090929 Mystery Shopping

MYSTERY SHOPPING REPORT
May 2009

Brent Homeless User Group

Mystery Shopping Report for Crisis, May 2009

1

CONTENTS
1.

2
3.
4.

5.

6.

7.

1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4

4.1
4.2
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.5
5.6
6.1
6.2
6.3
6.4
6.5
6.6
7.1
7.2
7.3
7.4
7.5
7.6

8.

9.

8.1
8.2
8.3
8.4
8.5
9.1

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS............................................................ 4
Introduction ............................................................................................................ 4
Review of findings.................................................................................................. 4
Recommendations to central government and local authorities ................ 5
Recommendations to agencies working with homeless people, and
homeless people themselves .............................................................................. 6
INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................. 7
PROJECT AIMS .................................................................................................. 8
BACKGROUND................................................................................................... 9
Project Management ........................................................................................... 9
Mystery Shopping .................................................................................................. 9
SCOPE OF PROJECT ...................................................................................... 10
The Project Brief ................................................................................................... 10
Timing of Visits....................................................................................................... 10
Review of Documentation................................................................................. 10
Accessibility .......................................................................................................... 10
Equalities and Diversity ....................................................................................... 10
Reporting Results ................................................................................................. 10
METHODOLOGY AND TIMETABLE ................................................................. 11
Agreeing the Protocols....................................................................................... 11
Recruitment of Mystery Shoppers ..................................................................... 12
Design of Feedback Forms ................................................................................ 12
Training the Mystery Shoppers ........................................................................... 13
Undertaking the Mystery Shopping .................................................................. 13
Analysis.................................................................................................................. 13
FINDINGS ......................................................................................................... 14
Are services easily accessible? ......................................................................... 16
Do Mystery Shoppers feel that staff are interested in their individual
circumstances and take into account their specific needs? ...................... 27
Are Mystery Shoppers offered information, advice and advocacy if
needed on housing and related issues and is this information clear? ....... 29
Are the Mystery Shoppers given the opportunity to submit a homeless
application?......................................................................................................... 31
Are the Mystery Shoppers offered or referred to suitable emergency or
temporary accommodation where this is needed? ..................................... 34
Are the Local Authorities’ homelessness services working effectively to
address the Mystery Shopper’s needs with other council services and
external agencies? ............................................................................................. 36
BOROUGH OUTCOMES .................................................................................. 39
Inner London Borough A .................................................................................... 39
Inner London Borough B ..................................................................................... 39
Outer London Borough C................................................................................... 40
Outer London Borough D ................................................................................... 41
Outer London Borough E.................................................................................... 42
PERSONAL VISIT FINDINGS (including advice given)..................................... 43
Young Person Male (Mystery Shopper 1)......................................................... 43

Mystery Shopping Report for Crisis, May 2009

2

9.2
9.3
9.4
9.5
9.6
9.7
9.8
9.9
10.

Young Person Female (Mystery Shopper 2) .................................................... 48
Male / Mental Health (Mystery Shopper 3) ..................................................... 54
Female / Mental Health (Mystery Shopper 4) ................................................. 60
Pregnant / Immigrant / Little English Language (Mystery Shopper 5) ........ 65
EU/A8 Citizen / Immigrant / Little English Language (Mystery Shopper 6) . 70
Domestic Violence (Mystery Shopper 7) ......................................................... 76
Couple (Mystery Shopper 8).............................................................................. 82
Male Rough Sleeper (Mystery Shopper 9) ....................................................... 88
VISITS OUTCOMES ANALYSIS ....................................................................... 93

Mystery Shopping Report for Crisis, May 2009

3

1.

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

1.1

Introduction

This report details the results of a Homelessness Mystery Shopping project. In all, 45
visits were carried out to front line Housing Advice and Homelessness Prevention
services across five boroughs to test initial responses to a range of scenarios. The
project sought to assess the standard of service offered and consider how well the
local authorities were likely to fulfil their statutory obligations to people presenting
as homeless had an application been pursued further.
The project was
undertaken by Brent Homeless User Group, an independent charity and
commissioned by Crisis, the national charity for single homeless people.
1.2

Review of findings

The research finds that standards of service are variable between and within local
authorities. Often services were not accessible to homeless people, and even
where the Mystery Shoppers did see an officer they rarely received the help they
were entitled to.
The degree to which Mystery Shoppers felt staff were interested in their individual
circumstances varied widely, and was dependent on the individual member of
staff seen rather than the circumstance or local authority.
The local authorities sometimes provided information and occasionally provided
advice and guidance. However, in many cases this information or advice was
misleading or incorrect. Many local authorities limited advice to providing the
telephone number of another agency who might be able to help. Assessing the
quality of advice provided by these agencies was beyond the scope of this
project.
Mystery Shoppers were in most of the cases deterred from making a homelessness
application, often by reception staff providing misleading advice, or preventing
Mystery Shoppers from seeing a housing officer. In all of the cases, local
authorities failed to ensure that Mystery Shoppers received their statutory
entitlement to emergency accommodation while their circumstances were
investigated.
There was some evidence to suggest that local authority homelessness services
were working to a limited degree with other council services to address the
Mystery Shoppers’ needs. However, the potential to work with agencies such as
Social Services was largely under-utilised. In one of the scenarios used, a referral to
Social Services would have been expected, but findings report only a limited
contact being made with that department.
There was general inconsistency regarding signposting and referral to external
agencies with some Mystery Shoppers being offered advice and others not being
given any assistance.

Mystery Shopping Report for Crisis, May 2009

4

1.3

Recommendations to central government and local authorities

The following general recommendations arise from this mystery shopping exercise.
More specific recommendations are made to each local authority in section 10:
Borough Outcomes.
R1. The need to understand and adhere to legislation
Homelessness law and associated good practice is not consistently adhered to.
Those working in local authorities should have a clear understanding of
homelessness legislation, particularly in relation to vulnerability, eligibility and
‘priority need’. They should also attempt to ascertain as fully as possible what
assistance or accommodation a person is entitled to, rather than assuming the
homeless person is able to advocate for his or her self.
R2. The need for a welcoming interface
The physical environment in which a vulnerable person meets the adviser differs. In
some boroughs applicants felt uncomfortable with their surroundings, particularly
when having to outline their circumstances in crowded waiting areas. At a time
when Communities and Local Government (‘CLG’) is encouraging hostel
accommodation for homeless people to become ‘places of change’, it would be
useful to ensure that the interface between the homeless person and the state
also offers a welcoming environment.
R3. Documentation required
The case scenarios were developed acknowledging that homeless people may
not have the required forms of ID with them or, as a result of their circumstances,
be able easily to get hold of this. As a consequence, some of our Mystery
Shoppers did not have the personal information that would, ideally, have been
available.
Whilst the findings indicate some commitment to assist, there was evidence that
sometimes bureaucratic processes prevented a flexible response and that this
disadvantaged some Mystery Shoppers who did not have immediate access to
required documentation but, nonetheless, had a right to help and advice.
R4. Signposting
Most of the boroughs did not make effective use of available opportunities for
additional help and support through signposting the vulnerable person to a range
of organisations. Signposting can be an effective tool, providing assistance to
those who may not be helped any other way at the time and may provide some
interim solutions to their needs.

Mystery Shopping Report for Crisis, May 2009

5

1.4

Recommendations to agencies working with homeless people, and
homeless people themselves

R5. Accompanied visits
Homeless people are unlikely to understand their legal position, and are even less
likely to be able to advocate for themselves. Organisations working with homeless
people should consider accompanying them to local authorities and assisting
them to make an application.
R6. Early arrival
For homeless people needing to make an application, particularly those in need
of emergency accommodation, it is important to arrive at the housing office as
early as possible. Despite guidance in the code of good practice that a person
should be dealt with on the day they visit, limited resources mean that many local
authorities have a maximum of five emergency appointments a day.
R7. Assertiveness
It is necessary for homeless people or those advocating for them to be assertive.
Some local authorities will attempt to dissuade people from making an
application by telling them they will not be entitled to any help, or providing
contact details for a local voluntary agency.

Mystery Shopping Report for Crisis, May 2009

6

2

INTRODUCTION

This report details the results of a Homelessness Mystery Shopping project carried
out by Brent Homeless User Group, an independent organisation (referred to here
in as ‘B.HUG’) for national homelessness charity, Crisis. 45 visits were carried out to
front line Housing Advice and Homelessness Prevention services across five
boroughs to test initial responses to a range of scenarios. The project sought to
assess the standard of service offered and consider how well the local authorities
were likely to fulfil their statutory obligations to people presenting as homeless had
an application been pursued further.
The project was commissioned by national homelessness charity Crisis to assess the
quality of service provided to people seeking homelessness advice and assistance
within different local authorities across London. Research was undertaken during
three weeks between March and April 2009. Crisis informed the boroughs involved
that this mystery shopping activity would take place but gave no indication as to
the exact timings of the exercise.
Nine different ‘Mystery Shoppers’ (MS) presented case-study scenarios within each
borough. They carefully documented the services and responses they received.
The report therefore gives a unique, impartial insight to the advice given and the
action taken by front line staff responding to contact from those who are
homeless or threatened with homelessness; one that has been captured through
the eyes of people with similar life experience to real service users, rather than
through the eyes of housing professionals or general Mystery Shoppers.
Findings and recommendations will enable sharing of best practice; and
improvement to the quality of service provision for people who approach local
authorities when homeless or threatened with homelessness.

Mystery Shopping Report for Crisis, May 2009

7

3.

PROJECT AIMS

This project set out to explore whether people seeking homelessness advice and
assistance from local authorities receive variable standards of service between
and within local authorities, paying particular attention to the following questions.


Are services easily accessible? In particular, how easily do Mystery Shoppers
access the service and get help with their housing problems?



Do Mystery Shoppers feel that staff are interested in their individual
circumstances and take into account their specific needs (for example,
mental health problems; language barriers; domestic violence)?



Are Mystery Shoppers offered information, advice and advocacy if needed
on housing and related issues and is this information clear?



Are the Mystery Shoppers given the opportunity to submit a homelessness
application?



Are the Mystery Shoppers offered or referred to suitable emergency or
temporary accommodation where this is needed?



Are the Local Authorities’ homelessness services working effectively to
address the Mystery Shopper’s needs with other council services or external
agencies (for example housing benefits, Social Services)?

These areas have been identified and used by the Audit Commission Inspectorate
when looking at homelessness and housing advice: 1

1

Audit Commission (October 2007), Homelessness and housing Advice Key Lines of Inquiry (KLOEs); and
ibid., Homelessness: Responding to the New Agenda.
Mystery Shopping Report for Crisis, May 2009

8

4.

BACKGROUND

4.1

Project Management

The project was carried out by Brent Homeless User Group, an independent, userled homeless charity with extensive experience in conducting user-led research
projects including mystery shopping exercises.
4.2

Mystery Shopping

Mystery shopping is a robust method of gauging service quality since the
technique delivers hard, tangible, facts about actual service levels and service
user experience. As such, it is a valuable and powerful tool both in its own right
and as a complement to other methods of assessing service user satisfaction 2.
Mystery shopping differs from other methods of assessing service user satisfaction
in that the technique deals with the “here and now” of services, and records, in
detail, the component parts of each element of contact with the service user. It is
therefore an ideal way of testing whether the service provided meets declared
aims and standards.
Mystery shopping can identify strengths and weaknesses and help to show exactly
where service delivery can be improved. In instances where excellent service is
provided, the service may be considered an example of best practice and
specific staff members can be singled out for recognition and reward.
Initially deployed in retail and private sector service industries, mystery shopping is
now used increasingly in the public sector to gain a better understanding of how
service users are treated when they approach front line offices. Mystery Shopping
can be carried out in person, by telephone, or less commonly by letter/email.
Where Mystery Shoppers present the same cases studies or ‘scenarios’ across a
number of organisations, results can be benchmarked. In addition, outcomes can
be presented to an audience made up of those who can make the direct
changes which will provide genuine improvements in service quality.

2

Other complementary tools include feedback forms, focus groups and complaints/comments procedures.

Mystery Shopping Report for Crisis, May 2009

9

5.

SCOPE OF PROJECT

The purpose of the project was to establish whether people seeking homelessness
advice and assistance from local authorities receive variable standards of service
between and within local authorities using a mystery shopping approach. Central
to this was a wish to determine the extent to which local authorities discharge their
obligations under the homelessness legislation in terms of (a) encouraging and
facilitating homelessness applications and processing them accordingly; (b)
providing appropriate advice and guidance; and (c) providing proactive,
appropriate and meaningful assistance to help the individual prevent or resolve
their homelessness.
5.1
The Project Brief
The brief required nine case scenarios to be tested across five London local
authorities who will remain anonymous; two Inner London Boroughs (A and B) and
three Outer London Boroughs (C, D and E): The various scenarios used aimed to
highlight the complexities and range of circumstances people can typically
present when seeking housing assistance from their local authorities.
5.2
Timing of Visits
The mystery shopping took place in March / April 2009. Visits took place on
different days/at different times when possible, but the order of visits was not
prescribed.
5.3
Review of Documentation
Mystery Shoppers had different access to documentations (e.g. ID) when
conducting a visit. The type of documentations used by them is recorded as part
of section 8 (Personal Visits Findings).
5.4
Accessibility
The project aimed at ascertaining how easily the Mystery Shoppers accessed the
service and got help with their housing problems.
5.5
Equalities and Diversity
The Mystery Shoppers were diverse in terms of ethnicity, age and experiences.
Demographic information about Mystery Shoppers was collected via equal
opportunities monitoring forms in the recruitment process.
5.6
Reporting Results
Within this report the findings are broadly summarised thematically within section
7. The outcomes of the visits for each Mystery Shopper can be found in section 9
(Personal Visit Findings). Summaries of the strengths and weaknesses of each
borough are set out in section 8.

Mystery Shopping Report for Crisis, May 2009

10

6.

METHODOLOGY AND TIMETABLE

The project consisted of a number of stages






Drafting the case studies and design of feedback checklists
Recruitment of Mystery Shoppers
Training the Mystery Shoppers
Undertaking the mystery shopping
Analyses of findings

Timetable
March 2009

Preparation of scenarios and supporting documentation
(including feedback forms)

March 2009

Recruitment and training of Mystery Shoppers

March 2009

Drafting of mystery shopping schedules

March 2009

Mystery shopping in London boroughs

April 2009

Data analysis and writing up

May 2009

Feedback session with Crisis staff and Mystery Shoppers

May 2009

Report submitted to Crisis

6.1

Agreeing the Protocols

Nine Mystery Shopper case studies were developed in collaboration with Crisis.
The cases reflect a cross section of scenarios involving a diverse range of homeless
people.
The case studies covered a range of housing needs and issues and ensured that
the diversity of participants was maximised. The level of urgency and the
appropriate form of action to be taken by the council adviser differed within each
scenario. All cases were established to reflect real customer interaction and to
minimise the need to impose limitations to the scenarios, e.g. if certain
documentation were to be required for a case to appear realistic.
Further detail on the case scenarios can be found in section 7.

Mystery Shopping Report for Crisis, May 2009

11

6.2

Recruitment of Mystery Shoppers

B.HUG recruited a group of Mystery Shoppers who were assigned a case study to
be presented in each of the boroughs. This assured as much consistency as
possible.
From the outset of the project, the aim was to recruit Mystery Shoppers who have
had experience of homelessness, have a genuine interest in improving services
and the capacity to act as Shoppers. B.HUG endeavoured to take on people with
a similar real life experience to the scenarios designed. B.HUG also ensured that
Mystery Shoppers’ team is representative of the ethnic diversity of the
participating boroughs. Given that Mystery Shoppers were using their own
identities, it was essential that the Shoppers were not previously known to
Homelessness services within participating boroughs.
B.HUG liaised with numerous service providers across London (homelessness
organisations and community groups) to find suitable candidates for the project.
6.3

Design of Feedback Forms

B.HUG used feedback forms that had successfully been used previously in a similar
‘shopping’ project and were specifically structured to support objective recording
and assessment of the outcomes of each mystery shopping event.
 Detailed Visit Analysis Form: completed by B.HUG following the visit.
 Visit Feedback Form: completed by Mystery Shoppers following a visit.

Mystery Shopping Report for Crisis, May 2009

12

6.4

Training the Mystery Shoppers

Mystery Shoppers attended mystery shopping and confidence building training
sessions.
Training on mystery shopping was provided by the independent housing
consultant. The workshop enabled the Mystery Shoppers to become familiar with
the background and objectives of the project; to learn about mystery shopping;
to become familiar with the details of the case studies; to input to the final revision
of case studies and feedback sheets and to rehearse individual roles.
Mystery Shoppers also participated in a confidence building session held by a
voluntary organisation specialising in working with young offenders and homeless
people. The workshop focused on building Mystery Shoppers’ confidence utilising
participants real life experience and enable further role play and revisiting the
case scenario. Those who did not attend the confidence building workshop were
given an opportunity to practice their scenarios and opportunity to air any
concerns during an additional practice session.
6.5

Undertaking the Mystery Shopping

The mystery shopping visits across the five participating boroughs took place in
March – April 2009. The visits were carried out for all case studies in all boroughs.
Visits took place on varying days of the week and at different times during the day
to the relevant offices.
6.6

Analysis

The results were analysed in relation to each of the main questions and
differentiated by borough as dictated by project objectives.

Mystery Shopping Report for Crisis, May 2009

13

7.

FINDINGS

This chapter summarises the response of services across 45 visits in the 9 boroughs
to the case studies presented by Mystery Shoppers. Based on the data gathered
by the Mystery Shoppers we have attempted to compare the outcome that
would be expected if the Mystery Shopper pursued an application fully (as
specified by Crisis in the project brief) with the actual outcome. The results are
summarised in Table 7.1.1. The small number of cases means that the following
generalisations should be treated with some caution.
The Mystery Shoppers were testing the initial responses of the services to these
scenarios not the whole process of making a homelessness application. It is
important to note that the nature of the mystery shopping exercise makes it
difficult to state absolutely whether a local authority would have met their
obligations under homelessness law to some of the Mystery Shoppers had they
been able to pursue some of the cases through to the stage of submitting an
application. There are a number of ethical and practical problems in pursuing a
homeless application this far as part of a mystery shopping exercise not least as
such an exercise would use considerable council resources. The Shoppers were still
able to test the service and information given to them on presenting their
scenario.
Summary of Mystery Shopper Case Studies:
Mystery
Shopper

Scenario

Details

1

Young person,
male

An unemployed, male, 18 years old, left mother’s home
due to relationship breakdown. Can no longer stay on
friend’s sofa. No income or savings.

