Surveyors Ombudsman Service. Customer Satisfaction 2010

Transcription

1 Surveyors Ombudsman Service Customer Satisfaction 00 A Research Report For Prepared By DJS Research Ltd July 00 Prepared by: James Hinde, Research Director T: ; E: jhinde@djsresearch.com

2 Table of Contents. Executive Summary. Introduction 5. Who Were The Enquirers and Complainants? 9 4. The Companies and Their Customers Problems 5. Initial Contact with the Surveyors Ombudsman Service 5 7. The Experience of Complainants 5 8. Members Survey 7 9. Summary of Findings and Recommendations 46 Appendix 5

3 . Executive Summary.. This is now the second year in which the Surveyors Ombudsman Service has undertaken research into how satisfied people are with the service the organisation provides. The research was undertaken between January and April 00. A total of 50 complainants were surveyed using a self completion method and 6 took part representing a response rate of 4%. A total of 99 enquirers were surveyed and a total of 8 took part representing a response rate of 8%. A total of member companies responded to a web survey and a further 4 took part in a telephone interview. The executive summary sets out some of the headline findings from the 00 study. Customer Problems and Initial Contact.. The key problems identified by enquirers were related to residential sales, a generally poor level of customer service and problems with building surveys. Complainants mentioned the homebuyers survey valuation most... The proportion of complainants and enquirers who had been made aware of the code of practice was high with about two thirds made aware..4. Looking at satisfaction with the initial reception amongst both enquirers and complainants scores were good for speed of initial response on the phone, staff spoken to and explanation/advice given. Views were less clear on the written response and explanation about the Surveyors Ombudsman Service and some commented that it was unclear in the written response what the Surveyors Ombudsman Service do. Experience of Enquirers.5. The majority of enquirers were satisfied with friendliness, helpfulness, reliability, knowledge, understanding and authority to deal with the problem..6. When we asked enquirers who had done the most to resolve the problem, most (9 of ) answering identified the Surveyors Ombudsman Service..7. Enquirers were asked whether they agreed or disagreed with a number of statements about the Surveyors Ombudsman Service s role in resolving their complaint. Perceptions were mixed on whether the Ombudsman were excellent and helped solve the problem with equal proportions agreeing as disagreeing. However, the majority ultimately disagreed that the Ombudsman had helped sort out the problem.

4 .8 The survey went on to gather enquirers overall satisfaction with the Surveyors Ombudsman Service. Around half were dissatisfied with the service with most of those dissatisfied saying they were very dissatisfied. Almost half said that their confidence in the Ombudsman and with surveyors and estate agents had decreased. However, just more than a half would be likely to use the Ombudsman again and recommend them to friends/family. Experience of Complainants.9. Looking specifically at the Investigation Officers views were mixed with about a half satisfied with friendliness, helpfulness, knowledge, understanding, reliability and authority to deal with my problem. This reflects the high proportion who felt the outcome of the case went against them..0. About half were satisfied with the information provided by Investigation Officers. However, there was some particular dissatisfaction with the timeliness and comprehensiveness of information amongst about a quarter... In the past findings have suggested a tangible link between complainants overall satisfaction levels and how frequently they have been updated. Most had been contacted proactively to keep them informed about how the case was progressing... Complainants were also asked to assess their satisfaction with various specific aspects of the Surveyor Ombudsman Service s processes. Satisfaction levels were high with explanation at the start. However, views were more mixed on the ease of access to the Investigation Officer, extent to which they were updated and the extent to which the Surveyors Ombudsman Service attempted to resolve complaints through mediation/negotiation, efficiency of the process, speed of the process and overall level of service... Complainants were also asked about satisfaction with various aspects of the provisional conclusion report. Satisfaction with readability was reasonable with nearly half satisfied. However, there was some level of strong dissatisfaction with the accuracy of content and the report s recommendations and aspects surrounding it with nearly a half very dissatisfied.

5 .4. When asked about the outcome of the case most (6%) felt it was not in their favour. We believe this is because the scale of the financial goodwill received did not live up to expectations. This is a key issue and impacts on the low satisfaction scores and likelihood to use again and recommend. Almost half (4%) said they were very dissatisfied. Complainants need to understand the limitations of the Surveyors Ombudsman Service with regards to what can be delivered. Members Survey.5 When members were asked about satisfaction with the Surveyors Ombudsman Service processes, satisfaction levels were low with just over a half dissatisfied with accepting complaints when appropriate, training/guidance on compiling a case file, ease of compiling a case file and length of time it takes, efficiency of handling a case and speed of case resolution..6 We asked members to indicate their satisfaction with the Investigation Officer. The majority were satisfied with friendliness, helpfulness and reliability, but there was strong dissatisfaction with knowledge and understanding of the problem (about a third were very dissatisfied)..7 Most wanted proactive updates from the Surveyors Ombudsman Service and received proactive updates. Just indicated they were never kept informed..8 As with complainants, there is a gap between expectations of length of case and actual length of case. Most ( out of 7) expected an investigation to take - months or less whereas this was the case for just 5 of the 5 who answered..9 We asked members as well as complainants about their satisfaction with the Provisional Conclusion Report. There was high satisfaction with the accuracy and readability and slightly lower levels of satisfaction for the report s recommendations and aspects surrounding it with nearly a half dissatisfied..0 Members were also asked about satisfaction with a typical investigation. As with the Provisional Conclusion Report, there was high satisfaction with the accuracy of content and readability and lower levels of satisfaction for the report s recommendations and aspects surrounding it with nearly a half dissatisfied.. Overall, most members (9 of 4) were dissatisfied with the Surveyors Ombudsman Service with 5 of these very dissatisfied. This led to mixed views concerning the likelihood of recommending to others. 4

