090929 Mystery Shopping

Mystery Shopping Report for Crisis, May 2009 1

MYSTERY SHOPPING REPORT

May 2009

Brent Homeless User Group


CONTENTS

1. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS............................................................ 41.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................ 41.2 Review of findings.................................................................................................. 41.3 Recommendations to central government and local authorities ................ 51.4 Recommendations to agencies working with homeless people, and

homeless people themselves .............................................................................. 62 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................. 73. PROJECT AIMS .................................................................................................. 84. BACKGROUND................................................................................................... 9

4.1 Project Management ........................................................................................... 94.2 Mystery Shopping .................................................................................................. 9

5. SCOPE OF PROJECT ...................................................................................... 105.1 The Project Brief ................................................................................................... 105.2 Timing of Visits....................................................................................................... 105.3 Review of Documentation................................................................................. 105.4 Accessibility .......................................................................................................... 105.5 Equalities and Diversity ....................................................................................... 105.6 Reporting Results ................................................................................................. 10

6. METHODOLOGY AND TIMETABLE................................................................. 116.1 Agreeing the Protocols....................................................................................... 116.2 Recruitment of Mystery Shoppers ..................................................................... 126.3 Design of Feedback Forms ................................................................................ 126.4 Training the Mystery Shoppers ........................................................................... 136.5 Undertaking the Mystery Shopping .................................................................. 136.6 Analysis .................................................................................................................. 13

7. FINDINGS ......................................................................................................... 147.1 Are services easily accessible? ......................................................................... 167.2 Do Mystery Shoppers feel that staff are interested in their individual

circumstances and take into account their specific needs? ...................... 277.3 Are Mystery Shoppers offered information, advice and advocacy if

needed on housing and related issues and is this information clear? ....... 297.4 Are the Mystery Shoppers given the opportunity to submit a homeless

application? ......................................................................................................... 317.5 Are the Mystery Shoppers offered or referred to suitable emergency or

temporary accommodation where this is needed? ..................................... 347.6 Are the Local Authorities homelessness services working effectively to

address the Mystery Shoppers needs with other council services andexternal agencies? ............................................................................................. 36

8. BOROUGH OUTCOMES .................................................................................. 398.1 Inner London Borough A .................................................................................... 398.2 Inner London Borough B ..................................................................................... 398.3 Outer London Borough C................................................................................... 408.4 Outer London Borough D ................................................................................... 418.5 Outer London Borough E.................................................................................... 42

9. PERSONAL VISIT FINDINGS (including advice given)..................................... 439.1 Young Person Male (Mystery Shopper 1)......................................................... 43


9.2 Young Person Female (Mystery Shopper 2) .................................................... 489.3 Male / Mental Health (Mystery Shopper 3) ..................................................... 549.4 Female / Mental Health (Mystery Shopper 4) ................................................. 609.5 Pregnant / Immigrant / Little English Language (Mystery Shopper 5) ........ 659.6 EU/A8 Citizen / Immigrant / Little English Language (Mystery Shopper 6) . 709.7 Domestic Violence (Mystery Shopper 7) ......................................................... 769.8 Couple (Mystery Shopper 8) .............................................................................. 829.9 Male Rough Sleeper (Mystery Shopper 9) ....................................................... 88

10. VISITS OUTCOMES ANALYSIS ....................................................................... 93


1. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

1.1 Introduction

This report details the results of a Homelessness Mystery Shopping project. In all, 45visits were carried out to front line Housing Advice and Homelessness Preventionservices across five boroughs to test initial responses to a range of scenarios. Theproject sought to assess the standard of service offered and consider how well thelocal authorities were likely to fulfil their statutory obligations to people presentingas homeless had an application been pursued further. The project wasundertaken by Brent Homeless User Group, an independent charity andcommissioned 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 localauthorities. Often services were not accessible to homeless people, and evenwhere the Mystery Shoppers did see an officer they rarely received the help theywere entitled to.

The degree to which Mystery Shoppers felt staff were interested in their individualcircumstances varied widely, and was dependent on the individual member ofstaff seen rather than the circumstance or local authority.

The local authorities sometimes provided information and occasionally providedadvice and guidance. However, in many cases this information or advice wasmisleading or incorrect. Many local authorities limited advice to providing thetelephone number of another agency who might be able to help. Assessing thequality of advice provided by these agencies was beyond the scope of thisproject.

Mystery Shoppers were in most of the cases deterred from making a homelessnessapplication, often by reception staff providing misleading advice, or preventingMystery Shoppers from seeing a housing officer. In all of the cases, localauthorities failed to ensure that Mystery Shoppers received their statutoryentitlement to emergency accommodation while their circumstances wereinvestigated.

There was some evidence to suggest that local authority homelessness serviceswere working to a limited degree with other council services to address theMystery Shoppers needs. However, the potential to work with agencies such asSocial Services was largely under-utilised. In one of the scenarios used, a referral toSocial Services would have been expected, but findings report only a limitedcontact being made with that department.

There was general inconsistency regarding signposting and referral to externalagencies with some Mystery Shoppers being offered advice and others not beinggiven any assistance.


1.3 Recommendations to central government and local authorities

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 ofhomelessness legislation, particularly in relation to vulnerability, eligibility andpriority need. They should also attempt to ascertain as fully as possible whatassistance or accommodation a person is entitled to, rather than assuming thehomeless 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. Insome boroughs applicants felt uncomfortable with their surroundings, particularlywhen having to outline their circumstances in crowded waiting areas. At a timewhen Communities and Local Government (CLG) is encouraging hostelaccommodation for homeless people to become places of change, it would beuseful to ensure that the interface between the homeless person and the statealso offers a welcoming environment.

R3. Documentation required

The case scenarios were developed acknowledging that homeless people maynot 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 MysteryShoppers did not have the personal information that would, ideally, have beenavailable.

Whilst the findings indicate some commitment to assist, there was evidence thatsometimes bureaucratic processes prevented a flexible response and that thisdisadvantaged some Mystery Shoppers who did not have immediate access torequired documentation but, nonetheless, had a right to help and advice.

R4. Signposting

Most of the boroughs did not make effective use of available opportunities foradditional help and support through signposting the vulnerable person to a rangeof organisations. Signposting can be an effective tool, providing assistance tothose who may not be helped any other way at the time and may provide someinterim solutions to their needs.


1.4 Recommendations to agencies working with homeless people, andhomeless people themselves

R5. Accompanied visits

Homeless people are unlikely to understand their legal position, and are even lesslikely to be able to advocate for themselves. Organisations working with homelesspeople should consider accompanying them to local authorities and assistingthem to make an application.

R6. Early arrival

For homeless people needing to make an application, particularly those in needof emergency accommodation, it is important to arrive at the housing office asearly as possible. Despite guidance in the code of good practice that a personshould be dealt with on the day they visit, limited resources mean that many localauthorities have a maximum of five emergency appointments a day.

R7. Assertiveness

It is necessary for homeless people or those advocating for them to be assertive.Some local authorities will attempt to dissuade people from making anapplication by telling them they will not be entitled to any help, or providingcontact details for a local voluntary agency.


2 INTRODUCTION

This report details the results of a Homelessness Mystery Shopping project carriedout by Brent Homeless User Group, an independent organisation (referred to herein as B.HUG) for national homelessness charity, Crisis. 45 visits were carried out tofront line Housing Advice and Homelessness Prevention services across fiveboroughs to test initial responses to a range of scenarios. The project sought toassess the standard of service offered and consider how well the local authoritieswere likely to fulfil their statutory obligations to people presenting as homeless hadan application been pursued further.

The project was commissioned by national homelessness charity Crisis to assess thequality of service provided to people seeking homelessness advice and assistancewithin different local authorities across London. Research was undertaken duringthree weeks between March and April 2009. Crisis informed the boroughs involvedthat this mystery shopping activity would take place but gave no indication as tothe exact timings of the exercise.

Nine different Mystery Shoppers (MS) presented case-study scenarios within eachborough. They carefully documented the services and responses they received.The report therefore gives a unique, impartial insight to the advice given and theaction taken by front line staff responding to contact from those who arehomeless or threatened with homelessness; one that has been captured throughthe eyes of people with similar life experience to real service users, rather thanthrough the eyes of housing professionals or general Mystery Shoppers.

