Challenge Group

Review of Grounds Maintenance

Introduction

When the Trust received the results of the STAR survey back, one of the highest areas of dissatisfaction amongst tenants was the grounds maintenance service.

Challenge decided to look into this service area, and attempt to identify the root of the problem.

1.3	Whilst carrying out a preliminary examination of the evidence, the group decided not to focus solely on the grounds maintenance/contractor issues. Having recently had feed-back from other tenants about the low-cost gardening, Challenge felt it was important to include this service in the scope as well.

Background

The Challenge Group chose to review Grounds Maintenance for the following	reasons:

Dissatisfaction was high amongst customers who felt that the grounds maintenance	service, and general upkeep of communal areas, were not up to the required

standard.

Feedback from other tenants was that there were issues with the low-cost gardening

service

When Challenge looked closer at the specific complaints listed in the surveys, they found that Trustfix was not at fault for any of the Trustfix-related complaints, and therefore did not need to be included in the scope

The approach adopted by the Challenge Group in conducting this review was as follows:

Fact finding: commissioning the Tenant Inspectors to review tenants’ views relating	to the service. A brief was issued to the Tenant Inspectors setting out what	Challenge Group wanted them to do

Challenge and compare: examining what other landlords do and try to identify good	practice. Interviewing officers and contractors

Recommendations: analysing findings and making recommendations to PPHT’s	Board, followed by asking officers to produce an action plan demonstrating how	recommendations will be addressed

Monitor and evaluate: once PPHT produces an action plan, Challenge Group will	monitor progress and evaluate outcomes for customers

Details of the activities carried out

In conducting the scrutiny of Grounds Maintenance, the Challenge Group and Tenant Inspectors carried out a wide range of activities. These were as follows:

Challenge Group

Carried out a desk top review of STAR survey results, and analysed the results of an	internal satisfaction survey that was sent to all involved Tenants

Asked for, and received, a presentation about Grounds Maintenance from Natasha

Bowers, the Estate Quality Manager, and Dave Ashton, the Trustfix Supervisor

Carried out good practice research amongst other Landlords (CHP, City West,

Community Gateway, New Charter and Octavia)

Asked the Tenant Inspectors to contact involved Residents to gather their views

Asked the Tenant Inspectors to carry out mystery shopping to ascertain the level of	customer service when enquiring about the low-cost gardening service

Carried out staff and contractor interviews

Carried out a focus group of low-cost gardening service customers

Carried out a focus group of tenant members of the Resident Register Green Spaces

group

Analysed all of the information collected through the review and identified	recommendations to present to Board

Commissioned Beever and Struthers, our internal auditors, to investigate current

processes used within the Grounds Maintenance service, with the aim of making

recommendations around service improvements

Tenant Inspectors

Carried out a telephone survey to find out about customers’ experience of the low

cost gardening service (a mix of customers from large estates and rural areas)

Carried out a telephone survey of random customers who live near grassed areas

Carried out some Mystery Shopping exercises around the low-cost gardening service

Submitted a report to Challenge Group setting out their findings and	recommendations.

Our main findings: Strengths

Website and Leaflet review

The leaflets were felt to contain all the relevant information

Grounds Maintenance annual survey

The group felt that the overall findings were very good, although people seemed

confused about what the contractors and Trustfix were responsible for

Green Spaces Resident Register group

The Green Spaces group promoted the school gardening competition, which was a	positive step on their part

Analysis of Good Practice Research

Challenge liked CHP’s system whereby, since bringing the gardening service in-house, employees on the team can achieve a training certificate

They also liked the fact that CHP recycle garden waste with their own shredder ‘lantra’, which apparently saved the organisation £15, 000

The group felt that, after bringing the service in-house, and leasing equipment rather than buying it, New Charter demonstrated good business sense by making substantial savings, and ensuring there were no longer any delays to grass-cutting schedules due to equipment repair

Challenge were especially impressed that Parkway Green offered a free gardening service to customers who are disabled/suffering ill-health/elderly/can’t afford a gardener/have no-one to help

The group noted that some of the organisations used Housing Officers to check the work done through the low-cost gardening service, and wondered if this could be incorporated into our Neighbourhood officers’ estate inspections?