2

Young person,
female

A healthy 17 year old woman, left mothers home after
unwanted attention from Mother’s partner, no longer
able to stay on friend’s sofa. No income or savings.

3

Mental health,
male

A man in his 40s, who has had a mental breakdown
following mother’s death. Evicted from home he shared
with his mother. Suffering from depression and living
rough in his car. No income or benefits.

4

Mental health,
female

A woman in her 30s with mild learning difficulties. Having
left her family home due to involvement with drugs and
prostitution, she now has to leave her friends’ sofa. Her
chaotic life has meant she no longer claims benefits.

Mystery Shopping Report for Crisis, May 2009

14

Summary of Mystery Shopper Case Studies (Continued):

Mystery
Shopper

Scenario

Details

5

Immigrant,
female

A pregnant woman who is a refugee with little English
language ability. She has been staying with friends in a
rented property and has to leave. She has recourse to
public funds, but is on a part time low income and
cannot afford to find a new rental property.

6

Immigrant,
male

A migrant worker from Latvia, an A8 country, who has
been in the country for four years, unemployed for one
year and lost his home. He is rough sleeping, unaware
of his rights and has little language ability.

7

Domestic violence
victim,
female

A woman in her 20s who has left her home due to
domestic violence from an alcoholic partner. She has to
leave her sister’s overcrowded home and is worried as
her husband knows where she is.

8

Couple,
male and female

A couple in their 20s. The man is self employed with a
dwindling business and no savings, the wife is a home
maker. They have been evicted as their landlord has
not kept up his mortgage payment.

9

Rough sleeper,
male

A man in his 30s, unemployed and sleeping rough. With
no savings, no income and no financial support.

Mystery Shopping Report for Crisis, May 2009

15

7.1

Are services easily accessible?

This question is answered in two parts. Table 7.1.1 compares the expected
outcome of each Mystery Shopper visiting the service with the actual outcome.
Table 7.1.2 identifies the ease with which Mystery Shoppers were able to access
services.
7.1.1 How easily did Mystery Shoppers get help with their housing problems?
In many cases the local authorities did not, or seemed unlikely to, fully discharge
their duties. For example, Mystery Shopper 2 should have been categorised as ‘in
priority need’ and provided with temporary accommodation until her application
had been adjudicated (See Table 7.1.1). Although all boroughs mentioned that
Social Services would need to get involved in her case, only two boroughs offered
her an appointment with Social Services on the same day if she could get more
documentation. Only one borough, Inner London Borough B, provided some
signposting to Mystery Shopper 2, including telephone numbers for emergency
accommodation, and the National Domestic Violence Helpline. While she was
advised to report the unwanted attention from her mother’s partner to the police,
no risk assessment took place.
Only one Mystery Shopper was treated consistently across all five local authorities,
the case study of a pregnant woman, Mystery Shopper 5. In each borough
Mystery Shopper 2 was asked to return with proof of pregnancy. The other advice
this Mystery Shopper was given varied widely.
Local Authorities were more likely to fulfil their obligations of delivering advice and
signposting than fulfil the duty to provide housing were this was applicable. In
general it appears that Outer London Borough E, Inner London Borough B and
Inner London Borough A were slightly more likely to meet the expected outcomes
than Outer London Borough C and Outer London Borough D.
It was of concern that Mystery Shoppers 3 and 4 were informed they were ‘not in
‘priority need’’ in a number of boroughs, having gone through no, or very minimal,
assessment to establish if they were in ‘priority need’. This was in part a
consequence of homeless officers not asking for enough information about the
client’s mental health, despite the fact that Mystery Shoppers indicated that there
may be mental health concerns. Without this support from front line workers in
assessing need, a homeless person would only be able to access their statutory
entitlement if they understand homelessness law and are assertive when pushing
for their rights. This is unlikely to be the case for most vulnerable people. This may
also point to a lack of accurate understanding amongst homeless officers
themselves of the laws they are applying.

Mystery Shopping Report for Crisis, May 2009

16

Table 7.1.1 Were Mystery Shoppers expected outcomes met?
MS

Expected outcome

Was it met?

Inner London Borough A
1

Advice and
Assistance

Partially: Some advice and assistance was given. MS was
told to sort out his benefits, given council housing guidelines
and signposted to external agencies

2

Priority

No: MS was not offered accommodation. MS was told to
return with ID, passport and statement from her mother.

3

Priority (borderline)

No: There was limited assessment and no decision was
made on ‘priority need’ status that day. It is likely that this
would have been decided on the appointment the next
day.

4

Priority (borderline)

No: There was no assessment to establish if MS was in
‘priority need’. The MS was offered an appointment on
returning with further ID

Priority

No: MS was not offered accommodation and was asked to
return with proof of pregnancy and more information.

6

Advice and
assistance

Partially: Some advice, assistance and signposting were
given. However, MS was told that no further help could be
given as he was unable to provide enough documentation,
although passport was provided

7

Priority (borderline)

No: MS was not deemed to be in ‘priority need’. No
assessment was made to establish whether MS was in
‘priority need’. No signposting or advice was given.

8

Advice and
Assistance

Yes: Advice and assistance was given. MS was signposted
to a Private Sector Housing Advice Team, the job centre
and the CAB.

9

Advice and
Assistance

Partially: Some advice and assistance was given. MS was
told to call the job centre and given a list of hostels.

5

Mystery Shopping Report for Crisis, May 2009

17

Table 7.1.1 Were Mystery Shoppers expected outcomes met? (Continued)
MS

Expected outcome

Was it met?

Inner London Borough B
1

Advice and Assistance

No: MS was not given advice or assistance. MS was
advised to speak to emergency out of hours department.

2

Priority

No: MS was not offered accommodation.

Priority (borderline)

No: MS was not deemed to be in ‘priority need’’. Limited
assessment was undertaken, with no health questions. MS
was incorrectly advised that he was not in ‘priority need’
as he had no children.

4

Priority (borderline)

No: MS was not deemed to be in ‘priority need’. No
assessment was undertaken. MS insisted on booking an
emergency appointment and was told to come back the
next day.

5

Priority

No: MS was not offered accommodation. MS was told to
return in 4 weeks time with proof of pregnancy and 6
months pay slips.

6

Advice and assistance

Yes: MS was advised about hostels, day centers, benefits,
night shelters. MS was advised to call the Housing
Emergency out-of-hours line or to come back the next day
if not successful.

7

Priority (borderline)

No: MS was not deemed to be in ‘priority need’. No
assessment was undertaken. MS was advised to go back
to her sister’s house and come back for an assessment.

8

Advice and Assistance

No: MS was not given advice or assistance. MS was told to
book an appointment.

9

Advice and Assistance

Partially: Some assistance and advice was given. MS was
given a list of hostels and told to call the Housing
Emergency out-of-hours department.

3

Mystery Shopping Report for Crisis, May 2009

18

Table 7.1.1 Were Mystery Shoppers expected outcomes met? (Continued)
MS

Expected outcome

Was it met?

Outer London Borough C
1

Advice and Assistance

Partially: Some advice and assistance was given. MS
advised about Rent Deposit Guarantee Scheme

2

Priority

No: MS was not offered temporary accommodation

3

Priority (borderline)

No: MS was not deemed to be in ‘priority need’. Limited
assessment was undertaken to establish if MS was in
‘priority need’.

4

Priority (borderline)

No: MS was not deemed to be in ‘priority need’. Limited
assessment was undertaken to establish if MS was in
‘priority need’.

5

Priority

Yes: MS was advised they would offer her
accommodation if she could provide proof of pregnancy

6

Advice and assistance

Partially: Some advice and assistance was given. MS was
signposted to a day centre. However, no advice was
given on housing.

7

Priority (borderline)

Partially: Some assessment was made to establish
whether MS was in ‘priority need’. MS was given advice
and assistance and signposted to refuges. MS was
advised to come back if unsuccessful at refuges.

8

Advice and Assistance

Partially: Some advice and assistance was given. MS was
signposted to a day centre and the CAB.

Advice and Assistance

Partially: Some advice and assistance was given. MS was
signposted to a local advice agency and the job centre
and a rent deposit scheme discussed.

9

Mystery Shopping Report for Crisis, May 2009

19

Table 7.1.1 Were Mystery Shoppers expected outcomes met? (Continued)
MS

Expected outcome

Was it met?

Outer London Borough D
1

Advice and Assistance

Partially: Some advice and assistance was given. MS was
signposted to a local homeless charity.

2

Priority

No: MS was not offered accommodation MS was asked
to return with ID.

3

Priority (borderline)

No: MS was not deemed to be ‘in ‘priority need’. Limited
assessment was undertaken to establish if MS was in
‘priority need’. Mediation with the landlord was offered.

Priority (borderline)

No: MS was not deemed to be ‘in ‘priority need’. Limited
assessment was undertaken to establish if MS was in
‘priority need’. MS was offered a medical assessment on
return with further ID.

Priority

No: MS was not offered accommodation. MS was asked
to come back with proof of pregnancy and residence.

Advice and assistance

Partially: Some Advice and assistance given. Sent to
housing advice surgery and hostel search services.

Priority (borderline)

No: MS was not deemed to be in ‘priority need’. No
assessment was undertaken to establish if MS was in
‘priority need’. No signposting was offered.

Advice and Assistance

Partially: Some advice and assistance was given. MS was
signposted to a local homeless centre and the job centre.

Advice and Assistance

Partially: Some advice and assistance was given. MS was
signposted to a local homeless centre and the job centre.

4

5

6

7

8
9

Mystery Shopping Report for Crisis, May 2009

20

Table 7.1.1 Were Mystery Shoppers expected outcomes met? (Continued)
MS

Expected outcome

Was it met?

Outer London Borough E
1

Advice and Assistance

Yes: Advice and assistance was given. MS was handed
an Outer London Borough E Housing Information Pack; a
Homelessness Prevention Pack and a Housing Options
Pack.

2

Priority

No: MS was not offered accommodation.

Priority (borderline)

No: MS was not deemed to be ‘in ‘priority need’. No
assessment was undertaken to establish if MS was in
‘priority need’. No explanation of ‘priority need’ was
given and MS was told that no LA would house him.

4

Priority (borderline)

No: MS was not deemed to be ‘in ‘priority need’. No
assessment was undertaken to establish if MS was in
‘priority need’. MS was asked to come back next very
early morning to make emergency appointment.

5

Priority

No: MS was not offered accommodation. MS was asked
to come back with proof of pregnancy.

6

Advice and assistance

Partially: Some Advice and assistance given. MS was
advised to sign on for benefits and was given contact
details for hostels and shelters.

7

Priority (borderline)

No: MS was not deemed to be in ‘priority need’. Limited
assessment was undertaken to establish if MS was in
‘priority need’. MS was incorrectly advised that nothing
could be done for her as she has no children. MS was
signposted to a local hate crime reporting centre.

8

Advice and Assistance

Partially: Some advice and assistance was given. MS
was signposted to a local homeless centre and the job
centre.

Advice and Assistance

No: MS was not given advice and assistance and was
told to come back next day.

3

9

Mystery Shopping Report for Crisis, May 2009

21

7.1.2 How easily did Mystery Shoppers access the service?
CLG ‘Good Practice’ guidance to local authorities recommends that advisory
services are accessible to all:
‘…advisory services are well publicised and accessible to everyone in the district.
Appropriate provision will need to be made to ensure accessibility for people with
particular needs, including those with mobility difficulties, sight or hearing loss and
learning difficulties, as well as those for whom English is not their first language.’3
Table 7.1.2 demonstrates the ease with which Mystery Shoppers were able to
access the service in terms of finding the building; seeing a housing officer and
being offered interpreting support where appropriate (for more detailed
information please see ‘Visits Outcomes Analysis’ on page 93-95). Mystery
Shoppers had particular access difficulties in Inner London Borough B and Outer
London Borough E. In many cases a receptionist acted as a gatekeeper
preventing the Mystery Shopper from speaking directly to a housing officer. In
Outer London Borough D half of the interviews with housing officers were carried
out over the phone.
Table 7.1.2 How easily did Mystery Shoppers access the service?
MS Mystery Shopper Experiences
Inner London Borough A
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

Signage for the service was clear.
MS was seen by a housing officer. (Interviewed in waiting area)
Signage for the service was very clear.
MS was seen by a receptionist.
Signage for the service was clear.
MS was seen by a housing officer.
Signage for the service was clear.
MS was seen by a staff member (title unknown).
Signage for the service was clear.
MS was seen by a staff member (title unknown).
An interpreter was provided.
Not clearly signed. (Had difficulty finding the offices).
MS was seen by a receptionist and assistant receptionist.
Interpreting service provided over the phone.
Signage for the service was clear.
MS was seen by female staff members (title unknown).
Not clearly signed.
Seen by staff member (title unknown).
Signage for the service was clear.
MS was seen by staff member (title unknown).

Inner London Borough B
1

3

Signage for the service was clear.
Seen only by a receptionist. No appointments available that day.

DCLG (2006) Homelessness code of guidance for local authorities. London: DCLG.

Mystery Shopping Report for Crisis, May 2009

22

Table 7.1.2 How easily did Mystery Shoppers access the service? (Continued)
2
3
4

5
6
7
8
9

Very clearly signed.
Seen by a receptionist.
Very clearly signed.
Seen by a receptionist. Told he could not have an appointment until May (over a
month later) as he is not in ‘priority need’.
Signage for the service was clear.
Seen by a customer service liaison person (receptionist). After a long wait, MS was
offered an appointment for three weeks’ time. MS insisted on an emergency
appointment. However, nobody saw her that day.
Signage for the service was clear.
Seen by a staff member (title unknown).
No interpreter provided, needed proof of pregnancy before any advice / help could
be given.
Signage for the service was clear.
Seen by staff member (title unknown).
Interpreting service offered over the phone (not taken up).
Signage for the service was clear.
Seen by receptionist and a male officer.
Not clearly signed.
Seen by receptionist. Told to come back next morning or phone emergency line after
5pm.
Very clearly signed.
Seen by a receptionist. Told to get their by 8am to have any chance of getting one of
the five daily emergency appointments.

Outer London Borough C
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

Signage for the service was clear.
Seen by a staff member (title unknown).
Signage for the service was clear.
Seen by a staff member (title unknown).
Signage for the service was clear.
Seen by a staff member (title unknown).
Signage for the service was clear.
Seen by a staff member (title unknown).
Signage for the service was clear.
Seen by a staff member (title unknown).
Interpreter offered if MS would wait.
Clearly signed outside. Needed help to find the homeless people unit inside.
Seen by a staff member (title unknown).
No interpreter offered.
Not clearly signed.
Seen by a housing officer. Long wait, but seen by female officer
Signage for the service was clear.
Seen by a staff member (title unknown).
Very brief interview 3 minutes.
Very clearly signed.
Seen by a staff member (title unknown).
Rushed interview had to stand up.

Mystery Shopping Report for Crisis, May 2009

23

Table 7.1.2 How easily did Mystery Shoppers access the service? (Continued)
Outer London Borough D
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

Signage for the service was clear.
Interviewed by a housing officer over the phone.
Very clearly signed.
Seen by a receptionist.
Very clearly signed.
Interviewed by a housing officer over the phone.
Signage for the service was clear.
Seen by Housing Options / Homelessness Officer in person.
Signage for the service was clear.
Seen by a housing officer in person. Private interview.
No interpreter provided.
Not clearly signed and confusing.
Seen by a housing officer in person.
No interpreter provided.
Not clearly signed.
Interviewed by a male Homeless Officer over the phone (from a private room).
Signage for the service was clear.
Interviewed by a housing officer over the phone.
Signage for the service was clear.
Interviewed by a housing officer over the phone.

Outer London Borough E
Not clearly signed.
1
Seen by a housing officer. Only able to speak to officer after asserting his rights.
Not clearly signed.
2
Seen by a receptionist. Told to come back later, nobody called her as discussed.
Not clearly signed.
Seen by a staff member (title unknown).
3
Only given forms to fill in and told to come back later.
Signage for the service was clear.
4
Seen by a receptionist.
Clearly signed.
Seen by a staff member (title unknown).
5
No interpreter was provided. MS was Told that she needed to bring proof of pregnancy
before they could go any further.
Signage for the service was clear.
Seen by a staff member (title unknown).
6
An interpreter was provided over the phone. MS waited for an hour only to be told to
come back next morning.
Not clearly signed.
7
Seen by a female receptionist. MS had to explain her situation whilst in a queue.
Signage for the service was clear.
8
Seen by a staff member (title unknown).
Signage for the service was clear.
9
Seen by a receptionist. MS was told to come back next day and queue at 8am.

Mystery Shopping Report for Crisis, May 2009

24

7.1.3 Mystery Shoppers’ impression
homelessness receptions.

on

the

physical

environment

of

Once inside the building Mystery Shoppers also commented on the differences in
physical environment. Table 7.1.3 lists general comments on the physical
environment as well as general personal impressions of Mystery Shoppers. For
example Inner London Borough B had a new building and Outer London Borough
D, Inner London Borough B and Inner London Borough A were praised for their
clean and well organised environment. For further information on reception areas,
information on display and facilities please see ‘Visits Outcomes Analysis’ on page
93-95.
Table 7.1.3 Mystery Shoppers’ impression on the physical environment of
homelessness receptions.
MS

Mystery Shoppers’ impression on the physical environment of homelessness
receptions and general comments.

Inner London Borough A
Ticket system. Housing officer walked around offering advice to people waiting.
1
Clean and tidy. Private booth.
2
Variety of leaflets, computers available to access housing services.
3
Very organised and well set up. Ticket system, private interview area.
4
Good display of leaflets, interpreting service advertised.
5
Untidy but well organised, interpreting service advertised and available by phone.
6
Cold water available.
7
Well organised clean and fresh, comfortable and well equipped.
8
Clean.
9
Inner London Borough B
No queue, seen very quickly by receptionist.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

Had to stand up throughout interview. Ticket system. A housing officer walked around
offering advice to people waiting.
Ticket system, long wait.
Long wait, despite size and amount of people good acoustics, no posters but TV
screens displaying local info, useful numbers etc.
Long wait.
Comfortable environment, clean and modern but noisy, plasma screens with info
about council services.
Noisy, very busy so could not find available sit, plasma screens displaying information
Clean and comfortable.
Hot and sweaty, brand new, lovely environment.

