Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

12-040611 Land Registry CSS – September 2012 – 24-10-12 (Client use) 0 Customer Satisfaction Survey September 2012 Prepared for: Land Registry Prepared.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "12-040611 Land Registry CSS – September 2012 – 24-10-12 (Client use) 0 Customer Satisfaction Survey September 2012 Prepared for: Land Registry Prepared."— Presentation transcript:

1 Land Registry CSS – September 2012 – (Client use) 0 Customer Satisfaction Survey September 2012 Prepared for: Land Registry Prepared by: Ipsos MORI October 2012

2 1 © Ipsos MORI Contents  Key Findings  Land Registry’s Key Measures (KPI)  NPS  Touchpoint ratings  Searches & Official Copies  Submitting Registrations  Information & Guidance  Touchpoints - Key Driver Analysis  Brand Values  Comms  Land Registry Offices  Areas of Improvement  Conclusions and Recommendations

3 Land Registry CSS – September 2012 – (Client use) 2 Research Objectives To measure satisfaction with Land Registry service and provide performance indicator data -To understand the factors that impact positively and negatively on the customer experience and satisfaction -To understand the key drivers of satisfaction/ key areas of importance to customers -To identify key areas for improvement -To identify trends over time

4 Land Registry CSS – September 2012 – (Client use) 3 Methodology MethodTelephone interviews Sample provided by Land Registry Interview Length19 minutes Fieldwork Period12 th September – 3 rd October 2012 *Completed Interviews (300 in total) 175 Solicitors 125 Non Solicitors Figure with a sign is significantly higher than the figure with a sign at the 95% confidence level *Sample based on “key holders”, including multiple key holders for individual companies but only where the sample gives different contact names *Random selection from customers using service in past 6 months

5 Key Findings

6 Land Registry CSS – September 2012 – (Client use) 5 Land Registry continues to hold strong customer relationships Continued strong scores for satisfaction and NPS show that Land Registry is performing well in the eyes of its customers. Moreover, stronger affinity with Land Registry’s brand values links to higher satisfaction and NPS scores. Customers aware that they have dedicated teams are more satisfied, more likely to recommend and more aligned with LR’s core brand values; as are those with more frequent contact. In general, Land Registry performs well in values relating to service quality and accuracy but less well on ‘softer’ values relating to a more personal, customer-centric approach. Most important brand value is that Land Registry provides a reliable and consistent service. Together these findings show that Land Registry should continue to pursue a customer-led service strategy.

7 Land Registry CSS – September 2012 – (Client use) 6 Land Registry continues to hold strong customer relationships Again, speed of service remains highly regarded as is the consistency of service and the accuracy and quality of information. Customers rely on LR to provide the correct information first time around and scores suggest that LR is consistently meeting this need Areas for improvement include: Knowledge and competence of staff and LRs ability to put things right for searches and official copies Speed of service for registrations and new titles is also a key area for improvement which lags behind the overall rating for speed of service, and Value for money when submitting registrations which is low in comparison to other service scores

8 Land Registry CSS – September 2012 – (Client use) 7 Headline Findings Customers continue to perceive Land Registry as performing well, although the KPIs have dipped slightly this wave but the yearly trend shows steady improvement. All key measures are rated positively: 1)Satisfaction with the overall service stands at 96%, exactly on the KPI target of 96%. This is slightly down from the previous wave, but year on year the score is stable at 97%. 2)Net Promoter Score is 50%, again slipping slightly from last wave, but well above the target of 40% and is higher year on year. Brand value ratings are very positive for aspects concerning service quality and accuracy. The three values receiving the highest scores are: 1)I trust Land Registry to ensure the integrity and accuracy of the registers (93%) 2)Land Registry demonstrates the level of knowledge and expertise expected by its customers (92%) 3)Land Registry provides a reliable and consistent service (92%) Customers with a dedicated team are significantly more likely to respond positively to LR’s brand values; and on core values, closer affinity to the values links to higher NPS and higher Overall Satisfaction. Among customers who rate the overall service as either excellent or very good, the top three aspects of service that impress them are: 1)Speed and efficiency (30%) 2)Website/online services (16%) 3)Helpfulness (12%)

9 Land Registry’s Key Measures KPI

10 Land Registry CSS – September 2012 – (Client use) 9 Overall service scores are slightly lower this wave, with T3B score now at 96%, down from 98% in June. However, the T3B score remains steady year on year, with those saying ‘excellent’ up slightly to 42% 96% Q9.Thinking about your experience of dealing with Land Registry over the past 6 months, how would you rate the “overall service” provided? Would you say it was ….? Base: All respondents, excluding don’t knows (299); YTD, excluding don’t knows (604) Data excludes Don’t Know responses YTD YTD % T3B Sept ’12

11 Land Registry CSS – September 2012 – (Client use) 10 Customers with a dedicated service team remain significantly more likely to rate LR’s overall service as ‘excellent’ Q9.Thinking about your experience of dealing with Land Registry over the past 6 months, how would you rate the “overall service” provided? Would you say it was ….? Base: All respondents, excluding don’t knows (299); with a customer team (138); without a customer team (99) Data excludes Don’t Know responses Sept ’12 Dedicated customer team No dedicated customer team 98% 95% 96% T3B

