A repair request should not need a project manager

“Can someone help me deal with this?” A tenant, landlord or property manager should be able to ask that about a tenancy problem and stay in the conversation until they know what has happened.

You explain the problem once. The next question is relevant. If a photograph or a particular email is needed, someone explains why. You can see what is waiting on you and what is waiting on somebody else.

That is the kind of service I want to build.

Consider a straightforward repair. The tenant reports it. The property manager contacts the owner. The owner approves some work. A contractor tries to arrange access. Somewhere between those steps, the conversation can stall. Each person may believe they have done their part, while the tenant is still living with the original problem.

The person trying to move things along can end up repeating work. A tenant resends photographs. A landlord asks whether a quote has arrived. A property manager follows up with the contractor, checks the owner’s instructions and updates the tenant. Each may be working from a different part of the same conversation.

I explore what reliable follow-through asks of a service in the pet-consent editorial. A repair deserves the same attention to whether an agreement becomes an outcome.

For the tenant, that could mean knowing when someone will attend. For the landlord, it could mean seeing the information needed to approve the work. For the property manager, it could mean a reliable record of instructions, access arrangements and outstanding actions, with fewer repeated messages to reconstruct. Each person should be able to see what they need to do and what they are waiting for.

Before communicating on someone’s behalf, a service must establish whom it is helping and what it is authorised to share. That is a design responsibility, not a footnote.

The conversation may look simple. The responsibility behind it is substantial.

This is where I think the next generation of technology becomes useful. People should be able to deal with a housing problem through an ordinary message, with evidence, permissions and follow-through handled reliably behind it. They should understand and control the consequential steps without having to operate the machinery.

Technology has limits. It cannot provide money that is not there, compel someone to cooperate or make an unsafe home safe by describing it more clearly. It can help identify those limits sooner and preserve a useful account for the person or institution that can act.

Tenancy Services’ advice on self-resolution already includes writing down an agreement and checking how things are going. I want thoughtful service design to make that follow-through easier to carry out in ordinary life.

I am developing The AdvoCat with that distinction in mind. The current Alpha uses fictional examples. Its pet-consent journey is a place to test how a conversation moves through different perspectives, proposed changes, a decision and an outcome check. The harder work is learning which real problems we can responsibly help carry.

A completed document is one part of that journey. If someone agreed to repair a heater, I want to know whether the heater works. If a bond amount was agreed, I want to know whether the refund reached the right people. If the problem remains unresolved, the person should leave with a clearer route to help and a record they can use.

A bond refund also has an existing public process. Tenancy Services explains how the landlord submits the request and the listed tenants respond. A new service should help people reach and use the right process, with their decisions intact.

Tenants, landlords and property managers all benefit when ordinary things work reliably. Their interests will not always align, and a fair process must be able to handle that. The measure is whether the heater works, the refund lands, and nobody had to become a project manager to get there.

Read next: Pets, permission and the cost of getting stuck →