Research Report. Customer Satisfaction Surveys Prepared for: The Legal Ombudsman

Transcription

1 Research Report Customer Satisfaction Surveys Prepared for: The Legal Ombudsman

2 Customer Satisfaction Surveys Prepared for: The Legal Ombudsman Prepared by: Linda Balodis, Account Manager April 2014 Produced by BMG Research Bostock Marketing Group Ltd, Project: Registered in England No Registered office: 7 Holt Court North Heneage Street West Aston Science Park Birmingham B7 4AX UK Tel: +44 (0) UK VAT Registration No Birmingham Chamber of Commerce Member No. B4626 Market Research Society Company Partner British Quality Foundation Member The provision of Market Research Services in accordance with ISO 20252:2012 The provision of Market Research Services in accordance with ISO 9001:2008 Investors in People Standard - Certificate No. WMQC 0614 Interviewer Quality Control Scheme (IQCS) Member Company Registered under the Data Protection Act - Registration No. Z The BMG Research logo is a trade mark of Bostock Marketing Group Ltd

3 Executive summary Table of Contents 1 Executive summary Introduction Complainants results... 1 Background and contact with the Legal Ombudsman... 1 Satisfaction with aspects of the Legal Ombudsman service... 1 Importance vs satisfaction at Resolution Centre stage Lawyers results... 5 Background and contact with the Legal Ombudsman... 5 Satisfaction with aspects of the Legal Ombudsman service... 5 Importance vs satisfaction at the Resolution Centre Key findings Recommendations Benchmarking over time Introduction Complainants data Lawyers data Introduction Background Method Reporting of data Background and contact with the Legal Ombudsman (complainants) Demographic profile of complainants Familiarity with the Legal Ombudsman Channels of communication Length of case Level of contact with the Legal Ombudsman Satisfaction with the outcome Importance of and satisfaction with aspects of the Legal Ombudsman service (complainants) Importance of aspects of contact with the investigator (Resolution Centre stage) Satisfaction with the investigator (Resolution Centre stage) Importance vs satisfaction with aspects of contact with the investigator

4 Customer Satisfaction Surveys Satisfaction with written communication (Ombudsman stage) Overall views of the Legal Ombudsman (complainants) Overall satisfaction with the professional service provided by the Legal Ombudsman Reasons for satisfaction and dissatisfaction Things that have worked well or could be improved Advocacy Perceptions of how fairly complainants feel they have been treated Background and contact with the Legal Ombudsman (lawyers) Demographic profile of lawyers Profile of business Familiarity with the Legal Ombudsman Channels of communication Length of case Number of times contacted the Legal Ombudsman Satisfaction with the outcome Importance of and satisfaction with aspects of the Legal Ombudsman service (lawyers) Importance of aspects of contact with the investigator (Resolution Centre Stage Satisfaction with the investigator (Resolution Centre stage) Importance vs satisfaction with aspects of contact with the investigator Satisfaction with written communications (Ombudsman stage) Overall views of the Legal Ombudsman (lawyers) Overall satisfaction with the professional service Reasons for satisfaction and dissatisfaction Things that have worked well or could be improved Advocacy Perceptions of how fairly lawyers feel they have been treated

5 Executive summary 1 Executive summary 1.1 Introduction In the second year of the survey programme, 4 quarterly surveys were undertaken among both complainants and lawyers who had complaints made against them interviews with complainants (mainly by telephone) and 485 interviews with lawyers (mainly online) were completed between August 2012 and July Whilst both complainants and lawyers were reminded throughout the survey that their responses should relate to the Legal Ombudsman s processes and customer service, irrespective of the outcome of the case, inevitably case outcome (in particular whether it was favourable towards the respondent or not) had a sizeable impact on views. 1.2 Complainants results Background and contact with the Legal Ombudsman The main sources of first hearing about the Legal Ombudsman were internet searches (2), complainants lawyers (19%) and family & friends (16%). On prompting, a third of all complainants (34%) said their lawyer had signposted them to the Legal Ombudsman. Most complainants felt the time taken to complete the case was about as expected or faster than expected, however about a quarter (26%) felt it was slower than expected. Similarly, the majority felt the amount of contact was about right or too much, however one in five (2) felt it was too little. Satisfaction with aspects of the Legal Ombudsman service The following three charts show a summary of the highest scoring, medium scoring and lowest scoring aspects in terms of complainants perceptions. The percentages shown are the proportions of complainants scoring 4-5. RC indicates that the aspect relates to the Resolution Centre and OM that it relates to Ombudsman stage. Other aspects are of a more general nature. 1

