific costs breakdowns; Transaction take-up
costs by Automated Telephone or SMS; and expenses.
7.3 Submissions Compliance with the Functionality Shopping List
The functionality shopping list developed from the functional requirements
workshop and utilised for the market assessment comprised a total of 133 items of
which 95 were considered to be essential and 38 desirable to Wirralhomes.
Clearly as the implications of this Market Assessment are absorbed and the functional
requirements are further clarified and refined ahead of possible procurement, the
detailed market tested specification can be prepared which will ground the
shopping list in the reality of available budgets and functionality available in the
market place.
Despite this, it is interesting to note that the suppliers generally self-assessed their
products as having a high degree of compliance with the functionality list. However,
their own assessments were frequently undermined by their summary of how their
product offered the required functionality or their product development proposals,
making it at times difficult to distinguish existing tangible product functionality from
77
their aspirational functionality. This was especially the case with Scout Solutions
self-assessment.
In Table 7.9 the supplier s scoring initially takes each company s self-assessment at
face value, with the revised scoring incorporating an assessment of how the company
answered the questions on how their system offers the required functionality and their
responses to the in development questions. It should be noted that for a fully robust
assessment to be made the supplier would need to demonstrate their product against
standard evaluation scripts.
Table 7.9 Functionality assessment of the suppliers responding to the market
assessment (based on 95 essential and 38 desirable requirements)
With the exception of Northgate, this summary shows high levels of self-assessed
compliance with the items considered to be essential in the functional shopping list.
For example, three of the four companies assessed their submission as complying with
more than 90 per cent of the essential requirements.
It should be noted, however that for Scout Solutions, of the items where the company
indicated it fully complied, 12 Essential and 14 Desirable items are indicated as being
added cost options whereas with the other companies the functionality seems to be
included in the standard priced specification. Where the companies assessed
themselves as not meeting the requirements, there are few instances where it is
indicated that they intend to add that functionality in the near future.
A more detailed analysis of compliance of each Company against the main functional
areas is provided in the spreadsheet in Annex 7.
This highlights that in some areas the revised supplier scores bring them into closer
alignment with Northgate s self-assessed scoring. Locata s alignment with the
shopping list was most changed by this process, however in certain instances it was
difficult to re-assess Scout Solutions submission as in some areas the summary of
78
how their system offered the functionality merely rephrased the original functional
requirement. So it may the case that even the revised score for Scout Solutions still
overstates their submission s compliance with the requirements. Significantly, in some
instances it would appear that Northgate has under-assessed their compliance as in
four instances they had assessed themselves as not meeting the requirement, while
their functional answers to specific or adjacent questions suggests they at least part
met the requirement.
The detailed assessment in Annex 4 also shows for some areas of functionality the
market offerings are not in-line with functional areas on the shopping list . Key areas
where the shopping list appears ahead of the market seemed to be in relation to:
· Triple A web accessibility standards, as Double A is the market norm;
· Some of the more refined aspects of applications, verification and assessment
functionality;
· Some of the more complex areas of voids edition marketing and search;
· Some of the reporting requirements requiring information from across voids
editions.
However, many of the key areas of the shopping list relating to CBL marketing,
shortlisting and offer resulting would appear to have a higher degree of availability in
the market place, suggesting that with some refinement the shopping list could be a
realistic basis for a more detailed functional specification.
The charts that follow, illustrate the impact of the revised scoring process on the
suppliers, and shows on paper that Northgate on the essential assessment still had
the highest number of requirements not met .
79
Wirralhomes ICT Functional Shopping List - Essential Item s
Requirement met
Requirement part met
Requirement not met
Compliance Unclear
0
0
0
100%
0
1
1
2
2
2
1
0
2
1
7
1
2
0
4
11
13
10
90%
23
6
20
80%
70%
60%
50%
93
92
92
78
78
81
40%
69
68
30%
20%
10%
0%
Abritas - Supplier's Abritas - Revised Locata - Supplier's Locata - Revised
Northgate -
Northgate -
Scout Solutions - Scout Solutions -
score
scores
Scores
Scores
Supplier's Scores
Revised Scores
Supplier's scores
revised scores
In relation to the desirable requirements this paper based assessment suggested that
Abritas and Northgate were the weakest submissions (see following graphic), albeit
that for the reasons given above it is likely that Scout s scoring overstates their degree
of compliance. Both charts suggest that Locata had the most part met areas
functionality, implying that any procurement exercise involving a detailed assessment
of their functionality would need to establish how much of the specification they really
can meet.
80
Wirralhomes ICT Functional Shopping List - Desirable Items
Requirement met
Requirement part met
Requirement not met
Compliance Unclear
0
0
100%
1
1
0
1
0
0
1
0
3
6
3
7
5
7
90%
2
7
0
0
8
80%
7
6
70%
13
60%
50%
37
32
32
31
40%
27
24
24
30%
19
20%
10%
0%
Abritas - Supplier's Abritas - Revised Locata - Supplier's Locata - Revised
Northgate -
Northgate -
Scout Solutions - Scout Solutions -
score
scores
Scores
Scores
Supplier's Scores
Revised Scores
Supplier's scores
revised scores
7.4 Evaluation of the Options
It is important to stress at this stage it is not the intention to undertake an individual
assessment of the suitability of a specific supplier to provide Wirralhomes with
improved ICT; the purpose of the Market Assessment is to assist Wirralhomes in
understanding the functionality available, to assist in indicative budget setting and to
help underpin a subsequent formal tendering exercise.
Table 7.11 summarises for each option the learnings from the Market Assessment
exercise; it also considers other important factors having a bearing on each option and
provides a summary evaluation.
