Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Mystery Shopping
Mystery Shopping
May 2009
CONTENTS
1.
2
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
4.1
4.2
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.5
5.6
6.1
6.2
6.3
6.4
6.5
6.6
7.1
7.2
7.3
7.4
7.5
7.6
8.
9.
8.1
8.2
8.3
8.4
8.5
9.1
9.2
9.3
9.4
9.5
9.6
9.7
9.8
9.9
10.
1.
1.1
Introduction
This report details the results of a Homelessness Mystery Shopping project. In all, 45
visits were carried out to front line Housing Advice and Homelessness Prevention
services across five boroughs to test initial responses to a range of scenarios. The
project sought to assess the standard of service offered and consider how well the
local authorities were likely to fulfil their statutory obligations to people presenting
as homeless had an application been pursued further.
The project was
undertaken by Brent Homeless User Group, an independent charity and
commissioned by Crisis, the national charity for single homeless people.
1.2
Review of findings
The research finds that standards of service are variable between and within local
authorities. Often services were not accessible to homeless people, and even
where the Mystery Shoppers did see an officer they rarely received the help they
were entitled to.
The degree to which Mystery Shoppers felt staff were interested in their individual
circumstances varied widely, and was dependent on the individual member of
staff seen rather than the circumstance or local authority.
The local authorities sometimes provided information and occasionally provided
advice and guidance. However, in many cases this information or advice was
misleading or incorrect. Many local authorities limited advice to providing the
telephone number of another agency who might be able to help. Assessing the
quality of advice provided by these agencies was beyond the scope of this
project.
Mystery Shoppers were in most of the cases deterred from making a homelessness
application, often by reception staff providing misleading advice, or preventing
Mystery Shoppers from seeing a housing officer. In all of the cases, local
authorities failed to ensure that Mystery Shoppers received their statutory
entitlement to emergency accommodation while their circumstances were
investigated.
There was some evidence to suggest that local authority homelessness services
were working to a limited degree with other council services to address the
Mystery Shoppers needs. However, the potential to work with agencies such as
Social Services was largely under-utilised. In one of the scenarios used, a referral to
Social Services would have been expected, but findings report only a limited
contact being made with that department.
There was general inconsistency regarding signposting and referral to external
agencies with some Mystery Shoppers being offered advice and others not being
given any assistance.
1.3
The following general recommendations arise from this mystery shopping exercise.
More specific recommendations are made to each local authority in section 10:
Borough Outcomes.
R1. The need to understand and adhere to legislation
Homelessness law and associated good practice is not consistently adhered to.
Those working in local authorities should have a clear understanding of
homelessness legislation, particularly in relation to vulnerability, eligibility and
priority need. They should also attempt to ascertain as fully as possible what
assistance or accommodation a person is entitled to, rather than assuming the
homeless person is able to advocate for his or her self.
R2. The need for a welcoming interface
The physical environment in which a vulnerable person meets the adviser differs. In
some boroughs applicants felt uncomfortable with their surroundings, particularly
when having to outline their circumstances in crowded waiting areas. At a time
when Communities and Local Government (CLG) is encouraging hostel
accommodation for homeless people to become places of change, it would be
useful to ensure that the interface between the homeless person and the state
also offers a welcoming environment.
R3. Documentation required
The case scenarios were developed acknowledging that homeless people may
not have the required forms of ID with them or, as a result of their circumstances,
be able easily to get hold of this. As a consequence, some of our Mystery
Shoppers did not have the personal information that would, ideally, have been
available.
Whilst the findings indicate some commitment to assist, there was evidence that
sometimes bureaucratic processes prevented a flexible response and that this
disadvantaged some Mystery Shoppers who did not have immediate access to
required documentation but, nonetheless, had a right to help and advice.
R4. Signposting
Most of the boroughs did not make effective use of available opportunities for
additional help and support through signposting the vulnerable person to a range
of organisations. Signposting can be an effective tool, providing assistance to
those who may not be helped any other way at the time and may provide some
interim solutions to their needs.
1.4
INTRODUCTION
This report details the results of a Homelessness Mystery Shopping project carried
out by Brent Homeless User Group, an independent organisation (referred to here
in as B.HUG) for national homelessness charity, Crisis. 45 visits were carried out to
front line Housing Advice and Homelessness Prevention services across five
boroughs to test initial responses to a range of scenarios. The project sought to
assess the standard of service offered and consider how well the local authorities
were likely to fulfil their statutory obligations to people presenting as homeless had
an application been pursued further.
The project was commissioned by national homelessness charity Crisis to assess the
quality of service provided to people seeking homelessness advice and assistance
within different local authorities across London. Research was undertaken during
three weeks between March and April 2009. Crisis informed the boroughs involved
that this mystery shopping activity would take place but gave no indication as to
the exact timings of the exercise.
Nine different Mystery Shoppers (MS) presented case-study scenarios within each
borough. They carefully documented the services and responses they received.
The report therefore gives a unique, impartial insight to the advice given and the
action taken by front line staff responding to contact from those who are
homeless or threatened with homelessness; one that has been captured through
the eyes of people with similar life experience to real service users, rather than
through the eyes of housing professionals or general Mystery Shoppers.
Findings and recommendations will enable sharing of best practice; and
improvement to the quality of service provision for people who approach local
authorities when homeless or threatened with homelessness.
3.
PROJECT AIMS
This project set out to explore whether people seeking homelessness advice and
assistance from local authorities receive variable standards of service between
and within local authorities, paying particular attention to the following questions.
These areas have been identified and used by the Audit Commission Inspectorate
when looking at homelessness and housing advice: 1
Audit Commission (October 2007), Homelessness and housing Advice Key Lines of Inquiry (KLOEs); and
ibid., Homelessness: Responding to the New Agenda.
Mystery Shopping Report for Crisis, May 2009
4.
BACKGROUND
4.1
Project Management
The project was carried out by Brent Homeless User Group, an independent, userled homeless charity with extensive experience in conducting user-led research
projects including mystery shopping exercises.
4.2
Mystery Shopping
Other complementary tools include feedback forms, focus groups and complaints/comments procedures.
5.
SCOPE OF PROJECT
The purpose of the project was to establish whether people seeking homelessness
advice and assistance from local authorities receive variable standards of service
between and within local authorities using a mystery shopping approach. Central
to this was a wish to determine the extent to which local authorities discharge their
obligations under the homelessness legislation in terms of (a) encouraging and
facilitating homelessness applications and processing them accordingly; (b)
providing appropriate advice and guidance; and (c) providing proactive,
appropriate and meaningful assistance to help the individual prevent or resolve
their homelessness.
5.1
The Project Brief
The brief required nine case scenarios to be tested across five London local
authorities who will remain anonymous; two Inner London Boroughs (A and B) and
three Outer London Boroughs (C, D and E): The various scenarios used aimed to
highlight the complexities and range of circumstances people can typically
present when seeking housing assistance from their local authorities.
5.2
Timing of Visits
The mystery shopping took place in March / April 2009. Visits took place on
different days/at different times when possible, but the order of visits was not
prescribed.
5.3
Review of Documentation
Mystery Shoppers had different access to documentations (e.g. ID) when
conducting a visit. The type of documentations used by them is recorded as part
of section 8 (Personal Visits Findings).
5.4
Accessibility
The project aimed at ascertaining how easily the Mystery Shoppers accessed the
service and got help with their housing problems.
5.5
Equalities and Diversity
The Mystery Shoppers were diverse in terms of ethnicity, age and experiences.
Demographic information about Mystery Shoppers was collected via equal
opportunities monitoring forms in the recruitment process.
5.6
Reporting Results
Within this report the findings are broadly summarised thematically within section
7. The outcomes of the visits for each Mystery Shopper can be found in section 9
(Personal Visit Findings). Summaries of the strengths and weaknesses of each
borough are set out in section 8.
10
6.
Timetable
March 2009
March 2009
March 2009
March 2009
April 2009
May 2009
May 2009
6.1
Nine Mystery Shopper case studies were developed in collaboration with Crisis.
The cases reflect a cross section of scenarios involving a diverse range of homeless
people.
The case studies covered a range of housing needs and issues and ensured that
the diversity of participants was maximised. The level of urgency and the
appropriate form of action to be taken by the council adviser differed within each
scenario. All cases were established to reflect real customer interaction and to
minimise the need to impose limitations to the scenarios, e.g. if certain
documentation were to be required for a case to appear realistic.
Further detail on the case scenarios can be found in section 7.
11
6.2
B.HUG recruited a group of Mystery Shoppers who were assigned a case study to
be presented in each of the boroughs. This assured as much consistency as
possible.
From the outset of the project, the aim was to recruit Mystery Shoppers who have
had experience of homelessness, have a genuine interest in improving services
and the capacity to act as Shoppers. B.HUG endeavoured to take on people with
a similar real life experience to the scenarios designed. B.HUG also ensured that
Mystery Shoppers team is representative of the ethnic diversity of the
participating boroughs. Given that Mystery Shoppers were using their own
identities, it was essential that the Shoppers were not previously known to
Homelessness services within participating boroughs.
