SAC0062

Written evidence submitted anonymously

Service Families Accommodation Licensee, Major with 15 years of Regular Army Service, husband to a self-employed wife, father to two beautiful young girls, currently dedicated to my vocation, under-renumerated and dyslexic. Very happy to be contacted about my evidence.

Evidence for Defence Sub-Committee on Service Accommodation

  1.           What measures have been put in place to resolve the housing maintenance issues, hold service providers to account and ease the cost of living for service families?

 

    1.           I have found the measures that have been put in place to resolve housing maintenance issues somewhat bi-polar. I would sum-up my experience by saying that those who shout loudest get preferential treatment. I have been very vocal in getting issues resolved. The main issues I have taken on are damp and a blocked loo. Both issues have taken two years to have meaningful work conducted.

 

    1.           The loo is now fixed but has taken countless interactions, not helped by the change in contractor and inability of the contractor/sub-contractor to make meaningful decisions. Countless referrals to DIO to no avail. Complaints which result in little change. Missed appointments, incorrect trades people and repeated work.

 

    1.           For the damp we wait to see if the money spent will help the issue. Whilst I appreciate the change in tempo, reacting to the media, largely from the intervention of ‘Fill your boots’ Facebook page is unacceptable. This retrospective, reactive policy simple degrades the housing stock and impacts service families lives. Our damp has been surveyed (multiple times) and our SFA graded level 4. We were given a standard package to ‘fix’ our issues which was largely reported as being unfit for purpose – this one size fits all methodology wastes money and does not get to the root of the problem. For some time, due to having an ongoing level 1 complaint, I have had a Customer Solutions Manager from Pinnacle. Whilst I feel this person does their best, they did not seem to be getting anywhere. Due to the significant impact on my wife and our relationship, I have been outspoken in trying to get the issues sorted. Starting with the loo, I was advised to submit a service complaint by a senior officer but didn’t want to burden my chain of command with more work. Instead, on the advice of a colleague, I took to Twitter, tagging my MP, Army Families Federation (AFF), Pinnacle, DIO and Vivo. At the same time, I emailed my MP and AFF and kept my Customer Solutions Manager in the loop. Even after doing this, it still took weeks to get anything to happen and, shockingly, I was then told everything had been authorised and everything would be sorted now. 4 days of work later and the loo has been fixed but it has taken an inaudible amount of effort which could have been better spent serving my soldiers and family.

 

    1.           Whilst getting my loo sorted out, it was mentioned that the work to fix the damp had not been completed. I assume, given my outspokenness and elevation in the Customer Solutions department, the work was invigorated. That day, we had de-humidifiers delivered and the following week the Project Manager for Damp and Mould came to visit. Since then, much work has taken place, above and beyond the scope expected. Whilst I appreciate this, I can only think that it is my outspokenness that has led to this and there will be many other soldiers who are living with outstanding issues and inappropriate and wasteful work.

 

    1.           It should not be those who shout loudest that get their issues looked into. Everyone should be able to be accommodated in a safe home, fit to an appropriate standard.

 

    1.             Routine issues are little better. Simple things like reference numbers are not used, so identifying issues is near impossible.  Tradespeople are often unable to fix problems. Some appointment slots (Friday afternoons) are known as a no-show periods and the booking system lacks granularity.

 

    1.           As far as I am aware there is little ability to hold service providers to account. The contract has been written in a way whereby only the Key Performance Indicators are monitored, and they have been written in a way which doesn’t demonstrate the true experience of the SFA occupier. I understand this is a known issue but, until the contract is re-let little can be done and only then, it would require a better contract to be created – something, sadly, I think the MOD struggles to do. The process to complain is strange. I understand that what we know as a level 1 complaint is not really a complaint as DIO are unaware of it. To get a level one complaint elevated to a level two complaint is near impossible – I still don’t know how you actually get it done and I have tried.

 

    1.           Cost of living is interesting. Our electricity is supplied by the MOD so we pay their rate (which is lower than a normal supplier) but our heating is oil. We have bought electric heaters to heat the house routinely – this is not comfortable but is more cost effective. When the house gets really cold, we use the oil heating but with the cost of oil at the moment it is difficult. I don’t know why we don’t get the Energy Bills Support Scheme (or similar) it would be very useful.