6 Customer Satisfaction Surveys Those aspects achieving the highest scores among complainants all concern the Resolution Centre staff and processes, with the exception of the Legal Ombudsman s website. Figure 1 : Highest scoring aspects 76% 75% 73% 7 66% 64% 63% 6 % satisfied with staff on the telephone being clear and easy to understand (RC) % satisfied with letters and s being easy to understand (RC) % satisfied with being contacted when agreed (RC) % satisfied that call are answered quickly (RC) % satisfied with being kept informed of progress (RC) % finding the Legal Ombudsman s website very/fairly useful % satisfied with being given a clear understanding of what you could expect from the process (RC) % satisfied with staff knowing what they were talking about (RC) 2

7 Executive summary The medium scoring aspects are a mixture of Resolution Centre and Ombudsman stage activities, as well as overall perceptions of the professionalism and fairness of the Legal Ombudsman. Figure 2 : Medium scoring aspects 59% 56% 53% % 49% 48% 48% 47% 43% % satisfied that the reasons for the recommendation are clearly explained (RC) % satisfied with staff understanding the nature of the complaint (RC) % satisfied with written communcation being easy to understand (OM) % satisfied with the professional service provided by the Legal Ombudsman % satisfied that staff understand the complainant's desired outcome (RC) % satisfied with written communcation being timely (OM) % satisfied with the investigation process being fair and impartial (RC) % satisfied with confidence in their handling of the complaint (RC) % satisfied that staff understand how the problems encountered affect complainants (RC) % who feel they have been treated fairly by the Legal Ombudsman % who would speak highly of the Legal Ombudsman 3

8 Customer Satisfaction Surveys The lowest scoring aspects concern signposting to the Legal Ombudsman by lawyers, case outcomes and specific aspects of the Ombudsman stage. Figure 3 : Lowest scoring aspects 34% % signposted to the Legal Ombudsman by their lawyer 3 % very/fairly satisfied with the outcome of the case 23% % satisfied with written communcation taking into account comments (OM) 23% % satisfied with written communcation reflecting the case accurately (OM) Importance vs satisfaction at Resolution Centre stage Generally complainants found most aspects of the Resolution Centre important, with more than six in ten rating each aspect very important. In particular, high proportions found staff knowing what they were talking about (85% rating very important ), the process being fair & impartial (85%), staff understanding the nature of the complaint (8), having confidence in the handling of the complaint (8) and being given a clear understanding of the process (80%) very important. The least important, calls being answered quickly was considered very important by 63%. When the proportions rating each aspect important (scoring 4-5) are plotted against those rating each aspect very/fairly satisfied (scoring 4-5), the Legal Ombudsman s strengths, areas for improvement, areas to maintain and areas to monitor can be identified. Those aspects considered strengths of the Legal Ombudsman (where importance and satisfaction are higher than average) include: Being given a clear understanding of what you could expect from the process; Being contacted when agreed; Staff on the telephone being clear and easy to understand. Those which need focus for improvement (where importance is higher but satisfaction is lower): Staff understanding the nature of the complaint; The reasons for the recommendation are clearly explained; Staff understanding your desired outcome; The investigation process being fair and impartial. 4