Findings and recommendations will enable sharing of best practice; andimprovement to the quality of service provision for people who approach localauthorities when homeless or threatened with homelessness.


3. PROJECT AIMS

This project set out to explore whether people seeking homelessness advice andassistance from local authorities receive variable standards of service betweenand within local authorities, paying particular attention to the following questions.

Are services easily accessible? In particular, how easily do Mystery Shoppersaccess the service and get help with their housing problems?

Do Mystery Shoppers feel that staff are interested in their individualcircumstances and take into account their specific needs (for example,mental health problems; language barriers; domestic violence)?

Are Mystery Shoppers offered information, advice and advocacy if neededon housing and related issues and is this information clear?

Are the Mystery Shoppers given the opportunity to submit a homelessnessapplication?

Are the Mystery Shoppers offered or referred to suitable emergency ortemporary accommodation where this is needed?

Are the Local Authorities homelessness services working effectively toaddress the Mystery Shoppers needs with other council services or externalagencies (for example housing benefits, Social Services)?

These areas have been identified and used by the Audit Commission Inspectoratewhen looking at homelessness and housing advice:1

1 Audit Commission (October 2007), Homelessness and housing Advice Key Lines of Inquiry (KLOEs); andibid., Homelessness: Responding to the New Agenda.


4. BACKGROUND

4.1 Project Management

The project was carried out by Brent Homeless User Group, an independent, user-led homeless charity with extensive experience in conducting user-led researchprojects including mystery shopping exercises.

4.2 Mystery Shopping

Mystery shopping is a robust method of gauging service quality since thetechnique delivers hard, tangible, facts about actual service levels and serviceuser experience. As such, it is a valuable and powerful tool both in its own rightand as a complement to other methods of assessing service user satisfaction2.Mystery shopping differs from other methods of assessing service user satisfactionin that the technique deals with the here and now of services, and records, indetail, the component parts of each element of contact with the service user. It istherefore an ideal way of testing whether the service provided meets declaredaims and standards.

Mystery shopping can identify strengths and weaknesses and help to show exactlywhere service delivery can be improved. In instances where excellent service isprovided, the service may be considered an example of best practice andspecific staff members can be singled out for recognition and reward.

Initially deployed in retail and private sector service industries, mystery shopping isnow used increasingly in the public sector to gain a better understanding of howservice users are treated when they approach front line offices. Mystery Shoppingcan be carried out in person, by telephone, or less commonly by letter/email.

Where Mystery Shoppers present the same cases studies or scenarios across anumber of organisations, results can be benchmarked. In addition, outcomes canbe presented to an audience made up of those who can make the directchanges which will provide genuine improvements in service quality.

2 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 homelessnessadvice and assistance from local authorities receive variable standards of servicebetween and within local authorities using a mystery shopping approach. Centralto this was a wish to determine the extent to which local authorities discharge theirobligations under the homelessness legislation in terms of (a) encouraging andfacilitating 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 resolvetheir homelessness.

5.1 The Project BriefThe brief required nine case scenarios to be tested across five London localauthorities who will remain anonymous; two Inner London Boroughs (A and B) andthree Outer London Boroughs (C, D and E): The various scenarios used aimed tohighlight the complexities and range of circumstances people can typicallypresent when seeking housing assistance from their local authorities.

5.2 Timing of VisitsThe mystery shopping took place in March / April 2009. Visits took place ondifferent days/at different times when possible, but the order of visits was notprescribed.

5.3 Review of DocumentationMystery Shoppers had different access to documentations (e.g. ID) whenconducting a visit. The type of documentations used by them is recorded as partof section 8 (Personal Visits Findings).

5.4 AccessibilityThe project aimed at ascertaining how easily the Mystery Shoppers accessed theservice and got help with their housing problems.

5.5 Equalities and DiversityThe Mystery Shoppers were diverse in terms of ethnicity, age and experiences.Demographic information about Mystery Shoppers was collected via equalopportunities monitoring forms in the recruitment process.

5.6 Reporting ResultsWithin this report the findings are broadly summarised thematically within section7. 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 eachborough are set out in section 8.


6. METHODOLOGY AND TIMETABLE

The project consisted of a number of stages

Drafting the case studies and design of feedback checklists Recruitment of Mystery Shoppers Training the Mystery Shoppers Undertaking the mystery shopping Analyses of findings

Timetable

March 2009 Preparation of scenarios and supporting documentation(including feedback forms)

March 2009 Recruitment and training of Mystery Shoppers

March 2009 Drafting of mystery shopping schedules

March 2009 Mystery shopping in London boroughs

April 2009 Data analysis and writing up

May 2009 Feedback session with Crisis staff and Mystery Shoppers

May 2009 Report submitted to Crisis

6.1 Agreeing the Protocols

Nine Mystery Shopper case studies were developed in collaboration with Crisis.The cases reflect a cross section of scenarios involving a diverse range of homelesspeople.

The case studies covered a range of housing needs and issues and ensured thatthe diversity of participants was maximised. The level of urgency and theappropriate form of action to be taken by the council adviser differed within eachscenario. All cases were established to reflect real customer interaction and tominimise the need to impose limitations to the scenarios, e.g. if certaindocumentation were to be required for a case to appear realistic.

Further detail on the case scenarios can be found in section 7.


6.2 Recruitment of Mystery Shoppers

B.HUG recruited a group of Mystery Shoppers who were assigned a case study tobe presented in each of the boroughs. This assured as much consistency aspossible.

From the outset of the project, the aim was to recruit Mystery Shoppers who havehad experience of homelessness, have a genuine interest in improving servicesand the capacity to act as Shoppers. B.HUG endeavoured to take on people witha similar real life experience to the scenarios designed. B.HUG also ensured thatMystery Shoppers team is representative of the ethnic diversity of theparticipating boroughs. Given that Mystery Shoppers were using their ownidentities, it was essential that the Shoppers were not previously known toHomelessness services within participating boroughs.

B.HUG liaised with numerous service providers across London (homelessnessorganisations and community groups) to find suitable candidates for the project.

6.3 Design of Feedback Forms

B.HUG used feedback forms that had successfully been used previously in a similarshopping project and were specifically structured to support objective recordingand 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.


6.4 Training the Mystery Shoppers

Mystery Shoppers attended mystery shopping and confidence building trainingsessions.

Training on mystery shopping was provided by the independent housingconsultant. The workshop enabled the Mystery Shoppers to become familiar withthe background and objectives of the project; to learn about mystery shopping;to become familiar with the details of the case studies; to input to the final revisionof case studies and feedback sheets and to rehearse individual roles.

Mystery Shoppers also participated in a confidence building session held by avoluntary organisation specialising in working with young offenders and homelesspeople. The workshop focused on building Mystery Shoppers confidence utilisingparticipants real life experience and enable further role play and revisiting thecase scenario. Those who did not attend the confidence building workshop weregiven an opportunity to practice their scenarios and opportunity to air anyconcerns during an additional practice session.

6.5 Undertaking the Mystery Shopping

The mystery shopping visits across the five participating boroughs took place inMarch 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 dayto the relevant offices.

6.6 Analysis

The results were analysed in relation to each of the main questions anddifferentiated by borough as dictated by project objectives.


7. FINDINGS

This chapter summarises the response of services across 45 visits in the 9 boroughsto the case studies presented by Mystery Shoppers. Based on the data gatheredby the Mystery Shoppers we have attempted to compare the outcome thatwould be expected if the Mystery Shopper pursued an application fully (asspecified by Crisis in the project brief) with the actual outcome. The results aresummarised in Table 7.1.1. The small number of cases means that the followinggeneralisations should be treated with some caution.

The Mystery Shoppers were testing the initial responses of the services to thesescenarios not the whole process of making a homelessness application. It isimportant to note that the nature of the mystery shopping exercise makes itdifficult to state absolutely whether a local authority would have met theirobligations under homelessness law to some of the Mystery Shoppers had theybeen able to pursue some of the cases through to the stage of submitting anapplication. There are a number of ethical and practical problems in pursuing ahomeless application this far as part of a mystery shopping exercise not least assuch an exercise would use considerable council resources. The Shoppers were stillable to test the service and information given to them on presenting theirscenario.