12 Land Registry CSS – September 2012 – (Client use) For customers rating Land Registry’s service ‘excellent’ or ‘very good’ overall, the speed and efficiency of service continues to impress the most. Although, not significant compared to last wave, proportionately more customers are impressed with the speed, website and helpfulness of staff Q10 What single aspect of Land Registry’s service has impressed you the most over the last 6 months or what have they done particularly well? Base: All who have an excellent or very good experience of working with the LR (248) Aspects of services Land Registry has impressed on Only responses mentioned by 4% or more customers shown on chart Top 3 aspects YTD Speed/efficiency 27% Website 14% Helpful 10% Their speed/efficiency – fast responses/turnaround times Their website/online services Their helpfulness – helpful service/staff They are user friendly/easy to deal with/use/they have easy to access services Their searches/online search services/search results/map searches Their registration service/speed of registrations The personal service/good account manager/dedicated team The information/advice they provide/availability of information They are good/excellent overall They get back to you/call you back/reply to contact The portal is good/ easy to use/better than other systems/efficient Electronic delivery/being able to download documents/pdfs Their availability/they are easy to contact Don`t know/not stated

13 Land Registry CSS – September 2012 – (Client use) 12 A word from the customers about the single aspect of service that has impressed them most over the last 6 months… Q10 What single aspect of Land Registry’s service has impressed you the most over the last 6 months or what have they done particularly well? Base: All who have an excellent or very good experience (248) “Just the website layout, the system very rarely goes wrong and is easy to use” “I think it's how straight forward and simple it is. It's a very easy system” “They are helpful over the phone and very patient. It's a quick service and it is rare for them to make a mistake” “The computerised system is something that they have done particularly well and has impressed me the most” “They're always very prompt and answer my queries. The turn around for a query is very quick, which is useful when you have other people chasing you around for information” “I think what's impressed me most is the fact that they take enquires seriously and they try to assist you” “The dedicated customer team are nearly always available to answer queries, and if not, they get back to one quickly” “Everyone is helpful and willing to spend time with you on a problem” “If there is a problem, the staff are very helpful at explaining what we need to do, to put it right” “What I would expect the service to be like. I am pleased with the way they are continuing to update business e-services” “Basically the fact that their website is regularly updated and is a good site” “I like the way you can speak to an individual more than once, when you write to them you get a letter from an individual who you can write to if you need more help”

14 Net Promoter Score

15 Land Registry CSS – September 2012 – (Client use) 14 The Net Promoter Score for September 2012 of 50% is down slightly from June, but remains well above the NPS KPI target of 40%, and higher than the overall score How happy would you be to recommend or tell others that Land Registry offers an excellent service? Net Promoter Score 10 = extremely happy to recommend 0 = extremely unhappy to recommend Q7 How happy would you be to recommend or tell others that Land Registry offers an excellent service? Base: All respondents (300); YTD (1202), YTD (606) 52% YTD % YTD % NPS Target = Net Promoter Score Breakdown 43 50% Sept ‘12 Data includes Don’t Know responses

16 Land Registry CSS – September 2012 – (Client use) 15 Office admin customers remain more likely to recommend LR; whilst customers in a senior role remain less likely to do so Net Promoter Score Promoter (9-10)Neutral (7-8) Detractor (0-6) 10 = extremely happy to recommend 0 = extremely unhappy to recommend Q7 How happy would you be to recommend or tell others that Land Registry offers an excellent service? Base: All respondents (300); Sols / Cons (175); Non Sols / Cons (125); Senior Role (100); Admin / Office Role (71) How happy would you be to recommend or tell others that Land Registry offers an excellent service? Data includes Don’t Know responses 50% 56% 41% 36% 63% Sept‘12 Arrows denote a score which is significantly higher or lower at 95% confidence

17 Land Registry CSS – September 2012 – (Client use) 16 Those who have daily contact with Land Registry are significantly more likely to be promoters; those with less-than-weekly contact are more likely to detract Net Promoter Score Promoter (9-10)Neutral (7-8) Detractor (0-6) 10 = extremely happy to recommend 0 = extremely unhappy to recommend Q7 How happy would you be to recommend or tell others that Land Registry offers an excellent service? Base: All respondents (300); Daily (147); Weekly (90); Less Often (63) How happy would you be to recommend or tell others that Land Registry offers an excellent service? Data includes Don’t Know responses 50% 61% 47% 29% Sept ‘12 Arrows denote a score which is significantly higher or lower at 95% confidence

18 Land Registry CSS – September 2012 – (Client use) 17 Furthermore, customers aware they have a dedicated customer team are significantly more likely to recommend LR than those not aware Net Promoter Score Promoter (9-10)Neutral (7-8) Detractor (0-6) 10 = extremely happy to recommend 0 = extremely unhappy to recommend Q7 How happy would you be to recommend or tell others that Land Registry offers an excellent service? Base: All respondents (300); With customer team (138); without customer team (100) How happy would you be to recommend or tell others that Land Registry offers an excellent service? Data includes Don’t Know responses 50% 62% Sept ‘12 31% Arrows denote a score which is significantly higher or lower at 95% confidence

19 Land Registry CSS – September 2012 – (Client use) 18 Speed and efficiency, general satisfaction and good customer service are the top reasons customers say they will recommend LR Q8 Why do you say this? Base: All Promoters (174) Only top 7 responses shown on chart Reasons for recommending Land Registry Speed/efficiency POSITIVE (fast service, response times etc) They are good/excellent - Happy/satisfied with them Service/customer service POSITIVE (helpful, friendly, polite etc) Ease of use POSITIVE (user friendly website, easy to deal with etc) Online services/portal POSITIVE (good online resources/material etc) No problems/complaints/rarely experience problems Responses to enquires/problems/follow up POSITIVE (questions answered/problems resolved/get back to you etc) Compared to June ’12 significantly fewer customers are having ‘no problems’ as a reason to recommend LR (26% in June)