9 Executive summary Those which need to be maintained (where importance is lower, but satisfaction is higher): Calls are answered quickly; Letters and s being easy to understand. Those which need to be monitored (where both importance and satisfaction are lower): Confidence in their handling of the complaint; Staff understanding of how the problems you encountered affected you. 1.3 Lawyers results Background and contact with the Legal Ombudsman Two thirds of lawyers felt the length of case was about as expected (65%), whilst about one in seven each felt it was slower (15%) or faster than expected (13%). However, the vast majority (88%) felt the amount of contact had been about right. Almost two thirds of lawyers were very/fairly satisfied (63%) with the outcome of the case. In contrast, just under one in twenty (18%) were very/fairly dissatisfied. Satisfaction with aspects of the Legal Ombudsman service The three charts below show a summary of the highest scoring, medium scoring and lowest scoring aspects in terms of lawyers perceptions. The percentages shown are the proportions of complainants scoring 4-5. Those aspects achieving the highest scores mainly concern the Resolution Centre staff and processes. 5

10 Customer Satisfaction Surveys Figure 4 : Highest scoring aspects 83% % satisfied with letters and s being professional (RC) 83% % satisfied with staff on the telephone being clear and easy to understand (RC) 8 % satisfied with written communication being easy to understand (OM) 8 % satisfied with letters and s being easy to understand (RC) 80% % satisfied with being contacted when agreed (RC) 79% % satisfied with having the opportunity to have their say (RC) 79% % satisfied that the reasons for the recommendation are clearly explained (RC) The medium scoring aspects are a mixture of Resolution Centre and Ombudsman stage activities, as well as overall perceptions of the professionalism and fairness of the Legal Ombudsman. 6

11 Executive summary Figure 5 : Medium scoring aspects 74% 74% 73% % 69% 68% 68% 64% 63% % satisfied with being kept informed of progress (RC) % satisfied that calls are answered quickly (RC) % satisfied with being given a clear understanding of what you could expect from the process (RC) % satisfied that the investigation process is fair and impartial (RC) % satisfied with written communication being timely (OM) % satisfied that the investigation process is fair and impartial (RC) % satisfied with staff knowing what they were talking about (RC) % satisfied with written communication reflecting the case accurately (OM) % satisfied with confidence in their handling of the complaint (RC) % satisfied with the professional service provided by the Legal Ombudsman % satisfied with written communication taking into account comments (OM) % satisfied that the written communication took into account their comments (OM) % who feel they have been treated fairly by the Legal Ombudsman % very/fairly satisfied with the outcome of the case 7

12 Customer Satisfaction Surveys The lowest scoring aspects concern the website and advocacy of the Legal Ombudsman. Figure 6 : Lowest scoring aspects 46% 46% % finding the Legal Ombudsman s website very/fairly useful % who would speak highly of the Legal Ombudsman Importance vs satisfaction at the Resolution Centre Similar to complainants, lawyers found most of the aspects of the Resolution Centre important, with at least a half saying very important in respect of each aspect apart from calls being answered quickly (48% rating very important ). The most important aspects were the investigation process being fair & impartial (84% rating very important ), having the opportunity to have their say (78%), confidence in the handling of the complaint (78%) and staff knowing what they were talking about (76%). In a similar manner to comparing importance and satisfaction for aspects among complainants, lawyers perceptions of the Resolution Centre can be analysed. Those aspects considered strengths of the Legal Ombudsman among lawyers include: Staff on the telephone being clear and easy to understand; The reasons for the recommendation were clearly explained; Having the opportunity to have your say. Those which need focus for improvement: The investigation process being fair and impartial; Confidence in the handling of the complaint; Staff knowing what they were talking about. Those which need to be maintained: Letters and s being easy to understand. Those which need to be monitored: Being kept informed of progress; Being given a clear understanding of what you could expect from the process; Calls were answered quickly. 8

