STAR Tenant Satisfaction Survey 2020

Report by Scott Rumley & Adam Payne [email protected] [email protected]

(t) 0844 272 6004 (w) www.arp-research.co.uk Contents

Page 1. Introduction 1 2. Executive summary 3

3. Services overall 7 4. The home 13 5. Information and involvement 18 6. Contacting housing services 22 7. Repairs and maintenance 29 8. Neighbourhood 36 9. Anti-social behaviour 42 10. Complaints 45 11 Financial advice and support 48 12. Respondent profile 51

Appendices A. Methodology and data analysis 56 B. Example questionnaire 59 C. Data summary 63 1. Introduction

Background

This report details the results of Wiltshire Council’s 2020 STAR tenant satisfaction survey, delivered by ARP Research. This survey has been

completed every two years since 2012. The aim of the survey is to measure overall tenant satisfaction with the housing services provided by the Council. This survey uses HouseMark’s STAR model which is the Throughout the report the survey data has been broken down and analysed standardised methodology for

by various categories, including by area and various equality groups. Where tenant and resident surveys. applicable the current survey results have also been compared against the www.housemark.co.uk/star 2018 STAR survey, including tests to check if any of the changes are statistically significant. Finally, the results have also been benchmarked against ARP Research’s STAR database of local authorities and ALMOs.

Important note on tracking over time

The methodology for the 2020 survey differed from 2018 in two important ways. The first was a significant increase in the online response rate, which in part reflects wider changes in public access to services during the COVID pandemic. The second was a new revision in HouseMark’s sector wide STAR tenant and resident survey framework that mandates more rigorous weighting of survey data to ensure that it is fully representative of the population.

The 2020 survey sample is therefore the most representative Wiltshire tenant survey yet, including more responses from tenants that previously would not have taken part, and weighted to more accurately reflect the population.

However, this causes difficulties comparing results over time, as those comparisons are not ‘like for like’ and for the Council to make informed decisions it has to know that any changes are likely to be real and not due simply to survey methodology. Accordingly, the 2018 results used for comparisons throughout this report are also weighted by age to match the methodology used this year (which increases the representation of young people in the sample), and therefore do NOT match those previously reported. To view the unweighted 2018 results, please see the equivalent Wiltshire Council STAR survey 2018 report.

1 1. Introduction

About the survey

The survey was carried out between May and July 2020, with a census of all 5,278 tenants. In the first phase, an email invitation and reminders were distributed to all 3,458 residents for whom a valid email address was available inviting them to complete the survey online, resulting in 706 eventual responses (20%). This was a 37% increase in the amount of email responses compared to 2018.

In the second phase, a paper survey was distributed to the remaining 4,723 tenants that did not complete online within the first 2½ weeks.

Two fifths of the responses were received online (40%), compared to only 31% in 2018. Additionally, over a quarter of sheltered housing respondents did so online.

In total 1,6871 tenants took part in the survey, which represented a 35% response rate (error margin +/- 1.8%). The returns greatly exceeded the stipulated STAR target error margin. of +/- 4%, with a 3% increase in response rate compared to 2018.

Understanding the results

Most of the results are given as percentages, which may not always add up to 100% because of rounding and/or multiple responses. It is also important to take care when considering the results for groups where the sample size is small. Where there are differences in the results over time, or between groups, these are subjected to testing to discover if these differences are statistically significant . This tells us that we can by confident that the differences are real and not likely to be down to natural variation or chance.

For detailed information on the survey response rates, methodology, data analysis and benchmarking, please see appendix A.

2 2. Executive summary

Bench 2018 change 2020 mark result over time result 82% 82% 81% satisfaction overall 78% 81% 77% quality of home 85% N.A. 83% safety and security of home 85% 85% 87% value for money of rent 84% N.A. 80% easy to deal with 62% 60% 60% listens and acts on views 75% 76% 75% kept informed 81% 80% 81% dealing with enquiries generally 76% 77% 73% repairs & maintenance overall 84% 82% 78% last completed repair 84% 87% 84% neighbourhood as a place to live

significantly no significant significantly better difference worse

3 2. Executive summary

Overall satisfaction

1. Overall satisfaction with Wiltshire Council’s housing services is largely unchanged when compared to the 2018 results when both were weighted to be representative by age (81%, was 82%). On the opposite end of the scale 11% were actively dissatisfied. This score was also in line with ARP Research’s benchmark average of 82%.

2. At 81%, Satisfaction amongst tenants in sheltered accommodation had not changed since 2018, but this meant that it remained in the fourth quartile compared to the benchmark from other landlords.

3. However, satisfaction had fallen for a number of other core ratings including significant declines in satisfaction with the quality of the home (section 4), the repairs and maintenance service (section 7) and the neighbourhood as a place to live (section 8). However, not all changes were for the worse, indeed there was a notable significant increase in satisfaction with the rent in terms of value for money (section 4).

4. A ‘key driver’ analysis is a statistical test to check which other results in the survey are best at predicting overall satisfaction. In descending order of strength, the top four factors most closely associated with overall tenant satisfaction were:

 Wiltshire Council Housing is easy to deal with (80% satisfied, section 6)  Quality of the home (77%, section 4)  Repairs and maintenance overall (73%, section 7)  Value for money for rent (87%, section 4) Contact and communication

5. Whether or not tenants feel that Housing Services is easy to deal with is now the best predictor of how satisfied they will be the Council’s landlord services overall, this being a new core STAR question.

6. It was therefore positive to see that most tenants were satisfied in response to this question (80%), compared to only 9% that actively disagreed. Similarly, 81% remained satisfied the how enquiries were generally handled, which was consistent with the 2018 survey (section 6).

7. In the context of the COVID lockdown there had been some changes in communication preferences, most notably an increase in the acceptability of email (61%, up from 51%) and text message (30% v 23%).

8. The use of iHousing amongst sheltered had doubled (now 27%) and had increased by half again for general needs (now 31%). However, there were a further 20-25% potential iHousing users based upon how many banked and shopped online. Information and involvement

9. How well Wiltshire Council Housing listened and acting upon tenants’ view remains a key driver of overall satisfaction. Three fifths of tenants were satisfied in this regard (60%) which is identical to the like-for-like 2018 weighted score and remains just below the benchmark median of 62% (section 5).

10. However, it was notable that more than a quarter of tenants in sheltered accommodation were dissatisfied in this regard (27%), nearly double the proportion of general needs tenants who said the same (15%) and triple the equivalent figure for general needs tenants of retirement age (9%).

11. Three quarters again felt that Wiltshire Council were generally good at keeping them informed about the things that affected them as residents (75%, was 76%), with Wiltshire’s score equal to the ARP Research median of 75%.

4 2. Executive summary

The home

12. Many tenants were satisfied with the quality of their home (77%), including 33% that were ‘very satisfied’. However, this was significantly lower than the 81% that were satisfied in 2018, with the result now one point below the benchmark median (section 4).

13. This drop appears to be driven by the response of general needs tenants, amongst whom satisfaction has fallen significantly from 80% to 75%.

14. It is likely that this drop is related to the very similar fall in satisfaction with the repairs and maintenance service (section 7), indeed respondents who had received a repair in the previous year were significantly less satisfied than those who had not (74% v 83%)

15. The recently revised STAR survey template has expanded the focus on tenant’s homes to include specific consideration of safety and security. It is therefore pleasing to find that this was the highest rated aspect of the home (83% satisfied), including just under half that were ‘very’ satisfied. Repairs and maintenance

16. The repairs and maintenance service remains a key predictor of how tenants perceive Wiltshire Council Housing overall (section 3).

17. Three quarters of respondents were satisfied with this service overall (73%), which is down by a statistically significant four points compared to the previous survey. This meant that the score was now below the 76% benchmark median, with nearly a fifth of tenants being actively dissatisfied (18%, section 5).

18. Mirroring other results throughout the survey findings, older tenants were significantly more satisfied than average with the repairs and maintenance service overall, with satisfaction at only 58% until the age of 50, then rising to 75% for 50-64 year olds and 86% for those aged 65 and over

19. Satisfaction with the last responsive repair was slightly higher than the overall rating (78% v 73). Unfortunately, this rating was also significantly lower than in 2018 (was 82%) and was now six points below the benchmark target.

20. Indeed, satisfaction had decreased significantly with the workers doing the job expected (79%, was 82%) and the repair being done ‘right first time’ (71%, was 76%). These are therefore the prime candidates in explaining why the results for this section were disappointing when compared against the previous survey.

21. When analysed by which workers were responsible for the last completed repair - external contractors, the Council’s own workers (DLO), or a mixture of the two, it was once again evident that satisfaction was generally lower than average where there was a mixture of the two, yet a little higher than average when completed only by the Council’s own workers. Planned maintenance investment priorities

22. Respondents were again asked how they felt the Council should prioritise its investments in planned maintenance. Tenants could choose up to three improvements from a list of 8 possible areas of investment (section 7). The top three priorities were:

 Improvements to roads and paths (56% in top three, up from 53%)  Energy efficiency improvements (47%, a new option for the 2020 survey)  Parking improvements (46%, up from 41%)

5 2. Executive summary

23. It was also the case that a quarter of the sample prioritised the communal landscaping / benches and the building of new houses, with the highest levels of enthusiasm for the latter in Wilton (31%) and Bemerton (30%). Respondents in Sheltered areas were more likely to prioritise communal landscaping / benches (35%). Value for money

24. Value for money remains a key driver and was a stronger influence than it was in 2018. As such, it was pleasing to find a significant improvement in satisfaction in this regard from 85% to 87%, including more than half that were now ‘very’ satisfied (53%). With only 6% of tenants dissatisfied, this was the only core finding that had improved significantly and compared well to its equivalent benchmark median (section 4).

25. The main reason for the increased score is the 5% improvement in satisfaction amongst the under 50s (now 81%). Being even more specific, the proportion of 16-34 year olds that were ‘very’ satisfied with their rent had jumped by 13% since the last survey (now 54%). This reflects a wider pattern seen in many other housing surveys amongst working age tenants, particularly the youngest generations Neighbourhood

26. Satisfaction with the neighbourhood remains high but unfortunately is another core finding that has fallen significantly since 2018 (84%, was 87%) but still compares favourably to the Council’s peers with a benchmark median of 84% (section 8).

27. This matches the trend seen in other landlord surveys over the past couple of years, and a likely cause is an increase in problems with anti-social behaviour, despite satisfaction with the estate services provided by the Council actually trending upwards (66% v 59%).

28. The way that the neighbourhood looked was rated poorer than it as a place to live (78% v 84%), but in this case the score stayed the same compared to 2018 rather than having fallen.

29. Unfortunately, several anti-social behaviour (ASB) issues were viewed as slightly more of a problem than they were two years ago. These include noisy neighbours (38% problem, was 31%), drug use and dealing (27%, was 22%) and drunk or rowdy behaviour (24%, was 20%). Obviously the COVID lockdown is also a factor when considering these results, as people will have been spending more time in their homes than would otherwise have been the case.

30. Whilst car parking remains the most problematic issue, this was significantly lower than it was in 2018 (62%, was 65%), again potentially influenced by the changes in daily routines during COVID lockdown. Anti-social behaviour

31. Three fifths of respondents were satisfied with how anti-social behaviour (ASB) is generally dealt with by the Council (56%), which remains just below the ARP benchmark median for similar landlords (61%, section 9). Unsurprisingly though, this rating was significantly poorer amongst those who said that they had reported ASB (21% satisfied, 63% dissatisfied).

32. Respondents were also asked about their specific experiences when reporting an incident of ASB, but these scores were unfortunately all worse than they had been in 2018 and compared poorly against other landlords in ARP Research’s database (section 9).

6 3. Services overall

satisfied with the service

overall % 1. easy to deal with 2. quality of home 3. repairs overall were the key drivers that 4. value for money for rent best predicted overall

5. listen to views satisfaction

No statistically significant difference in overall satisfaction compared to 2018 results when both weighted by age

Indeed, there was a clear differential in satisfaction between those aged under or over 65

Satisfaction amongst sheltered tenants was lower than one would normally expect

Being easy to deal with is now the best predictor of overall

satisfaction

7 3. Services overall

3.1 Overall satisfaction % Base 1840 | Excludes non respondents % % satisfied satisfied error bench 2020 2018 margin mark

Overall service +/- 82 4 7 8 41 40 81 82 rd provided by WCH 1.8 3

3.2 Overall satisfaction (by stock) % % % Bases (descending) 241, 1599 | Excludes non respondents. satisfied satisfied error bench 2020 2018 margin mark

+/- 87 Sheltered 4 8 8 39 42 81 81 5.0 4th

+/- 82 4 7 8 41 40 82 General needs 81 1.9 3rd

very fairly fairly very neither dissatisfied dissatisfied satisfied satisfied

significantly significantly no significant significantly significantly worse (95%) worse (90%) difference better (90%) better(95%) Be nchmark median Benchmark quartile

Satisfaction amongst Wiltshire Council’s tenants with the overall services they received was broadly similar to that seen in the re-weighted 2018 results (81%, was 82%), with the proportion who were ‘very satisfied’ having increased slightly from 38% to 40%. On the opposite end of the scale around one in ten respondents were dissatisfied (11%), which again is only slightly different from the equivalent 2018 finding (10%). Similarly, satisfaction remains in line with the benchmark average of 82%.

There was no difference in overall satisfaction by stock, with four out of five general needs and tenants in sheltered accommodation satisfied (both 81%). The pattern of responses amongst general needs tenants broadly matches that for tenants as a whole, not just on the overall score which is down 1% amongst this group, but throughout the survey findings. Satisfaction amongst tenants in sheltered accommodation had not changed since 2018, but this meant that it remained in the fourth quartile compared to the benchmark from other landlords.

This is not to say, however, that nothing at all had changed compared to the re-weighted 2018 results. In fact, it was disappointing to find that satisfaction had fallen for a number of core ratings including ‘statistically significant’ declines in satisfaction with the quality of the home (section 4), the repairs and maintenance service (section 7) and the neighbourhood as a place to live (section 8). Not all changes were for the worse, indeed there was a notable significant increase in satisfaction with the rent in terms of value for money (section 4).

Note that those scores that are referred to as being ‘statistically significant’ are those where a statistical test allows us to say, with a high degree of confidence, that these are real differences that are unlikely to be due to chance.

8 3. Services overall

3.3 Key drivers - overall satisfaction R Square = 0.654 | Note that values are not percentages but are results of the statistics test. See Appendix A for more details.

0.25

0.21 0.19 0.15

0.10 0.07 0.06

1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th

Is easy to deal Quality of Repairs and Value for Listens & acts Estate services How ASB is with home maintenance money for rent on views overall dealt with overall overall

3.4 Key drivers v satisfaction

100% maintain focus

90% Rent VFM Easy to satisfaction Quality deal with 80% of home A ‘key driver’ analysis uses a Estate Repairs regression test to check which 70% services other results in the survey are best at predicting overall 60% How ASB satisfaction. For a more dealt with Listen & act on views detailed explanation of key monitor improve drivers please see Appendix A. 50% 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30

key driver coefficient

A ‘key driver’ analysis was once again used to learn more about the overall score. This is another statistical test known as a ‘regression’ that identified those ratings throughout the survey that were most closely associated with overall satisfaction. This test does not mean that these factors directly caused the overall rating, but it does highlight the combination of factors that are the best predictors of overall satisfaction. The analysis identified seven key drivers as presented in chart 3.3.

The first thing to note is that one question stands out from the pack - whether or not Wiltshire Council is ‘easy to deal with’. This brand-new question is part of the revised STAR survey framework, being one of just a handful of ‘core’ questions all landlords will use for benchmarking from now on. It is therefore good to see that this is one of the highest rated questions in the survey (80% satisfied, section 6). Although new on this list, it directly replaces the rating for how well enquiries are generally dealt with that was the third key driver in 2018. Although there are some subtle differences in the wording and meaning between these two statements, they are similar enough to one another to suggest that the broad thrust of the message was the same for both surveys, which is that a high standard of customer service is an important factor in maintaining a good overall satisfaction score.

9 3. Services overall

Indeed, two other key drivers of overall satisfaction are also broadly associated with the customer service experience namely “listening and acting upon views” which in 2018 was the second key driver and whilst it has fallen down the list somewhat for the current sample, it remains important to tenants in how they perceive their landlord as a whole. The other customer service related issue is how well the council deals with reports of anti- social behaviour which is new to the list this year. While satisfaction with this remains unchanged (56%, section 9), individual aspects of the service have fallen slightly, including a significant decrease in the support provided by staff.

The repairs and maintenance service remains an important predictor of how tenants perceive Wiltshire Council overall, albeit not quite as dominant as it was two years ago where it was the primary key driver. In contrast, the overall quality of the home is now more prominent in the list moving from fourth to second, and it is notable that along with the repairs service this was an area where satisfaction had fallen significantly.

Another interesting finding from this analysis is that value for money for rent is now a bigger predictor of how tenants perceive the council overall appearing fourth on the list (was seventh in 2018), with this the only core finding to have improved significantly (section 4). Satisfaction with the estate services overall is a new addition and completes the list, and this too was a notable aspect of the service where satisfaction had increased significantly (section 8).

As in previous years, statistical tests were also used to compare various sub-groups with one another to identify where they might vary. In particular, older tenants continued to be more satisfied than those that were younger. This meant that residents aged 65+ had a significantly higher level of satisfaction than anyone else (90%). Similar to other STAR surveys the youngest respondents aged under 35 were significantly less satisfied (71%), however, satisfaction amongst 35-49 year olds and those aged 50-64 were also significantly below average (73% and 80% respectively). This pattern can be seen running throughout most of the survey results (table 12.10), and is one reason why it was so important to ensure that the age profile in the 2020 survey, and retrospectively the 2018 results used for comparisons over time, was as accurate as possible.

There were also some significant differences by patch, with respondents in Wilton and North significantly more satisfied than average (84% and 85% respectively). However, satisfaction was significantly lower than average in Bemerton (75%) and Friary and Salisbury (77%) with respondents in the latter area also rating other aspects of the service significantly lower than average (table 3.6). The greatest change between 2018 and 2020 was in Bemerton, where satisfaction had fallen considerably from 85% in the last survey.

Once again, whether or not a respondent had experience of anti-social behaviour (ASB) was also linked to the overall score, with those saying they had reported an incident of ASB to the council significantly less satisfied overall than those that had not (55% v 84%).

It was also interesting to find respondents who had experienced financial difficulties in the previous year were significantly less satisfied than those who had not (75% v 85%). However, whether or not a tenant was aware of the Tenancy Sustainment Service was also linked as with those mindful of the service significantly more satisfied than average (86%), whereas the opposite was true for those unaware of the service (78%).

Tenants were again asked a few more questions on their perceptions of Wiltshire Council. Similar to the headline score, in most cases scores were close to the previous findings with none of the changes deemed to be statistically significant. Around three quarters of those who responded agreed that the Council is providing an effective and efficient service (77%, was 78%) as well as providing the service expected from a landlord (76%, was 78%), with around a tenth disagreeing with each statement. A similar proportion agreed that they trust Wiltshire Council Housing (73%) and that they treat residents fairly (75%), with both scores unchanged from the previous survey. 10 3. Services overall

3.5 Perceptions of housing services

% Bases (descending) 1843, 1834, 1830, 1825, 1829, 1821 | Excludes non respondents. % % agree agree error bench 2020 2018 margin mark

Has friendly and +/- 85 2 4 11 52 32 84 84 rd approachable staff 1.7 3

Provides an effective and +/- 80 3 8 12 54 23 77 78 rd efficient service 1.9 3

Is providing the service I +/- 79 3 9 11 50 26 78 rd expect from my landlord 76 2.0 3

+/- 80 Treats its residents fairly 4 8 13 50 26 75 th 75 2.0 4

I trust Wiltshire Council +/- 75 4 6 17 46 27 73 73 rd Housing 2.0 3

Has a good reputation in +/- 68 3 9 20 47 21 68 66 rd my area 2.1 3

disagree agree disagree neither agree strongly strongly

significantly significantly no significant significantly significantly worse (95%) worse (90%) difference better (90%) better(95%) Be nchmark median Benchmark quartile 3.6 Perception of housing services by patch

% positive Sample size provided services Overall satisfaction with and efficient service an effective Provides landlord my from expect I service the providing Is Treats its residents fairly area in my Has a good reputation staff approachable Has friendly and Housing I trust Wiltshire Council

Overall 1871 81 77 76 75 68 84 73

Bemerton 248 75 75 74 72 63 84 73

East 285 80 77 77 74 68 82 73 Significantly worse than average (95% confidence*) 288 Friary & Salisbury 77 73 73 70 61 79 67 Significantly worse than average (90% confidence*) North 293 85 80 77 78 69 85 76 Significantly better than average Sheltered 191 82 79 74 77 72 86 73 (95% confidence*) Significantly better than average South West 282 83 80 79 80 72 83 72 (90% confidence*)

Wilton 258 84 80 80 78 73 87 79 * See appendix A for further information on statistical tests and confidence levels

11 3. Services overall

3.7 Likely to recommend the Council (Net Promoter) % Base 1841 | Excludes non respondents.

NPS 34

22 18 14 9 10 6 3 1 2 3 2

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

DETRACTORS PASSIVES PROMOTERS

Two thirds of respondents agreed that Wiltshire Council Housing has a good reputation in their area (68%) and whilst this was the lowest ranked statement, the score had improved two points compared to two years ago. This question employed the Net More than four out of five respondents agreed that the council Promoter methodology, which is has friendly and approachable staff (84%), with only 6% a widely used tool used across disagreeing. many different business sectors to gauge customer loyalty and is As in 2018, each statement was comprehensively analysed by typically measured on an 11-point patch and it clear from table 3.6 that tenants in North were scale (0-10). Respondents who significantly more positive than average whereas those in Friary score 9-10 are considered to be and Salisbury were significantly less so. Promoters, and those who score 0 -6 to be Detractors. The Net For the first time, Wiltshire Council used the “Net Promoter Promoter Score (NPS) is the Score” (NPS) as an additional measure of customer loyalty and difference between the two, satisfaction. Respondents were asked how likely they were to ranging from -100 to 100. As a recommend Wiltshire Council Housing to family or friends, and point of reference across various this was used to identify ‘promoters’ and ‘detractors’ to calculate sectors, the typical NPS score is 5- 10 in industry, and around 20-30 an overall Net Promoter Score (see sidebar for more for social housing overall. information). With an NPS of 22 amongst tenants, this was just below the figure expected with a median from other landlords of 26. Interestingly, the NPS was actually slightly higher amongst general needs tenants (23), compared to 20 amongst those in sheltered accommodation.