Summary of Mystery Shopper Case Studies:

MysteryShopper

Scenario Details

1 Young person,male

An unemployed, male, 18 years old, left mothers homedue to relationship breakdown. Can no longer stay onfriends sofa. No income or savings.

2 Young person,female

A healthy 17 year old woman, left mothers home afterunwanted attention from Mothers partner, no longerable to stay on friends sofa. No income or savings.

3 Mental health,male

A man in his 40s, who has had a mental breakdownfollowing mothers death. Evicted from home he sharedwith his mother. Suffering from depression and livingrough in his car. No income or benefits.

4 Mental health,female

A woman in her 30s with mild learning difficulties. Havingleft her family home due to involvement with drugs andprostitution, she now has to leave her friends sofa. Herchaotic life has meant she no longer claims benefits.


Summary of Mystery Shopper Case Studies (Continued):

MysteryShopper

Scenario Details

5 Immigrant,female

A pregnant woman who is a refugee with little Englishlanguage ability. She has been staying with friends in arented property and has to leave. She has recourse topublic funds, but is on a part time low income andcannot afford to find a new rental property.

6 Immigrant,male

A migrant worker from Latvia, an A8 country, who hasbeen in the country for four years, unemployed for oneyear and lost his home. He is rough sleeping, unawareof his rights and has little language ability.

7 Domestic violencevictim,female

A woman in her 20s who has left her home due todomestic violence from an alcoholic partner. She has toleave her sisters overcrowded home and is worried asher husband knows where she is.

8 Couple,male and female

A couple in their 20s. The man is self employed with adwindling business and no savings, the wife is a homemaker. They have been evicted as their landlord hasnot kept up his mortgage payment.

9 Rough sleeper,male

A man in his 30s, unemployed and sleeping rough. Withno savings, no income and no financial support.


7.1 Are services easily accessible?

This question is answered in two parts. Table 7.1.1 compares the expectedoutcome 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 accessservices.

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 dischargetheir duties. For example, Mystery Shopper 2 should have been categorised as inpriority need and provided with temporary accommodation until her applicationhad been adjudicated (See Table 7.1.1). Although all boroughs mentioned thatSocial Services would need to get involved in her case, only two boroughs offeredher an appointment with Social Services on the same day if she could get moredocumentation. Only one borough, Inner London Borough B, provided somesignposting to Mystery Shopper 2, including telephone numbers for emergencyaccommodation, and the National Domestic Violence Helpline. While she wasadvised 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 boroughMystery Shopper 2 was asked to return with proof of pregnancy. The other advicethis Mystery Shopper was given varied widely.

Local Authorities were more likely to fulfil their obligations of delivering advice andsignposting than fulfil the duty to provide housing were this was applicable. Ingeneral it appears that Outer London Borough E, Inner London Borough B andInner London Borough A were slightly more likely to meet the expected outcomesthan Outer London Borough C and Outer London Borough D.

It was of concern that Mystery Shoppers 3 and 4 were informed they were not inpriority 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 aconsequence of homeless officers not asking for enough information about theclients mental health, despite the fact that Mystery Shoppers indicated that theremay be mental health concerns. Without this support from front line workers inassessing need, a homeless person would only be able to access their statutoryentitlement if they understand homelessness law and are assertive when pushingfor their rights. This is unlikely to be the case for most vulnerable people. This mayalso point to a lack of accurate understanding amongst homeless officersthemselves of the laws they are applying.


Table 7.1.1 Were Mystery Shoppers expected outcomes met?

MS Expected outcome Was it met?

Inner London Borough A

1Advice andAssistance

Partially: Some advice and assistance was given. MS wastold to sort out his benefits, given council housing guidelinesand signposted to external agencies

2 Priority No: MS was not offered accommodation. MS was told toreturn with ID, passport and statement from her mother.

3 Priority (borderline)No: There was limited assessment and no decision wasmade on priority need status that day. It is likely that thiswould have been decided on the appointment the nextday.

4 Priority (borderline)No: There was no assessment to establish if MS was inpriority need. The MS was offered an appointment onreturning with further ID

5Priority No: MS was not offered accommodation and was asked toreturn with proof of pregnancy and more information.

6 Advice andassistance

Partially: Some advice, assistance and signposting weregiven. However, MS was told that no further help could begiven as he was unable to provide enough documentation,although passport was provided

7 Priority (borderline)No: MS was not deemed to be in priority need. Noassessment was made to establish whether MS was inpriority need. No signposting or advice was given.


Yes: Advice and assistance was given. MS was signpostedto a Private Sector Housing Advice Team, the job centreand the CAB.


Partially: Some advice and assistance was given. MS wastold to call the job centre and given a list of hostels.


Table 7.1.1 Were Mystery Shoppers expected outcomes met? (Continued)


Inner London Borough B

1 Advice and Assistance No: MS was not given advice or assistance. MS wasadvised to speak to emergency out of hours department.

2 Priority No: MS was not offered accommodation.

3 Priority (borderline)No: MS was not deemed to be in priority need. Limitedassessment was undertaken, with no health questions. MSwas incorrectly advised that he was not in priority needas he had no children.

4 Priority (borderline)No: MS was not deemed to be in priority need. Noassessment was undertaken. MS insisted on booking anemergency appointment and was told to come back thenext day.

5 PriorityNo: MS was not offered accommodation. MS was told toreturn in 4 weeks time with proof of pregnancy and 6months pay slips.

6 Advice and assistanceYes: MS was advised about hostels, day centers, benefits,night shelters. MS was advised to call the HousingEmergency out-of-hours line or to come back the next dayif not successful.

7 Priority (borderline)No: MS was not deemed to be in priority need. Noassessment was undertaken. MS was advised to go backto her sisters house and come back for an assessment.

8 Advice and Assistance No: MS was not given advice or assistance. MS was told tobook an appointment.

9 Advice and AssistancePartially: Some assistance and advice was given. MS wasgiven a list of hostels and told to call the HousingEmergency out-of-hours department.




Outer London Borough C

1 Advice and Assistance Partially: Some advice and assistance was given. MSadvised about Rent Deposit Guarantee Scheme

2 Priority No: MS was not offered temporary accommodation

3 Priority (borderline)No: MS was not deemed to be in priority need. Limitedassessment was undertaken to establish if MS was inpriority need.

4 Priority (borderline)No: MS was not deemed to be in priority need. Limitedassessment was undertaken to establish if MS was inpriority need.

5 Priority Yes: MS was advised they would offer heraccommodation if she could provide proof of pregnancy

6 Advice and assistancePartially: Some advice and assistance was given. MS wassignposted to a day centre. However, no advice wasgiven on housing.

7 Priority (borderline)Partially: Some assessment was made to establishwhether MS was in priority need. MS was given adviceand assistance and signposted to refuges. MS wasadvised to come back if unsuccessful at refuges.

8 Advice and Assistance Partially: Some advice and assistance was given. MS wassignposted to a day centre and the CAB.

9 Advice and AssistancePartially: Some advice and assistance was given. MS wassignposted to a local advice agency and the job centreand a rent deposit scheme discussed.




Outer London Borough D

1 Advice and Assistance Partially: Some advice and assistance was given. MS wassignposted to a local homeless charity.

2 Priority No: MS was not offered accommodation MS was askedto return with ID.

3 Priority (borderline)No: MS was not deemed to be in priority need. Limitedassessment was undertaken to establish if MS was inpriority need. Mediation with the landlord was offered.

4 Priority (borderline)No: MS was not deemed to be in priority need. Limitedassessment was undertaken to establish if MS was inpriority need. MS was offered a medical assessment onreturn with further ID.

5 PriorityNo: MS was not offered accommodation. MS was askedto come back with proof of pregnancy and residence.

6 Advice and assistancePartially: Some Advice and assistance given. Sent tohousing advice surgery and hostel search services.

7 Priority (borderline)No: MS was not deemed to be in priority need. Noassessment was undertaken to establish if MS was inpriority need. No signposting was offered.