Mystery Shopping Report for Crisis, May 2009

25

Table 7.1.3 Mystery Shoppers’ impression on the physical environment of
homelessness receptions. (Continued)

Outer London Borough C
Toilets not clean. No drinks available.
1
Building looks trashy, applicants made to stand.
2
There was a family room, lots of light but cold, good display of leaflets, hard chairs.
3
Fairly welcoming building, some private rooms, open plan office.
4
No interpreting service advertised.
5
6
7
8
9

Difficult to find the homeless people unit, clean environment but no names provided,
no opening hours.
Limited amount of information material available, noisy waiting area.
Well organised main area, private interview rooms available.
Rushed interview had to stand up.

Outer London Borough D
MS thought the building was nice.
1
Uncomfortable chairs but otherwise clean and organised.
2
MS disappointed he didn't get to see anybody in person.
3
No help given to fill in forms despite learning disability.
4
Private interview, no water.
5
Fairly comfortable environment but dirty toilets, private interview room available.
6
Nice building, private room, was not allowed to speak to female officer.
7
Clean well organised, no chairs or privacy, interview conducted over internal phone.
8
Clean and well organised.
9
Outer London Borough E
No drinks available. Not interviewed in private.
1
MS was interviewed standing up.
2
Variety of leaflets, vending machine.
3
Lots of desks to fill in forms, toilets clean.
4
Comfortable and space to fill in forms.
5
Clean and comfortable, vending machine broken.
6
Clean quiet, had to tell story to receptionist while in a queue.
7
Clean well organised.
8
Nice fish tank. Felt rushed and looked down upon, horrible experience.
9

Mystery Shopping Report for Crisis, May 2009

26

7.2
Do Mystery Shoppers feel that staff are interested in their individual
circumstances and take into account their specific needs?
Only in Inner London Borough A and Outer London Borough C did a majority of
Mystery Shoppers give a positive response to these questions. Outer London
Borough D and Outer London Borough E in particular fared badly. Mystery
Shoppers frequently reported that they felt their concerns were not being taken
seriously. The experiences of the Mystery Shoppers suggested that some staff in
some of the boroughs require training in dealing with members of the public. It is
essential that those manning frontline services such as receptionists and housing
officers receive training in dealing with vulnerable people.
There was a tendency for housing officers to fail to probe sufficiently into individual
circumstances that might establish wether a homeless person is entitled to
accommodation or how they could be helped. One example of this was in the
case of Mystery Shopper 5 who was was consistently told to bring proof of her
pregnancy before an assessment could be made. Also, in some cases where
mystery shoppers mentioned or indicated a possible mental health need, no
appropriate assessment was made. More information on these cases is available
in section 9. There was however a tendency to probe in more detail when looking
for reasons not to provide accommodation.
Table 7.2 Do Mystery Shoppers feel that staff are interested in their individual
circumstances and take into account their specific needs?
MS

Do Mystery Shoppers feel that staff are interested in their individual
circumstances and take into account their specific needs?

Inner London Borough A
Yes, partially.
1
No, staff insensitive, MS felt like it was just another case.
2
Yes, MS felt very much supported and that staff cared about him as a person.
3
Yes.
4
Yes.
5
6
7
8
9

No, no clear explanations given, unable to help without more information; benefits
advice given.
No.
Yes.
No.

Inner London Borough B
No, MS felt that staff were rude and insensitive.
1
Yes, staff very sensitive and nice, sympathetic to her situation.
2
No, MS felt he was not considered seriously; officer seemed uninterested.
3
No.
4
No.
5
Yes, very.
6
No, not handled sensitively, no privacy.
7
Yes, treated fairly.
8
No, not handled sensitively, talk was a standard one.
9
Mystery Shopping Report for Crisis, May 2009

27

Table 7.2 Do Mystery Shoppers feel that staff are interested in their individual
circumstances and take into account their specific needs? (Continued)
Outer London Borough C
No.
1
Yes, officer was very sensitive.
2
Yes.
3
Yes, very pleasant, case handled in a sensitive manner.
4
Yes, nice staff but interview rushed as office was busy.
5
Yes, partially. Interview felt rushed. However, benefit needs were taken into account.
6
Yes.
7
No, staff not helpful, answered phone call while interviewing MS.
8
No.
9
Outer London Borough D
No, receptionist was 'nice', was only asked about medical problems.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

No, MS told a social worker would call her back, but nobody did. However, homeless
officer did ring her mother persistently.
No.
No, unsympathetic, insensitive, felt like an interrogation.
No, receptionist impolite and nasty, told her to bring an interpreter, and then told to
ring internal number and say she is homeless.
No, no interpreter offered despite asking twice.
No, insensitive; MS wanted to make a complaint about the officer who interviewed
her but was told nobody by that name worked there.
Yes, partially. MS was sent to an agency for single homeless people when part of a
couple.
Yes, told him to sign on to get into a hostel, however this was the only advice given.

Outer London Borough E
Yes, sensitive but not helpful.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

No, MS did not feel staff were sensitive to her needs due to lack of documentation,
although they were taken into account.
No, not considered seriously.
No.
No, MS not even asked about homelessness.
Yes, partially. Interpreter was arranged when staff realised MS was struggling with
language; but interview felt rushed.
No, not taken seriously.
No, staff friendly but not very helpful, staff going on holiday so could not help until
got back.
No.

Mystery Shopping Report for Crisis, May 2009

28

7.3
Are Mystery Shoppers offered information, advice and advocacy if needed
on housing and related issues and is this information clear?
Local authorities have a duty to ensure that advice and information about
homelessness and the prevention of homelessness, are available free of charge to
anyone in their district4. Sometimes this duty may be contracted out.
The level and standard of information and advice provided varied dramatically,
both between and within local authorities:


Staff in Inner London Borough A offered limited advice in some cases, and
sign posted people to external agencies in others; but in almost half of the
cases did not provide any advice.



Inner London Borough B provided three Mystery Shoppers with a detailed
information pack, although staff did not always explain the contents. Staff
provided good advice in four cases but at the same time gave no advice
to another four Mystery Shoppers.



Outer London Borough C referred almost all of our Mystery Shoppers to
external agencies.



Outer London Borough D failed in many cases to even signpost Mystery
Shoppers to other agencies. In other cases limited advice and signposting
was provided.



Outer London Borough E had a particularly poor record, in half the cases
failing to provide advice or information. Where advice was provided it
tended to be limited to giving the details of somebody who might be able
to help them. In two cases substantial written information packs were given.

Table 7.3 Are Mystery Shoppers offered information, advice and advocacy if
needed on housing and related issues and is this information clear?
Inner London Borough A
Yes.
1
No, other than info on education maintenance allowance.
2
Yes.
3
No.
4
No, although told to come back next day.
5
Given details of other agencies that might help, law and citizens’ advice, council
6
homes.
No.
7
Yes.
8
Very limited advice. Just a list of hostels.
9

4

DCLG (2006) Homelessness code of guidance for local authorities. London: DCLG

Mystery Shopping Report for Crisis, May 2009

29

Table 7.3 Are Mystery Shoppers offered information, advice and advocacy if
needed on housing and related issues and is this information clear? (Continued)
Inner London Borough B
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

Yes, given national domestic violence helpline telephone number. Told to report
unwanted attention from mother’s partner to police.
Very limited. Given a list of hostels and explained process to him.
Yes. Substantial and detailed information pack given.
No.
Yes. Was told not in ‘priority need’, advised on options, detailed information pack given.
No.
No. Told to come back next day.
Limited. No verbal advice, detailed information pack given including telephone
numbers provided for accommodation.

Outer London Borough C
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

Limited advice. Told about rent deposit guarantee scheme, and signposted to local
advice agency.
Very limited advice. Told to go back to her mother.
Signposted to a local advice agency, told to make application under home seekers
form rather than as homeless.
Signposted to a local day centre - as the housing office would take longer to help her.
No, but told to come back with evidence of pregnancy next day.
Signposted to a local day centre.
Yes.
Signposted to a local day centre.
Signposted to an advice agency.

Outer London Borough D
Very limited, signposted to a local charity (given phone number).
1
No, other than info on education maintenance allowance.
2
No, signposted to a local agency.
3
No.
4
No.
5
No, signposted to local agency.
6
No, told Outer London Borough D have no duty to house her.
7
Yes, given advice on how to deal with landlord.
8
No, other than needing to sign on to get a hostel place.
9

Mystery Shopping Report for Crisis, May 2009

30

Table 7.3 Are Mystery Shoppers offered information, advice and advocacy if
needed on housing and related issues and is this information clear? (Continued)
Outer London Borough E
Substantial written information (advice pack), however, advice not tailored.
1
No.
2

Substantial written information (advice pack), however, advice not tailored to his
situation.
No, told to come back next day for emergency appointment.
No.
Limited advice. Given contact details of hostels.
Very limited advice. Given leaflet on hate crime and reporting details.
Given details of CAB and job centre, told to get deposit from landlord and find
somewhere else to live.
No.

3
4
5
6
7
8
9

7.4
Are the Mystery Shoppers given the opportunity to submit a homeless
application?
Research suggests that many local authorities have used the duty to prevent
homelessness as a smokescreen for a gate keeping role to preclude homeless
people from making a homeless application 5. The findings from this mystery
shopping research lend support to this hypothesis. Mystery Shoppers reported a
range of barriers confronting them throughout their visits. The first hurdle,
particularly in Outer London Borough D, Inner London Borough B and Outer
London Borough E, was getting past the reception staff to access a housing
officer. If Mystery Shoppers were able to get past the reception they often faced
what seemed to be attempts, by staff, to dissuade them from making a
homelessness application.


Inner London Borough A was the only borough where more than one
Mystery Shopper was given the opportunity to submit a homeless
application.



Where Mystery Shoppers managed to get past the reception staff to see an
officer in Inner London Borough B then they may have been able to submit
an application.



Outer London Borough C also tended to push Mystery Shoppers into making
a general application for housing.



In Outer London Borough E Mystery Shoppers were most likely to be given a
housing application to fill in, but one Mystery Shopper was told there was no
point making an application, as it would not succeed.



Outer London Borough D put a range of barriers before Mystery Shoppers,
stopping them from making an application including making appointments
for a month later.

5

Pawson, H. & Davidson, E (2006) Fit for Purpose? Official Measures of Homelessness in the Era of the
Activist State. Radical Statistics, 93
Mystery Shopping Report for Crisis, May 2009

31

Table 7.4 Are the Mystery Shoppers given the opportunity to submit a homeless
application?
MS

Are the Mystery Shoppers given the opportunity to submit a homelessness
application?

Inner London Borough A
1
Yes.
2
No, told to return with documentation.
3
Yes.
4
5
6
7
8
9

Yes, if MS brings in supporting documents, assessment officer was supposed to ring her
back, but did not.
Yes, when she comes back next day.
No.
No.
No, told not in ‘priority need’.
No.

Inner London Borough B
No.
1
Yes, but more details needed regarding documentation.
2
No, not entered onto system or allowed to complete a form.
3
No, not at this stage.
4
No, but filled in housing application.
5
No, told he was not in ‘priority need’.
6
No.
7
Told to come back next day.
8
No.
9
Outer London Borough C
No.
1
No, only given housing application form.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

No, discouraged from applying as homeless, told to submit a normal housing
application.
No.
Told to come back next day with proof of pregnancy, possible it would happen then.
No.
No.
No.
No.

Mystery Shopping Report for Crisis, May 2009

32

Table 7.4 Are the Mystery Shoppers given the opportunity to submit a homeless
application? (Continued)
Outer London Borough D
No, told he would not qualify.
1
No.
2
No, but may have been if he had produced required ID.
3
Yes, but lots of obstacles were created.
4
Told to come back in 4 weeks.
5
No, not without further ID.
6
No.
7
No.
8
No, only given housing application form.
9
Outer London Borough E
No, told he was homeless but not in ‘priority need’.
1
Given housing application to fill in.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

Given housing application form and single homeless questionnaire. Told he would not
succeed with application.
Not at this stage. Given housing application form and single homeless questionnaire.
Told to come back with more documents.
Not without proof of pregnancy.
Not at this stage. Told to come back next day.
No.
No, told not in priority and discouraged.
Given housing application to fill in.

Mystery Shopping Report for Crisis, May 2009

33

7.5
Are the Mystery Shoppers offered or referred to suitable emergency or
temporary accommodation where this is needed?
The DCLG offer the following guidance on duty to ensure that suitable
accommodation is available:
‘If a housing authority has reason to believe that an applicant may be eligible for
assistance, homeless and have a ‘priority need’, the authority will have an
immediate duty under s.188 to ensure that suitable accommodation is available
for the applicant (and his or her household) pending the completion of the
authority’s inquiries and its decision as to what duty, if any, is owed to the
applicant under Part 7 of the Act. Chapter 7 provides guidance on the interim
duty to accommodate. Authorities are reminded that ‘having reason to believe’ is
a lower test than ‘being satisfied’.6
Thus a housing authority should have ensured that suitable accommodation was
available to all of the Mystery Shoppers whom they had reason to believe may be
eligible, homeless and in ‘priority need’, specifically Mystery Shoppers 2 and 5 and
potentially Mystery Shoppers 3, 4 and 7. In the majority of cases the local
authorities failed to adhere to s.188. They tended to bypass this duty with evasive
advice. For example, in the case of Mystery Shopper 2, the duty was evaded by
persuading the client to go back to a house where she was at risk of sexual
assault. As the homelessness code of guidance makes clear, authorities must
ensure that suitable accommodation is available for the applicant in the interim
period, a list of phone numbers and referrals to other agencies are insufficient to
fulfil this duty.
Table 7.5 Are the Mystery Shoppers offered or referred to suitable emergency or
temporary accommodation where this is needed?
Borough

MS

Are the Mystery Shoppers offered or referred to suitable
emergency or temporary accommodation where this is
needed?

Inner London Borough A
N/A.
1
No, told to go back to her mother.
2
Yes, although had to wait until next day.
3
No.
4
No.
5
N/A.
6
No, needed proof before they would help.
7
N/A.
8
N/A.
9

6

DCLG (2006) Homelessness code of guidance for local authorities. London: DCLG.

Mystery Shopping Report for Crisis, May 2009

34

Table 7.5 Are the Mystery Shoppers offered or referred to suitable emergency or
temporary accommodation where this is needed? (Continued)
Inner London Borough B
N/A.
1
No, given emergency number for temporary accommodation.
2
No, given a list of phone numbers.
3
No, provided with telephone number for emergency accommodation.
4
No.
5
N/A.
6
7
8
9

Not on the base of the visit.
Told to come back with crime reference number.
N/A.
N/A.

Outer London Borough C
N/A.
1
No, told to go back to her mother.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

No, signposted to an advice agency who may have advised him where to seek
emergency accommodation.
No, but referred to local day centre.
Yes, as long as she brings in the required information.
N/A.
No, provided with telephone numbers for DV refuges.
N/A.
N/A.

Outer London Borough D
N/A.
1
No.
2
No, told to go to a local homeless charity.
3
No.
4
No.
5
N/A.
6
No.
7
N/A.
8
N/A.
9
Outer London Borough E
N/A.
1
No.
2
No, given a list of hostels.
3
No.
4
No.
5
N/A.
6
No.
7
N/A.
8
N/A.
9
Mystery Shopping Report for Crisis, May 2009

35

7.6
Are the Local Authorities’ homelessness services working effectively to
address the Mystery Shopper’s needs with other council services and external
agencies?
Many of our Mystery Shoppers had other needs that could have been dealt with
by other council services or external agencies. Mystery Shoppers 1,2,3,4,6,8 and 9,
all required benefits advice or debt advice, Mystery Shopper 2 needed help from
Social Services and Mystery Shopper 7 required help in relation to being at risk of
violence. Despite all these requirements:


Mystery Shopper 1, the young man, was only given benefits advice by Inner
London Borough A.



Only for Mystery Shopper 2, the young woman, referrals to the relevant local
authority (Social Services) were initiated but not followed up.



Only Outer London Borough E offered Mystery Shopper 4, a young woman
with a mental health issue, any advice regarding benefits.



Outer London Borough C and Outer London Borough E were the only local
authorities that offered Mystery Shopper 6, an unemployed A8 immigrant
worker, advice regarding benefits. He was also signposted to external
agencies for benefits advice in Inner London Borough A.



Outer London Borough E told Mystery Shopper 7 to go to the the local hate
crime center to report her domestic violence situation and seek support
from them.



Mystery Shopper 8 did not receive any benefits advice in Outer London
Borough C and Inner London Borough B and was signposted for debt
advice in Inner London Borough A and Outer London Borough E.



Mystery Shopper 9, a rough sleeper, was advised to sign on for benefits by
all local authorities other than Inner London Borough B.



Inner London Borough A and Outer London Borough E showed some
evidence of working effectively with other council services. In most cases
there was insufficient working between local authority services.

Mystery Shopping Report for Crisis, May 2009

36

Table 7.6 Are the Local Authorities’ homelessness services working effectively to
address the Mystery Shopper’s needs with other council services?
MS

Are the Local Authorities’ homelessness services working effectively to
address the Mystery Shopper’s needs with other council services or external
agencies?

Inner London Borough A
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

Yes, some benefits advice, crisis loan information given and signposted to external
agency.
Yes, Social Services. No, benefits advice not given.
No, benefits advice not given.
No, benefits advice not given.
Not known.
Yes, signposted to external agencies and indicated they would give benefits advice.
No, referral to council services not made.
Yes, benefits advice given and signposted to go to job centre for benefits advice and to
CAB for debt advice.
Yes, advice given on claiming JSA and offered use of telephone.

Inner London Borough B
No, benefits advice not given.
1
Yes, Social Services. No, benefits advice not given.
2
No, benefits advice not given.
3
No, benefits advice not given.
4
Not known.
5
No, benefits advice not given.
6
No, referral to council services not made.
7
No, benefits advice not given. Told to come back next day.
8
No, benefits advice not given.
9
Outer London Borough C
No, benefits advice not given.
1
Yes, Social Services. No, benefits advice not given.
2
No, benefits advice not given.
3
No, benefits advice not given.
4
Not known.
5
6
7
8
9

Yes, benefits advice provided. Told to go to job centre, get job seekers allowance and
housing benefit and signposted to day centre.
No, referral to council services not made. Yes, signposted to refuges.
No, benefits advice not given. No, not signposted to debt advice. Yes, signposted to
day centre.
Yes, some benefits advice given. Told to go to job centre and signposted to advice
agency.