· From this analysis it would appear that the following options may offer the most
cost effective and best match between Wirralhomes and its partners functional
requirements:
· Adopt a hybrid approach using WPH s Northgate application and a third party for
applications and CBL customer and RSL partner self-service (but this has not yet
been costed)
· Implement a new niche housing applications and CBL web-based system with
customer self-service hosted by Wirral MBC
· Implement a new niche housing applications and CBL web-based system with
customer self-service hosted by a third party.
In relation to the hybrid option it is worth noting that WPH is open to hosting the
voids edition and matching service for other RSL partners but WPH would want to
81
review roles and responsibilities and associated Service Level Agreements in much
more detail before reaching a conclusion, should this option be favoured as a possible
way forward.
It should also be noted that several RSLs expressed reservations about WPH holding
all partner stock data, voids, offers and lettings if extending the use of Northgate
emerged as the preferred option. They mentioned that they would need Board approval
to proceed in some instances.
82
Table 7.10 Evaluation the options in the light of the Market Assessment and other factors:
Ref Option
Market Assessment learning
Other factors to consider
Evaluation
A
Upgrade
May not offer as much functionality as going to a
In 2006/07 WPH accounted for 62% of
May not prove the most cost
the existing new third party supplier.
CBL lettings so they are the largest
effective solution to
WPH
Wirralhomes stakeholder and benefit
Wirralhomes ICT improvement
Northgate
Likely to be more expensive to implement and
from being on an integrated system
requirements.
Housing
support that a new third niche party product.
with Wirralhomes.
Application
Might not provide WPH, other
Likely to need the implementation of several new
WPH also currently cross-subsidises
CBL RSL partners or
modules including: Northgate Choice Based
the CBL service in supporting
Wirralhomes with a new
Lettings Front End, Northgate e-Service
Northgate for Wirralhomes and OSS
improved working relationship.
Application Form, Northgate Housing Advice
use without fully recovering the costs
Licence (and possibly Task Manager which was
of this support.
The existing issues of RSL
not costed by Northgate).
partners reluctance to utilise
Some RSL partners may be reluctant to
VPN secure connections to
Would require a third party company to provide
add their properties or void editions to
WPH s Northgate instance
telephony integration.
WPH s system.
would remain.
WPH requirements for business process
continuity should be paramount if any
change is made to WPH hosting
Wirralhomes ICT capability.
83
Ref Option
Market Assessment learning
Other factors to consider
Evaluation
B
Utilise and
May not offer as much functionality as going to a
While giving Wirralhomes a greater
Unlikely to prove the most cost
upgrade the new third party supplier.
degree of autonomy over its ICT it
effective solution to
Wirral
would seem to offer few benefits in
Wirralhomes ICT improvement
MBC
Likely to be one of the most expensive options to
comparison to a new niche housing
requirements.
Northgate
implement and support..
register and CBL system as it requires
Housing
the implementation of several modules
The existing issues of RSL
Application Would need the Council to extend its licence for
and the involvement of a third party for
partners reluctance to utilise
the Estate Module from 5,000 to 20,000 units.
telephony integration.
VPN secure connections to
Would require the implementation of several new
Wirral MBC s Northgate
modules including: Northgate Choice Based
As a Northgate based option It would
instance would remain.
Lettings Front End, Northgate e-Service
undermine the integration offered for
Application Form, Northgate Housing Advice
WPH of the current hosting
Licence (and possibly Task Manager which was
arrangements and so require additional
not costed by Northgate).
interfaces to maintain.
Would require a third party company to provide
WPH requirements for business process
telephony integration.
continuity should be paramount if any
change is made to WPH hosting
Northgate s stock based licensing model
Wirralhomes ICT capability. WPH has
contributes to the anticipated considerable costs
by far the strongest business case for
for this option.
making effective interfaces
Would avoid RSL partners needing to
add their properties or void editions to
WPH s system.
84
Ref Option
Market Assessment learning
Other factors to consider
Evaluation
C
Adopt a
Northgate did not provide indicative costings for
Likely to have the similar factors to
Unlikely to prove the most cost
hosted
this.
consider as option B, plus the
effective solution to
Northgate
clarification of Wirral MBC security
Wirralhomes ICT improvement
option
Likely to have the same types of issues as option
strategy for third party hosted
requirements.
B.
applications.
The existing issues of RSL
partners reluctance to utilise
VPN secure connections would
remain.
85
Ref Option
Market Assessment learning
Other factors to consider
Evaluation
D
Adopt a
This was not specifically addressed as part of the
It might present a possible half-way
Worthy of further consideration
hybrid
Market Assessment because it was considered as
house approach ensuring WPH
approach
adding too much complexity to the market
maintains its voids/allocations
May prove more expensive than
using
assessment at this stage.
integration with Wirralhomes but
implementing a full third party
WPH s
offering RSL partners the ability to
niche housing register / CBL
Northgate
Presents similar issues to Option A, albeit that it
avoid having to access the Northgate
system and passing shortlist
application
could avoid needing to implement as many
back end and it could also replace the
results back to WPH s
and a third
Northgate Modules.
inefficient Excel based current
Northgate instance. This is
party for
shortlist arrangements.
because there would be a degree
applications It could also avoid the need to involve an
of doubling up of
and CBL
additional third party company for telephony
Would mean that the housing register
functionality.
customer
integration.
could still be processed on Northgate
and RSL
utilising existing staff expertise (albeit
Will require Wirral MBC
partner
that some of the functional deficiencies
security strategy for third party
self-service
of the current usage of Northgate [see
hosted applications to be
Chapter 6] would need to be
clarified.
addressed).
WPH would want to review
Could result in processing duplication
roles and responsibilities and
in Northgate and the third party
associated Service Level
application. The exact boundaries
Agreements in much more detail
between the where processes take place before reaching a conclusion.
for Wirralhomes, WPH and RSL
partners would need clarification. For
Some RSL partners may be
example would all shortlisting be done
reluctant to add their properties
on Northgate or could some of it be
or void editions to WPH s
done on a third party application for
system.
non-WPH properties?
