12-040611 land registry css – september 2012 – 24-10-12 (client use) 0 customer satisfaction...

12-040611 Land Registry CSS – September 2012 – 24-10-12 (Client use) 1

Customer Satisfaction Survey

September 2012

Prepared for: Land Registry

Prepared by: Ipsos MORI

October 2012

2© 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


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


Methodology

Method Telephone interviewsSample provided by Land Registry

Interview Length 19 minutes

Fieldwork Period 12th September – 3rd 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

Key Findings

12-040611 Land Registry CSS – September 2012 – 24 -10-12 (Client use) 6

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.

12-040611 Land Registry CSS – September 2012 – 24 -10-12 (Client use) 7

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


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:

3) I trust Land Registry to ensure the integrity and accuracy of the registers (93%)4) Land Registry demonstrates the level of knowledge and expertise expected by its customers (92%)5) 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:

6) Speed and efficiency (30%)7) Website/online services (16%)8) Helpfulness (12%)

Land Registry’s Key Measures

KPI


1% 1%2% 2%

15% 12%

43%43%

38% 42%

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

Excellent Very Good Good Fair Poor

YTD2011-2012

YTD2012-2013

97% 97%

T3B

Poor

Fair

Good

Very Good

Excellent

1%

2%

13%

46%

37%

Sept ’12


2%2%10%

21%

48%

45%

40%28%

3%

Customers with a dedicated service team remain significantly more likely to rate LR’s overall service as ‘excellent’

Poor

Fair

Good

Very Good

Excellent

1%

2%

13%

46%

37%

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)


Sept ’12

Excellent Very Good Good Fair Poor

Dedicated customer team

No dedicated customer team

98% 95%

96%

T3B

1212-040611 Land Registry CSS – September 2012 – 24-10-12 (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)

11%

4%

4%

4%

4%

4%

5%

5%

6%

7%

7%

12%

16%

30%

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


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”

Net Promoter Score


8% 33% 58%

Detractors (0-6) Passive (7-8) Promoters (9-10)

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 2011-12 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 recommend0 = 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 2011-2012 (1202), YTD 2012-2013 (606)

52%

YTD2012-2013

44%

YTD2011-2012

40%NPS Target =

1%1%

2%4% 6% 26% 20% 38%

1098765

Net Promoter Score Breakdown 43

50%

Sept ‘12

Data includes Don’t Know responses


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)


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?

Office / Admin Role

Senior Role

Non Solicitors / Conveyancers

Solicitors / Conveyancers

Total

4%

12%

14%

5%

8%

28%

38%

31%

34%

33%

68%

48%

54%

61%

58%


50%

56%

41%

36%

63%

Sept‘12

Arrows denote a score which is significantly higher or lower at 95% confidence


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



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)



Less often

Weekly

Daily

Total

17%

7%

5%

8%

35%

40%

27%

33%

46%

53%

66%

58%


50%

61%

47%

29%

Sept ‘12



Furthermore, customers aware they have a dedicated customer team are significantly more likely to recommend LR than those not aware

Net Promoter Score



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)



Without team

With team

Total

16%

4%

8%

36%

28%

33%

47%

66%

58%


50%

62%

Sept ‘12

31%



Speed and efficiency, general satisfaction and good customer service are the top reasons customers say they will recommend LR

17%

17%

18%

18%

24%

27%

30%

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)


6%

6%

0%

6%

4%

9%

17%

17%

15%

21%

28%

13%

28%

38%

2%

2%

8%

7%

8%

5%

5%

20%

15%

13%

11%

33%

26%

30%

With team

Without team

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


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


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”

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


Requesting searches and of-ficial copies

Submitting registrations Requesting information or guidance

12%21% 21%

42%

44% 38%

43%29% 37%

-2% 2% 4%1% 1%

All service areas are rated well by customers. Performance on requesting information or guidance has slightly improved from 2011-2012

94%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)