12 4. The home and value for money

satisfied with the value

for money for rent

%

satisfied with the quality

of the home

%

Quality of the home fell by 4% since 2018, driven mainly by a big drop in satisfaction in 2020 amongst general needs

Most tenants were satisfied with the safety and security of their home (83%)

Satisfaction with rent value for money had increased significantly, particularly amongst younger tenants

13 4. The home and value for money

4.1 Overall quality of the home % Base 1850 | Excludes non respondents % % satisfied satisfied error bench 2020 2018 margin mark

+/- 78 6 10 8 44 33 81 rd Quality of your home 77 1.9 3

4.2 Overall quality of the home (by stock) % % % Bases (descending) 242, 1609 | Excludes non respondents. satisfied satisfied error bench 2020 2018 margin mark

+/- 92 Sheltered 3 5 3 41 49 90 91 3.8 3rd

+/- 76 7 10 8 44 31 80 General needs 75 2.1 3rd

very fairly fairly very neither dissatisfied dissatisfied satisfied satisfied

significantly significantly no significant significantly significantly worse (95%) worse (90%) difference better (90%) better(95%) Be nchmark median Benchmark quartile

Satisfaction with the quality of the home and value for money remain central to how tenants perceive their landlord as a whole with, both again emerging as key drivers of overall satisfaction (section 3). Furthermore, both had changed by a statistically significant margin since 2018, with the former trending downwards and the latter upwards since 2018.

Just over three quarters of tenants were satisfied with the quality of their home (77%) which is a significant fall compared to that seen two years ago (was 81%) with the result now a point below the median. This drop appears to be driven by the response of general needs tenants, amongst whom satisfaction has fallen significantly from 80% to 75%, with 17% actively dissatisfied. In contrast, satisfaction amongst those in sheltered accommodation has barely changed and remains high (90%, was 91%) and compared favourably to the equivalent benchmark median.

It is likely that the drop in satisfaction amongst general needs tenants is related to the very similar fall in satisfaction with the repairs and maintenance service (section 7), indeed respondents who had received a repair in the previous year were significantly less satisfied than those who had not (74% v 83%)

There were some significant variations in this result by patch, with respondents in Sheltered areas significantly more satisfied than average with the quality of their homes (89%), however, satisfaction was significantly below average in Bemerton (69%) and Friary and Salisbury (70%).

Once again there was significant variation in this score by age, with older tenants significantly more satisfied (92% of those aged 65+), whereas the youngest age group were significantly less satisfied than average (60% of the under 35s). Satisfaction was also significantly lower than average for those aged 35 – 49 and 50 - 64 (61% and 76% respectively). These big differences by age also show how sensitive this result is to the exact age profile of the sample. This raises the possibility that it might also be especially attuned to the increased online response in 2020 which reached people that previously would not have taken part.

14 4. The home and value for money

4.3 Safety and security of home % Base 1845 | Excludes non respondents % satisfied error bench 2020 margin mark

We provide a home +/- 85 4 5 8 37 46 83 rd that is safe and secure 1.7 3

4.4 Safety and security of home (by stock) % % Bases (descending) 238, 1605 | Excludes non respondents. satisfied error bench 2020 margin mark

+/- 92

Sheltered 3 4 5 35 54 89 th 4.0 4

+/- 82 4 5 8 38 45 rd General needs 82 1.9 3

very fairly fairly very neither dissatisfied dissatisfied satisfied satisfied

Be nchmark median Benchmark quartile

There were some significant differences by property type however this was invariably linked to the age profile in each with respondents in bungalows significantly more satisfied than those in houses (85% and 75% respectively), however, the small group of respondents living in maisonettes were the least satisfied group (49%). Similarly, age was also a factor for those who had experienced some level of financial difficulty in the last year who were significantly less satisfied with their home than those who had not (65% and 83% respectively).

Conversely, another group that were significantly less satisfied than average with the quality of their home were those who would consider moving to a smaller property more suited to their household circumstances (72%).

The recently revised STAR survey template has expanded the focus on tenant’s homes to include specific consideration of safety and security as one of the core measures. It is therefore pleasing to find that this was the highest rated aspect of the home (83% satisfied), including just under half that were ‘very’ satisfied (46%). As expected, tenants in sheltered accommodation were more satisfied than their peers in general needs (89% v 82%), with the pattern of responses for the latter and larger group very similar to that for tenants as a whole.

As such, older respondents were significantly more satisfied than average (93% of the over 65’s), whereas the under 35s and those aged 35-49 were significantly less so (both 72%). In addition, safety and security was also rated significantly below average in Friary and Salisbury (78%), and although not significant, it was also notably low in Bemerton (79%).

There were some significant variations by property type but again this was intrinsically linked to the age profile of tenants in each, with respondents in 29% would bungalows significantly more satisfied than average (89%), whereas those in consider moving maisonettes and flats were significantly less so (69% and 80% respectively). It was to a smaller property also noticeable that respondents who have reported an incident of ASB in the either now or previous year were also significantly less satisfied than average with the safety and in the future security of their home (57%) compared to 86% who had not reported any ASB.

15 4. The home and value for money

4.5 Rent value for money % Base 1833 | Excludes non respondents % % satisfied satisfied error bench 2020 2018 margin mark

Value for money for +/- 85 2 4 8 34 53 87 85 nd rent 1.6 2

4.6 Rent value for money (by stock) % % % Bases (descending) 238, 1595 | Excludes non respondents. satisfied satisfied error bench 2020 2018 margin mark

+/- 89

Sheltered 2 6 6 38 49 87 84 rd 4.3 3

+/- 85 2 8 3 34 53 85 General needs 87 1.7 2nd

very fairly fairly very neither dissatisfied dissatisfied satisfied satisfied

significantly significantly no significant significantly significantly worse (95%) worse (90%) difference better (90%) better(95%) Be nchmark median Benchmark quartile

The theme of value for money was again present in the key driver analysis of overall satisfaction (section 3), although it seems to have a stronger influence than was the case two years ago. Furthermore, it is reasonable to expect that affordability will become more important in the radically different post COVID-19 economic environment.

As such, it was pleasing to find a significant improvement in satisfaction in this regard from 85% to 87%, including more than half that were now ‘very’ satisfied (53%). With only 6% of tenants dissatisfied, this was the only core finding that had significantly improved and compared well to its equivalent benchmark median.

Once again this was primarily driven by the response of general needs tenants which was almost identical to the sample as a whole in that satisfaction had improved significantly by two points from 85% to 87%. Satisfaction was also up amongst those in sheltered accommodation (87%, was 84%) but the score for this group of customers still remains below the level one would expect for sheltered, including being lower than that for retirement aged tenants living in general needs housing (94%).

An interested feature of these results, and the main reason for the increased score, is the 5% improvement in satisfaction amongst the under 50s (now 81%). Being even more specific, the proportion of 16-34 year olds that were ‘very’ satisfied with their rent had jumped by 13% since the last survey (now 54%). Indeed, this reflects a wider pattern seen in many other housing surveys amongst working age tenants, particularly the youngest generations, as they evaluate the value of their Council home compared to their other housing options.

Satisfaction varied by patch albeit none significantly (table 4.7), however, it was unsurprising to find respondents who had experienced some financial difficulties in the previous year were significantly less satisfied than those who had not (81% v 89%), with respondents in their first year of tenancy and who therefore had recent experience of the housing market were significantly more satisfied than average with their rent in terms of value for money (95%). 16 4. The home and value for money

4.7 The home and services by patch

% satisfied Sample size

Quality of Safety and Value for the security of money for home the home rent

Overall 1871 77 83 87

Bemerton 248 69 79 85 Significantly worse than average East 285 75 81 88 (95% confidence*) Friary & Salisbury 288 70 78 85 Significantly worse than average (90% confidence*) 293 North 78 85 88 Significantly better than average (95% confidence*) Sheltered 191 89 89 88 Significantly better than average South West 282 79 84 86 (90% confidence*)

* See appendix A for further information on Wilton 258 79 85 89 statistical tests and confidence levels

17 5. Information and involvement

felt the Council listened and took their views % into account

said the Council were good at keeping them % informed

Listening and taking account of tenants views remains a strong key driver of satisfaction

However, satisfaction amongst sheltered tenants was well below the level expected for this group

Satisfaction with both of these questions was static over time and consistent with other landlords

18 5. Information and involvement

5.1 Listening to views % Base 1637 | Excludes non respondents % % satisfied satisfied error bench 2020 2018 margin mark

We listen to your views +/- 62 8 8 25 41 19 60 60 td and act upon them 2.4 3

5.2 Listening to views (by stock) % % % Bases (descending) 1420, 217 | Excludes non respondents. satisfied satisfied error bench 2020 2018 margin mark

+/- 63 General needs 8 7 25 41 19 60 61 2.6 3td

+/- 71 10 17 18 37 18 57 th Sheltered 56 6.6 4

very fairly fairly very neither dissatisfied dissatisfied satisfied satisfied

significantly significantly no significant significantly significantly worse (95%) worse (90%) difference better (90%) better(95%) Be nchmark median Benchmark quartile

Whether or not tenants felt that the Council as their landlord listened to them had always, unsurprisingly, been a factor influencing their overall satisfaction. This was still one strongest key driver of tenant’s overall perceptions of their landlord, although lower on the list than it was in 2018 due to being supplanted by the new STAR question asking whether the Council is ‘easy to deal with’ rather than any other underlying change (section 3).

Indeed, three fifths of tenants were satisfied in this regard (60%) which is identical to the like-for-like 2018 weighted score, which remains just below the benchmark median of 62%. Similarly, there was virtually no change in satisfaction with the opportunities to make views known (65%, was 64%).

Once again, general needs tenants were actually more satisfied than those in sheltered accommodation (60% v 56%) that their views were being listened to. However, it was notable that more than a quarter of tenants in sheltered accommodation were dissatisfied in this regard (27%), nearly double the proportion of general needs tenants who said the same (15%) and triple the equivalent figure for general needs tenants of retirement age (9%). Notwithstanding this distinct difference by stock type, older tenants were still generally more satisfied that they were being listened to (68% of all aged over 65), with the lowest ratings amongst 35-59 year olds (52%).

Interestingly, the small group of BME respondents significantly more satisfied than average that they were listened to (76%). Perhaps unsurprisingly, the opposite was true for those that reported ASB (36%) or were in financial difficulties (54%).

19 5. Information and involvement

5.3 Information % Base 1824 | Excludes non respondents % % good good error bench 2020 2018 margin mark

Kept informed about +/- 75 4 6 16 43 32 75 76 rd things that affect you 2.0 3

5.4 Information (by stock) % % % Bases (descending) 240, 1585 | Excludes non respondents. good good error bench 2020 2018 margin mark

+/- 82

Sheltered 4 10 10 45 31 76 74 td 5.4 3

+/- 74 4 6 16 42 32 77 General needs 74 2.2 3td

very fairly fairly very neither poor poor good good

significantly significantly no significant significantly significantly worse (95%) worse (90%) difference better (90%) better(95%) Be nchmark median Benchmark quartile

Just as there was little change in how receptive tenants felt that the Council was to their views, so the perceived standard of information in the opposite direction was also fairly static. Three quarters again felt that Wiltshire Council were generally good at keeping them informed about the things that affected them as residents (75%, was 76%), with Wiltshire’s score equal to the ARP Research median of 75%. Whilst there was a seeming drop in satisfaction amongst general needs tenants (74%, from 77%), this was not statistically significant change, nor was the score out of line with other similar landlords. In contrast, satisfaction had increased slightly amongst tenants in sheltered accommodation from 74% to 76%, again not significant, but in this case somewhat lower than the equivalent benchmark.

As in 2018, a significantly lower rating for being kept informed was given by those that had a repair in the previous year (73% ‘good’), whereas the rating was significantly higher amongst those that had not had a repair (78%). There were also similar significant difference depending if a respondent had reported ASB or not (54% v 76%) or made a formal complaint or not (49% v 78%).

20 5. Information and involvement

5.5 Information and involvement

% Bases (descending) 1665, 1624, 1631, 1540 | Excludes non respondents. % % satisfied satisfied error 2020 2018 margin Help direct you to the 4 5 18 44 29 +/- correct Council service or 73 73 2.1 other organisation

Keep you informed about 4 6 24 42 25 +/- events and community 67 72 2.3 groups in your area

Provide enough 5 6 24 42 23 +/- opportunities to make 65 64 2.3 views known

Provide helpful meetings +/- 4 6 32 38 20 65 and events 58 2.5

very fairly fairly very neither dissatisfied dissatisfied satisfied satisfied

significantly significantly no significant significantly significantly worse (95%) worse (90%) difference better (90%) better(95%)

Going into more detail on the types of information that Housing Services provides, an unchanged 73% were satisfied that staff helped direct them to other Council services or organisations where applicable (73%) with just under one in ten dissatisfied. However, the same could not be said about being kept informed about events and community groups in the area, with satisfaction falling from 72% in 2018 to 67% amongst the current sample, a statistically significant difference. There was also a significant fall in satisfaction with the Council providing helpful meetings and events from 65% to 58%, however a notable third of respondents were ambivalent (32% ‘neither’) suggesting a lack of awareness of such events.

An orange icon indicates that a rating has changed since the last survey by a statistically significant amount that is unlikely to be due to chance.

21 6. Contacting housing services

were satisfied with how enquiries dealt with % generally

were satisfied that the Council was easy to deal % with

Wiltshire Council Housing being easy to deal with was the primary key driver of overall satisfaction,

The proportion that were happy to use electronic contact continues to rise, with 61% now happy to use e-mail

iHousing use amongst sheltered had doubled (now 27%) and had increased by half again for general needs (now 31%)

However, there were a further 20-25% potential iHousing users based upon how many banked and shopped online

22 6. Contacting housing services

6.1 The way Wiltshire Council Housing deals with enquiries generally % Base 1809 | Excludes non respondents % % satisfied satisfied error bench 2020 2018 margin mark

Dealing with enquiries +/- 81 3 5 11 44 37 81 80 rd generally 1.8 3

6.2 The way Wiltshire Council Housing deals with enquiries generally (by stock)

% Bases (descending) 1574, 235 | Excludes non respondents. % % satisfied satisfied error bench 2020 2018 margin mark

+/- 81 General needs 3 5 11 44 37 81 80 1.9 3rd

+/- 84 2 9 10 40 40 82 Sheltered 80 5.2 4th

very fairly fairly very neither dissatisfied dissatisfied satisfied satisfied

significantly significantly no significant significantly significantly worse (95%) worse (90%) difference better (90%) better(95%) Be nchmark median Benchmark quartile

How Wiltshire Council generally dealt with enquiries was previously a key predictor of overall satisfaction. Whilst this was not a key driver for the current sample, it was replaced by the new core question that “Wiltshire Council Housing is easy to deal with” which on a high level is broadly the same thing (chart 3.3) and now appears at the very top of the list. That said, it was positive to find the vast majority of respondents remained satisfied with the way Wiltshire Council Housing deal with their enquiries generally (81%), a score that was a point higher than in 2018 and equal to the ARP Research benchmark median.

In terms of differences by stock, general needs were slightly more satisfied than two years ago (81%, was 80%) with satisfaction amongst this group at the level expected, however satisfaction was down slightly amongst sheltered tenants from 82% to 80% with this now four points below the equivalent median.

In terms of demographic differences, older tenants (aged 65 or over) were again significantly more satisfied than average with the way enquiries were handled (88%). In contrast, satisfaction was significantly lower than average amongst the under 50s (73%).

The only other finding of note was between tenants that had reported an incident of ASB and those that had not, with the former significantly less satisfied with how enquiries are handled than the latter (54% v 84%). As expected, lower than average ratings were again given by respondents who had made a complaint or who had experienced financial difficulties in the previous year (50% and 73% respectively).

23 6. Contacting housing services

6.3 How easy Wiltshire Council is to deal with % Base 1821 | Excludes non respondents % satisfied error bench 2020 margin mark

Wiltshire Council is +/- 84 3 6 10 44 37 80 th easy to deal with 1.8 4

6.4 How easy Wiltshire Council is to deal with (by stock)

% Bases (descending) 1581, 239 | Excludes non respondents. % satisfied error 2020 margin

+/- General needs 4 6 10 44 36 81 1.9

+/- Sheltered 2 8 11 39 40 79 5.2

very fairly fairly very neither dissatisfied dissatisfied satisfied satisfied

Be nchmark median Benchmark quartile

As previously discussed in section 3, whether or not Wiltshire Council Housing is easy to deal with, is a new inclusion on the list of core STAR survey questions and the early evidence points towards this being an important predictor of satisfaction for many other landlords. This is certainly the case for Wiltshire Council Housing, with this emerging as the primary key driver of overall satisfaction. As such, it was positive to find most of the survey respondents were indeed satisfied in response to this question (80%), including 37% half that were ‘very satisfied’. At the opposite end of the scale only 9% were actively dissatisfied. Indeed, this very closely matched the patterns of scores on the question above regarding the general handling of enquiries, including the sub-group analysis.

Not only has the customer service experience remained very similar since 2018, so too had tenant’s main contact preference as communication by telephone remaining the method of choice (64%, was 63% chart 6.5). However, there had been a notable decline in preference for communication in physical form be it in writing (48%, was 53%) or through the Housing Matters magazine (19%, was 27%). Similarly, the preference for face to face meetings has fallen, only slightly for home visits (24%, was 26%), but more so with visits to the office (17%, was 22%). Instead there has been a noticeable increase in electronic communications such as email (61%, up from 51%), text/SMS (30%, was 23%), iHousing (19%, was 14%) and to a lesser extent social media (8%, was 7%).

However, this survey was mainly completed towards the end of the COVID-19 lockdown, which has greatly increased the focus on digital delivery of services. That said, a similar pattern has been observed in other similar surveys with electronic communication becoming more popular whilst communication in writing or newsletters seems to be becoming less so.

24 6. Contacting housing services

6.5 Contact and information channels that are happy to use % Base 1871 | More than one answer allowed.

Telephone 64 63 E-mail 61 51 In writing 48 53 30 Text/ SMS 23 Visit to your home by staff 24 26 iHousing 19 14 19 Housing Matters magazine 27 Visit to the office 17 22 Social media 8 7 Open meetings 8 8 Web chat 4 4 2020 No response 2 2018 1 0.2 Other 0.4

6.6 Method of accessing the internet All tenants Internet users % Bases 1871, 1346 | More than one answer allowed.

59 81 Smartphone 54 77

33 46 PC/laptop at home 35 50

27 37 Tablet 27 39

8 12 Smart TV, set top box or console 6 9

7 10 72% have At work 8 11 used the internet incl. 73% of general 35 needs and 62% of At a public site 45 sheltered

25 6. Contacting housing services

Interestingly, despite the higher online survey response this year, the actual proportion of internet users in the sample has not changed (72%) being again higher amongst general needs than those in sheltered accommodation (73% and 62% respectively). Once again, the level of internet access was age dependant, with only 49% of those aged 65+ making use of the internet compared to 92% of the under 35s.