The group liked that some organisations used unemployed people as apprentices who they trained up for the gardening service

Challenge liked that Community Gateway built the low-cost garden service costs into the rent

They also liked that, as part of the contract between Sodexho and Community Gateway, they stipulate that the contract should not focus on the number of cuts done in a year, as sometimes the grass doesn’t need cutting as often, and that time is spent on edging off instead

Challenge thought it was a good idea that Sodexho agreed to work on the Britain in Bloom garden projects when weather was too bad to cut the grass

It was felt to be very practical that Community Gateway provide hand-helds for their contractors, so that they can log outstanding jobs and provide access to live information on the status of all jobs

Tasha Bowers’ projected costing of bringing gardening service in-house

The group considered the possibility of the Trust running a non low-cost garden service(at competitive rates) for those who are not classed as vulnerable - possibly through a pilot

Challenge felt that, as per the feedback from many of the peer organisations they looked at, bringing the service in-house would give the Trust more control of the standard of the service, and save money to the business in the long-term. It would also mean there is a manager dedicated to the tenants, not spreading their time across various organisations who may also use their contractors service

Landscape contract

Challenge were happy with the contract content, although they weren’t sure if it really represented value for money (This was difficult to compare with other organisations as the contract would not be identical within other organisations, and cost of the contract would depend on their stock size/size and number of grassed areas/contract spec, etc.)

Natasha’s presentation

Challenge liked the fact that Natasha had recently set up a spread-sheet to log any informal complaints about the gardening service

Focus Group with Low-Cost Gardening Customers

The Customers were generally happy with the standard of work carried out by the contractors

The majority of customers questioned were happy with the attitude of contractors working on their garden

Focus group with members of the Resident Register Green Spaces group

The group felt pleased that, unlike Cheshire East council, PPHT collected grass cuttings

They all agreed that all aspects of the contract between Landscape and PPHT were necessary

Feedback suggested that most green spaces were inspected regularly by Green Spaces members

Members were all satisfied with the standard of grass cutting, although more care should be taken to clear cut grass from paths, particularly in areas with tenants who have mobility issues

5.0 Staff Interviews

Landscape contractors now undertake a GNVQ, which helps them gain more advanced training

There was agreement that the service has improved since it began

5.1 Reception drop-in box

The feedback suggested inspections should be carried out after the grass has been cut, but Challenge felt satisfied that this work was done already by the Green Spaces members. The group also agreed it was unnecessary for this to be done on a more official basis.

Our findings: Areas for improvement

6.1 Feedback from STAR Survey

The moss and weeds seem to cause an issue, and might need addressing more than once a year, especially in areas where there is sheltered accommodation and/or vulnerable tenants

There appears to be a few communication issues between Cheshire East council and PPHT

Challenge felt that where people complain about a particular area on a regular basis then, during icy weather, steps should be taken to ensure a grit bin is put there

6.2 Leaflet and website review

The leaflets didn’t make it clear whether it was £6.30 for 1 hour or half an hour

The website wasn’t clear on what happens if the routine changes? What is the

alternative if the weather is too bad to stick to the schedule?

Challenge felt that the website page was too wordy, and badly designed. Challenge

felt it would be easier if the website broke the main points down by bullet points, making it easier to read

Challenge felt it would be helpful if the website included a document that tenants

could click on, to find out more about the payment options

It would also be more aesthetically pleasing if there were some photos on the website

Challenge suggested that in the ‘Our Services’ link, there should be a separate link,

with information around what the Landscape contractors and the low-cost gardening service cover (in bullet point form)

Challenge noted a discrepancy between the information given in the letters sent out, and the LCGS leaflets: The leaflet advised that between November and March, customers can expect a 1-hour visit once a month. However, the letter says to expect 1 visit in November and 1 visit in February

6.3 Green Spaces Resident Register Minutes

Challenge were slightly concerned about which areas are inspected by tenants, and wanted to clarify that it wasn’t just the areas around their homes, as this may mean that other areas are overlooked, and are not up to the required standard (although this was clarified during the Focus group session, and Challenge felt satisfied that most areas were inspected)

The Low-Cost Gardening Service seemed to come up a number of times during the	meeting as an issue

Challenge were disappointed with the return rate of the Landscape satisfaction survey

Different tenants should be given the opportunity to be involved in the tendering process, to allow them a chance to be part of this process if they haven’t been involved before

Performance Information

This highlighted that performance dropped when contractors had to wait for replacement blades for the mowers.