8 Advice and AssistancePartially: Some advice and assistance was given. MS wassignposted to a local homeless centre and the job centre.

9 Advice and Assistance Partially: Some advice and assistance was given. MS wassignposted to a local homeless centre and the job centre.




Outer London Borough E

1 Advice and AssistanceYes: Advice and assistance was given. MS was handedan Outer London Borough E Housing Information Pack; aHomelessness Prevention Pack and a Housing OptionsPack.

2 Priority No: MS was not offered accommodation.

3 Priority (borderline)No: MS was not deemed to be in priority need. Noassessment was undertaken to establish if MS was inpriority need. No explanation of priority need wasgiven and MS was told that no LA would house him.

4 Priority (borderline)No: MS was not deemed to be in priority need. Noassessment was undertaken to establish if MS was inpriority need. MS was asked to come back next veryearly morning to make emergency appointment.

5 Priority No: MS was not offered accommodation. MS was askedto come back with proof of pregnancy.

6 Advice and assistancePartially: Some Advice and assistance given. MS wasadvised to sign on for benefits and was given contactdetails for hostels and shelters.

7 Priority (borderline)

No: MS was not deemed to be in priority need. Limitedassessment was undertaken to establish if MS was inpriority need. MS was incorrectly advised that nothingcould be done for her as she has no children. MS wassignposted to a local hate crime reporting centre.

8 Advice and AssistancePartially: Some advice and assistance was given. MSwas signposted to a local homeless centre and the jobcentre.

9 Advice and Assistance No: MS was not given advice and assistance and wastold to come back next day.


7.1.2 How easily did Mystery Shoppers access the service?

CLG Good Practice guidance to local authorities recommends that advisoryservices are accessible to all:

advisory services are well publicised and accessible to everyone in the district.Appropriate provision will need to be made to ensure accessibility for people withparticular needs, including those with mobility difficulties, sight or hearing loss andlearning difficulties, as well as those for whom English is not their first language.3

Table 7.1.2 demonstrates the ease with which Mystery Shoppers were able toaccess the service in terms of finding the building; seeing a housing officer andbeing offered interpreting support where appropriate (for more detailedinformation please see Visits Outcomes Analysis on page 93-95). MysteryShoppers had particular access difficulties in Inner London Borough B and OuterLondon Borough E. In many cases a receptionist acted as a gatekeeperpreventing the Mystery Shopper from speaking directly to a housing officer. InOuter London Borough D half of the interviews with housing officers were carriedout over the phone.

Table 7.1.2 How easily did Mystery Shoppers access the service?

MS Mystery Shopper ExperiencesInner London Borough A1 Signage for the service was clear.MS was seen by a housing officer. (Interviewed in waiting area)2 Signage for the service was very clear.MS was seen by a receptionist.3 Signage for the service was clear.MS was seen by a housing officer.4 Signage for the service was clear.MS was seen by a staff member (title unknown).

5Signage for the service was clear.MS was seen by a staff member (title unknown).An interpreter was provided.

6Not clearly signed. (Had difficulty finding the offices).MS was seen by a receptionist and assistant receptionist.Interpreting service provided over the phone.

7 Signage for the service was clear.MS was seen by female staff members (title unknown).8 Not clearly signed.Seen by staff member (title unknown).9 Signage for the service was clear.MS was seen by staff member (title unknown).

Inner London Borough B1 Signage for the service was clear.Seen only by a receptionist. No appointments available that day.

3 DCLG (2006) Homelessness code of guidance for local authorities. London: DCLG.


Table 7.1.2 How easily did Mystery Shoppers access the service? (Continued)

2 Very clearly signed.Seen by a receptionist.

3Very clearly signed.Seen by a receptionist. Told he could not have an appointment until May (over amonth later) as he is not in priority need.

4Signage for the service was clear.Seen by a customer service liaison person (receptionist). After a long wait, MS wasoffered an appointment for three weeks time. MS insisted on an emergencyappointment. However, nobody saw her that day.

5Signage for the service was clear.Seen by a staff member (title unknown).No interpreter provided, needed proof of pregnancy before any advice / help couldbe given.

6Signage for the service was clear.Seen by staff member (title unknown).Interpreting service offered over the phone (not taken up).

7 Signage for the service was clear.Seen by receptionist and a male officer.

8Not clearly signed.Seen by receptionist. Told to come back next morning or phone emergency line after5pm.

9Very clearly signed.Seen by a receptionist. Told to get their by 8am to have any chance of getting one ofthe five daily emergency appointments.

Outer London Borough C1 Signage for the service was clear.Seen by a staff member (title unknown).2 Signage for the service was clear.Seen by a staff member (title unknown).3 Signage for the service was clear.Seen by a staff member (title unknown).4 Signage for the service was clear.Seen by a staff member (title unknown).

5Signage for the service was clear.Seen by a staff member (title unknown).Interpreter offered if MS would wait.

6Clearly signed outside. Needed help to find the homeless people unit inside.Seen by a staff member (title unknown).No interpreter offered.

7 Not clearly signed.Seen by a housing officer. Long wait, but seen by female officer

8Signage for the service was clear.Seen by a staff member (title unknown).Very brief interview 3 minutes.

9Very clearly signed.Seen by a staff member (title unknown).Rushed interview had to stand up.


Table 7.1.2 How easily did Mystery Shoppers access the service? (Continued)

Outer London Borough D1 Signage for the service was clear.Interviewed by a housing officer over the phone.2 Very clearly signed.Seen by a receptionist.3 Very clearly signed.Interviewed by a housing officer over the phone.4 Signage for the service was clear.Seen by Housing Options / Homelessness Officer in person.

5Signage for the service was clear.Seen by a housing officer in person. Private interview.No interpreter provided.

6Not clearly signed and confusing.Seen by a housing officer in person.No interpreter provided.

7 Not clearly signed.Interviewed by a male Homeless Officer over the phone (from a private room).8 Signage for the service was clear.Interviewed by a housing officer over the phone.9 Signage for the service was clear.Interviewed by a housing officer over the phone.

Outer London Borough E

1 Not clearly signed.Seen by a housing officer. Only able to speak to officer after asserting his rights.2 Not clearly signed.Seen by a receptionist. Told to come back later, nobody called her as discussed.

3Not clearly signed.Seen by a staff member (title unknown).Only given forms to fill in and told to come back later.

4 Signage for the service was clear.Seen by a receptionist.

5Clearly signed.Seen by a staff member (title unknown).No interpreter was provided. MS was Told that she needed to bring proof of pregnancybefore they could go any further.

6Signage for the service was clear.Seen by a staff member (title unknown).An interpreter was provided over the phone. MS waited for an hour only to be told tocome back next morning.

7 Not clearly signed.Seen by a female receptionist. MS had to explain her situation whilst in a queue.8 Signage for the service was clear.Seen by a staff member (title unknown).9 Signage for the service was clear.Seen by a receptionist. MS was told to come back next day and queue at 8am.


7.1.3 Mystery Shoppers impression on the physical environment ofhomelessness receptions.

Once inside the building Mystery Shoppers also commented on the differences inphysical environment. Table 7.1.3 lists general comments on the physicalenvironment as well as general personal impressions of Mystery Shoppers. Forexample Inner London Borough B had a new building and Outer London BoroughD, Inner London Borough B and Inner London Borough A were praised for theirclean and well organised environment. For further information on reception areas,information on display and facilities please see Visits Outcomes Analysis on page93-95.

Table 7.1.3 Mystery Shoppers impression on the physical environment ofhomelessness receptions.

MS Mystery Shoppers impression on the physical environment of homelessnessreceptions and general comments.

Inner London Borough A1 Ticket system. Housing officer walked around offering advice to people waiting.2 Clean and tidy. Private booth.3 Variety of leaflets, computers available to access housing services.4 Very organised and well set up. Ticket system, private interview area.5 Good display of leaflets, interpreting service advertised.6 Untidy but well organised, interpreting service advertised and available by phone.7 Cold water available.8 Well organised clean and fresh, comfortable and well equipped.9 Clean.

Inner London Borough B1 No queue, seen very quickly by receptionist.