This question was again asked in terms of the methods people used to access Facebook, apps, email and websites etc. The most common method for tenants remains by a smartphone (81% of internet users, 59% of all residents), with this followed by a PC/laptop (46% of users, 33% of all residents), with this still a more popular method of accessing the internet than a tablet.

The main reason cited for not using the internet was again because they simply don’t want to (45%), although this was notably lower than it was in 2018 (was 54%, chart 6.7). A lack of skills remains a hindrance for around two fifths of respondents (38%, was 36%), however there was a noticeable increase in those not using the internet because they have no access (33%, up from 27%). Disability was also more of a prohibitor for the current sample compared to the one in 2018 (11%, was 9%), whereas cost and privacy concerns were far less of an issue than in 2018.

6.7 Reason for not using the internet % Base 458 | Do NOT use the internet. More than one answer allowed

Don’t want to 45 54

Lack of skills 38 36

No access 33 27

Too costly 21 24 17 Privacy concerns 22

Disability 11 9 6 No answer 7 4 No free facilities near me 6 2020

Other 2 2018 5

26 6. Contacting housing services

In terms of online activity, shopping remains the most popular use of the internet (56% of all tenants), with a similar proportion going online to access online banking (53%) or use social media (51%). There has been a notable increase in the proportion of tenants making use of paperless services (41%, was 36%), as well as smartphone apps to interact with service providers (40%, was 32%). As expected, every single online activity decreased with age.

The results above regarding online shopping and banking suggest that the viable customer base for the Council’s online services is approximately half of the population. This provides the necessary context when considering that around a third of the sample (30%) had used the iHousing online service to manage their rent account or report repairs, which represents a pleasing increase of eleven points from the previous survey. Indeed, use of this service was up for each stock (31%, up from 20% general needs, and 27% up from 12% sheltered).

It is likely that growth in iHousing has been influenced by the COVID pandemic, but familiar usage patterns remain with younger tenants being the most likely to use iHousing (56% of the under 35s) with usage decreasing by age to include 14% of the over 65s.

Just over a quarter of respondents who don’t use iHousing simply said they don’t want to, although this was notably less than the 33% who said the same two years ago. In 2018 the main reason cited for not using the online service was a lack of awareness (37%), so it is pleasing to find this is less of a barrier for the current sample but is a reason for a quarter of respondents (25%). That said, a similar proportion said a lack of skills was a reason (23%), which is notably higher than in 2018. However, perhaps the standout result in this chart is that around one in ten respondents said they had tried using iHousing but didn’t like it, three times as many who said the same in the previous survey.

6.8 Reason for NOT using iHousing 2020 % Bases 1235 | Do NOT use iHousing. More than one answer allowed 2018

28 Don’t want to 33 25 Didn’t know about it 37 23 Lack of skills 19 14 Other 9 9 Tried it but didn’t like it 3 8 Privacy concerns 11 use 7 30% Disability 6 iHousing incl. 31% of general 5 needs and 27% of No answer 5 sheltered

27 6. Contacting housing services

6.9 Online activities in last year All tenants Internet users % Bases 1871, 1346 | More than one answer 56 78 Online shopping 50 71 53 74 Online banking 47 67 51 71 Used social media 48 69 41 57 Used paperless services 36 51 41 57 Watched YouTube 37 52 40 55 Used an app to access services 32 46 40 55 Contacted an organisation by email 36 52 38 52 Used Council’s online services 34 49 37 51 Used other online gov’t services 30 43

Read an email newsletter from an 30 41 organisation 29 41

Contacted an organisation via online 17 24 chat 14 19

Contacted an organisation using 17 23 Facebook 15 21

Contacted an organisation using 34 Twitter 35

28 7. Repairs and maintenance

satisfied with repairs

and maintenance overall

% 1. job expected 2. quality of work 3. done ‘right first time’ were the key drivers 4. speed of completion that best predicted

5. attitude of workers overall satisfaction

Repairs satisfaction overall, and for the last completed job, has fallen significantly and are both below the benchmark

‘Doing the job expected’ was rated lower than in 2018, and was the strongest key driver of satisfaction with the last repair

Significantly fewer than before felt that jobs were done ‘right first time’

Pavements and roads remains the top priority for planned

maintenance investment

29 7. Repairs and maintenance

7.1 Overall repairs satisfaction % Base 1837 | Excludes non respondents % % satisfied satisfied error bench 2020 2018 margin mark

Generally, how repairs & +/- 76 8 10 9 39 35 73 77 th maintenance is dealt with 2.0 4

7.2 Overall repairs satisfaction (by stock) % % % Bases (descending) 239, 1597 | Excludes non respondents. satisfied satisfied error bench 2020 2018 margin mark

+/- 84 Sheltered 4 13 8 36 40 76 82 5.4 4th

+/- 74 General needs 8 10 9 39 34 73 76 2.2 3rd

very fairly fairly very neither dissatisfied dissatisfied satisfied satisfied

significantly significantly no significant significantly significantly worse (95%) worse (90%) difference better (90%) better(95%) Be nchmark median Benchmark quartile

The repairs and maintenance service is typically one of the most important aspects of service provision for residents, which is reflected in the fact that this is once again a key driver of satisfaction overall (chart 3.2) albeit not as influential as it was in 2018 when it was the primary key driver. Around three quarters of respondents were satisfied with this service (73%), which is down four points from the previous survey (was 77%) which is a statistically significant drop with satisfaction now below the level expected of other similar landlords. At the opposite end of the scale, nearly a fifth were dissatisfied with the repairs and maintenance service overall.

Satisfaction was down for each stock type, significantly so amongst general needs tenants (73%, was 76%). Sheltered tenants were the most satisfied (76%), however this was six points lower than it was in 2018 and eight points below the benchmark median for this group.

Mirroring other results throughout the survey findings, older tenants were significantly more satisfied than average with the repairs and maintenance service overall, with satisfaction at only 58% until the age of 50, then rising to 75% for 50-64 year olds and 86% for those aged 65 and over. This pattern was also evident across the more detailed questions in this section.

Satisfaction did vary by patch with three varying significantly from the norm, with satisfaction significantly above average in Wilton (79%) yet significantly below average in Friary and Salisbury and Bemerton (both 68%), but note that this is probably due to the different age profiles within these areas.

Rating the repairs and maintenance service overall is a fairly high level task taking into account numerous factors, so further questions in this section of the survey take a tighter focus on day to day repairs performance, specifically the last repair completed for any given tenants over the previous twelve months.

30 7. Repairs and maintenance

7.3 Last repair % Base 1160 | Repair in last 12months.. Excludes non respondents % % satisfied satisfied error bench 2020 2018 margin mark

Repairs service received +/- 84 7 6 9 30 49 78 82 th on this occasion 2.4 4

very fairly fairly very neither dissatisfied dissatisfied satisfied satisfied

significantly significantly no significant significantly significantly 63% worse (95%) worse (90%) difference better (90%) better(95%) had a repair in Be nchmark median Benchmark quartile the last year

7.4 Key drivers - satisfaction with last repair R Square = 0.818 | Note that values are not percentages but are results of the statistics test. See Appendix A for more details.

0.34

0.21 0.21 0.19

0.05 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th Job you expected Quality of work Right first time Speed of completion Attitude of workers

7.5 Key drivers v satisfaction

100% maintain focus

Attitude of 90% workers satisfaction

80% A ‘key driver’ analysis uses a Speed of Quality of Job regression test to check which completion work expected other results in the survey are 70% Right first best at predicting overall time satisfaction. For a more detailed explanation of key monitor improve 60% drivers please see Appendix A. 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 key driver coefficient

31 7. Repairs and maintenance

7.6 Last completed repair

% Bases (descending) 1154,1157,1161,1139,1155,1153,1157,1142,1155 | Repair in last 12months. Excludes non respondents. % % satisfied satisfied error bench 2020 2018 margin mark

+/- 92 Attitude of workers 2 2 6 25 64 90 89 1.8 3rd

Keeping dirt and mess +/- 89 3 2 6 33 56 89 87 rd to a minimum 1.8 3

Being told when workers +/- 85 7 7 6 31 50 81 82 would call 2.3 4th

Being able to make an +/- 82 4 6 10 35 45 80 81 appointment 2.4 3rd

+/- 84

Speed of completion 7 5 9 31 49 79 81 th 2.4 4

Overall quality of repair +/- 84 6 6 8 30 49 79 82 th work 2.4 4

The workers doing +/- 83 6 5 10 28 50 79 82 the job expected 2.4 4th

Time taken before +/- 78 7 9 10 37 37 74 76 work started 2.6 4th

Repair being done +/- 77

11 9 10 26 45 71 76 th ‘right first time’ 2.7 4

very fairly fairly very neither dissatisfied dissatisfied satisfied satisfied

significantly significantly no significant significantly significantly worse (95%) worse (90%) difference better (90%) better(95%) Be nchmark median Benchmark quartile

Satisfaction with the last responsive repair was slightly higher than the overall rating (78% v 73%), with the proportion who were ‘very’ satisfied substantially higher (49% v 35%). Unfortunately, this rating was significantly lower than in 2018 (was 82%) and was now six points below the benchmark target.

To better understand satisfaction with responsive repairs specifically, there were a further set of detailed questions asked about respondents’ last completed repair if they had one within the last twelve months (63% of the sample). Whilst it was disappointing to find that in the majority of cases these were rated slightly worse or similar to two years ago and largely remain below with equivalent ARP benchmark medians (chart 7.6). Indeed, satisfaction had decreased significantly with the workers doing the job expected (79%, was 82%) and the repair being done ‘right first time’ (71%, was 76%), albeit only at the 90% confidence level. These are therefore the prime candidates in explaining why the results for this section were disappointing when compared against the previous survey.

32 7. Repairs and maintenance

7.7 Repairs satisfaction by worker type

% positive Sample size and maintenance repairs Overall satisfaction with repair completed Satisfaction with last would call workers when Being told appointment Being able to make an started Time taken before work was completed work which Speed with Attitude of workers work of quality The overall to a minimum and mess Keeping dirt right first time being done The repair expected work you the doing The contractors

Overall 1871 73 78 81 80 74 79 89 79 89 71 79

Contractor 372 75 84 84 84 79 85 93 85 94 80 87

Council DLO 296 74 82 77 76 74 81 91 81 89 75 82

DLO + contractor 760 69 74 78 80 72 75 87 76 86 64 73

Significantly worse than average Significantly better than average (95% confidence*) (95% confidence*) Significantly worse than average Significantly better than average (90% confidence*) (90% confidence*) * See appendix A for further information on statistical tests and confidence levels

Another way to shed further light on these results was to run a key driver analysis to identify the best predictors of satisfaction with the last completed repair. The result of this analysis is shown in chart 7.4. Whilst this analysis reveals five key drivers, contractors doing the job expected is the clear primary driver followed by the quality of work started and being done ‘right first time’. This pattern is not especially unique to Wiltshire Council Housing, as it is common to see these appear as key drivers in surveys for other landlords, but it is interesting that two of the top three key drivers are the lowest rated aspect of the service and are the only two where satisfaction has fallen significantly (chart 7.6).

All of these questions were again analysed using the Council’s maintenance records to determine which workers were responsible for the last completed repair - external contractors, the Council’s own workers (DLO), or a mixture of the two. An important caveat here is that these will often represent different categories of repair and therefore not be direct comparisons, but nevertheless it is once again apparent from table 7.7 that the satisfaction was generally lower than average where there was a mixture of the two, yet a little higher than average when completed only by the Council’s own workers.

Respondents were also asked how they felt the Council should prioritise its investments in planned maintenance. As in the previous survey. tenants could choose up to three improvements from a reduced list of eight possible areas of investment, and improvements to roads and paths again emerged as the main priority for more than half of the sample (56%, was 53%) and was a particular priority for respondents in North (62%) and Bemerton (61%) housing areas.

A difference between two groups is usually considered statistically significant if chance could explain it only 5% of the time or less.

33 7. Repairs and maintenance

Energy efficiency improvements was new to the list in 2020 and emerged as the second most common priority with just under half of respondents including this in their top three (47%). There was significantly more enthusiasm for this in the South West (58%) and it was also particularly strong in Wilton (52%), but interestingly was less of a priority in Bemerton (36%). This was also more of a priority for respondents in houses and bungalows (52% and 51% respectively, but less so for those living in flats (39%) or maisonettes (30%).

The third highest priority was parking improvements, with this more of a priority than it was in 2016 (46%, was 41%). In this case the South West area showed the strongest enthusiasm (58%) but was notably lowest in Bemerton (40%).

Communal landscaping and benches was another aspect of planned maintenance that is now viewed to be a bigger priority than it was in 2018 (25%, was 18%) and was more of a priority for respondents in Sheltered areas (35%).

It was again the case that a quarter of the sample prioritised the building of new houses (25%, was 23%, with the highest levels of enthusiasm in Wilton (31%) and Bemerton (30%). Interestingly, this figure was much higher amongst the small group of respondents in maisonettes (47%).

A fifth of the sample prioritised children’s play areas (22%, was 19%), with strong support for this in Bemerton (30%), East and Friary and Sali8sbury (both 28%). Once again, over half of the under 35’s said this was one of their top three priorities.

Improvements to bin areas was a priority for a fifth of tenants, up from 15% in 2018, with respondents in Sheltered patches and Friary and Salisbury more enthusiastic for this (40% and 29% respectively). This was also a priority for more than a third of those living in flats (36%) and more than half of those in maisonettes (52%).

7.8 Planned maintenance - top three priorities % Base 1871 | Up to three answers allowed.

Improvements to roads and paths 56 53

Energy efficiency improvements 47

Parking improvements 46 41

Communal landscaping / benches 25 18 25 More housing 23 22 Children's play areas 19 20 Improvements to bin areas 15 9 2020 More garages 7 2018

34 7. Repairs and maintenance

7.9 Planned maintenance priorities by patch

% priority Sample size improvements Energy efficiency Parking improvements areas Improvements to bin More garages landscaping / benches Communal and paths Improvements to roads Children's play areas More housing

Overall 1871 47 46 20 9 25 56 22 25

Bemerton 248 36 40 24 7 25 61 30 30

East 285 49 47 17 13 22 55 28 24

Friary & Salisbury 288 43 41 29 8 27 48 28 29

North 293 50 50 11 8 26 62 24 18

Sheltered 191 44 44 40 6 35 51 5 15

South West 282 58 58 7 8 18 59 15 25

Wilton 258 52 42 15 8 22 56 22 31

Significantly lower than average Significantly higher than average (95% confidence*) (95% confidence*)

Significantly lower than average Significantly higher than average * See appendix A for further information on (90% confidence*) (90% confidence*) statistical tests and confidence levels

35 8. Neighbourhood

satisfied with the neighbourhood as a

place to live %

1. car parking 2. rubbish or litter 3. dog fouling/mess were the most

4. noisy neighbours widespread problems

Increasing problems with anti-social behaviour seems to be the main reason for falling neighbourhood satisfaction

Indeed, satisfaction with the appearance of the neighbourhood was unchanged ...

… and satisfaction with estate services had significantly

improved

36 8. Neighbourhood

8.1 Neighbourhood overall

% Bases (descending) 1852, 1839 | Excludes non respondents. % % satisfied satisfied error bench 2020 2018 margin mark

Neighbourhood as a +/- 84 4 7 5 38 46 84 87 rd place to live 1.7 3

+/- 77 The overall appearance 5 9 8 44 34 78 nd 78 1.9 2

8.2 Neighbourhood services % Base 1831 | Excludes non respondents. % % satisfied satisfied error bench 2020 2018 margin mark

+/- 67 Estate services overall 8 13 13 44 21 59 rd 66 2.2 3

very fairly fairly very neither dissatisfied dissatisfied satisfied satisfied

significantly significantly no significant significantly significantly worse (95%) worse (90%) difference better (90%) better(95%) Be nchmark median Benchmark quartile

Satisfaction with the neighbourhood remains high but unfortunately is another core finding that has fallen significantly since 2018 (84%, was 87%) but still compares favourably to the Council’s peers with a benchmark median of 84%. However, it should be noted that such a downward trend is increasingly being seen in other similar surveys and is often a reflection of tenants seeing the result of multiple cuts in funding to various public services which impact their perception of where they live. Indeed, a likely cause seems to be an increase in anti- social behaviour problems, whereas satisfaction with the estate services provided by the Council is actually trending upwards (see below)

As seen elsewhere in the results, older tenants had significantly higher levels of satisfaction (92% of those aged 65 or over) compared to only 70% of the under 35s and 79% of those aged 35 – 49. This will also explain the significant difference by stock with tenants in sheltered accommodation significantly more satisfied than those in general needs (86% v 83%). There were also some significant differences by property type, with those in bungalows and houses significantly more satisfied than average (both 88%), with those in maisonettes and flats significantly less satisfied (43% and 78% respectively).

As expected there was some variation by patch with those living in Wilton, South West and Sheltered significantly more satisfied than average with their neighbourhood as a place to live (93%, 88% and 87%), whilst those in Friary and Salisbury (72%) and Bemerton (79%) were significantly less satisfied than average (table 8.6).

Once again, whether a tenant had experienced anti-social behaviour had the most notable impact upon how they view their neighbourhood – 46% that said they had reported ASB were satisfied, compared to 88% for the remainder.

37 8. Neighbourhood

8.3 Key drivers - satisfaction with neighbourhood R Square = 0.421 | Note that values are not percentages but are results of the statistics test. See Appendix A for more details.

0.28

0.17 0.13 0.10 0.10 0.07 0.07

1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th

Noisy Drugs Rubbish or litter Racial/ other Drunk or rowdy People Disruptive neighbours harassment behaviour damaging children / property teenagers 8.4 Key drivers v problems

50% monitor improve Rubbish or litter 40% Noisy neighbours Disruptive

problem children/ 30% teenagers Drugs A ‘key driver’ analysis uses a Drunk / rowdy 20% behaviour regression test to check which other results in the survey are People best at predicting overall 10% damaging property Racial/ other satisfaction. For a more harassment detailed explanation of key maintain focus 0% drivers please see Appendix A. 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30

key driver coefficient

The way that the neighbourhood looked was rated poorer than it as a place to live (78% v 84%), but in this case the score stayed the same compared to 2018 rather than having fallen. Indeed, it remains just above the ARP benchmark median and in the second quartile of landlords. Once again there were some significant variations by patch, with the pattern of responses matching that for the neighbourhood as a place to live (table 8.6).

Oddly enough, despite the findings discussed so far, when asked to rate the estate services provided by the Council overall satisfaction tenants were significantly more satisfied than they had been before, increasing from 59% in 2018 to 66% this year. As such, satisfaction with the estate service is now broadly in line with the ARP benchmark median of 67% with the Council appearing in the third quartile of comparable landlords.

These seemingly contradictory results do provide support for the hypothesis that tenant’s changing views of their neighbourhood as a place to live are being influenced by wider factors either entirely outside the Council’s control.

Whilst tenants in sheltered areas were significantly more satisfied than average with the estate services (71%), those in the North were significantly less so (59%, table 8.6). Interestingly there was no significant difference in this rating by property type with satisfaction relatively consistent across the three main categories.

38 8. Neighbourhood

Moving on to consider the specific problems that residents might be facing in their neighbourhoods, the pattern overall was broadly in line with the 2018 results. Unfortunately, a number of anti-social behaviour (ASB) issues were viewed as slightly more of a problem than they were two years ago. These include noisy neighbours (38% problem, was 31%), drug use and dealing (27%, was 22%) and drunk or rowdy behaviour (24%, was 20%). Obviously the COVID lockdown is also a factor when considering these results, as people will have been spending more time in their homes than would otherwise have been the case.

The reason why these issues are probably the prime cause of rising dissatisfaction with the neighbourhood are that they were also amongst the strongest key drivers that were the best predictors of how respondents answered that overall question, with noisy neighbours being the single most influential factor, as it also was in 2018 (see chart 8.3).

Whilst car parking remains the most problematic issue, this was significantly lower than it was in 2018 (62%, was 65%), again potentially influenced by the changes in daily routines during COVID lockdown. Despite being viewed as less of a problem clearly tenants feel more can be done in this area with nearly half prioritising this as an area for improvement (section 7).

All of these results were again analysed by patch, with the complete breakdown presented in chart 8.7, including an indication of which differed significantly from the norm. Here again, residents in Bemerton and Salisbury were significantly more likely than average to consider most of these to be a problem in their neighbourhood.

In contrast, those in Wilton, South West and Sheltered areas were more likely to view the different neighbourhood issues as significantly less of a problem.