Mystery Shopping Report for Crisis, May 2009

37

Table 7.6 Are the Local Authorities’ homelessness services working effectively to
address the Mystery Shopper’s needs with other council services? (Continued)
Outer London Borough D
No, benefits advice not given. Yes, signposted to local homeless charity.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

Yes, contact with Social Services made. Told Social Worker would call her but no call
received.
No, benefits advice not given.
No, benefits advice not given.
No, benefits advice not given.
Not known.
No, benefits advice not given.
No, referral to council services not made. Yes, signposted to local homeless centre.
Yes, benefits advice given. Referred to job centre for housing benefit claim and
signposted to local homeless centre.
Yes, some benefits advice given. Told to sign on at the job centre.

Outer London Borough E
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

No, benefits advice not given. Some information offered but no advice or signposting to
other departments.
Yes, contact with Social Services suggested. Told to come back to see Social Services at
3pm on the day.
No, benefits advice not given.
No, benefits advice not given.
Yes, some benefits advice given. Told to go back on income support.
Not known.
Yes, some benefits advice given. Told to sign on at the job centre.
No, referral to council services not made. Signposted to local hate crime reporting
centre.
Yes, benefits advice given. Signposted to job centre for benefits and to CAB for debt
advice.
Yes, some benefits advice given. Told to sign on at the job centre.

Mystery Shopping Report for Crisis, May 2009

38

8.

BOROUGH OUTCOMES

The following section summarises the gaps in local services identified through the
Mystery Shopper visits. It also highlights the priorities for change in each borough.

8.1

Inner London Borough A

8.1.1 Gaps in local services
Inner London Borough A performed poorly in meeting the needs of the Mystery
Shoppers. In many cases this was due to Mystery Shoppers being told to come
back with more identification or proof of circumstances. While local authorities
are expected to make proper enquiries into applicants’ circumstances, there is
also a duty to provide emergency accommodation as an interim measure to
those who are expected to meet the legislative requirements. Inner London
Borough A performed better than other authorities in this project at ensuring
Mystery Shoppers had access to the services they need.
More often than not Mystery Shoppers felt that staff were sensitive to their
individual circumstances. In around half of the cases staff provided information,
guidance and advice to Mystery Shoppers. Inner London Borough A was less likely
than other local authorities to deter Mystery Shoppers from making a homeless
application.
Emergency accommodation was only offered in one case, for the following day.
This was in a ‘priority need’ borderline case.
8.1.2 Priorities for improvement
In relation to the other local authorities studied, Inner London Borough A
performed better than others. However improvements could be made in training
staff to ensure they have a better understanding of homelessness law and
relevant good practice.

8.2

Inner London Borough B

8.2.1 Gaps in local services
Inner London Borough B fared slightly better than other authorities in providing
advice and information where required. Some Mystery Shoppers were given
substantial information packs, but only in some cases the contents of the pack
were explained to them.
However, Inner London Borough B was one of the worst performing authorities in
meeting the expected outcomes of the mystery shopping visits. The borough
failed to meet the needs of those Mystery Shoppers entitled to accommodation.
The reception system appeared to some Mystery Shoppers as if it was designed to
Mystery Shopping Report for Crisis, May 2009

39

deter them from seeing a housing officer. To have any chance of making an
application; homeless people would need to start queuing at 8am to make an
emergency appointment.
Mystery Shoppers had a mixture of experiences in terms of staff sensitivity to their
individual needs. In general, those who got past the reception system were
treated well, although reception staff members were commonly perceived as
rude and unwelcoming. For those who failed to get past reception, information
advice and guidance was usually limited to a list of phone numbers; although the
information pack provided in some cases was comprehensive. Most of the Mystery
Shoppers were not given the chance to make a homelessness application. Those
in need of emergency accommodation were typically provided with a telephone
number to ring. There were few signs of effective working with other local
authority departments, except in one case (Social Services).
8.2.2 Priorities for improvement
The main priority for improvement is to meet good practice guidance in ensuring
that homeless people are seen by an officer on the day of their first visit. It appears
that front line housing services are not sufficiently staffed with respect to dealing
with homeless applications. It is therefore imperative that sufficient resources are
invested to enable homeless people in this borough to see an officer.

8.3

Outer London Borough C

8.3.1 Gaps in local services
Outer London Borough C was one of the better authorities in terms of meeting the
expected outcome for Mystery Shoppers. It appeared that staff accepted one of
the two priority cases, on the condition that the Mystery Shopper provided the
necessary documentation. Only limited assessments were carried out into the
priority borderline cases. One Mystery Shopper was inappropriately informed that
that he would not succeed in a homeless application; when in fact there was a
possibility that someone in his circumstances may have made a successful
application.
Although in most cases staff were seen as sensitive to the needs of the individual;
some instances illustrated that more sensitivity to the situation faced by homeless
people is needed. One Mystery Shopper had to tell her story to the staff member
in front of a long queue of people. Another was made to stand up while speaking
to the member of staff. Interpreters were not consistently offered.
Advice provided to Mystery Shoppers was limited at best. Staff members tended
to refer Mystery Shoppers to external agencies as a matter of course. It was not
possible to evaluate the advice given by these external agencies.
Mystery Shoppers were deterred from making a homelessness application and
some were encouraged to apply for housing through the general housing list.
Mystery Shopping Report for Crisis, May 2009

40

Of the two cases where temporary accommodation should have been offered,
only one was considered, provided that she produced the required
documentation. However, occasionally contact details of another agency, which
may have been able to help, were provided.
Similarly, staff members tended not to give advice on benefits or other needs
relevant to Mystery Shoppers. Instead they referred Mystery Shoppers to external
agencies. There were signs of awareness of the need to work with other local
authority departments. Some Mystery Shoppers were signposted, either to Social
Services or benefits departments.
8.3.2 Priorities for improvement
Action should be taken to ensure that homeless people are afforded a degree of
privacy when discussing their sensitive situations. The local authority should
consider whether their homelessness prevention services are acting as a deterrent
to people submitting a homelessness application. Signposting homeless people to
other local authority departments and external agencies to help with advice and
accommodation could be better co-ordinated to ensure that homeless people
are able to access the help they need. For example rather than providing a list of
phone numbers, local authority staff should consider directly making
appointments for homeless people, and following up the outcomes.

8.4

Outer London Borough D

8.4.1 Gaps in local services
Outer London Borough D was one of the worst performing local authorities in our
study. The borough failed to meet the expected outcomes in most cases,
particularly where a Mystery Shopper was entitled to more than advice. Most
Mystery Shoppers did not get to see a housing officer in person, and interviews
commonly took place over the phone. Interpreters were not available and in one
case a Mystery Shopper was told to bring her own.
Housing officers and receptionists were typically characterised as rude and
insensitive with little regard for an individual’s circumstances. Information, advice
and advocacy were rarely provided. Instead some Mystery Shoppers were given
the details of a local support agency. Most Mystery Shoppers were deterred from
making a homelessness application. This was either through being inappropriately
informed they were not entitled to housing, when in fact they may have been
eligible; by being told to return up to a month later; or by being advised to
complete a general housing application form.
In no cases was emergency accommodation offered, although some Mystery
Shoppers were given details of a homeless support agency that may have been

Mystery Shopping Report for Crisis, May 2009

41

able to help. Links with other local authority departments were poor. Where a
referral was made to Social Services, the Mystery Shopper was not called back.
8.4.2 Priorities for improvement
Outer London Borough D needs to improve in all areas. The immediate priority is to
ensure that all staff members involved in the assessment process understand the
law relating to homelessness, and that the local authority begins to meet its
statutory duties. Once this is achieved they should then focus on meeting good
practice guidelines.

8.5

Outer London Borough E

8.5.1 Gaps in local services
Outer London Borough E performed poorly in meeting the expected outcomes of
the Mystery Shoppers. Those who were in ‘priority need’ and eligible for
accommodation were not offered temporary accommodation while their
situation was investigated. The borderline ‘priority need’ cases were not assessed
to establish ‘priority need’. Staff incorrectly informed one applicant that no local
authority would house him. Other Mystery Shoppers were told to come back the
next day. In the majority of cases staff members came across as unsympathetic
to the individual needs of Mystery Shoppers. Indeed, many of the Mystery
Shoppers felt they were not taken seriously and that the advice provided was
incorrect. Mystery Shoppers appeared to be actively deterred from making a
homelessness application with almost half of them advised to complete a general
housing application form. However, Outer London Borough E did fare slightly
better in links with other local authority departments and external agencies.
8.5.2 Priorities for improvement
As with Outer London Borough D, the immediate priority is to ensure that the local
authority starts complying with homelessness law. Homelessness prevention
practice in the borough appears to actively deter people who are in ‘priority
need’ from making a homelessness application. It is not clear whether or not this is
a deliberate policy. Once these issues are addressed Borough E should turn
attention to meeting good practice guidelines.

Mystery Shopping Report for Crisis, May 2009

42

9.

PERSONAL VISIT FINDINGS (including advice given)

The full findings are presented in this section to permit the reader to draw their
own conclusions and also to allow further analysis of the data. The scenarios are
as specified in the briefing provided to B.HUG conducting the research. Where
relevant B.HUG took on the roles of other people within the case studies, such as
the mother, a friend, a landlord, who the officers could telephone if necessary.
9.1

Young Person Male (Mystery Shopper 1)

The scenario for case study one is of an 18 year old man who is unemployed. This
young man has been made homeless following a relationship breakdown. Most
recently, he has been living at his mother’s home, the family home, a three
bedroom owner occupied house, which is over-crowded. He has been thrown out
of his mother’s home, and has spent the last few weeks living on a friend’s sofa,
but is no longer able to stay there. He has no income or savings; and is surviving
by borrowing money from his girlfriend and other friends.
The Mystery Shopper took the following documents with him: a Somali passport,
the address and telephone number of his family home a friends’ address and
telephone number.

Date
Start visit
Finish visit
Waiting time
main reception
Waiting time
housing office
Seen by

7
8

Inner
London
Borough A
27.3.2009
13.00 hrs
13.30 hrs
n/a7

Inner
London
Borough B
27.3.2009
15.00 hrs
15.13 hrs
n/a

5 minutes

< 15
20 minutes
minutes
Receptionist Unknown

Housing
officer

n/a = not applicable
n/s = not scored by Mystery Shopper

Mystery Shopping Report for Crisis, May 2009

43

Outer
London
Borough C
26.3.2009
14.00 hrs
14.30 hrs
n/s8

Outer
London
Borough D
31.3.2009
14.30 hrs
15.00 hrs
n/a

Outer
London
Borough E
3.4.2009
15.00 hrs
15.20 hrs
n/a

< 15
minutes
Housing
officer
(phone)

10 minutes
Housing
officer

9.1

Young Person Male (Mystery Shopper 1) continued.
Customer care /
Accessibility

Inner
London
Borough
A

There was a ticket
system. A housing officer
walked around asking
people if they needed
any advice.
MS was interviewed in
the waiting area where
there was no privacy.
Emergency out of hours
arrangements were not
visible.
The main reception was
well organised.

Inner
London
Borough
B

Advice given

The MS gave the officer the mother’s letter to
confirm his homelessness.

No toys or books were
available for children

The MS was given some information on what
benefits he can and should claim.

Emergency out of hours
arrangements were not
visible.

The MS was told by receptionist that he could not
see anyone without making an appointment and
that no more appointments could be made for
that day.
The MS tried to argue by explaining that he
needed somewhere to stay for the night. He was
44

Documentation
given
Guide to housing
registration system
and housing options
Housing coop Guide
to finding a place to
live
(photocopied flyer)

The MS stated that this was the first time someone
had explained the process to him. He was told
that the third part to the process would identify
whether he has a ‘priority need’. After the MS had
been through the assessment he was told that he
was not in ‘priority need’.

Drinks were available.

Mystery Shopping Report for Crisis, May 2009

The MS felt that the
officer was sensitive.

The MS was asked about his health and other
concerns.

The housing officer explained to the MS what he
could do for emergency accommodation and
that the council would not be able to give him
any help and that he would have to do it himself.

No toys or books were
available for children

Personal Impression

Flyer for Inner London
Borough A Under 25s
Advice Centre
Crisis Loan
information
(paperwork not
available)

The MS felt that staff
members were rude and
not sensitive at all.

None.

Customer care /
Accessibility

Advice given

Personal Impression

Documentation
given

told was that he would have to wait until 6pm and
then use the internal phones to speak to someone
who would advise him on night shelters.
No enquiries made to establish whether he was
homeless.
Vulnerability and ‘priority need’ were not
discussed.
No accommodation was offered.
No benefits advice was given.

Outer
London
Borough
C

Opening/closing times
were not visible.
Emergency out of hours
arrangements were not
visible
The main reception was
well organised.
No toys or books were
available for children
The MS felt that the
settings were
comfortable and there
was space to fill out

Mystery Shopping Report for Crisis, May 2009

The MS felt that the staff member was not sensitive
to the fact that he did not have his documents
and that he was not going to get any help.
The MS was told that he is not in ‘priority need’
and that the council could not do anything for
him and would treat him as any single male.
The MS explained that he had a letter from the
mother. He was told that this would not make a
difference because he was a young male.
The MS asked about temporary accommodation
and was told that ’the government cannot do
anything’ right now.
No benefits advice was given.

45

The MS felt that the
interview was very fast
lasting only 3 minutes.

Information on
housing advice
centre – Outer
London Borough C.
Flyer included info on
a skills project and
employment charity
but no contact
details. (photocopied
flyer)

Customer care /
Accessibility
forms.
No drinks were
available.

Advice given

Personal Impression

Documentation
given

The MS was told about a Rent Deposit Guarantee
Scheme.

The toilets were not
clean.

Outer
London
Borough
D

MS felt that the building
was nice.
The service was not
clearly signed.
Opening/closing times
were not visible.
Emergency out of hours
arrangements were not
visible.
No drinks were
available.

The MS explained his situation to the receptionist
who told him to use the telephone and call the
housing department inside the building.
The MS was told that there is an assessment
available but that he did not fit the criteria.
The MS was asked why he was homeless and
where he had been staying.
The MS was asked if he had any medical
problems and was then told that he was not a
priority. No explanation of ‘priority need’ was
given.
No accommodation was offered. The MS was told
about a charity in the neighbouring borough. He
was given their telephone number and told that
they deal with homelessness and that they might
give him a deposit to get into accommodation.
No benefits advice was given.

Mystery Shopping Report for Crisis, May 2009

46

MS felt that the
receptionist was nice.

Telephone number,
which MS had to
write down himself.

Customer care /
Accessibility
Outer
London
Borough
E

The service was not
clearly signed.
Emergency out of hours
arrangements were not
visible.
No drinks were
available.
No toys or books were
available for children

Advice given

The MS was not asked for documentation.
The MS filled in two forms (a council housing
association form and a monitoring form.) After
filling in the forms he was told that there was
nothing the council could do for him. The MS said
that he was homeless and wanted to see another
housing officer.
The MS was sent to take a ticket. After 2 minutes a
female housing officer came to see him and MS
was told that he was not in ‘priority need’. The MS
was given some information on benefits and on
ways of getting into accommodation.
The MS was asked how he became homeless and
the officer confirmed that he was homeless but
not in priority.
Vulnerability was not discussed.
No benefits advice was given

Mystery Shopping Report for Crisis, May 2009

47

Personal Impression

Documentation
given

The MS felt staff were
sensitive but not helpful.

Outer London
Borough E ‘Housing
Information Pack’,
Information pack on
homelessness
prevention and
housing options.

9.2

Young Person Female (Mystery Shopper 2)

The scenario for case study two is of a 17 year old woman, who is in good health.
This woman was forced to leave her family home following a relationship
breakdown when she complained about unwanted attention from her mother’s
partner. She is currently living on the sofas of friends. She has no income and is
surviving by borrowing money from friends.
The Mystery Shopper took the following documents with her: An expired passport
and the address and telephone number of her family home.
Inner
London
Borough A
Date
24.3.2009
Start visit
12.30 hrs
Finish visit
13.40 hrs
Waiting time
< 15
main reception minutes
Waiting time
35 minutes
housing office
Seen by
Receptionist

Mystery Shopping Report for Crisis, May 2009

Inner London
Borough B
27.3.2009
10.00 hrs
12.00 hrs
1-5 minutes
< 15 minutes
Receptionist

48

Outer
Outer
London
London
Borough C
Borough D
24.3.2009
26.3.2009
15.09 hrs
13.00 hrs
15.35 hrs
13.20 hrs
Immediately 5-10
minutes
5-10 minutes < 15
minutes
Unknown
Receptionist

Outer
London
Borough E
25.3.2009
13.15 hrs
13.50 hrs
n/a
5-10
minutes
Receptionist

9.2

Young Person Female (Mystery Shopper 2) continued.

Inner
London
Borough A

Customer care /
Accessibility

Advice given

Personal
Impression

Documentation
given

The MS was interviewed
in a booth, which felt
very private.

The MS was told that she needs to return with more
documentation. (Passport and proof of address/ bank
statement). MS did not show her passport.

The MS felt that
staff were not very
sensitive.

None given.

The service was clearly
signed.

The MS was asked where she stayed last night and why she
left home, and how long ago. No immediate decision was
made.

The MS felt she was
dealt with ‘like it
was just another
case’.

Opening/closing times
were clearly visible.
Emergency out of hours
arrangements were
visible.
Toys and books were
available for children
Drinks were available.

The MS was told that Social Services would need to be
involved.
The MS was told that she should go back to her mother or a
next of kin as her mother is her carer and is responsible for
her.
The MS told to find out when her mother would be available
for mediation to speak to Social Services.
No accommodation was offered.
There was no signposting.
Staff explained about Education Maintenance Allowance
from college.
There was no further discussion on unwanted attention from
her mother’s partner. No risk assessment took place.

Mystery Shopping Report for Crisis, May 2009

49

Inner
London
Borough B

Customer care /
Accessibility

Advice given

Personal
Impression

Documentation
given

The service seemed well
organised.

The receptionist wanted to put the MS on the system but
would have needed further proof of address (e.g. bank
statements, Mother’s bills, tenancy agreement). The MS was
told that only with further documentation they could
proceed with her case. MS was told that she needs to
come back with more proof of address for officer to put her
on system and to proceed with her case, e.g. bank
statements, mother household bills, Tenancy agreement.
MS told that she had to wait for 2½ hours until 3pm to see
Social Services.

The MS thought
staff members
were very sensitive
and very nice. The
MS felt that her
situation was
considered
seriously to an
extent.

Telephone
number for hostels.

The service was clearly
signed.
Opening/closing times
were clearly visible.
Emergency out of hours
arrangements were
visible.
There was no space for
forms to be filled in.
No drinks were available.