Has been adopted as an approach
elsewhere.
86
Ref Option
Market Assessment learning
Other factors to consider
Evaluation
E
Implement
There would appear to be niche suppliers
Offers a fresh ICT start approach for
Worthy of further consideration.
a new
offering much of the ICT functionality on the
all Wirralhomes partners, and being
niche
Wirralhomes shopping list .
web application based appeal to RSL
Will require Wirral MBC
housing
partners reluctant to access Northgate
security strategy for third party
applications From the indicative costings provided this could
via a VPN.
hosted applications to be
and CBL
present a cheaper option that options A-D.
clarified.
web based
WPH requirements for business process
system with The non-hosted indicative costs are not
continuity should be paramount if any
customer
significantly cheaper than the hosted options from
change is made to WPH hosting
self-service one of the suppliers, suggesting this may be more
Wirralhomes ICT capability. WPH has
hosted by
of an ICT policy matter for Wirral MBC to
by far the strongest business case for
Wirral
consider than a cost driven matter.
making effective interfaces a pre-
MBC
requisite if this option were pursued.
F
Implement
There would appear to be niche suppliers
Offers a fresh ICT start approach for
Worthy of further consideration
a new
offering much of the ICT functionality on the
all Wirralhomes partners, and being
niche
Wirralhomes shopping list .
web application based appeal to RSL
Will require Wirral MBC
housing
partners reluctant to access Northgate
security strategy for third party
applications From the indicative costings provided this could
via a VPN.
hosted applications to be
and CBL
present the cheapest option.
clarified.
web based
WPH requirements for business process
system with The non-hosted indicative costs are not
continuity should be paramount if any
customer
significantly cheaper than the hosted options from
change is made to WPH hosting
self-service one of the suppliers, suggesting this may be more
Wirralhomes ICT capability. WPH has
hosted by a
of an ICT policy matter for Wirral MBC to
by far the strongest business case for
third party.
consider than a cost driven matter.
making effective interfaces a pre-
requisite if this option were pursued.
87
7.5 Chapter Summary
We consider the main options for upgrading Wirralhomes ICT to improve efficiency
and customer access arrangements to be to based on (a) upgrading the Northgate
system, (b) buying in a new third party system or (c) adopting a hybrid approach and
retaining Northgate for some areas of functionality, though supplemented by a third
party system. In view of the Council and WPH both having a licence for Northgate
there are then further options in relation to which database instance to consider
upgrading.
Before evaluating each of these options, the report outlines the process by which the
market assessment was conducted. Based on Wirralhomes current ICT provider
(Northgate) supplemented by suppliers with niche reputations and credentials in
offering housing register and CBL functionality, six organisation were selected and
invited to participate; these included: Abritas, Capita Software Services, Home
Connections, Locata, Northgate and Scout Solutions. In the end Capita and Home
Connections declined the opportunity to provide information and the assessment was
based on comparing four suppliers offerings.
The suppliers generally self-assessed their products as having a high degree of
compliance with the functionality list. For example, three of the four companies
assessed their submission as complying with more than 90 per cent of the essential
requirements. However, their own assessments were frequently undermined by their
summary of functionality or their product development proposals, making it at times
difficult to distinguish existing tangible product functionality from their supplier
aspirations. We attempted to revise supplier assessments of the extent of product
compliance with Wirralhomes functionality requirements in the light of each
company s response to our specific questions. Once this had been achieved we found
the revised scores brought the new company scores into closer alignment with
Northgate s self-assessed scoring. Locata s alignment with the shopping list was most
changed by this process; however, in certain respects it was difficult to re-assess the
Scout Solutions submission.
Nevertheless, many of the key shopping list criteria relating to CBL marketing,
shortlisting and offer resulting would appear to be available in the market place,
suggesting that with some refinement the shopping list could be a realistic basis for
a more detailed functional specification
Despite providing a spreadsheet with consistent cost estimation questions, a number
of the suppliers failed to provide all the detail requested, making consistent
comparisons difficult. We made allowance for this by trying to standardise the basis
for comparison and give a minimum and maximum estimate for each supplier s
offering to give indicative budgetary figures. On this basis we found the lowest
estimated price was in the region of £50,000 for a no frills hosted lettings service
from Locata and the upper estimates were approximately £180,000 for a Northgate or
Scout Solution based system. Abritas seemed to offer a mid market price estimation.
We identify that further work is required in refining the functional specification and
supplier cost assumptions and estimates before firm procurement budgets should be
set.
88
At this stage of the Review it was not the intention to undertake an individual
assessment of the suitability of a specific supplier to provide Wirralhomes with
improved ICT; the purpose of the Market Assessment is to assist Wirralhomes in
understanding the functionality available, to assist in indicative budget setting and to
help underpin a subsequent formal tendering exercise.
Bringing together the learnings from the Market Assessment exercise; other
important factors having a bearing on each upgrade option the report provides a
summary evaluation. From that analysis the options which seem to offer the most cost
effective and best match between Wirralhomes and its partners functional
requirements, are options:
(i). Adopting a hybrid approach using WPH s Northgate application and a third
party for applications and CBL customer and RSL partner self-service
(ii). Implementing a new niche housing applications and CBL web-based system
with customer self-service hosted by Wirral MBC
(iii). Implementing a new niche housing applications and CBL web-based system
with customer self-service hosted by a third party.