Excellent

Very good

Good

Fair

Poor

Overall service areas

97%

97%

95%

95%

96%

91%

YTD ‘12 – ‘13

YTD ‘11 – ‘12

Don’t knows & N/As 1% 5% N/A



92%

12%19% 13%

25% 23%15%

25% 20% 17%

42% 34%33%

29% 33%34%

29%27% 33%

43% 42%

34%

41% 40%

28%30%

22%

42%

2% 2% 2% 3% 2% 2% 7% 3% 2%1% 2% 1%

4%2% 1%

YTD ‘ 2012 – 2013 97% 95% 82% 94% 95% 79% 82% 72% 92%

YTD ‘ 2011 – 2012 97% 96% 94% 95% 95% 90% 86% 75% NA

95%97% 80% 95% 95% 77% 84% 69%

Don’t know & n/a

1% 1% 18% 2% 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 2011-2012 (1083), YTD 2012-2013 (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

Excellent

Very good

Good

Fair

Poor

Top 3 Box -Sept 12



21% 25% 19% 25% 23% 30% 27%

44% 30% 36%36% 36%

31% 31%

29%34% 38% 29% 29% 26% 30%

2% 2% 2% 2% 7% 3% 4%2% 1%

1%1% 1%

89% 94% 92% 90% 88% 88% 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 2011-2012 (815), YTD 2012-2013 (396)

YTD ‘ 2012 – 2013

95% 89% 93% 92% 91% 88% 90%

YTD ‘ 2011 – 2012 95% 94% 94% 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

Excellent

Very good

Good

Fair

Poor


Submitting registrations


21% 23% 27% 34% 30% 29% 28% 26%

44% 37% 32% 21% 25% 24% 20%33%

29% 32% 26%19% 21% 23% 26%

30%

2% 2% 4% 12% 11% 12% 8% 4%

4% 4% 3% 6%

92%94% 86% 74% 76% 76% 74%Top 3 Box- Sept 12

Don’t know & N/As

5% 6% 11% 10% 9% 9% 12% 7%

YTD ‘ 2012 – 2013 95% 92% 86% 76% 81% 81% 76% 92%

YTD ‘ 2011 – 2012 95% 92% 90% 87% 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 2011-2012 (815), YTD 2012-2013 (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

Excellent

Very good

Good

Fair

Poor

89%




41%32% 35% 32% 32% 29%

27%39% 31% 36%

43%37%

20%22%

24%26%

21%27%

11% 6% 8% 4% 4% 5%

2%

1%2%

1% 1% 1%

Overall accuracy & qualityOverall 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 2011-2012 (766), YTD 2012-2013 (347). Overall accuracy & quality? Base: Sept (170); YTD 2011-2012 (759), YTD 2012-2013 (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

Excellent

Very good

Good

Fair

Poor

YTD 2011 - 2012

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 2012 - 2013

YTD 2011 - 2012

Sept ‘12

YTD 2012 - 2013

93%88% 90% 95% 96% 93%Top 3 Box



21% 14% 19% 24% 21% 21% 24%

38%38%

40% 36% 38% 39% 34%

37%40% 35% 34% 31% 32% 32%

4% 5% 5% 4% 8% 4% 6%1% 1% 1% 1% 4% 2%

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 2011-2012 (605), YTD 2012-2013 (265)

YTD ‘ 2012 – 2013 96% 94% 95% 95% 92% 94% 91%

YTD ‘ 2011 – 2012 91% 92% 93% 93% 90% 87% 87%

Don’t knows & N/As

NA 3% NA 2% NA 1% 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

Excellent

Very good

Good

Fair

Poor



19%34%

25% 19% 23% 27% 25% 24%

34%21%

30% 40% 33% 32% 36% 36%

42%19%

34%35% 40%

26% 29% 34%

2%12%

2% 5% 2% 4% 2% 4%2%

4%

2% 1%

74%95% 89% 94% 95% 86% 90%Top 3 Box

Accuracy & qualitySpeed of service

95%

Q19 (265); Q25 (194); Q32 (131); Q19 YTD 2011-2012 (1083); Q25 YTD 2011-2012 (815); Q32 YTD 2011-2012 (553) , Q19 YTD 2012-2013 (540), Q25 YTD 2012-2013 (396), Q32 YTD 2012-2013 (265)

YTD ‘ 2012 – 2013 95% 76% 89% 95% 95% 86% 92% 95%

YTD ‘ 2011 – 2012 96% 87% 94% 93% 95% 90% 94% 93%


1% 10% 8% NA 2% 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

Excellent

Very good

Good

Fair

Poor

2012-2013 YTD total. View YTD trend with caution



25% 28% 25% 23% 20%30%

29% 20% 29% 36%27%

31%

30%26%

41% 29%

22%

26%

7% 8% 3% 7% 3% 3%4%

6%1% 1% 2% 1%

74%84% 95% 88% 69% 88%Top 3 Box

Putting things rightConsistency of serviceValue for moneyQ19 (265); Q25 (194); Q19 YTD 2011-2012 (1083); Q25 YTD 2011-2012 (815); Q19 YTD 2012-2013 (540); Q25 YTD 2012-2013 (396)