2 Had to stand up throughout interview. Ticket system. A housing officer walked aroundoffering advice to people waiting.3 Ticket system, long wait.

4 Long wait, despite size and amount of people good acoustics, no posters but TVscreens displaying local info, useful numbers etc.5 Long wait.

6 Comfortable environment, clean and modern but noisy, plasma screens with infoabout council services.7 Noisy, very busy so could not find available sit, plasma screens displaying information8 Clean and comfortable.9 Hot and sweaty, brand new, lovely environment.


Table 7.1.3 Mystery Shoppers impression on the physical environment ofhomelessness receptions. (Continued)

Outer London Borough C1 Toilets not clean. No drinks available.2 Building looks trashy, applicants made to stand.3 There was a family room, lots of light but cold, good display of leaflets, hard chairs.4 Fairly welcoming building, some private rooms, open plan office.5 No interpreting service advertised.

6 Difficult to find the homeless people unit, clean environment but no names provided,no opening hours.7 Limited amount of information material available, noisy waiting area.8 Well organised main area, private interview rooms available.9 Rushed interview had to stand up.

Outer London Borough D1 MS thought the building was nice.2 Uncomfortable chairs but otherwise clean and organised.3 MS disappointed he didn't get to see anybody in person.4 No help given to fill in forms despite learning disability.5 Private interview, no water.6 Fairly comfortable environment but dirty toilets, private interview room available.7 Nice building, private room, was not allowed to speak to female officer.8 Clean well organised, no chairs or privacy, interview conducted over internal phone.9 Clean and well organised.

Outer London Borough E1 No drinks available. Not interviewed in private.2 MS was interviewed standing up.3 Variety of leaflets, vending machine.4 Lots of desks to fill in forms, toilets clean.5 Comfortable and space to fill in forms.6 Clean and comfortable, vending machine broken.7 Clean quiet, had to tell story to receptionist while in a queue.8 Clean well organised.9 Nice fish tank. Felt rushed and looked down upon, horrible experience.


7.2 Do Mystery Shoppers feel that staff are interested in their individualcircumstances and take into account their specific needs?

Only in Inner London Borough A and Outer London Borough C did a majority ofMystery Shoppers give a positive response to these questions. Outer LondonBorough D and Outer London Borough E in particular fared badly. MysteryShoppers frequently reported that they felt their concerns were not being takenseriously. The experiences of the Mystery Shoppers suggested that some staff insome of the boroughs require training in dealing with members of the public. It isessential that those manning frontline services such as receptionists and housingofficers receive training in dealing with vulnerable people.

There was a tendency for housing officers to fail to probe sufficiently into individualcircumstances that might establish wether a homeless person is entitled toaccommodation or how they could be helped. One example of this was in thecase of Mystery Shopper 5 who was was consistently told to bring proof of herpregnancy before an assessment could be made. Also, in some cases wheremystery shoppers mentioned or indicated a possible mental health need, noappropriate assessment was made. More information on these cases is availablein section 9. There was however a tendency to probe in more detail when lookingfor reasons not to provide accommodation.

Table 7.2 Do Mystery Shoppers feel that staff are interested in their individualcircumstances and take into account their specific needs?

MS Do Mystery Shoppers feel that staff are interested in their individualcircumstances and take into account their specific needs?

Inner London Borough A1 Yes, partially.2 No, staff insensitive, MS felt like it was just another case.3 Yes, MS felt very much supported and that staff cared about him as a person.4 Yes.5 Yes.

6 No, no clear explanations given, unable to help without more information; benefitsadvice given.7 No.8 Yes.9 No.

Inner London Borough B1 No, MS felt that staff were rude and insensitive.2 Yes, staff very sensitive and nice, sympathetic to her situation.3 No, MS felt he was not considered seriously; officer seemed uninterested.4 No.5 No.6 Yes, very.7 No, not handled sensitively, no privacy.8 Yes, treated fairly.9 No, not handled sensitively, talk was a standard one.


Table 7.2 Do Mystery Shoppers feel that staff are interested in their individualcircumstances and take into account their specific needs? (Continued)

Outer London Borough C1 No.2 Yes, officer was very sensitive.3 Yes.4 Yes, very pleasant, case handled in a sensitive manner.5 Yes, nice staff but interview rushed as office was busy.6 Yes, partially. Interview felt rushed. However, benefit needs were taken into account.7 Yes.8 No, staff not helpful, answered phone call while interviewing MS.9 No.

Outer London Borough D1 No, receptionist was 'nice', was only asked about medical problems.

2 No, MS told a social worker would call her back, but nobody did. However, homelessofficer did ring her mother persistently.3 No.4 No, unsympathetic, insensitive, felt like an interrogation.

5 No, receptionist impolite and nasty, told her to bring an interpreter, and then told toring internal number and say she is homeless.6 No, no interpreter offered despite asking twice.

7 No, insensitive; MS wanted to make a complaint about the officer who interviewedher but was told nobody by that name worked there.8 Yes, partially. MS was sent to an agency for single homeless people when part of acouple.9 Yes, told him to sign on to get into a hostel, however this was the only advice given.

Outer London Borough E1 Yes, sensitive but not helpful.

2 No, MS did not feel staff were sensitive to her needs due to lack of documentation,although they were taken into account.3 No, not considered seriously.4 No.5 No, MS not even asked about homelessness.

6 Yes, partially. Interpreter was arranged when staff realised MS was struggling withlanguage; but interview felt rushed.7 No, not taken seriously.

8 No, staff friendly but not very helpful, staff going on holiday so could not help untilgot back.9 No.


7.3 Are Mystery Shoppers offered information, advice and advocacy if neededon housing and related issues and is this information clear?

Local authorities have a duty to ensure that advice and information abouthomelessness and the prevention of homelessness, are available free of charge toanyone 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, andsign posted people to external agencies in others; but in almost half of thecases did not provide any advice.

Inner London Borough B provided three Mystery Shoppers with a detailedinformation pack, although staff did not always explain the contents. Staffprovided good advice in four cases but at the same time gave no adviceto another four Mystery Shoppers.

Outer London Borough C referred almost all of our Mystery Shoppers toexternal agencies.

Outer London Borough D failed in many cases to even signpost MysteryShoppers to other agencies. In other cases limited advice and signpostingwas provided.

Outer London Borough E had a particularly poor record, in half the casesfailing to provide advice or information. Where advice was provided ittended to be limited to giving the details of somebody who might be ableto help them. In two cases substantial written information packs were given.

Table 7.3 Are Mystery Shoppers offered information, advice and advocacy ifneeded on housing and related issues and is this information clear?

Inner London Borough A1 Yes.2 No, other than info on education maintenance allowance.3 Yes.4 No.5 No, although told to come back next day.

6 Given details of other agencies that might help, law and citizens advice, councilhomes.7 No.8 Yes.9 Very limited advice. Just a list of hostels.

4 DCLG (2006) Homelessness code of guidance for local authorities. London: DCLG


Table 7.3 Are Mystery Shoppers offered information, advice and advocacy ifneeded on housing and related issues and is this information clear? (Continued)

Inner London Borough B1 No.

2 Yes, given national domestic violence helpline telephone number. Told to reportunwanted attention from mothers partner to police.3 Very limited. Given a list of hostels and explained process to him.4 Yes. Substantial and detailed information pack given.5 No.6 Yes. Was told not in priority need, advised on options, detailed information pack given.7 No.8 No. Told to come back next day.

9 Limited. No verbal advice, detailed information pack given including telephonenumbers provided for accommodation.

Outer London Borough C1 Limited advice. Told about rent deposit guarantee scheme, and signposted to localadvice agency.2 Very limited advice. Told to go back to her mother.

3 Signposted to a local advice agency, told to make application under home seekersform rather than as homeless.4 Signposted to a local day centre - as the housing office would take longer to help her.5 No, but told to come back with evidence of pregnancy next day.6 Signposted to a local day centre.7 Yes.8 Signposted to a local day centre.9 Signposted to an advice agency.

