Checks that a booked visit actually happened, gets ahead of the tenant when it did not, rebooks the same day, and keeps a record of who does this repeatedly.
An AI agent for contractor no-shows closes the loop after every scheduled visit: it confirms with the contractor and the tenant whether the appointment happened, opens a recovery path immediately when it did not, apologizes and rebooks before the tenant has to complain, and records attendance so a pattern across a panel becomes visible. Maintenance systems are built to record things happening. A job gets an update when somebody attends, when a part is ordered, when an invoice arrives. Nothing generates a record when a van simply never turns up, so the first notification of a missed visit is almost always an angry tenant who took an afternoon off work — which is the most expensive possible way to find out.
Makes a visit that did not happen generate a record.
Checks after every booked window whether the visit took place
Asks the tenant as well as the contractor, so one silence is not conclusive
Contacts the tenant first when a visit was missed, before they call
Rebooks the same day rather than returning the job to the queue
Distinguishes a no-show from a no-access, which are different problems
Records attendance per contractor so repeat behavior is countable
A tenant who waits in for a four-hour window and gets nobody has lost a half-day of their own life, and no amount of prompt rebooking fully recovers that. What can be recovered is the impression of competence, and that depends entirely on who speaks first. An agency that messages at five past the window saying it knows the visit was missed, that it is sorry, and that a new slot is being arranged is in a completely different position from one that finds out at nine the next morning from a furious phone call. Underneath that sits a slower problem: without attendance data, a contractor who misses one visit in five looks the same as one who never misses, and gets the same volume of work indefinitely.
A three-step flow that runs after every scheduled window.
Shortly after the window closes, the agent asks the contractor whether the job was done and the tenant whether somebody came, so neither silence is taken as an answer.
It separates a completed job from a no-access from a contractor no-show, because each of the three needs a different next action and a different conversation.
On a no-show it messages the tenant first, opens rebooking straight away, and logs the miss against the contractor's record.
A Friday-afternoon window that nobody attended.
Scenario: an office was learning about missed visits from complaint calls the following morning, by which point the tenant had already emailed the landlord. A plumber is booked for a one-to-five window on Friday. At ten past five the agent asks him whether the job was completed and gets no reply; it asks the tenant, who answers within a minute that nobody came and that she waited in all afternoon. That is a no-show rather than a no-access, and it is treated as one. The agent messages her straight away acknowledging that nobody attended, apologizing plainly without blaming the contractor to her, and saying a new appointment will be offered by Monday morning. It logs the miss and alerts the coordinator, who sees it before leaving rather than on Monday. The plumber replies at eight that evening saying he was held up on an emergency; that reason is recorded against the job, and the rebooking is already in motion.
Anybody who is judged for work somebody else failed to do.
A missed visit discovered late is a whole morning of damage control.
The tenant holds you responsible for the contractor's van, not the contractor.
Missed appointments are a leading driver of formal complaints.
Attendance data is what makes a panel review a conversation about facts.
Service level agreements are unenforceable without a record of misses.
Residents talk to each other, so one missed visit is rarely one complaint.
Checks the window, reaches both sides, records the outcome.
Supplies the booked windows the check is triggered from.
Asks contractor and tenant whether the visit happened, and opens recovery.
Holds the job outcome and the attendance record per contractor.
Calls a contractor who is not answering messages near a missed window.
Puts the acknowledgment and the rebooking in writing for the file.
Alerts the coordinator to a no-show while the day can still be salvaged.
The visits that quietly fail to happen.
Questions about catching a missed visit before the complaint.
An AI agent for contractor no-shows closes the loop after every scheduled visit: it confirms with both contractor and tenant whether the appointment happened, opens recovery immediately when it did not, apologizes and rebooks before the tenant complains, and records attendance so patterns across a panel become visible.
Because a contractor who missed a visit is the least likely person to report it promptly, and silence from them is ambiguous — it could equally mean they are on another job. Asking both sides is what turns an absence of information into an actual answer.
Acknowledging that the visit was missed and that the tenant's time was wasted, yes. It should not assign blame to the contractor in that message — you may not have the facts yet, and a tenant does not care whose fault it was. What they want is somebody to say it happened and that a new date is coming.
Completely, and conflating them is a real problem. A no-access means the tenant was out and usually carries a charge; a no-show means the contractor never came. Logging both as failed visit produces attendance data that quietly blames tenants for contractor misses, which will surface in a panel review as a wrong conclusion.
Not directly, though a day-before reminder to the contractor prevents some. Its real contribution is to the minutes after the failure, which is where the relationship is either damaged or salvaged. Reducing the underlying rate is a panel management problem, and this is what gives you the numbers to work on it.
It records both accounts against the job and escalates. Disputes about whether somebody attended are common and occasionally the contractor is right — they went to the wrong flat, or nobody answered a broken buzzer. Both versions on one record is what lets a person resolve it.
A few months for a busy panel, because you need enough visits per contractor for a rate to mean anything. Acting on two misses is unfair and will cost you a good contractor; acting on twenty out of a hundred is a conversation that should have happened a year earlier.
Checks that a booked visit actually happened, gets ahead of the tenant when it did not, rebooks the same day, and keeps a record of who does this repeatedly.