6 . Introduction.9. Now in its second year of operation, the Surveyors Ombudsman Service provides an ombudsman service for chartered surveying firms, surveyors, estate agents and residential managing agents..0. The Surveyors Ombudsman Service was set up by the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors to handle complaints about their members and has been approved by the Office of Fair Trading to run an estate agents redress scheme... The Surveyors Ombudsman Service s principal objective is to receive and investigate complaints from members customers and to issue final decisions based on fair and balanced outcomes for those complaints. On its website they describe their role as being We consider complaints fairly. We listen to both sides and look at the facts... Before the Surveyors Ombudsman Service can accept their complaint, customers must first have been through their own member company s complaint procedures and the case must have reached deadlock. Deadlock occurs when the company has stated it cannot do any more to try and resolve the customer s complaint. If the Surveyors Ombudsman Service considers a complaint to be within its remit, the team will investigate the case and will consider whether or not any action must be taken by the member company. One of the conditions of membership is that the companies are required to honour the Ombudsman s final decision.. Depending on their own particular requirements and the nature of their case, members of the public who use the Surveyors Ombudsman Service can be generally classified by the following 4 broad groups: 5

7 . Those who have made an enquiry to Surveyors Ombudsman Service, but have not yet received a judgement on whether the complaint can be accepted;. Those who made an enquiry to the Surveyors Ombudsman Service but, for whatever reason, the Surveyors Ombudsman Service was not able to investigate their complaint e.g. because their company is not a member of the Surveyors Ombudsman Service or because the complainant had not yet given their service provider an opportunity to resolve the problem i.e. a deadlock situation has not yet been reached;. Those who have made an enquiry to the Surveyors Ombudsman Service and have had their case accepted, but the case is not yet complete; 4. Those whose complaints the Surveyors Ombudsman Service have accepted for investigation, and have either been through the investigation process and received the Ombudsman s final decision or have had their case resolved through assisted negotiation by the Ombudsman... This is the second year in which the Surveyors Ombudsman Service has undertaken research into how satisfied users are with the service the organisation provides and the first year research has been conducted with enquirers and members. Research with complainants was carried out in 009 and 8 complainants responded. Due to the low base size comparisons are only made with key figures..4. The technical appendix to this report presents this year s survey figures. Aims and Objectives of the 00 Research.5. The main focus of this year s complainants and enquirers research remains straightforward and broadly in-line with that of other Ombudsman Services, i.e. to examine whether those who have approached the Surveyors Ombudsman Service consider it is achieving its aim of providing a service that is independent, easy to use, free of charge, transparent and effective.. In 00 we also set out to understand the satisfaction of member companies with the Surveyors Ombudsman Service and the service that they provide to them. Research Methods. Research was conducted using a postal survey. A questionnaire with a covering letter from the Surveyors Ombudsman Service was sent to respondents, together with a reply paid envelope. The covering letter also highlighted a web link which could be used by those who preferred to complete the survey on-line. 6

8 Enquirers.4 The enquirers group is made up of members of the public that made telephone or written contact with the Surveyors Ombudsman Service (seeking advice, information etc), but for various reasons had not had their complaint formally accepted by the Surveyors Ombudsman Service. This would include a range of different groups ranging from those with a relatively straightforward question to those at the beginning of a serious complaint. It included a representative mix of telephone and written enquiries..5 To draw the postal survey sample DJS Research was provided with the contact details of all those who made an enquiry between November 009 and February 00. This excluded any who had asked not to be included in the research being undertaken by the Surveyors Ombudsman Service..6 A total of 99 postal surveys were issued in total, all with a covering letter from the Surveyors have been through sometimes lengthy and complicated internal member company procedures before Ombudsman Service and a reply paid envelope. In addition a link to a website was provided for those who would prefer to complete the survey online. After approximately weeks a reminder was sent out to those who had not replied. The survey was closed on 0 th April A total of 8 analysable surveys were returned, a response rate of 8%. However, many of the enquirer group may not have been relevant as they either had gone on to have their complaint formally accepted or they had a very straightforward question and did not feel they could give in-depth feedback. However, the response rate still remains very good for a self completion study. Complainants.6. The complainants group is made up of members of the public that went on to lodge an official complaint with the Surveyors Ombudsman Service about one of their members. The Ombudsman Service avoid surveying those in the process of making a complaint 7

9 .7. For the purposes of this study a sample of all complainants whose case was closed between April and December 009 was used. This sample was sent a postcard prior to the research to inform them the research was taking a place and to give them the option to opt out of the research if they prefer not to take part..8. A total of 50 postal surveys were issued, all with a covering letter from the Surveyors Ombudsman Service and a reply paid envelope. After approximately weeks a reminder was sent out to those who had not replied. The survey was closed on 0 th April A total of 6 analysable surveys were returned, a response rate of 4%. Employing steps to ensure participation (such as clear communication, leaving sufficient time to respond and introducing a web survey option) will remain important in the future. Nonetheless, as with other Ombudsman Service studies, the response rate still remains very good for a self completion study. Members.8 Members were surveyed using a web based questionnaire distributed by . A total of responded. Of these, we spoke to 4 who were willing to take part in a more indepth interview by phone. 8