During the review the hybrid approach was not specifically costed as part of the
Market Assessment because it was considered as adding too much complexity during
the assessment exercise. Indeed its significance as a possible option only became
clear once the relatively high costs of a full Northgate based solution were known. It
is put forward as an option worthy of consideration because it has been adopted
elsewhere and presents a possible half-way house approach. It could ensure that
WPH maintains its voids/allocations integration with Wirralhomes while offering
RSL partners the ability to avoid having to access the Northgate back end . It could
also replace the inefficient Excel based current shortlist arrangements. If adopted it
would also mean that the housing register could still be processed on Northgate
utilising existing staff expertise (albeit that some of the functional deficiencies of the
current usage of Northgate [see Chapter 6] would need to be addressed). To consider
this option further will require more detailed discussions with Northgate and WPH
and detailed costings.
89
8. Conclusions and Recommendations
8.1 Conclusions
This section pulls together and reflects on the research findings outlined in Chapters
2-7. In doing so, it is structured under headings which reflect the main issues for the
research as outlined in the project brief.
Scheme Scope
By comparison with many other CBL partnerships , Wirralhomes is fairly
comprehensive in that it incorporates a substantial number of RSLs who see
themselves as full participants (rather than, for example, contributing only that
proportion of lets linked with nomination obligations). Only two RSLs with a
significant presence in the Wirral currently remain outside the scheme and it is
understood that, partly due to contacts made in the course of this research, each of
these has indicated an interest in participating in Wirralhomes at least on an
experimental basis.
Beyond this, Wirral Council aspires to expand CBL to encompass lets by private
landlords. Translating this into practice would mark out Wirralhomes as a leading
scheme in the national context because as confirmed by our survey results whilst
many authorities have talked positively about doing so few have actually done it.
Linking the scheme with landlord accreditation and offering access to advertising as a
reward for high standard provision would seem a good way forward here.
Only if they were included in paid-for press advertising does it seems likely that
significant additional costs would arise from private let ads being accepted for
placement alongside those for social housing vacancies. It is also doubtful that such a
venture could be expected to generate any significant revenue income and for this
reason it is suggested that the service should be offered at least experimentally to
accredited private landlords without charge.
None of the parties to Wirralhomes has expressed any great enthusiasm for expanding
the scope of the scheme beyond the Wirral itself. Whilst central government funding
for sub-regional CBL development has been available since 2005, Wirral Council and
some of the Wirralhomes partner RSLs are signatories to the recently successful sub-
regional CBL bid.. However, there is a view that both Wirral s peculiar geography
and the existence of local authority-specific schemes elsewhere in Merseyside could
make participation in a sub-regional scheme problematic. There may be an
opportunity for this review to benefit the sub-regional initiative. Also, whilst the
geographical links between the Wirral and Ellesmere Port & Neston could have made
this a logical CBL collaboration, the recently-announced decision to create a unitary
council for West Cheshire has effectively ruled out this option.
The scheme s scope in terms of classes of housing applicants is, however, a live issue
and one where there are calls for change. In the context of other CBL schemes across
the country, Wirralhomes is unusual in that it excludes statutory homeless applicants
from participation. It is recognised that the inclusion of this group poses certain risks
and challenges but, as demonstrated elsewhere, these should not be insuperable. It is,
however, acknowledged that one specific limitation here is the likelihood that such a
90
change would generate some increase in homelessness case officer workload due to
the greater need for active case management . The scale of any such increase needs
to be assessed by the Council and weighed against prospective staff time savings
which ought to be achievable through renewing the Wirralhomes software
infrastructure.
Scheme Governance
The Wirralhomes scheme is to an extent unusual among those in larger urban settings
in that it is run by the post-transfer local authority on behalf of RSL partners, rather
than by the transfer RSL. However, there seems no great desire for this to change.
Wirral Council has not indicated any wish to dispense with this operational role;
neither have any of the partner RSLs called for such a move. For the Council, the
management of Wirralhomes enables the retention of a strong presence in the housing
system and provides a vehicle for addressing strategic housing issues including
meeting homelessness demand and (at least potentially) pushing up management
standards in the private rented sector (see above).
Like some but by no means all peer CBL schemes, Wirralhomes has an active
Steering Group where matters of common interest can be discussed. However, there
could be a case for greater formalisation of Steering Group activity and procedures
e.g. an elected and rotating chairperson, periodic update reports to relevant Council
and RSL committees. Such a change might counter any tendency under current
arrangements for Wirralhomes to be seen to be steered by the Council . At the same
time, however, the Council as service provider has a right to expect all participating
RSLs to stake a formal commitment to participation under a documented arrangement
incorporating (as a failsafe) a notice period for proposed withdrawal. To facilitate
effective financial planning, we would suggest that a 12-month period be stipulated
here.
The Wirralhomes Steering Group is the forum at which all issues relating to the
partnership can be raised for discussion by member RSLs and the Council. There
could be a case for following the example of Bradford where there are two parallel
groups one to handle strategic issues (e.g. budget, cost-sharing, scheme scope) and
one to cover operational matters. There is considerable support for this approach
among Wirralhomes partner RSLs. Whilst it could imply doubling the current number
of meetings that need not be the case because it might be appropriate for such groups
(particularly that focusing on strategy) to meet less frequently than the existing
Steering Group.
The Level of Service that Modern CBL Systems Offer to Customers
National survey results confirm the near-universal provision of web-based bidding
within CBL systems run elsewhere (see Table 5.3). In some cases additional
customer-oriented functionality is offered by systems which display the existing
numbers of (online) bids placed on the specific property or advise a potential bidder
of their own rank order position should they opt to place a bid themselves.
A facility for automated telephone bidding is somewhat less common among CBL
systems run in other areas, though we would see this as a feature which should
certainly be considered for the re-vamped Wirralhomes ICT infrastructure. As well as
91
helping to economise on staff time, this should be seen as an important means of cost-
effectively promoting access for people lacking access to the internet and, especially,
those with sight impairment or poor literacy.