Outer London Borough D1 Very limited, signposted to a local charity (given phone number).2 No, other than info on education maintenance allowance.3 No, signposted to a local agency.4 No.5 No.6 No, signposted to local agency.7 No, told Outer London Borough D have no duty to house her.8 Yes, given advice on how to deal with landlord.9 No, other than needing to sign on to get a hostel place.


Table 7.3 Are Mystery Shoppers offered information, advice and advocacy ifneeded on housing and related issues and is this information clear? (Continued)

Outer London Borough E1 Substantial written information (advice pack), however, advice not tailored.2 No.

3 Substantial written information (advice pack), however, advice not tailored to hissituation.4 No, told to come back next day for emergency appointment.5 No.6 Limited advice. Given contact details of hostels.7 Very limited advice. Given leaflet on hate crime and reporting details.

8 Given details of CAB and job centre, told to get deposit from landlord and findsomewhere else to live.9 No.

7.4 Are the Mystery Shoppers given the opportunity to submit a homelessapplication?

Research suggests that many local authorities have used the duty to preventhomelessness as a smokescreen for a gate keeping role to preclude homelesspeople from making a homeless application5. The findings from this mysteryshopping research lend support to this hypothesis. Mystery Shoppers reported arange of barriers confronting them throughout their visits. The first hurdle,particularly in Outer London Borough D, Inner London Borough B and OuterLondon Borough E, was getting past the reception staff to access a housingofficer. If Mystery Shoppers were able to get past the reception they often facedwhat seemed to be attempts, by staff, to dissuade them from making ahomelessness application.

Inner London Borough A was the only borough where more than oneMystery Shopper was given the opportunity to submit a homelessapplication.

Where Mystery Shoppers managed to get past the reception staff to see anofficer in Inner London Borough B then they may have been able to submitan application.

Outer London Borough C also tended to push Mystery Shoppers into makinga general application for housing.

In Outer London Borough E Mystery Shoppers were most likely to be given ahousing application to fill in, but one Mystery Shopper was told there was nopoint making an application, as it would not succeed.

Outer London Borough D put a range of barriers before Mystery Shoppers,stopping them from making an application including making appointmentsfor a month later.

5 Pawson, H. & Davidson, E (2006) Fit for Purpose? Official Measures of Homelessness in the Era of theActivist State. Radical Statistics, 93


Table 7.4 Are the Mystery Shoppers given the opportunity to submit a homelessapplication?

MSAre the Mystery Shoppers given the opportunity to submit a homelessnessapplication?

Inner London Borough A1 Yes.2 No, told to return with documentation.3 Yes.

4Yes, if MS brings in supporting documents, assessment officer was supposed to ring herback, but did not.

5 Yes, when she comes back next day.6 No.7 No.8 No, told not in priority need.9 No.

Inner London Borough B1 No.2 Yes, but more details needed regarding documentation.3 No, not entered onto system or allowed to complete a form.4 No, not at this stage.5 No, but filled in housing application.6 No, told he was not in priority need.7 No.8 Told to come back next day.9 No.

Outer London Borough C1 No.2 No, only given housing application form.

3 No, discouraged from applying as homeless, told to submit a normal housingapplication.4 No.5 Told to come back next day with proof of pregnancy, possible it would happen then.6 No.7 No.8 No.9 No.


Table 7.4 Are the Mystery Shoppers given the opportunity to submit a homelessapplication? (Continued)

Outer London Borough D1 No, told he would not qualify.2 No.3 No, but may have been if he had produced required ID.4 Yes, but lots of obstacles were created.5 Told to come back in 4 weeks.6 No, not without further ID.7 No.8 No.9 No, only given housing application form.

Outer London Borough E1 No, told he was homeless but not in priority need.2 Given housing application to fill in.

3 Given housing application form and single homeless questionnaire. Told he would notsucceed with application.4 Not at this stage. Given housing application form and single homeless questionnaire.Told to come back with more documents.5 Not without proof of pregnancy.6 Not at this stage. Told to come back next day.7 No.8 No, told not in priority and discouraged.9 Given housing application to fill in.


7.5 Are the Mystery Shoppers offered or referred to suitable emergency ortemporary accommodation where this is needed?

The DCLG offer the following guidance on duty to ensure that suitableaccommodation is available:

If a housing authority has reason to believe that an applicant may be eligible forassistance, homeless and have a priority need, the authority will have animmediate duty under s.188 to ensure that suitable accommodation is availablefor the applicant (and his or her household) pending the completion of theauthoritys inquiries and its decision as to what duty, if any, is owed to theapplicant under Part 7 of the Act. Chapter 7 provides guidance on the interimduty to accommodate. Authorities are reminded that having reason to believe isa lower test than being satisfied.6

Thus a housing authority should have ensured that suitable accommodation wasavailable to all of the Mystery Shoppers whom they had reason to believe may beeligible, homeless and in priority need, specifically Mystery Shoppers 2 and 5 andpotentially Mystery Shoppers 3, 4 and 7. In the majority of cases the localauthorities failed to adhere to s.188. They tended to bypass this duty with evasiveadvice. For example, in the case of Mystery Shopper 2, the duty was evaded bypersuading the client to go back to a house where she was at risk of sexualassault. As the homelessness code of guidance makes clear, authorities mustensure that suitable accommodation is available for the applicant in the interimperiod, a list of phone numbers and referrals to other agencies are insufficient tofulfil this duty.

Table 7.5 Are the Mystery Shoppers offered or referred to suitable emergency ortemporary accommodation where this is needed?

Borough MSAre the Mystery Shoppers offered or referred to suitableemergency or temporary accommodation where this isneeded?

Inner London Borough A1 N/A.2 No, told to go back to her mother.3 Yes, although had to wait until next day.4 No.5 No.6 N/A.7 No, needed proof before they would help.8 N/A.9 N/A.

6 DCLG (2006) Homelessness code of guidance for local authorities. London: DCLG.


Table 7.5 Are the Mystery Shoppers offered or referred to suitable emergency ortemporary accommodation where this is needed? (Continued)

Inner London Borough B1 N/A.2 No, given emergency number for temporary accommodation.3 No, given a list of phone numbers.4 No, provided with telephone number for emergency accommodation.5 No.6 N/A.

7 Not on the base of the visit.Told to come back with crime reference number.8 N/A.9 N/A.

Outer London Borough C1 N/A.2 No, told to go back to her mother.

3 No, signposted to an advice agency who may have advised him where to seekemergency accommodation.4 No, but referred to local day centre.5 Yes, as long as she brings in the required information.6 N/A.7 No, provided with telephone numbers for DV refuges.8 N/A.9 N/A.

Outer London Borough D1 N/A.2 No.3 No, told to go to a local homeless charity.4 No.5 No.6 N/A.7 No.8 N/A.9 N/A.

Outer London Borough E1 N/A.2 No.3 No, given a list of hostels.4 No.5 No.6 N/A.7 No.8 N/A.9 N/A.


7.6 Are the Local Authorities homelessness services working effectively toaddress the Mystery Shoppers needs with other council services and externalagencies?

Many of our Mystery Shoppers had other needs that could have been dealt withby 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 fromSocial Services and Mystery Shopper 7 required help in relation to being at risk ofviolence. Despite all these requirements:

Mystery Shopper 1, the young man, was only given benefits advice by InnerLondon Borough A.

Only for Mystery Shopper 2, the young woman, referrals to the relevant localauthority (Social Services) were initiated but not followed up.

Only Outer London Borough E offered Mystery Shopper 4, a young womanwith a mental health issue, any advice regarding benefits.

Outer London Borough C and Outer London Borough E were the only localauthorities that offered Mystery Shopper 6, an unemployed A8 immigrantworker, advice regarding benefits. He was also signposted to externalagencies for benefits advice in Inner London Borough A.

Outer London Borough E told Mystery Shopper 7 to go to the the local hatecrime center to report her domestic violence situation and seek supportfrom them.

Mystery Shopper 8 did not receive any benefits advice in Outer LondonBorough C and Inner London Borough B and was signposted for debtadvice in Inner London Borough A and Outer London Borough E.

Mystery Shopper 9, a rough sleeper, was advised to sign on for benefits byall local authorities other than Inner London Borough B.

