Case study·Social housing

Tenant vulnerability-aware routing

From the same chase to every household — to vulnerability-aware routing with the audit trail intact

36%
Vulnerable cases escalated fasterTime from first contact to safeguarding triage versus pre-pilot baseline
“It made our routing more humane without hiding the audit trail.”
Safeguarding Lead · UK social housing provider
UK social housing provider·8,400 homes across one region; pilot covered one contact-centre team and two repairs depots·6-week pilot·United Kingdom
Talk to us about this workflowTry Unify
01Pilot envelope
Pilot length6 weeks
First signal10 days
First ROI42 days
Team alongside7 seats · 2 colleagues

6-week responsible-routing pilot; privacy review before connection; the colleague suggested routing while humans approved every contact choice.

02What it owns
Reports toCustomer Lead, dotted line to the Safeguarding Lead on vulnerability decisions and the DPO on data flows.
Owns
  • Vulnerability-aware routing suggestion — every outbound contact gets a recommended channel, time window and tone for the human to approve
  • Resident comms drafts — call notes, SMS and letter drafts pre-filled with the relevant flag context in plain language
  • Repairs appointment guardrails — Totalmobile slots cross-checked against household flags and access needs before the planner books
  • Routing audit trail — every suggested and final channel choice, with the reason, logged back to the Civica resident record
  • Daily safeguarding digest — escalations, low-confidence flags and preference-vs-channel mismatches surfaced for the safeguarding lead
Does not do
  • Sending any message — drafts only, the advisor or planner sends
  • Setting or removing vulnerability flags — proposes; the safeguarding lead decides
  • Lowering the routing thresholds — any threshold change is approved by the Customer Lead and the DPO
Done looks like

An advisor opens a case and sees a recommended channel, the flag context behind it and a draft message — and every choice they approve writes back to the resident record so the safeguarding lead can show why.

03The team
AI teammates2
ElenaReads Civica, the vulnerability flag register and contact preferences, and suggests a vulnerability-aware routing — channel, time window and tone — for every outbound contact for the human to approve.
MarcusDrafts the resident-facing message in the suggested channel — call script, SMS or letter — references the relevant flag in plain language and links every draft back to the source record for the advisor to send.
Human team7
  • Customer LeadCustomer
  • Safeguarding LeadSafeguarding
  • 4 Contact centre advisorsCustomer
  • 3 Repairs plannersRepairs
  • Data Protection OfficerCompliance
  • Insight analystReporting
  • IT leadIT
04Connected stack
Civica CxNetcall LibertyTotalmobileContact preference recordsVulnerability flag registerOutlookSMS gateway
05What it returned
36%Vulnerable cases escalated fasterTime from first contact to safeguarding triage versus pre-pilot baseline
28%Failed-contact attempts downWrong-channel chases avoided across the contact centre and repairs
100%Audit trail complete for pilot casesEvery case logs the suggested and final routing with a reason
  • Day 0
    Co-ordinator sessionCustomer Lead, Safeguarding Lead, DPO and IT lead align on vulnerability taxonomy, channel rules and the first three answerable routing questions.
  • Day 5
    Privacy review signed offDPO approves the data flows between Civica, the vulnerability flag register and the contact preference records before any connection is opened.
  • Day 10
    First signalElena returns the first vulnerability-aware routing list read-only to the Safeguarding Lead; flag-vs-channel mismatches surfaced on a sample of historical contacts.
  • Day 22
    Read-only routing in the contact centreSuggestions appear next to each Netcall script for advisors to read; advisors correct two flag mappings and one preference-channel rule before approvals are enabled.
  • Day 32
    Approval-gated repairs schedulingTotalmobile appointment proposals cross-check household flags and access needs; planners approve or amend every slot before booking.
  • Day 42
    ROI reviewSponsor signs off the three baseline metrics; the Safeguarding Lead approves expansion to a second contact-centre team.
↗Get started

Want this for your team?

Each design-partner pilot starts the same way: one workflow, the minimum useful context, and a first ROI signal measured in days.

Talk to us about this workflowTry Unify