Potentially, the facility for online bidding also contributes to cost-effectiveness, since
the marginal costs of true web-based bids are minimal. It should, however, be
acknowledged that such potential remains partially unrealised for some other schemes
because limited technical sophistication means that online bids still need to be
manually transferred onto the main system at the end of each advert/bid cycle.
Value for Money Considerations
None of the parties to this research was in any doubt that the existing Wirralhomes
operation offers relatively poor value for money thanks to the staff-intensive nature of
scheme processes. That this situation results from the system s unsophisticated ICT
infrastructure was not disputed. It became clear from our Wirralhomes staff
shadowing fieldwork and from contacts with partner RSLs that some of the
technical measures introduced in an attempt to remedy system failings had enjoyed
only limited success. This would be true, for example, of the VPN arrangements set
up to enable RSLs outside the Wirral MBC network to access Northgate. Numerous
respects in which the current system necessitates heavy demands on staff time are
instanced in Chapter 3.
It would appear that concerns over VFM may be a key factor which has discouraged
some Wirralhomes partner RSLs from signing the management agreement drawn up
in 2004. Given the ongoing waste of staff resources inherent in working with the
existing ICT infrastructure, procurement of an enhanced system is an urgent necessity.
An understandable source of dissatisfaction on the part of WPH is that, as a
contributor to overall Wirralhomes costs, the association is contributing to the costs of
staff time entailed in the particularly labour-intensive process of letting non-WPH
vacancies (because only WPH void editions are held on Northgate).
Other partners operating regionally stressed a view that the Wirralhomes service is
expensive in comparison with other schemes with charges such as St Helens and
Sefton. For example, Arena questioned why it should pay the same contribution rate
to Wirralhomes (where it has 315 units) as it does to Warrington where it has 1,200
units. They also mentioned that Sefton is reducing their charge to Arena in the light of
this landlord having a lower than anticipated number of void properties requiring
marketing.
Cost-sharing
How CBL scheme costs are shared between local authorities and housing associations
can be a particularly problematic matter in CBL partnerships where the local authority
has ceased to operate as a landlord in its own right, since this rules out the option of
simply sharing costs pro rata to housing stock or lettings.
Investigation of the ways that this issue is handled in other post-transfer areas, whilst
interesting, reveals no single dominant and consensually agreed model. In relatively
few schemes does it appear that there is a clear and logical rationale underpinning
92
current approaches. However, whilst it is practised in only a few areas, the cost-
sharing model involving local authority responsibility for register management
alongside housing association liability for all lettings-related costs looks like the
neatest and most logically defensible cost-sharing rationale from a council viewpoint.
In the Wirral context it is not an entirely straightforward matter to split costs
according to the register management/lettings-related activities division. This is
because the relevant activities are undertaken in relatively integrated way by a single
group of staff. Based on initial estimates provided by Wirral Council, Table 8.1 shows
how such a split might result here. In all, housing register costs are estimated as
accounting for some £151,000 or 37 per cent of the total.
Table 8.1 Wirralhomes costs split according to overall function
Costs
Budget
A: Register
B: Lettings-
Cost of A
Cost of B
estimates
management
related costs
2007/08
costs (%)
(%)
Employees total
249,260
Staff
173,260
40
60
69,304
103,956
Managers
76,000
50
50
38,000
38,000
Travel
4,980
50
50
2,490
2,490
-
-
Supplies
Advertising
61,761
100
-
61,761
Postage
-
-
Stationery general
398
40
60
159
239
Printing
1,100
50
50
550
550
Computer equipment
1,142
40
60
457
685
Miscellaneous expenses (mainly.
12,062
80
20
9,650
2,412
housing register renewals)
Northgate fees
1,928
40
60
771
1,157
IT consultancy
0
40
60
-
-
Mobile phones
42
40
60
17
25
-
-
Support
Legal, IT, HR, payroll, PR etc support
74,263
40
60
29,705
44,558
Assessment
Medical screening
Misc
Total costs
406,935
151,103
255,833
Overall percentage
37%
63%
Overall percentage adjusted to reflect register management service being provided to RSLs
19%
81%
Arguably, however, the Council s role in managing a single register amounts to the
provision of a service to RSLs as well as a means of discharging the Council s own
strategic housing responsibilities. On this basis it could be argued that the cost of
register management should be split equally between the Council and RSLs. This
would result in a Council obligation to underwrite 19 per cent of total Wirralhomes
costs, quite close to the proportion of costs actually met by Wirral Council in 2005/06
(21 per cent).
The RSL share of total costs could most simply be split according to each RSL s share
of total RSL housing stock in Wirral. More sophisticated approaches could adopt the
model used in St Helens and other areas where RSL contributions are made up of two
93
distinct elements an annual membership fee (e.g. based on stock numbers) and a
per advert charge.
To provide a stable basis for budget planning we would suggest that the parties agree
on a Wirral Council/RSLs percentage split to be used for a set number of years say
five. However, with the anticipated installation of upgraded ICT in 2008/09 provision
should be made to review the split between registration-related and lettings-related
staff time commitments once the new system is functioning effectively. It could be
that this will change the proportion of total staffing costs attributable to registration
functions.
Another key point which needs to be taken into account here is liability for system
development investment. The annual budget estimates used as the basis for
Wirralhomes cost-sharing (e.g. as in Table 8.1) make no provision for this. Clearly, a
significant capital investment in system upgrading is now long overdue. It is
understood that Wirral Council has allowed for some expenditure under this heading.
However, while some stakeholders may have assumed that the required investment
would be funded entirely by Wirral Council as scheme lead organisation it is
understood that no firm commitment has been made to this effect.
Given the commitment to running Wirralhomes as a partnership venture, there is a
need for a mechanism to share these costs. The simplest way of doing this would be
for all parties to contribute at the outset. A model for this is shown in Table 8.2. Here,
it is assumed that the Council s share would be 19% of the total (see above), with
each participating RSL making a contribution to the remaining 81% of costs based on
its share of total RSL partner housing stock in 2007/08. Two different total capital
cost figures are exemplified, £100k and £120k.