20 Land Registry CSS – September 2012 – (Client use) 19 Q8 Why do you say this? Base: All Promoters (174); With team (91); Without team (47) Reasons for recommending Land Registry Speed of service is important for all customers, but great customer service is the main reason why customers with a dedicated team recommend LR; and is far less likely to be mentioned by those without a dedicated team Data includes Don’t Know responses Speed/efficiency POSITIVE (fast service, response times etc) They are good/excellent - Happy/satisfied with them Service/customer service POSITIVE (helpful, friendly, polite etc) Ease of use POSITIVE (user friendly website, easy to deal with etc) Online services/portal POSITIVE (good online resources/material etc) No problems/complaints/rarely experience problems Responses to enquires/problems/follow up POSITIVE (questions answered/problems resolved/get back to you etc) It meets our needs/provides what we want Information POSITIVE (good, clear information etc) Knowledge/experience/ability POSITIVE (knowledgeable, good staff ability etc) Telephone service/ease of contact POSITIVE (fast, easy to contact etc) Dedicated team/point of contact POSITIVE Reliable service/do what they promise We have to use them/there is no alternative

21 Land Registry CSS – September 2012 – (Client use) 20 Customer reasons for Net Promoter Score … “Because there are some elements of the registry that are excellent and some that are not so good, and it does vary from registry to registry” “Mainly because there is no one else to recommend and the system is fairly straight forward” “I think the system is very laborious, time consuming and insufficient. It's very hard to get in contact with people” “All of our enquiries are dealt with online, so they are dealt with immediately, any queries that can't be resolved online are dealt with on the telephone” “It's a reasonable price and it is easy to use” “Their charges are far too high for anyone other than lawyers. I have had to go to a lot of trouble to provide identity information which they already have but insist on having it again on any transaction” “I personally think they've always been very helpful and when I fill out forms they always guide me to the right form. Give guidance when necessary” Q8 Why do you say this? Base: All respondents (300); Promoters (174) “Before all the cutbacks I would have rated them an 8/9. The service has completely changed” Promoters Detractors Passives “I have always found them helpful and easy to deal with” “Well just much more efficient than they were years ago” “Very easy, everything is online. You just ask for what you want, get a PDF and off you go” Why do you say this....? “The turnaround time for unusual applications like 'Transfers of Part', have been slow over the past 6 months” “I don't think their system is particularly user friendly for finding information where you don't have a specific address” “Whenever I have spoken to anybody they have been helpful. Occasionally the site is down but that is rare and is quickly fixed” “I think the only problem is the website is not reliable. I mostly work online and it has a habit of shutting down randomly” “It's a fundamentally good service but it's cumbersome on the website. It's also very expensive”

22 Touchpoint Ratings – Searches & Official Copies – Submitting Registrations – Information & Guidance

23 Land Registry CSS – September 2012 – (Client use) 22 All service areas are rated well by customers. Performance on requesting information or guidance has slightly improved from %97%95% Top 3 Box - Sept 12 Q19A_Still thinking about the service you receive when requesting searches and official copies, how would you rate Land Registry in terms of.... "The overall service“? Base: All who request searches & official copies (265) Q25_How would you rate the service you receive when submitting registrations from Land Registry in each respect? "Overall Service “ Base: All who submit registrations (194) Q32 how would you rate the information and guidance provided by Land Registry in terms of... "Overall Service"Base: All who requested info and guidance (131) Overall service areas 97% 95% 96% 91% YTD ‘12 – ‘13 YTD ‘11 – ‘12 Don’t knows & N/As1%5%N/A Arrows denote a score which is significantly higher or lower at 95% confidence

24 Land Registry CSS – September 2012 – (Client use) 23 92% YTD ‘ 2012 – %95%82%94%95%79%82%72%92% YTD ‘ 2011 – %96%94%95% 90%86%75%NA 95%97%80%95% 77%84%69% Don’t know & n/a 1% 18%2% 21%5%27%6% Searches and Official Copies Q19 Still thinking about requesting searches and official copies, how would you rate Land Registry in terms of.... Base: All (265), YTD (1083), YTD (540) For searches & official copies: putting things right, knowledge & competence, and helpfulness & courtesy are the lowest aspects of service, and have slipped year on year, although this appears to be driven by customers seeing them as not applicable rather than rating LR more poorly. Value for money garners most fair / poor ratings Top 3 Box -Sept 12 Arrows denote a score which is significantly higher or lower at 95% confidence

25 Land Registry CSS – September 2012 – (Client use) 24 89% 94% 92%90% 88% Top 3 Box- Sept 12 Don’t know & N/As 5%8%6%8%5%9%7% Q25 Continuing to think about the service you receive when you submit registrations, how would you rate the service in terms of... Base: (194), YTD (815), YTD (396) YTD ‘ 2012 – %89%93%92%91%88%90% YTD ‘ 2011 – %94% 93%88%93% When submitting registrations: the overall service continues to be rated highly, with slightly lower scores for speed, consistency, putting things right, and correct return of documents. Performance on speed has slipped year on year although this is due to customers seeing it as not applicable Arrows denote a score which is significantly higher or lower at 95% confidence Submitting registrations

26 Land Registry CSS – September 2012 – (Client use) 25 92%94%86%74%76% 74% Top 3 Box- Sept 12 Don’t know & N/As 5%6%11%10%9% 12%7% YTD ‘ 2012 – %92%86%76%81% 76%92% YTD ‘ 2011 – %92%90%87% 83%81%NA Q25 Continuing to think about the service you receive when you submit registrations, how would you rate the service in terms of... Base: (194),YTD (815), YTD (396) Whilst LR is rated well for speed of service overall and for submitting registrations overall, scores are significantly lower for the requisition process and keeping you informed. All of these are also down year on year 89% Arrows denote a score which is significantly higher or lower at 95% confidence Submitting registrations