13 Executive summary 1.4 Key findings Whilst perceptions of the Legal Ombudsman and case process are generally very positive, there are some areas which need improvement in the perceptions of both complainants and lawyers. Not surprisingly lawyers are more familiar than complainants with the Legal Ombudsman, having been involved in more cases, and having a greater knowledge of the organisation. This translates into their expectations being more likely to be met (and managed) concerning many aspects of the complaints process. Complainants are more likely to find the Legal Ombudsman s website useful than lawyers. Those complainants who did not find it useful, feel that it the information on the website lacks clarity or they would like more detailed information. Lawyers in contrast feel the website is too focussed on complainants issues, however they also mention a lack of detailed information. Complainants are less satisfied with all other aspects of the process and outcome than lawyers. They are less satisfied in particular, with written communication at Ombudsman stage taking into account their comments, and reflecting the case accurately. They are also less satisfied with the outcome of the case. It is not clear, whether this is a reflection of lawyers better understanding of the process, or complainants being more likely to have experienced a negative outcome at this stage. The nature of the case process, means that complainants whose case was not resolved before reaching Ombudsman stage are more likely to be dissatisfied with the case outcome. The survey findings highlight a number of suggestions for improvement or areas that influence satisfaction and perception. Whilst outcome of case will always have a significant impact on perceptions, other aspects are also important. For complainants, other critical factors include: Staff understanding the nature of their complaint; The reasons for the recommendation being clearly explained; Staff understanding the complainant s desired outcome; The investigation process being fair and impartial. For lawyers, the critical factors include: The investigation process being fair and impartial; Confidence in the handling of the complaint; Staff knowing what they were talking about. 1.5 Recommendations Generally, satisfaction with the Legal Ombudsman process and aspects of its services is high. However, the customer satisfaction research undertaken over the year has highlighted some areas that could be improved. These are detailed separately below with recommendations on how they could be improved. 9

14 Customer Satisfaction Surveys The professional service It has been shown that if investigators take the time to explain the complaints process and more importantly the reasons for the outcome, this will improve overall satisfaction with the professional service and other key performance indicators among this group. Complainants confidence that the investigation process is fair and impartial also has a strong impact on perceptions of a professional service, and this area is currently under performing compared to other aspects, thus needing an even stronger focus for improvement. For lawyers, the important aspects are again impartiality but linked with this is staff knowledge and confidence in the handling of the complaint. All three areas currently attract lower levels of satisfaction and should be addressed in staff training, improvements in communications and development of the Legal Ombudsman website. Demographic differences There are few differences in perceptions driven by demographic variability, however, lawyers from ethnic minority groups are sometimes more dissatisfied with the services provided by the Legal Ombudsman than those from white groups. This could be due to language issues or cultural issues, or possibly even the different areas of law involved (eg immigration and asylum cases). Focus on these issues should be included in reviewing training of front line staff; Solicitors signposting complainants to the Legal Ombudsman A minority of complainants are being signposted (or recall being signposted) to the Legal Ombudsman by their lawyer. This may be due to a lack of knowledge among lawyers about the Legal Ombudsman s services or misunderstanding of the obligation to provide such information to complainants. Focus on improved communications to lawyers, providing comprehensive information about the Legal Ombudsman, the complaints process and the lawyers duty to signpost the organisation to complainants; A review of information provided to lawyers via the Legal Ombudsman website, to ensure this meets their needs. Improving the Legal Ombudsman s website Some lawyers and complainants feel the website could be improved with more detailed information about cases and outcomes, a clearer outline of the Legal Ombudsman process and scheme rules and having separate web pages focussing on complainants issues and lawyers issues. This could include: Providing examples via detailed case studies; Improving navigation of the website; Including comprehensive coverage of what the Legal Ombudsman s jurisdiction covers and the organisation s responsibility to ensure legal complaints are resolved fairly; 10