B.HUG liaised with numerous service providers across London (homelessness
organisations and community groups) to find suitable candidates for the project.
6.3
B.HUG used feedback forms that had successfully been used previously in a similar
shopping project and were specifically structured to support objective recording
and assessment of the outcomes of each mystery shopping event.
Detailed Visit Analysis Form: completed by B.HUG following the visit.
Visit Feedback Form: completed by Mystery Shoppers following a visit.
12
6.4
The mystery shopping visits across the five participating boroughs took place in
March April 2009. The visits were carried out for all case studies in all boroughs.
Visits took place on varying days of the week and at different times during the day
to the relevant offices.
6.6
Analysis
The results were analysed in relation to each of the main questions and
differentiated by borough as dictated by project objectives.
13
7.
FINDINGS
This chapter summarises the response of services across 45 visits in the 9 boroughs
to the case studies presented by Mystery Shoppers. Based on the data gathered
by the Mystery Shoppers we have attempted to compare the outcome that
would be expected if the Mystery Shopper pursued an application fully (as
specified by Crisis in the project brief) with the actual outcome. The results are
summarised in Table 7.1.1. The small number of cases means that the following
generalisations should be treated with some caution.
The Mystery Shoppers were testing the initial responses of the services to these
scenarios not the whole process of making a homelessness application. It is
important to note that the nature of the mystery shopping exercise makes it
difficult to state absolutely whether a local authority would have met their
obligations under homelessness law to some of the Mystery Shoppers had they
been able to pursue some of the cases through to the stage of submitting an
application. There are a number of ethical and practical problems in pursuing a
homeless application this far as part of a mystery shopping exercise not least as
such an exercise would use considerable council resources. The Shoppers were still
able to test the service and information given to them on presenting their
scenario.
Summary of Mystery Shopper Case Studies:
Mystery
Shopper
Scenario
Details
Young person,
male
Young person,
female
Mental health,
male
Mental health,
female
14
Mystery
Shopper
Scenario
Details
Immigrant,
female
Immigrant,
male
Domestic violence
victim,
female
Couple,
male and female
Rough sleeper,
male
15
7.1
This question is answered in two parts. Table 7.1.1 compares the expected
outcome of each Mystery Shopper visiting the service with the actual outcome.
Table 7.1.2 identifies the ease with which Mystery Shoppers were able to access
services.
7.1.1 How easily did Mystery Shoppers get help with their housing problems?
In many cases the local authorities did not, or seemed unlikely to, fully discharge
their duties. For example, Mystery Shopper 2 should have been categorised as in
priority need and provided with temporary accommodation until her application
had been adjudicated (See Table 7.1.1). Although all boroughs mentioned that
Social Services would need to get involved in her case, only two boroughs offered
her an appointment with Social Services on the same day if she could get more
documentation. Only one borough, Inner London Borough B, provided some
signposting to Mystery Shopper 2, including telephone numbers for emergency
accommodation, and the National Domestic Violence Helpline. While she was
advised to report the unwanted attention from her mothers partner to the police,
no risk assessment took place.
Only one Mystery Shopper was treated consistently across all five local authorities,
the case study of a pregnant woman, Mystery Shopper 5. In each borough
Mystery Shopper 2 was asked to return with proof of pregnancy. The other advice
this Mystery Shopper was given varied widely.
Local Authorities were more likely to fulfil their obligations of delivering advice and
signposting than fulfil the duty to provide housing were this was applicable. In
general it appears that Outer London Borough E, Inner London Borough B and
Inner London Borough A were slightly more likely to meet the expected outcomes
than Outer London Borough C and Outer London Borough D.
It was of concern that Mystery Shoppers 3 and 4 were informed they were not in
priority need in a number of boroughs, having gone through no, or very minimal,
assessment to establish if they were in priority need. This was in part a
consequence of homeless officers not asking for enough information about the
clients mental health, despite the fact that Mystery Shoppers indicated that there
may be mental health concerns. Without this support from front line workers in
assessing need, a homeless person would only be able to access their statutory
entitlement if they understand homelessness law and are assertive when pushing
for their rights. This is unlikely to be the case for most vulnerable people. This may
also point to a lack of accurate understanding amongst homeless officers
themselves of the laws they are applying.
16
Expected outcome
Was it met?
Advice and
Assistance
Priority
Priority (borderline)
Priority (borderline)
Priority
Advice and
assistance
Priority (borderline)
Advice and
Assistance
Advice and
Assistance
17
Expected outcome
Was it met?
Priority
Priority (borderline)
Priority (borderline)
Priority
Priority (borderline)
18
Expected outcome
Was it met?
Priority
Priority (borderline)
Priority (borderline)
Priority
Priority (borderline)
19
Expected outcome
Was it met?
Priority
Priority (borderline)
Priority (borderline)
Priority
Priority (borderline)
8
9
20
Expected outcome
Was it met?
Priority
Priority (borderline)
Priority (borderline)
Priority
Priority (borderline)
21
DCLG (2006) Homelessness code of guidance for local authorities. London: DCLG.
22
Table 7.1.2 How easily did Mystery Shoppers access the service? (Continued)
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
23
Table 7.1.2 How easily did Mystery Shoppers access the service? (Continued)
Outer London Borough D
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
24
on
the
physical
environment
of
Once inside the building Mystery Shoppers also commented on the differences in
physical environment. Table 7.1.3 lists general comments on the physical
environment as well as general personal impressions of Mystery Shoppers. For
example Inner London Borough B had a new building and Outer London Borough
D, Inner London Borough B and Inner London Borough A were praised for their
clean and well organised environment. For further information on reception areas,
information on display and facilities please see Visits Outcomes Analysis on page
93-95.
Table 7.1.3 Mystery Shoppers impression on the physical environment of
homelessness receptions.
MS
Had to stand up throughout interview. Ticket system. A housing officer walked around
offering advice to people waiting.
Ticket system, long wait.
Long wait, despite size and amount of people good acoustics, no posters but TV
screens displaying local info, useful numbers etc.
Long wait.
Comfortable environment, clean and modern but noisy, plasma screens with info
about council services.
Noisy, very busy so could not find available sit, plasma screens displaying information
Clean and comfortable.
Hot and sweaty, brand new, lovely environment.
25
Difficult to find the homeless people unit, clean environment but no names provided,
no opening hours.
Limited amount of information material available, noisy waiting area.
Well organised main area, private interview rooms available.
Rushed interview had to stand up.
26
7.2
Do Mystery Shoppers feel that staff are interested in their individual
circumstances and take into account their specific needs?
Only in Inner London Borough A and Outer London Borough C did a majority of
Mystery Shoppers give a positive response to these questions. Outer London
Borough D and Outer London Borough E in particular fared badly. Mystery
Shoppers frequently reported that they felt their concerns were not being taken
seriously. The experiences of the Mystery Shoppers suggested that some staff in
some of the boroughs require training in dealing with members of the public. It is
essential that those manning frontline services such as receptionists and housing
officers receive training in dealing with vulnerable people.
There was a tendency for housing officers to fail to probe sufficiently into individual
circumstances that might establish wether a homeless person is entitled to
accommodation or how they could be helped. One example of this was in the
case of Mystery Shopper 5 who was was consistently told to bring proof of her
pregnancy before an assessment could be made. Also, in some cases where
mystery shoppers mentioned or indicated a possible mental health need, no
appropriate assessment was made. More information on these cases is available
in section 9. There was however a tendency to probe in more detail when looking
for reasons not to provide accommodation.
Table 7.2 Do Mystery Shoppers feel that staff are interested in their individual
circumstances and take into account their specific needs?
MS
No, no clear explanations given, unable to help without more information; benefits
advice given.
No.
Yes.
No.
27
Table 7.2 Do Mystery Shoppers feel that staff are interested in their individual
circumstances and take into account their specific needs? (Continued)
Outer London Borough C
No.
1
Yes, officer was very sensitive.
2
Yes.
3
Yes, very pleasant, case handled in a sensitive manner.
4
Yes, nice staff but interview rushed as office was busy.
5
Yes, partially. Interview felt rushed. However, benefit needs were taken into account.
6
Yes.
7
No, staff not helpful, answered phone call while interviewing MS.
8
No.
9
Outer London Borough D
No, receptionist was 'nice', was only asked about medical problems.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
No, MS told a social worker would call her back, but nobody did. However, homeless
officer did ring her mother persistently.
No.
No, unsympathetic, insensitive, felt like an interrogation.
No, receptionist impolite and nasty, told her to bring an interpreter, and then told to
ring internal number and say she is homeless.
No, no interpreter offered despite asking twice.
No, insensitive; MS wanted to make a complaint about the officer who interviewed
her but was told nobody by that name worked there.