Some other notable findings include:

 Car parking was a significant problem in South West (67%) and those in houses (67%), but significantly less so for those in Wilton (56%) and sheltered areas (54%).  Rubbish or litter was significantly more of a problem for respondents in Bemerton and Friary and Salisbury (65% and 54%), as well as those living in maisonettes and flats (75% and 54%).  Residents in Friary and Salisbury and Bemerton had a significantly higher than average problem with noisy neighbours (57 and 53%) and was also significantly more of a problem for those living in maisonettes and flats (75% and 48%).  In addition to Bemerton, dog fouling/ dog mess was a significant problem in North (61% and 57% respectively).  Disruptive children/teenagers were significantly more of a problem in Bemerton and East (43% and 33%) than any other area, but was significantly less of an issue in South West, Wilton and Sheltered areas (12%, 17% and 18%). This was also significantly more of a problem amongst the under 35’s (31%).  Racial or other harassment was significantly less of a problem amongst older tenants aged 65 or over (6%), but was for those from a BME background (20%).  Residents in Friary and Salisbury and Bemerton had a significantly higher than average problem with drunk or rowdy behaviour than any other patch (44% and 37%), and this was also significantly more of a problem for respondents living in flats (32%).  Vandalism and damage to property was significantly more of a problem in Bemerton and Friary and Salisbury than any other ward (28% and 24% respectively), with property damage also significantly more problematic in these areas (19% and 16%).  Drug use or dealing was significantly more problematic in Friary and Salisbury and Bemerton (48% and 37% respectively), and more so for general needs than sheltered tenants (28% v 19%).  As expected, every neighbourhood problem was a significantly bigger problem for those who had reported ASB. 39 8. Neighbourhood

8.5 Neighbourhood problems

% Bases (descending) 1813,1784,1802,1783,1786,1780,1785,1786,1729,1776,1778,1774,1773 | Excludes non respondents. % % problem problem error 2020 2018 margin

+/- Car parking 38 33 29 62 65 2.1

51 37 12 +/- Rubbish or litter 49 47 1.5

52 32 16 +/- Dog fouling/dog mess 48 47 1.7

+/- Noisy neighbours 62 24 14 38 31 1.6

+/- Drug use or dealing 73 17 10 27 22 1.4

Other problems with pets and +/- 74 20 6 23 animals 26 1.1

+/- Disruptive children/ teenagers 74 20 6 26 25 1.1

+/- Drunk or rowdy behaviour 76 17 7 24 20 1.2

+/- Other crime 82 15 4 18 15 0.9

+/- Vandalism and graffiti 85 12 3 16 15 0.8

+/- People damaging your property 89 8 3 11 11 0.8

+/- Racial or other harassment 89 7 3 11 10 0.8

Abandoned or burnt out +/- 93 6 1 6 vehicles 7 0.6

not a minor major problem problem problem

significantly significantly no significant significantly significantly better (95%) better (90%) difference worse (90%) worse(95%)

40 8. Neighbourhood

8.6 Neighbourhood ratings by patch

% satisfied Sample size Overall Neighbourhood Estate services appearance of as a place to live overall neighbourhood

Overall 1871 84 78 66

Bemerton 248 79 69 65

East 285 83 79 66

Friary & Salisbury 288 72 70 68

North 293 86 78 59

Sheltered 191 87 84 71

South West 282 88 86 64

Wilton 258 93 83 69

8.7 Neighbourhood problems by patch

% problem Sample size Car parking litter or Rubbish neighbours Noisy Dog fouling/dog mess Other problems with pets & animals Disruptive children/ teenagers Racial or other harassment rowdyDrunk or behaviour Vandalism and graffiti People damaging your property Drug use or dealing vehicles out or burnt Abandoned Other crime

Overall 1871 62 49 38 48 26 26 11 24 16 11 27 7 18

Bemerton 248 62 65 53 61 32 43 13 37 28 19 37 21 26

East 285 68 48 38 47 27 33 12 21 17 13 26 6 20

Friary & Salisbury 288 63 54 57 46 27 29 19 44 24 16 48 7 32

North 293 62 51 32 57 27 28 10 22 13 12 23 7 15

Sheltered 191 54 47 22 40 23 18 7 18 12 6 21 4 12

South West 282 67 34 31 44 21 12 9 15 7 6 17 3 13

Wilton 258 56 43 30 38 27 17 5 13 8 5 16 5 10

Significantly worse than average Significantly better than average (95% confidence*) (95% confidence*)

Significantly worse than average Significantly better than average * See appendix A for further information on (90% confidence*) (90% confidence*) statistical tests and confidence levels

41 9. Anti-social behaviour

were satisfied generally

with how ASB is dealt with %

were satisfied with the final outcome of their

complaint %

One in ten claimed to have reported ASB in the last year

Most commonly reported in Friary and Salisbury

Experience of ASB strongly linked with overall satisfaction

ASB ratings have fallen compared to 2018 and are now well

below benchmarks

42 9. Anti-social behaviour

9.1 Overall the way WCH deals with ASB % Base 1328 | Excludes non respondents % % satisfied satisfied error bench 2020 2018 margin mark

The way WCH deals with +/- 61 8 7 29 34 23 56 56 th ASB 2.7 4

9.2 Overall the way WCH deals with ASB (by stock) % % % Bases (descending) 174, 1154 | Excludes non respondents. satisfied satisfied error bench 2020 2018 margin mark

+/- 74

Sheltered 7 9 23 35 26 62 57 th 7.2 4

+/- 61 General needs 8 7 30 33 22 56 56 2.9 4th

very fairly fairly very neither dissatisfied dissatisfied satisfied satisfied

significantly significantly no significant significantly significantly worse (95%) worse (90%) difference better (90%) better(95%) Be nchmark median Benchmark quartile

This report has already touched on how the experience of anti-social behaviour (ASB) impacts other areas of satisfaction with those who have experienced ASB 26% said less satisfied overall (section 3) and 38% less satisfied than average with their 10% neighbourhood as a place to live. Increasing concerns about ASB are also a likely they had reported reason why tenants are now less satisfied with their neighbourhoods (section 8). ASB to the Council in the last year Indeed, only three out of five respondents were satisfied with how these issues are dealt with by the Council (56%), whilst around one in seven were actively dissatisfied (15%). Whilst this score seems relatively low compared to other ratings in this report, it is important to highlight nearly a third were ambivalent (29% ‘neither’) which … but only one in suggests a lack of experience or awareness of this aspect of the service. As ten of these were satisfaction has not changed from 2018, it remains just below the ARP benchmark recorded on the median for similar landlords (61%). Unsurprisingly though, this rating was system (1% of all tenants) significantly poorer amongst those who said that they had reported ASB (21% satisfied, 63% dissatisfied).

There were some significant differences in this result by age, with older respondents (aged 65+) the most satisfied (68%), whereas those aged 35-49 and the under 35’s were significantly less satisfied (44% and 50% respectively).

No patch varied significantly from the norm but it was unsurprising to find satisfaction was lowest amongst respondents from Bemerton and Friary And Salisbury (52% and 53% respectively), two areas where neighbourhood issues tended to be more problematic than average (section 8).

43 9. Anti-social behaviour

9.3 Anti-social behaviour service (all reported)

% Bases (descending) 179, 180, 176, 177, 175, 174, 176 | Reported ASB in last 12 months. Excludes non respondents. % % satisfied satisfied error Bench 2020 2018 margin mark The Council were easy to +/- 24 13 16 36 11 deal with when reporting 47 - 7.8 ASB

Quality of information and +/- 24 22 18 28 8 39 advice received 37 7.5

The way complaint was +/- 35 35 14 23 18 9 27 31 th dealt with overall 7.0 4

The speed with which ASB +/- 43

36 11 27 18 8 25 28 th case was dealt with 6.9 4

How well you were +/- 44

33 17 28 16 6 22 29 th kept up to date 6.6 4

The support provided +/- 48 39 12 29 13 8 21 34 th by staff 6.4 4

The final outcome of ASB +/- 44 39 15 27 11 8 19 - th complaint 6.3 4

very fairly fairly very neither dissatisfied dissatisfied satisfied satisfied

significantly significantly no significant significantly significantly worse (95%) worse (90%) difference better (90%) better(95%) Be nchmark median Benchmark quartile

Around one in ten tenants claimed to have reported ASB to the Council in the previous year (10%), a figure that was only one point higher in 2018. As was also true for previous surveys this did not match the Council’s own records, with less than a tenth of this group (1% of the total) actually being on record as having done so in the last 12 months. Some of this may be explained by respondents misremembering the timeframe, or which agency they spoke to, alternatively it may be there were informal conversations that were never turned into formal ASB reports (e.g. mentioning concerns about vandalism to a repairs contractor).

Once again, ASB reports varied by patch from 6% in Wilton to 17% in Friary and Salisbury. There was little difference by stock (10% general needs v 7% sheltered), but there was by property type, with a quarter of tenants in maisonettes reporting incidents of ASB (26%) as well as 17% of those in flats.

Respondents were next asked about their experience when reporting an incident of ASB, which due to the nature of the topic typically receive lower ratings than most other questions in tenant surveys. It should also be noted that sample sizes for the remaining charts in this section are relatively small, as they were in previous years. Nevertheless, these scores were generally poor relative to other landlords in ARP Research’s database, with all of the questions slightly worse than in 2018 and all appearing in the bottom quartile. One notable fall in satisfaction was with the support provided by staff which was down from 34% in 2018 to 21%, a significant difference and well below the level expected. 44 10. Complaints

said they had made a formal complaint (but % only 1% recorded)

who made a complaint were satisfied with how % it was handled

Satisfaction with complaints handling had fallen slightly for general needs tenants but had improved amongst sheltered tenants

Be aware that many respondents that claim to have made a complaint will not have used the formal complaints system

45 10. Complaints

10.1 Overall the way WCH deals with complaints % Base 1464 | Excludes non respondents % % satisfied satisfied error bench 2020 2018 margin mark

The way WCH deals with +/- 67 8 7 22 39 24 63 64 rd complaints 2.5 3

10.2 Overall the way WCH deals with complaints (by stock) % % % Bases (descending) 202, 1264 | Excludes non respondents. satisfied satisfied error bench 2020 2018 margin mark

+/- 78

Sheltered 6 20 10 41 23 64 58 th 6.6 4

+/- 68 General needs 8 6 22 39 24 63 65 2.7 3rd

very fairly fairly very neither dissatisfied dissatisfied satisfied satisfied

significantly significantly no significant significantly significantly worse (95%) worse (90%) difference better (90%) better(95%) Be nchmark median Benchmark quartile

General satisfaction with how Wiltshire deals with complaints was has barely changed compared to two years ago (63%, was 64%). On the opposite end of the 10% said scale one in seven were dissatisfied, the majority of whom were ‘very dissatisfied’. they had made a Once again, a sizeable proportion were ambivalent (22%), which, like the rating for formal complaint ASB, can often be explained by a lack of knowledge on this subject. As satisfaction to the Council in the had changed little, the score remains just below the ARP benchmark for other last year landlords.

There was little difference in this rating by stock, with 63% of general needs tenants … but only 7% satisfied and 64% of those in sheltered accommodation saying the same. Whilst both of these were scores remain below the level expected for each group, the sheltered response recorded on the represents a six-point improvement compared to 2018. system (1% of all tenants) One in ten respondents claimed to have actually made a complaint in the previous twelve months (10%) a figure that is broadly unchanged from as far back as 2014. Tenants in Friary and Salisbury again said that they made the most complaints (14%) with those in Sheltered areas the least (8%). However, as was also the case with ASB this question was cross referenced against the Council’s own records for formal complaints, which found that only 7% of those who claimed to have complained actually did so formally (1% of the total sample).

46 10. Complaints

10.3 Satisfaction with the complaints service

% Bases (descending) 185, 181, 181, 183, 184, 182, 180 | Made ANY complaint in last 12 months. Excludes non respondents.

% % satisfied satisfied error 2020 2018 margin The Council were easy to 20 14 22 29 16 +/- deal with when making a 45 - 7.5 complaint

Information and advice +/- 25 20 21 19 15 35 provided by staff 34 7.2

Speed with which +/- 38 16 18 18 11 23 complaint was dealt with 29 6.8

The way complaint was +/- 41 16 14 17 12 25 dealt with overall 28 6.8

How well you were kept up +/- 36 16 20 19 9 22 to date 28 6.8

The final outcome of your +/- 43 18 14 16 9 - complaint 25 6.6

Support received while +/- 37 19 19 14 10 20 complaint dealt with 24 6.5

very fairly fairly very neither dissatisfied dissatisfied satisfied satisfied

significantly significantly no significant significantly significantly worse (95%) worse (90%) difference better (90%) better(95%)

All tenants who claimed to have made a complaint were asked about their experience when doing so, the results of which are displayed in chart 10.3. The findings here were different to those results seen for in the ASB section with satisfaction improving slightly compared to previous data. Whilst there had been no significant change in satisfaction, levels were noticeably higher for the current sample with the majority of measures, including a six- point increase in satisfaction with the speed with which the complaint was dealt with (29%, up from 23%) and being kept up to date (28%, up from 22%).

That said, with the exception how easy the Council was to deal with when making the complaint, more people were dissatisfied than satisfied with every aspect of the complaint’s procedure.

A key driver analysis was also carried out on these results, which revealed the quality of the information and advice received to be the clear primary influence in satisfaction with the way Wiltshire Council Housing deal with complaints overall. Only two other key drivers emerged which were the support received while the complaint was dealt with and how easy the Council was to deal with when reporting the complaint.

Largely due to the low sample sizes involved there was little of note revealed by further sub-group analysis of any aspect of the complaints procedure. 47 11. Financial advice and support

of tenants satisfied advice and support on managing finances %

had experienced some financial difficulties in % the last year

Financial and benefits advice and support rated significantly better than in 2018

Only 30% were aware of the tenancy sustainability service

15% had problems paying their rent in the last year

27% said they had experienced some financial difficulties in the last year, unchanged since the last survey

48 11. Financial advice and support

11.1 Financial advice and support from WCH

% Bases descending) 1409, 1303 | Excludes non respondents % % satisfied satisfied error bench 2020 2018 margin mark

+/- 77 Managing finances 2 3 18 36 41 77 72 2.2 3rd

Claiming housing and +/- 76 4 3 20 32 41 73 70 other welfare benefits 2.4 3rd

very fairly fairly very neither dissatisfied dissatisfied satisfied satisfied

significantly significantly no significant significantly significantly worse (95%) worse (90%) difference better (90%) better(95%) Be nchmark median Benchmark quartile

When respondents were asked to give their views on the help and support services that Wiltshire Council Housing provide in order to help customers manage their tenancies, the results were again positive, with satisfaction with how finances are managed as well as help claiming benefits both improving significantly to now be broadly in line with ARP Research benchmark medians.

Once again, for the majority of the results in this section there was a noticeable high proportion of respondents who were ambivalent and chose to answer ‘neither’ compared to other similar questions in the survey. This is most likely attributed to a lack of awareness or use of these services, this despite the option on the questionnaire for ‘not applicable’.

Whilst satisfaction with the advice and support in claiming housing and other welfare benefits was up three- points compared to 2018 (73%, was 70%), satisfaction was up even more for the rating for managing finances (77%, was 72%).

For both questions, tenants who said they had experienced financial difficulties in the previous year were significantly less satisfied than average (66% claiming benefits, 67% managing finances), although the proportion who were dissatisfied remained modest (12% and 10% respectively).

Similarly, for both statements older tenants were more satisfied than average, whereas satisfaction with each rating was lower than average amongst the under 35s and those aged 35 – 49 who are most likely to have a family and therefore more likely to experience a strain on their finances.

Whilst the majority of respondents had no financial difficulties in the previous year (62%), this meant that just over a quarter had problems paying at least one bill (27%), although at least this was largely unchanged compared to 2018 (was 28%). This figure varied very significantly by age, with half of those aged under 35 having some financial difficulties (48%), whereas only 10% of those aged 65 or over said the same.

Around one in seven respondents had problems paying their rent or Council Tax, with nearly three times as many general needs than sheltered tenants having trouble with each (16% v 6% rent, 16% v 5% Council Tax). Younger respondents were more likely to have experienced financial difficulties, particularly so with rent, with 29% of the under 35’s struggling to pay theirs compared to only 3% of those aged 65 or over.

49 11. Financial advice and support

11.2 Aware of Tenancy Sustainment Service? 2020 % Base 1871 2018

Not sure/ Not sure/ NR NR 25 17 No No 54 45

Yes Yes 30 29

11.3 Had financial difficulties paying the following in the last year % Base 1871 | More than one answer allowed.

No financial difficulties 62 61 No response 12 12 Council Tax 15 15 Rent 15 15 Food bills 12 13 Fuel bills 10 13

Loans/credit cards 10 9

TV licence 6 27% had 7 difficulty paying

Phone charge 5 at least one 7 in the last year Other 1 2

50 12. Respondent profile

In addition to documenting the demographic profile of the sample, tables 12.10 to 12.14 in this section also display the core survey questions according to the main property and equality groups. When considering these tables it is important to bear in mind that some of the sub groups are small, so many observed differences may simply be down to chance. To help navigate these results they have been subjected to statistical tests, with those that can be confidently said to differ from the average score being highlighted in the tables.

12.1 Patch

% Base 1871 Total % % 2018

Bemerton 248 13.3 13.5 East 285 15.2 15.7 Friary & Salisbury 288 15.4 15.8 North 293 15.7 16.2 Sheltered 191 10.2 10.6 South West 282 15.1 14.3 Wilton 258 13.8 13.3

12.2 Stock [both years weighted] 2020 % Base 1871 2018

General General needs Sheltered needs Sheltered 89 11 89 11

51 12. Respondent profile

12.3 Property type 2020 % Base 1871 2018

42 40

26 28 27 27

1 2 4 4

Bedsit Bungalow Flat House Maisonette

12.4 Number of bedrooms % Base 1871 44 44 32 32 21 20

1 1 3 2

Bedsit One Two Three Four or more

12.5 Length of tenancy % Base 1871

25 25 23 22 18 18 16 15 14 9 9 6 0.3 0

Under 1 year 1 - 2 years 3 - 5 years 6 - 10 years 11 - 20 years 21+ years N/R

52 12. Respondent profile

12.6 Gender 2020 % Base 1871 2018

Male Female Male Female 38 62 41 59

12.7 Age [both years weighted] % Base 1871

17 18 17 18 15 14 14 15 11 11 9 8 9 8 6 6 2 3

16 - 24 25 - 34 35 - 44 45 - 54 55 - 59 60 - 64 65 - 74 75 - 84 85 years years years years years years years years years and over

12.8 Ethnic background % Base 1871 BME BME 4 3

NR 49 White NR British 61 36 White British 47

53 12. Respondent profile

12.10 Core questions by lead age group

% positive Overall 16 - 34 35 - 49 50 - 64 65+

Sample size 1871 251 413 487 720

Service overall 81 71 73 80 90

Quality of home 77 60 61 76 92

Safety and security of home 83 72 72 83 93

Rent value for money 87 81 82 85 93

Easy to deal with 80 73 73 80 87

Listen to views and act upon them 60 60 53 54 68

Keep residents informed 75 66 66 75 82

Enquiries generally 81 74 73 81 88

Repairs & maintenance service 73 57 58 75 86

Last completed repair 78 72 71 82 85

Neighbourhood as a place to live 84 70 79 83 92

12.11 Core questions by lead gender

% positive Overall Male Female

Sample size 1871 714 1157

Service overall 81 83 79

Quality of home 77 80 75

Safety and security of home 83 87 81

Rent value for money 87 87 87

Easy to deal with 80 82 80

Listen to views and act upon them 60 62 58

Keep residents informed 75 78 73

Enquiries generally 81 81 80

Repairs & maintenance service 73 75 72

Last completed repair 78 81 77

Neighbourhood as a place to live 84 85 83

Significantly worse than average Significantly better than average (95% confidence*) (95% confidence*)

Significantly worse than average Significantly better than average * See appendix A for further information on (90% confidence*) (90% confidence*) statistical tests and confidence levels

54 12. Respondent profile

12.12 Core questions by ethnic background

% positive White Overall BME British

Sample size 1871 876 83

Service overall 81 78 84

Quality of home 77 75 77

Safety and security of home 83 81 84

Rent value for money 87 86 89

Easy to deal with 80 79 82

Listen to views and act upon them 60 60 76

Keep residents informed 75 72 75

Enquiries generally 81 79 80

Repairs & maintenance service 73 71 70

Last completed repair 78 78 78

Neighbourhood as a place to live 84 82 84

12.13 Core questions by stock

% positive General Overall Sheltered needs

Sample size 1871 1663 208

Service overall 81 81 81

Quality of home 77 75 90

Safety and security of home 83 82 89

Rent value for money 87 87 87

Easy to deal with 80 81 79

Listen to views and act upon them 60 60 56

Keep residents informed 75 74 76

Enquiries generally 81 81 80

Repairs & maintenance service 73 73 76

Last completed repair 78 78 81

Neighbourhood as a place to live 84 83 86

Significantly worse than average Significantly better than average (95% confidence*) (95% confidence*)

Significantly worse than average Significantly better than average * See appendix A for further information on (90% confidence*) (90% confidence*) statistical tests and confidence levels

55 Appendix A. Methodology & data analysis

Questionnaire

The questionnaire was based on the HouseMark STAR survey methodology, with the most appropriate questions for Wiltshire Council being selected by them from the STAR questionnaire templates.