The MS was told that she would first have to see Social
Services. She was informed that Social Services would have
to mediate with her mother. MS was also told that she
should go to the police as her mother has no right to throw
her out. The MS was told that the police could accompany
her to her mother’s house if she was scared to go alone.
The MS was given the telephone number to National
Domestic Violence Helpline in case anything happened to
her over the weekend with relation to her mother’s partner.
The MS felt that the staff took time was talk to her and to
ask questions around the unwanted attention from the
mother’s partner. The officer told the MS that she would
speak to her mother. MS was told to report her mother’s
partner unwanted attention to the police.
No accommodation was offered. An emergency number
for accommodation for that night was offered. She was
told that she would have to call hostels for emergency
accommodation. This would have to be done during the
evening.
No benefits advice offered, MS only told to remain in
education as this will help her out in her home situation.

Mystery Shopping Report for Crisis, May 2009

50

The MS felt that the
officer was very
sympathetic to her
situation especially
regarding her
mother’s partner.

National Domestic
Violence Helpline
number.

Outer
London
Borough C

Customer care /
Accessibility

Advice given

Personal
Impression

Documentation
given

The MS felt the building
looked ‘trashy’…’like a
random car park’

The MS felt that the interview was rushed.

The MS felt the staff
were very sensitive.

Housing
application form.
(homeseekers’
register)

The MS observed a lot of
security guards.
Applicants were made
to stand up and officers
were seated.
The Homelessness
Reception was noisy.
Emergency out of hours
arrangements were not
visible.
Drinks were available.
Toys and books were
available for children

Outer
London
Borough D

The MS was asked if she had intentionally left home, ‘as if
she caused the problems herself’.
The MS explained the situation regarding the mother’s
partner.
The MS was told that the staff would contact Social Services
due to the MS’s reports of unwanted attention from the
mother’s partner. No risk assessment took place.
The MS was told only that a meeting with Social Services
would help. ‘Priority need’ was not explained.
The MS was told that involving Social Services was the only
way that anything would be done about her situation.
There was no signposting.
The MS was asked to complete a housing application form
which they would check on completion.
The MS was advised to go back to her mother and tell her
that if she throws her out then the rent will rise and she will
not receive child benefit. The MS did not present ID and
was told to come with ID. No explanation was given as to
what documentation was needed from her. She was
advised to return with her mother.

The service was clearly
signed.

The MS was told that she would need more ID in order to
get help, for example proof of address or bank statements.

Opening/closing times
were clearly visible.

The receptionist explained that a social worker would have
to get involved because of her age.

Mystery Shopping Report for Crisis, May 2009

(photocopied)

51

None given.

Customer care /
Accessibility

Emergency out of hours
arrangements were
visible.
The chairs were
uncomfortable.
Toys and books were
available for children
Drinks were available.

Advice given
The MS was told that a social worker would call her back
before 4pm. No one rang her back.

Personal
Impression

Documentation
given

MS felt her visit was
too brief

Housing
application form.

The receptionist explained that they would call the MS’s
‘mother’ to establish if she was homeless. The officer called
B.HUG and asked why it was not possible for the MS to stay
in the house. The ‘mother’ explained that MS made
allegations against her boyfriend which the mother does
not believe to be true. The ‘Mother’ was asked if MS could
return to the home and mother said ‘no’.
The MS was given blank lined A4 papers to write a
statement explaining her situation at home especially with
regards to her mother’s partner. The MS was not told what
this would be used for.
‘Priority need’ was not discussed.
No accommodation was offered.
The MS was told about Education Maintenance Allowance
for college.

Outer
London
Borough E

The chairs were
uncomfortable.
There was no space for
forms to be filled in.
Toys and books were
available for children

Mystery Shopping Report for Crisis, May 2009

The receptionist was not sensitive to fact that the MS’s
passport was out of date and she did not have all of the
required documentation e.g. a full passport, birth
certificate, medical card, letter from friend or relative.
The MS was told that Social Services would be required to
get involved. MS was told that someone from Social
Services would have to see her but that they were on a
break and that MS should come back at 3pm on the same
52

Information
request for
documentation
required.

Customer care /
Accessibility

Drinks were available.

Advice given
day or the next day with more information
The MS was given a Housing Application form to complete
and return.
The MS was also told that someone would call her back but
she did not receive a call.
No enquiries were made to establish whether the MS was
homeless. Staff offered to mediate with the MS’s mother.
The MS gave staff contact details of B.HUG. No call was
received.
There was no discussion about vulnerability or ‘priority
need’.
There was no signposting.
MS told staff about unwanted attention from mother’s
partner but no further discussion took place. No risk
assessment took place.

Mystery Shopping Report for Crisis, May 2009

53

Personal
Impression

Documentation
given

9.3

Male / Mental Health (Mystery Shopper 3)

The scenario for case study three is of a Male in his 40s. This man has had a mental
breakdown following the death of his mother; he is suffering from post traumatic
stress, depression and self neglect. The man has been made homeless because
he has been evicted unlawfully from the privately owned home he shared with his
recently deceased mother. Since then, he has been a rough sleeper, living and
sleeping in his car. The man receives no income or benefits.
The Mystery Shopper took the following documents with him: A payslip, a medical
card, his mother’s address and telephone number.

Date
Start visit
Finish visit
Waiting time
main reception
Waiting time
housing office
Seen by

Inner
London
Borough A
23.3.2009
11.50 hrs
13.15 hrs
n/a

Inner
London
Borough B
3.4.2009
12.00 hrs
13.30 hrs
n/s

Outer
London
Borough C
23.3.2009
10.44 hrs
11.17 hrs
< 5 minutes

Outer
London
Borough D
25.3.2009
11.40 hrs
11.55 hrs
< 5 minutes

Outer
London
Borough E
24.3.2009
13.40 hrs
13.55 hrs
n/a

< 15
minutes

1 hour

< 5 minutes

n/a

Receptionist

Receptionist

Housing
officer
(phone)

< 15
minutes

Housing
Options
Advisor

Mystery Shopping Report for Crisis, May 2009

54

Unknown

9.3

Male / Mental Health (Mystery Shopper 3) continued.

Inner
London
Borough
A

Customer care /
Accessibility

Advice given

Personal
Impression:

Documentation
given:

The service was
clearly signed.

In order to establish if the MS was homeless, the MS gave
officer the letter from the landlord, which was photocopied
and put on his file. Intentional homelessness was discussed
but dismissed when the MS told them his story. ‘Priority
need’ was explained.

The MS felt that his
case was handled
sensitively.

The MS picked up:

Opening/closing
times were clearly
visible.
There was a good
display of up to date
leaflets.
Toilets were locked
and needed to be
opened by a
security guard.
There were panic
alarms on the desks
in the interview
cubicles.

The MS thought that the officer picked up on his mental
health condition when he answered the health questions.
The officer spoke to her manager regarding the legality of
his eviction and he came to the MS and asked some
questions about his situation to get a full understanding. The
officer explained the law that the landlord should not have
thrown the MS out and that he should have been given
document serving notice for his eviction of two months.
The officer said that she was going to check out a way to
help the MS to get into a hostel (Pathway). The officer
asked the MS if he could put up with one more night on the
street and she was sure she could find him a place in a
hostel the next day. She said that although he did not have
high support needs he would be eligible due to the fact
that he had been sleeping rough since December.
The MS had to sign a declaration form to allow council to
check his details.
The MS was given an appointment for the next day at 4pm
and was asked to fill in the forms.

Mystery Shopping Report for Crisis, May 2009

55

The MS felt this was
one of the best
mystery shopping visits
he had done. He felt
very much supported
and that the staff
genuinely cared
about him as a
person.

Information for
homeless people
about bed and
breakfast hostels.
A print out of
Inner London
Borough A
Council Homes.
Housing option
advisor’s business
card.

Inner
London
Borough
B

Customer care /
Accessibility

Advice given

Personal
Impression:

Documentation
given:

Feedback form not
returned.

The MS walked in and was given a ticket and told he would
have to wait for one hour. When he was seen he was told
there were no appointments available until May. The
reason given for this was that he is not priority because he
does not have children.

The MS feels his case
was not considered
seriously.

Shelter details.

The MS was told that there was no point in arranging an
appointment but was told to come back on Monday
morning at 8am to see if they could give MS emergency
accommodation for a few days. The MS was not told how it
would work and why he needed to come early.

The receptionist’s
general demeanour
and her short answers
gave the MS the
impression that she
‘was not bothered’.

No enquiries were made to establish if the MS was
homeless. The MS was advised to find someone he could
stay with. The MS showed the receptionist the letter from the
landlord but she replied that there is nothing she could do.
The MS explained about his depression but he was asked no
further questions and no health assessment was made.
The MS was given a list of hostels. The MS was also given
Shelter website and was told to go to the library to use the
internet and get a hostel place.
The receptionist did not log the MS onto the system and he
did not fill in a form.

Outer
London
Borough
C

The service was
clearly signed.
There was a good
display of up to date
leaflets.

Receptionist made enquiries to the MS’s homelessness by
asking relevant questions to establish for example, reasons
why he was homeless and where he was staying now.
Intentional homelessness was ruled out when the MS told
them his story.
The MS was asked ‘if there was anything wrong with him’

Mystery Shopping Report for Crisis, May 2009

56

The MS felt that staff
were helpful and nice.

Information on
housing advice
centre – Outer
London Borough
C.

Customer care /
Accessibility
The chairs were
uncomfortable.

Advice given
and he explained the depression following the mother’s
death. There was no further discussion of his mental health.

Personal
Impression:

‘Priority need’ was explained and the MS was told that he is
not in ‘priority need’.
The MS was told to fill in the homeseekers’ form and to take
it back to the housing office.
The MS was signposted to a local Housing Advice service.

Outer
London
Borough
D

The service was not
clearly signed
Opening/closing
times were not
visible.
Emergency out of
hours arrangements
were not visible.
,
There was no water
available.
Toys and books were
available for children

The MS felt that the receptionist did not want to speak to
him. He was asked straight away to speak to someone on
the internal phone. The MS was given an internal no which
was wrong and he was transferred to the right department.
The MS does not feel his problem was considered seriously.
The MS was told to go to an Outer London Borough D
Housing Association but that he would have problems there
as well because he does not have ID. MS was not given any
documents on the Outer London Borough D Housing
Association.
The MS feels that adequate time was taken to talk to him
on the phone by an officer. When the MS said that he did
not have any ID the officer suggested going to the Police
station as they could force entry to the premises for him to
get his documents.
In order to establish if the MS was homeless, the officer
asked for the ‘landlady’s’ telephone number. The officer
left three messages on the phone of B.HUG.
At first the officer left two messages asking the ‘landlady’ to

Mystery Shopping Report for Crisis, May 2009

57

Documentation
given:

Flyer included info
on a skills project
and an
employment
charity but no
contact details.
(photocopied
flyer)
Outer London
Borough C
Homeseekers’
Register

The MS felt if he
approached Outer
London Borough D
Council he would like
to speak to someone
face to face.
The MS was
disappointed that he
did not get to see
anyone in person but
felt that he got a fair
amount of help.

None given.

Customer care /
Accessibility

Advice given
call the office. Then he left a message for the landlady
asking her to call the MS and confirm with him that he can
pick up his belongings.
B.HUG (Landlady) then called the officer, who asked the
landlady to grant the MS access to get his paperwork. The
next day (Thursday), the Officer called the landlady again
to ask her to call the MS to grant him access to pick up his
belongings and the landlady said ‘yes’ she will give the MS
a call.
The officer went on to call the MS to check whether he was
alright; to let him know that he had left numerous messages
on landlady’s phone, and to ask if the landlady had been
in touch with him.
The officer explained that even if he has not got the
tenancy agreement in his name, the landlady should not
have thrown him out but should have got a court order.
The MS was asked if he had any ‘illnesses’. Questions to
establish whether the MS was vulnerable were asked over
the phone. An explanation of ‘priority need’ was given.
The MS suggested he go to Crisis in Central London but the
officer told MS that he would stand a better chance in
Outer London Borough D.

Mystery Shopping Report for Crisis, May 2009

58

Personal
Impression:

Documentation
given:

Outer
London
Borough
E

Customer care /
Accessibility

Advice given

The service was
clearly signed.

When the MS explained his situation and said that he was
single the staff member replied that no council in London
had an obligation to house him.

Opening/closing
times were clearly
visible.
Emergency out of
hours arrangements
were not visible.
The chairs were
uncomfortable.

Personal
Impression:

The MS did not feel that his case was considered seriously.
He was given a list of hostels to make phone calls to and
was told to come back the next day at 8.30 a.m.
No enquiries were made to establish whether the MS was
homeless.
No health questions were asked even though the MS
brought up the issue of his depression.

There was a good No explanation on ‘priority need’ was given.
display of up to date
leaflets.
The MS was given a number of forms to fill in and return.

Mystery Shopping Report for Crisis, May 2009

59

Documentation
given:
Single homeless
questionnaire.
Housing
application form.
Housing
information pack.
Direct access
hostel list
(some London
councils, and an
outer London
borough)

9.4

Female / Mental Health (Mystery Shopper 4)

The scenario for case study four is of a woman in her 30’s, vulnerable due to mild
learning difficulties. This woman had been living in squats and at friends’ houses,
and had recently been thrown out of the house of a friend. Previously she had to
leave her family home as she had become involved in drugs and prostitution.
Although she had been claiming benefits, her chaotic lifestyle meant that she no
longer claimed this money.
The Mystery Shopper took the following documents with her: A driving license and
a friend’s address and telephone number.

Date
Start visit
Finish visit
Waiting time
main reception
Waiting time
housing office
Seen by

Inner
London
Borough A
26.3.2009
10.30 hrs
11.00 hrs
n/a

Inner
London
Borough B
24.3.2009
9.10 hrs
10.55 hrs
n/a

20 minutes

1 hour 45
minutes
Reception
/ Customer
Service
Liaison

Unknown

Mystery Shopping Report for Crisis, May 2009

60

Outer
London
Borough C
27.3.2009
10.25 hrs
11.20 hrs
< 15
minutes
45 minutes
Unknown

Outer London
Borough D
23.3.2009
13.50 hrs
15.30 hrs
Immediate
5 and 20
minutes
Housing
Options /
homelessness
Officer

Outer
London
Borough E
25.3.2009
12.50 hrs
12.55 hrs
n/a
< 15 minutes
Receptionist

9.4

Female / Mental Health (Mystery Shopper 4) continued

Inner
London
Borough
A

Inner
London
Borough
B

Customer care /
Accessibility

Advice given

Personal
Comments

Documents
given

There was a ticket
system.

The MS felt that her enquiry was considered seriously.
An explanation of ‘priority need’ given.

The MS felt her enquiry
was dealt with in a
sensitive manner.

The MS was told that nothing could be done until she brought
in further ID, for example, proof of benefit, a letter regarding
her medical situation for last 6 months, and a bank statement

Felt that she was
treated well and was
not judged.

Handwritten
reminder to bring;
proof of benefit,
bank, ID
(written on the
back of an old fax
template)

The MS was told that another assessment officer would call her
to arrange an appointment for which she should bring her
further ID. The MS did not receive a call.

The MS felt more
comfortable being
interviewed in the
private area than in
the open desk system.

The MS went to the reception and was told she had to make
internal phone call to arrange an appointment. The officer
said on the phone that at the appointment they would assess
her case and agree what her options are and what to do
about her situation. The MS was told she could see them on
20th April (4 weeks’ time) but the MS persisted and found out
that they do have emergency appointments. The MS was told
to get a ticket and wait for another officer.

The MS felt there was
a noticeable
difference in her
treatment by different
staff members.

There was a private
interview area with 4
adjacent areas.

It was a new, custom
built and designed
office.
There was a long
wait (1¾ hours)

The MS was told that it was too late to get an emergency
appointment as they only have 5 per day. The MS was told
that if they went to the Town Hall at 5.45pm and used their
phone to call the council emergency out of hours number
which the MS was given that she would be able to get
somewhere to stay for the night and then she could return
early the next day. The MS said she had only a little ID but was
Mystery Shopping Report for Crisis, May 2009

61

She described the first
receptionist as curt,
unsmiling and
unfriendly.
The officer who
answered the internal
phone and the other
receptionist were
pleasant, very

Advice
information leaflet
about housing
needs and options
(21 pages)
(A4 photocopied)

Customer care /
Accessibility

Advice given
told this was sufficient.
No advice was given verbally but there was substantial and
detailed signposting information in the pack given. ‘Priority
need’ and vulnerability were not discussed. No enquiries were
made to establish whether the MS was homeless.

Outer
London
Borough
C

A family room was
provided. There was
an open plan office
system with dividers
A ticketing system
divided enquiries into
cashiers /
homeseekers /
children’s services /
housing benefit and
council tax. Outer
London Borough C
homes had screens
showing numbers.
The homelessness
reception was noisy.
There were some
private rooms.

The MS thought staff member was very pleasant and handled
her case in a sensitive manner.
The MS felt that the staff member was happy to accept her as
being homeless on the basis of the letter she showed him.
The MS was asked standard health questions to establish
whether she was vulnerable. Although no further discussion or
assessments were made. The MS was told that if she wanted to
come back she needed to provide more medical supporting
documents to cover the past 6 months.
The MS was told to go to a local voluntary agency which
specialises in single homelessness; although no contact details
were given. The MS was told she could also return to the
housing office but that it would take longer to get help there.
Some explanation of ‘priority need’ was given.

The building was old
and basic but neat
and functional, very
straight forward and
fairly welcoming.
Mystery Shopping Report for Crisis, May 2009

62

Personal
Comments

Documents
given

The MS found the staff
friendly and
amenable.

None given.

sympathetic and
helpful.

There was a big
selection of leaflet
s (36) though all
were behind large
glass frames and
on notice boards.
There was an 'italk' - system which
answers some
basic housing
questions in a
variety of
languages such as
Somali, Farsi

Outer
London
Borough
D

Customer care /
Accessibility

Advice given

Personal
Comments

Documents
given

The service was
clearly signed.

At the main reception the MS was told to use the internal
phone to speak to someone regarding her homelessness. A
Housing Options officer came to see her and they had a brief
interview in a meeting room to ascertain her needs.

The MS felt that the
Homelessness officer
was unsympathetic
and insensitive to her
background and past.

Appointment letter
which lists which
documents to
bring (no specific
documents
indicated) and no
date for an
appointment
given

Drinking water was
only available in the
toilets.
There were some
children’s facilities.
There were not many
chairs.