Yes, partially. MS was sent to an agency for single homeless people when part of a
couple.
Yes, told him to sign on to get into a hostel, however this was the only advice given.
No, MS did not feel staff were sensitive to her needs due to lack of documentation,
although they were taken into account.
No, not considered seriously.
No.
No, MS not even asked about homelessness.
Yes, partially. Interpreter was arranged when staff realised MS was struggling with
language; but interview felt rushed.
No, not taken seriously.
No, staff friendly but not very helpful, staff going on holiday so could not help until
got back.
No.
28
7.3
Are Mystery Shoppers offered information, advice and advocacy if needed
on housing and related issues and is this information clear?
Local authorities have a duty to ensure that advice and information about
homelessness and the prevention of homelessness, are available free of charge to
anyone in their district4. Sometimes this duty may be contracted out.
The level and standard of information and advice provided varied dramatically,
both between and within local authorities:
Staff in Inner London Borough A offered limited advice in some cases, and
sign posted people to external agencies in others; but in almost half of the
cases did not provide any advice.
Outer London Borough E had a particularly poor record, in half the cases
failing to provide advice or information. Where advice was provided it
tended to be limited to giving the details of somebody who might be able
to help them. In two cases substantial written information packs were given.
Table 7.3 Are Mystery Shoppers offered information, advice and advocacy if
needed on housing and related issues and is this information clear?
Inner London Borough A
Yes.
1
No, other than info on education maintenance allowance.
2
Yes.
3
No.
4
No, although told to come back next day.
5
Given details of other agencies that might help, law and citizens advice, council
6
homes.
No.
7
Yes.
8
Very limited advice. Just a list of hostels.
9
DCLG (2006) Homelessness code of guidance for local authorities. London: DCLG
29
Table 7.3 Are Mystery Shoppers offered information, advice and advocacy if
needed on housing and related issues and is this information clear? (Continued)
Inner London Borough B
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Yes, given national domestic violence helpline telephone number. Told to report
unwanted attention from mothers partner to police.
Very limited. Given a list of hostels and explained process to him.
Yes. Substantial and detailed information pack given.
No.
Yes. Was told not in priority need, advised on options, detailed information pack given.
No.
No. Told to come back next day.
Limited. No verbal advice, detailed information pack given including telephone
numbers provided for accommodation.
Limited advice. Told about rent deposit guarantee scheme, and signposted to local
advice agency.
Very limited advice. Told to go back to her mother.
Signposted to a local advice agency, told to make application under home seekers
form rather than as homeless.
Signposted to a local day centre - as the housing office would take longer to help her.
No, but told to come back with evidence of pregnancy next day.
Signposted to a local day centre.
Yes.
Signposted to a local day centre.
Signposted to an advice agency.
30
Table 7.3 Are Mystery Shoppers offered information, advice and advocacy if
needed on housing and related issues and is this information clear? (Continued)
Outer London Borough E
Substantial written information (advice pack), however, advice not tailored.
1
No.
2
Substantial written information (advice pack), however, advice not tailored to his
situation.
No, told to come back next day for emergency appointment.
No.
Limited advice. Given contact details of hostels.
Very limited advice. Given leaflet on hate crime and reporting details.
Given details of CAB and job centre, told to get deposit from landlord and find
somewhere else to live.
No.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
7.4
Are the Mystery Shoppers given the opportunity to submit a homeless
application?
Research suggests that many local authorities have used the duty to prevent
homelessness as a smokescreen for a gate keeping role to preclude homeless
people from making a homeless application 5. The findings from this mystery
shopping research lend support to this hypothesis. Mystery Shoppers reported a
range of barriers confronting them throughout their visits. The first hurdle,
particularly in Outer London Borough D, Inner London Borough B and Outer
London Borough E, was getting past the reception staff to access a housing
officer. If Mystery Shoppers were able to get past the reception they often faced
what seemed to be attempts, by staff, to dissuade them from making a
homelessness application.
Inner London Borough A was the only borough where more than one
Mystery Shopper was given the opportunity to submit a homeless
application.
Where Mystery Shoppers managed to get past the reception staff to see an
officer in Inner London Borough B then they may have been able to submit
an application.
Outer London Borough C also tended to push Mystery Shoppers into making
a general application for housing.
Pawson, H. & Davidson, E (2006) Fit for Purpose? Official Measures of Homelessness in the Era of the
Activist State. Radical Statistics, 93
Mystery Shopping Report for Crisis, May 2009
31
Table 7.4 Are the Mystery Shoppers given the opportunity to submit a homeless
application?
MS
Yes, if MS brings in supporting documents, assessment officer was supposed to ring her
back, but did not.
Yes, when she comes back next day.
No.
No.
No, told not in priority need.
No.
32
Table 7.4 Are the Mystery Shoppers given the opportunity to submit a homeless
application? (Continued)
Outer London Borough D
No, told he would not qualify.
1
No.
2
No, but may have been if he had produced required ID.
3
Yes, but lots of obstacles were created.
4
Told to come back in 4 weeks.
5
No, not without further ID.
6
No.
7
No.
8
No, only given housing application form.
9
Outer London Borough E
No, told he was homeless but not in priority need.
1
Given housing application to fill in.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Given housing application form and single homeless questionnaire. Told he would not
succeed with application.
Not at this stage. Given housing application form and single homeless questionnaire.
Told to come back with more documents.
Not without proof of pregnancy.
Not at this stage. Told to come back next day.
No.
No, told not in priority and discouraged.
Given housing application to fill in.
33
7.5
Are the Mystery Shoppers offered or referred to suitable emergency or
temporary accommodation where this is needed?
The DCLG offer the following guidance on duty to ensure that suitable
accommodation is available:
If a housing authority has reason to believe that an applicant may be eligible for
assistance, homeless and have a priority need, the authority will have an
immediate duty under s.188 to ensure that suitable accommodation is available
for the applicant (and his or her household) pending the completion of the
authoritys inquiries and its decision as to what duty, if any, is owed to the
applicant under Part 7 of the Act. Chapter 7 provides guidance on the interim
duty to accommodate. Authorities are reminded that having reason to believe is
a lower test than being satisfied.6
Thus a housing authority should have ensured that suitable accommodation was
available to all of the Mystery Shoppers whom they had reason to believe may be
eligible, homeless and in priority need, specifically Mystery Shoppers 2 and 5 and
potentially Mystery Shoppers 3, 4 and 7. In the majority of cases the local
authorities failed to adhere to s.188. They tended to bypass this duty with evasive
advice. For example, in the case of Mystery Shopper 2, the duty was evaded by
persuading the client to go back to a house where she was at risk of sexual
assault. As the homelessness code of guidance makes clear, authorities must
ensure that suitable accommodation is available for the applicant in the interim
period, a list of phone numbers and referrals to other agencies are insufficient to
fulfil this duty.
Table 7.5 Are the Mystery Shoppers offered or referred to suitable emergency or
temporary accommodation where this is needed?
Borough
MS
DCLG (2006) Homelessness code of guidance for local authorities. London: DCLG.
34
Table 7.5 Are the Mystery Shoppers offered or referred to suitable emergency or
temporary accommodation where this is needed? (Continued)
Inner London Borough B
N/A.
1
No, given emergency number for temporary accommodation.
2
No, given a list of phone numbers.
3
No, provided with telephone number for emergency accommodation.
4
No.
5
N/A.
6
7
8
9
No, signposted to an advice agency who may have advised him where to seek
emergency accommodation.
No, but referred to local day centre.
Yes, as long as she brings in the required information.
N/A.
No, provided with telephone numbers for DV refuges.
N/A.
N/A.
35
7.6
Are the Local Authorities homelessness services working effectively to
address the Mystery Shoppers needs with other council services and external
agencies?
Many of our Mystery Shoppers had other needs that could have been dealt with
by other council services or external agencies. Mystery Shoppers 1,2,3,4,6,8 and 9,
all required benefits advice or debt advice, Mystery Shopper 2 needed help from
Social Services and Mystery Shopper 7 required help in relation to being at risk of
violence. Despite all these requirements:
Mystery Shopper 1, the young man, was only given benefits advice by Inner
London Borough A.
Only for Mystery Shopper 2, the young woman, referrals to the relevant local
authority (Social Services) were initiated but not followed up.
Outer London Borough C and Outer London Borough E were the only local
authorities that offered Mystery Shopper 6, an unemployed A8 immigrant
worker, advice regarding benefits. He was also signposted to external
agencies for benefits advice in Inner London Borough A.
Outer London Borough E told Mystery Shopper 7 to go to the the local hate
crime center to report her domestic violence situation and seek support
from them.
Mystery Shopper 8 did not receive any benefits advice in Outer London
Borough C and Inner London Borough B and was signposted for debt
advice in Inner London Borough A and Outer London Borough E.
36
Table 7.6 Are the Local Authorities homelessness services working effectively to
address the Mystery Shoppers needs with other council services?