The questionnaire was designed to be as clear and legible as possible to make it easy to complete, with options available for large print versions or completion in alternative languages. Postal versions of the questionnaires were printed as A4 booklets. Fieldwork

The survey was carried out between May and July 2020, with a census of all 5,278 tenants. In the first phase, an email invitation and reminders were distributed to all 3,458 residents for whom a valid email address was available inviting them to complete the survey online, resulting in 706 eventual responses (20%). This was a 37% increase in the amount of email responses compared to 2018. In the second phase, a paper survey was distributed to the remaining 4,723 tenants that did not complete online within the first 2½ weeks.

Example online pages:

56 Appendix A. Methodology and data analysis

Response rate

The sampling relied on the stipulation for HouseMark STAR that the minimum achieved sample requirements are for a margin of error of +/- 3% at the 95% confidence level for populations over 10,000, +/- 4% at the 95% confidence level for populations between 1000 and 10,000, and +/- 5% for populations under 1000. It is accepted by HouseMark that for small populations the minimum figures are unachievable, as they would require very high response rates.

Population Min STAR Min STAR Returns Sample error Response % of returns

size error margin returns achieved margin rate online

General needs housing 4,690 +/- 4% 532 1,627 +/- 2.0 35% 42% Sheltered housing 588 +/- 5% 233 244 +/- 4.8 42% 28%

All tenants 5,278 +/- 4% 539 1,871 +/- 1.8 35% 40%

Weighting

In order to make sure the sample was representative of the population as a whole across a variety of demographic, geographic and property characteristics, it was necessary to weight the general needs sample by age, and to further weight the combined tenants results by stock type. Data presentation

Readers should take care when considering percentage results from some of the sub groups within the main sample, as the base figures may sometimes be small.

Many results are recalculated to remove ‘no opinion’ or ‘can’t remember’ responses from the final figures, a technique known as ‘re-basing’. Error Margins

Error margins for the sample overall, and for individual questions, are the amount by which a result might vary due to chance. The error margins in the results are quoted at the standard 95% level, and are determined by the sample size and the distribution of scores. For the sake of simplicity, error margins for historic data are not included, but can typically be assumed to be at least as big as those for the current data. When comparing two sets of scores, it is important to remember that error margins will apply independently to each. Tests of statistical significance

When two sets of survey data are compared to one another (e.g. between different years, or demographic sub groups), the observed differences are typically tested for statistical significance. Differences that are significant can be said, with a high degree of confidence, to be real variations that are unlikely to be due to chance. Any differences that are not significant may still be real, especially when a number of different questions all demonstrate the same pattern, but this cannot be stated with statistical confidence and may just be due to chance.

57 Appendix A. Methodology and data analysis

Unless otherwise stated, all statistically significant differences are reported at the 95% confidence level. Tests used were the Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test (rating scales), Fischer Exact Probability test (small samples) and the Pearson Chi Square test (larger samples) as appropriate for the data being examined. These calculations rely on a number of factors such as the base figure and the level of variance, both within and between sample groups, thereby taking into account more than just the simple difference between the headline percentage scores. This means that some results are reported as significant despite being superficially similar to others that are not. Conversely, some seemingly notable differences in two sets of headline scores are not enough to signal a significant change in the underlying pattern across all points in the scale. For example:

 Two satisfaction ratings might have the same or similar total satisfaction score, but be quite different when one considers the detailed results for the proportion very satisfied versus fairly satisfied.

 There may also be a change in the proportions who were very or fairly dissatisfied, or ticked the middle point in the scale, which is not apparent from the headline score.

 In rare cases there are complex changes across the scale that are difficult to categorise e.g. in a single question one might simultaneously observe a disappointing shift from very to fairly satisfied, at the same time as their being a welcome shift from very dissatisfied to neither.

 If the results included a relatively small number of people then the error margins are bigger. This means that the combined error margins for the two ratings being compared might be bigger than the observed difference between them.

Key driver analysis

“Key driver analyses” are based on a linear regression model. This is used to investigate the relationship between the overall scores and their various components. The charts illustrate the relative contribution of each item to the overall rating; items which do not reach statistical significance are omitted. The figures on the vertical axis show the standardised beta coefficients from the regression analysis, which vary in absolute size depending on the number of questionnaire items entered into the analysis. The R Square value displayed on every key driver chart shows how much of the observed variance is explained by the key driver model e.g. a value of 0.5 shows that the model explains half of the total variation in the overall score. Benchmarking

The questions are benchmarked against ARP Research’s STAR database, with the benchmarking group being 14 separate local authorities and ALMOs with STAR surveys over the previous 2 years.

58 Appendix B. Example questionnaire

The Council House Bourne Hill Mr A B Sample Salisbury 1 Sample Street SP1 3UZ Sample District Sample Town AB1 2CD 999999 Our ref : STAR

22 June 2020

Dear {name}

Make a difference: tell us what you think!

Listening to the views of our tenants is very important to us, so the enclosed satisfaction survey has been sent to every household. The aim of the survey is to find out how satisfied you are with your home and the services we provide as your landlord. This important information will be used to help improve these services in future.

Please take this opportunity to give us your views. It should only take a few minutes and you could win up to £150 in shopping vouchers in the Free Prize Draw!

To be included in the draw, just send your questionnaire back in the pre-paid envelope supplied. The closing date is 22 July 2020.

If you prefer you can complete the survey and enter the draw online. Just go to www.arpsurveys.co.uk/wiltshire and log in using your personal code: A9999X

I would like to assure you that all your answers will be treated in the strictest confidence, and used only for research purposes. This means that the overall results will be published, but it will not be possible for any person or address to be identified from the survey findings.

If you have any questions about the survey or would like help in completing it you can call us on 0300 456 0117 and select option 5. One of our Resident Engagement Team will be pleased to help.

Yours sincerely

Nicole Smith Head of Housing Operations & People Service

General enquiries: 0300 456 0117 Email: [email protected]

Tel: 0300 456 0100 www.wiltshire.gov.uk

59 Appendix B. Example questionnaire

2 How much do you agree or disagree with the following? www.arpsurveys.co.uk/wiltshire  Agree Disagree strongly Agree Neither Disagree strongly

a. Wiltshire Council Housing provides an effective and efficient service b. Wiltshire Council Housing is providing the service I expect from Survey of Tenants and Residents my landlord c. Wiltshire Council Housing treats its 2020 residents fairly d. Wiltshire Council Housing has a This survey is very important to us, and is your chance to tell us what you think good reputation in my area about your home and the services that we provide as your landlord. e. Wiltshire Council Housing has The survey is being carried out on our behalf by ARP Research. Anything that you friendly and approachable staff say on the survey is confidential; it will be used to look at the overall trends in customer satisfaction. f. I trust Wiltshire Council Housing For surveys completed and returned by the closing date your personal code will be entered into a Free Prize Draw with a chance to win up to £150 in shopping How likely would you be to recommend the Council as a landlord to family or friends on a vouchers. Only ARP Research will ever know your code. 3 scale of 0 to 10, where 0 is not at all likely and 10 is extremely likely? If you’d prefer to complete the survey online, please visit:

www.arpsurveys.co.uk/wiltshire and login using your personal code: A9999X 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Not at all likely Extremely likely

Return by Wednesday 22 July Your home

How satisfied or dissatisfied are you? Services overall 4 Very Fairly Fairly Very satisfied satisfied Neither dissatisfied dissatisfied

Taking everything into account, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the service a. With the overall quality of your 1 provided by Wiltshire Council Housing? home

Very Fairly Fairly Very b. That we provide a home that is safe satisfied satisfied Neither dissatisfied dissatisfied and secure

c. That your rent provides value for money

voucher 1 st prize voucher 3 rd prize £150 £25 Free Prize Draw! voucher £50 2 nd prize p2

Would you consider choosing a smaller property more suited to your household 5 circumstances, either now or in the future? How satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the overall estate services provided by Wiltshire 8 Council, such as grounds maintenance, grass cutting and communal areas? Yes No Maybe Very Fairly Fairly Very If you are considering a move and would like information on the options available satisfied satisfied Neither dissatisfied dissatisfied please tick here This is your consent for Wiltshire Council to know your details for this question only, and that we may contact you in the future about it. All of your other answers remain confidential. By requesting this information you are under no obligation to move and we will not insist that you do. Anti-social behaviour

Your neighbourhood How satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the way Wiltshire Council Housing deals with 9 anti-social behaviour (ASB)?

Very Fairly Fairly Very No How satisfied or dissatisfied are you with? 6 satisfied satisfied Neither dissatisfied dissatisfied opinion Very Fairly Fairly Very satisfied satisfied Neither dissatisfied dissatisfied

a. Your neighbourhood as a place to Have you reported any anti-social behaviour (ASB) to Wiltshire Council Housing in the live 10 last 12 months?

b. The overall appearance of your Yes go to Q11 No go to Q12 neighbourhood

How satisfied or dissatisfied were you with the following aspects of the anti-social To what extent are the following a problem in your neighbourhood? 11 behaviour service? Very Fairly Fairly Very 7 Major Minor Not a satisfied satisfied Neither dissatisfied dissatisfied problem problem problem a. Car parking a. When reporting your ASB case, Wiltshire Council Housing was easy b. Rubbish or litter to deal with

c. Noisy neighbours b. The quality of the information and advice you received d. Dog fouling/dog mess e. Other problems with pets and animals c. How well you were kept up to date with what was happening f. Disruptive children / teenagers throughout your ASB case g. Racial or other harassment d. The support you received while your h. Drunk or rowdy behaviour ASB complaint was dealt with i. Vandalism and graffiti e. The speed with which your ASB j. People damaging your property case was dealt with k. Drug use or dealing f. The final outcome of your anti- l. Abandoned or burnt out vehicles social behaviour complaint m. Other crime g. The way your anti-social behaviour complaint was handled p3 p4

60 Appendix B. Example questionnaire

Repairs and maintenance Planned maintenance

Generally, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the way Wiltshire Council Housing What do you consider are your top three priorities IRU&RXQFLOLQYHVWPHQWHLWKHULQ\RXU 12 deals with repairs and maintenance? 15 SURSHUW\RUWR\RXUVXUURXQGLQJV" Very Fairly Fairly Very tick no more than 3 boxes satisfied satisfied Neither dissatisfied dissatisfied 5 5 5

Energy efficiency improvements Parking improvements Have you had any repairs to your home in the last 12 months? Improvements to bin areas 13 (e.g. leaking roof, heating breakdown, WC overflowing, broken or faulty fixtures and fittings) More garages Yes go to Q14 No go to Q15 Communal landscaping / benches Improvements to roads and paths Thinking about the last repair completed, how satisfied or dissatisfied were you with the Children’s play areas This will not impact on us continuing to provide the works we are required to 14 following? More housing maintain your property in a decent state. Very Fairly Fairly Very satisfied satisfied Neither dissatisfied dissatisfied

a. Being told when workers would call Information & involvement b. Being able to make an appointment

c. Time taken before work started How satisfied or dissatisfied are you that we? d. Speed with which work was 16 completed Very Fairly Fairly Very No satisfied satisfied Neither dissatisfied dissatisfied opinion e. Attitude of workers a. Listen to your views and act upon them f. The overall quality of work b. Give you the opportunity to g. Keeping dirt and mess to a make your views known minimum

h. The repair being done ‘right first c. Keep you informed about time’ events and community groups in your area i. The contractors doing the work you expected d. Provide helpful meetings and events j. The overall repairs service you received on this occasion e. Help direct you to the correct Council service or other organisation when needed

p5 p6

How good or poor do you feel Wiltshire Council Housing is at keeping you informed about In the past year, have you done any of the following? 17 things that might affect you as a tenant? 21 tick all that apply 5 55 Very Fairly Fairly Very good good Neither poor poor Used Facebook, or other social media Watched YouTube Online shopping Contacted an organisation by email Online banking Contacted an organisation using Facebook Used the Council’s online services Contacted an organisation using Twitter Contact with us Used other online government services Contacted an organisation via online chat Used paperless services for bills etc. Read an email newsletter from an Used an App on a phone or tablet to organisation access services (e.g. shopping, banking) all go to Q23 18 How satisfied or dissatisfied are you? Very Fairly Fairly Very Why do you not use the internet? satisfied satisfied Neither dissatisfied dissatisfied 22 tick all that apply 5 55 a. That Wiltshire Council Housing is easy to deal with No access Privacy concerns b. With the way we deal with Don’t want to Disability enquiries generally Too costly Lack of skills No free facilities near me Other (write in)

Which of the following methods of being kept informed and getting 19 in touch with Wiltshire Council Housing are you happy to use?

tick all that apply Do you use iHousing online service to manage your rent account and report repairs? 5 55 23 Yes go to Q25 E-mail In writing No go to Q24 iHousing Visit to the office Social media Visit to your home by staff Why do you not use iHousing? Web chat Open meetings 24 Telephone Housing Matters magazine Didn’t know about it Disability Text / SMS Other (write in) Don’t want to Lack of skills Tried it but didn’t like it Other (write in) Privacy concerns

Do you use the internet (Facebook, apps, email, websites etc.) in any of the following ways? To register for iHousing you can call us 0300 4560117, email us 20 [email protected], or complete the online 5 55 tick all that apply registration form at: https://ihousing.wiltshire.gov.uk With a mobile phone (e.g. iPhone) At work With a home computer or laptop At a public site (e.g. library) With a tablet (e.g. iPad) all above go to Q21 With a smart TV, set-top box or console I do not use the internet go to Q22

p7 p8

61 Appendix B. Example questionnaire

Advice and support Complaints

How satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the way Wiltshire Council Housing deals with How satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the advice and support you receive from Wiltshire 28 complaints? 25 Council Housing with the following? Very Fairly Fairly Very No Very Fairly Fairly Very Not satisfied satisfied Neither dissatisfied dissatisfied opinion satisfied satisfied Neither dissatisfied dissatisfied applicable

a. Claiming housing benefit and other welfare benefits Have you made a formal complaint to Wiltshire Council Housing in the last 12 months? 29 b. Managing your finances and Please do not include repairs and anti-social behaviour, unless you have formally paying rent & service charges complained to us about how we handled it. Yes go to Q30

Are you aware of the Council’s Tenancy Sustainment Service, that provides advice and No End 26 support for tenants to manage their finances and stay out of arrears? Yes 30 How satisfied or dissatisfied were you with the following aspects of the complaints service? No Very Fairly Fairly Very Not sure satisfied satisfied Neither dissatisfied dissatisfied a. When reporting your complaint, Have you experienced financial difficulties in paying any of the following bills/payments in Wiltshire Council Housing was easy to deal with 27 the last 12 months? tick all that apply 5 55 b. The quality of the information and advice you received Have not experienced financial difficulties c. How well you were kept informed Rent Loans/credit cards about the progress of the complaint Food bills Phone charge (fixed line or mobile) d. The support you received while your Fuel bills TV licence complaint was dealt with Council Tax Any other (write in) e. The speed with which your complaint was dealt with If you are having difficulty paying your rent or general affordability issues we can help and make sure you have the advice and assistance you need. Call f. The final outcome of your our income team on 0300 4560117 Option 1 or email  complaint [email protected] g. Overall, the way your complaint was handled by Wiltshire Council Housing

p9 p10

Thank you for taking part www.arpsurveys.co.uk/wiltshire

Please return in the enclosed freepost envelope for your chance to win £150 in shopping vouchers!

Freepost RTZK-RGZT-BSKU, ARP Research, PO Box 5928, SHEFFIELD, S35 5DN

p11 p12

62 Appendix C. Data summary

Please note that throughout the report the quoted results typically refer to the ‘valid’ column of the data summary if it appears.

The ‘valid’ column contains data that has been rebased, normally because non-respondents were excluded and/or question routing applied.

General needs results are weighted to be representative by age, and combined figures are also weighted to be representative by stock type.

63 Appendix C. Data summary

All tenants General needs Sheltered Addiitonal weight by stock Weight by age Representative Count % overall % valid Count % overall % valid Count % overall % valid Q1 Taking everything into account, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the service provided by Wiltshire Council Housing? Base: 1871 Base: 1627 Base: 244 1: Very satisfied 739 39.5 40.2 638 39.2 39.9 101 41.4 41.9 2: Fairly satisfied 747 39.9 40.6 653 40.1 40.8 94 38.5 39.0 3: Neither 141 7.5 7.7 122 7.5 7.6 19 7.8 7.9 4: Fairly dissatisfied 133 7.1 7.2 115 7.1 7.2 18 7.4 7.5 5: Very dissatisfied 80 4.3 4.3 71 4.4 4.4 9 3.7 3.7

N/R 31 1.7 28 1.7 3 1.2

Q2a Wiltshire Council Housing provides an effective and efficient service Base: 1871 Base: 1627 Base: 244 6: Agree strongly 419 22.4 22.8 366 22.5 22.9 53 21.7 21.9 7: Agree 998 53.3 54.4 865 53.2 54.2 134 54.9 55.4 8: Neither 211 11.3 11.5 184 11.3 11.5 27 11.1 11.2 9: Disagree 152 8.1 8.3 133 8.2 8.3 20 8.2 8.3 10: Disagree strongly 54 2.9 2.9 47 2.9 2.9 8 3.3 3.3

N/R 36 1.9 33 2.0 2 0.8

Q2b Wiltshire Council Housing is providing the service I expect from my landlord Base: 1871 Base: 1627 Base: 244 11: Agree strongly 483 25.8 26.4 427 26.2 26.8 55 22.5 23.3 12: Agree 911 48.7 49.8 795 48.9 49.9 115 47.1 48.7 13: Neither 207 11.1 11.3 176 10.8 11.0 32 13.1 13.6 14: Disagree 167 8.9 9.1 142 8.7 8.9 26 10.7 11.0 15: Disagree strongly 62 3.3 3.4 54 3.3 3.4 8 3.3 3.4

N/R 40 2.1 33 2.0 8 3.3

Q2c Wiltshire Council Housing treats its residents fairly Base: 1871 Base: 1627 Base: 244 16: Agree strongly 472 25.2 25.9 416 25.6 26.1 55 22.5 23.5 17: Agree 903 48.3 49.5 782 48.1 49.2 122 50.0 52.1 18: Neither 233 12.5 12.8 203 12.5 12.8 30 12.3 12.8 19: Disagree 150 8.0 8.2 130 8.0 8.2 20 8.2 8.5 20: Disagree strongly 67 3.6 3.7 60 3.7 3.8 7 2.9 3.0

N/R 46 2.5 36 2.2 10 4.1

Q2d Wiltshire Council Housing has a good reputation in my area Base: 1871 Base: 1627 Base: 244 21: Agree strongly 382 20.4 21.0 338 20.8 21.3 43 17.6 18.4 22: Agree 854 45.6 46.9 735 45.2 46.3 121 49.6 51.7 23: Neither 360 19.2 19.8 317 19.5 20.0 43 17.6 18.4 24: Disagree 166 8.9 9.1 147 9.0 9.3 19 7.8 8.1 25: Disagree strongly 59 3.2 3.2 51 3.1 3.2 8 3.3 3.4

N/R 50 2.7 40 2.5 10 4.1

Q2e Wiltshire Council Housing has friendly and approachable staff Base: 1871 Base: 1627 Base: 244 26: Agree strongly 583 31.2 31.6 510 31.3 31.8 73 29.9 30.9 27: Agree 957 51.1 51.9 829 51.0 51.6 128 52.5 54.2 28: Neither 193 10.3 10.5 173 10.6 10.8 19 7.8 8.1 29: Disagree 80 4.3 4.3 68 4.2 4.2 12 4.9 5.1 30: Disagree strongly 30 1.6 1.6 26 1.6 1.6 4 1.6 1.7

N/R 28 1.5 20 1.2 8 3.3

Q2f I trust Wiltshire Council Housing Base: 1871 Base: 1627 Base: 244 31: Agree strongly 490 26.2 26.8 427 26.2 26.8 63 25.8 26.8 32: Agree 846 45.2 46.3 742 45.6 46.5 103 42.2 43.8 33: Neither 307 16.4 16.8 263 16.2 16.5 45 18.4 19.1