The officer was quite ‘snotty’ when he came to see the MS
and realised that she had not filled in a ‘register/declaration
form’, saying that ‘he’d waited longer to see her to give her
time to fill it in’.
The MS was not offered help filling in this form despite her mild
learning disability. The MS was then questioned by another
officer who, she felt, asked her unimportant details as if to
catch her out.
This officer photocopied her driving licence.
The MS was told to return with the correct documentation,
including 6 months of bank statements.
The MS was constantly asked ‘Why should Outer London
Borough D have a duty to house you?’ and told that she might
be placed in an adjacent borough. This was despite her
having lived in the borough for over six months.
The MS was told that if she did not return by Wednesday to
meet the medical assessor then she would have to wait until
the following Tuesday. An appointment letter was given to the
MS but no appointment was made.

Mystery Shopping Report for Crisis, May 2009

63

She felt that the
officer was more
concerned about
where she had lived
over the last three
years than the fact
that she had been
sleeping rough and
had mental health
issues.
The MS felt the
interview was
conducted like an
interrogation with the
officer “cross
questioning” her and
repeating everything
she said.
The MS felt that the
declaration forms
were oppressive and
over complex.

Outer
London
Borough
E

Customer care /
Accessibility

Advice given

Personal
Comments

Documents
given

The service was
clearly signed.

The MS explained her situation but was not asked any further
questions.

The MS felt that the
receptionist was very
matter of fact and to
the point and asked
only a few questions.
She felt that it was a
basic and
unsympathetic
approach given that
she had explained
that she has been
sleeping rough.

Housing
application form.

The MS was told that she needed to bring her passport and or
birth certificate. The MS explained why she did not have it and
told them that she has a medical card and driver’s licence
but the receptionist insisted that a full birth certificate and
passport were needed. MS was only asked her address – no
further enquiries about local links were made
The MS was told to come back at 8am the next morning in
order to queue up for the chance of getting one of 5 to 7
emergency appointments. She was told the office opens at
8.45am.
No other advice or signposting was given.
The MS was advised to get back onto income support.
There was no explanation of ‘priority need’ and no assessment
to see if the MS was vulnerable. The MS tried to talk about her
mental health issues but this was not discussed in detail

Mystery Shopping Report for Crisis, May 2009

64

The MS noted that the
receptionist did not
smile.

Disability / health
questionnaire.
Single homeless
questionnaire.
Information
request with
required
documents ticked
(full birth
certificate,
driver’s licence,
medical card,
letter from friend
where she is
staying as proof of
homelessness,
passports for all
members of the
household (single
person), evidence
of DCC claim,
bank book).
(2 page sheet)

9.5

Pregnant / Immigrant / Little English Language (Mystery Shopper 5)

The scenario for case study five is of a pregnant woman who is a refugee, with
very little language ability in English in her mid thirties. This woman has been
staying with friends, but now needs to leave their privately rented house. In this
case study, the woman does have recourse to public funds, she works part-time
as a cleaner, and earns too little to afford to secure and pay for rental on her own
accommodation.
The Mystery Shopper took the following documents with her: A pay slip, Passport,
friends’ address and telephone number, no proof of pregnancy, left pregnancy
papers at home.

Date
Start visit
Finish visit
Waiting time
main reception
Waiting time
housing office
Seen by

Inner
London
Borough A
26.3.2009
14.30 hrs
15.30 hrs
n/a

Inner
London
Borough B
25.3.2009
11.00 hrs
13.04 hrs
1-5 minutes

5 minutes
Unknown

Mystery Shopping Report for Crisis, May 2009

Outer
London
Borough D
26.3.2009
10.30 hrs
11.50 hrs
15 minutes

Outer
London
Borough E
24.3.2009
11.00 hrs
11.55 hrs
n/a

2 hours

Outer
London
Borough C
23.3.2009
10.34 hrs
11.53 hrs
1 hour 20
minutes
1 hour

30 minutes

40 minutes

Unknown

Unknown

Housing
officer

Unknown

65

9.5

Pregnant / Immigrant / Little English Language (Mystery Shopper 5) continued.

Inner
London
Borough
A

Customer care
/ Accessibility

Advice given

Interpreting
Services

Personal
Comments

Documents
given

The service was
clearly signed.

The MS felt that the officer did not handle her case in a
sensitive manner as the MS was told she needed more
proof of living in the borough and that before she has an
interview she must have all the required documents: a
letter from friend signed and dated; proof of tenancy
agreement; proof of pregnancy and bank statements from
September 08.

The MS was
interviewed by a
female staff
member.

The MS felt the
situation was
considered
seriously.

Handwritten
request of
required
documents

The staff arranged
for an interpreter
over the phone.

The MS noted that
she was not given
any information
on private rented
accommodation.

(Signed letter
of exclusion
from friend
with local
connections,
proof of
pregnancy,
bank
statements,
and pay slips,
anything that
proves she
has lived in
the Borough
for 6 months).

Opening/closing
times were
clearly visible.
Emergency out of
hours
arrangements
were clearly
visible.
There were a
variety of up to
date leaflets, but
none in foreign
languages.
No toys or books
were available
for children

Inner
London
Borough
B

The service was
clearly signed.
Opening/closing
times were
clearly visible.
There were no

The staff member did offer to assist the MS when she
returned with more paperwork.
Aside from talking about the pregnancy, there was no
further discussion on vulnerability or ‘priority need’. No
information on benefits or housing options was given.

She felt that the
staff member was
patient and took
time to explain the
next step.

The staff member called B.HUG (the MS’s ‘friend’) and left
message to get the landlord’s contact details from the
‘friend’ so that they could clarify the ‘friend’s
circumstances.
All the staff’s names are on the staff member board and
this is how the MS found out the staff member’s name.

The MS was told to bring proof of pregnancy (a letter from
a GP or a midwife). The MS showed the staff member a
friend’s letter regarding her homelessness and was told that
it needed to have more explanation about the friend’s
accommodation and tenancy agreement and why MS
could not stay there any longer and is being made
homeless.

Mystery Shopping Report for Crisis, May 2009

66

(A5 page)

The MS was asked
what language
she speaks but
when MS asked
for an interpreter
she was told that
this was not
possible today but

Appointment
letter.

Customer care
/ Accessibility
children’s
facilities.

There were a
variety of up to
date leaflets, but
none in foreign
languages.

Advice given
The MS showed the staff member her payslip and was told
that she needed 6 months’ payslips or a medical card from
the borough.
The MS was told to come back on the 23rd April, 4 weeks
later, with her documentation. She was told that there
would be more discussion about her circumstances and
further information to help at the appointment.

Interpreting
Services

that they would
arrange someone
for her
appointment.

Personal
Comments

Documents
given

The MS felt that it
was very busy and
a lot of people
were waiting. The
interview with the
officer was very
short.

Letter of
documents
required for a
homeless
application.

No other enquiries regarding vulnerability were made.
‘Priority need’ was not explained. No housing options were
discussed.

Outer
London
Borough
C

The service was
clearly signed.
Opening/closing
times were
clearly visible
The reception
area was noisy.
No interpreting
services were
advertised.
There were some
children’s
facilities.
There were a
variety of up to
date leaflets, but
none in foreign
languages.

The MS’s details were logged onto the system and her
passport was photocopied.
The MS feels her situation was considered seriously but she
was told that they needed evidence like proof of
pregnancy and her friends’ tenancy agreement. MS
showed the staff member the friend’s letter but was told
that she needs to provide their tenancy agreement.
The MS was told that they would offer her somewhere if she
brought in the evidence the next day.
The staff member checked the passport and told the MS to
bring it with her when she came back tomorrow. The staff
member did not explain what would happen at the
appointment.
Aside from talking about the pregnancy, there was no
further discussion on vulnerability or ‘priority need’. No
information on benefits or housing advice was given and
there was no signposting.

Mystery Shopping Report for Crisis, May 2009

67

The MS was told
that an interpreter
could be
arranged for her
for the same day
at 3pm. The MS
declined and
carried on with
the interview.

The MS
commented that
the staff member
was very nice but
was rushing.
The MS was
disappointed that
she did not get
any of the
information that
her case needed,
for example,
about refugee
service, or night
shelters.

Outer
London
Borough
D

Customer care
/ Accessibility

Advice given

Interpreting
Services

Personal
Comments

Documents
given

The service was
clearly signed.

The MS spoke to an officer on the phone who told her to
wait and he would send a colleague down to interview
her.

The MS was not
offered an
interpreter. When
she asked for an
interpreter she
was told that they
had to check her
situation first and
she needed to
wait. The
receptionist told
her she had to
come back with
someone that
could explain her
situation and
interpret and that
she could only
help if that was
not possible.

The MS felt that
the receptionist
was very impolite
and described her
as ‘nasty’ towards
her. She feels that
she did not get
any help from her.

None given

Opening/closing
times were
clearly visible
The MS was given
a private
interview.
The toilets were
locked and had
to be opened by
a security guard.
No water was
available.
There were a
variety of up to
date leaflets, but
none in foreign
languages.

MS was told that officer would copy her letter, passport
and first speak with MS’s friend to ask where she sleeps. MS
was asked about the father of the baby but there was no
further discussion when MS told her that there is no
relationship.
The MS felt her problem was seriously considered. She
overheard the officers saying that they would talk to MS’s
friend, that they can go to the house and find out how MS
is living and if she has her own bedroom. MS was asked
how long she had lived in the area and told that that was
very important. Officers also wanted to know if her friend
had proof of living in the borough.
The MS was told to get proof of pregnancy and return. No
other enquiries regarding vulnerability made. ‘Priority need’
was not explained. Housing options, benefits and specialist
support were not discussed and there was no signposting.
The MS was told to fill in the housing application form and
bring it back. The MS was told they would confirm the
situation with her friend first and then decide.
As the application form was in English, MS was asked if her
friend could help her filling it in. Note: For someone with
little English it would be difficult to fill in such a form. There is
a telephone number inside the form which applicant with
disabilities or limited English are asked to call for assistance.
Officers called B.HUG (MS friend) and left two messages ‘Friend was told to return the call as the officer would like
to come to the house today concerning MS.’

Mystery Shopping Report for Crisis, May 2009

68

The MS told
receptionist that
she cannot speak
English very well
but was told to
call an internal
number and tell
them that she was
homeless.

Outer
London
Borough
E

Customer care
/ Accessibility

Advice given

Interpreting
Services

Personal
Comments

Documents
given

The service was
clearly signed.

The MS was asked to prove her pregnancy and told that if
she could bring the GP’s letter on the same day then they
could look at her situation there and then. The MS was told
that if people come in and say that they are pregnant it
does not make any difference as they have to bring in
proof.

The MS asked for
an interpreter and
said that she was
pregnant and
homeless but was
told that it made
no difference if
she was homeless
or sleeping rough;
they would need
proof of
pregnancy before
they could go
further.

The MS felt that
her case was not
handled in a
sensitive manner.
She felt it ‘was
rushed, like being
kicked out’.

None given.

Opening/closing
times were
clearly visible
There were no
children’s
facilities.
There were a
variety of up to
date leaflets, but
none in foreign
languages.

The staff member made no enquiries regarding her
homelessness. The MS showed her the friend’s letter but the
staff member did not look at it and just said that she
needed proof of pregnancy and that the letter did not
prove that the MS was homeless.
No other enquiries regarding vulnerability were made and
‘priority need’ was not explained. Housing options were not
discussed.
No benefits advice or other support was given. There was
no signposting. The staff member did not ask the MS her
name; check her passport or immigration status.

Mystery Shopping Report for Crisis, May 2009

69

The staff member
ended interview
impolitely.

9.6

EU/A8 Citizen / Immigrant / Little English Language (Mystery Shopper 6)

The scenario for case study six is of a man in his 30s, an A8 national from Latvia
who has been in the UK for 4 years. This man has been sleeping on the streets for 1
year. He is homeless due to unemployment, after losing his job in the construction
industry. His previous accommodation was in the private rented sector, and he
has no current income and no savings. Although he has recourse to public funds,
he is not claiming these as he is not aware of his rights. He has little command of
the English language.
The Mystery Shopper took the following documents with him: A passport, a pay slip
and a friend’s address and telephone number

Inner London
Borough A
Date
Start visit
Finish visit
Waiting time
main
reception
Waiting time
housing
office
Seen by

23.03.09
13.28 hrs
14.52 hrs
n/a

Inner
London
Borough B
24.03.09
11.45 hrs
12.45 hrs
14 minutes

Outer
London
Borough C
24.03.09
10.00 hrs
10.30 hrs
< 15 minutes

Outer
London
Borough D
26. 03 09
10.25 hrs
11.30 hrs
n/a

Outer
London
Borough E
23.03.09
9.50 hrs
11.25 hrs
n/a

30 minutes

10 minutes

< 15 minutes

30 minutes

1hr

Receptionist
and assistant
receptionist

Unknown

Unknown

Housing
officer

Name
given, no
job title.
Phone
Interpreter

Mystery Shopping Report for Crisis, May 2009

70

9.6

EU/A8 Citizen / Immigrant / Little English Language (Mystery Shopper 6) Continued

Inner
London
Borough
A

Customer care /
Accessibility

Advice given

Interpreting
Services

Personal
Comments

Documents given

The offices were difficult
to find.

The MS was told to seek assistance
from other agencies that could help
him with benefits.

Interpreting service
was advertised and
available on the
telephone.

The MS noticed that
a security officer in
the reception area
was using ‘bad
language’.

Printed details of
the local Citizens
Advice Bureau
(CAB) and a local
Community Law
Centre.

Opening/closing times
or emergency out of
hours arrangements
were not visible.
There was rubbish left on
the chairs and floor.
Main reception well
organised. Homelessness
reception was noisy.
The member of staff told
the MS their name. Staff
wore name badges.

When the staff member made
enquires to establish if the MS was
homeless she said that she didn’t
believe the MS as he did not have
enough information and she had to
go to another member of staff, a
manager, for assistance.
The staff member said that she was
not able to advise the MS right now
because she didn’t have enough
information about him, even though
the MS showed her his passport.

The setting was
comfortable but without
space to fill forms.
Drinking water was
available. The toilets
were not clean.
There were no toys or
books available for
children.

Mystery Shopping Report for Crisis, May 2009

71

The MS was offered
the assistance of an
interpreter by
telephone.
Leaflets and
information were
available in other
languages and
formats if
requested.
Computers were
available in
different languages
but not print outs.

The MS felt that
things were not
explained clearly.
The MS used his
initiative to use the
computers to get
information.

Information about
council homes
The MS picked up
documents, with
information on
information:
Bed & breakfast
hotels
Housing options &
advice services
Housing options

Inner
London
Borough
B

Customer care /
Accessibility

Advice given

Interpreting
Services

Personal
Comments

Documents given

Opening/closing times
are clearly stated, but
no emergency, out of
hours arrangements are
advertised.

The MS was told that he is not ‘priority
need’.

The MS felt that his
case was handled
in a very sensitive
and timely manner.

Various leaflets for
example, about
ESOL training

Main reception area
clean, fresh smelling and
well organised but noisy.

The MS was given a complement slip
on which the member of staff wrote
the time (6pm) when the MS should
come back to make the telephone
call for emergency accommodation.
The member of staff wrote down
what MS should say when he makes
the telephone call tonight.” Please, I
have nowhere to stay tonight, can
you please help me”.

Leaflets /
information are
available in other
languages and
formats if requested
(but not in the MS’s
native language –
Latvian/ Russian).

Plasma TV screens and
posters showing
information/ advice and
options for people
Lots of leaflets/
information available.

The MS was advised about hostels,
night shelters and day centres

The member of staff
gave his name and job
title and wore a name
badge.

The MS was also told that if he did not
get into emergency accommodation
that night that the MS should come
back the next morning very early
before 8 a.m.

Very comfortable
settings with space to fill
in forms.

The MS was told that he could stay in
the building until 6pm to make the
telephone call.

Private interview room
available.

MS asked for
interpreter and was
told he could speak
to someone on the
phone.
The member of staff
spoke to MS very
slowly and clearly
and listened very
closely so an
interpreter was not
required.
The staff member
was very upset that
information was not
available in MS
native language
Latvian/ Russian.

No Drinking water
available.
No toys/books available
for children.
Mystery Shopping Report for Crisis, May 2009

Interpreting services
were not
advertised.

72

Information leaflet
on single
homelessness
housing options in
the borough.
Advice and
information pack
e.g. hostels, advice
and day centres,
etc
(large document)
Housing benefit
and council tax
benefit form

Outer
London
Borough
C

Customer care /
Accessibility

Advice given

Interpreting
Services

Personal
Comments

Documents given

The MS needed help to
find the homeless
people unit inside the
building.

The MS was told to go to a daycentre

The MS was not
offered interpreter
assistance.

The visit was very
quick. The MS was
told to go
somewhere else,
where they will try
to help him.

Information from a
local charity about
day centres.

Opening/closing times
or emergency out of
hours arrangements
were not visible.
Reception area clean,
fresh smelling, tidy and
well organised.

The MS was told that he is not priority
and that he will have to look for a job.
The MS was told to go to the job
centre to get job seekers allowance
benefit and that he must be a worker
to get housing benefit. This
information was also written down for
him on the document given to him.

No leaflets to pick up
and take away as
information is placed
behind a glassed notice
board.

Information was
available in other
languages and
formats if
requested.

The MS felt that
there was too many
security personnel
and CCTV cameras
The MS felt it would
be difficult for a
wheelchair user to
move inside the
building
The MS felt that staff
was not sensitive.

The member of staff did
not tell the MS their
name or job title.
Comfortable settings but
no space to fill out forms.
Drinking water available.
No toys/books available
for children.

Mystery Shopping Report for Crisis, May 2009

Interpreting services
was not visible.

73

A list of Day centres
with opening times
and services.

Outer
London
Borough
D

Customer care /
Accessibility

Advice given

Interpreting
Services

Personal
Comments

Documents given

Offices not clearly
signed and confusing to
find.

The MS was told to go to the housing
advice surgery and the hostel search
drop-in services and was given a print
out with its directions on and told that
is not too far from the building.

Information was not
available in
different
languages.

The MS felt that the
member of staff
was negative by his
body language
and the way he
talked to him.

Print out of
directions to the
housing advice
surgery and the
hostel search dropin services

The MS spoke to
someone on the
phone who
arranged to meet
him in the waiting
area, but the MS
waited half an hour
before calling
again to which the
staff member said
that they had
come down looking
for him.
Arrangements were
then made to meet
in the reception
area.