27 Land Registry CSS – September 2012 – (Client use) 26 Overall accuracy & quality Overall speed of service Q25 Continuing to think about the service you receive when you submit registrations, how would you rate the service in terms of... Overall speed of service? Base: Sept ‘12 (170), YTD (766), YTD (347). Overall accuracy & quality? Base: Sept (170); YTD (759), YTD (349) Substantive registrations Base only includes those who gave a rating at each question It is worth noting that the scores exclude DK responses which is having an impact on reported scores. Therefore, it is important to view these findings with a degree of caution YTD For substantive registrations, it appears that scores for overall speed of service and accuracy & quality may be slipping slightly year on year – but they remain strong Sept ‘12 YTD YTD Sept ‘12 YTD % 88%90% 95% 96% 93% Top 3 Box Arrows denote a score which is significantly higher or lower at 95% confidence

28 Land Registry CSS – September 2012 – (Client use) 27 92%95%94% 95% 91% 92% 90% Top 3 Box Q32 Thinking further about when you recently requested information or guidance from Land Registry on a specific issue, how would you rate the information and guidance provided by Land Registry in terms of... Base: All who requested info and guidance and liaised with staff (131); YTD (605), YTD (265) YTD ‘ 2012 – %94%95% 92%94%91% YTD ‘ 2011 – %92%93% 90%87% Don’t knows & N/As NA3%NA2%NA1%2% Information & guidance All aspects of information and guidance are rated highly, and the overall rating and ease of contacting staff have improved year on year Arrows denote a score which is significantly higher or lower at 95% confidence

29 Land Registry CSS – September 2012 – (Client use) 28 74% 95% 89%94% 95%86% 90% Top 3 Box Accuracy & quality Speed of service 95% Q19 (265); Q25 (194); Q32 (131); Q19 YTD (1083); Q25 YTD (815); Q32 YTD (553), Q19 YTD (540), Q25 YTD (396), Q32 YTD (265) YTD ‘ 2012 – %76%89%95% 86%92%95% YTD ‘ 2011 – %87%94%93%95%90%94%93% Don’t knows & N/As 1%10%8%NA2%11% 8% 2% Whilst speed of service and accuracy for searches/official copies and requesting information or guidance remain highly rated, speed and accuracy for registrations & new titles, and to a lesser extent, for dealings & applications, appear to be declining. These should be monitored carefully YTD total. View YTD trend with caution Arrows denote a score which is significantly higher or lower at 95% confidence

30 Land Registry CSS – September 2012 – (Client use) 29 74% 84% 95% 88% 69% 88% Top 3 Box Putting things right Consistency of service Value for money Q19 (265); Q25 (194); Q19 YTD (1083); Q25 YTD (815); Q19 YTD (540); Q25 YTD (396) YTD ‘ 2012 – %76%94%91%72%88% YTD ‘ 2011 – %81%95%93%75%88% Don’t knows & N/As 5%12%2%5%27%9% Value for money and consistency of service score less highly and seem to be slipping for submitting registrations; whereas putting things right is a weakness for searches/official copies

31 Land Registry CSS – September 2012 – (Client use) 30 80% 92% 77% 92% Top 3 Box Whilst the staff dealing with the submission of registrations continue to be well rated, ratings on both helpfulness & courtesy and knowledge & competence of staff by customers requesting searches or official copies are weaker, and have decreased year on year Helpfulness & courtesy of staff Knowledge & competence of staff Q19 (265); Q25 (194); Q19 YTD (1083); Q25 YTD (815); Q19 YTD (540); Q25 YTD (396) YTD ‘ 2012 – %93%79%92% YTD ‘ 2011 – % 90%92% Don’t knows & N/As 18%6%21%6%

32 Touchpoints - Key Driver Analysis

33 Land Registry CSS – September 2012 – (Client use) 32 Identifying priorities for action Correlation analysis has been performed on the data to understand which individual factors are correlating most strongly with the overall service rating (KPI) Results are used to attribute a “derived importance” score to each individual factor -This helps to identify the key issues, (those that can make distinction between “good” and “excellent” service) Combining this “derived importance” score with the actual performance score allows priorities to be set -Action should be focused on areas of high importance and relatively low performance Typically, the strength of correlations are interpreted as follows: -1.0 to -0.7 strong negative association -0.7 to -0.3 negative association -0.3 to +0.3 little or no association +0.3 to +0.7 positive association +0.7 to +1.0 strong positive association

34 Land Registry CSS – September 2012 – (Client use) 33 Key drivers of satisfaction At the highest level, as in previous waves, requesting searches and official copies and submitting registrations have the greatest impact on satisfaction with overall service. Performance is reasonably good on these aspects. The website is of medium level importance and lowest performance, suggesting that this should be an area of focus. When aspects of service are considered in more detail... For searches and official copies: completion of searches is a key strength. For submitting registrations, performance could be improved on the requisition process, keeping you informed, and speed of service for first registrations & new titles. When looking for information and guidance: Accuracy and quality is a key strength but clarity of explanations and ownership of issues are areas for improvement as they are key drivers of satisfaction but are rated below average

35 Land Registry CSS – September 2012 – (Client use) 34 Base size: 300Service areasCorrelations with “overall service” provided in past 6 months (Q9) Strongest driver of overall service is “Requesting Searches and official copies” Overall service Correlations with Overall Service Provided in Past 6 Months (Q9)

36 Land Registry CSS – September 2012 – (Client use) 35 Performance ( Mean ) Although all aspects of Overall Service are of similar levels of importance, requesting searches and official copies is the strongest, followed by submitting registrations. The website is less well rated, but of above average importance and should be a focus area Key Action Areas Communicate and Maintain Performance Communicate Performance Consider Performance Improvement Overall service Lower Association Higher Association Derived Importance