MS
Yes, some benefits advice, crisis loan information given and signposted to external
agency.
Yes, Social Services. No, benefits advice not given.
No, benefits advice not given.
No, benefits advice not given.
Not known.
Yes, signposted to external agencies and indicated they would give benefits advice.
No, referral to council services not made.
Yes, benefits advice given and signposted to go to job centre for benefits advice and to
CAB for debt advice.
Yes, advice given on claiming JSA and offered use of telephone.
Yes, benefits advice provided. Told to go to job centre, get job seekers allowance and
housing benefit and signposted to day centre.
No, referral to council services not made. Yes, signposted to refuges.
No, benefits advice not given. No, not signposted to debt advice. Yes, signposted to
day centre.
Yes, some benefits advice given. Told to go to job centre and signposted to advice
agency.
37
Table 7.6 Are the Local Authorities homelessness services working effectively to
address the Mystery Shoppers needs with other council services? (Continued)
Outer London Borough D
No, benefits advice not given. Yes, signposted to local homeless charity.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Yes, contact with Social Services made. Told Social Worker would call her but no call
received.
No, benefits advice not given.
No, benefits advice not given.
No, benefits advice not given.
Not known.
No, benefits advice not given.
No, referral to council services not made. Yes, signposted to local homeless centre.
Yes, benefits advice given. Referred to job centre for housing benefit claim and
signposted to local homeless centre.
Yes, some benefits advice given. Told to sign on at the job centre.
No, benefits advice not given. Some information offered but no advice or signposting to
other departments.
Yes, contact with Social Services suggested. Told to come back to see Social Services at
3pm on the day.
No, benefits advice not given.
No, benefits advice not given.
Yes, some benefits advice given. Told to go back on income support.
Not known.
Yes, some benefits advice given. Told to sign on at the job centre.
No, referral to council services not made. Signposted to local hate crime reporting
centre.
Yes, benefits advice given. Signposted to job centre for benefits and to CAB for debt
advice.
Yes, some benefits advice given. Told to sign on at the job centre.
38
8.
BOROUGH OUTCOMES
The following section summarises the gaps in local services identified through the
Mystery Shopper visits. It also highlights the priorities for change in each borough.
8.1
8.2
39
deter them from seeing a housing officer. To have any chance of making an
application; homeless people would need to start queuing at 8am to make an
emergency appointment.
Mystery Shoppers had a mixture of experiences in terms of staff sensitivity to their
individual needs. In general, those who got past the reception system were
treated well, although reception staff members were commonly perceived as
rude and unwelcoming. For those who failed to get past reception, information
advice and guidance was usually limited to a list of phone numbers; although the
information pack provided in some cases was comprehensive. Most of the Mystery
Shoppers were not given the chance to make a homelessness application. Those
in need of emergency accommodation were typically provided with a telephone
number to ring. There were few signs of effective working with other local
authority departments, except in one case (Social Services).
8.2.2 Priorities for improvement
The main priority for improvement is to meet good practice guidance in ensuring
that homeless people are seen by an officer on the day of their first visit. It appears
that front line housing services are not sufficiently staffed with respect to dealing
with homeless applications. It is therefore imperative that sufficient resources are
invested to enable homeless people in this borough to see an officer.
8.3
40
Of the two cases where temporary accommodation should have been offered,
only one was considered, provided that she produced the required
documentation. However, occasionally contact details of another agency, which
may have been able to help, were provided.
Similarly, staff members tended not to give advice on benefits or other needs
relevant to Mystery Shoppers. Instead they referred Mystery Shoppers to external
agencies. There were signs of awareness of the need to work with other local
authority departments. Some Mystery Shoppers were signposted, either to Social
Services or benefits departments.
8.3.2 Priorities for improvement
Action should be taken to ensure that homeless people are afforded a degree of
privacy when discussing their sensitive situations. The local authority should
consider whether their homelessness prevention services are acting as a deterrent
to people submitting a homelessness application. Signposting homeless people to
other local authority departments and external agencies to help with advice and
accommodation could be better co-ordinated to ensure that homeless people
are able to access the help they need. For example rather than providing a list of
phone numbers, local authority staff should consider directly making
appointments for homeless people, and following up the outcomes.
8.4
41
able to help. Links with other local authority departments were poor. Where a
referral was made to Social Services, the Mystery Shopper was not called back.
8.4.2 Priorities for improvement
Outer London Borough D needs to improve in all areas. The immediate priority is to
ensure that all staff members involved in the assessment process understand the
law relating to homelessness, and that the local authority begins to meet its
statutory duties. Once this is achieved they should then focus on meeting good
practice guidelines.
8.5
42
9.
The full findings are presented in this section to permit the reader to draw their
own conclusions and also to allow further analysis of the data. The scenarios are
as specified in the briefing provided to B.HUG conducting the research. Where
relevant B.HUG took on the roles of other people within the case studies, such as
the mother, a friend, a landlord, who the officers could telephone if necessary.
9.1
The scenario for case study one is of an 18 year old man who is unemployed. This
young man has been made homeless following a relationship breakdown. Most
recently, he has been living at his mothers home, the family home, a three
bedroom owner occupied house, which is over-crowded. He has been thrown out
of his mothers home, and has spent the last few weeks living on a friends sofa,
but is no longer able to stay there. He has no income or savings; and is surviving
by borrowing money from his girlfriend and other friends.
The Mystery Shopper took the following documents with him: a Somali passport,
the address and telephone number of his family home a friends address and
telephone number.
Date
Start visit
Finish visit
Waiting time
main reception
Waiting time
housing office
Seen by
7
8
Inner
London
Borough A
27.3.2009
13.00 hrs
13.30 hrs
n/a7
Inner
London
Borough B
27.3.2009
15.00 hrs
15.13 hrs
n/a
5 minutes
< 15
20 minutes
minutes
Receptionist Unknown
Housing
officer
43
Outer
London
Borough C
26.3.2009
14.00 hrs
14.30 hrs
n/s8
Outer
London
Borough D
31.3.2009
14.30 hrs
15.00 hrs
n/a
Outer
London
Borough E
3.4.2009
15.00 hrs
15.20 hrs
n/a
< 15
minutes
Housing
officer
(phone)
10 minutes
Housing
officer
9.1
Inner
London
Borough
A
Inner
London
Borough
B
Advice given
Documentation
given
Guide to housing
registration system
and housing options
Housing coop Guide
to finding a place to
live
(photocopied flyer)
Personal Impression
None.
Customer care /
Accessibility
Advice given
Personal Impression
Documentation
given
Outer
London
Borough
C
Opening/closing times
were not visible.
Emergency out of hours
arrangements were not
visible
The main reception was
well organised.
No toys or books were
available for children
The MS felt that the
settings were
comfortable and there
was space to fill out
45
Information on
housing advice
centre Outer
London Borough C.
Flyer included info on
a skills project and
employment charity
but no contact
details. (photocopied
flyer)
Customer care /
Accessibility
forms.
No drinks were
available.
Advice given
Personal Impression
Documentation
given
Outer
London
Borough
D
46
Telephone number,
which MS had to
write down himself.
Customer care /
Accessibility
Outer
London
Borough
E
Advice given
47
Personal Impression
Documentation
given
Outer London
Borough E Housing
Information Pack,
Information pack on
homelessness
prevention and
housing options.
9.2
The scenario for case study two is of a 17 year old woman, who is in good health.
This woman was forced to leave her family home following a relationship
breakdown when she complained about unwanted attention from her mothers
partner. She is currently living on the sofas of friends. She has no income and is
surviving by borrowing money from friends.
The Mystery Shopper took the following documents with her: An expired passport
and the address and telephone number of her family home.
Inner
London
Borough A
Date
24.3.2009
Start visit
12.30 hrs
Finish visit
13.40 hrs
Waiting time
< 15
main reception minutes
Waiting time
35 minutes
housing office
Seen by
Receptionist
Inner London
Borough B
27.3.2009
10.00 hrs
12.00 hrs
1-5 minutes
< 15 minutes
Receptionist
48
Outer
Outer
London
London
Borough C
Borough D
24.3.2009
26.3.2009
15.09 hrs
13.00 hrs
15.35 hrs
13.20 hrs
Immediately 5-10
minutes
5-10 minutes < 15
minutes
Unknown
Receptionist
Outer
London
Borough E
25.3.2009
13.15 hrs
13.50 hrs
n/a
5-10
minutes
Receptionist
9.2
Inner
London
Borough A
Customer care /
Accessibility
Advice given
Personal
Impression
Documentation
given
None given.
The MS was asked where she stayed last night and why she
left home, and how long ago. No immediate decision was
made.
Opening/closing times
were clearly visible.
Emergency out of hours
arrangements were
visible.
Toys and books were
available for children
Drinks were available.
49
Inner
London
Borough B
Customer care /
Accessibility
Advice given
Personal
Impression
Documentation
given
The MS thought
staff members
were very sensitive
and very nice. The
MS felt that her
situation was
considered
seriously to an
extent.
