SAC0059
Written evidence submitted by Lt Col R H Crawford RA and Ann Crawford
Submission to Defence Sub-Committee inquiry into Service Accommodation.
I am currently a serving officer in the Army posted to a unit in Aldershot. My wife and I have lived in seven SFA quarters since 2013 when we got married – we have lived in the UK and BFG. We have two six year olds boys who have been in five houses. Below are observations on the current SFA process in response to the questions raised by the committee.
I have submitted this response as I feel our service personnel deserve to have an accommodation system that supports them. Currently I think it can introduce significant pressure and stress into the work place and into the home space. I hope this inquiry will provide the evidence and impetus for change.
What is the MOD doing and what more could they do to rebuild trust in Service Accommodation?
- The IT interface into the SFA application process is sub-optimal.
- Allocation process erodes trust in the organisation. The “front door” is the e1132 system for applications. This requires a significant upgrades:
- The search function is next to useless. Giving only 20 houses in an area without the ability to search, either by type of property, current status of property, means you cannot actually see what might be available.
- Properties are online as available that are not – at least they are but local arrangements mean you are rejected. If they are tied (to appointment or position) they should not be on the system as it gives a false impression of availability.
- Pre-move in works. Multiple times we have moved into quarters where work has been carried out in the previous 48 hours – painting, carpet laying etc. If you have a system where work is programmed within 5 days of a move in, then the system is set to fail more than set to succeed. It gives itself no time for a regain should something go awry.
- March in process. While this might tick a box, it is not a productive session. Any points raised are met with a “put in a job request” which puts the onus back on the occupier who is dealing with a lot of other move related admin at that time. On at least two occasions the march in has been conducted concurrently with final works (cleaning, sticking bits of the kitchen together with mastic etc)
- Post-move in works. We have raised a significant number of jobs in the first two months of any quarter. Adds to the stress of moving to new area, settling into one or two jobs, new schools etc. For the current quarter we have put in 16 jobs in two months – some should have been rectified prior to move in. Once again this puts pressure on those occupying the quarter.
- Quality of quarters. This varies greatly. However to move into a quarter where the CAAS assessment states that the kitchen needs replacing is not going to bring trust into the system. What it has effectively told us is that we can live in a quarter for three years or more with a kitchen that is recognised as requiring replacement (noting the current policy of not replacing kitchens while people are in a property – something that we should, at least, be given an option on). This “irritation” is compounded by the fact that the property was empty for over three months prior to it being allocated to us.
- Fault reporting and appointment setting.
- Accepting that issues are raised, the process between raising the job with Pinnacle and it being passed to the sub-contractor is not smooth. If you need to amend the appointment you have to speak to Pinnacle who often do not hold the details of the appointment and you are left in a limbo as to whether the message has actually got through. IN a number of cases the contractor still conducts a visit (often when we are out, hence the need to amend) which is a waste of resources.
- However it must be said that the web-based fault reporting system has improved the ability to log faults greatly; this must be welcomed.
- Quality of repairs.
- The repair process does not seem logical. The decision seems to be to do as little as possible at the time which means, over time, more money will be spent. For example rather than have one long appointment to replace a full section of fence, they will do it one or two planks at a time. So the full section, will take multiple call outs, each with a separate cost.
- Where the repairs requires a follow up there is often a different contractor who attends, and often with little/no background so you almost go back to square one in explaining the faults. This lack of communication on the job should be relatively easy to fix with an information system that ensures the passage of information for each job number.
- Focus on March out.
- The focus seems to be on the standard for March Out, with people spending significant amount of time to get a house to standard. This standard is rarely the standard that we receive the house in, although it will be interesting how the new contract plays out. It is also worth noting that even when it is known that a full paint will be carried out, SFA holders are still held to the obligation to repaint full walls to cover off picture hooks etc. We are making nugatory work for the tenant and this impacts on the trust and belief that the system is there to look after the Service Personnel.
Benefits and drawbacks of the Future Accommodation Model.
- We moved onto one of the FAM pilot sites, but after the pilot had ceased, so it is a mixed patch. There are no issues, that we have seen, of the mixed patch, but others may take a different view.
- The pilot was, however, flawed; only those for whom the model benefitted chose to take part. If the pilot offer was not as good as the current provision then no one applied for the pilot. How this can be used as a basis for a full policy change is a wonder, I might well be open to challenge.
- The new model impacts those who trickle post more than those who are static – given the uncertainly behind the allocation process, it will become a lottery as to what type of house you are allocated – if you get “lucky” first time and are in a current Type 3 and then get a Type 5 on the next posting, that is a significant amount of square footage that you have to downsize, with the expense of that process (storing or disposing of belongings).
- Accepting that SFA is subsidised, the proposed change is a significant change on the “Offer” to some of our people; in my case that would be a negative. Most companies give a better renumeration package to their more senior people. In the case of the Army this has been manifested itself in better pay and the housing offered. To reduce the housing offer without some other changes to the positive will have a negative impact on some of our people.
- Families are crucial to the goodwill of our service personnel and this change will impact on that. We accept that SFA is expensive to the MOD to sustain and many of the changes are designed to “encourage” people into their own houses (Forces Help to Buy etc). This however does not work if you are from a unit in the South East where housing is well above the national average, or if you are in a cap-badge who trickle post across the country. As an Officer I have never served in the same location twice that has allowed me to keep my SFA.
31 October 2023