10 . Who Were The Enquirers and Complainants?. Section examines the key characteristics of those who responded to enquirer and complainant surveys issued by DJS Research.. As outlined in the previous section, a total of 8 enquirers and 6 complainants returned surveys to DJS Research. Due to the small base number for the enquirers survey, figures are given as percentages only when being compared to the complainants group. It should be noted throughout this report the base numbers of responses to each individual question may vary as not all respondents answer every question. For some questions the total number may exceed the base - this is because respondents have been given the opportunity to select multiple responses. Personal characteristics. Both enquirers and complainants were more likely to have been male ( [7%] and 64%) than female (5 [9%] and 6%)..4 All the complainants were over the age of 5. Over a third (7%) of complainants were over 56. This is in line with the profile of other Ombudsman services, which tends to be older. Table : Age of respondents Sex Enquirers Complainants Under 6 0 0% % 9-5 (6%) 0% 6-5 (7%) 5% (8%) % % (8%) 0% (%) 7% Base (n) Those surveyed were then asked about their housing tenure. Most (6 of 8) enquirers were owner occupiers of their own house a further enquirer was the tenant of a private landlord and one more was in other accommodation. All the complainants were owner occupiers. Given the nature of the complaint it is unsurprising that the vast majority of respondents were owner occupiers. 9

11 .6 Most (6 of 7) enquirers spoke English as a first language, leaving two who did not. The vast majority (98%) of complainants indicated that English was their first language..7 Two thirds ( of 7) of the enquirers considered themselves White English whilst Irish, Scottish, Bangladeshi and Other British background were all represented by one enquirer. Two respondents considered themselves to be from any other white background. All complainant survey respondents identified themselves as being White. Most (84%) were White English. The remainder were Scottish (8%), Other British (5%) and any Other White Background (%). Table : Racial or ethnic background Racial or ethnic background Enquirers Complainants Census 00 White English (67%) 84% Welsh 0 0% Scottish (6%) 8% Irish (6%) 0% Other British (6%) 5% Any White (%) % Total White 7 (94%) 00% 9% Mixed 0% 0% Asian or Asian British Black or Black British Chinese / Other Ethnic Group Indian 0% 0% Pakistani 0% 0% Bangladeshi (6%) 0% Any other Asian 0% 0% Caribbean 0% 0% African 0% 0% Any other Black 0% 0% Chinese 0% 0% Any other 0% 0% Total Ethnic Minority 6% 0% 8% Base (n) Among enquirers one of the 8 suffered from impaired hearing and a further one suffered from problems with physical mobility. None of the respondents to the complainants survey reported suffering from impaired hearing or poor sight/blindness. A small minority (%) suffered from problems with physical mobility. 0

12 4. The Companies and Their Customers Problems 4. This section provides information about what type of service was being provided to those who made a complaint to the Surveyors Ombudsman Service. It also considers the reasons why those complaints were made. Type of Company and Actual Company 4. Most complaints (6% of complainants and of 8 enquirers) were with chartered surveying firms and a minority were with a surveyor (% of complainants and just of 8 enquirers) and an estate agent (only 7% of complainants and 5 of 8 enquirers). Problems with Member Companies 4. Survey respondents were asked to identify the types of problems they experienced with the company they were making their enquiry or complaint in relation to. Respondents were first asked to identify all the problems they had experienced and then select the single most serious problem from amongst them. 4.4 Looking first at all problems experienced (as set out in the table below). The problems mentioned most often by enquirers were related to residential sales (6 enquirers [%]), a generally poor level of customer service (4 enquirers [%]) and problems with building surveys (4 enquirers [%]). These were followed by issues with the homebuyer s survey valuation and mortgage valuations ( enquirers [7%] for both). The majority of the problems mentioned above were also considered to be the most serious problems by enquirers. Mortgage valuations, building surveys, homebuyer s survey valuation and professional advice were all mentioned as the most serious problem by (7%) enquirers each. 4.5 The problem mentioned most often by complainants was by far the homebuyer s survey valuation (5%) and it was the most serious problem for more than a third (7%). This was followed by the building survey (7%), general poor customer service (%) and professional advice (5%). The building survey was also the most serious problem for almost a quarter (%) of complainants.

13 Table : All problems experienced with member companies Problem Enquirers Complainants Homebuyers Survey Valuation (7%) 5% Home Conditions Survey 0 7% General Poor Customer 4 (%) % Service Experience Professional Advice (6%) 5% Mortgage Valuation (7%) 7% Building Survey 4 (%) 7% Residential Sales 6 (%) % Planning Application 0 5% Residential Letting (6%) % Other 4 (%) 5% Base (n) 8 60 Most Serious Problem Experienced With Member Companies Problem Enquirers Complainants Homebuyers Survey (7%) 7% Valuation Home Conditions Survey 0 5% General Poor Customer 0 7% Service Experience Professional Advice (7%) 8% Mortgage Valuation (7%) % Building Survey (7%) % Residential Sales (%) % Planning Application 0 5% Residential Letting (6%) % Other 6 (%) % Base (n)