64 Appendix C. Data summary

All tenants General needs Sheltered Addiitonal weight by stock Weight by age Representative Count % overall % valid Count % overall % valid Count % overall % valid 34: Disagree 112 6.0 6.1 96 5.9 6.0 17 7.0 7.2 35: Disagree strongly 74 4.0 4.0 67 4.1 4.2 7 2.9 3.0

N/R 41 2.2 32 2.0 9 3.7

Q3 How likely would you be to recommend the Council as a landlord to family or friends? Base: 1871 Base: 1627 Base: 244 36: 0 ‐ Not at all likely 57 3.0 3.1 50 3.1 3.1 7 2.9 2.9 37: 1 16 0.9 0.9 15 0.9 0.9 1 0.4 0.4 38: 2 27 1.4 1.5 24 1.5 1.5 3 1.2 1.2 39: 3 49 2.6 2.7 42 2.6 2.6 7 2.9 2.9 40: 4 44 2.4 2.4 39 2.4 2.4 4 1.6 1.7 41: 5 164 8.8 8.9 140 8.6 8.7 25 10.2 10.4 42: 6 107 5.7 5.8 91 5.6 5.7 17 7.0 7.1 43: 7 178 9.5 9.7 157 9.6 9.8 21 8.6 8.7 44: 8 325 17.4 17.7 280 17.2 17.5 45 18.4 18.7 45: 9 254 13.6 13.8 229 14.1 14.3 24 9.8 10.0 46: 10 ‐ Extremely likely 620 33.1 33.7 534 32.8 33.4 87 35.7 36.1

N/R 29 1.5 26 1.6 3 1.2

R3 Net Promoter Score (NPS) Base: 1871 Base: 1627 Base: 244 47: Promoters 874 46.7 762 46.8 111 45.5 48: Passives 503 26.9 437 26.9 66 27.0 49: Detractors 464 24.8 401 24.6 64 26.2

N/R 29 1.5 26 1.6 3 1.2

Q4a With the overall quality of your home Base: 1871 Base: 1627 Base: 244 50: Very satisfied 615 32.9 33.2 502 30.9 31.2 118 48.4 48.8 51: Fairly satisfied 806 43.1 43.6 705 43.3 43.8 100 41.0 41.3 52: Neither 140 7.5 7.6 133 8.2 8.3 6 2.5 2.5 53: Fairly dissatisfied 176 9.4 9.5 163 10.0 10.1 12 4.9 5.0 54: Very dissatisfied 113 6.0 6.1 106 6.5 6.6 6 2.5 2.5

N/R 20 1.1 18 1.1 2 0.8

Q4b That we provide a home that is safe and secure Base: 1871 Base: 1627 Base: 244 55: Very satisfied 842 45.0 45.6 716 44.0 44.6 128 52.5 53.8 56: Fairly satisfied 690 36.9 37.4 605 37.2 37.7 84 34.4 35.3 57: Neither 147 7.9 8.0 135 8.3 8.4 11 4.5 4.6 58: Fairly dissatisfied 94 5.0 5.1 84 5.2 5.2 9 3.7 3.8 59: Very dissatisfied 72 3.8 3.9 65 4.0 4.0 6 2.5 2.5

N/R 27 1.4 21 1.3 6 2.5

Q4c That your rent provides value for money Base: 1871 Base: 1627 Base: 244 60: Very satisfied 966 51.6 52.7 847 52.1 53.1 117 48.0 49.2 61: Fairly satisfied 623 33.3 34.0 534 32.8 33.5 90 36.9 37.8 62: Neither 143 7.6 7.8 129 7.9 8.1 14 5.7 5.9 63: Fairly dissatisfied 67 3.6 3.7 55 3.4 3.4 13 5.3 5.5 64: Very dissatisfied 34 1.8 1.9 30 1.8 1.9 4 1.6 1.7

N/R 37 2.0 32 2.0 6 2.5

Q5 Would you consider a move to a smaller property more suited to your household circumstances, either now or in the future? Base: 1871 Base: 1627 Base: 244 65: Yes 223 11.9 202 12.4 19 7.8 66: No 1280 68.4 1090 67.0 194 79.5 67: Maybe 326 17.4 300 18.4 23 9.4

N/R 43 2.3 35 2.2 8 3.3

65 Appendix C. Data summary

All tenants General needs Sheltered Addiitonal weight by stock Weight by age Representative Count % overall % valid Count % overall % valid Count % overall % valid Q5b If you are considering a move would you like information on the options available? Base: 549 Base: 502 Base: 42 68: Yes 164 8.8 29.9 149 9.2 29.7 14 5.7 33.3 69: No 384 20.5 69.9 353 21.7 70.3 28 11.5 66.7

N/R 1322 70.7 0.0 1125 69.1 0.0 202 82.8 0.0

Q6a Your neighbourhood as a place to live Base: 1871 Base: 1627 Base: 244 70: Very satisfied 853 45.6 46.1 719 44.2 44.7 137 56.1 56.4 71: Fairly satisfied 695 37.1 37.5 620 38.1 38.5 73 29.9 30.0 72: Neither 132 7.1 7.1 113 6.9 7.0 20 8.2 8.2 73: Fairly dissatisfied 97 5.2 5.2 88 5.4 5.5 8 3.3 3.3 74: Very dissatisfied 75 4.0 4.0 69 4.2 4.3 5 2.0 2.1

N/R 19 1.0 18 1.1 1 0.4

Q6b The overall appearance of your neighbourhood Base: 1871 Base: 1627 Base: 244 75: Very satisfied 619 33.1 33.7 519 31.9 32.4 104 42.6 43.5 76: Fairly satisfied 815 43.6 44.3 716 44.0 44.8 97 39.8 40.6 77: Neither 158 8.4 8.6 143 8.8 8.9 15 6.1 6.3 78: Fairly dissatisfied 151 8.1 8.2 133 8.2 8.3 17 7.0 7.1 79: Very dissatisfied 96 5.1 5.2 89 5.5 5.6 6 2.5 2.5

N/R 32 1.7 27 1.7 5 2.0

Q7a Car parking Base: 1871 Base: 1627 Base: 244 80: Major problem 532 28.4 29.3 463 28.5 29.3 69 28.3 29.4 81: Minor problem 594 31.7 32.8 527 32.4 33.4 65 26.6 27.7 82: Not a problem 687 36.7 37.9 588 36.1 37.3 101 41.4 43.0

N/R 57 3.0 48 3.0 9 3.7

Q7b Rubbish or litter Base: 1871 Base: 1627 Base: 244 83: Major problem 207 11.1 11.6 180 11.1 11.6 27 11.1 11.8 84: Minor problem 660 35.3 37.0 580 35.6 37.3 79 32.4 34.5 85: Not a problem 917 49.0 51.4 794 48.8 51.1 123 50.4 53.7

N/R 87 4.6 73 4.5 15 6.1

Q7c Noisy neighbours Base: 1871 Base: 1627 Base: 244 86: Major problem 257 13.7 14.4 245 15.1 15.8 9 3.7 4.0 87: Minor problem 423 22.6 23.7 378 23.2 24.3 43 17.6 18.9 88: Not a problem 1103 59.0 61.9 932 57.3 59.9 175 71.7 77.1

N/R 88 4.7 72 4.4 17 7.0

Q7d Dog fouling/dog mess Base: 1871 Base: 1627 Base: 244 89: Major problem 288 15.4 16.0 261 16.0 16.6 25 10.2 10.9 90: Minor problem 569 30.4 31.6 503 30.9 32.0 65 26.6 28.3 91: Not a problem 945 50.5 52.4 808 49.7 51.4 140 57.4 60.9

N/R 69 3.7 56 3.4 14 5.7

Q7e Other problems with pets and animals Base: 1871 Base: 1627 Base: 244 92: Major problem 101 5.4 5.7 89 5.5 5.7 12 4.9 5.2 93: Minor problem 363 19.4 20.4 321 19.7 20.7 41 16.8 17.7 94: Not a problem 1316 70.3 73.9 1139 70.0 73.5 178 73.0 77.1

N/R 91 4.9 78 4.8 13 5.3

Q7f Disruptive children / teenagers Base: 1871 Base: 1627 Base: 244 95: Major problem 101 5.4 5.7 89 5.5 5.7 11 4.5 4.8 96: Minor problem 358 19.1 20.1 327 20.1 21.0 29 11.9 12.7 97: Not a problem 1326 70.9 74.3 1140 70.1 73.3 188 77.0 82.5

66 Appendix C. Data summary

All tenants General needs Sheltered Addiitonal weight by stock Weight by age Representative Count % overall % valid Count % overall % valid Count % overall % valid

N/R 86 4.6 71 4.4 16 6.6

Q7g Racial or other harassment Base: 1871 Base: 1627 Base: 244 98: Major problem 60 3.2 3.4 55 3.4 3.6 5 2.0 2.2 99: Minor problem 132 7.1 7.4 121 7.4 7.8 9 3.7 4.0 100: Not a problem 1582 84.6 89.2 1372 84.3 88.6 211 86.5 93.8

N/R 97 5.2 79 4.9 19 7.8

Q7h Drunk or rowdy behaviour Base: 1871 Base: 1627 Base: 244 101: Major problem 131 7.0 7.3 123 7.6 7.9 7 2.9 3.0 102: Minor problem 305 16.3 17.1 273 16.8 17.5 31 12.7 13.5 103: Not a problem 1350 72.2 75.6 1160 71.3 74.6 192 78.7 83.5

N/R 86 4.6 72 4.4 14 5.7

Q7i Vandalism and graffiti Base: 1871 Base: 1627 Base: 244 104: Major problem 59 3.2 3.3 53 3.3 3.4 5 2.0 2.2 105: Minor problem 217 11.6 12.2 191 11.7 12.3 25 10.2 11.0 106: Not a problem 1500 80.2 84.5 1303 80.1 84.2 197 80.7 86.8

N/R 96 5.1 80 4.9 17 7.0

Q7j People damaging your property Base: 1871 Base: 1627 Base: 244 107: Major problem 49 2.6 2.8 45 2.8 2.9 3 1.2 1.3 108: Minor problem 144 7.7 8.1 133 8.2 8.6 10 4.1 4.4 109: Not a problem 1585 84.7 89.1 1371 84.3 88.5 215 88.1 94.3

N/R 93 5.0 78 4.8 16 6.6

Q7k Drug use or dealing Base: 1871 Base: 1627 Base: 244 110: Major problem 174 9.3 9.7 158 9.7 10.1 14 5.7 6.2 111: Minor problem 306 16.4 17.1 277 17.0 17.8 28 11.5 12.4 112: Not a problem 1306 69.8 73.1 1124 69.1 72.1 183 75.0 81.3

N/R 86 4.6 68 4.2 19 7.8

Q7l Abandoned or burnt out vehicles Base: 1871 Base: 1627 Base: 244 113: Major problem 25 1.3 1.4 22 1.4 1.4 3 1.2 1.3 114: Minor problem 105 5.6 5.9 97 6.0 6.3 7 2.9 3.1 115: Not a problem 1643 87.8 92.7 1427 87.7 92.3 216 88.5 95.6

N/R 98 5.2 81 5.0 18 7.4

Q7m Other crime Base: 1871 Base: 1627 Base: 244 116: Major problem 63 3.4 3.6 59 3.6 3.9 3 1.2 1.4 117: Minor problem 250 13.4 14.5 229 14.1 15.2 20 8.2 9.1 118: Not a problem 1416 75.7 81.9 1222 75.1 80.9 196 80.3 89.5

N/R 142 7.6 118 7.3 25 10.2

Q8 How satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the overall estate services provided by Wiltshire Council such as grounds maintenance, grass cutting and communal areas? Base: 1871 Base: 1627 Base: 244 119: Very satisfied 389 20.8 21.2 319 19.6 20.0 74 30.3 31.0 120: Fairly satisfied 812 43.4 44.3 712 43.8 44.7 99 40.6 41.4 121: Neither 242 12.9 13.2 222 13.6 13.9 18 7.4 7.5 122: Fairly dissatisfied 236 12.6 12.9 204 12.5 12.8 33 13.5 13.8 123: Very dissatisfied 152 8.1 8.3 137 8.4 8.6 15 6.1 6.3

N/R 39 2.1 34 2.1 5 2.0

67 Appendix C. Data summary

All tenants General needs Sheltered Addiitonal weight by stock Weight by age Representative Count % overall % valid Count % overall % valid Count % overall % valid Q9 How satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the way Wiltshire Council Housing deals with anti‐social behaviour (ASB)? Base: 1871 Base: 1627 Base: 244 124: Very satisfied 301 16.1 22.7 256 15.7 22.2 46 18.9 26.4 125: Fairly satisfied 446 23.8 33.6 385 23.7 33.4 61 25.0 35.1 126: Neither 390 20.8 29.4 348 21.4 30.2 40 16.4 23.0 127: Fairly dissatisfied 89 4.8 6.7 75 4.6 6.5 15 6.1 8.6 128: Very dissatisfied 102 5.5 7.7 90 5.5 7.8 12 4.9 6.9 129: No opinion 484 25.9 424 26.1 60 24.6

N/R 59 3.2 49 3.0 10 4.1

Q10 Have you reported any anti‐social behaviour (ASB) to Wiltshire Council Housing in the last 12 months? Base: 1871 Base: 1627 Base: 244 130: Yes 182 9.7 164 10.1 17 7.0 131: No 1633 87.3 1419 87.2 214 87.7

N/R 56 3.0 44 2.7 13 5.3

Q11a When reporting your ASB case, Wiltshire Council Housing was easy to deal with Base: 182 Base: 164 Base: 17 132: Very satisfied 20 1.1 11.2 19 1.2 11.8 1 0.4 5.9 133: Fairly satisfied 64 3.4 35.8 56 3.4 34.8 8 3.3 47.1 134: Neither 29 1.5 16.2 25 1.5 15.5 4 1.6 23.5 135: Fairly dissatisfied 23 1.2 12.8 19 1.2 11.8 4 1.6 23.5 136: Very dissatisfied 43 2.3 24.0 42 2.6 26.1 0 0.0 0.0

N/R 1693 90.5 2.2 1466 90.1 1.8 227 93.0 0.0

Q11b The quality of the information and advice you received Base: 182 Base: 164 Base: 17 137: Very satisfied 15 0.8 8.3 13 0.8 8.1 1 0.4 5.9 138: Fairly satisfied 51 2.7 28.3 44 2.7 27.3 7 2.9 41.2 139: Neither 32 1.7 17.8 29 1.8 18.0 2 0.8 11.8 140: Fairly dissatisfied 39 2.1 21.7 34 2.1 21.1 5 2.0 29.4 141: Very dissatisfied 43 2.3 23.9 41 2.5 25.5 2 0.8 11.8

N/R 1692 90.4 1.6 1466 90.1 1.8 227 93.0 0.0

Q11c How well you were kept up to date with what was happening throughout your ASB case Base: 182 Base: 164 Base: 17 142: Very satisfied 11 0.6 6.3 10 0.6 6.4 1 0.4 5.9 143: Fairly satisfied 28 1.5 16.0 25 1.5 16.0 2 0.8 11.8 144: Neither 49 2.6 28.0 42 2.6 26.9 7 2.9 41.2 145: Fairly dissatisfied 29 1.5 16.6 26 1.6 16.7 2 0.8 11.8 146: Very dissatisfied 58 3.1 33.1 53 3.3 34.0 5 2.0 29.4

N/R 1697 90.7 4.4 1471 90.4 4.9 227 93.0 0.0

Q11d The support you received while your ASB complaint was dealt with Base: 182 Base: 164 Base: 17 147: Very satisfied 13 0.7 7.5 12 0.7 7.7 1 0.4 5.9 148: Fairly satisfied 23 1.2 13.2 21 1.3 13.5 1 0.4 5.9 149: Neither 51 2.7 29.3 43 2.6 27.6 8 3.3 47.1 150: Fairly dissatisfied 20 1.1 11.5 18 1.1 11.5 2 0.8 11.8 151: Very dissatisfied 67 3.6 38.5 62 3.8 39.7 5 2.0 29.4

N/R 1697 90.7 4.4 1471 90.4 4.9 227 93.0 0.0

Q11e The speed with which your ASB case was dealt with Base: 182 Base: 164 Base: 17 152: Very satisfied 14 0.7 7.9 14 0.9 8.8 0 0.0 0.0 153: Fairly satisfied 31 1.7 17.5 26 1.6 16.4 5 2.0 29.4 154: Neither 48 2.6 27.1 43 2.6 27.0 5 2.0 29.4

68 Appendix C. Data summary

All tenants General needs Sheltered Addiitonal weight by stock Weight by age Representative Count % overall % valid Count % overall % valid Count % overall % valid 155: Fairly dissatisfied 20 1.1 11.3 14 0.9 8.8 6 2.5 35.3 156: Very dissatisfied 64 3.4 36.2 62 3.8 39.0 1 0.4 5.9

N/R 1695 90.6 3.3 1469 90.3 3.7 227 93.0 0.0

Q11f The final outcome of your anti‐social behaviour complaint Base: 182 Base: 164 Base: 17 157: Very satisfied 14 0.7 8.0 12 0.7 7.6 2 0.8 11.8 158: Fairly satisfied 20 1.1 11.4 17 1.0 10.8 3 1.2 17.6 159: Neither 47 2.5 26.7 44 2.7 27.8 2 0.8 11.8 160: Fairly dissatisfied 26 1.4 14.8 23 1.4 14.6 3 1.2 17.6 161: Very dissatisfied 69 3.7 39.2 62 3.8 39.2 7 2.9 41.2

N/R 1696 90.6 3.8 1470 90.4 4.3 227 93.0 0.0

Q11g The way your anti‐social behaviour complaint was handled Base: 182 Base: 164 Base: 17 162: Very satisfied 16 0.9 9.1 14 0.9 8.8 2 0.8 12.5 163: Fairly satisfied 32 1.7 18.2 28 1.7 17.6 4 1.6 25.0 164: Neither 41 2.2 23.3 40 2.5 25.2 1 0.4 6.3 165: Fairly dissatisfied 25 1.3 14.2 19 1.2 11.9 6 2.5 37.5 166: Very dissatisfied 62 3.3 35.2 58 3.6 36.5 3 1.2 18.8

N/R 1695 90.6 3.3 1468 90.2 3.0 228 93.4 5.9

Q12 Generally, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the way Wiltshire Council Housing deals with repairs and maintenance? Base: 1871 Base: 1627 Base: 244 167: Very satisfied 635 33.9 34.6 540 33.2 33.8 96 39.3 40.2 168: Fairly satisfied 708 37.8 38.5 622 38.2 38.9 85 34.8 35.6 169: Neither 160 8.6 8.7 141 8.7 8.8 19 7.8 7.9 170: Fairly dissatisfied 190 10.2 10.3 161 9.9 10.1 30 12.3 12.6 171: Very dissatisfied 144 7.7 7.8 133 8.2 8.3 9 3.7 3.8

N/R 34 1.8 29 1.8 5 2.0

Q13 Have you had any repairs to your home in the last 12 months? Base: 1871 Base: 1627 Base: 244 172: Yes 1173 62.7 1044 64.2 125 51.2 173: No 651 34.8 546 33.6 108 44.3

N/R 48 2.6 37 2.3 11 4.5

Q14a Being told when workers would call Base: 1173 Base: 1044 Base: 125 174: Very satisfied 576 30.8 49.6 502 30.9 48.6 73 29.9 58.9 175: Fairly satisfied 361 19.3 31.1 326 20.0 31.6 33 13.5 26.6 176: Neither 64 3.4 5.5 59 3.6 5.7 4 1.6 3.2 177: Fairly dissatisfied 85 4.5 7.3 79 4.9 7.6 6 2.5 4.8 178: Very dissatisfied 75 4.0 6.5 67 4.1 6.5 8 3.3 6.5

N/R 710 37.9 1.0 594 36.5 1.1 120 49.2 0.8

Q14b Being able to make an appointment Base: 1173 Base: 1044 Base: 125 179: Very satisfied 511 27.3 44.9 444 27.3 43.7 67 27.5 56.3 180: Fairly satisfied 403 21.5 35.4 371 22.8 36.5 29 11.9 24.4 181: Neither 109 5.8 9.6 99 6.1 9.7 10 4.1 8.4 182: Fairly dissatisfied 66 3.5 5.8 56 3.4 5.5 10 4.1 8.4 183: Very dissatisfied 50 2.7 4.4 46 2.8 4.5 3 1.2 2.5