 

  1.           Do the new Future Defence Infrastructure Services (FDIS) contracts for Service Family Accommodation represent value for money and are they operating effectively?

 

    1.           I do not believe so, in either respect. More effective contract writing and monitoring is required before this will happen. Easier customer (SFA user) feedback is required to DIO, bypassing the contractor.

 

  1.           What is the MOD doing and what more could they do to rebuild trust in service accommodation?

 

    1.           Redo all CAAS banding bespoke to each house to ensure it is correct. This is especially pertinent to ‘Decent Home Standard’. It is impossible to challenge the ‘Decent Homes Standard’ without paying for a survey yourself. It is widely accepted that each house has not been checked but either guessed or it is assumed that the standard of one house is the same as all in one area.

 

    1.           Notwithstanding we are licensees and not lessees. MOD should use the same principles used by lessors/licensors in the civilian sector. Marching (moving) into, and out, of a quarter should not be as stressful, expensive and inconsistent. The simplest change would be enabling Service People to ask for a review from ombudsman when charges are levied on moving out as with the deposit scheme (changes are taken straight from wages without the ability to question without considerable effort.

 

    1.           Improve the system to select a house. I know the computer system is changing but I do not understand how they do not have more pictures and floor plans. It would be so easy to ask people to take pictures and create floor plans using an app of their quarters and upload them. The community and hive mind can do so much to improve things if they are given the tools.

 

    1.           Make it easier for the tradespeople to do work to improve the basic standard of the houses. Putting lights or heaters in rooms – the little things. Even assist licensees in doing work on quarters themselves within being out of pocket.
  1.           Are there examples of good practice in provision of service accommodation, which could be replicated across Defence? What are the lessons and what is the potential impact of the re-negotiation of the Annington Homes contract?

 

    1.           We must not underestimate the importance of SFA. Though it has its issues, it serves an incredibly important purpose. There is no way I could support my family and do the job I do in civilian rental accommodation. If I was not in the Army, I would be earning more money and in a ‘nicer house. I have chosen this life, in service of my country, at the expense of my wife’s lifestyle. SFA makes that possible. Rightly or wrongly, it is part of the offer and an indispensable resource.

 

    1.           Consultation with investment professionals should be conducted to confirm how the negotiation should take place but I am sure we can strike a better deal. Whether that be by ownership or continued rent.

 

  1.           Is enough money being invested to modernise and future proof military accommodation and how long will it take for all military accommodation to meet an acceptable standard of energy efficiency? Is the MOD being as forward thinking and innovative as it could be in its approach to new housing stock?

 

    1.           Part of this maintenance must be focused on the older housing stock. I understand that some service persons like a new house, but the older houses serve a purpose too. Their maintenance and modernisation must be considered and whilst they may not be easy it should be more cost effective than building new, often terrible, houses.

 

  1.           What are the benefits and drawbacks of the Future Accommodation Model? How successful was the Future Accommodation Model pilot and what should the MOD take forward to include in the new accommodation offer?

 

    1.           This is the most concerning change to MOD policy I have seen in 20+ years in uniform. Whilst similar to the pension changes it is far nearer and significant. Currently, a lack of information and trust makes understanding the changes difficult. Getting detailed answers to simple questions is near impossible and most answers are inconsistent.

 

    1.           The rationale behind the changes are not fully understood or communicated. They seem poorly thought through and untested – a sweeping decision, lacking in foresight and intellect that risks a trail of devastation in its wake. The FAM pilot needs to be investigated to confirm who took part, in what sample sizes and what was their quantitative and qualitative feedback. As one could opt out of the trial, anyone who would be disadvantaged, did exactly that therefore little negative feedback was received. The change in entitlement has not been widely publicised before Sep 23. Modelling has not taken place to identify if this new policy will work. It is known that the spread of entitlement will change with more people being entitled to, already rare smaller quarters, this will force people to go above entitlement and require allocation offers to decide who should get what based only on how many children one has. This is a car crash waiting to happen!