37 Land Registry CSS – September 2012 – (Client use) 36 Base size :265 Service areas Correlation with “overall service” provided when requesting searches/copies(Q19(8)) Strongest driver of overall service is “Completion of searches” Correlations with Overall Service Provided When Requesting Searches/ Copies [Q19(8)] Searches and Official Copies

38 Land Registry CSS – September 2012 – (Client use) 37 Performance ( Mean ) Key Action Areas Communicate Performance Consider Performance Improvement Communicate and Maintain Performance Completion of searches is a clear strength; putting things right and value for money should be considered for improvement but they are less than average in terms of importance Searches and Official Copies Lower Association Higher Association Derived Importance

39 Land Registry CSS – September 2012 – (Client use) 38 Correlations Overall Service Provided When Submit Changes To Register [Q25(13)] Base size : 194 Service areas Correlation with “overall service” provided when submit changes to register (Q25(13)) Strongest driver of overall service is “Completion of registrations” Submitting registrations

40 Land Registry CSS – September 2012 – (Client use) 39 Lower Association Higher Association Derived Importance Performance ( Mean ) Key Action Areas Consider Performance Improvement Communicate Performance Communicate and Maintain Performance Completion of registrations, accuracy & quality, and helpfulness, courtesy, knowledge & competence of staff are all key strengths of registration submission. Performance should be improved on the requisition process, keeping you informed, and speed of service for first registrations & new titles Submitting registrations

41 Land Registry CSS – September 2012 – (Client use) 40 Base size: 131Service areasCorrelations with “overall service” provided in past 6 months (Q32(7)) Strongest driver of overall service is “Accuracy and quality” Correlations Overall Service Provided When Requesting Information / Guidance [Q32(7)] Information and guidance

42 Land Registry CSS – September 2012 – (Client use) 41 Performance ( Mean ) Key Action Areas Communicate and Maintain Performance Communicate Performance Consider Performance Improvement Requesting information & guidance is a key area. Strengths are accuracy & quality, and responding to calls/correspondence. Weakness which should be addressed are clarity of explanations and information, and taking ownership to resolve issues Lower Association Higher Association Derived Importance Information and guidance

43 Brand Values

44 Land Registry CSS – September 2012 – (Client use) 43 Brand Values – Headlines Land Registry scores very well on several brand values including reliable and consistent service, knowledge and expertise, and maintaining the integrity and accuracy of the registers. Performance is lower on elements relating to a customer-centric offer, and this should be the focus for improvement. Those with a customer team tend to give higher scores for brand value statements, including those relating to a customer-centric offer; thus demonstrating the importance of this strategy. Higher brand value scores are associated with a higher propensity to recommend and overall service satisfaction; implying that if LR can deliver on its brand values, the customer relationship will be stronger overall. One third of customers still feel that LR can be too rigid in its processes and procedures and complicated to deal with. However, those with a customer team are less likely to see their dealings at complicated.

45 Land Registry CSS – September 2012 – (Client use) 44 B2B Sept ’12 T2B Sept ’12 T2B YTD T2B YTD %92% N/A 95% 2%79% N/A 81% 6%87% N/A 87% 3%92% 88% 91% 9%88% 86% 88% 4%93% 89% 91% 6%76% 81% 80% 3%72% 79% 73% 5%71% 77% 74% 2%75% 78% 76% Q13 Agreement with statements... Base: All respondents (300) LR is highly rated for providing a reliable and consistent service, demonstrating the level of knowledge and expertise expected, and ensuring the integrity and accuracy of the registers. Performance is lower on valuing customers, respecting their views, commitment to continuous improvements, seeking to understand and meet customer needs, and treating all customers fairly Land Registry provides a reliable and consistent service Land Registry treats all customers fairly Customers are clear about the service elements Land Registry provides Land Registry demonstrates the level of knowledge and expertise expected by its customers Land Registry products and services are easy to find and use I trust Land Registry to ensure the integrity and accuracy of the registers Land Registry seeks to understand its customers’ needs and strives to meet them Land Registry respects its customers’ views Land Registry values the relationship with my organisation Land Registry is committed to continuous improvements in quality, efficiency and effectiveness

46 Land Registry CSS – September 2012 – (Client use) 45 Land Registry seeks to understand its customers’ needs and strives to meet them DKs T2B Sept ’12 1%93% 3%88% 12%83% 13%75% 1%93% 5%80% 1%93% 2%91% -94% 2%78% -93% -95% 4%88% 8%62% 5%81% 17%64% 6%83% 18%56% 5%86% 13%67% Customers are clear about the service elements Land Registry provides Land Registry treats all customers fairly Land Registry provides a reliable and consistent service I trust Land Registry to ensure the integrity and accuracy of the registers Land Registry demonstrates the level of knowledge and expertise expected by its customers Land Registry products and services are easy to find and use Q13 Agreement with statements... Base: All respondents (300); With a customer team (138); without a customer team (100) Customers with a dedicated team are significantly more likely to respond positively to several aspects of LR’s brand values, including seeking to understand and meet customer needs, respecting customer views, and valuing relationships - With customer team* - Without customer team * * * * * * * Data includes Don’t Know responses Land Registry respects its customers' views Land Registry values the relationship with my organisation Land Registry is committed to continuous improvements in quality, efficiency & effectiveness * * * Arrows denote a score which is significantly higher or lower at 95% confidence