Details for a local
homelessness
charity

Opening/closing times
or emergency out of
hours arrangements
were not visible.
The reception was clean
but very noisy.
The leaflets displayed
and up to date. Lots of
leaflets available not
only on homelessness.
The member of staff did
not give their name or
title and did not wear a
name badge.
Comfortable settings
and space provided to
fill in forms.
Interview / private
interview room
available.
Toilets were not clean

The MS told a member of staff that he
had lost all his documents and was
just living on the streets with his
passport , but he was still given an
appointment to come back on 6th
April 2009 (over a week away) and
was given a ticked list of documents
which he needed to bring in:
Home Office statement
Particulars of claim/
summons/possession orders/bailiffs
warrants
Six months pay slips
Proof of length of residence in
borough
Six months’ bank statements.
Addresses that the MS has lived in
during the past five years.

No toys/books available
for children

Mystery Shopping Report for Crisis, May 2009

74

The MS asked twice
for an interpreter
and was ignored by
staff.
The MS was not
asked by members
of staff what
language he spoke
when booking the
appointment.

Appointment letter
Form for addresses
lived in during the
past five years
The MS picked up
the following
documents/
information:
If you think our
decision is wrong
(DWP document).
Customer
information- which
includes the line:
“Interpreters can be
arranged when you
visit or speak to us”.

Outer
London
Borough
E

Customer care /
Accessibility

Advice given

Interpreting
Services

Personal
Comments

Documents given

Opening/closing times
are clearly stated, but
no emergency, out of
hours arrangements are
advertised.

The MS was told to come back the
next morning, but waited over an
hour for interview.

Information was not
available in
different
languages.

The MS got name of
interpreter when
member of staff
repeated/said his
name on the
phone

Some useful names
and addresses for:

Main reception area
clean, fresh smelling and
well organised.
The member of staff did
not give their name, job
title and did not wear a
name badge.
Very comfortable
settings but no space to
fill out forms.
Plasma TV screens
available.
Private interview rooms
available.

The MS was given contact details for
shelters and Hostels.
The MS was asked if he previously
worked and if he paid National
Insurance because if he didn’t he
would not be entitled to anything.
The MS explained that he was living
on the streets and the staff member
explained that they could not help
him because the MS could not
explain his previous address.
The MS was told to sign on at Job
Centre and that the MS needed to
explain his past income.

Vending machine
available but no drinking
water.
No toys/books available
for children

Mystery Shopping Report for Crisis, May 2009

75

Interpreting services
was advertised.
Staff member
realised that the MS
needed an
interpreter and then
made call on
landline and MS
spoke to for an
interpreter.
Staff member asked
the MS if he could
speak Russian.

The MS felt that the
interview was
rushed.
The MS felt that
plasma screens
should show advice
and information on
homeless services,
also in different
languages, instead
of regular TV
programmes.

A day centre
A night shelter
A direct access
hostel list

9.7

Domestic Violence (Mystery Shopper 7)

The scenario for case study seven is of a woman in her 20s.
This woman is
homeless because she has left the flat that she shared with her husband due to his
violence and drink problem. After his last attack on her, she was hospitalised. On
being discharged she moved into her sister’s house, which is now overcrowded.
She feels very unsafe as her husband has come round to her sister’s house and
now knows where she is staying. She cannot go back to live with her husband or
her sister. During this time, the woman has had a high level of absence at work.
She comes from outside the borough and she has not changed her GP.
The Mystery Shopper took the following documents with her: A passport, a pay slip
and a friend’s address and telephone number, the address of the shared flat with
the husband and the address of the police station. .

Date
Start visit
Finish visit
Waiting time
main reception
Waiting time
housing office
Seen by

Inner
London
Borough A
30.3.2009
13.02 hrs
14.30 hrs
n/a

Inner
London
Borough B
2.4.2009
13.55 hrs
14.05 hrs
n/a

Outer
London
Borough C
1.4.2009
13.00 hrs
16.25 hrs
n/a

Outer
London
Borough D
8.4.2009
14.10 hrs
14.45 hrs
n/a

Outer
London
Borough E
03.04.09
14.00 hrs
14.30 hrs
n/a

30 minutes

2 minutes

5 minutes

15 minutes

Name
given but
no job title

Male
housing
officer

3 hrs and 30
minutes
Housing
officer

Homeless
team
(phone
duty Line)

Receptionist

Mystery Shopping Report for Crisis, May 2009

76

9.7

Domestic Violence (Mystery Shopper 7) continued.

Inner
London
Borough
A

Customer care /
Accessibility

Advice given

Personal
Comments

Documents
given

Clearly signed.
Opening/closing
times are not
clearly stated,
emergency, out of
hours
arrangements are
not advertised.

The MS felt that she was not questioned in a sensitive way as there
were two officers present – one who conducted the interview and
the other one was sitting with her. The MS was not told why there
were two officers present.

The MS felt she was
rushed and the
interview was just to
the point (e.g. what
documents to bring
in)

None given.

Homelessness
Reception noisy.
Good display of
up to date leaflets.
No space for forms
to be filled in.

The MS was told that she would have to bring in police crime
reference numbers and hospital letter as proof of her domestic
violence situation before they can do anything. The MS was told
that once she brings her documents she could be classified as
vulnerable.
The MS kept repeating herself and her story but the officer did not
write any of her details down.

The member of
staff wore a name
badge.

Despite the MS insisting that she felt unsafe the officer did not seem
to care, officer gave no advice or signposting. Officer also
encouraged the MS to stay with the sister. The MS told to bring a
letter from her sister to prove that she lives in Inner London Borough
A. Officer explained because of the domestic violence the MS
could go to any borough and get help.

Uncomfortable
chairs.

There was no signposting. The MS picked up some leaflets on
domestic violence herself.

No drinks available
No toys/books
available for
children.

Mystery Shopping Report for Crisis, May 2009

77

Inner
London
Borough
B

Customer care /
Accessibility

Advice given

Personal
Comments

Documents
given

Clearly signed.
Opening/closing
times are clearly
stated,
emergency, out of
hours
arrangements are
not advertised.

The MS asked for a female member of staff but as one was offered
she agreed to see a male officer. The officer first said no and when
the receptionist told him that it was a domestic violence case he
said yes.

MS felt as if the officer
was trying to get rid of
her as he did not offer
any information or
help and kept saying
that he needed the
police reference
number before he
could assess her.

None given.

Good display of
up to date leaflets.
No space for forms
to be filled in.

The officer was not sensitive to the fact that MS did not have the
required documents. MS was told to bring a police reference
number and MS asked if she can get an appointment for that same
day. Told that if she brings the police reference number then they
can make an appointment for an assessment. MS was told to
come back early the next day (at 8.30am) and to wait in the
queue.

The officer kept
‘huffing and puffing’.

The MS was encouraged to go back to the sister’s house.

No drinks available
No toys/books
available for
children.

Outer
London
Borough
C

The service was
not clearly signed.
Opening/closing
times were not
clearly stated.
Emergency, out of
hours
arrangements
were not visible.
The chairs were
uncomfortable

Mystery Shopping Report for Crisis, May 2009

The MS asked for a female officer and after a long wait was seen by
a female officer. The officer said that the MS needed a crime
reference number and she was very sensitive to the fact that the
MS did not have one.
The officer handed the MS some telephone numbers to call where
she could get a place for the night and told the MS to come back
the next day if she was unsuccessful and the officer would help her.
The MS was told that because she has no children, is single and
working she is not priority and would have to call the refuges herself.
When the MS said she did not feel safe, officer told her to call the
refuges.
78

The MS felt that the
officer was caring and
that the security
guard was also very
friendly.
The MS felt the
problem was seriously
considered as the
officer asked a lot
relevant questions.

Handwritten
telephone
numbers for:
A Refuge
A Women’s Aid
Refuge
A relevant charity
(on a torn
compliments slip)

Customer care /
Accessibility

Advice given

Personal
Comments

Documents
given

Opening and
closing times were
clearly stated.

The MS asked to be interviewed by a female officer, which was not
offered. The receptionist took the MS to a private room. There she
spoke to a male officer over the phone.

The building was
nice and it was
very empty.

As the interview took place over the phone the MS pretended to
have police reports, proof of hospital etc. However, the officer said
it would not make any difference to the case.

No drinks were
available

The officer said that Outer London Borough D did not have any
duty to house her and he doubts if any other authority had that
duty but told her to try neighbouring boroughs.

The MS felt that she
was not questioned in
a sensitive way as the
interview took place
over the phone and
she could not see any
emotion or assess if
the duty officer cared.

The contact
telephone number
of the officer, the
name of their
homeless team
member and
phone numbers of
other boroughs

The MS felt the officers
were insensitive and
did not take the
situation seriously, She
was disappointed with
the little advice she
got and that fact that
she did not get any
signposted or other
support.

(borough
compliments slip)

The homelessness
reception was
noisy.
Nice and clean
with water and a
vending machine.
The member of
staff wore a name
badge.
No toys/books
were available for
children

Outer
London
Borough
D

No toys/books
were available for
children

The MS told that her being a victim of violence and in fear for her
safety was not a reason for Outer London Borough D to help her. He
also suggested that it could not be ‘that bad’ as she was still
working.
The MS was asked where the boyfriend lives and when she said
XXXX (in another borough) the officer asked why she came to

Mystery Shopping Report for Crisis, May 2009

79

Customer care /
Accessibility

Advice given
Outer London Borough D upon which MS replied that her sister lives
here.
The MS was told not to do anything about her situation. No referrals
or signposting were made. The MS said that she felt her life might be
at risk and the officer said there is nothing they can do and that
they had no duty to house her or put her on a housing waiting list.

Personal
Comments

Documents
given

The MS also felt
uncomfortable
discussing her case on
the phone rather than
face to face.

The MS said that she was vulnerable (following hospitalisation, crime
against her) and she was encouraged to go back to the sister’s
house. As she was not going to get any help she might as well go
back to her sister. She was told that boyfriend could find her
through her job but the MS explained that she cannot leave her job
because she needs the money.
A staff member (M) wrote down the details of the other boroughs.
The MS told ‘M’ that she wanted to speak to the manager and
make a complaint about the officer (S) who interviewed her. ‘M’
acknowledged this request but referred to another officer called
‘K’. The MS insisted that the name of the interviewer was ‘S’ but was
told that there was no ‘S’ working there and the manger was not
available to speak to her at the moment.

Outer
London
Borough E

Not clearly signed.
Opening/closing
times are clearly
stated,
emergency, out of
hours
arrangements are
not advertised
The area was quiet
and clean.

Mystery Shopping Report for Crisis, May 2009

The receptionist asked the MS if she was single, working, had
children etc. The MS told her about the domestic violence but was
told that because she does not have children nothing can be done
for her. Also told, that they cannot do anything about the sister’s
security and that she should give up work to get any help. The
officer did not explain what kind of help would be available.

The MS felt exposed
as she had to tell her
story at reception in
front of other
applicants.

The MS was told that the council does not provide a list of hostels.

The MS felt that her
enquiry was not dealt
with seriously as no
advice was given.

MS was given a leaflet on hate crime and teh details of her local
reporting centre. The MS was told to go there and that they will give
her a list of women’s refuges and a list of hostels she could call to
find a place. She was told that the agencies would check up on
80

A leaflet about
hate crime,
Details of local
reporting centre.
Telephone
numbers.

Customer care /
Accessibility
Drinks were
available.

Toys/books
available for
children.

Mystery Shopping Report for Crisis, May 2009

Advice given
police records and her domestic violence story. The receptionist
explained that at their office they do not deal with single domestic
violence applicants, but would deal with her if she had a child.
No assessment of her homelessness was made and no advice on
housing options was given.

81

Personal
Comments

Documents
given

9.8

Couple (Mystery Shopper 8)

The scenario for case study eight is of a couple, both between 20 and 30 years
old. The man in the couple is self employed, with business dwindling and no
savings. The woman is a homemaker. (The woman is not present during the
‘shop’). The couple has been made homeless because they have received a
notice seeking possession of their privately rented accommodation. Their rent
had been paid directly to a landlord who had not paid his mortgage and found
himself in arrears.
The Mystery Shopper took the following documents with him: A Section/Notice 21,
a passport and documents to identify his partner.
Inner
London
Borough A
27.03.09
12.44 hrs
13.46 hrs
n/a

Date
Start visit
Finish visit
Waiting time
main
reception
Waiting time
42 minutes
housing office
Seen by
Name given
title
unknown

Mystery Shopping Report for Crisis, May 2009

Inner
London
Borough B
27.03.09
14.36 hrs
14.42 hrs
n/a

Outer
London
Borough C
25.03.09
14.26 hrs
14.52 hrs
30 minutes

Seen
25 minutes
immediately
Receptionist Unknown

82

Outer
London
Borough D
03.04.09
12.38 hrs
Seen
immediately

Outer
London
Borough E
23.03.09
14.12 hrs
15.26 hrs
n/a

Seen
1hr 40
immediately minutes
Housing
Unknown
officer
(phone)

9.8

Couple (Mystery Shopper 8) continued.

Inner
London
Borough
A

Customer care /
Accessibility

Advice given

Personal
Comments

Documents
given

Main reception area is well
organised, clean and fresh.

The MS was initially told that this the department only
deals with people who are vulnerable and that the MS
would have to go to the private sector housing advice
team for more information.

The MS felt he was
treated very well by
staff.

Information on
housing options
and advice
service,
including details
on the private
sector housing
advice team.

The member of staff gave
their name, job title and was
wearing a name badge.
Notice board and leaflets
available with up to date
information.
Settings were very
comfortable with space to
fill in forms.
Lots of private interview
rooms available.
Drinking water available.

The MS was told about ‘priority need’ and that he did
not fit the criteria to get housing from the council.
The MS was told not to leave the property if he did not
have anywhere else to go and to try to mediate with
the Landlord and get back deposit to put down on
private rented accommodation. A staff member
explained that they could not mediate with Landlord
because it was not their field.
The MS was told to go to the Job Centre to sort out his
benefits and to go to the Citizens Advice Bureau for
advice on debts.

No toys/books available for
young children.
Computers and telephones
available for use.

Mystery Shopping Report for Crisis, May 2009

83

The MS felt that staff
were friendly, sensitive
and took the MS
situation very seriously.
They were very helpful
and took enough time
to provide the MS with
information.

Telephone
numbers for:
The CAB
The job centre.
(Hand written
note)

Inner
London
Borough
B

Customer care /
Accessibility

Advice given

Personal
Comments

Documents
given

Not clearly signed. Opening
times, and out of hours
arrangements are not
advertised. The building
looked brand new with
computers and telephones.

The MS was told that he would need to come in the
following morning at 8am to book an appointment or
call the emergency out of hour’s telephone number
after 5pm that evening.

The MS felt that he
was treated fairly with
the member of staff
very direct and
helpful.

The telephone
number for
emergency out of
hours for MS to call
after 5pm.

Main reception area is well
organised, clean and fresh.

The MS was also told that sometimes it is possible that
he could get somewhere to sleep urgently.

(compliments slip)

Homelessness reception
noisy.
MS had to ask member of
staff for their name.
Staff wore name badges.
Notice boards / posters and
leaflets available.
Lots of chairs and space to
fill in forms and for private
interviews.
The toilets were clean.
Toys/books available for
young children.

Outer
London
Borough

Clearly signed. Out of hours
arrangements are not
advertised.

Mystery Shopping Report for Crisis, May 2009

The MS was told to go to a homelessness charity in
Outer London Borough C, as they help out single men
in the area even though the MS told the staff member
that he had a girlfriend.
84

The MS felt that he
was not treated well
or taken seriously.

None given.

C

Customer care /
Accessibility

Main reception area is well
organised with lots of staff
working shorten waiting
times.
Area also clean and fresh.
Homelessness Reception
noisy.

Advice given

Personal
Comments

The MS was told that he could not be given written
information to go to CAB. But was given directions on
how to get there.
The MS was told that he did not have to leave the
property right away.

The member of staff did not
give their name, job title and
was the only member of staff
not wearing a name badge
at that time.

He felt that staff were
not helpful.

Documents
given

During the interview
the member of staff
took a phone call and
the MS had to wait 3
minutes until he had
finished.

Chairs not comfortable
Private interview rooms
available.
No drinks were available.
Small table was available for
children to play on with
some toys.

Outer
London
Borough
D

The service was not clearly
signed. Main entrance is at
back of the building, hard to
see from the main road.
The main reception area
was well organised, clean
and fresh.

Mystery Shopping Report for Crisis, May 2009

The MS interview was conducted with a housing officer
over the internal phone.
The MS was told to go back to the Landlord and get a
new Section 21 notice with a two month eviction
period.
The MS was told that he does not have to leave the
property because he has not been given a two month
85

No mediation was
offered with the
landlord.
The MS felt it was
difficult to assess if his
situation was taken
seriously because the
interview was

None given.

Customer care /
Accessibility

The member of staff did not
give their name or job title
but said the name of the
department.
Notice boards, posters and
leaflets were available.
No chairs were available
while MS was using the
internal phone.
There was no privacy.
There was not enough
space to fill in forms.
The toilets were clean.

Outer
London
Borough
E

Advice given
notice period and after this time the Landlord would
have to take legal action to evict the MS from the
property.
The MS was given the telephone number and times to
call Outer London Borough D homelessness charity
and told that they ‘may answer the phone’. The MS
was told that this service is not for couples and that he
should not go there as a couple. The MS was also told
that they have a men’s clothing centre which deal
with single homeless male and that his girlfriend could
go but she probably will not get any help.

The MS was told to use his savings and credit cards.

Clearly signed. Opening
times stated.

The MS was told to find another house to live in and to
make it the Ms priority to try and get back rent deposit
from the Landlord in order to move into another
property and not to become intentionally homeless.

The member of staff did not
give their name or job title,
but wore a name badge.
Notice boards / posters and
leaflets available.
Mystery Shopping Report for Crisis, May 2009

conducted over the
phone and not face
to face.

Documents
given

The member of staff
was polite.

The MS was told that he should make a housing benefit
claim on the property right now, as they would pay for
the rent. He was given the job centre address and
directions and told that he should bring all his original
documents.

There were no toys/books
available for young children.

Access for people with
disability.

Personal
Comments

The MS was told that he is not eligible for council
housing.

The MS also advised that there is no point waiting for a
court order because the MS will have to pay lawyers
and court fees.
The MS was told to go to the job centre and given
directions, to sign on as currently unemployed.
86

The MS felt that staff
were nice and friendly
but not very helpful.
The interview was very
brief.

Borough leaflet on
accessing council
services
(Not a very clear
photocopy).
Details of the CAB.
Housing benefit
form.

Customer care /
Accessibility
Lots of chairs but not
comfortable.
Space to fill in forms and
private place fro interviews.
Toilets clean.
No drinks available.
Designated area for young
children with Toys/books
available and television.