 

    1.           These changes are being made against backdrop of life decisions. I have communicated reasonable conclusions about the standard and size of our housing to my wife upon which we made life decisions for our family. Rightly or wrongly, the accommodation is part of the offer (not renumeration). We made decisions based on what we could reasonably expect for our family. Based on this, my wife decided to leave her job and become an Army wife to better support me and my role and keep out family together. She started a business, and I continued in the Army, serving my country and building my Knowledge, Skills, Experience and Behaviours to enable me to do my job better. It feels like a catch 22. I am locked into the Army now, my wife has given up on her career and I am older than most service leavers. If we left, we would have less. If I stay, we will have less. All we have worked towards, and we will lose out. I will go down in entitlement – we already make sacrifices over how we live but expected on my next promotion to be able to have space for all our requirements. My work requires me to move every two years, this makes it harder to settle and build a support network, a spare room is key for friends or family to stay. Our only family lives in Scotland so they can’t just pop over and go home. Our decision for my wife to be self-employed requires her to have office space which cannot (and should not) be shared. I live in a hybrid working office (as do many officers), working from home is required as we do not have enough office space for everyone to be employed in work ). The direction we are given is to work three days in office and two at home. Right now, I am sat on the sofa, without a desk space damaging my body; I had looked forward to my own office (or sharing one with my wife) this now seems impossible, and I am unsure how we will balance that. We have two young children, currently we do not have a dining room as we use it for a playroom but we had hoped that on promotion we would have an additional reception room so we could have playroom and dining room. We have happily chosen to make this short-term sacrifice but now we might have to have even less which will impact on our ability to socialise (thereby helping create an inclusive and supportive community). I am not saying we are in poverty because we don’t have everything, we want but I am saying that if we have realised the constraints that would be placed upon us we would have considered a different path – either me leaving the army or my wife maintaining a home in a set location. Had we done the later we would have the space. On top of this there will be more competition for fewer houses. I am amazed that modelling has not been done on how many quarters are available and how many service families are entitled, due, in part, I am told, to the information not being held (Ref. FOI 2023/11975). Most staff officers will be in the situation where they move often with increasing demands for overseas postings. Moving around and therefore having to move more often will mean we have to compete in every location in a more stagnant and fuller SFA ‘market’ leaving us at risk, every time to a fluctuating house size.

 

    1.           I am yet to see the impact this policy will have on Continuity of Education Allowance but many see it as yet another way to drive soldiers from providing a safe and stable way to allow their children to be educated.

 

    1.           The impact of this policy, at worst, is that our most talented will leave, at best, the staff powerhouse of the army will become even more disillusioned with the organisation leaving individuals less willing to do the extra out of hours work that must be conducted because we are so short staffed now.  This policy disproportionally affects staff officers (Capt – Col) but as we are only seen as a small number our views are ignored. The impact will not only be felt on retention but also recruiting where the highest quality individuals will look to go elsewhere from the outset.

 

    1.             Interestingly, The policy has been introduced as being equal for all ranks but in accordance with FOI 2023/11975 out of the 322 Type two quarters in the Army all but seven are tied meaning that whilst all ranks might be subject to the policy, in reality they will not be impacted as their houses are tied to their jobs.

 

    1.           I am not against a level of fairness and balance in the offer for SFA but that fairness must take into consideration more than number of children.

 

  1.           Is enough being done to help personnel leaving service transition to civilian housing?

 

    1.           The one key area here, and not that nothing is being done, but not enough is being done to help SP get on the housing ladder. More help should be provided to enable SP to buy a house which they will not immediately live in, they must be allowed to rent out and there are no constraints over how close they can and cannot live to it. This ensures that SP have an appropriate house to move into when they leave the service. Measures can be put in place to ensure people do not take advantage of the offer.

 

  1.           Could the Service accommodation offer be more supportive to those experiencing relationship breakdown or domestic abuse?

 

    1.           Yes, but it is not social housing. In relationship breakdown, any help should be agnostic of who the service person is, sex and who is at fault. The current system ‘blames’ the service person and vilifies them by making them move out of the SFA. In domestic abuse (something I don’t have experience of) I think it would be inappropriate to comment less to say a balance must be struck between vilification and legitimately protecting anyone who has been subjected to domestic abuse.

 

31 October 2023