Table 8.2 Exemplification for System Development Investment Cost Sharing
2007/08 housing
Cost share - £60k
Cost share - £120k
stock
dwellings
£000s)
(£000s)
Arena
315
1.3
1.5
Leasowe CH
981
3.9
4.7
CDS
64
0.3
0.3
Hornby
117
0.5
0.6
Cosmopolitan HA
182
0.7
0.9
Maritime
1,297
5.2
6.2
Riverside (Bridge Division)
1,997
8.0
9.6
Venture
475
1.9
2.3
BBCHA
889
3.6
4.3
LHT (Rodney Housing Division)
376
1.5
1.8
Wirral Methodist
610
2.4
2.9
Wirral Partnership Homes
12,980
51.8
62.2
Sub-total - RSLs
20,283
81.0
97.2
Wirral Council
0
19.0
22.8
Overall total
20,283
100.0
120.0
94
Table 8.3 Projected future Wirralhomes costs and contributions illustrative
exemplification
(a) Costs as incurred
Revenue cost
Capital cost
Total cost
(000s)
(000s)
(000s)
2007/08
407.0
0
407.0
2008/09
417.2
100
517.2
2009/10
427.6
0
427.6
2010/11
438.3
0
438.3
2011/12
449.3
0
449.3
2012/13
460.5
0
460.5
Total 2008/09-2012/13
2,192.8
100.0
2,292.8
(b) Costs as accounted for
Revenue cost
Capital cost
Total cost
(000s)
(000s)
(000s)
2007/08
407.0
-
2008/09
417.2
20.0
437.2
2009/10
427.6
20.0
447.6
2010/11
438.3
20.0
458.3
2011/12
449.3
20.0
469.3
2012/13
460.5
20.0
480.5
Total 2008/09-2012/13
2,192.8
100.0
2,292.8
(c) Cost contributions
Wirral Council
RSLs
Total
(000s)
%
(000s)
%
(000s)
2008/09
163.1
31.5
354.1
68.5
517.2
2009/10-2012/13
272.6
15.4
1,503.1
84.6
1,775.6
Total
435.6
19.0
1,857.2
81.0
2,292.8
Alternatively, if it was decided that the proposed system development investment is
to be funded by a single party e.g. Wirral Council it would be appropriate to
devise a cost sharing formula under which the other partners repay their share over a
fixed time period. This could be achieved by annualising such costs over, say, five
years. The effect would be to incorporate system development costs within shared
annual scheme costs with annual member charges therefore including an element to
fund such expenditure. The exemplification for the period 2008/09-2012/13 and set
out in Table 8.3 assumes:
· running cost increases of 2.5% annually over the period (in practice, it would be
hoped that installing an upgraded ICT system would generate scope for revenue
cost savings)
95
· a capital investment of £100k by Wirral Council in 2008/09, with this being
accounted for over five years
· an agreed fair share for Wirral Council set at 19% of total costs over the period.
The exemplification is simplistic in that no account is taken of the cost of capital
(which would imply the need to apply a discount rate to any upfront investment).
However, as shown in Table 8.3(c) a disproportionate Wirral Council contribution in
Year 1 is compensated in years 2-5 by larger RSL revenue contributions.
Whilst the exemplification in Table 8.3 assumes capital investment being made
exclusively by Wirral Council, it is recognised that this may not be reflected in
practice. The purpose of the table is simply to illustrate an approach to reconciling
revenue and capital contributions in a way which is fair to all parties. In a modified
form the approach could be used to accommodate investment by two or more
Wirralhomes stakeholders.
It is also important to recognise that Wirral Council and Wirral Partnership Homes
currently contribute to the service in ways which are unrecognised so far as cost-
sharing is concerned In the Council s case, the role of One Stop Shops in registering
applications and receiving bids is not accounted for in the official Wirralhomes
budget. We would, however, envisage that ICT enhancement to facilitate online
registration and bidding will substantially reduce existing calls on One Stop Shop
staff time.
Likewise, WPH contribution to Wirralhomes includes the staff time of expert ICT
officers as well as the association s annual cash submission. If this is to continue
under the new regime (post-ICT enhancement) it may be appropriate for such costs to
be itemised and recharged to the project.
Clearly there is room for further discussion about exactly how the suggested formula
could be operationalised in Wirral, even if there is agreement that differentiating
register management and lettings-related costs is a generally acceptable model for
determining the overall Council/RSL cost split.
Devising tariff-based costing regime, as suggested by some partner RSLs (see Chapter
3) could also be considered and might also be based on the rationale developed above.
Nevertheless, such a regime would be inherently more complex as well as being more
difficult to model in advance of any discussions as to which functions might be
considered as part of the basic service and which exceptional items . We would
suggest that the next phase of cost-sharing discussions assume a common yardstick
for determining RSL contributions probably pro rata to housing stock. If there is
widespread support for the tariff-based concept, this should be explored at a later
stage e.g. in advance of calculations to underpin cost shares for 2009/10.
Providing a More Effective Service to Vulnerable Customers and Diverse Groups
The Wirralhomes already incorporates substantial extra help for vulnerable
applicants as provided through Vulnerable Team staff. However, there is an argument
that all Urgent Need applicants should be considered for this enhanced service and a
view that this function should have first call on staffing resources freed up through
96
the replacement of the current inefficient software infrastructure. Additionally, of key
importance will be incorporating these considerations within the ICT system
specification to be developed for the planned system procurement exercise.