47 Land Registry CSS – September 2012 – (Client use) 46 DKs T2B Sept ’12 2%33% 2%36% NA22% 1%46% Dealing with Land Registry can be complicated Land Registry’s processes and procedures are too rigid Q13 Agreement with statements... Base: All respondents (300); With a customer team (138); without a customer team (100) Customers aware that they have a dedicated team are also less likely to believe that LR can be complicated to deal with - With customer team* - Without customer team * * Arrows denote a score which is significantly higher or lower at 95% confidence

48 Land Registry CSS – September 2012 – (Client use) 47 Correlations with Overall Service Provided in Past 6 Months (Q9) Base size: 300Service areasCorrelations with “overall service” provided in past 6 months (Q9) against (Q13) Strongest driver of overall service is “provides reliable and consistent service ” (*) indicates negative correlations Brand Values

49 Land Registry CSS – September 2012 – (Client use) 48 Lower Association Higher Association Derived Importance Performance ( Mean ) Core strengths are reliable and consistent service, understanding and meeting customer needs, products / services easy to find and use, commitment to continuous improvement. LR values the relationship with my organisation is an area to improve. Complexity and rigidity could be addressed, but are less closely linked to overall satisfaction Key Action Areas Communicate and Maintain Performance Communicate Performance Consider Performance Improvement Brand Values N.B. Mean scores for ‘Land Registry’s processes and procedures are too rigid’ and ‘dealing with Land Registry can be complicated’ have been reversed to reflect the negative scale

50 Land Registry CSS – September 2012 – (Client use) 49 Land Registry values the relationship with my organisation To improve the relationship between LR and their organisation, customers would like to see LR understand their business needs more Q14 Earlier you didn’t agree with the statement that Land Registry values the relationship with my organisation. What can Land Registry do to improve the relationship between your organisation and Land Registry? Base: (54) “They could listen more, ask more questions be slightly less rigid in their responses. Understand a bit more about our procedures and what we go through and our transition process and what we go through to follow their rules” “They could explain to me how the new Land Registry system works. It is no longer clear where and who we are supposed to contact; everything gets redirected” “Offer discounts for regular users” “Improve communication-aimed at the specific office we deal with. Simplify Land Registry legislation and make it less prescriptive” “They could hold regular meetings with members of the profession, as they used to do” “Make life easier by shortening the forms, and saving trees. Reducing the number of forms” “Recognise that we are solicitors when we call and not just a random person” “I think considering the importance of the service to the individual, I think it's that we feel like a small organisation and therefore not important to them” “Better understand the difficulties that our firm faces. Early completion” “Having a response electronically to something that you haven't been able to obtain, so you know the reason why” T2B Sept ’12 YTD ‘11-12 YTD ‘ %77%74%

51 Land Registry CSS – September 2012 – (Client use) 50 To improve LR processes, customers would like to see each case treated individually and providing tailored solutions B2B Sept ’12 T2B Sept ’12 T2B YTD ‘11-12 T2B YTD ‘ %33%34%30% 63%33%29%32% Dealing with Land Registry can be complicated Land Registry’s processes and procedures are too rigid Q13 Agreement with statements... Base: All respondents (300) Q15 What can Land Registry do to improve their processes? Base: All who agreed with above statement (119) “Most of my complaints are with plans on very old documents, where historically they were just hand-drawn and not to scale. Land Registry need to adopt a more pragmatic view” “They should use more discretion with individual cases. They won't release information - even simple requests - as they are terrified they may be done out of a fee” “Pick up the phone, allow minor mistakes to be rectified without payment” “It's difficult to find things on the system and feels like your are wading through mud to get information” Important suggestions

52 Land Registry CSS – September 2012 – (Client use) 51 The most often mentioned improvements that customers wish to see are increased flexibility; simplicity; and improvements to online services. Flexibility is a key priority for customers this wave (22% vs. 10% in June ‘12). Similarly, compared to the last wave, more customers suggest simplicity as an improvement (13% in June ’12) Q15 What can Land Registry do to improve the relationship between your organisation and Land Registry? Base: All who agreed with above statement (119) Important suggestions Only responses mentioned by 4% or more customers shown on chart

53 Land Registry CSS – September 2012 – (Client use) 52 Promoters Brand value Vs. KPI and NPS Land Registry values the relationship with my organisation Land Registry values the relationship with my organisation T2B Total Passives Q13 Agreement with statements... Base: All respondents (300); T2B (249); Prom. (174); Passives (98) DKs T2B Sept ’12 11%71% 10%76% 11%78% 10%68% Brand Value KPI NPS

54 Land Registry CSS – September 2012 – (Client use) 53 Brand value Vs. KPI and NPS Land Registry’s processes and procedures are too rigid Land Registry’s processes and procedures are too rigid T2B Total Passives Promoters NPS Brand Value KPI Q13 Agreement with statements... Base: All respondents (300); T2B (249); Prom. (174); Passives (98) DKs T2B Sept ’12 4%33% 4%27% 5%24% 4%37%

55 Land Registry CSS – September 2012 – (Client use) 54 Brand value Vs. KPI and NPS Dealing with Land Registry can be complicated Dealing with Land Registry can be complicated Q13 Agreement with statements... Base: All respondents (300); T2B (249); Prom. (174); Passives (98) DKs T2B Sept ’12 1%33% 1%27% 1%21% NA44% NPS Brand Value KPI T2B Passives Promoters Total

56 Comms

57 Land Registry CSS – September 2012 – (Client use) 56 Overall rating of: Excluding those who have not used/don’t Knows YTD %91% YTD %92% Both Portal and Website continue to be well rated despite a slight slip year on year Q34A Overall, how would you rate the Portal? Base: All with access (260) Q34B. Overall, how would you rate the website? Base: All respondents (272); Excluding Don’t knows (28) 93% Top 3 Box 95%