14 Duration of Complaint to Company 4.6 The survey also asked the respondents how long they had been dealing with their company about their particular problem(s) before getting in touch with the Surveyors Ombudsman Service. Two thirds ( out of 8, 67%) of enquirers had got in touch with the ombudsman within 4 months. Most complainants got in touch after the complaint had elapsed for 5-6 months or longer (47%), but a quarter had contacted the Ombudsman within months. Table 4: Duration of complaint to company Duration Enquirers Complainants Under a month (7%) % - months 5 (8%) % -4 months 4 (%) 0% 5-6 months (%) % 7- months (7%) 7% More Than A Year (6%) 8% Not really sure/don t 0 8% remember Base (n) 8 60 Information About How to Complain 4.7 We asked respondents to the survey if they had been made aware of the firm s Code of Practice on complaints handling and if so by whom. Just over two thirds (67%) of complainants and enquirers had been informed. Almost out of 5 enquirers who answered the question (7 out of, 58%) had been informed by the firm; this is comparable to the out of 5 complainants (6%) who had been informed by the firm. Table 5: Made aware of Code of Practice on complaints handling Enquirers Complainants Yes (67%) 67% No 6 (%) 8% Not sure/don t remember 0 5% Base (n)

15 Table 6: How Enquirers and Complainants were made aware of the Code of Practice Enquirers Complainants From the Firm/Estate Agent 7 (58%) 6% From the Surveyors Ombudsman Service (5%) 5% From the Office of Fair Trading 0 % From the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors 0 % (RICS) Other (7%) 5% Base (n) The survey then asked respondents whether or not they had been told that after 8 weeks pursuing their complaint with their company they would be able to take the case to the Surveyors Ombudsman Service 8 weeks being the time period that needs to pass before the matter falls within the Surveyors Ombudsman Service s term of reference. Less than a third (enquirers, 5 out of 8 [8%]; complainants, 8%) had been advised by the firm. 4.9 Of those complainants who had been told about the 8 week rule, the majority ( out of 5 enquirers [60%] and 5% of complainants) were told during the company s complaint process. Amongst complainants, almost a third (9%) were told when the firm told them that they were unable to resolve the complaint or could do no more i.e. at the point of deadlock. Less than a fifth (8%) were told when they first complained to the firm. Table 7: Stage at which advised Stage Enquirers Complainants When I first complained to the firm (0%) 8% During the firm s complaint process (60%) 5% When the firm told me it was unable to resolve my (0%) 9% complaint or could do no more I experienced sustained difficulty and was unable to (0%) 0% register my complaint, however Surveyors Ombudsman Service accepted my complaint anyway Other 0 0% Not sure/don t remember 0 0% Base (n)

16 5. Initial Contact with the Surveyors Ombudsman Service 5. This section of the report examines respondents satisfaction with the initial contact with the Surveyors Ombudsman Service. 5. Some questions on initial contact were not included in the complainants survey as it was considered to be less relevant to this group. This includes: Sources of information about the Surveyors Ombudsman Service Time of first contact with the Surveyors Ombudsman Service Method of first contact with the Surveyors Ombudsman Service Reasons for first contacting the Surveyors Ombudsman Service Sources of Information about the Surveyors Ombudsman Service 5. A minority (4 of 8) indicated that they already knew about the Surveyors Ombudsman Service. A small proportion (5%) indicated that they found out from their energy company and most (0) found out elsewhere. Table 8: Sources of Information About Surveyors Ombudsman Service Source Enquirers I already knew about the Surveyors 4 Ombudsman Service From the firm 4 Elsewhere 0 Base (n) 8 5

17 Time of First Contact with the Surveyors Ombudsman Service 5.4 First contact for the majority of enquirers was primarily amongst those that had waited until after the supplier had made a decision ( of 8). However, a minority (5) said they made first contact before the firm had made a decision. Only a very small proportion () of respondents had contacted the Surveyors Ombudsman Service before complaining to the energy company. Table 9: Time of first contact with the Surveyors Ombudsman Service Enquirers Before I had complained to the firm After I had complained to the firm, but before 5 I had received their decision After the firm had made their decision and I decided that I wanted to take my case to the Ombudsman Base 8 Method of first contact with the Surveyors Ombudsman Service 5.5 The telephone was the most popular method of first contacting the Surveyors Ombudsman Service with 0 in 8 using this method. Some (5) had used letter/fax and a few () had used . Table 0: Method of first contact with the Surveyors Ombudsman Service Enquirers By telephone/mobile phone 0 By letter/fax 5 By Base 8 6

18 Reasons for first contacting the Surveyors Ombudsman Service 5.6 Respondents were then provided with a list of possible reasons why they might have contacted the Surveyors Ombudsman Service and asked to identify all that applied in their case. The results are set out in the table below. Most (4) were writing to register a complaint and get the process moving. Contacting the firm on their behalf, giving advice about making a complaint, and giving an indication about the strength of a case were all cited by 4 enquirers whilst giving general advice about what surveyors/estate agents can do and specific advice about what the respondent should do next, were both cited three times. Table : Reasons for first contacting the Surveyors Ombudsman Service Enquirers To get general advice about what surveyors/estate agents normally do/don t do ( can they do that? ) To give me advice about making a complaint to 4 my firm To get specific advice about what I should do next To give me an indication about the strength of my 4 case and advise if the complaint was worth pursing To contact the supplier on my behalf and ask 4 them to do something To register my complaint and get the complaint 4 process moving Base 8 7