Telephone
number for hostels.
The MS was told that she would first have to see Social
Services. She was informed that Social Services would have
to mediate with her mother. MS was also told that she
should go to the police as her mother has no right to throw
her out. The MS was told that the police could accompany
her to her mothers house if she was scared to go alone.
The MS was given the telephone number to National
Domestic Violence Helpline in case anything happened to
her over the weekend with relation to her mothers partner.
The MS felt that the staff took time was talk to her and to
ask questions around the unwanted attention from the
mothers partner. The officer told the MS that she would
speak to her mother. MS was told to report her mothers
partner unwanted attention to the police.
No accommodation was offered. An emergency number
for accommodation for that night was offered. She was
told that she would have to call hostels for emergency
accommodation. This would have to be done during the
evening.
No benefits advice offered, MS only told to remain in
education as this will help her out in her home situation.
50
National Domestic
Violence Helpline
number.
Outer
London
Borough C
Customer care /
Accessibility
Advice given
Personal
Impression
Documentation
given
Housing
application form.
(homeseekers
register)
Outer
London
Borough D
Opening/closing times
were clearly visible.
(photocopied)
51
None given.
Customer care /
Accessibility
Advice given
The MS was told that a social worker would call her back
before 4pm. No one rang her back.
Personal
Impression
Documentation
given
Housing
application form.
Outer
London
Borough E
Information
request for
documentation
required.
Customer care /
Accessibility
Advice given
day or the next day with more information
The MS was given a Housing Application form to complete
and return.
The MS was also told that someone would call her back but
she did not receive a call.
No enquiries were made to establish whether the MS was
homeless. Staff offered to mediate with the MSs mother.
The MS gave staff contact details of B.HUG. No call was
received.
There was no discussion about vulnerability or priority
need.
There was no signposting.
MS told staff about unwanted attention from mothers
partner but no further discussion took place. No risk
assessment took place.
53
Personal
Impression
Documentation
given
9.3
The scenario for case study three is of a Male in his 40s. This man has had a mental
breakdown following the death of his mother; he is suffering from post traumatic
stress, depression and self neglect. The man has been made homeless because
he has been evicted unlawfully from the privately owned home he shared with his
recently deceased mother. Since then, he has been a rough sleeper, living and
sleeping in his car. The man receives no income or benefits.
The Mystery Shopper took the following documents with him: A payslip, a medical
card, his mothers address and telephone number.
Date
Start visit
Finish visit
Waiting time
main reception
Waiting time
housing office
Seen by
Inner
London
Borough A
23.3.2009
11.50 hrs
13.15 hrs
n/a
Inner
London
Borough B
3.4.2009
12.00 hrs
13.30 hrs
n/s
Outer
London
Borough C
23.3.2009
10.44 hrs
11.17 hrs
< 5 minutes
Outer
London
Borough D
25.3.2009
11.40 hrs
11.55 hrs
< 5 minutes
Outer
London
Borough E
24.3.2009
13.40 hrs
13.55 hrs
n/a
< 15
minutes
1 hour
< 5 minutes
n/a
Receptionist
Receptionist
Housing
officer
(phone)
< 15
minutes
Housing
Options
Advisor
54
Unknown
9.3
Inner
London
Borough
A
Customer care /
Accessibility
Advice given
Personal
Impression:
Documentation
given:
Opening/closing
times were clearly
visible.
There was a good
display of up to date
leaflets.
Toilets were locked
and needed to be
opened by a
security guard.
There were panic
alarms on the desks
in the interview
cubicles.
55
Information for
homeless people
about bed and
breakfast hostels.
A print out of
Inner London
Borough A
Council Homes.
Housing option
advisors business
card.
Inner
London
Borough
B
Customer care /
Accessibility
Advice given
Personal
Impression:
Documentation
given:
Shelter details.
The receptionists
general demeanour
and her short answers
gave the MS the
impression that she
was not bothered.
Outer
London
Borough
C
56
Information on
housing advice
centre Outer
London Borough
C.
Customer care /
Accessibility
The chairs were
uncomfortable.
Advice given
and he explained the depression following the mothers
death. There was no further discussion of his mental health.
Personal
Impression:
Outer
London
Borough
D
57
Documentation
given:
The MS felt if he
approached Outer
London Borough D
Council he would like
to speak to someone
face to face.
The MS was
disappointed that he
did not get to see
anyone in person but
felt that he got a fair
amount of help.
None given.
Customer care /
Accessibility
Advice given
call the office. Then he left a message for the landlady
asking her to call the MS and confirm with him that he can
pick up his belongings.
B.HUG (Landlady) then called the officer, who asked the
landlady to grant the MS access to get his paperwork. The
next day (Thursday), the Officer called the landlady again
to ask her to call the MS to grant him access to pick up his
belongings and the landlady said yes she will give the MS
a call.
The officer went on to call the MS to check whether he was
alright; to let him know that he had left numerous messages
on landladys phone, and to ask if the landlady had been
in touch with him.
The officer explained that even if he has not got the
tenancy agreement in his name, the landlady should not
have thrown him out but should have got a court order.
The MS was asked if he had any illnesses. Questions to
establish whether the MS was vulnerable were asked over
the phone. An explanation of priority need was given.
The MS suggested he go to Crisis in Central London but the
officer told MS that he would stand a better chance in
Outer London Borough D.
58
Personal
Impression:
Documentation
given:
Outer
London
Borough
E
Customer care /
Accessibility
Advice given
Opening/closing
times were clearly
visible.
Emergency out of
hours arrangements
were not visible.
The chairs were
uncomfortable.
Personal
Impression:
The MS did not feel that his case was considered seriously.
He was given a list of hostels to make phone calls to and
was told to come back the next day at 8.30 a.m.
No enquiries were made to establish whether the MS was
homeless.
No health questions were asked even though the MS
brought up the issue of his depression.
59
Documentation
given:
Single homeless
questionnaire.
Housing
application form.
Housing
information pack.
Direct access
hostel list
(some London
councils, and an
outer London
borough)
9.4
The scenario for case study four is of a woman in her 30s, vulnerable due to mild
learning difficulties. This woman had been living in squats and at friends houses,
and had recently been thrown out of the house of a friend. Previously she had to
leave her family home as she had become involved in drugs and prostitution.
Although she had been claiming benefits, her chaotic lifestyle meant that she no
longer claimed this money.
The Mystery Shopper took the following documents with her: A driving license and
a friends address and telephone number.
Date
Start visit
Finish visit
Waiting time
main reception
Waiting time
housing office
Seen by
Inner
London
Borough A
26.3.2009
10.30 hrs
11.00 hrs
n/a
Inner
London
Borough B
24.3.2009
9.10 hrs
10.55 hrs
n/a
20 minutes
1 hour 45
minutes
Reception
/ Customer
Service
Liaison
Unknown
60
Outer
London
Borough C
27.3.2009
10.25 hrs
11.20 hrs
< 15
minutes
45 minutes
Unknown
Outer London
Borough D
23.3.2009
13.50 hrs
15.30 hrs
Immediate
5 and 20
minutes
Housing
Options /
homelessness
Officer
Outer
London
Borough E
25.3.2009
12.50 hrs
12.55 hrs
n/a
< 15 minutes
Receptionist
9.4
Inner
London
Borough
A
Inner
London
Borough
B
Customer care /
Accessibility
Advice given
Personal
Comments
Documents
given
The MS was told that nothing could be done until she brought
in further ID, for example, proof of benefit, a letter regarding
her medical situation for last 6 months, and a bank statement
Handwritten
reminder to bring;
proof of benefit,
bank, ID
(written on the
back of an old fax
template)
The MS was told that another assessment officer would call her
to arrange an appointment for which she should bring her
further ID. The MS did not receive a call.
The MS went to the reception and was told she had to make
internal phone call to arrange an appointment. The officer
said on the phone that at the appointment they would assess
her case and agree what her options are and what to do
about her situation. The MS was told she could see them on
20th April (4 weeks time) but the MS persisted and found out
that they do have emergency appointments. The MS was told
to get a ticket and wait for another officer.
61
Advice
information leaflet
about housing
needs and options
(21 pages)
(A4 photocopied)
Customer care /
Accessibility
Advice given
told this was sufficient.
No advice was given verbally but there was substantial and
detailed signposting information in the pack given. Priority
need and vulnerability were not discussed. No enquiries were
made to establish whether the MS was homeless.
Outer
London
Borough
C
62
Personal
Comments
Documents
given
None given.
sympathetic and
helpful.
Outer
London
Borough
D
Customer care /
Accessibility
Advice given
Personal
Comments
Documents
given
Appointment letter
which lists which
documents to
bring (no specific
documents
indicated) and no
date for an
appointment
given
63
Outer
London
Borough
E
Customer care /
Accessibility
Advice given
Personal
Comments
Documents
given
The MS explained her situation but was not asked any further
questions.