58 Land Registry CSS – September 2012 – (Client use) 57 Users would like the website to be more intuitive and potentially easier to navigate Q34C. Thinking further about Land Registry’s website. Please can you tell me the extent to which you agree or disagree with the following statements? Base: All who have used the website (279) Top 3 Box YTD DKs & NAs Sept ‘12 Website met my expectations Functionality is reliable Information is reliable Website is intuitive language used is easy to understand Website is not very easy to purchase from Website is difficult to navigate 3%92%93% 5%92%93% 3%95% 13%68%67% 2%89%90% 24%14% 3%31% NB. Questions added in June ‘12 so trending not available

59 Land Registry CSS – September 2012 – (Client use) 58 “It can just be confusing if you are just doing searches. The website is confusing” “They could contact us by when a search has been completed; we waste a lot of time logging on to check throughout the day. This would save time and simplify things for us” “It's difficult to see how they could improve as they carry so much information, the navigation could be improved you have to wade through an awful lot” “Sometimes it needs a little bit more description on what the links lead to” “The search facility doesn't throw up the things I'm looking for, it's unhelpful” Improvements to the website customers would like to see “Less clutter and fewer bulletins. Too much complicated interpretation of legislation. Simplifying the information and putting it all in one place” “The access of the search, the search could be improved using one word to bring you to the area you're looking for, it could be more user friendly” “The search engine could be improved. Quite tricky if you are not familiar with legal jargon and navigate around the website. Search menus are not intuitive” “Make the search function easier. When trying to find information, there should be more fields to search in, narrowing down the results. For example being able to search for a name and post code instead of just one or the other” “I would like to see some of the tabs should be clearer as into what’s behind them, services doesn't always mean what you think it means. As practice manager I have to have 3 pin numbers and it would be nice to have one to log on” Main areas for website improvement are the ability to search easily and better navigation Q34D. What improvements would you like to see made to Land Registry’s website? Base: All who have used the website (291)

60 Land Registry CSS – September 2012 – (Client use) 59 YTD %93% YTD N/A93%89% The web based practice guides, written/online practice guidelines and Landnet are all well rated 89% 91% 92% Q26 How would you rate each of the following information and services provided by Land Registry? Base: All respondents (300) Base: Quality of written/online practice guidelines (228) ; Web based practice guides and bulletins (211); Landnet (80) Don’t knows & N/As 24%30%73% Top 3 Box Data excludes Don’t Know responses

61 Land Registry Offices

62 Land Registry CSS – September 2012 – (Client use) 61 Just less than half (46%) of customers interviewed have a dedicated customer team (down from 48% in June) and seven in ten of these know their team name. Over nine in ten rate the service they receive as either excellent or very good. Q37A: Do you have a dedicated Customer Services Team? All respondents (300) Q37B. Do you know the name of the customer team who deals with your work? All who have a dedicated Customer Services Team: (138) Q37C: Overall, how would you rate the level of service provided by your Customer Team? All who know the name of their Customer Team: (96) Are your current Land Registry services provided by a dedicated Customer Team? 97% Top 3 Box Awareness of team name Rating of team 98% YTD ‘12-’13

63 Land Registry CSS – September 2012 – (Client use) 62 “Because they've been really helpful whenever we've wanted any additional information, if there's a problem with say a mistake in filling out registration forms we tend to get a call from them and they try to sort it out over the phone” “They have always dealt with anything quickly, and if they can’t give you an answer straight way, they always come back to you quickly.” “Because whenever I have had a problem, complaint or query they have always replied within a reasonable amount of time” “Because telephone calls are always quickly answered. The staff is knowledgeable and polite and questions are answered promptly.” Reasons given for Dedicated Customer Team rating “There have never been any problems; they are responsive helpful and efficient” “Seem to know what they are talking about. Have a lot of local knowledge” “Every time we have needed something they have always gotten back to us quickly or responded in good time with full information” “No complaints. Registration is prompt, we receive the information we require and there are no delays. It is generally a good service” Reasons for rating the dedicated customer teams highly include... Q37D Why do you say that? Base: Excellent/very good (89); good (4); fair/poor (2) “I've gotten answers each time I've contacted them and got the information I needed each time. I can understand the information easily. They are very quick”

64 Areas of Improvement

65 Land Registry CSS – September 2012 – (Client use) 64 Again, aspects of service received from LR are rated highly; nearly all customers rate the service excellent, very good or good Q35. Thinking generally about the level of service from LR. How would you rate it over the last 6 months in terms of the following aspects? Base: All respondents excluding don’t knows and unable to says YTD %97% 94% 97% Top 3 Box 95% Base Excludes ‘Don’t Know’ and ‘Unable to say due to no direct experience’ responses

66 Land Registry CSS – September 2012 – (Client use) 65 Customer comments regarding service areas LR should improve… “Not reject things because of minor error. Be able to help solve problems over the phone” “I think that they could deal with registrations quicker especially first registrations” “Being more flexible. The Land Registry have fairly rigid rules on rejecting applications and with meeting criteria. It can be an oversight or problem on our part and it results in a the application being sent back in its entirety” “It would be making the items you purchase electronically available longer” “A little more user friendly as far as the general public is concerned” Q11 Now thinking about the service you have received from Land Registry over the last 6 months, is there any specific area or service that Land Registry should improve on? Base: All respondents (300); customers rating LR excellent/very good (249); good/fair (46) Customers rating LR Excellent / Very Good (overall) “Be prepared to show more flexibility on interpretations of Land Registry legislation and not to stick vigorously to practice guidelines” “That they don’t visit the establishments anymore, they used to have workshops based at the office and they don't do it now” “I think given my experience they have to be careful when copying documents” “Making the online service a bit more intelligent. Make suggestions rather than being too rigid. Should make suggestions on the search engine. Perhaps postcode only” “In connection with Index map searches, they could be more helpful by providing a suitable plan rather than rejecting the one that you send in” Customers rating LR as Good (overall)