6.5 Low-Cost Gardening Service proposal

Challenge felt the proposed service costs were no longer considered ‘low-cost’, and felt that consideration should be made towards a discounted rate for ‘vulnerable’ customers

The consultation around the new tiered pricing system for the LCGS, carried out with the Green Spaces Resident Register group , is not sufficient. Challenge hope that once the proposal has been passed by EMT, consultation will be carried out with current low-cost gardening service customers as well

Challenge were very concerned that the new system, based on the size of garden rather than rates per hour, is too complicated to understand, and customers will be lost in the process. This may lead to untidy gardens as tenants are put-off using the LCGS

6.6 Analysis of Good Practice research

The group did not like the fact that a couple of the housing organisations leave the grass on the ground to turn to mulch, as this can cause issues with residents who suffer from allergies

6.7 Focus Group with Low-Cost Gardening Customers

There is a clear lack of communication between staff and customers, and more work needs to be around the administration of the service.

If the spread-sheet used by Landscape just records how many gardens are done in 1 day, this should be changed to include all customer addresses, so that staff can see ‘at a glance’ if there are any missing visits

There was inconsistency amongst those customers who regularly received satisfaction cards, whilst others were only receiving a carbon copy of the contractors worksheet

The group felt there was no excuse for contractors turning up on the job with the wrong tools

There was no consistency around receiving notification of when work will start again after periods of bad weather. Some customers heard from staff, whereas others were given no indication of when work would start again.

6.8 Focus group with members of the Resident Register Green Spaces group

Informal feedback from LCGS customers to Green Spaces members in the past has indicated there is a lot of confusion, and more work should be done around what customers actually get for their money

The group were undecided about whether the proposed tiered-system for LCGS would work better. There appeared to be a lot of confusion around the details of the new pricing system, and further consultation may be beneficial

6.9 Staff Interviews

Some of the staff interviewed felt that it would better having 2 men working on different gardens, rather than having 2 men working in the same garden, as they currently do

Although Landscape appear to have a spread-sheet which monitors outstanding hours, it may be beneficial to regularly share this information with Challenge, and PPHT staff, if this is not already being done

There is recognition that more communication is needed between staff, contractors and customers

There was an admission from staff that there should be more vigilance from staff around what work is done on behalf of customers, and better checks carried out

6.9.1 PPHT Letters to LCGS customers

The second paragraph is slightly misleading, as customers struggle to understand ‘yearly’ charge in light of work not done for 2 – 3 months of the year. It may be better to amend it to ‘Although work is only done from March to November (36 weeks), the cost is spread out over 52 weeks to keep charges to you to a minimum eg. During the month of November- 1 visit, December and January - no visits, February – 1 visit, and from March onwards normality is resumed. This could also be emphasised in the leaflet to clarify costs.

There is no breakdown of how many hours a week the contractors will work in the garden. The hours could be included in the latter, along with a statement along the lines of ‘We think these prices offer better VFM than private gardener costs’.

A contact name and number should be included in the letter, for customers to contact if they have any issues

7.0 Recommendations

The Challenge Group and Tenant Inspectors would recommend that PPHT takes the following steps to bring about improvements within the Grounds Maintenance Service:

