Following this year鈥檚 bidding round, which was widely considered a nightmare, one south-east RSL has laid bare to Housing Today the problems that it suffered during this period. In common with most of those that have raised complaints, the association prefers anonymity.
According to its chief executive, complications with the system meant that people were working shifts to enter submissions 鈥� and despite the corporation extending access hours, so that bids could be entered between 2am and 10pm, only about 300 people could access the system in the peak 9am to 5pm period because there were not enough lines.
Criticising the regulator鈥檚 view that RSLs should have planned better beforehand, because they knew the deadline, the RSL said, 鈥渨hat [the corporation] fails to understand or consider is that our bids are put together not just by ourselves, but in consultation with developers and builders.鈥�
Many RSLs have to talk to a number of local authority partners 鈥� lots have more than just one or two 鈥� and they cannot go to the authority beforehand because the necessary information is not available.
What is more, RSLs do not want to supply all the site information at a stage when they are still competing with other associations for bids.
She argues that there is a lack of understanding that, whatever the initial deadline, all RSLs will work up to the last day because there are so many consultations going on behind the scenes.
Although the two-week extension, which the corporation introduced following countless complaints, was welcomed, it also caused enormous upheavals for associations and their employees because people had to rearrange their commitments.
According to the chief executive, after her RSL had done all the preparatory work for the bids, it had people 鈥渟itting there all day pressing the button and trying to get on the site [to submit bids] and it took practically the whole day to get through鈥�.
Describing the Approved Development Programme funding system as the 鈥渓ife blood鈥� of many associations, she believes that the corporation should have understood RSLs would work up to the eleventh hour because they depend on successful bids.
Front line corporation staff were faced with a seemingly impossible task during this period, and this RSL is keen to stress that the regulator鈥檚 project officers did their best to help them get bids in by trying to keep lines open.
The fundamental flaw appears to be that the system was just not good enough 鈥� especially as there were only 300 lines to serve it.
鈥淚t was a failing in the system and there was a failure by those who are responsible for that system to appreciate and understand what is required of RSLs鈥�, she said. 鈥淚鈥檝e talked to a lots of colleague RSLs and they suffered the same frustrations.鈥�
The development manager of the same association described how a system that could have made life a lot easier for associations, had instead caused countless problems and extra work for him and his staff.
One of his main criticisms was that people could only get online at certain times prior to the extension, and he questioned why the system could not have operated during longer hours for the benefit of those who were in their office early or late in the evening.
He also felt that it was difficult to move quickly through the process and described it as 鈥渓ike watching paint dry鈥�, especially as every time an entry was put in the user would have to wait for the screen to unfreeze before going on to the next step.
According to the manager, each scheme took about half an hour to input, but associations also had much preparatory work to do off screen before they could embark on the inputting stage.
He said: 鈥淭he Housing Corporation always says 鈥榙on鈥檛 leave it until the last minute to submit your bids鈥�, but that鈥檚 a bit of a fatuous argument because a lot of bids are actually developing right up to the time when you submit them.
鈥淵ou are also refining your bids up to the point of submission and you鈥檝e taken account of more features so you need to be able to bid right up until the deadline.鈥�
Recounting how one member of staff had to spend an entire day trying to input data, he argued that there needed to be more phone lines and an accelerated system in order to avoid a repeat performance next year.
The guidance notes issued by the regulator also came in for criticism because the association found they were inappropriate for shared ownership schemes.
The development manager said: 鈥淭he system assumes that shared ownership is 50 per cent of rent, which it isn鈥檛 鈥� it鈥檚 a character of its own and that isn鈥檛 well reflected in either the grant calculator or the bid forms themselves. They need to make it more user-friendly for shared ownership.鈥�
What is clear from this case study is that no one is suggesting the move from a manual system to an electronic one was bad, and the fact that nearly 500 RSLs placed bids is testament to this.
And while some of the problems of the 2000 bid round, such as not being able to print off copies of bids, have been resolved, they appear to have been replaced with a new set of issues.
The corporation is understood to be setting up a review group which will include end users, who will surely be hoping that the quango takes on board the concerns of those who grappled with the system this year.
Otherwise it looks as though next year the development manager of one RSL at least will have to find another wall with wet paint to keep him amused, while he waits for the system to catch up.
Source
Housing Today
No comments yet