YTD ‘ 2012 – 2013 82% 76% 94% 91% 72% 88%

YTD ‘ 2011 – 2012 86% 81% 95% 93% 75% 88%


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

Excellent

Very good

Good

Fair

Poor


[searches / official copies]

[submitting registrations] [searches / official copies]

[submitting registrations]

13% 19% 15%23%

33%36%

34%

37%

34%

38%

28%

32%

2% 2% 2% 2%1%

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 2011-2012 (1083); Q25 YTD 2011-2012 (815); Q19 YTD 2012-2013 (540); Q25 YTD 2012-2013 (396)

YTD ‘ 2012 – 2013 82% 93% 79% 92%

YTD ‘ 2011 – 2012 94% 94% 90% 92%


18% 6% 21% 6%

Excellent

Very good

Good

Fair

Poor

Touchpoints - Key Driver Analysis


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


Key drivers of satisfaction

At the highest level, as in previous waves, requesting searches and officialcopies and submitting registrations have the greatest impact onsatisfaction with overall service. Performance is reasonably good on theseaspects. The website is of medium level importance and lowestperformance, 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 therequisition process, keeping you informed, and speed of service for firstregistrations & new titles.

When looking for information and guidance: Accuracy and quality is a keystrength but clarity of explanations and ownership of issues are areas forimprovement as they are key drivers of satisfaction but are rated belowaverage


Requesting Searches and of-ficial copies


Land Registry website

Requesting information and guidance

Land Registry portal

0.59

0.59

0.56

0.54

0.49

Base size: 300 Service areas Correlations 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)


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

3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8 3.9 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.30.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

Land Registry website

Land Registry portal

Requesting information and guidance

Submitting registrationsRequesting Searches and

official copies

Key ActionAreas

Communicate and Maintain Performance

Communicate Performance

Consider PerformanceImprovement

Overall service

LowerAssociatio

n

Higher Associatio

n

Deri

ved Im

port

ance


Completion of searches

Consistency of service

Speed of service

Accuracy & quality

Putting things right i.e. processing corrections

Value for money

Knowledge & competence of staff

Helpfulness & courtesy of staff

0.70

0.69

0.59

0.58

0.52

0.50

0.49

0.49

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)]



3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8 3.9 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.30.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

Completion of searches

Putting things right i.e. processing corrections


Knowledge & compe-tence of staff

Helpfulness & courtesy of staff Value for money

Accuracy & quality Speed of service

Performance (Mean)

Key ActionAreas




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


LowerAssociatio

n

Higher Associatio

n

Deri

ved Im

port

ance


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”

Completion of registrations

Accuracy & quality for first registrations/new titles

The requisition process

Accuracy & quality for dealings and applications, excluding first registrations and new titles



Putting things right. i.e. processing corrections

Speed of service for dealings and applications, excluding first registrations and new titles

Keeping you informed or updated during the process


Ensuring the correct return of any supporting documents

Speed of service for first registrations and new titles

Value for money

0.80

0.72

0.71

0.70

0.70

0.68

0.68

0.68

0.67

0.67

0.64

0.62

0.59



3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8 3.9 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.30.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

Completion of registrations

Putting things right. i.e. processing corrections

The requisition process

Ensuring the correct return of any supporting documents

Keeping you informed or updated during the process




Value for money

Accuracy & quality for dealings and applications, excluding

first registrations and new ti-tles

Accuracy & quality for first reg-istrations/new titles

Speed of service for dealings and applications, excluding

first registrations and new ti-tles

Speed of service for first regis-trations and new titles

LowerAssociatio

n

Higher Associatio

n

Deri

ved Im

port

ance

Performance (Mean)

Key ActionAreas




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


Accuracy & quality

Clarity of explanations and information provided

Ownership & solving of issue

Calls returned / correspondence responded to when promised

Speed of service

Ability to easily contact staff

0.87

0.86

0.81

0.79

0.77

0.72

Base size: 131 Service areas Correlations 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


3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8 3.9 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.30.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

Accuracy & quality

Speed of service

Ownership & solving of issue

Clarity of explanations and information pro-

vided

Calls returned / cor-respondence re-sponded to when

promisedAbility to easily contact

staff

Performance (Mean)

Key ActionAreas




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

LowerAssociatio

n

Higher Associatio

n

Deri

ved Im

port

ance

Information and guidance

Brand Values


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.