19 Initial Reception 5.7 Respondents were asked to rate how satisfied they were with various aspects of the service they had received when they first contacted the Surveyors Ombudsman Service. 5.8 Enquirers were generally positive about their initial reception. Speed of initial response on the phone ( out of 5 satisfied), staff spoken to ( out of 5 satisfied) and explanation/advice given ( out of 6 satisfied) all performed well. Half (7 out of 4) were satisfied with the written response (but only were dissatisfied) and 0 out of 6 were satisfied with the explanation about the Ombudsman s powers again however, only a quarter were unsatisfied. 5.9 Of the who got through on the phone and answered the question, the time taken to connect the call varied greatly. One was connected within -60 seconds whilst another had to wait more than 5 minutes. One did not know how long it took to get through. The same number also answered the question on how long would have been acceptable to get through on the phone again one did not know. Of the remaining two, one suggested less than 0 seconds as an acceptable waiting time and one cited - minutes. It is clear that even within this small base expectations for call waiting time vary greatly. 5.0 Just 6 respondents commented on why they were dissatisfied with the written report. felt it was unclear what they had to do and a further felt the letter was standardised and didn t take their circumstances into account. One respondent considered the written response too wordy. 8

20 Table 7: Satisfaction with first contact with the Surveyors Ombudsman Service - enquirers Problem Very dissatisfied Fairly dissatisfied Neither/ Nor Fairly satisfied Very satisfied Staff spoken to Explanation/advice given Speed of initial response on phone Written response Explanation about powers of the Surveyors Ombudsman Service Base 5. Moving on to consider complainants we gave respondents a list of elements relating to the initial reception they received when contacting the Surveyors Ombudsman Service and asked people to assess how satisfied (or otherwise) they had been with each aspect. Satisfaction levels were generally high with the majority very satisfied on all attributes and are set out in the tables below: Speed of initial response on the phone over 4 out of 5 (8%) with only 6% dissatisfied. Staff spoken to the vast majority were satisfied (84%) with almost half (46%) being very satisfied. Explanation/advice given again, satisfaction was very high (80%) with more than 4 out of 0 respondents (4%) very satisfied. Written response more than 7 in 0 (7%) were satisfied. However, more than in 0 (4%) were very dissatisfied. Explanation about powers of SOS almost all were satisfied (8%). 9

21 Table : Satisfaction with first contact with the Surveyors Ombudsman Service - complainants Problem Speed of initial response on the phone Staff spoken to Explanation/ advice given Written response Explanation about powers of SOS Very dissatisfied Fairly dissatisfied Neither/ Nor Fairly satisfied Very satisfied Base 4% % % 5% 46% 48 % % % 8% 46% 48 4% 4% % 7% 4% 54 4% 9% 7% % 9% 57 7% 4% 9% 4% 8%

22 6. The Experience of Enquirers 6. In this chapter the experience of those contacting the Surveyors Ombudsman Service with an enquiry will be examined in more detail. Areas covered include their satisfaction with the ombudsman staff and the organisation in a more general sense, their views on any actions taken by their original company to resolve the issue and the actions of the Ombudsman; and finally their willingness to use the Ombudsman again and to recommend it to a friend or family member. As there were only 8 respondents to the enquirers survey, figures are given for individuals rather than as a percentage. Enquirers Experience of Surveyors Ombudsman People 6. Just over three quarters ( out of 7) of the respondents spoke to someone at the Ombudsman about their complaint at some point. The majority of enquirers who spoke to Ombudsman staff were satisfied. Satisfaction with friendliness ( of satisfied), helpfulness ( of ) and reliability (9 of 0) all performed exceptionally. Knowledge ( of 4 satisfied), understanding ( of 4) and authority ( of 4) all also satisfied over three quarters of respondents. These results are positive for the Ombudsman. Table : Enquirers Satisfaction with Surveyors Ombudsman Service people Attribute Very dissatisfied Fairly dissatisfied Fairly satisfied Neither / Nor Very satisfied Base Friendliness Helpfulness Knowledge knew what they were talking about Reliability always did what they said they would Understanding of my problem knew what I was talking about Authority confident they had the ability to solve my problem

23 6. Most (6) enquirers were given advice by the Ombudsman. Of these, half were told to complete their firm s code of practice but to return to the Surveyors Ombudsman Service if their problem remained unresolved, a further respondent was told to complete the code of practice but not to return to the Ombudsman if their complaint remained unresolved. Just were told the problem was not one the Ombudsman could look at and 4 were told something else. 6.4 Perceptions of the Ombudsman among enquirers seem to be positive with 9 out of respondents saying the Ombudsman did most to answer their enquiry. After the Ombudsman the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors did most ( out of ). Table : Service Which Did Most to Answer Enquiries Service Enquirers Surveyors Ombudsman Service did most 9 My advisor / another advisory service did most Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) did most The Firm did most Base (n) 6.5 Perceptions of the role of the Ombudsman were mixed. Around the same number who agreed the Ombudsman were excellent (6 of ) also disagreed with that statement (5 of ). Similarly, those who thought the Ombudsman service was completely useless (4 out of 9) was a similar number to those who disagreed i.e. thought it was useful (5 out of 9). 6.6 However, the majority (5 out of 9) disagreed that the Ombudsman had helped sort out their problem, and 4 of these 5 disagreed strongly. Likewise, 8 out of 0 disagreed that involvement with the Ombudsman forced the company to change its tune only in 0 agreed with this statement. More than half (5 out of 8) disagreed that the Ombudsman Service had been very helpful and had given them information that had better equipped them to deal with the company themselves; only out of 8 felt that this had been the case.