Advice given
The MS was told that he is not priority because he has
a girlfriend and does not have any children.
The MS told to go to the Citizens Advice Bureau to get
debt advice.
Member of staff said that she would take on the MS
case but that she was going away for the next two
weeks. When the MS asked is any other staff could
help the MS was told that he would be told the same
thing as she has just told him.

Only one member of staff
working at main reception
and another member of
staff giving advice.

Mystery Shopping Report for Crisis, May 2009

87

Personal
Comments

Documents
given

9.9

Male Rough Sleeper (Mystery Shopper 9)

The scenario for case study nine is of a man, aged 30 who has become homeless
through unemployment from his job in the construction industry. This man had
been sleeping in the street since losing his home in a private rented property. He
has no income, no savings, and no family support.
The Mystery Shopper took the following documents with him: A birth certificate,
pay slips and the address and telephone number of his family home.

Date
Start visit
Finish visit
Waiting time
main
reception
Waiting time
housing
office
Seen by

Inner London
Borough
A
23.3.2009
10.10 hrs
10.44 hrs
n/a

Inner London
Borough
B
27.3.2009
14.00 hrs
14.30 hrs
n/a

Outer
London
Borough C
24.3.2009
11.50 hrs
12.10 hrs
1 minute

Outer
London
Borough D
26.3.2009
11.20 hrs
11.30 hrs
n/a

Outer
London
Borough E
25.3.2009
11.30 hrs
11.45 hrs
n/a

10 minutes

< 10 minutes

10 minutes

Seen
immediately

5 minutes

Unknown

Receptionist

Unknown

Housing
officer
(phone)

Receptionist

Mystery Shopping Report for Crisis, May 2009

88

9.9

Male Rough Sleeper (Mystery Shopper 9) continued

Inner
London
Borough
A

Customer care /
Accessibility

Advice given

Personal
Comments

Documents
given

The service was
clearly signed.

After explaining his situation MS was told that he needed to sign on
before anything could be done for him. The staff member
explained about JSA and gave him a telephone number to call to
make the claims and offered to use the phones outside.

MS did not think that
his case was dealt
with seriously and
sensitively.

Information for
homeless people,

The MS thought the
Receptionist was nice.

An information
leaflet on single
people living in
inner London.

Opening/closing
times were clearly
visible.
Emergency out of
hours
arrangements
were clearly
visible.

Inner
London
Borough
B

MS was asked if he had any health issues but no further discussion
took place.
When asked about the local connection he told the staff member
about living with his girlfriend. MS gave the staff member his
girlfriend’s address. No enquiries were made as to where he had
been staying since he left or where he is sleeping.

The reception was
very clean.

MS was given a list of hostels and the staff member marked the
ones she thought would be appropriate for MS.

The service was
clearly signed.

The receptionist did not have a lot of time for the MS as there was a
big queue of about 20 people and she was on her own. The MS felt
she was rushed, as if she gave him very quickly, her ‘usual talk she
gives to everyone’.

Opening/closing
times were clearly
visible.
The rooms felt hot
and sweaty.

Mystery Shopping Report for Crisis, May 2009

A list of hostels
located in
another
borough.

The MS told her about his situation and she gave him telephone
numbers to call for a hostel place and a leaflet. He was also given
a telephone number and was told to call it at 6pm to get
emergency night accommodation. The number was written down
on piece of paper.

89

However, the MS felt
that his case was not
handled sensitively.
The MS asked if there
were any interpreting
services available and
was told to queue up.

(21 pages)
A leaflet on
housing needs
and options.

Customer care /
Accessibility
Emergency out of
hours
arrangements
were clearly
visible.
Room numbers
seemed random.
It was a ‘Lovely’
place: brand new,
modern
There were lots of
leaflets on council
services.

Advice given
The MS was told that there are only 5 emergency visits/interviews
per day and that is why you have to get there early (8 am) in order
to get an appointment.

Personal
Comments

Documents
given

MS felt that the officer
was rushing through
the interview and
noted that they were
both standing up.

Information
about the local
housing advice
centre, including
information on a
skills training

After the MS told his story he was given single homelessness
information. The receptionist did not ask about local connection
and did not enquire as to where he had been sleeping rough.
There was no discussion about vulnerability and the MS was not
asked any health questions. ‘Priority need’ was not discussed and
housing options and rent deposit schemes were not explored. No
income or benefits questions were asked.
The MS was given info for homeless people in Inner London Borough
B and telephone numbers for hostels. MS thought the information
he was given was clear but no verbal information was given.

No drinks were
available.
No toys/books
available for
young children.

Outer
London
Borough
C

The service was
clearly signed.
Opening/closing
times were clearly
visible.

Mystery Shopping Report for Crisis, May 2009

MS was told that there are no hostels in Outer London Borough C
and that he would have to sign on. The staff member very briefly
went through information about a rent deposit scheme. The MS was
told to go to a day-centre where they could help him. He was
advised that he could use their address as a care/of address in
order to start signing on for benefits. MS was not given any details
90

Customer care /
Accessibility

Advice given

Personal
Comments

Emergency out of
hours
arrangements
were clearly
visible.

The staff member explained that he would not get a hostel in Outer
London Borough C but in another area.

There were
different queues in
the main
reception and the
homeless enquiry
queues were very
quick.

MS was asked if he had a health issues (MS said he was depressed
since splitting up with girlfriend). He was asked if there were children
involved or if MS had severe mental health issues because ‘then he
would be priority’.

on the job centre.

Documents
given

project but no
contact details
(photocopy)

MS was asked where he was staying and if he had any family he
could go to or if he could return to his girlfriend.

The homelessness
reception was
noisy.

Outer
London
Borough
D

Clearly signed.
Opening/closing
times are clearly
stated,
emergency, out of
hours
arrangements are
not advertised.
No drinks
available.

Mystery Shopping Report for Crisis, May 2009

The MS felt his case was considered seriously. The officer explained
the process a little but when the MS told her that he had no income
she just told him to sign on for benefits in order to get into a hostel.

The officer on the
phone was nice and
friendly.

The officer asked for the MS’s girlfriend’s name and address and
when he had left the home. MS was asked if he had any health
issues or problems.

The MS felt that the
interview was very
quick.

‘Priority need’ was not discussed. The only advice the MS was given
was to go to the Jobcentre to sign on for benefits. The officer asked
if the MS knew where it was and the MS said yes. The MS
commented that this was all that he was told despite the case

The MS felt that the
officer cared about
his situation, but that
he did not receive

91

Flyer for a local
homelessness
charity –
(photocopied
A5)
Outer London
Borough D
housing
application form.

Customer care /
Accessibility
Toys/books
available for
young children.

Advice given
scenario of sleeping rough and not having an address.

Personal
Comments

Documents
given

The MS felt very
rushed and ‘looked
down upon’ and said
it was ‘a horrible
experience’.

Single homeless
questionnaire.

very good advice.

The MS was given a leaflet for a homelessness charity in Outer
London Borough D and was told he should contact them or go
there and that they could help.
The MS was given Housing application form and told to fill it in as
soon as possible and return it to them.

Outer
London
Borough E

Clearly signed.
Opening/closing
times are clearly
stated,
emergency, out of
hours
arrangements are
not advertised.
No name badges
worn.
Drinks available.
Toys/books
available for
young children.

The MS felt that the receptionist did not consider his case seriously.
The MS was told to come back the next day and start queuing at 8
am although they do not open until 9am.
No enquiries were made to establish his homelessness.
Regarding local connection the MS was asked which borough he
came coming from. MS was asked about his health.
No explanation was given of ‘priority need’.
The MS was told that on his return the next day, he would need to
bring proof of benefits. When the MS told the receptionist that he
was not signing on he was told to do so and she pointed her finger
in a certain direction and said ‘there you got to go and sign on’.
The MS suggested that he would fill in the forms there and then so
that he could be seen and given an appointment on the day but
was told that he had to come back the next day.
The receptionist mentioned council housing but did not give advice
on where the MS could stay for the night.

Mystery Shopping Report for Crisis, May 2009

92

Housing
application form.
Information
request letter.

10.

VISITS OUTCOMES ANALYSIS

The mystery shopping addressed issues of customer care, accessibility and
diversity. To assist analysis of outcomes and to enable cross-borough
comparison, a simple scoring model was devised to evaluate these aspects of
boroughs’ performance.
Upon completion of visits Mystery Shoppers filled in a visit feedback form,
detailing their experience of the visit. Part one of the form relates to access,
customer care and diversity. The answers were scored by Mystery Shoppers and
form that base for the visits outcomes analysis. Part two of the form relates to the
advice and information Mystery Shoppers received which is not reflected within
the visits outcomes analysis but is the basis for personal visit findings.
The key to the scoring system is as follows:
Question scores
Yes
No

= 1 point,
= 0 points

Exceptions to the scoring system
Questions 1 and 12
Yes
No

= 0 point,
= 1 points

Questions marked with *
No queue / Wait of up to 15 minutes
Up to 5 people in queue / Wait of up to 30 minutes
Queue over 5 people / Wait more than 30 minutes
n/a
n/s

= 2 points
= 1 point
= 0 points

= not visited / not available to score
= not scored by Mystery Shopper (Where scores were not applicable or
not completed, or feedback sheet not received, totals achievable were
amended.)

Mystery Shopping Report for Crisis, May 2009

93

VISITS OUTCOMES ANALYSIS
Innter London Borough A
Case

1

2

3

4

5

6

Inner London Borough B

7

8

9

1

2

1
1
0
1

1
1
1
1

3

4

5

6

1
1
0
1

1
1
0
1

1
1
0
1

7

8

9

0
0
0
1

1
1
1
1

PART 1: DETAILS OF PREMISES VISITED
PART 2: ACCESS / CUSTOMER CARE / DIVERSITY
2.1 The Main Entrance
1
2
3
4

Was this clearly signed?
Are the opening times stated?
Are emergency, out-of-hours, arrangements advertised?
Was there access for people with disabilities?

1
1
0
1

1
1
1
1

1
1
0
1

1
0
0
1

1
1
1
0

0
0
0
1

0
0
0
0

0
1
n/s
1

1
1
1
1

0
0
0
0

2 The Main Reception Area
5
6
7
9

Was the main reception area clean and fresh smelling?
Was the main reception area tidy and well organised?
Was the main reception area noisy?
How long did you wait to be seen in main reception?*

2.2 The Homelessness Reception Area
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

Was the Homelessness reception area clean and fresh smelling?
Was the Homelessness reception area tidy and well organised?
Was the Homelessness reception area noisy?
Was there a queue?*
How long did you wait to be seen?*
Did the member(s) of staff who interviewed you give their name
Did the member(s) of staff who interviewed you tell you what their job?
Did staff wear a name badge?

1
1
1
2

not applicable

1
1
1
2
2
1
0
0

1
1
1
2
0
0
0
1

1
1
1
1
2
1
0
0
0

1
1
1
2
0
0
0
0

1
1
1
2
2
0
0
0

0
0
1
0
0
1
0
1

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

1
1
1
0
1

1
1
0
1
1

1
1
0
0
0

1
1
0
0
0

1
1
0
1
0

1
1
0
1
1

0
0
0
0
0

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0

1
0
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1

1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
0

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
0
0

1
1
0
1
1
0
1
1
1
0

23

22

18

19

20

15

1
1
1

1
1
1
2
2
0
0
0

1
1
1
2
2
0
0
0

1
1
1
1
0
0
0
1

1

1
1
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0

1
1
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
n/s
1
0

1
1
0
1
1
1
1
0
0
0

15

20

23

18

22

n/s
0
1
1
1

f
e
e
d
b
a
c
k
f
o
r
m

1
1
0
1

1
1
1
2

1
1
1
2
0
0
0
1

1
1
1
1
0
0
0
1

1
1
1
n/s
1
1
1
1

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

1
1
0
2
2
0
0
1

1
1
1
2
2
n/s
n/s
n/s

1
1
0
0
0

1
1
0
0
1

1
1
0
0
1

0
0
0
0
0

1
1
n/s
n/s
n/s

1
1
0
n/s
n/s

0
0
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1

1
1
1
0
1
1
0
1
1
0

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
n/s
1
1

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
0

18

18

24

17

19

26

62%

20
62%
69%

73%

59%

73%

90%

2.3 Information on Display
18
19
20
21
22

Where any notice boards and/or leaflets available?
Were leaflets and displays up-to-date and accurate?
Was information available in range of languages other than English?
Was an interpreting service advertised?
Was information offered in a range of formats?

1
1
n/s
n/s

2.4 Other Facilities
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
33

Were there enough chairs?
Were the chairs comfortable?
Was there a space where forms could be filled in?
Was there a place where you could be interviewed in private?
Were toilets available?
If yes, were these clean?
Were the toilets accessible to people with disabilities?
Were any hot/cold drinks available?
Were there any baby changing facilities?
Were there toys / books available for children?
Total Points
Average points
%
Average %

Mystery Shopping Report for Crisis, May 2009

79%

85%

64%

66%

19
69%
73%

52%

79%

80%

79%

64%

71%

n
o
t
r
e
c
e
i
v
e
d

0
0%

94

VISITS OU TC OMES AN ALYSIS
Outer London Borough C
C ase

Outer London B orough D
1

2

3

4

5

Outer London B orough E

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

6

7

8

9

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1
0
0
1

1
1
0
1

n/s
n/s
n/s
n/s

1
1
0
1

1
1
0
1

1
0
0
1

0
0
0
1

1
n/s
0
1

1
1
1
1

0
0
0
1

0
1
0
1

1
1
0
0

1
1
0
1

0
1
0
1

n/s
0
0
1

1
1
0
1

1
1
0
1

1
1
0
1

1
1
0
1

0
1
0
1

1
1
0
1

1
1
0
1

n/s
n/s
n/s
n/s

1
1
1
2

1
1
1
2

1
1
1
2

1
1
0
0

1
1
0
2

1
1
0
1

1
1
1
2

1
1
1
2
1
1
0
0

1
1
0
2
2
0
0
0

1
1
1
2
2
0
0
0

1
1
1
2
0
0
0
1

1
1
0
1
0
1
0
0

1
0
1
0
2
0
0
1

1
1
0
0
0
1
1
1

1
1
0
0
1
0
0
0

1
1
0
2
2
0
0
0

1
1
1
2
2
0
0
0

1
1
1
1
2
0
0
1

1
1
1
2
2
n/s
n/s
n/s

1
1
1
2
2
1
1
0

1
1
1
0
0
1
0
0

1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0

1
1
0
2
2
1
1
1

1
1
1
2
2
0
0
0

1
1
1
2
2
0
0
0

1
1
1
0
2
0
0
0

1
1
1
0
1
0
0
0

1
1
1
2
2
0
0
0

1
1
1
2
2
0
0
1

1
1
1
2
0
0
0
0

1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
1
2
1
0
0
0

1
1
1
0
0
0
0
1

1
1
1
2
2
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0

1
0
0
0
0

1
1
0
0
0

1
1
1
1
1

1
0
0
0
0

1
0
1
0
1

0
0
0
0
0

1
n/s
n/s
n/s
n/s

1
1
1
1
1

0
0
0
0
0

1
1
0
0
0

n/s
n/s
n/s
n/s
n/s

1
1
1
1
1

1
1
0
1
1

1
1
0
0
1

0
0
0
0
0

1
1
0
n/s
0

1
1
1
0
0

0
0
0
0
0

0
1
0
0
0

1
1
0
0
0

1
1
0
0
0

1
0
0
0
0

1
1
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0

1
1
0
0
0

0
1
0
0
0

1
1
1
1
1
0
1
0
0
0

1
1
0
1
1
n/s
n/s
1
n/s
1

1
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1

1
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
0

1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
0
1

1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
0

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
0

1
0
1
1
1
1
1
n/s
n/s
1

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

n/s
n/s
n/s
n/s
1
1
1
0
0
0

1
0
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1

n/s
n/s
n/s
n/s
1
1
1
0
1
0

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1

1
1
0
1
1
1
1
0
1
1

1
1
1
0
1
0
1
0
1
0

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0

0
0
1
n/s
1
1
1
0
0
0

1
1
1
0
1
1
1
0
1
1

1
1
1
0
1
1
1
0
0
0

1
0
0
1
0
1
1
1
1
1

1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0

1
n/s
1
n/s
1
1
1
1
1
1

1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
0

1
1
0
1
1
1
1
0
1
0

1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1

1
0
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

15

21

21

26

18

22

14

16

30

11

12

18

15

21

76%

20
53%
65%

13

13

20

21

17

14

15

17

21

78%

17
59%
59%

48%

52%

59%

72%

PAR T 1: D ETAILS OF PR EMISES VISITED
PAR T 2: AC C ESS / C U STOMER C AR E / D IVER SITY
2.1 The Main Entrance
1
2
3
4
2
5
6
7
9

Was this clearly signed?
Are the opening times stated?
Are emergency, out-of-hours, arrangements advertised?
Was there access for people with disabilities?

0
0
0
1

1
1
1
1

0
0
0
1

1
1
0
1

1
1
0
1

The Main R eception Area
Was the main reception area clean and fresh smelling?
Was the main reception area tidy and well organised?
Was the main reception area noisy?
How long did you wait to be seen in main reception?*

n/s
n/s
n/s
n/s

not applicable
not applicable

2.2 The H omelessness R eception Area
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

Was the Homelessness reception area clean and fresh smelling?
Was the Homelessness reception area tidy and well organised?
Was the Homelessness reception area noisy?
Was there a queue?*
How long did you wait to be seen?*
D id the member(s) of staff who interviewed you give their name
D id the member(s) of staff who interviewed you tell you what their job?
D id staff wear a name badge?

2.3 Information on D isplay
18
19
20
21
22

Where any notice boards and/or leaflets available?
Were leaflets and displays up-to-date and accurate?
Was information available in range of languages other than English?
Was an interpreting service advertised?
Was information offered in a range of formats?

2.4 Other Facilities
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
33

Were there enough chairs?
Were the chairs comfortable?
Was there a space where forms could be filled in?
Was there a place where you could be interviewed in private?
Were toilets available?
If yes, were these clean?
Were the toilets accessible to people with disabilities?
Were any hot/cold drinks available?
Were there any baby changing facilities?
Were there toys / books available for children?
Total Points
Average points
%
Average %

Mystery Shopping Report for Crisis, May 2009

52%

68%

70%

65%

58%

57%

88%

44%

21
72%

12
92%

26

19

90%

17
66%
66%

95

41%

62%

58%

72%

45%

52%

69%