Series1 25%

15%

31%

32%

29%

20%

30%

28%

28%

31%

67%

64%

57%

60%

59%

73%

46%

44%

43%

44%

4%

6%

4%

3%

2%

3%

10%

13%

13%

11%

2%

1%

5%

3%

7%

3%

4%

2%

2%

2%

1%

1%

1%

2%

1%

2%

1%

2%

B2BSept’12

T2BSept’12

T2B YTD11-12

T2B YTD12-13

3% 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)

Disagree strongly Disagree slightly Neither agree nor disagree Agree slightly Agree strongly

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



27%

23%

13%

19%

31%

31%

28%

35%

24%

34%

22%

19%

32%

26%

28%

31%

27%

27%

33%

33%

66%

65%

70%

56%

62%

49%

65%

56%

70%

44%

71%

76%

56%

36%

54%

33%

56%

29%

53%

34%

4%

5%

4%

9%

3%

4%

1%

5%

1%

4%

4%

2%

7%

16%

12%

15%

9%

18%

7%

16%

2%2%

1%

1%

3%

8%4%

1%

4%

13%

3%1%

2%

9%

1%

3%

1%

5%

2%

3%

2%

1%

2%

3%

1%

1%

3%

1%

2%

5%

1%

1%

3%

1%

DKsT2B 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






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

*

*

*

*

*

*

*



Land Registry respects its customers' views


Land Registry is committed to continuous improvements in quality, efficiency & effectiveness

*

*

*



20%

21%

13%

33%

13%

15%

9%

13%

13%

11%

7%

32%

36%

30%

25%

20%

15%

41%

28%

DKsT2BSept’12

2% 33%

2% 36%

NA 22%

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

*

*








Land Registry is committed to continuous improvements in quality, efficiency and effectiveness

Dealing with Land Registry can be complicated (*)

Land Registry demonstrates that it values its customers and respects its customers’ views

Land Registry’s processes and procedures are too rigid (*)



Customers are clear about the service elemnts that Land Reg-istry provides


0.46

0.46

0.46

0.43

0.42

0.38

0.38

0.38

0.37

0.35

0.34

0.31

Correlations with Overall Service Provided in Past 6 Months (Q9)

Base size: 300 Service areas Correlations 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


LowerAssociatio

n

Higher Associatio

n

Deri

ved Im

port

ance

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

3.2 3.4 3.6 3.8 4.0 4.2 4.4 4.60.3

0.4

0.5




Land Registry treats all cus-tomers fairly

Customers are clear about the service elemnts that Land Reg-

istry provides

Land Registry demonstrates that it values its customers and re-

spects its customers’ views

Land Registry demonstrates the level of knowledge and expertise

expected by its customers

Land Registry seeks to under-stand its customers’ needs and

strives to meet them

Land Registry values the rela-tionship with my organisation

Land Registry is committed to continuous improvements in quality, efficiency and effec-

tiveness

I trust Land Registry to ensure the integrity and accuracy of the

registers

Land Registry products and services are easy to find and

use

Key ActionAreas




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



Series1 28% 43%13%2%

2%

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”

T2BSept’12

YTD ‘11-12

YTD ‘12-13

71% 77% 74%



Series1 22%

21%

11%

13%

4%

13%

29%

32%

34%

18%

To improve LR processes, customers would like to see each case treated individually and providing tailored solutions

B2B Sept ’12

T2BSept’12

T2BYTD

‘11-12

T2BYTD

‘12-13

50% 33% 34% 30%

63% 33% 29% 32%Dealing with Land Registry can be complicated


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



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)

Be more flexible/less rigid/deal with cases individually/use more common sense

Make it simpler/clearer/easier/more user friendly in general/simplify procedures

Improve their website/online services/the portal (e.g. easier to use, provide more information)

