Case studies of key actions

Wolverhampton Homes introduced a new video triage process to improve the diagnosis and management of damp, mould and condensation cases.

What did CIP do?

Members reviewed the process, discussed the customer experience and challenged officers on accessibility, performance and support arrangements for vulnerable customers.

What difference did it make?

The panel helped ensure customer transparency remained a key focus of the new approach and requested ongoing performance updates to monitor how the service is performing for customers. 

Customers receiving housing offers were being provided with a detailed preparation letter, which Wolverhampton Homes wanted to ensure was clear and easy to understand.

What did CIP do?

The panel carried out a line-by-line review of the letter, focusing on tone, layout, clarity and accessibility.

What difference did it make?

Several recommendations were made, including simplifying content, improving formatting, reducing duplication and making key information more accessible for customers preparing to move into their new home.

Repairs services across the housing sector continue to face increasing customer expectations, skills shortages and growing regulatory scrutiny.

What did CIP do?

Panel members reviewed early improvement plans and challenged the organisation on communication between customers, operatives and schedulers. CIP also questioned how contractor performance would be managed and how customers could report poor conduct or service standards.

What difference did it make?

Customer feedback directly informed discussions around service transformation, including improved communication, stronger performance monitoring and the development of clearer competence and conduct expectations for both employees and contractors.

Wolverhampton Homes was developing a new corporate website and wanted to ensure it met customer needs before launch.

What did CIP do?

CIP members reviewed the new website, providing feedback on accessibility, navigation, colours, button sizes and customer usability. The panel also shared views on homepage content and customer communications.

What difference did it make?

The final website design incorporated customer feedback, with panel members recognising that their recommendations had been listened to and implemented. The website went live with improved accessibility and customer-focused functionality.

Wolverhampton Homes wanted to strengthen customer engagement and improve understanding of the issues driving Tenant Satisfaction Measure (TSM) performance.

What did CIP do?

The panel reviewed engagement activity, Let's Talk events and TSM performance data. Members suggested improvements to communication methods, encouraged greater use of community venues and highlighted the importance of ensuring customer feedback leads to visible action.

What difference did it make?

The feedback helped shape the developing Engagement Framework and informed future engagement planning, ensuring customer involvement activities are more targeted, accessible and focused on outcomes.

Wolverhampton Homes reviewed its Persistent or Unreasonable Customer Contact Policy to ensure it remained fair, transparent and aligned with Housing Ombudsman guidance.

What did CIP do?

Panel members scrutinised the draft policy and challenged areas they felt could be subjective or open to interpretation. They also highlighted the importance of considering vulnerabilities and reasonable adjustments.

What difference did it make?

CIP recommended the creation of a plain English summary to make the policy easier for customers to understand and sought reassurance that legitimate complaints would never be incorrectly categorised as unreasonable.

Wolverhampton Homes introduced video triaging to improve the speed and efficiency of responding to damp, mould and condensation reports while ensuring customers receive the right support at the earliest opportunity.

What did CIP do?

The Customer Involvement Panel reviewed the performance of the video triaging process and challenged officers on customer communication, recurring cases and the need to identify root causes rather than repeatedly treating symptoms. Members also discussed customer feedback, including concerns raised on social media and the importance of ongoing resident education around ventilation and condensation prevention. 

What difference did it make?

The discussion reinforced the importance of follow-up communication with residents and provided additional customer challenge around recurring damp and mould cases. The panel was also encouraged to raise specific cases for further investigation where concerns remained. 

As customer influence becomes increasingly important under the Consumer Standards, Wolverhampton Homes wanted to review how the Customer Involvement Panel operates and explore opportunities to strengthen its impact.

What did CIP do?

Panel members discussed future governance arrangements, reviewed draft Terms of Reference and provided feedback on proposals to modernise and strengthen customer involvement. Discussions included succession planning, panel leadership, representation, attendance expectations and demonstrating measurable customer influence.

What difference did it make?

The review helped shape future proposals for the panel's development and supported work to ensure customer scrutiny remains effective, representative and aligned to regulatory expectations. 

The Regulator of Social Housing's new Competence and Conduct Standard comes into effect in October 2026. Wolverhampton Homes wanted customers to play an active role in shaping how the organisation prepares for the new requirements and how they will be communicated to residents.

What did CIP do?