Recommendation	Expected benefits
1.	The proposed changes to the Low-Cost Gardening service should make allowance for the elderly and vulnerable (i.e. those who were eligible under the current system) and provide a discount for those residents, and consider opening up the service to all customers	This could potentially improve the service through economies of scale, as it could be advertised as a small business. If vulnerable customers continue to get a discount under the new proposed system, it will ensure our estates remain tidy and well-maintained
2.	Changes to Trust media (website/ leaflet/PlainSpeaking) content to include: Clear details of who LCGS customers can contact in case of complaint; PPHT should consider advertising the direct line for this staff member, as some customers seem to be confused about who/what number to ring, despite the Freephone number being on all the vans A review of current information; to ensure it is easier to read and clearer about prices Publishing details of Landscapes schedules, both on the website, and periodically in PlainSpeaking, so that tenants know when work is due to be carried out in their area Information about who carries out post-inspections for low-cost garden service customers - this should be available in the leaflets, so customers know the work is being monitored Promotion of the fact that, if a customer has a mobile phone, the contractors can text ahead of a visit to let them know they are on their way over	Having someone as a point of contact would guarantee that all queries are dealt with satisfactorily, and customers generally prefer to have a name of someone they can speak to when there is an issue. The Trust might get more LCGS customers once it was clearer for them what they were getting for their money, and clearer information will also help customers to feel they were being kept informed, as well as assisting neighbourhood officers with their inspections of grassed areas, if this goes ahead (see Areas of Improvement). Customers would also feel reassured about the fact the work is being monitored.
3.	LCGS customers should : receive a satisfaction card(with suitable LCGS questions) on a quarterly basis, and the Trust should consider asking: Grounds Maintenance staff to visit customers, in person, periodically to check satisfaction with the service Tenant Inspectors to ring customers on a regular basis to query if work has been done/advise of outstanding hours be informed, by whichever means is easiest, when work is due to start again (when periods of bad weather have halted work schedules) be notified of what they’ve paid for in writing, along with how they can make a formal complaint, as well as notification of how many paid hours are still outstanding on a bi-annual basis. PPHT should also consider providing: A 14-day cooling off period A rebate if hours are still owing at the end of a 12-month period, or owed hours following on the next year receive a card/slip through their door every time work has been carried out in their garden, even if it’s not been possible to get a signature from the customer - this could also include any follow-up work agreed between the customer and contractor, so customers can see their request has been recorded. There should be some way of this information being fed back to the co-ordinator, either on a slip or via handheld, to ensure that: 1) this commitment is met at the next visit 2) the correct tools are placed on the van ahead of the next visit	Through doing this, we are making sure customers have ample opportunity to raise issues with us. It also means staff could keep a closer eye on work being done, and help keep complaints to a minimum Notification would prevent confusion amongst customers around how many hours they were still owed, and they would gain a greater sense of satisfaction with the service they received The final suggestion would help ensure that no work was delayed due to wrong tools being in the van, and Customers requests were being consistently met. It also means they are kept fully informed and a realistic level of expectation is set.
4.	The Green Spaces meetings should : be recorded on an action log, which should be discussed at the beginning of each meeting to ensure each action has been completed be provided with information of on-site inspections – and the specific grassed areas that the inspections were carried out in - on a rolling basis, so they can compare results over 12 months Monitor any inspections carried out by tenants and make sure they are logged, by management, in the same document as those carried out by staff, and analysed on a regular basis, to pick up on any areas which may not consistently be meeting the standard. If an area does not meet the standard, it should be raised at the Green Spaces meeting	This ensures continuous improvement, which means involved customers can be more proactive about issues flagged up during meetings. It also maintains close communication between tenants and staff, and ensures that action is taken at the appropriate meeting around any recurring issues/areas These were recommendations from the Internal Auditors, which Challenge chose to adopt.
5.	PPHT should consider bringing the gardening service in-house	Evidence shows that, when implemented within other organisations, the business has seen a rise in customer satisfaction, as well as a substantial financial saving in the long-term

Action plan

PPHT officers are requested to produce a SMART action plan, setting out how they will address the recommendations made within this report. Challenge Group will require an action plan for consideration, within 2 weeks of this report being presented to Board.

Challenge Group will monitor PPHT’s progress in implementing the action plan and will evaluate outcomes for customers.

Concluding remarks and learning points

What worked well during the Review

The amount of useful, in depth, observations that came from this report shows that it definitely was a project that was needed, in order to improve this very important service to tenants

When Challenge were able to hear ‘first hand’ the views of PPHT customers, some things were not only ‘ripe’ for attention, but bordered on being a Health and Safety Risk

The help that Challenge received from the auditors proved to be very reassuring in

it’s confirmation that they were on the right track

9.2 Learning Points

9.2.1 The help that Challenge received from the auditors proved to be very reassuring in it’s confirmation that they were on the right track

9.2.2 To always contact as many people as possible that are involved with the service, so as to get a very rounded opinion prior to concentrating on any improvements/recommendations that should be needed

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix A: Brief from the Challenge Group to the Tenant Inspectors

Appendix B: Tenant Inspectors’ report

Appendix C: Details of Tenant Inspectors’ activities

Appendix A: Brief from the Challenge Group to the Tenant Inspectors

Inspection of the Grounds Maintenance Service

Tenant Inspectors Brief

1. Introduction

Following the STAR survey, carried out in 2012, it became apparent that one of the areas with the highest dissatisfaction amongst tenants was the grounds maintenance service.

Challenge have also become aware of issues with the Trusts Low-Cost Gardening Service (LCGS), so have decided to include this in their scope.

Challenge are looking at the grounds maintenance work done by our contractors, Landscape, as well as the Low-Cost Gardening Service(LCGS), which is also carried out by Landscape. Please note that the Trustfix service, which offers a handyman facility to customers, does not form part of the scope.

We would like the Tenant Inspectors support in carrying out an inspection to investigate how people feel about the service they receive from both the grounds maintenance and the LCGS (if they pay for it).