Inner London Borough A and Outer London Borough E showed someevidence of working effectively with other council services. In most casesthere was insufficient working between local authority services.


Table 7.6 Are the Local Authorities homelessness services working effectively toaddress the Mystery Shoppers needs with other council services?

MSAre the Local Authorities homelessness services working effectively toaddress the Mystery Shoppers needs with other council services or externalagencies?

Inner London Borough A

1 Yes, some benefits advice, crisis loan information given and signposted to externalagency.2 Yes, Social Services. No, benefits advice not given.3 No, benefits advice not given.4 No, benefits advice not given.5 Not known.6 Yes, signposted to external agencies and indicated they would give benefits advice.7 No, referral to council services not made.

8 Yes, benefits advice given and signposted to go to job centre for benefits advice and toCAB for debt advice.9 Yes, advice given on claiming JSA and offered use of telephone.

Inner London Borough B1 No, benefits advice not given.2 Yes, Social Services. No, benefits advice not given.3 No, benefits advice not given.4 No, benefits advice not given.5 Not known.6 No, benefits advice not given.7 No, referral to council services not made.8 No, benefits advice not given. Told to come back next day.9 No, benefits advice not given.

Outer London Borough C1 No, benefits advice not given.2 Yes, Social Services. No, benefits advice not given.3 No, benefits advice not given.4 No, benefits advice not given.5 Not known.

6 Yes, benefits advice provided. Told to go to job centre, get job seekers allowance andhousing benefit and signposted to day centre.7 No, referral to council services not made. Yes, signposted to refuges.

8 No, benefits advice not given. No, not signposted to debt advice. Yes, signposted today centre.9 Yes, some benefits advice given. Told to go to job centre and signposted to adviceagency.


Table 7.6 Are the Local Authorities homelessness services working effectively toaddress the Mystery Shoppers needs with other council services? (Continued)

Outer London Borough D1 No, benefits advice not given. Yes, signposted to local homeless charity.

2Yes, contact with Social Services made. Told Social Worker would call her but no callreceived.No, benefits advice not given.

3 No, benefits advice not given.4 No, benefits advice not given.5 Not known.6 No, benefits advice not given.7 No, referral to council services not made. Yes, signposted to local homeless centre.

8 Yes, benefits advice given. Referred to job centre for housing benefit claim andsignposted to local homeless centre.9 Yes, some benefits advice given. Told to sign on at the job centre.

Outer London Borough E1 No, benefits advice not given. Some information offered but no advice or signposting toother departments.

2Yes, contact with Social Services suggested. Told to come back to see Social Services at3pm on the day.No, benefits advice not given.

3 No, benefits advice not given.4 Yes, some benefits advice given. Told to go back on income support.5 Not known.6 Yes, some benefits advice given. Told to sign on at the job centre.

7 No, referral to council services not made. Signposted to local hate crime reportingcentre.8 Yes, benefits advice given. Signposted to job centre for benefits and to CAB for debtadvice.9 Yes, some benefits advice given. Told to sign on at the job centre.


8. BOROUGH OUTCOMES

The following section summarises the gaps in local services identified through theMystery Shopper visits. It also highlights the priorities for change in each borough.

8.1 Inner London Borough A

8.1.1 Gaps in local services

Inner London Borough A performed poorly in meeting the needs of the MysteryShoppers. In many cases this was due to Mystery Shoppers being told to comeback with more identification or proof of circumstances. While local authoritiesare expected to make proper enquiries into applicants circumstances, there isalso a duty to provide emergency accommodation as an interim measure tothose who are expected to meet the legislative requirements. Inner LondonBorough A performed better than other authorities in this project at ensuringMystery Shoppers had access to the services they need.

More often than not Mystery Shoppers felt that staff were sensitive to theirindividual circumstances. In around half of the cases staff provided information,guidance and advice to Mystery Shoppers. Inner London Borough A was less likelythan other local authorities to deter Mystery Shoppers from making a homelessapplication.

Emergency accommodation was only offered in one case, for the following day.This was in a priority need borderline case.

8.1.2 Priorities for improvement

In relation to the other local authorities studied, Inner London Borough Aperformed better than others. However improvements could be made in trainingstaff to ensure they have a better understanding of homelessness law andrelevant good practice.

8.2 Inner London Borough B


Inner London Borough B fared slightly better than other authorities in providingadvice and information where required. Some Mystery Shoppers were givensubstantial information packs, but only in some cases the contents of the packwere explained to them.

However, Inner London Borough B was one of the worst performing authorities inmeeting the expected outcomes of the mystery shopping visits. The boroughfailed to meet the needs of those Mystery Shoppers entitled to accommodation.The reception system appeared to some Mystery Shoppers as if it was designed to


deter them from seeing a housing officer. To have any chance of making anapplication; homeless people would need to start queuing at 8am to make anemergency appointment.

Mystery Shoppers had a mixture of experiences in terms of staff sensitivity to theirindividual needs. In general, those who got past the reception system weretreated well, although reception staff members were commonly perceived asrude and unwelcoming. For those who failed to get past reception, informationadvice and guidance was usually limited to a list of phone numbers; although theinformation pack provided in some cases was comprehensive. Most of the MysteryShoppers were not given the chance to make a homelessness application. Thosein need of emergency accommodation were typically provided with a telephonenumber to ring. There were few signs of effective working with other localauthority departments, except in one case (Social Services).


The main priority for improvement is to meet good practice guidance in ensuringthat homeless people are seen by an officer on the day of their first visit. It appearsthat front line housing services are not sufficiently staffed with respect to dealingwith homeless applications. It is therefore imperative that sufficient resources areinvested to enable homeless people in this borough to see an officer.

8.3 Outer London Borough C


Outer London Borough C was one of the better authorities in terms of meeting theexpected outcome for Mystery Shoppers. It appeared that staff accepted one ofthe two priority cases, on the condition that the Mystery Shopper provided thenecessary documentation. Only limited assessments were carried out into thepriority borderline cases. One Mystery Shopper was inappropriately informed thatthat he would not succeed in a homeless application; when in fact there was apossibility that someone in his circumstances may have made a successfulapplication.

Although in most cases staff were seen as sensitive to the needs of the individual;some instances illustrated that more sensitivity to the situation faced by homelesspeople is needed. One Mystery Shopper had to tell her story to the staff memberin front of a long queue of people. Another was made to stand up while speakingto the member of staff. Interpreters were not consistently offered.

Advice provided to Mystery Shoppers was limited at best. Staff members tendedto refer Mystery Shoppers to external agencies as a matter of course. It was notpossible to evaluate the advice given by these external agencies.

Mystery Shoppers were deterred from making a homelessness application andsome were encouraged to apply for housing through the general housing list.


Of the two cases where temporary accommodation should have been offered,only one was considered, provided that she produced the requireddocumentation. However, occasionally contact details of another agency, whichmay have been able to help, were provided.

Similarly, staff members tended not to give advice on benefits or other needsrelevant to Mystery Shoppers. Instead they referred Mystery Shoppers to externalagencies. There were signs of awareness of the need to work with other localauthority departments. Some Mystery Shoppers were signposted, either to SocialServices or benefits departments.


Action should be taken to ensure that homeless people are afforded a degree ofprivacy when discussing their sensitive situations. The local authority shouldconsider whether their homelessness prevention services are acting as a deterrentto people submitting a homelessness application. Signposting homeless people toother local authority departments and external agencies to help with advice andaccommodation could be better co-ordinated to ensure that homeless peopleare able to access the help they need. For example rather than providing a list ofphone numbers, local authority staff should consider directly makingappointments for homeless people, and following up the outcomes.

8.4 Outer London Borough D


Outer London Borough D was one of the worst performing local authorities in ourstudy. The borough failed to meet the expected outcomes in most cases,particularly where a Mystery Shopper was entitled to more than advice. MostMystery Shoppers did not get to see a housing officer in person, and interviewscommonly took place over the phone. Interpreters were not available and in onecase a Mystery Shopper was told to bring her own.