N/R 732 39.1 2.9 611 37.6 2.7 125 51.2 4.8

Q14c Time taken before work started Base: 1173 Base: 1044 Base: 125 184: Very satisfied 423 22.6 37.0 369 22.7 36.2 54 22.1 45.0 185: Fairly satisfied 423 22.6 37.0 383 23.5 37.6 38 15.6 31.7 186: Neither 119 6.4 10.4 110 6.8 10.8 8 3.3 6.7

69 Appendix C. Data summary

All tenants General needs Sheltered Addiitonal weight by stock Weight by age Representative Count % overall % valid Count % overall % valid Count % overall % valid 187: Fairly dissatisfied 97 5.2 8.5 86 5.3 8.4 11 4.5 9.2 188: Very dissatisfied 80 4.3 7.0 71 4.4 7.0 9 3.7 7.5

N/R 729 39.0 2.6 609 37.4 2.5 124 50.8 4.0

Q14d Speed with which work was completed Base: 1173 Base: 1044 Base: 125 189: Very satisfied 565 30.2 48.9 492 30.2 47.9 72 29.5 59.0 190: Fairly satisfied 352 18.8 30.5 320 19.7 31.1 30 12.3 24.6 191: Neither 103 5.5 8.9 93 5.7 9.0 9 3.7 7.4 192: Fairly dissatisfied 58 3.1 5.0 51 3.1 5.0 7 2.9 5.7 193: Very dissatisfied 77 4.1 6.7 72 4.4 7.0 4 1.6 3.3

N/R 716 38.3 1.5 598 36.8 1.4 122 50.0 2.4

Q14e Attitude of workers Base: 1173 Base: 1044 Base: 125 194: Very satisfied 740 39.6 64.1 645 39.6 62.7 95 38.9 78.5 195: Fairly satisfied 292 15.6 25.3 268 16.5 26.0 21 8.6 17.4 196: Neither 70 3.7 6.1 66 4.1 6.4 3 1.2 2.5 197: Fairly dissatisfied 27 1.4 2.3 26 1.6 2.5 1 0.4 0.8 198: Very dissatisfied 25 1.3 2.2 24 1.5 2.3 1 0.4 0.8

N/R 717 38.3 1.6 598 36.8 1.4 123 50.4 3.2

Q14f The overall quality of work Base: 1173 Base: 1044 Base: 125 199: Very satisfied 566 30.3 49.1 497 30.5 48.4 67 27.5 54.9 200: Fairly satisfied 349 18.7 30.3 311 19.1 30.3 37 15.2 30.3 201: Neither 93 5.0 8.1 86 5.3 8.4 6 2.5 4.9 202: Fairly dissatisfied 72 3.8 6.2 64 3.9 6.2 8 3.3 6.6 203: Very dissatisfied 73 3.9 6.3 68 4.2 6.6 4 1.6 3.3

N/R 718 38.4 1.7 600 36.9 1.6 122 50.0 2.4

Q14g Keeping dirt and mess to a minimum Base: 1173 Base: 1044 Base: 125 204: Very satisfied 648 34.6 56.0 565 34.7 54.9 82 33.6 67.2 205: Fairly satisfied 382 20.4 33.0 347 21.3 33.7 32 13.1 26.2 206: Neither 67 3.6 5.8 63 3.9 6.1 3 1.2 2.5 207: Fairly dissatisfied 28 1.5 2.4 26 1.6 2.5 2 0.8 1.6 208: Very dissatisfied 32 1.7 2.8 29 1.8 2.8 3 1.2 2.5

N/R 715 38.2 1.4 597 36.7 1.3 122 50.0 2.4

Q14h The repair being done 'right first time' Base: 1173 Base: 1044 Base: 125 209: Very satisfied 522 27.9 45.2 454 27.9 44.1 68 27.9 55.3 210: Fairly satisfied 297 15.9 25.7 273 16.8 26.5 22 9.0 17.9 211: Neither 110 5.9 9.5 98 6.0 9.5 12 4.9 9.8 212: Fairly dissatisfied 105 5.6 9.1 94 5.8 9.1 11 4.5 8.9 213: Very dissatisfied 121 6.5 10.5 111 6.8 10.8 10 4.1 8.1

N/R 715 38.2 1.4 598 36.8 1.4 121 49.6 1.6

Q14i The contractors doing the work you expected Base: 1173 Base: 1044 Base: 125 214: Very satisfied 583 31.2 50.4 511 31.4 49.6 72 29.5 59.0 215: Fairly satisfied 329 17.6 28.4 300 18.4 29.1 26 10.7 21.3 216: Neither 112 6.0 9.7 100 6.1 9.7 11 4.5 9.0 217: Fairly dissatisfied 60 3.2 5.2 52 3.2 5.0 8 3.3 6.6 218: Very dissatisfied 73 3.9 6.3 67 4.1 6.5 5 2.0 4.1

N/R 715 38.2 1.4 597 36.7 1.3 122 50.0 2.4

Q14j Overall, the repairs service you received on this occasion Base: 1173 Base: 1044 Base: 125 219: Very satisfied 568 30.4 49.0 494 30.4 47.9 74 30.3 60.2 220: Fairly satisfied 342 18.3 29.5 314 19.3 30.4 25 10.2 20.3 221: Neither 99 5.3 8.5 88 5.4 8.5 10 4.1 8.1

70 Appendix C. Data summary

All tenants General needs Sheltered Addiitonal weight by stock Weight by age Representative Count % overall % valid Count % overall % valid Count % overall % valid 222: Fairly dissatisfied 66 3.5 5.7 56 3.4 5.4 10 4.1 8.1 223: Very dissatisfied 85 4.5 7.3 80 4.9 7.8 4 1.6 3.3

N/R 713 38.1 1.3 595 36.6 1.1 121 49.6 1.6

Q15 Top three priorities for Council investment Base: 1871 Base: 1627 Base: 244 224: Energy efficiency improvements 887 47.4 780 47.9 105 43.0 225: Parking improvements 867 46.3 755 46.4 112 45.9 226: Improvements to bin areas 369 19.7 279 17.1 98 40.2 227: More garages 159 8.5 144 8.9 14 5.7 228: Communal landscaping / benches 463 24.7 386 23.7 81 33.2 229: Improvements to roads and paths 1050 56.1 919 56.5 130 53.3 230: Children's play areas 414 22.1 395 24.3 13 5.3 231: More housing 463 24.7 424 26.1 35 14.3

N/R 92 4.9 78 4.8 15 6.1

Q16a Listen to your views and act upon them Base: 1871 Base: 1627 Base: 244 232: Very satisfied 309 16.5 18.9 268 16.5 18.9 40 16.4 18.4 233: Fairly satisfied 666 35.6 40.7 584 35.9 41.1 81 33.2 37.3 234: Neither 402 21.5 24.6 361 22.2 25.4 38 15.6 17.5 235: Fairly dissatisfied 130 6.9 7.9 97 6.0 6.8 37 15.2 17.1 236: Very dissatisfied 130 6.9 7.9 110 6.8 7.7 21 8.6 9.7 237: No opinion 154 8.2 138 8.5 15 6.1

N/R 82 4.4 70 4.3 12 4.9

Q16b Provide enough opportunities to make your views known Base: 1871 Base: 1627 Base: 244 238: Very satisfied 374 20.0 22.9 325 20.0 23.0 50 20.5 23.1 239: Fairly satisfied 685 36.6 42.0 596 36.6 42.1 89 36.5 41.2 240: Neither 388 20.7 23.8 349 21.5 24.6 37 15.2 17.1 241: Fairly dissatisfied 97 5.2 5.9 70 4.3 4.9 29 11.9 13.4 242: Very dissatisfied 87 4.6 5.3 76 4.7 5.4 11 4.5 5.1 243: No opinion 144 7.7 129 7.9 15 6.1

N/R 95 5.1 82 5.0 13 5.3

Q16c Keep you informed about events and community groups in your area Base: 1871 Base: 1627 Base: 244 244: Very satisfied 405 21.6 24.9 350 21.5 24.9 56 23.0 25.5 245: Fairly satisfied 678 36.2 41.7 592 36.4 42.1 85 34.8 38.6 246: Neither 382 20.4 23.5 331 20.3 23.6 51 20.9 23.2 247: Fairly dissatisfied 94 5.0 5.8 78 4.8 5.6 17 7.0 7.7 248: Very dissatisfied 65 3.5 4.0 54 3.3 3.8 11 4.5 5.0 249: No opinion 157 8.4 144 8.9 12 4.9

N/R 90 4.8 78 4.8 12 4.9

Q16d Provide helpful meetings and events Base: 1871 Base: 1627 Base: 244 250: Very satisfied 310 16.6 20.1 265 16.3 20.0 46 18.9 21.2 251: Fairly satisfied 590 31.5 38.3 505 31.0 38.1 86 35.2 39.6 252: Neither 486 26.0 31.6 435 26.7 32.8 49 20.1 22.6 253: Fairly dissatisfied 87 4.6 5.6 72 4.4 5.4 15 6.1 6.9 254: Very dissatisfied 67 3.6 4.4 48 3.0 3.6 21 8.6 9.7 255: No opinion 229 12.2 212 13.0 15 6.1

N/R 101 5.4 89 5.5 12 4.9

Q16e Help direct you to the correct Council service or other organisation when needed Base: 1871 Base: 1627 Base: 244 256: Very satisfied 485 25.9 29.1 422 25.9 29.2 63 25.8 28.4 257: Fairly satisfied 734 39.2 44.1 633 38.9 43.8 102 41.8 45.9 258: Neither 304 16.2 18.3 267 16.4 18.5 37 15.2 16.7 259: Fairly dissatisfied 76 4.1 4.6 66 4.1 4.6 10 4.1 4.5

71 Appendix C. Data summary

All tenants General needs Sheltered Addiitonal weight by stock Weight by age Representative Count % overall % valid Count % overall % valid Count % overall % valid 260: Very dissatisfied 66 3.5 4.0 56 3.4 3.9 10 4.1 4.5 261: No opinion 129 6.9 117 7.2 11 4.5

N/R 77 4.1 66 4.1 11 4.5

Q17 How good or poor do you feel Wiltshire Council Housing is at keeping you informed about things that might affect you as a tenant? Base: 1871 Base: 1627 Base: 244 262: Very good 583 31.2 32.0 507 31.2 32.0 75 30.7 31.3 263: Fairly good 776 41.5 42.5 669 41.1 42.2 108 44.3 45.0 264: Neither 282 15.1 15.5 256 15.7 16.2 24 9.8 10.0 265: Fairly poor 110 5.9 6.0 89 5.5 5.6 23 9.4 9.6 266: Very poor 73 3.9 4.0 64 3.9 4.0 10 4.1 4.2

N/R 47 2.5 43 2.6 4 1.6

Q18a That Wiltshire Council Housing is easy to deal with Base: 1871 Base: 1627 Base: 244 267: Very satisfied 671 35.9 36.8 576 35.4 36.4 95 38.9 39.7 268: Fairly satisfied 793 42.4 43.5 697 42.8 44.1 94 38.5 39.3 269: Neither 181 9.7 9.9 156 9.6 9.9 26 10.7 10.9 270: Fairly dissatisfied 116 6.2 6.4 97 6.0 6.1 19 7.8 7.9 271: Very dissatisfied 60 3.2 3.3 55 3.4 3.5 5 2.0 2.1

N/R 51 2.7 45 2.8 5 2.0

Q18b With the way we deal with enquiries generally Base: 1871 Base: 1627 Base: 244 272: Very satisfied 672 35.9 37.1 578 35.5 36.7 94 38.5 40.0 273: Fairly satisfied 790 42.2 43.7 695 42.7 44.2 93 38.1 39.6 274: Neither 198 10.6 10.9 175 10.8 11.1 23 9.4 9.8 275: Fairly dissatisfied 96 5.1 5.3 78 4.8 5.0 20 8.2 8.5 276: Very dissatisfied 53 2.8 2.9 48 3.0 3.0 5 2.0 2.1

N/R 62 3.3 54 3.3 9 3.7

Q19 Preferred method of being kept informed and contacting Wiltshire Council Housing Base: 1871 Base: 1627 Base: 244 277: E‐mail 1137 60.8 1018 62.6 115 47.1 278: I Housing 356 19.0 322 19.8 33 13.5 279: Social media 155 8.3 145 8.9 9 3.7 280: Web chat 80 4.3 76 4.7 3 1.2 281: Telephone 1204 64.4 1031 63.4 175 71.7 282: Text/ SMS 567 30.3 500 30.7 66 27.0 283: In writing 900 48.1 772 47.4 129 52.9 284: Visit to the office 315 16.8 277 17.0 38 15.6 285: Visit to your home by staff 448 23.9 369 22.7 82 33.6 286: Open meetings 143 7.6 90 5.5 60 24.6 287: Housing Matters magazine 352 18.8 308 18.9 43 17.6 288: Other 30.2 20.1 10.4

N/R 43 2.3 40 2.5 3 1.2

Q20 Use the internet in the following ways Base: 1871 Base: 1627 Base: 244 289: With a mobile phone 1095 58.5 998 61.3 90 36.9 290: With a home computer or laptop 615 32.9 531 32.6 85 34.8 291: With a tablet 500 26.7 447 27.5 51 20.9 292: With a smart TV, set‐top box or console 157 8.4 145 8.9 11 4.5 293: At work 134 7.2 128 7.9 4 1.6 294: At a public site (e.g. library) 62 3.3 52 3.2 10 4.1 295: I do not normally use the internet 458 24.5 372 22.9 90 36.9

N/R 66 3.5 62 3.8 4 1.6

R20 Use the internet Base: 1871 Base: 1627 Base: 244

72 Appendix C. Data summary

All tenants General needs Sheltered Addiitonal weight by stock Weight by age Representative Count % overall % valid Count % overall % valid Count % overall % valid 296: Yes 1346 71.9 1193 73.3 150 61.5 297: No 458 24.5 372 22.9 90 36.9

N/R 66 3.5 62 3.8 4 1.6

Q21 In the past year, have you done any of the following? Base: 1346 Base: 1193 Base: 150 298: Used Facebook, or other social media 960 51.3 71.3 878 54.0 73.6 76 31.1 50.7 299: Online shopping 1048 56.0 77.9 949 58.3 79.5 93 38.1 62.0 300: Online banking 998 53.3 74.1 900 55.3 75.4 94 38.5 62.7 301: Used the Council's online services 702 37.5 52.2 638 39.2 53.5 61 25.0 40.7 302: Used other online government services 689 36.8 51.2 630 38.7 52.8 54 22.1 36.0 303: Used paperless services for bills etc. 771 41.2 57.3 688 42.3 57.7 80 32.8 53.3 304: Used an App 741 39.6 55.1 677 41.6 56.7 60 24.6 40.0 305: Watched YouTube 771 41.2 57.3 710 43.6 59.5 55 22.5 36.7 306: Contacted an organisation by email 741 39.6 55.1 660 40.6 55.3 79 32.4 52.7 307: Contacted an organisation using Facebook 312 16.7 23.2 293 18.0 24.6 16 6.6 10.7 308: Contacted an organisation using Twitter 48 2.6 3.6 44 2.7 3.7 4 1.6 2.7 309: Contacted an organisation via online chat 324 17.3 24.1 306 18.8 25.6 14 5.7 9.3

310: Read an email newsletter from an organisation 552 29.5 41.0 487 29.9 40.8 65 26.6 43.3

N/R 588 31.4 4.7 486 29.9 4.4 105 43.0 7.3

Q22 Why do you not normally use the internet? Base: 458 Base: 372 Base: 90 311: No access 149 8.0 32.5 121 7.4 32.5 29 11.9 32.2 312: Don't want to 208 11.1 45.4 166 10.2 44.6 44 18.0 48.9 313: Too costly 97 5.2 21.2 81 5.0 21.8 16 6.6 17.8 314: No free facilities near me 17 0.9 3.7 15 0.9 4.0 2 0.8 2.2 315: Privacy concerns 76 4.1 16.6 59 3.6 15.9 17 7.0 18.9 316: Disability 50 2.7 10.9 41 2.5 11.0 10 4.1 11.1 317: Lack of skills 173 9.2 37.8 146 9.0 39.2 27 11.1 30.0 318: Other 10 0.5 2.2 8 0.5 2.2 2 0.8 2.2

N/R 1438 76.9 5.5 1274 78.3 5.1 161 66.0 7.8

Q23 Do you use iHousing online service to manage your rent account and report repairs? Base: 1871 Base: 1627 Base: 244 319: Yes 566 30.3 501 30.8 65 26.6 320: No 1235 66.0 1062 65.3 173 70.9

N/R 70 3.7 64 3.9 6 2.5

Q24 Why do you not use iHousing? Base: 1235 Base: 1062 Base: 173 321: Didn't know about it 313 16.7 25.3 274 16.8 25.8 38 15.6 22.0 322: Don't want to 350 18.7 28.3 295 18.1 27.8 56 23.0 32.4 323: Tried it but didn't like it 115 6.1 9.3 109 6.7 10.3 4 1.6 2.3 324: Privacy concerns 103 5.5 8.3 84 5.2 7.9 19 7.8 11.0 325: Disability 87 4.6 7.0 78 4.8 7.3 9 3.7 5.2 326: Lack of skills 282 15.1 22.8 226 13.9 21.3 59 24.2 34.1 327: Other 172 9.2 13.9 148 9.1 13.9 24 9.8 13.9

N/R 701 37.5 5.3 620 38.1 5.2 80 32.8 5.2

Q25a Claiming housing benefit and other welfare benefits Base: 1871 Base: 1627 Base: 244 328: Very satisfied 532 28.4 40.8 447 27.5 39.8 88 36.1 48.4 329: Fairly satisfied 417 22.3 32.0 362 22.2 32.2 56 23.0 30.8 330: Neither 264 14.1 20.3 233 14.3 20.7 30 12.3 16.5 331: Fairly dissatisfied 43 2.3 3.3 39 2.4 3.5 4 1.6 2.2 332: Very dissatisfied 47 2.5 3.6 43 2.6 3.8 4 1.6 2.2 333: Not applicable 455 24.3 410 25.2 42 17.2

N/R 113 6.0 94 5.8 20 8.2

73 Appendix C. Data summary

All tenants General needs Sheltered Addiitonal weight by stock Weight by age Representative Count % overall % valid Count % overall % valid Count % overall % valid Q25b Managing your finances and paying rent and service charges Base: 1871 Base: 1627 Base: 244 334: Very satisfied 577 30.8 41.0 490 30.1 39.9 89 36.5 49.2 335: Fairly satisfied 509 27.2 36.1 450 27.7 36.6 58 23.8 32.0 336: Neither 257 13.7 18.2 230 14.1 18.7 26 10.7 14.4 337: Fairly dissatisfied 39 2.1 2.8 33 2.0 2.7 7 2.9 3.9 338: Very dissatisfied 27 1.4 1.9 26 1.6 2.1 1 0.4 0.6 339: Not applicable 315 16.8 279 17.1 35 14.3

N/R 147 7.9 120 7.4 28 11.5

Q26 Are you aware of the Council's Tenancy Sustainment Service, that provides advice and support for tenants to manage their finances and stay out of arrears? Base: 1871 Base: 1627 Base: 244 340: Yes 566 30.3 488 30.0 79 32.4 341: No 832 44.5 719 44.2 114 46.7 342: Not sure 360 19.2 320 19.7 39 16.0

N/R 112 6.0 100 6.1 12 4.9

Q27 Experienced financial difficulties in the last 12 months? Base: 1871 Base: 1627 Base: 244 343: Not experienced financial difficulties 1150 61.5 973 59.8 181 74.2 344: Rent 276 14.8 259 15.9 14 5.7 345: Food bills 216 11.5 202 12.4 11 4.5 346: Fuel bills 189 10.1 174 10.7 13 5.3 347: Council Tax 278 14.9 263 16.2 11 4.5 348: Loans/credit cards 186 9.9 175 10.8 9 3.7 349: Phone charge 96 5.1 89 5.5 6 2.5 350: TV licence 109 5.8 102 6.3 6 2.5 351: Other 16 0.9 15 0.9 1 0.4

N/R 226 12.1 196 12.0 30 12.3

R27 Experienced financial difficulties in the last 12 months Base: 1871 Base: 1627 Base: 244 352: Yes 495 26.5 458 28.1 33 13.5 353: No 1150 61.5 973 59.8 181 74.2

N/R 226 12.1 196 12.0 30 12.3

Q28 How satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the way Wiltshire Council Housing deals with complaints? Base: 1871 Base: 1627 Base: 244 354: Very satisfied 354 18.9 24.2 307 18.9 24.3 47 19.3 23.3 355: Fairly satisfied 570 30.5 38.9 489 30.1 38.7 82 33.6 40.6 356: Neither 322 17.2 22.0 281 17.3 22.2 41 16.8 20.3 357: Fairly dissatisfied 100 5.3 6.8 81 5.0 6.4 20 8.2 9.9 358: Very dissatisfied 118 6.3 8.1 106 6.5 8.4 12 4.9 5.9 359: No opinion 318 17.0 283 17.4 34 13.9