24 Table 4: Which of the Following Statements do You Agree or Disagree With? Statement Disagree Strongly Disagree Neither Agree Strongly Agree Base SOS were excellent 4 5 they gave me advice which helped with my problem I have no idea whether SOS involvement made any difference Once the company became aware that I had contacted the SOS it changed its tune and settled my complaint quickly SOS made no difference at all the company still refused to give me what I wanted SOS were very helpful, giving me advice about my case and I was better able to deal with the company on my own SOS was completely useless they just spoke to me and I heard nothing more from them SOS and my advisors helped to sort out my problem SOS will be talking to the company/industry to persuade them to change their policy

25 6.7 When enquirers were asked how satisfied they were with the Surveyors Ombudsman Service s handling of their enquiry, about half (7 of the 5 answering) were dissatisfied and 6 of these 7 very dissatisfied. Just was very satisfied, 4 quite satisfied and neither satisfied or dissatisfied. 6.8 Of the 6 enquirers who answered the question about likelihood to use the service again, 9 would be likely to use the Ombudsman should they run into similar problems again and almost a third (5 of 6) would be very likely. A quarter of the respondents would be unlikely to use the Ombudsman should they encounter a similar problem. This trend is carried over into the enquirers willingness to recommend the Ombudsman to friends and family. Of the 6 respondents, 9 would recommend using the Ombudsman whilst 7 would not. These relatively mixed figures are not surprising given the relatively mixed perceptions of the Ombudsman s success. 6.9 Likewise, almost half (6 out of 4) of the enquirers stated that their confidence in the Surveyors Ombudsman Service had greatly decreased following their experience compared to only 4 of the 4 whose confidence had increased at all. The situation is similar for the effect dealings with the Surveyors Ombudsman Service has had on respondents confidence in dealing with surveyors and estate agents in general. In this instance, 4 of the 4 stated their confidence had increased and 6 of the 4 that it had decreased. However, it should be remembered that the small base sizes involved in the enquirers study make it difficult to draw many meaningful conclusions, especially when many of the results appear to be so mixed. 4

26 7. The Experience of Complainants 6. In this chapter the experience of complainants will be explored in greater detail. Areas covered include their satisfaction with Surveyors Ombudsman Service staff and the organisation more generally, their views on the outcome of the complaint and their willingness to use the Surveyors Ombudsman Service again or recommend the organisation to others. Complainants Views of Investigation Officers 6. Almost all (98%) had written contact with the person responsible for investigating their case and over half (5%) had contact by phone. 6. Most were satisfied with friendliness (55%) and helpfulness (5%) and the neither/nor responses can be attributed to lack of telephone contact with the investigation officer. 6.4 Just under half were satisfied with knowledge (48%) and understanding (48%). When we consider that around a third (% and 4%) were dissatisfied with these aspects and that almost a quarter (4%) were very dissatisfied with understanding of their problem, it seems this is an area in which the Ombudsman can improve. 6.5 The majority (5%) were satisfied with reliability and almost a third (9%) were very satisfied. Similarly, more than half (5%) were happy that the person they spoke to had the authority to deal with their request and 0% were very satisfied with this aspect. 5

27 Table 5: Complainants satisfaction with Investigation Officers Attribute Very dissatisfied Fairly dissatisfied Neither/ nor Fairly satisfied Very satisfied Base Friendliness % 5% 9% 5% 0% 57 Helpfulness 5% % % 0% % 59 Knowledge knew % % 0% 6% % 57 what they were talking about Reliability 7% 9% 9% 6% 9% 58 always did what they said they would Understanding of 4% 0% 9% 4% 4% 59 my problem knew what I was talking about Authority 8% 6% 6% % 0% 57 confident they had the ability to solve my problem Surveyors Ombudsman Service Information 6.6 The next question asked complainants to rate different aspects of the information they received stating how satisfied they were with each. Again, this question was asked in specific relation to the investigation officers. 6.7 Over half were satisfied that information was readily given (60%), timely/given when needed (5%), clear/easy to understand (68%) and comprehensive/told me everything (57%). The remainder either stated neither/nor or were dissatisfied. There was particular dissatisfaction with the comprehensiveness of information (4% dissatisfied) and timeliness of information (%). 6

28 Table 6: Complainants satisfaction with Information Provided by Investigation Officers Attribute Readily given/easy to get Timely/given when needed Clear/easy to understand Comprehensive / told me everything Keeping in Touch Very dissatisfied Fairly dissatisfied Neither/ Nor Fairly satisfied Very satisfied Base 9% % % 8% % 57 4% 7% 5% % % 56 5% 7% 0% % 6% 56 % % 0% 5% % The majority (78%) of complainants had been contacted by someone at the Surveyors Ombudsman Service asking them to provide more information on the case. 6.9 Over two thirds (67%) had been contacted by the Investigation Officer and some had been contacted by the Ombudsman (0%). A few (5%) could not recall who had contacted them. Table 7: Contacted by the Surveyors Ombudsman Service for more information Complainants Contact Complainants Yes, by the Investigation Officers 67% Yes, by the Ombudsman 0% Yes, by someone else/not sure who it was 5% No % Base (n) In the past the findings from Ombudsman service customer satisfaction research have suggested a tangible link between complainants overall satisfaction levels and how frequently they had been updated on the progress of their case. 6. Most (7%) had been contacted proactively to keep them informed how the case was progressing. A third had been contacted or more times to receive an update on the progress of their case. 7