Housing officers and receptionists were typically characterised as rude andinsensitive with little regard for an individuals circumstances. Information, adviceand advocacy were rarely provided. Instead some Mystery Shoppers were giventhe details of a local support agency. Most Mystery Shoppers were deterred frommaking a homelessness application. This was either through being inappropriatelyinformed they were not entitled to housing, when in fact they may have beeneligible; by being told to return up to a month later; or by being advised tocomplete a general housing application form.

In no cases was emergency accommodation offered, although some MysteryShoppers were given details of a homeless support agency that may have been


able to help. Links with other local authority departments were poor. Where areferral was made to Social Services, the Mystery Shopper was not called back.


Outer London Borough D needs to improve in all areas. The immediate priority is toensure that all staff members involved in the assessment process understand thelaw relating to homelessness, and that the local authority begins to meet itsstatutory duties. Once this is achieved they should then focus on meeting goodpractice guidelines.

8.5 Outer London Borough E


Outer London Borough E performed poorly in meeting the expected outcomes ofthe Mystery Shoppers. Those who were in priority need and eligible foraccommodation were not offered temporary accommodation while theirsituation was investigated. The borderline priority need cases were not assessedto establish priority need. Staff incorrectly informed one applicant that no localauthority would house him. Other Mystery Shoppers were told to come back thenext day. In the majority of cases staff members came across as unsympatheticto the individual needs of Mystery Shoppers. Indeed, many of the MysteryShoppers felt they were not taken seriously and that the advice provided wasincorrect. Mystery Shoppers appeared to be actively deterred from making ahomelessness application with almost half of them advised to complete a generalhousing application form. However, Outer London Borough E did fare slightlybetter in links with other local authority departments and external agencies.


As with Outer London Borough D, the immediate priority is to ensure that the localauthority starts complying with homelessness law. Homelessness preventionpractice in the borough appears to actively deter people who are in priorityneed from making a homelessness application. It is not clear whether or not this isa deliberate policy. Once these issues are addressed Borough E should turnattention to meeting good practice guidelines.


9. PERSONAL VISIT FINDINGS (including advice given)

The full findings are presented in this section to permit the reader to draw theirown conclusions and also to allow further analysis of the data. The scenarios areas specified in the briefing provided to B.HUG conducting the research. Whererelevant B.HUG took on the roles of other people within the case studies, such asthe mother, a friend, a landlord, who the officers could telephone if necessary.

9.1 Young Person Male (Mystery Shopper 1)

The scenario for case study one is of an 18 year old man who is unemployed. Thisyoung man has been made homeless following a relationship breakdown. Mostrecently, he has been living at his mothers home, the family home, a threebedroom owner occupied house, which is over-crowded. He has been thrown outof 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 survivingby 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 andtelephone number.

InnerLondon

Borough A

InnerLondon

Borough B

OuterLondon

Borough C

OuterLondon

Borough D

OuterLondon

Borough EDate 27.3.2009 27.3.2009 26.3.2009 31.3.2009 3.4.2009Start visit 13.00 hrs 15.00 hrs 14.00 hrs 14.30 hrs 15.00 hrsFinish visit 13.30 hrs 15.13 hrs 14.30 hrs 15.00 hrs 15.20 hrsWaiting timemain reception

n/a7 n/a n/s8 n/a n/a

Waiting timehousing office

5 minutes < 15minutes

20 minutes < 15minutes

10 minutes

Seen by Housingofficer

Receptionist Unknown Housingofficer(phone)

Housingofficer

7 n/a = not applicable8 n/s = not scored by Mystery Shopper


9.1 Young Person Male (Mystery Shopper 1) continued.

Customer care /Accessibility

Advice given Personal Impression Documentationgiven

InnerLondonBorough

A

There was a ticketsystem. A housing officerwalked around askingpeople if they neededany advice.MS was interviewed inthe waiting area wherethere was no privacy.

Emergency out of hoursarrangements were notvisible.

The main reception waswell organised.

Drinks were available.

No toys or books wereavailable for children

The MS gave the officer the mothers letter toconfirm his homelessness.

The MS was asked about his health and otherconcerns.

The MS stated that this was the first time someonehad explained the process to him. He was toldthat the third part to the process would identifywhether he has a priority need. After the MS hadbeen through the assessment he was told that hewas not in priority need.

The housing officer explained to the MS what hecould do for emergency accommodation andthat the council would not be able to give himany help and that he would have to do it himself.

The MS was given some information on whatbenefits he can and should claim.

The MS felt that theofficer was sensitive.

Guide to housingregistration systemand housing options

Housing coop Guideto finding a place tolive(photocopied flyer)

Flyer for Inner LondonBorough A Under 25sAdvice Centre

Crisis Loaninformation(paperwork notavailable)

InnerLondonBorough

B



The MS was told by receptionist that he could notsee anyone without making an appointment andthat no more appointments could be made forthat day.

The MS tried to argue by explaining that heneeded somewhere to stay for the night. He was

The MS felt that staffmembers were rude andnot sensitive at all.

None.




told was that he would have to wait until 6pm andthen use the internal phones to speak to someonewho would advise him on night shelters.

No enquiries made to establish whether he washomeless.

Vulnerability and priority need were notdiscussed.

No accommodation was offered.

No benefits advice was given.

OuterLondonBorough

C

Opening/closing timeswere not visible.

Emergency out of hoursarrangements were notvisible

The main reception waswell organised.


The MS felt that thesettings werecomfortable and therewas space to fill out

The MS felt that the staff member was not sensitiveto the fact that he did not have his documentsand that he was not going to get any help.

The MS was told that he is not in priority needand that the council could not do anything forhim and would treat him as any single male.

The MS explained that he had a letter from themother. He was told that this would not make adifference because he was a young male.

The MS asked about temporary accommodationand was told that the government cannot doanything right now.


The MS felt that theinterview was very fastlasting only 3 minutes.

Information onhousing advicecentre OuterLondon Borough C.

Flyer included info ona skills project andemployment charitybut no contactdetails. (photocopiedflyer)




forms.

No drinks wereavailable.

The toilets were notclean.

The MS was told about a Rent Deposit GuaranteeScheme.

OuterLondonBorough

D

MS felt that the buildingwas nice.

The service was notclearly signed.

Opening/closing timeswere not visible.



The MS explained his situation to the receptionistwho told him to use the telephone and call thehousing department inside the building.

The MS was told that there is an assessmentavailable but that he did not fit the criteria.

The MS was asked why he was homeless andwhere he had been staying.

The MS was asked if he had any medicalproblems and was then told that he was not apriority. No explanation of priority need wasgiven.

No accommodation was offered. The MS was toldabout a charity in the neighbouring borough. Hewas given their telephone number and told thatthey deal with homelessness and that they mightgive him a deposit to get into accommodation.


MS felt that thereceptionist was nice.

Telephone number,which MS had towrite down himself.




OuterLondonBorough

E

The service was notclearly signed.




The MS was not asked for documentation.

The MS filled in two forms (a council housingassociation form and a monitoring form.) Afterfilling in the forms he was told that there wasnothing the council could do for him. The MS saidthat he was homeless and wanted to see anotherhousing officer.

The MS was sent to take a ticket. After 2 minutes afemale housing officer came to see him and MSwas told that he was not in priority need. The MSwas given some information on benefits and onways of getting into accommodation.

The MS was asked how he became homeless andthe officer confirmed that he was homeless butnot in priority.

Vulnerability was not discussed.

No benefits advice was given

The MS felt staff weresensitive but not helpful.

Outer LondonBorough E HousingInformation Pack,

Information pack onhomelessnessprevention andhousing options.


9.2 Young Person Female (Mystery Shopper 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 relationshipbreakdown when she complained about unwanted attention from her motherspartner. She is currently living on the sofas of friends. She has no income and issurviving by borrowing money from friends.

The Mystery Shopper took the following documents with her: An expired passportand the address and telephone number of her family home.

InnerLondon

Borough A

Inner LondonBorough B

OuterLondon

Borough C

OuterLondon

Borough D

OuterLondon

Borough EDate 24.3.2009 27.3.2009 24.3.2009 26.3.2009 25.3.2009Start visit 12.30 hrs 10.00 hrs 15.09 hrs 13.00 hrs 13.15 hrsFinish visit 13.40

Documents

090929 Mystery Shopping