2. Our Brief

PHONE SURVEYS

LCGS Customers

Find out about customers’ experience of the low cost gardening service (a mix of customers from large estates and rural areas)

Grounds Maintenance Customers

Speak to a random sample of customers who live near grassed areas – what is their perception of the quality of work carried out by the contractors?

MYSTERY SHOPPING

Exercise involving calls/emails/visits to the Trust, where the Inspector will pretend they’re interested in being a LCGS customer

We may also ask you, later in the inspection process, to quality check some of the work done by Landscape.

STAFF INTERVIEWS

Inspectors will interview relevant staff members to identify any issues within service delivery.

3.Timescales

It would be helpful if these activities were completed by Wednesday 20th March, and the findings passed to us so we could meet with you and discuss all the evidence, including ours that we will have collected from our desktop reviews, and best practice exercises, as well as benchmarking with other Landlords.

Then we will work with you, so that we can pull together a final report for the Board, setting out our collective findings and recommendations.

Challenge Group

2nd February 2013

Appendix B: Tenant Inspectors’ report
1.0	SUMMARY of the findings of TENANT inspectors into THE GROUNDS MAINTENANCE SERVICE
1.1	Grounds Maintenance Review In early 2012, the Trust sent out STAR surveys to a random sample of Trust tenants, to gauge their feelings on PPHT services. The feedback showed that one of the areas causing dissatisfaction amongst a number of tenants was the Grounds Maintenance service. Challenge were approached by the Trust, and asked whether they would be interested in making this the focus of their next scrutiny review. Tenant Inspectors role Challenge group have asked the Tenant Inspectors to speak to involved Tenants to find out how people feel about the service they receive from both the grounds maintenance, and the LCGS (if they pay for it). They have supported Challenge by carrying out a series of phone surveys to customers who live near grassed areas, to see what they think about the work done by the contractors on nearby green spaces. The Inspectors have also contacted customers who use the low-cost gardening service, to ascertain if there are any issues with the service they receive. .
2.0	OVERALL VIEW ON THE GROUNDS MAINTENANCE SERVICE
2.1	Phone Surveys
2.1.1	Customers living near grassed areas Strengths Everyone that was contacted was happy with the gardening service Everyone felt there had been an improvement in the gardening service since PPHT took over from MBC (although there are still a few issues) Everyone that had had any interaction with the gardening contractors found them to friendly and polite Weaknesses Some customers expressed dissatisfaction with the amount of weeds in the area None of the customers had seen spot checks carried out A few customers were unhappy about grass not being picked up when wet, as it often meant it ended up on pathways and got walked into their properties
2.1.2	Low-cost gardening customers Strengths Customers are generally happy with the service Everyone that was contacted was happy with the conduct of the staff The majority of people felt the service did deliver VFM Weaknesses Some customers didn’t know who to contact about the service, or who to complain to Only a minority of people questioned received a satisfaction card after work was carried out in their garden None of the customers contacted said they had been informed when work would start again, following periods of bad weather Some customers requested more time being spent on larger gardens One customer queried whether training was given around the difference between plants and weeds?
2.1.3	Mystery Shopping Strengths Although the service is apparently not taking on any more customers for the time being, they still took the customers details for future options A lot of detail was given to the customer around cost/frequency, etc. Weaknesses When customers contact the Trust by email, they are not given any information electronically. Instead, information is posted out
3.0	OVERALL RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE TENANT INSPECTOR TEAM TO CHALLENGE GROUP
3.1	LCGS Customers should have clear details of who they can contact in case of complaint LCGS customers should receive a satisfaction card on a regular basis, and the Trust should consider asking Grounds Maintenance staff to visit customers in person, periodically, to check satisfaction with the service Grounds Maintenance staff could also consider carrying out spot checks of gardens, to ensure LCGS customers are getting what they have paid for When work is stopped due to bad weather, LCGS should be informed over the phone once it is due to commence again The Trust should consider promoting if and when edges are done, and maybe consider carrying out this work on a more regular basis if it didn’t push the costs of the service up too much Could the contractors pick up grass from pathways, when the mowed grass is too wet to collect from the green areas?