29 Table 8: Update by the Surveyors Ombudsman Service on progress Complainants Contact Complainants Yes, it contacted me once 5% Yes, it contacted me twice 5% Yes, it contacted me three or four times % No 7% Base (n) 55% 6. 7 out of 0 had contacted the Surveyors Ombudsman Service at some time for an update on the progress of their complaint. Contact with Investigation Officer 6. Of those who telephoned the Investigation Officer, about half (49%) could usually get through and the rest usually (4%) or always (7%) had to leave messages. No complainants said they never got through. Of those who left telephone messages, over half (55%) had received a reply within - days or sooner. However, more than in 5 (44%) did not receive a reply. Table 9: Ease of Access to Investigation Officer Complainants Contact Complainants Usually get through 49% Usually had to leave messages 4% Always had to leave messages 7% Never got through/was not offered a chance to 0% leave messages Base (n) Of those who wrote to the Investigation Officer, just over 6 out of 0 (6%) always received an acknowledgement within 0 working days and just 5% never received a reply. Around a third (4%) only received a reply sometimes. Table 0: Acknowledgement of Written Response Complainants Acknowledgement within 0 working days Complainants Always 6% Sometimes 4% Never 5% Base (n) 4 8

30 Satisfaction with Surveyors Ombudsman Service Process 6.5 Complainants were asked to assess their satisfaction with various specific aspects of the Surveyors Ombudsman s processes. The research undertaken for other Ombudsman service suggests that satisfaction with the outcome of their case may colour respondent s views of the process, so these questions seek to separate out process from satisfaction with outcome. 6.6 The results are displayed in the table below. The vast majority (8%) were satisfied with the explanation of what to expect given at the start of the process. 6.7 The ease of access to the investigation officer (6% satisfied) and extent to which the respondent was kept updated (6% satisfied) both received more mixed responses with around a fifth (8% and 0% respectively) being dissatisfied with these aspects. 6.8 Views were also mixed on the speed (40% satisfied), efficiency (54% satisfied) and overall level (46% satisfied) of the service. A third were very dissatisfied with the overall level of the service and a quarter were very dissatisfied with the speed of the process. 6.9 Dissatisfaction with the overall level of service is perhaps informed by the great lack of dissatisfaction with the perceived extent to which the Ombudsman attempted to solve a complaint through mediation and negotiation. Less than a third (%) were satisfied with this aspect of the Ombudsman s services and almost half (48%) were very dissatisfied. 9

31 Table : Complainants satisfaction with Surveyors Ombudsman Service process Attribute Very Fairly Neither/ Fairly Very Base dissatisfied dissatisfied nor satisfied satisfied Explanation of what 5% % 0% 4% 8% 60 to expect given at the start of the process Extent to which I was 0% 0% 0% 6% 5% 6 kept updated Ease of access to 9% 9% % 9% % 57 investigation officer Extent to which the Surveyors Ombudsman Service attempted to resolve through mediation/negotiation 48% % 9% 6% 6% 56 Efficiency of the 0% 5% % 6% 7% 59 process Speed of the process 5% 9% 5% 5% 5% 59 Overall level of % 8% % 8% 8% 60 service Speed of Case Resolution 6.0 The speed of case resolution has been identified as a key driver of satisfaction in studies for other Ombudsman Services. 9.4 Cases often took longer to reach a conclusion than complainants had expected. About a half (5%) expected a case to take - months, but in actual fact cases tended to last -6 months or more (7%). Table : Length of case expected and actual Length (a) Expected (b) Actual Less than month % 0% - months 40% 9% -6 months 46% 4% 7 months and over 4% 9% Base (n)

32 Provisional Conclusion Report 6. We asked about satisfaction with various aspects of the provisional conclusion report. Satisfaction with readability was reasonable with over half (65%) satisfied and almost a third (%) very satisfied. However, there was some level of strong dissatisfaction with the accuracy of content (% very dissatisfied) and the report s recommendations (48% very dissatisfied) and aspects surrounding it. Table : Complainants satisfaction with provisional conclusion report Attribute Very Fairly Neither/ Fairly Very Base dissatisfied dissatisfied Nor satisfied satisfied Accuracy of content % % 7% 6% 4% 58 Readability 9% % 6% % % 57 Report s 48% 5% % 8% 6% 6 recommendations Arrived at in a logical manner 40% 5% 5% 5% 5% 60 Supported by 45% 0% 0% 8% 7% 60 available evidence Fair and reasonable 47% 8% 8% % 5% 60

33 Outcome of Case 6. After asking about the process and the provisional conclusion report the survey moved on to the outcome of the case. Most (6%) felt the outcome was against them 4% felt it was completely against them. Only around in 5 (%) felt the report was in their favour. Table 4: Outcome of complaint - Complainants Confidence Complainants Completely in complainants favour % On balance in complainants favour 8% On balance it was a draw 8% On balance against complainant 8% Completely against complainant 4% Base (n) 6 Further Representation 6. Around two third (64%) of cases went to the further representation process. Of these, 4 out of 5 (8%) were because the complainant had submitted further representation. These were submitted for a range of reasons, often because they had further information or evidence to take into consideration (66%) or they felt that the investigator had not understood the nature of their complaint (6%). Fewer, but still significant numbers of respondents, also stated they felt there were errors in the report (47%) or were not happy with the remedy that had been awarded (9%). However, almost all (9%) felt this did not change the conclusion.