N/R 88 4.7 80 4.9 8 3.3

Q29 Have you made a formal complaint to Wiltshire Council Housing in the last 12 months? Base: 1871 Base: 1627 Base: 244 360: Yes 188 10.0 169 10.4 19 7.8 361: No 1591 85.0 1380 84.8 212 86.9

N/R 91 4.9 79 4.9 13 5.3

Q30a When reporting your complaint, Wiltshire Council Housing was easy to deal with Base: 188 Base: 169 Base: 19 362: Very satisfied 30 1.6 16.2 27 1.7 16.3 3 1.2 16.7

74 Appendix C. Data summary

All tenants General needs Sheltered Addiitonal weight by stock Weight by age Representative Count % overall % valid Count % overall % valid Count % overall % valid 363: Fairly satisfied 53 2.8 28.6 45 2.8 27.1 8 3.3 44.4 364: Neither 26 1.4 14.1 24 1.5 14.5 1 0.4 5.6 365: Fairly dissatisfied 40 2.1 21.6 35 2.2 21.1 5 2.0 27.8 366: Very dissatisfied 36 1.9 19.5 35 2.2 21.1 1 0.4 5.6

N/R 1686 90.1 1.6 1461 89.8 1.8 226 92.6 5.3

Q30b The quality of the information and advice you received Base: 188 Base: 169 Base: 19 367: Very satisfied 27 1.4 14.9 25 1.5 15.4 2 0.8 11.1 368: Fairly satisfied 34 1.8 18.8 28 1.7 17.3 7 2.9 38.9 369: Neither 36 1.9 19.9 33 2.0 20.4 2 0.8 11.1 370: Fairly dissatisfied 38 2.0 21.0 34 2.1 21.0 4 1.6 22.2 371: Very dissatisfied 46 2.5 25.4 42 2.6 25.9 3 1.2 16.7

N/R 1690 90.3 3.7 1465 90.0 4.1 226 92.6 5.3

Q30c How well you were kept informed about the progress of the complaint Base: 188 Base: 169 Base: 19 372: Very satisfied 17 0.9 9.2 16 1.0 9.6 1 0.4 5.6 373: Fairly satisfied 35 1.9 19.0 30 1.8 18.1 5 2.0 27.8 374: Neither 29 1.5 15.8 28 1.7 16.9 0 0.0 0.0 375: Fairly dissatisfied 36 1.9 19.6 30 1.8 18.1 7 2.9 38.9 376: Very dissatisfied 67 3.6 36.4 62 3.8 37.3 5 2.0 27.8

N/R 1687 90.2 2.1 1462 89.9 2.4 226 92.6 5.3

Q30d The support you received while your complaint was dealt with Base: 188 Base: 169 Base: 19 377: Very satisfied 18 1.0 10.0 16 1.0 9.8 2 0.8 11.8 378: Fairly satisfied 26 1.4 14.4 23 1.4 14.1 3 1.2 17.6 379: Neither 34 1.8 18.9 33 2.0 20.2 0 0.0 0.0 380: Fairly dissatisfied 35 1.9 19.4 31 1.9 19.0 5 2.0 29.4 381: Very dissatisfied 67 3.6 37.2 60 3.7 36.8 7 2.9 41.2

N/R 1690 90.3 3.7 1464 90.0 3.6 227 93.0 10.5

Q30e The speed with which your complaint was dealt with Base: 188 Base: 169 Base: 19 382: Very satisfied 20 1.1 11.0 17 1.0 10.4 3 1.2 17.6 383: Fairly satisfied 32 1.7 17.7 29 1.8 17.7 3 1.2 17.6 384: Neither 28 1.5 15.5 27 1.7 16.5 0 0.0 0.0 385: Fairly dissatisfied 32 1.7 17.7 28 1.7 17.1 5 2.0 29.4 386: Very dissatisfied 69 3.7 38.1 63 3.9 38.4 6 2.5 35.3

N/R 1689 90.3 3.2 1463 89.9 3.0 227 93.0 10.5

Q30f The final outcome of your complaint Base: 188 Base: 169 Base: 19 387: Very satisfied 17 0.9 9.3 16 1.0 9.7 1 0.4 5.9 388: Fairly satisfied 29 1.5 15.9 23 1.4 13.9 6 2.5 35.3 389: Neither 32 1.7 17.6 30 1.8 18.2 2 0.8 11.8 390: Fairly dissatisfied 25 1.3 13.7 22 1.4 13.3 3 1.2 17.6 391: Very dissatisfied 79 4.2 43.4 74 4.5 44.8 5 2.0 29.4

N/R 1689 90.3 3.2 1463 89.9 3.0 227 93.0 10.5

Q30g Overall, the way your complaint was handled by Wiltshire Council Housing Base: 188 Base: 169 Base: 19 392: Very satisfied 21 1.1 11.5 18 1.1 11.0 3 1.2 17.6 393: Fairly satisfied 31 1.7 16.9 27 1.7 16.5 4 1.6 23.5 394: Neither 30 1.6 16.4 28 1.7 17.1 1 0.4 5.9 395: Fairly dissatisfied 26 1.4 14.2 20 1.2 12.2 6 2.5 35.3 396: Very dissatisfied 75 4.0 41.0 71 4.4 43.3 3 1.2 17.6

N/R 1688 90.2 2.7 1462 89.9 2.4 227 93.0 10.5

75 Appendix C. Data summary

All tenants General needs Sheltered Addiitonal weight by stock Weight by age Representative Count % overall % valid Count % overall % valid Count % overall % valid

D101 Stock type Base: 1871 Base: 1627 Base: 244 397: General needs 1663 88.9 1627 100.0 0 0.0 398: Sheltered 208 11.1 0 0.0 244 100.0

N/R 00.0 00.0 00.0

D102 Patch Base: 1871 Base: 1627 Base: 244 399: Bemerton 248 13.3 243 14.9 0 0.0 400: East 285 15.2 278 17.1 0 0.0 401: Extra Care schemes 18 1.0 0 0.0 21 8.6 402: Friary & Salisbury 288 15.4 282 17.3 0 0.0 403: North 293 15.7 287 17.6 0 0.0 404: Other 80.4 80.5 00.0 405: Sheltered 191 10.2 0 0.0 223 91.4 406: South West 282 15.1 276 17.0 0 0.0 407: Wilton 258 13.8 252 15.5 0 0.0

N/R 00.0 00.0 00.0

D103 Repairs area Base: 1871 Base: 1627 Base: 244 408: Alderbury 23 1.2 22 1.4 0 0.0 409: Allington 40.2 40.2 00.0 410: Alvediston 00.0 00.0 00.0 411: Amesbury 167 8.9 139 8.5 29 11.9 412: Ansty 00.0 00.0 00.0 413: Any Area 20.1 20.1 00.0 414: Barford St Martin 15 0.8 14 0.9 0 0.0 415: Bemerton Heath 1 165 8.8 162 10.0 0 0.0 416: Bemerton Heath 2 103 5.5 97 6.0 5 2.0 417: Berwick St James 00.0 00.0 00.0 418: Bishopdown 86 4.6 77 4.7 9 3.7 419: Bishopstone 50.3 50.3 00.0 420: Boscombe Village 10.1 10.1 00.0 421: Bowerchalke 70.4 60.4 00.0 422: Britford 10.1 10.1 00.0 423: Broadchalke 60.3 50.3 00.0 424: Bulford 50 2.7 49 3.0 0 0.0 425: Burcombe 20.1 20.1 00.0 426: Charlton All Saints 30.2 30.2 00.0 427: Chilmark 80.4 80.5 00.0 428: Cholderton 30.2 30.2 00.0 429: Compton Chamberlyne 20.1 20.1 00.0 430: Coombe Bissett 40.2 40.2 00.0 431: Devizes 22 1.2 4 0.2 21 8.6 432: Dinton 17 0.9 17 1.0 0 0.0 433: Donhead St Andrew 20.1 20.1 00.0 434: Donhead St Mary 35 1.9 28 1.7 7 2.9 435: Downton 48 2.6 43 2.6 5 2.0 436: Durnford 40.2 40.2 00.0 437: Durrington 62 3.3 52 3.2 10 4.1 438: East Knoyle 14 0.7 13 0.8 0 0.0 439: Ebbesbourne Wake 10.1 10.1 00.0 440: Farley 60.3 60.4 00.0 441: Figheldean 10 0.5 9 0.6 0 0.0 442: Fisherton 2 15 0.8 7 0.4 9 3.7 443: Fisherton1 60.3 60.4 00.0 444: Fonthill Bishop 20.1 20.1 00.0 445: Ford 20.1 20.1 00.0 446: Fovant 20 1.1 14 0.9 6 2.5 447: Great Wishford 13 0.7 13 0.8 0 0.0 448: Grimstead 20.1 20.1 00.0 449: Harnham 110 5.9 87 5.3 25 10.2 450: Hindon 14 0.7 14 0.9 0 0.0 451: Kilminton 40.2 40.2 00.0

76 Appendix C. Data summary

All tenants General needs Sheltered Addiitonal weight by stock Weight by age Representative Count % overall % valid Count % overall % valid Count % overall % valid 452: Landford 10.1 10.1 00.0 453: Laverstock 25 1.3 18 1.1 8 3.3 454: Maiden Bradley 10.1 10.1 00.0 455: Mere 82 4.4 68 4.2 15 6.1 456: Milford 1 49 2.6 48 3.0 0 0.0 457: Milford 2 00.0 00.0 00.0 458: Netherhampton 00.0 00.0 00.0 459: Newton Tony 80.4 70.4 00.0 460: Nomansland 10.1 10.1 00.0 461: Nunton 12 0.6 2 0.1 12 4.9 462: Odstock 50.3 50.3 00.0 463: Orcheston 40.2 40.2 00.0 464: Pitton 30.2 20.1 00.0 465: Porton 70.4 60.4 00.0 466: Quidhampton 90.5 90.6 00.0 467: Redlynch 25 1.3 25 1.5 0 0.0 468: Sedgehill 00.0 00.0 00.0 469: Semley 20.1 20.1 00.0 470: Shrewton 25 1.3 21 1.3 4 1.6 471: South Newton 20 1.1 19 1.2 0 0.0 472: St Edmunds 2 14 0.7 14 0.9 0 0.0 473: St Marks 1 15 0.8 9 0.6 7 2.9 474: St Martins 1 117 6.3 89 5.5 31 12.7 475: St Pauls 1 13 0.7 13 0.8 0 0.0 476: St Pauls 2 50.3 50.3 00.0 477: Steeple Langford 12 0.6 6 0.4 8 3.3 478: Stour 00.0 00.0 00.0 479: Stratford 20.1 20.1 00.0 480: Stratford 1 72 3.8 70 4.3 0 0.0 481: Stratford 2 80.4 80.5 00.0 482: Sutton Mandeville 20.1 20.1 00.0 483: Swallowcliffe 00.0 00.0 00.0 484: Teffont 20.1 20.1 00.0 485: Tilshead 40.2 40.2 00.0 486: Tisbury 56 3.0 38 2.3 20 8.2 487: Tollard Royal 00.0 00.0 00.0 488: Trowbridge 18 1.0 18 1.1 0 0.0 489: Trowbridge C 17 0.9 16 1.0 0 0.0 490: Warminster 20.1 20.1 00.0 491: West Dean 00.0 00.0 00.0 492: West Knoyle 20.1 20.1 00.0 493: West Tisbury 80.4 70.4 00.0 494: Whiteparish 17 0.9 16 1.0 0 0.0 495: Wilton 89 4.8 79 4.9 10 4.1 496: Winterborne Stoke 26 1.4 25 1.5 0 0.0 497: Winterslow 60.3 60.4 00.0 498: Woodfalls 20.1 20.1 00.0 499: Woodford 70.4 60.4 00.0 500: Wylye 10.1 10.1 00.0 501: Zeals 12 0.6 9 0.6 3 1.2

N/R 00.0 00.0 00.0

D104 Tenancy type Base: 1871 Base: 1627 Base: 244 502: Introductory 89 4.8 70 4.3 20 8.2 503: Secure Tenancy 1782 95.2 1557 95.7 224 91.8

N/R 00.0 00.0 00.0

D105 Gender Base: 1871 Base: 1627 Base: 244 504: Male 714 38.2 600 36.9 117 48.0 505: Female 1157 61.8 1027 63.1 127 52.0

N/R 00.0 00.0 00.0

77 Appendix C. Data summary

All tenants General needs Sheltered Addiitonal weight by stock Weight by age Representative Count % overall % valid Count % overall % valid Count % overall % valid D106 Age group Base: 1871 Base: 1627 Base: 244 506: 16 ‐ 24 years 43 2.3 42 2.6 0 0.0 507: 25 ‐ 34 years 208 11.1 205 12.6 0 0.0 508: 35 ‐ 44 years 258 13.8 253 15.6 0 0.0 509: 45 ‐ 54 years 317 16.9 310 19.1 1 0.4 510: 55 ‐ 59 years 167 8.9 152 9.3 13 5.3 511: 60 ‐ 64 years 159 8.5 133 8.2 27 11.1 512: 65 ‐ 74 years 325 17.4 238 14.6 94 38.5 513: 75 ‐ 84 years 283 15.1 204 12.5 86 35.2 514: 85 years and over 112 6.0 90 5.5 23 9.4

N/R 00.0 00.0 00.0

D107 Age group [simple] Base: 1871 Base: 1627 Base: 244 515: 16‐34 251 13.4 248 15.2 0 0.0 516: 35‐49 413 22.1 406 25.0 0 0.0 517: 50‐64 487 26.0 442 27.2 41 16.8 518: 65+ 720 38.5 531 32.6 203 83.2

N/R 00.0 00.0 00.0

D108 Property size Base: 1871 Base: 1627 Base: 244 519: Bedsit 19 1.0 13 0.8 7 2.9 520: One 384 20.5 219 13.5 188 77.0 521: Two 821 43.9 762 46.8 49 20.1 522: Three 597 31.9 585 36.0 0 0.0 523: Four or more 49 2.6 48 3.0 0 0.0

N/R 00.0 00.0 00.0

D109 Property type Base: 1871 Base: 1627 Base: 244 524: Bedsit Bungalow Mid Terr 00.0 00.0 00.0 525: Bedsit Bungalow Semi Det 30.2 30.2 00.0 526: Bedsit Flat 19 1.0 13 0.8 7 2.9 527: Bungalow 10.1 10.1 00.0 528: Bungalow Detached 70.4 60.4 10.4 529: Bungalow End Terrace 144 7.7 123 7.6 21 8.6 530: Bungalow Mid Terrace 132 7.1 99 6.1 35 14.3 531: Bungalow Semi Detach 196 10.5 182 11.2 10 4.1 532: Flat 513 27.4 361 22.2 170 69.7 533: House Detached 50.3 50.3 00.0 534: House End Terrace 180 9.6 176 10.8 0 0.0 535: House Mid Terrace 226 12.1 222 13.6 0 0.0 536: House Semi Detached 378 20.2 370 22.7 0 0.0 537: Maisonette 67 3.6 65 4.0 0 0.0

N/R 00.0 00.0 00.0

D110 Property type [summary] Base: 1871 Base: 1627 Base: 244 538: Bedsit 23 1.2 16 1.0 7 2.9 539: Bungalow 480 25.7 412 25.3 67 27.5 540: Flat 513 27.4 361 22.2 170 69.7 541: House 789 42.2 773 47.5 0 0.0 542: Maisonette 67 3.6 65 4.0 0 0.0

N/R 00.0 00.0 00.0

D111 Receive Housing Benefit Base: 1871 Base: 1627 Base: 244 543: Partial 289 15.4 237 14.6 54 22.1 544: Full 387 20.7 303 18.6 90 36.9 545: No 1194 63.8 1086 66.7 100 41.0

N/R 00.0 00.0 00.0

D112 Receive Housing Benefit [summary] Base: 1871 Base: 1627 Base: 244

78 Appendix C. Data summary

All tenants General needs Sheltered Addiitonal weight by stock Weight by age Representative Count % overall % valid Count % overall % valid Count % overall % valid 546: Yes 677 36.2 541 33.3 144 59.0 547: No 1194 63.8 1086 66.7 100 41.0

N/R 00.0 00.0 00.0

D113 Ethnic background Base: 1871 Base: 1627 Base: 244 548: White British 876 46.8 713 43.8 174 71.3 549: Irish 40.2 40.2 00.0 550: Gypsy/Irish Traveller 00.0 00.0 00.0 551: Other White background 00.0 00.0 00.0 552: White & Black Caribbean 50.3 40.2 10.4 553: White & Black African 30.2 20.1 00.0 554: White & Asian 20.1 20.1 00.0 555: Other Mixed background 00.0 00.0 00.0 556: Indian 00.0 00.0 00.0 557: Pakistani 00.0 00.0 00.0 558: Bangladeshi 50.3 50.3 00.0 559: Chinese 00.0 00.0 00.0 560: Other Asian background 00.0 00.0 00.0 561: African 10 0.5 10 0.6 0 0.0 562: Caribbean 20.1 20.1 10.4 563: Other Black background 70.4 60.4 00.0 564: Arab 20.1 20.1 00.0 565: Other ethnic group 43 2.3 37 2.3 6 2.5 566: Unknown 00.0 00.0 00.0

N/R 912 48.7 840 51.6 62 25.4

D114 Ethnic background [summary] Base: 1871 Base: 1627 Base: 244 567: White British 876 46.8 713 43.8 174 71.3 568: BME 83 4.4 75 4.6 8 3.3

N/R 912 48.7 840 51.6 62 25.4

D115 Survey methodology Base: 1871 Base: 1627 Base: 244 569: Postal 1028 54.9 857 52.7 175 71.7 570: Email 791 42.3 722 44.4 64 26.2 571: Web 53 2.8 48 3.0 5 2.0

N/R 00.0 00.0 00.0

D116 Area Board Base: 1871 Base: 1627 Base: 244 572: Amesbury Area Board 390 20.8 356 21.9 30 12.3 573: Devizes Area Board 21 1.1 3 0.2 21 8.6 574: Salisbury Area Board 779 41.6 691 42.5 86 35.2 575: South West Wilts Area Board 434 23.2 373 22.9 61 25.0 576: Southern Wilts Area Board 184 9.8 159 9.8 25 10.2 577: Trowbridge Area Board 16 0.9 15 0.9 0 0.0 578: Warminster Area Board 1 0.1 1 0.1 0 0.0

N/R 47 2.5 28 1.7 21 8.6

D117 Length of tenancy Base: 1871 Base: 1627 Base: 244 579: Under 1 year 107 5.7 86 5.3 23 9.4 580: 1 ‐ 2 years 299 16.0 232 14.3 73 29.9 581: 3 ‐ 5 years 289 15.4 238 14.6 55 22.5 582: 6 ‐ 10 years 329 17.6 283 17.4 47 19.3 583: 11 ‐ 20 years 422 22.6 377 23.2 42 17.2 584: 21 years and over 419 22.4 406 24.9 3 1.2

N/R 5 0.3 4 0.3 1 0.4

D118 Made a complaint Base: 1871 Base: 1627 Base: 244 585: Yes 14 0.7 14 0.9 0 0.0 586: No 1851 98.9 1609 98.9 243 99.6

79 Appendix C. Data summary

All tenants General needs Sheltered Addiitonal weight by stock Weight by age Representative Count % overall % valid Count % overall % valid Count % overall % valid

N/R 5 0.3 4 0.3 1 0.4

D119 Reported ASB Base: 1871 Base: 1627 Base: 244 587: Yes 17 0.9 17 1.0 0 0.0 588: No 1848 98.8 1606 98.7 243 99.6

N/R 5 0.3 4 0.3 1 0.4

D120 Had a repair Base: 1871 Base: 1627 Base: 244 589: Contractor 372 19.9 316 19.4 58 23.8 590: DLO 296 15.8 260 16.0 35 14.3 591: DLO & Contractor 760 40.6 672 41.3 86 35.2 592: Not had a repair 438 23.4 375 23.0 64 26.2

N/R 5 0.3 4 0.3 1 0.4

D121 Had a repair [summary] Base: 1871 Base: 1627 Base: 244 593: Yes 1428 76.3 1248 76.7 179 73.4 594: No 438 23.4 375 23.0 64 26.2

N/R 5 0.3 4 0.3 1 0.4

80 this page is intentionally left blank

81 (t) 0844 272 6004 (w) www.arp-research.co.uk

ARP Research Ltd

1 Dickenson Court, Sheffield, S35 2ZS

Registered in England and Wales, No. 07342249.