Appendix C: Details of Tenant Inspectors’ activities

Mystery Shopping
Telephone	Very helpful. Quoted all the details re. hiring, payment method, cost of service, frequency of visits (2 per month), number of calls throughout winter between Nov 1st and 31st March, charges at £6.30 per hr, grass cut 16 times a year, hedges tidy twice yearly, Dave Ashton oversees yearly contract
Email	No information was given electronically; the customer was asked for a postal address to post information out

Phone survey of LCGS Customers
1. Opinion of LCGS?	Yes	Had it for 1 year, it's ok	Brilliant	They use only cutting hedge and lawns, no flower beds	Fine, very happy	£27, expensive for what they do. Please see if it could be reduced	Ok	Very good	Not very good, figure of 8 crumbled away	If a complaint arises, no one to talk to. All right, but lose track of the weeks and they are behind.	Difference between yours and mine. Down steep hill at side of the canal, needs more than 1 hour to do it as leaves off trees are a problem
2. Satisfaction card received after each visit?	No, never had one	No, never	No	No	No, never	No	No	Use to, stopped, and now have started again	No	No	No
3. If work stopped due to bad weather, was notification of work start date given?	No, they have never let me know	No	No, never	No	No	No	No	No	No	No	No
4. Should there be a better check of work done by staffof work in garden?	No, it's satisfactory now	No, rely on gardener, a good job done	Not always, but happy with the gardener now	No	No, it's fine now	No	Happy with service	Not necessary, up to staff	Yes	I think so, could tell them if anything wrong	Yes
5. Atttitude of staff polite and friendly?	Yes, very good	Yes, very	great	Yes, Jason was very good and kind and helpful	Fine, very good	Yes, no problem	Yes	Yes, very	Yes	Yes	Yes
6. Are you getting VFM?	Yes, because I can't do it	Yes	Yes, and please keep the service going, for the future	Yes, can't do it herself	Yes	Not really, too dear for pensioners	Yes	Yes	Yes	yes	Just about
7. Any improvements you would like to see?	More lawn would be nice	Rather 1 gardener, because he gets on with the work, better on his own	Happy as it is now	Know difference between plants and weeds, they should be trained better before set to work	No, not at the moment	No they do a good job	Very happy	Not off hand, inspections and see what needs doing	All flagged, plant pots. They do his weeding, he is giving up garden service	Weeds cut off, don't pul them up. When cut off, they blow them around. Could there be a way to take up the weeds, then they don't go back in the flower beds?	Garden in a bad state, this is a large garden, the garden service only has one hour to give! Can you arrange to negotiate with tenants and garden staff? Can this not be arranged for them to pay one proice for top and another time, to the bottom of the garden the next fortnight?

Customers from grass-cutting service
1. What do you think of gardening work done in your area?	Quite happy, cut straight and neat	better than last lot definitely	I'm satisfied	Very good	Fine, cut grass efficiently	Fine, very good job	Lived here 12 months only, satisfactory as far as she can make out	Quite good	Too dear, good work done	Lovely, very happy	Fine
2. Is there an improvement since PPHT took over?	Cars leaving rubs on grass verges	Yes	Clean-up more than MBC	Yes	No improvement as far she can see	No different	Issues mainly P&P, not lived here long enough for comparisons	No better no worse	Better than in the past	Yes, very much so	Yes
3. Any areas of the gardening service where there could be improvements made?	Walking-pace catching on	Yes, edges. Would be better edged a bit more often.	Nothing at moment, everything ok	Only that some paving to rear of property needs some attention.(referred to NHO)	car parking areas, problems with vehciles running over lovely are, edges of pavement full of weeds, on the road	Not really, fine	Very Happy	Bit better weeding, maybe some more weed killer	No, quite happy	No, very happy as it is	No, clean up after cutting
4. Is there enough spot-checking by staff?	Not noticed	No spot check	Doesn't notice	Had to ring up about cutting once but it was wet	Not noticed	Not seen any spot checking	Not sure, regularly kept tidy	Not enough	Good, yes they do check	Not seen any checking up	No spot checks by staff
5. Are staff polite and friendly?	Not noticed	n/a	As far as she can see	Very polite	Nothing noticeable	very good attitude, moving litter when left in area	very friendly	yes	Yes, very good and friendly	Yes, very good	Don't speak to them because they are grassed areas
6.Are areas left clean and tidy?	Can't walk, mowed grass blows across pavements, walking aid picks up grass and goes into house - especially when wet	Yes, apart from the edges. Does not like clippings blown off front steps	Yes	Clean and tidy	Yes	Yes, they do	OK, no mess at all, very happy	yes	Yes, very good cleaning up after work done	Yes, very clean and tidy	Clean up a bit more after cutting