Over several meetings between March and July 2026, CIP members received updates on the emerging standard, reviewed proposals, challenged assumptions and helped shape Wolverhampton Homes' approach. Members discussed the skills, behaviours and professional standards expected of staff and contractors, considered the impact on customers, and provided feedback on resident-facing documents and communications. The panel also challenged how compliance would be monitored, how customers would be involved, and what good customer service and professional conduct should look like in practice.

What difference did it make?

Customer feedback directly influenced the development of Wolverhampton Homes' Competence and Conduct framework, helping to ensure that customer expectations remain at the heart of the approach. CIP members also helped shape resident-facing communication materials, ensuring they are clear, accessible and focused on what the new standard means for customers. Their feedback will continue to inform the organisation's preparations ahead of implementation and Board approval.

Customers had previously highlighted the importance of seeing visible outcomes from engagement activities and understanding what actions had been taken following feedback.

What did CIP do?

The panel reviewed the introduction of a live action tracker and discussed feedback from recent Let's Talk sessions. Members challenged whether sufficient follow-up takes place after engagement events and highlighted the importance of communicating outcomes back to residents. They also discussed accessibility and engagement opportunities for customers who are less digitally connected.

What difference did it make?

The discussion supported improvements in action tracking, accountability and customer communication, helping ensure residents can see how their feedback is being used to influence services.

What CIP did: Reviewed how empty homes are prepared for new tenants.

Why: To ensure standards are met and delays are reduced.

Action taken: Discussed recharges, cleanliness, and repair quality.

Impact: Highlighted key areas for improvement to speed up and improve the process.

What CIP did: Talked about recent incidents affecting staff and discussed safety.

Why: To help protect staff and improve services.

Action taken: Shared examples and looked at possible tools like body cams.

Impact: Raised awareness of staff safety and supported better training and communication.

What CIP did: Regularly reviewed how complaints are handled.

Why: To make sure the process is clear, fair, and effective.

Action taken: Worked with the complaints team on service improvements and looked at how quickly issues are acknowledged.

Impact: Helped strengthen the complaints process and improve customer confidence.

What CIP did: CIP partnered with St Mary’s University and the University of Wolverhampton to support a research project focused on persistent damp and mould issues.

Why: To better understand tenant experiences, identify underlying causes (e.g. poor ventilation), and co-produce solutions that reflect the tenant voice.

Action taken: CIP members agreed to participate in online focus groups. A draft scope was developed, and residents were engaged to share insights. CIP members volunteered to support the sessions.

Impact: Strengthened the evidence base for tackling damp and mould, ensuring tenant experiences shape future interventions and policy development.

What CIP did: Conducted a structured scrutiny task reviewing Stage 1 complaint responses.

Why: To assess the tone, clarity, and empathy in complaint handling and identify areas for improvement.

Action taken: Reviewed real complaint cases, provided feedback on missed opportunities, repetitive language, and lack of context. Requested confirmation that complainants are contacted before Stage 1 responses are issued.

Impact: Led to improvements in complaint handling, including better proofreading, clearer communication, and more empathetic responses. Reinforced the importance of customer context in resolution.

What CIP did: Joined a subgroup to co-create the revised Customer Engagement Strategy.

Why: To ensure the strategy reflects customer needs and promotes meaningful involvement.

Action taken: Volunteers from CIP joined the subgroup. Feedback was provided on the draft CIP and Resident Engagement Officer webpages and survey circulation.

Impact: Enabled customer-led development of engagement tools and strategies, improving transparency and accessibility.

What CIP did: Reviewed and shaped ideas for customer educational workshops.

Why: To empower tenants with knowledge on repairs, financial support, ASB, and digital tools.

Action taken: Provided feedback on proposed themes including repairs handbook walkthroughs, budgeting sessions, and ASB reporting. Suggested form-filling support and collaboration with external partners.

Impact: Initiated development of practical, customer-focused workshops that will improve service understanding and tenant confidence.

What CIP did: Helped design a new Mystery Shopper Programme to evaluate service delivery.

Why: To gain insights into customer journeys and identify areas for service improvement.

Action taken: Reviewed programme scope, suggested service areas to include, and proposed names like “Check-in Champions” and “Tenant Talks.” Agreed to quarterly cycles and structured feedback.

Impact: Laid the foundation for a robust customer-led evaluation tool that will inform service enhancements and ensure accountability.

What CIP did: Reviewed feedback from previous scrutiny of Stage 1 complaints and supported development of a complaints explainer video.

Why: To improve communication, manage expectations, and ensure tenants understand how to raise complaints effectively.