Housing
application form.
The MS was told that she needed to bring her passport and or
birth certificate. The MS explained why she did not have it and
told them that she has a medical card and drivers licence
but the receptionist insisted that a full birth certificate and
passport were needed. MS was only asked her address no
further enquiries about local links were made
The MS was told to come back at 8am the next morning in
order to queue up for the chance of getting one of 5 to 7
emergency appointments. She was told the office opens at
8.45am.
No other advice or signposting was given.
The MS was advised to get back onto income support.
There was no explanation of priority need and no assessment
to see if the MS was vulnerable. The MS tried to talk about her
mental health issues but this was not discussed in detail
64
Disability / health
questionnaire.
Single homeless
questionnaire.
Information
request with
required
documents ticked
(full birth
certificate,
drivers licence,
medical card,
letter from friend
where she is
staying as proof of
homelessness,
passports for all
members of the
household (single
person), evidence
of DCC claim,
bank book).
(2 page sheet)
9.5
The scenario for case study five is of a pregnant woman who is a refugee, with
very little language ability in English in her mid thirties. This woman has been
staying with friends, but now needs to leave their privately rented house. In this
case study, the woman does have recourse to public funds, she works part-time
as a cleaner, and earns too little to afford to secure and pay for rental on her own
accommodation.
The Mystery Shopper took the following documents with her: A pay slip, Passport,
friends address and telephone number, no proof of pregnancy, left pregnancy
papers at home.
Date
Start visit
Finish visit
Waiting time
main reception
Waiting time
housing office
Seen by
Inner
London
Borough A
26.3.2009
14.30 hrs
15.30 hrs
n/a
Inner
London
Borough B
25.3.2009
11.00 hrs
13.04 hrs
1-5 minutes
5 minutes
Unknown
Outer
London
Borough D
26.3.2009
10.30 hrs
11.50 hrs
15 minutes
Outer
London
Borough E
24.3.2009
11.00 hrs
11.55 hrs
n/a
2 hours
Outer
London
Borough C
23.3.2009
10.34 hrs
11.53 hrs
1 hour 20
minutes
1 hour
30 minutes
40 minutes
Unknown
Unknown
Housing
officer
Unknown
65
9.5
Inner
London
Borough
A
Customer care
/ Accessibility
Advice given
Interpreting
Services
Personal
Comments
Documents
given
The MS felt that the officer did not handle her case in a
sensitive manner as the MS was told she needed more
proof of living in the borough and that before she has an
interview she must have all the required documents: a
letter from friend signed and dated; proof of tenancy
agreement; proof of pregnancy and bank statements from
September 08.
The MS was
interviewed by a
female staff
member.
Handwritten
request of
required
documents
(Signed letter
of exclusion
from friend
with local
connections,
proof of
pregnancy,
bank
statements,
and pay slips,
anything that
proves she
has lived in
the Borough
for 6 months).
Opening/closing
times were
clearly visible.
Emergency out of
hours
arrangements
were clearly
visible.
There were a
variety of up to
date leaflets, but
none in foreign
languages.
No toys or books
were available
for children
Inner
London
Borough
B
The staff member called B.HUG (the MSs friend) and left
message to get the landlords contact details from the
friend so that they could clarify the friends
circumstances.
All the staffs names are on the staff member board and
this is how the MS found out the staff members name.
66
(A5 page)
Appointment
letter.
Customer care
/ Accessibility
childrens
facilities.
There were a
variety of up to
date leaflets, but
none in foreign
languages.
Advice given
The MS showed the staff member her payslip and was told
that she needed 6 months payslips or a medical card from
the borough.
The MS was told to come back on the 23rd April, 4 weeks
later, with her documentation. She was told that there
would be more discussion about her circumstances and
further information to help at the appointment.
Interpreting
Services
Personal
Comments
Documents
given
Letter of
documents
required for a
homeless
application.
Outer
London
Borough
C
The MSs details were logged onto the system and her
passport was photocopied.
The MS feels her situation was considered seriously but she
was told that they needed evidence like proof of
pregnancy and her friends tenancy agreement. MS
showed the staff member the friends letter but was told
that she needs to provide their tenancy agreement.
The MS was told that they would offer her somewhere if she
brought in the evidence the next day.
The staff member checked the passport and told the MS to
bring it with her when she came back tomorrow. The staff
member did not explain what would happen at the
appointment.
Aside from talking about the pregnancy, there was no
further discussion on vulnerability or priority need. No
information on benefits or housing advice was given and
there was no signposting.
67
The MS
commented that
the staff member
was very nice but
was rushing.
The MS was
disappointed that
she did not get
any of the
information that
her case needed,
for example,
about refugee
service, or night
shelters.
Outer
London
Borough
D
Customer care
/ Accessibility
Advice given
Interpreting
Services
Personal
Comments
Documents
given
None given
Opening/closing
times were
clearly visible
The MS was given
a private
interview.
The toilets were
locked and had
to be opened by
a security guard.
No water was
available.
There were a
variety of up to
date leaflets, but
none in foreign
languages.
68
The MS told
receptionist that
she cannot speak
English very well
but was told to
call an internal
number and tell
them that she was
homeless.
Outer
London
Borough
E
Customer care
/ Accessibility
Advice given
Interpreting
Services
Personal
Comments
Documents
given
None given.
Opening/closing
times were
clearly visible
There were no
childrens
facilities.
There were a
variety of up to
date leaflets, but
none in foreign
languages.
69
9.6
The scenario for case study six is of a man in his 30s, an A8 national from Latvia
who has been in the UK for 4 years. This man has been sleeping on the streets for 1
year. He is homeless due to unemployment, after losing his job in the construction
industry. His previous accommodation was in the private rented sector, and he
has no current income and no savings. Although he has recourse to public funds,
he is not claiming these as he is not aware of his rights. He has little command of
the English language.
The Mystery Shopper took the following documents with him: A passport, a pay slip
and a friends address and telephone number
Inner London
Borough A
Date
Start visit
Finish visit
Waiting time
main
reception
Waiting time
housing
office
Seen by
23.03.09
13.28 hrs
14.52 hrs
n/a
Inner
London
Borough B
24.03.09
11.45 hrs
12.45 hrs
14 minutes
Outer
London
Borough C
24.03.09
10.00 hrs
10.30 hrs
< 15 minutes
Outer
London
Borough D
26. 03 09
10.25 hrs
11.30 hrs
n/a
Outer
London
Borough E
23.03.09
9.50 hrs
11.25 hrs
n/a
30 minutes
10 minutes
< 15 minutes
30 minutes
1hr
Receptionist
and assistant
receptionist
Unknown
Unknown
Housing
officer
Name
given, no
job title.
Phone
Interpreter
70
9.6
Inner
London
Borough
A
Customer care /
Accessibility
Advice given
Interpreting
Services
Personal
Comments
Documents given
Interpreting service
was advertised and
available on the
telephone.
Printed details of
the local Citizens
Advice Bureau
(CAB) and a local
Community Law
Centre.
Opening/closing times
or emergency out of
hours arrangements
were not visible.
There was rubbish left on
the chairs and floor.
Main reception well
organised. Homelessness
reception was noisy.
The member of staff told
the MS their name. Staff
wore name badges.
71
Information about
council homes
The MS picked up
documents, with
information on
information:
Bed & breakfast
hotels
Housing options &
advice services
Housing options
Inner
London
Borough
B
Customer care /
Accessibility
Advice given
Interpreting
Services
Personal
Comments
Documents given
Opening/closing times
are clearly stated, but
no emergency, out of
hours arrangements are
advertised.
Leaflets /
information are
available in other
languages and
formats if requested
(but not in the MSs
native language
Latvian/ Russian).
Very comfortable
settings with space to fill
in forms.
MS asked for
interpreter and was
told he could speak
to someone on the
phone.
The member of staff
spoke to MS very
slowly and clearly
and listened very
closely so an
interpreter was not
required.
The staff member
was very upset that
information was not
available in MS
native language
Latvian/ Russian.
No Drinking water
available.
No toys/books available
for children.
Mystery Shopping Report for Crisis, May 2009
Interpreting services
were not
advertised.
72
Information leaflet
on single
homelessness
housing options in
the borough.
Advice and
information pack
e.g. hostels, advice
and day centres,
etc
(large document)
Housing benefit
and council tax
benefit form
Outer
London
Borough
C
Customer care /
Accessibility
Advice given
Interpreting
Services
Personal
Comments
Documents given
Information from a
local charity about
day centres.
Opening/closing times
or emergency out of
hours arrangements
were not visible.
Reception area clean,
fresh smelling, tidy and
well organised.
No leaflets to pick up
and take away as
information is placed
behind a glassed notice
board.
Information was
available in other
languages and
formats if
requested.
Interpreting services
was not visible.