67 Conclusions & Recommendations

68 Land Registry CSS – September 2012 – (Client use) 67 Conclusions Overall satisfaction remains high and is in line with the LR target of 96% whilst the YTD score is above this at 97%. Similarly, NPS is above the LR target of 40% at 50% whilst the YTD NPS score is very high at 52%. Both OSAT and NPS are down from June 12 albeit not significant Once again, speed of service is highly rated amongst customers and is the main reason cited for recommending the service. Accuracy and quality of information is also well regarded and remains an important driver of Satisfaction Comments highlight the importance of customer service and many praise the willingness of staff to help resolve queries as quickly as possible Land Registry brand values score well again this wave, although there are some drops in the top three box scores for reliability and consistency, seeking to understand customer needs and valuing the relationship with customer organisations. The most highly rated brand value is trust in LR to ensure the integrity and accuracy of the registers

69 Land Registry CSS – September 2012 – (Client use) 68 Again, customers with a dedicated team are more satisfied with all aspects of service and rate all brand values more highly. The rigidity of processes and procedures and the complexity of dealing with LR scores are in line with last wave and therefore there is still room for improvement Once again, requesting searches and official copies and submitting registrations are the top two key drivers of OSAT and it is important to maintain performance for these two touch points Overall, dedicated teams garner positive scores as customers are impressed by the service they receive from their representatives. The speed and efficiency of service received amongst customers who have a dedicated team is high but a similar proportion to last wave report to having one and 30% of customers that do, are unable to name their contact to there is still room for improvement. Conclusions

70 Land Registry CSS – September 2012 – (Client use) 69 Recommendations Maintaining and continuing to improve the customer relationship is key and focus should be on providing a customer-led service strategy. Land Registry is exceeding the NPS target and in line with the OSAT target and therefore is important to ensure customers keep receiving an excellent or very good service Dedicated customer teams are important in building this relationship and leading on customer service. They are also well placed to understand the needs of customers’ organisations and provide a service which meets or exceeds expectations Rigidity of processes and procedures is a key point raised this wave. This highlights that there is still room for improvement in the flexibility of dealing with customers and their requests Website ratings also suggest there is room for improvement, especially with regards to navigation and intuitiveness. Customer comments highlight the usefulness of the service but point to the difficulties encountered accessing the site and when searching for specific information

71 Appendix

72 Land Registry CSS – September 2012 – (Client use) Q3. Can I ask what your job title is? Q3 Can I ask what your job title is? Base: All respondents (300) Data includes Don’t Know responses

73 Land Registry CSS – September 2012 – (Client use) Q6. How would you describe your type of organisation? Q6 How would you describe your type of organisation? Base: All respondents (300) Data includes Don’t Know responses

74 Land Registry CSS – September 2012 – (Client use) Q4. For which of these reasons have you personally dealt with Land Registry in the past 6 months? Q4 For which of these reasons have you personally dealt with Land Registry in the past 6 months? Base: All respondents (300) Data includes Don’t Know responses

75 Land Registry CSS – September 2012 – (Client use) Q5. How often do you or your office have contact with or deal with Land Registry? Mean of 145 interactions with Land Registry every year Q5 How often do you or your office have contact with or deal with Land Registry? Base: All respondents (300) Factors used for mean: Daily (147); Weekly (90); Monthly (25); Every few months (28); Less often (10)

76 Land Registry CSS – September 2012 – (Client use) Q16. Do you or your organisation request preliminary enquiries such as official copies or searches from Land Registry? Q16 Do you or your organisation request preliminary enquiries such as official copies or searches from Land Registry? Base: All respondents (300)

77 Land Registry CSS – September 2012 – (Client use) Q18. Thinking about when you requested official searches and official copies directly from Land Registry, have you requested them through... Q18 Thinking about when you request official searches and official copies directly from Land Registry, have you requested them through....? Base: All who request searches and copies (265)

78 Land Registry CSS – September 2012 – (Client use) Q21. Do you or your organisation lodge applications for registration with Land Registry? Q21 Do you or your organisation lodge applications for registration with Land Registry? Base: All respondents (300)

79 Land Registry CSS – September 2012 – (Client use) Q28. What types of information or guidance did you request? Q27 Have you or someone from your office requested any information or guidance from Land Registry in the last 6 months? Base: All (300) Q28 What types of information or guidance did you request? Base: All who requested info and/or guidance (165) 55% have requested information or guidance from Land Registry in the last 6 months

80 Land Registry CSS – September 2012 – (Client use) Q29. Which is the route or channel that you use most often when requesting information or guidance? Q29 Which is the route or channel that you use most often when requesting information or guidance? Base: All who requested info and/or guidance (165)

81 Land Registry CSS – September 2012 – (Client use) Q31. Thinking about when you request information and guidance from Land Registry, have you liaised with... Q31 Thinking about when you request information and guidance from Land Registry, have you liaised with? Base: All who requested info and/or guidance (165)

82 Land Registry CSS – September 2012 – (Client use) Q38. Which, if any, office do you deal with or deal with most often? Q38. Which, if any, office do you deal with or deal with most often? Base: All respondents (300)


Download ppt "12-040611 Land Registry CSS – September 2012 – 24-10-12 (Client use) 0 Customer Satisfaction Survey September 2012 Prepared for: Land Registry Prepared."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google