Provide better/clearer user guides/guidelines/explanations of their procedures

Less rejection of applications/phone us instead of cancelling for minor issues

Speed up processes/faster responses

Simpler searches/easier to use search service/ enable searches without title number

More communication/follow up contact/keep us informed of changes

Make website easier to access (accessible any time/easier log-in process etc)

Use clearer/simpler language/layman’s terms (less jargon/technical language)

Make it easier to contact the relevant person/deal with the same person/provide a point of contact/better availability

Other

22%

22%

19%

11%

8%

8%

7%

7%

7%

5%

4%

9%

Important suggestions

Only responses mentioned by 4% or more customers shown on chart


Promoters

Brand value Vs. KPI and NPSLand Registry values the relationship with my organisation



Series1 28%

27%

25%

33%

43%

48%

53%

36%

13%

13%

10%

19%

2%

1%

1%

2%

2%

1%

T2B

Total

Passives

Q13 Agreement with statements... Base: All respondents (300); T2B (249); Prom. (174); Passives (98)

DKsT2BSept’12

11% 71%

10% 76%

11% 78%

10% 68%

Brand Value

KPI

NPS


Brand value Vs. KPI and NPSLand Registry’s processes and procedures are too rigid



Series1 23%

16%

17%

21%

13%

8%

10%

13%

15%

11%

13%

13%

35%

34%

34%

32%

9%

26%

21%

18%

T2B

Total

Passives

Promoters

NPS

Brand Value

KPI


DKsT2BSept’12

4% 33%

4% 27%

5% 24%

4% 37%


Brand value Vs. KPI and NPSDealing with Land Registry can be complicated



Series1 31%

17%

20%

22%

13%

5%

6%

11%

4%

3%

4%

4%

31%

29%

30%

29%

21%

46%

39%

34%


DKsT2BSept’12

1% 33%

1% 27%

1% 21%

NA 44%

NPS

Brand Value

KPI

T2B

Passives

Promoters

Total


Portal Website

20%33%

44%

39%

30%21%

3% 5%2% 2%

Overall rating of:

Excluding those who have not used/don’t

Knows

YTD 2012-2013 95% 91%

YTD 2011-2012 97% 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%

Excellent

Very good

Good

Fair

Poor

Top 3 Box 95%


Users would like the website to be more intuitive and potentially easier to navigate

2%

3%

1%

10%

4%

3%

9%

33%

31%

20%

36%

30%

8%

15%

57%

59%

74%

22%

55%

3%

7%

3%

3%

1%

11%

6%

19%

26%

2%

8%

3%

43%

41%

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)

Disagree strongly Disagree slightly Neither agree nor disagree Slightly agree Agree strongly

Top 3 Box

YTD 2012-2013

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% 95%

13% 68% 67%

2% 89% 90%

24% 14% 14%

3% 31% 31%

NB. Questions added in June ‘12 so trending not available


“It can just be confusing if you are just doing

searches. The website is confusing”

“They could contact us by email 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)


Quality of written/online practice guidelines

The web based practice guides and bulletins

Landnet, web based customer magazine

34% 31%41%

33% 34%

38%

22% 26%

14%

7% 7% 8%4% 2%

YTD 2012 - 2013 90% 93% 93%

YTD 2011 - 2012 N/A 93% 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)


24% 30% 73%

Top 3 Box


Excellent

Very good

Good

Fair

Poor

Land Registry Offices


No- don’t have a dedicated

team to provide service

No- don’t know the name of the

team

Yes

1%

30%

70%

Level of service provided by your Customer Team

4%

43%

50%

2%

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?

Don't Know

Without Team

With team

21%

33%

46%97%Top 3 Box

Excellent Very good Good Fair Poor

Awareness of team name Rating of team

98%

YTD ‘12-’13


“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”

Areas of Improvement


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

Quick resolution of enquires General Customer Service Communication Handling complaints

26% 25% 30% 32%

38% 39%36% 27%

30% 33% 30%37%

4% 3% 3% 4%2% 1% 1%

YTD 2012 - 2013 95% 97% 97% 94%

94% 97% 97%Top 3 Box 95%

Base 263 272 268 123Excludes ‘Don’t Know’ and ‘Unable to say

due to no direct experience’ responses

Excellent

Very good

Good

Fair

Poor


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)

Conclusions & Recommendations


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 themain reason cited for recommending the service. Accuracy and quality ofinformation is also well regarded and remains an important driver ofSatisfaction

Comments highlight the importance of customer service and many praisethe 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


Again, customers with a dedicated team are more satisfied with all aspectsof service and rate all brand values more highly.