15 Executive summary Making it clear why detailed information about specific cases cannot be put on the website. Enhancing confidence in the complaint process Some complainants and lawyers express a lack of confidence in the complaints process which may reflect misunderstandings of the objectives of the Legal Ombudsman or a lack of communication of important aspects of the process. This should be addressed by: Clearly explaining the reasons for decisions; Demonstrating an understanding of the case issues and taking into account complainants/lawyers views. Enhancing a sense of fairness in the process Perceptions of unfair decisions cannot always be avoided due to the nature of the complainant process, and the inevitable focus on outcome. However it may help improve perceptions of fairness by: Demonstrating full knowledge about the case; Empathising more with the complainants situation; Clearly outlining the process and stages involved and how the outcome is decided. 11

16 Customer Satisfaction Surveys Benchmarking over time 2.1 Introduction The following set of charts shows both the complainants and lawyers results comparing this year s data ( ) with last year s data ( ), where applicable. The commentary highlights which indicators have changed on a statistically significant basis. With sample bases of 1048 ( ) and 1070 ( ) among complainants, generally a rise or fall of about 5% would be a significant change in attitudes. With sample bases of 476 ( ) and 485 ( ) among lawyers, generally a rise or fall of about 7% would be a significant change in attitudes. In order to ensure the sample was representative of the population, the data was weighted in both years by resolution method and whether the fee was waivered or not. Due to the changing environment in which the Legal Ombudsman operates, more cases in were resolved at Ombudsman Decision stage than previously, thus it was agreed that a different set of weights should be used for this data. In order to illustrate the effect of weighting the data, the two tables below show the number and proportion of interviews achieved in and , and the distribution of each after weighting for both complainants and lawyers. Figure 7: Weighting process among complainants Unweighted numbers Unweighted % Weighted numbers Weighted % Complaint not progressed % % Resolution Centre stage/informal resolution) Ombudsman Decision stage/formal resolution) % % % % Complaint not progressed % Resolution Centre stage/informal resolution) Ombudsman Decision stage/formal resolution) % % % 12

17 Benchmarking over time Figure 8: Weighting process among lawyers Unweighted numbers Unweighted % Weighted numbers Weighted % Complaint not progressed 70 15% 92 19% Resolution Centre stage/informal resolution) Ombudsman Decision stage/formal resolution) % % 99 2 Complaint not progressed % Resolution Centre stage/informal resolution) Ombudsman Decision stage/formal resolution) % % % % 2.2 Complainants data The chart below shows the key indicators including overall satisfaction with the professional service and advocacy (how complainants would speak about the Legal Ombudsman). Most of the key indicators among complainants have fallen significantly since last year, particularly satisfaction with the case outcome (-1), advocacy (-10%) and being treated fairly (-9%). In contrast, being signposted to the Legal Ombudsman by their lawyer (+7%) has risen significantly since last year. 13

18 Customer Satisfaction Surveys Figure 9: Key indicators (complainants) 70% 60% 6 59% 64% % signposted to the Legal Ombudsman by their lawyer 50% 56% 53% 5 47% % finding the Legal Ombudsman s website very/fairly useful 40% 43% 43% % very/fairly satisfied with the outcome of the case 30% 27% 34% 3 % satisfied with the professional service provided by the Legal Ombudsman 20% % who would speak highly of the Legal Ombudsman 10% % who feel they have been treated fairly by the Legal Ombudsman 0%

19 Benchmarking over time The following two charts show satisfaction with staff in the Resolution Centre among complainants. All of the indicators have fallen, some significantly so. Satisfaction with the investigation process being fair and impartial (-8%), satisfaction with staff understanding the nature of the complaint (-6%) and confidence in the handling of the complaint (-6%) have all fallen significantly. The other indicators have fallen but not significantly so. Figure 10: Satisfaction with staff in the Resolution Centre part 1 (complainants) 90% 80% 70% 60% 78% 65% 6 76% 75% 66% 6 % satisfied with letters and s being easy to understand % satisfied with staff on the telephone being clear and easy to understand 50% 56% % satisfied with staff understanding the nature of the complaint 40% 30% % satisfied with staff knowing what they were talking about 20% % satisfied with being kept informed of progress 10% 0%