34 Table 5: Reasons for making Further Representations Complainants Reason Complainants I felt there were errors in the report 47% I had further information or evidence that I 66% wished to be taken into consideration I was not happy with the remedy that had been 9% awarded The investigator did not understand/missed 6% the point/misinterpreted the nature of my complaint Other 9% Base (n) 8 Benefits Awarded 6.4 The survey then asked complainants about what they had hoped to be awarded as a result of complaining, which of these was most important to them and which benefit they actually received. 6.5 Most were looking for financial goodwill (84%) and for most (68%) this was most important to them. Almost three quarters (7%) wanted an apology. However, this was most important to less than in 5 respondents (8%). 6.6 Less (64%) received financial goodwill than had hoped for it and far fewer than had hoped for it (6%) received an apology. Table 6: Benefits awarded hoped, most important and actual complainants Length (a) Hoped (b) Most (c) Actual Important An apology 7% 8% 6% An additional or repeat 5% 5% 0% product/service Financial goodwill 84% 68% 64% Reduction of fees 9% 7% 9% Other 4% 7% 9% Base (n)

35 6.7 Most (46%) received financial awards of , although almost a third (0%) received awards over,000. Table 7: Financial awards - Complainants Amount Complainants Less than 00 6% % 50-,000 8% Over,000 0% Base (n) 7 Complainants Satisfaction 6.8 Overall complainant satisfaction was low with 4% very dissatisfied. Just out of 5 were satisfied and only around a fifth (%) very satisfied. This may reflect the high proportion who felt the outcome of the complaint went against them. Table 8: Overall Satisfaction - Complainants Satisfaction Complainants Very satisfied % Fairly satisfied 8% Neither/nor 0% Fairly dissatisfied 8% Very dissatisfied 4% Base (n) The likelihood of respondents using the Surveyors Ombudsman Service again should they encounter similar difficulties is exactly representative of the low levels of satisfaction seen above. This suggests that, a few of those who are dissatisfied are willing to give the service another try. 4

36 Table 9: Complainants Willingness to Use Surveyors Ombudsman Service Again Likelihood Complainants Very likely % Quite likely 8% Not sure 0% Fairly unlikely 8% Very unlikely 4% Base (n) Just over a third (6 of 7) said they would be willing to recommend the Surveyors Ombudsman Service to a friend or neighbour if they had a relevant complaint. However, more than half (9 of 7) said they would not and of these 7 said they definitely would not. Table 0: Complainants Willingness to Recommend Surveyors Ombudsman Service to Friends/Family Willingness to recommend Complainants Yes, definitely 5 Yes, probably Not sure Probably not Definitely not 7 Base (n) 7 Confidence in the Surveyors Ombudsman Service and Surveyors/Estate Agents 6. The proportion of complainants who said their confidence in the Surveyors Ombudsman Service has increased is low (%) especially when compared to the number of respondents whose confidence in the Ombudsman has decreased greatly (47%). Table : Complainants confidence in Surveyors Ombudsman Service Confidence Complainants Greatly increased 0% Increased % Remained the same 7% Decreased 4% Greatly decreased 47% Base (n)

37 6. The proportion of complainants whose confidence in Surveyors/Estate agents has increased is low with a fifth of respondents stating it had increased at all. Two thirds of complainants had suffered from decreased confidence after dealing with the Ombudsman and 48% of respondents confidence had greatly decreased. Table : Complainants confidence in Surveyors/Estate Agents Confidence Complainants Greatly increased 5% Increased 5% Remained the same % Decreased 8% Greatly decreased 48% Base (n)

38 8. Members Survey 8.9. In 00 members views were obtained via a web survey ( responses) and a few telephone follow ups with any willing to take part in a further telephone interview. In this section we look at the results of this survey examining satisfaction with a range of aspects from the initial introduction, through to handling a case, the final outcome and overall satisfaction with the Surveyors Ombudsman Service. The base size of is low and should be treated with caution It should be noted throughout this report that the base numbers of responses to each individual question may vary as not all respondents answer every question. There was a high proportion of members not answering some questions which may be due to lack of relevance to them or because they did not want to comment. For some questions the %s may add up to more than 00% - this is because respondents have been given the opportunity to select multiple responses. For some questions the number of responses may add up to more than the base - this is because respondents have been given the opportunity to select multiple responses. Profile of Members 8.. Most () dealt solely with small business complaints whilst dealt solely with domestic complaints. A third (7) dealt with both small business and domestic complaints. 8.. None of the members have contact with the Surveyors Ombudsman Service more frequently than monthly. A few () have monthly contact, 9 have contact less often than monthly and 8 have only been in contact once. Table : Members contact with the Surveyors Ombudsman Service Frequency of contact Members Daily 0 Weekly 0 Monthly Only Once 8 Less often 9 Base (n) 0 7