The rigidity of processes and procedures and the complexity of dealing withLR scores are in line with last wave and therefore there is still room forimprovement

Once again, requesting searches and official copies and submittingregistrations are the top two key drivers of OSAT and it is important tomaintain 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 andefficiency of service received amongst customers who have a dedicatedteam is high but a similar proportion to last wave report to having one and30% of customers that do, are unable to name their contact to there is stillroom for improvement.

Conclusions


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

Appendix


Other

Other Director

Licensed Conveyancer

Practice / Office Manager

Legal Executive

Managing Director

Partner / Senior Partner

Solicitor / Fee Earner

Clerk / Secretary

43%

2%

4%

4%

5%

6%

7%

14%

15%

Q3. Can I ask what your job title is?

29%

30%

41% Senior

Office / Admin

Other

Q3 Can I ask what your job title is? Base: All respondents (300)



Q6. How would you describe your type of organisation?

Other (SPECIFY)

Building Society

Licensed / Volume Conveyancer

Finance House

Estate Agents

Insolvency practitioner

Property Developers / Investors

Bank

Local Authority / Local or Central Council / Government Dept

Surveyors / Property Managers / Chartered Surveyors

Solicitors / Legal Practice

15%

1%

2%

2%

2%

2%

2%

3%

5%

10%

57%

58%

42%

Solicitor / Conveyancer

Non Solicitor

Q6 How would you describe your type of organisation? Base: All respondents (300)



Q4. For which of these reasons have you personally dealt with Land Registry in the past 6 months?

Have you dealt with Land Registry for any other specific reason?

To make a registration or a change to the register

To make a general enquiry or get guidance on how to deal with an issue

To conduct searches and obtain official copies

10%

60%

61%

93%

Q4 For which of these reasons have you personally dealt with Land Registry in the past 6 months? Base: All respondents (300)



Q5. How often do you or your office have contact with or deal with Land Registry?

Daily Weekly Monthly basis

Every few months

Less often

49%

30%

8% 9%

3%

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)


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)

Don’t know

No

Yes

2%

10%

88%


Q18. Thinking about when you requested official searches and official copies directly from Land Registry, have you requested them through...

Land Registry Portal

Postal services such as Royal Mail and DX

Business Gateway

Telephone Don’t know

84%

35%

28%22%

2%

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)


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)

Don’t know

No

Yes

4%

32%

65%


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)

Other

Application related information/guidance/enquiry

Adverse possession related information/guidance/enquiry

Registration related information/guidance/enquiry

Practice Guide related information/guidance/enquiry

Fees/pricing/billing related enquiries

Search related information/guidance/enquiry

Requesting copies (of plans/leases/titles/office copies)

A specific matter/enquiry (unspecified)

Title deeds/documents/information

Restriction related information/guidance/enquiry

General information/guidance/enquiry

23%

1%

2%

3%

4%

4%

4%

5%

12%

13%

18%

28%

55% have requested information or guidance from Land Registry in the last 6 months


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)

Teleph

one

gene

ral e

nquir

ies

Visit L

and

Regist

ry w

ebsit

e

Writ

e to

Lan

d Reg

istry

Email

Lan

d Reg

istry

Deal w

ith L

and

Regist

ry in

any

oth

er w

ay

Don’t

know

/ ca

n’t re

mem

ber

Don’t

use

one

rout

e or

cha

nnel

mos

t ofte

n

51%

25%

8% 7% 7%1%


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)

Staff working in a cus-tomer team

Staff at their call centre Neither Don’t know

69%

41%

9%12%


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)

Don't know

Gloucester

Birkenhead

Coventry

Croydon

Kingston Upon Hull

Leicester

Peterborough

Telford

Weymouth

Plymouth

Fylde

Nottingham

Durham

Wales

33%

2%

3%

4%

4%

4%

4%

4%

4%

4%

5%

7%

7%

8%

8%

12-040611 land registry css – september 2012 – 24-10-12 (client use) 0 customer satisfaction...

Documents

land registry service

land registry css

service scores slide

service quality

overall service scores

consistent service

aspects of service

consistency of service