73
Outer
London
Borough
D
Customer care /
Accessibility
Advice given
Interpreting
Services
Personal
Comments
Documents given
Print out of
directions to the
housing advice
surgery and the
hostel search dropin services
The MS spoke to
someone on the
phone who
arranged to meet
him in the waiting
area, but the MS
waited half an hour
before calling
again to which the
staff member said
that they had
come down looking
for him.
Arrangements were
then made to meet
in the reception
area.
Opening/closing times
or emergency out of
hours arrangements
were not visible.
The reception was clean
but very noisy.
The leaflets displayed
and up to date. Lots of
leaflets available not
only on homelessness.
The member of staff did
not give their name or
title and did not wear a
name badge.
Comfortable settings
and space provided to
fill in forms.
Interview / private
interview room
available.
Toilets were not clean
No toys/books available
for children
74
Appointment letter
Form for addresses
lived in during the
past five years
The MS picked up
the following
documents/
information:
If you think our
decision is wrong
(DWP document).
Customer
information- which
includes the line:
Interpreters can be
arranged when you
visit or speak to us.
Outer
London
Borough
E
Customer care /
Accessibility
Advice given
Interpreting
Services
Personal
Comments
Documents given
Opening/closing times
are clearly stated, but
no emergency, out of
hours arrangements are
advertised.
Vending machine
available but no drinking
water.
No toys/books available
for children
75
Interpreting services
was advertised.
Staff member
realised that the MS
needed an
interpreter and then
made call on
landline and MS
spoke to for an
interpreter.
Staff member asked
the MS if he could
speak Russian.
A day centre
A night shelter
A direct access
hostel list
9.7
Date
Start visit
Finish visit
Waiting time
main reception
Waiting time
housing office
Seen by
Inner
London
Borough A
30.3.2009
13.02 hrs
14.30 hrs
n/a
Inner
London
Borough B
2.4.2009
13.55 hrs
14.05 hrs
n/a
Outer
London
Borough C
1.4.2009
13.00 hrs
16.25 hrs
n/a
Outer
London
Borough D
8.4.2009
14.10 hrs
14.45 hrs
n/a
Outer
London
Borough E
03.04.09
14.00 hrs
14.30 hrs
n/a
30 minutes
2 minutes
5 minutes
15 minutes
Name
given but
no job title
Male
housing
officer
3 hrs and 30
minutes
Housing
officer
Homeless
team
(phone
duty Line)
Receptionist
76
9.7
Inner
London
Borough
A
Customer care /
Accessibility
Advice given
Personal
Comments
Documents
given
Clearly signed.
Opening/closing
times are not
clearly stated,
emergency, out of
hours
arrangements are
not advertised.
The MS felt that she was not questioned in a sensitive way as there
were two officers present one who conducted the interview and
the other one was sitting with her. The MS was not told why there
were two officers present.
None given.
Homelessness
Reception noisy.
Good display of
up to date leaflets.
No space for forms
to be filled in.
The MS was told that she would have to bring in police crime
reference numbers and hospital letter as proof of her domestic
violence situation before they can do anything. The MS was told
that once she brings her documents she could be classified as
vulnerable.
The MS kept repeating herself and her story but the officer did not
write any of her details down.
The member of
staff wore a name
badge.
Despite the MS insisting that she felt unsafe the officer did not seem
to care, officer gave no advice or signposting. Officer also
encouraged the MS to stay with the sister. The MS told to bring a
letter from her sister to prove that she lives in Inner London Borough
A. Officer explained because of the domestic violence the MS
could go to any borough and get help.
Uncomfortable
chairs.
No drinks available
No toys/books
available for
children.
77
Inner
London
Borough
B
Customer care /
Accessibility
Advice given
Personal
Comments
Documents
given
Clearly signed.
Opening/closing
times are clearly
stated,
emergency, out of
hours
arrangements are
not advertised.
The MS asked for a female member of staff but as one was offered
she agreed to see a male officer. The officer first said no and when
the receptionist told him that it was a domestic violence case he
said yes.
None given.
Good display of
up to date leaflets.
No space for forms
to be filled in.
The officer was not sensitive to the fact that MS did not have the
required documents. MS was told to bring a police reference
number and MS asked if she can get an appointment for that same
day. Told that if she brings the police reference number then they
can make an appointment for an assessment. MS was told to
come back early the next day (at 8.30am) and to wait in the
queue.
No drinks available
No toys/books
available for
children.
Outer
London
Borough
C
The MS asked for a female officer and after a long wait was seen by
a female officer. The officer said that the MS needed a crime
reference number and she was very sensitive to the fact that the
MS did not have one.
The officer handed the MS some telephone numbers to call where
she could get a place for the night and told the MS to come back
the next day if she was unsuccessful and the officer would help her.
The MS was told that because she has no children, is single and
working she is not priority and would have to call the refuges herself.
When the MS said she did not feel safe, officer told her to call the
refuges.
78
Handwritten
telephone
numbers for:
A Refuge
A Womens Aid
Refuge
A relevant charity
(on a torn
compliments slip)
Customer care /
Accessibility
Advice given
Personal
Comments
Documents
given
Opening and
closing times were
clearly stated.
No drinks were
available
The officer said that Outer London Borough D did not have any
duty to house her and he doubts if any other authority had that
duty but told her to try neighbouring boroughs.
The contact
telephone number
of the officer, the
name of their
homeless team
member and
phone numbers of
other boroughs
(borough
compliments slip)
The homelessness
reception was
noisy.
Nice and clean
with water and a
vending machine.
The member of
staff wore a name
badge.
No toys/books
were available for
children
Outer
London
Borough
D
No toys/books
were available for
children
The MS told that her being a victim of violence and in fear for her
safety was not a reason for Outer London Borough D to help her. He
also suggested that it could not be that bad as she was still
working.
The MS was asked where the boyfriend lives and when she said
XXXX (in another borough) the officer asked why she came to
79
Customer care /
Accessibility
Advice given
Outer London Borough D upon which MS replied that her sister lives
here.
The MS was told not to do anything about her situation. No referrals
or signposting were made. The MS said that she felt her life might be
at risk and the officer said there is nothing they can do and that
they had no duty to house her or put her on a housing waiting list.
Personal
Comments
Documents
given
Outer
London
Borough E
The MS was told that the council does not provide a list of hostels.
MS was given a leaflet on hate crime and teh details of her local
reporting centre. The MS was told to go there and that they will give
her a list of womens refuges and a list of hostels she could call to
find a place. She was told that the agencies would check up on
80
A leaflet about
hate crime,
Details of local
reporting centre.
Telephone
numbers.
Customer care /
Accessibility
Drinks were
available.
Toys/books
available for
children.
Advice given
police records and her domestic violence story. The receptionist
explained that at their office they do not deal with single domestic
violence applicants, but would deal with her if she had a child.
No assessment of her homelessness was made and no advice on
housing options was given.
81
Personal
Comments
Documents
given
9.8
The scenario for case study eight is of a couple, both between 20 and 30 years
old. The man in the couple is self employed, with business dwindling and no
savings. The woman is a homemaker. (The woman is not present during the
shop). The couple has been made homeless because they have received a
notice seeking possession of their privately rented accommodation. Their rent
had been paid directly to a landlord who had not paid his mortgage and found
himself in arrears.
The Mystery Shopper took the following documents with him: A Section/Notice 21,
a passport and documents to identify his partner.
Inner
London
Borough A
27.03.09
12.44 hrs
13.46 hrs
n/a
Date
Start visit
Finish visit
Waiting time
main
reception
Waiting time
42 minutes
housing office
Seen by
Name given
title
unknown
Inner
London
Borough B
27.03.09
14.36 hrs
14.42 hrs
n/a
Outer
London
Borough C
25.03.09
14.26 hrs
14.52 hrs
30 minutes
Seen
25 minutes
immediately
Receptionist Unknown
82
Outer
London
Borough D
03.04.09
12.38 hrs
Seen
immediately
Outer
London
Borough E
23.03.09
14.12 hrs
15.26 hrs
n/a
Seen
1hr 40
immediately minutes
Housing
Unknown
officer
(phone)
9.8
Inner
London
Borough
A
Customer care /
Accessibility
Advice given
Personal
Comments
Documents
given
Information on
housing options
and advice
service,
including details
on the private
sector housing
advice team.
83
Telephone
numbers for:
The CAB
The job centre.
(Hand written
note)
Inner
London
Borough
B
Customer care /
Accessibility
Advice given
Personal
Comments
Documents
given
The telephone
number for
emergency out of
hours for MS to call
after 5pm.
(compliments slip)
Homelessness reception
noisy.
MS had to ask member of
staff for their name.
Staff wore name badges.
Notice boards / posters and
leaflets available.
Lots of chairs and space to
fill in forms and for private
interviews.
The toilets were clean.
Toys/books available for
young children.
Outer
London
Borough
None given.
Customer care /
Accessibility
Advice given
Personal
Comments
Documents
given
Outer
London
Borough
D
No mediation was
offered with the
landlord.