8.2 Recommendations
(a). There should be consideration of re-integrating homeless households within the
Wirralhomes scheme
(b). Expand the scope of the Wirralhomes scheme to include accredited private
landlords to be offered an advertising service at no cost (providing that
consequential marginal costs for the Council are minimal)
(c). Consider widening bid eligibility to permit migrant workers to bid for difficult to
let properties offered on first come first served basis ;
(d). Consider commissioning a Wirral-wide Best Value review of sheltered
accommodation;
(e). Progress further integration of the Disabled Person s Housing Register (DPHR)
into Wirralhomes;
(f). Review governance arrangements for Wirralhomes including consideration of:
(i). more formalised arrangements for the conduct of partner agency meetings
(ii). creation of a Strategic Steering Group and a Practitioners Forum;
(iii). including customer representation within the governance structure;
(iv). renaming the scheme to stress its autonomy from both Wirral Council and
Wirral Partnership Homes;
(g). Wirralhomes and RSL partners should consider developing service standards
with a customer focus group;
(h). Consider arranging an event to publicise the outcomes of the Review and to
launch a service standards development process;
(i). Review the current Housing Register application form and associated data
capture and processing arrangements;
(j). In view of the level of potential partner support for moving away from
advertising in the Wirral Globe to a more direct marketing approach, it is
recommended that Wirralhomes explores this model bearing in mind:
(i). the need for compliance with Audit Commission KLOE 7;
(ii). the possibility that additional expenditure on improved publicity for limited
circulation might be required and could offset some of the savings
potentially arising from abolition of paid-for press advertising ;
97
(k). Ensure that data sharing of personal information is conducted within the Data
Protection Act and organisational confidential policies, it is recommended that
Wirralhomes establishes an information sharing protocol with RSL partners to
underpin all areas of its activity;
(l). Recognise that if Wirralhomes adopts more sophisticated service standards it will
necessitate improvements in the information given on service outcomes;
(m). The following should be borne in mind in developing the cost sharing basis for
the Wirralhomes scheme in the light of this review. The basis of cost sharing
should:
(i). Be transparent in relation to the costs (including recharges) for statutory
housing allocations scheme functions and CBL business processes;
(ii). Be fair in relation to the Council covering statutory housing allocation
scheme costs;
(iii). Continue to adopt a proportionality approach, and dispense with the
previous system of fixed stockholding-based charges;
(iv). Examine the practicality of a fixed base annual Wirralhomes membership
fee and variable voids transactions costs (along the lines of the St Helens
scheme);
(n). To form the basis for sustainable cost-sharing, Wirralhomes partners should
explore the utility of a model where overall scheme costs are split to reflect the
distinction between activities associated with register maintenance and those
which are lettings-related activities . In our view this is preferable to alternative
approaches adopted by some CBL partnerships involving post-transfer LAs e.g.
where costs are shared on a 50/50 basis between local authority and the main
stock transfer RSL, or where the Council s share of costs is fixed with reference
to the proportion of lettings involving statutory homeless cases.
(o). The partners need to agree liability for the system development costs which will
be incurred as a result of overhauling the Wirralhomes IT infrastructure and
software. This should incorporate a mechanism to ensure that all partner
organisations contribute to these costs on an equitable basis (see Tables 8.2 and
8.3 and accompanying text).
(p). For the longer term consideration should be given to adopting a service model
and associated costing regime based on a tariff of services where:
(i). additional service options are offered for individual RSLs to buy into ;
(ii). RSL partners agree the services offered and the associated charges.
(q). Develop activity based costing analysis to inform the business case for ICT
investment focusing especially on the inefficiencies of the Excel based shortlists
and the costs generated by the absence of customer self-service
98
(r). In developing and securing approval for the business case for Wirralhomes
procuring additional ICT functionality the following should be valued:
(i). Current transaction costs of existing ways of working based especially on
the inefficiencies of the Excel based shortlists and the costs generated by the
absence of customer self-service;
(ii). WPH s current true cost contribution to Wirralhomes operations including
its full ICT support costs
(iii). Specific interface requirements within the procurement, including source
property data, void editions data, shortlists and shortlist/offer results.
(s). Develop and secure approval for a Project Mandate to outline an agreed
procurement scope and strategy. This to include:
(i). The scope of the procurement and whether it is restricted to the options that
emerged from the market informed evaluation in this report (i.e. to either
adopt a hybrid procurement approach and supplement WPH s Northgate
Instance with niche third party functionality or to procure full niche
functionality as either a hosted or non-hosted application.)
(ii). The approach to Northern Housing Consortium CBL partnering option;
(iii). Whether to adopt an or open or closed OJEU procurement approach;
(iv). Whether to use a traditional Invitation to Tender approach or whether to
utilise an Invitation to Negotiate approach.
(v). The procurement timetable and evaluation framework.
(t). Convert the current Wirralhomes functional shopping list into a full
specification and prepare procurement documentation. This to include:
(i). Drafting and issuing a pre-Qualification Questionnaire.
(ii). Reviewing those items on the current functional list which current market
offerings seem unable to met;
(iii). Refining the detail on some items of functionality and reviewing whether
items are essential or desirable ;
(iv). Providing a clear statement of required interfaces;
(v). Estimating transactions metrics across possible customer self-service
channels;
(vi). Bulking up the functional requirements in relation to job role security,
appropriate segregation of duties, audit log functionality and secure data
hosting and transfer requirements;
99
(vii). Securing sign-off from appropriate decision fora for the procurement
documentation (i.e. the Wirralhomes Steering Group and appropriate
Council approvals).
100
Annex 1 National Survey of CBL Partnerships - Questionnaire
CBL scheme lead organisation:
Local authority area:
1)
What geographical area does your CBL scheme cover? (check one)
LA area
Other*
*e.g. sub-area of your LA or grouping of two or more LAs
2)
How many housing associations participate in your CBL scheme?