Action taken: CIP feedback led to service improvements and plans to share before-and-after examples. Automated acknowledgements were confirmed, and best practices are being explored.

Impact: Enhanced complaint handling transparency and tenant confidence in the resolution process.

What CIP did: Discussed the new Decent Homes Standard and challenges in accessing properties for surveys.

Why: To ensure homes are safe and compliant, and that tenants are supported in understanding heating, ventilation, and survey processes.

Action taken: CIP recommended evening/weekend appointments, clearer communication, and tenant education. WH committed to improving access and staff training under Awaab’s Law.

Impact: Improved survey planning and tenant engagement, with a focus on health, safety, and reducing repeat issues.

What CIP did: Reviewed and revised the Stock Condition Survey letter to improve clarity and tenant understanding.

Why: To ensure tenants are well-informed and prepared for survey visits, reducing missed appointments and confusion.

Action taken: Suggested changes to wording, tone, and structure. Recommended adding guidance on access, communication expectations, and rescheduling.

Impact: Improved tenant communications and accessibility, supporting better survey outcomes and data quality.

What CIP did: Participated in role play exercises to explore tenant and staff perspectives on communication.

Why: To identify barriers to effective communication and promote empathy and consistency in service delivery.

Action taken: Recommended follow-up emails after calls, a flagging system for tenants with specific needs, and continued staff training.

Impact: Strengthened communication standards and inclusivity, ensuring services are responsive to diverse tenant needs.

What CIP did: Reviewed and discussed fire safety measures and the Resident Engagement Strategy.

Why: To help keep tenants safe and ensure fire regulations are followed.

Action taken: Watched a fire safety video, discussed fire drills, and planned more work on the Resident Engagement Strategy.

Impact: Raised awareness and preparedness among tenants and supported the development of a stronger engagement strategy.

What CIP did: Reviewed Anti-Social Behaviour (ASB) reports and secure tenancy agreements.

Why: To help address ASB issues and make sure tenants understand their rights and responsibilities.

Action taken: Shared reports, held discussions, and planned to draft a report with recommendations.

Impact: Improved understanding and management of ASB, leading to better relationships in communities.

What CIP did: Discussed the need for more members and new recruitment ideas.

Why: To build a panel that better reflects the diversity of customers.

Action taken: Planned open days and a social media campaign with support from the comms team.

Impact: Strengthened recruitment efforts and encouraged wider involvement.

What CIP did: Reviewed boiler servicing and provided feedback on a new gas safety video.

Why: Tenants had concerns about what checks were being done and what to expect.

Action taken: Requested a clearer video showing the full gas safety check process — now live.

Impact: Improved understanding and safety through a more informative, accessible video.

What CIP did: Suggested renaming the 'Good Neighbour Charter' and reviewed the policy.

Why: Felt the title did not reflect the purpose and wanted to improve how noise issues are handled.

Action taken: Proposed a name change, reviewed examples, and asked for more data.

Impact: Started a review process that may lead to clearer policies and better neighbour relations.

What CIP did: Reviewed family homelessness and placements outside the borough.

Why: Concerned about the effects on schooling and mental health.

Action taken: Discussed improved results, including fewer families placed outside the city.

Impact: Helped highlight the importance of local placements and supported ongoing improvements.

What CIP did: Visited the Tarmac Road office to learn more about repairs.

Why: To better understand the process and identify issues.

Action taken: Followed up with the team and discussed service improvements.

Impact: Identified gaps and started conversations to make repairs more efficient.

What CIP did: Reviewed the draft policy.

Why: To check it is fair and effective for both staff and customers.

Action taken: Gave feedback and added it to the future agenda.

Impact: Ensured customer voices helped shape how complaints are handled.

What CIP did: Reflected on the year’s work and reviewed training from TPAS.

Why: To recognise progress and make sure members are confident in their role.

Action taken: Shared reflections and discussed future priorities.

Impact: Highlighted success stories and raised awareness nationally, including in the Ombudsman’s report.

What CIP did: Continued reviewing Tenant Satisfaction Measure data and survey feedback.

Why: To understand how well Wolverhampton Homes is performing.

Action taken: Looked at how data is collected and what customers are saying.

Impact: Improved awareness of satisfaction levels and helped shape focus areas.

What CIP did: Tested the app and website and gave feedback.

Why: To make sure the digital services meet tenant needs.

Action taken: Suggested more repair categories and easier access to tenancy documents.

Impact: Helped improve usability and ensured the platforms reflect real customer needs.