The MS felt it was
difficult to assess if his
situation was taken
seriously because the
interview was
None given.
Customer care /
Accessibility
Outer
London
Borough
E
Advice given
notice period and after this time the Landlord would
have to take legal action to evict the MS from the
property.
The MS was given the telephone number and times to
call Outer London Borough D homelessness charity
and told that they may answer the phone. The MS
was told that this service is not for couples and that he
should not go there as a couple. The MS was also told
that they have a mens clothing centre which deal
with single homeless male and that his girlfriend could
go but she probably will not get any help.
Documents
given
Personal
Comments
Borough leaflet on
accessing council
services
(Not a very clear
photocopy).
Details of the CAB.
Housing benefit
form.
Customer care /
Accessibility
Lots of chairs but not
comfortable.
Space to fill in forms and
private place fro interviews.
Toilets clean.
No drinks available.
Designated area for young
children with Toys/books
available and television.
Advice given
The MS was told that he is not priority because he has
a girlfriend and does not have any children.
The MS told to go to the Citizens Advice Bureau to get
debt advice.
Member of staff said that she would take on the MS
case but that she was going away for the next two
weeks. When the MS asked is any other staff could
help the MS was told that he would be told the same
thing as she has just told him.
87
Personal
Comments
Documents
given
9.9
The scenario for case study nine is of a man, aged 30 who has become homeless
through unemployment from his job in the construction industry. This man had
been sleeping in the street since losing his home in a private rented property. He
has no income, no savings, and no family support.
The Mystery Shopper took the following documents with him: A birth certificate,
pay slips and the address and telephone number of his family home.
Date
Start visit
Finish visit
Waiting time
main
reception
Waiting time
housing
office
Seen by
Inner London
Borough
A
23.3.2009
10.10 hrs
10.44 hrs
n/a
Inner London
Borough
B
27.3.2009
14.00 hrs
14.30 hrs
n/a
Outer
London
Borough C
24.3.2009
11.50 hrs
12.10 hrs
1 minute
Outer
London
Borough D
26.3.2009
11.20 hrs
11.30 hrs
n/a
Outer
London
Borough E
25.3.2009
11.30 hrs
11.45 hrs
n/a
10 minutes
< 10 minutes
10 minutes
Seen
immediately
5 minutes
Unknown
Receptionist
Unknown
Housing
officer
(phone)
Receptionist
88
9.9
Inner
London
Borough
A
Customer care /
Accessibility
Advice given
Personal
Comments
Documents
given
Information for
homeless people,
An information
leaflet on single
people living in
inner London.
Opening/closing
times were clearly
visible.
Emergency out of
hours
arrangements
were clearly
visible.
Inner
London
Borough
B
MS was given a list of hostels and the staff member marked the
ones she thought would be appropriate for MS.
The receptionist did not have a lot of time for the MS as there was a
big queue of about 20 people and she was on her own. The MS felt
she was rushed, as if she gave him very quickly, her usual talk she
gives to everyone.
Opening/closing
times were clearly
visible.
The rooms felt hot
and sweaty.
A list of hostels
located in
another
borough.
The MS told her about his situation and she gave him telephone
numbers to call for a hostel place and a leaflet. He was also given
a telephone number and was told to call it at 6pm to get
emergency night accommodation. The number was written down
on piece of paper.
89
(21 pages)
A leaflet on
housing needs
and options.
Customer care /
Accessibility
Emergency out of
hours
arrangements
were clearly
visible.
Room numbers
seemed random.
It was a Lovely
place: brand new,
modern
There were lots of
leaflets on council
services.
Advice given
The MS was told that there are only 5 emergency visits/interviews
per day and that is why you have to get there early (8 am) in order
to get an appointment.
Personal
Comments
Documents
given
Information
about the local
housing advice
centre, including
information on a
skills training
No drinks were
available.
No toys/books
available for
young children.
Outer
London
Borough
C
Customer care /
Accessibility
Advice given
Personal
Comments
Emergency out of
hours
arrangements
were clearly
visible.
The staff member explained that he would not get a hostel in Outer
London Borough C but in another area.
There were
different queues in
the main
reception and the
homeless enquiry
queues were very
quick.
Documents
given
project but no
contact details
(photocopy)
The homelessness
reception was
noisy.
Outer
London
Borough
D
Clearly signed.
Opening/closing
times are clearly
stated,
emergency, out of
hours
arrangements are
not advertised.
No drinks
available.
The MS felt his case was considered seriously. The officer explained
the process a little but when the MS told her that he had no income
she just told him to sign on for benefits in order to get into a hostel.
The officer asked for the MSs girlfriends name and address and
when he had left the home. MS was asked if he had any health
issues or problems.
Priority need was not discussed. The only advice the MS was given
was to go to the Jobcentre to sign on for benefits. The officer asked
if the MS knew where it was and the MS said yes. The MS
commented that this was all that he was told despite the case
91
Customer care /
Accessibility
Toys/books
available for
young children.
Advice given
scenario of sleeping rough and not having an address.
Personal
Comments
Documents
given
Single homeless
questionnaire.
Outer
London
Borough E
Clearly signed.
Opening/closing
times are clearly
stated,
emergency, out of
hours
arrangements are
not advertised.
No name badges
worn.
Drinks available.
Toys/books
available for
young children.
The MS felt that the receptionist did not consider his case seriously.
The MS was told to come back the next day and start queuing at 8
am although they do not open until 9am.
No enquiries were made to establish his homelessness.
Regarding local connection the MS was asked which borough he
came coming from. MS was asked about his health.
No explanation was given of priority need.
The MS was told that on his return the next day, he would need to
bring proof of benefits. When the MS told the receptionist that he
was not signing on he was told to do so and she pointed her finger
in a certain direction and said there you got to go and sign on.
The MS suggested that he would fill in the forms there and then so
that he could be seen and given an appointment on the day but
was told that he had to come back the next day.
The receptionist mentioned council housing but did not give advice
on where the MS could stay for the night.
92
Housing
application form.
Information
request letter.
10.
= 1 point,
= 0 points
= 0 point,
= 1 points
= 2 points
= 1 point
= 0 points
93
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
0
1
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
0
0
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
n/s
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
2
not applicable
1
1
1
2
2
1
0
0
1
1
1
2
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
0
0
0
1
1
1
2
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
1
1
0
1
0
1
1
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
0
0
1
1
0
1
1
0
1
1
1
0
23
22
18
19
20
15
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
0
0
0
1
1
1
2
2
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
n/s
1
0
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
15
20
23
18
22
n/s
0
1
1
1
f
e
e
d
b
a
c
k
f
o
r
m
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
2
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
n/s
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
2
2
0
0
1
1
1
1
2
2
n/s
n/s
n/s
1
1
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
1
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
n/s
n/s
n/s
1
1
0
n/s
n/s
0
0
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
0
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
n/s
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
0
18
18
24
17
19
26
62%
20
62%
69%
73%
59%
73%
90%
1
1
n/s
n/s
79%
85%
64%
66%
19
69%
73%
52%
79%
80%
79%
64%
71%
n
o
t
r
e
c
e
i
v
e
d
0
0%
94
1
0
0
1
1
1
0
1
n/s
n/s
n/s
n/s
1
1
0
1
1
1
0
1
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
1
n/s
0
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
1
1
1
0
0
1
1
0
1
0
1
0
1
n/s
0
0
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
0
1
0
1
0
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
0
1
n/s
n/s
n/s
n/s
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
0
0
1
1
0
2
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
0
0
1
1
0
2
2
0
0
0
1
1
1
2
2
0
0
0
1
1
1
2
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
1
0
1
0
0
1
0
1
0
2
0
0
1
1
1
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
1
0
2
2
0
0
0
1
1
1
2
2
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
2
0
0
1
1
1
1
2
2
n/s
n/s
n/s
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
0
1
1
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
0
0
0
1
1
1
2
2
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
2
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
1
0
0
0
1
1
1
2
2
0
0
0
1
1
1
2
2
0
0
1
1
1
1
2
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
2
1
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
n/s
n/s
n/s
n/s
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
n/s
n/s
n/s
n/s
n/s
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
n/s
0
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
0
0
0
1
1
0
1
1
n/s
n/s
1
n/s
1
1
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
0
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
n/s
n/s
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
n/s
n/s
n/s
n/s
1
1
1
0
0
0
1
0
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
n/s
n/s
n/s
n/s
1
1
1
0
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
n/s
1
1
1
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
n/s
1
n/s
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
0
1
0
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
15
21
21
26
18
22
14
16
30
11
12
18
15
21
76%
20
53%
65%
13
13
20
21
17
14
15
17
21
78%
17
59%
59%
48%
52%
59%
72%
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
0
1
n/s
n/s
n/s
n/s
not applicable
not applicable
52%
68%
70%
65%
58%
57%
88%
44%
21
72%
12
92%
26
19
90%
17
66%
66%
95
41%
62%
58%
72%
45%
52%
69%