3)
Do HAs participating in the scheme generally (tick one)
(a) Let all (or virtually all) local vacancies via the scheme
(b) Offer for advertising only vacancies made available for LA nominations
(c) Other please specify below
4)
To what extent is the CBL scheme a full partnership ? (check one)
(a) The scheme is governed by a board/steering group representing scheme participants on an
equal basis and with full decision-making powers
(b) A steering group exists to represent all scheme participants but the final say on decisions
rests with the scheme lead organisation
(c) The scheme lead organisation effectively retains responsibility for operational decisions,
though in consultation with other participating HAs
(d) Other please summarise below
5)
Are HA partners tied into the partnership via a documented contract or similar? (check one)
(a) All HAs
(b) Some HAs
(c) No HAs (arrangement entirely informal)
If this is a formal partnership , what is the notice period for withdrawal?
6)
Are any significant changes to CBL scheme governance arrangements currently planned? if yes, please summarise below:
7)
Does the local authority contribute to scheme running costs?
Yes
No
8)
How do participating HAs contribute to scheme running costs?
All HAs contribute
Some HAs contribute
No HAs contribute
9)
If CBL running costs are shared, which of the following models is used? (check one)
(a) Housing register maintenance costs paid by LA, lettings-related costs shared by HAs based on formula
(b) All register maintenance costs and lettings-related costs shared by LA and HAs according to formula
(c) Other please summarise below
101
10) If your CBL scheme involves a cost-sharing formula, please summarise this below:
11) In what year was your CBL scheme established?
12) Approximately what were the start-up costs for your CBL scheme and how were these funded?
Funding source
(000)
Funding source
(000)
Local authority
Other (please specify below)
ODPM/CLG
Housing association(s)
Total start-up costs
Of these start-up costs what was the total attributable to ICT?(000)
Please specify the approximate total running costs of your CBL scheme in 2006/07 under the following headings:
Cost element
(000)
Cost element
(000)
Direct staff costs
Advertising
Central re-charges
Other
ICT related costs
Other overhead charges (if any)
Total running costs in 2006/07
13) How many homes were let through your CBL system in 2006/07?
14) Do total running costs figures above include the maintenance of a central applicants register?
Yes
No
15) Are any changes to your CBL system currently planned which are likely to significantly affect overall
scheme costs or cost sharing arrangements? If yes, please summarise below
16) Which company is your CBL system software supplier and what software application are you using?
Company
Software application
17) Does your current CBL software provide:
(a) Interactivity for users web based online bidding
Yes
No
(b) Interactivity for users automated phone lines bidding
Yes
No
(c) Effective interfaces with partner HA IT systems
Yes
No
(d) Effective interfaces with the local authority s own strategic systems?
Yes
No
If yes, which systems (e.g. Land & Property
Gazetteer, Council Tax, Housing Systems etc)
(e) Flexibility in specifying reports/analyses
Yes
No
18) Are any changes to your CBL system currently planned which are likely to significantly enhance system
functionality? If yes, please summarise below:
19) Do properties advertised under your CBL system include private rented dwellings?
Yes
No, but planned
No
20) If private rented properties are advertised under your CBL system are there any rules on what properties
102
can be advertised?
Yes accredited landlords only please specify below brief details of accreditation criteria
Yes other eligibility conditions please specify below
No open access to any landlord wishing to participate
21) If private rented properties are advertised under your CBL system how do private landlords contribute to
the cost of the service?
Landlords not charged
Landlords charged fixed per advert fee
Other please
specify below
22) If private landlords contribute to the cost of the service what is the basis for calculating
charges/contributions?
THANKS FOR YOUR HELP
103
Annex 2 Respondents in National Survey of CBL
Partnerships
Local authority area
CBL Scheme Lead Agency
Bath & NE Somerset Council
Bath & NE Somerset Council
Blackburn with Darwen
Twin Valley Homes
Council
Boston BC
Boston BC
Bradford MBC
Bradford CHT
Eastleigh BC
Eastleigh BC
Herefordshire Council
Herefordshire Council
Kennet DC
Kennet DC
Lichfield DC
Homezone Housing
Middlesbrough Council
Eremis Housing
Restormel DC
Ocean Housing
Reigate & Banstead BC
Reigate & Banstead BC
Rushmoor BC
Rushmoor Borough Council
Sefton BC
One Vision Housing
South Shropshire DC
South Shropshire HA
St Helens MBC
Helena Housing
Surrey Heath BC
Surrey Heath BC
Test Valley BC
Test Valley BC
Torbay Council
Riviera Housing Trust
Trafford Borough Council
Trafford Housing Trust
Walsall MBC
Walsall Housing Group
Vale of White Horse DC
Vale of White Horse DC
West Wiltshire DC
West Wiltshire DC
104
Annex 3 Wirralhomes ICT Functionality Workshop
Presentation
Click on embedded object below to display the presentation
Microsoft PowerPoint
Presentation
105
Annex 4 Market Assessment ICT Shopping List
Click on embedded object below to display the spreadsheet
Microsoft Office
Excel Worksheet
106
Annex 5 ICT Supplier Responses
Click on embedded object below to display the spreadsheet
E:\Wirral\Annex 5
ICT Supplier Responses.xls
107
Annex 6a ICT Hosted Cost Comparisons
Click on embedded object below to display the spreadsheet
E:\Wirral\Annex 6a
ICT Hosted Cost Comparisons.xls
108
Annex 6b ICT Non-hosted Cost Comparisons
Click on embedded object below to display the spreadsheet
E:\Wirral\Annex 6b
ICT Non-hosted Cost Comparisons.xls
109
Annex 7 ICT Supplier Responses Functionality
Assessment
Click on embedded object below to display the spreadsheet
E:\Wirral\Annex 7
ICT Supplier Responses Functionality Assessment.xls
110
111