20 Customer Satisfaction Surveys Figure 11: Satisfaction with staff in the Resolution Centre part 2 (complainants) 80% 76% 73% 70% 67% 60% 57% 63% % satisfied with being contacted when agreed 50% 54% 49% 48% % satisfied with being given a clear understanding of what you could expect from the process 40% 30% % satisfied with the investigation process being fair and impartial 20% % satisfied with confidence in their handling of the complaint 10% 0%

21 Benchmarking over time Most of the indicators for written communications at Ombudsman Decision stage have fallen, but none significantly so. Figure 12: Satisfaction with written communications at Ombudsman Decision stage (complainants) 60% 50% 53% 53% 49% 50% % satisfied with written communcation being easy to understand 40% % satisfied with written communcation being timely 30% % satisfied with written communcation taking into account comments 20% 2 20% 23% % satisfied with written communcation reflecting the case accurately 10% 0%

22 Customer Satisfaction Surveys Lawyers data The chart below shows satisfaction with the key indicators among lawyers. All of the key indicators have risen, particularly satisfaction with the professional service (+8%) and satisfaction with the case outcome (+7), which have both risen significantly. Figure 13: Overall key indicators (lawyers) 80% 70% 69% % finding the Legal Ombudsman s website very/fairly useful 64% 60% 6 58% 63% % very/fairly satisfied with the outcome of the case 50% 56% 46% % satisfied with the professional service provided by the Legal Ombudsman 40% % % who would speak highly of the Legal Ombudsman* 30% % who feel they have been treated fairly by the Legal Ombudsman* 20% 10% 0% * Note: advocacy and usefulness of the Legal Ombudsman s website have the same levels of satisfaction in both and

23 Benchmarking over time The following two charts show satisfaction with staff in the Resolution Centre among lawyers. Again, all indicators have risen, with most rising significantly. The biggest increases in satisfaction are for the investigation process being fair and impartial (+10%), confidence in the handling of the complaint (+9%) and staff on the telephone being clear and easy to understand (+8%). Figure 14: Satisfaction with staff in the Resolution Centre part 1 (lawyers) 90% 83% 80% 77% 75% 79% 8 % satisfied with letters and s being easy to understand 70% 60% 7 65% 7 % satisfied with letters and s being professional 50% % satisfied with staff on the telephone being clear and easy to understand 40% % satisfied with staff knowing what they were talking about 30% % satisfied with having the opportunity to have your say 20% 10% 0%

24 Customer Satisfaction Surveys Figure 15: Satisfaction with staff in the Resolution Centre part 2 (lawyers) 90% 80% 70% 73% 68% 6 80% 74% 73% 7 70% % satisfied with being kept informed of progress % satisfied with being contacted when agreed 60% 6 50% % satisfied with being given a clear understanding of what you could expect from the process 40% % satisfied with the investigation process being fair and impartial 30% 20% % satisfied with confidence in their handling of the complaint 10% 0%

25 Benchmarking over time In terms of lawyers perceptions of the Ombudsman Decision stage, there has been a significant increase in satisfaction for all aspects. This is particularly the case for written communication being timely (+20%) and easy to understand (+18%). Figure 16: Satisfaction with written communications at Ombudsman Decision stage (lawyers) 90% 8 80% 7 % satisfied with written communication being easy to understand 70% 7 60% 64% 57% 68% % satisfied with written communication being timely 50% 53% 5 % satisfied with written communication taking into account comments 40% 30% % satisfied with written communication reflecting the case accurately 20% 10% 0%

26 Customer Satisfaction Surveys Introduction 3.1 Background The Legal Ombudsman wished to conduct a programme of surveys to assess customers perceptions of their confidence in, and satisfaction with, their services. The Legal Ombudsman wished to gain an understanding of customers experiences of their services as they progress through the organisation and the business process. It was important that the research was able, as far as possible to distinguish between perceptions of the process and the outcome of respondents complaint or case. An important element of the survey was an assessment of how customers perceive the Legal Ombudsman as an organisation and their confidence in its performance against its organisational vision and values. The main objectives were: To gain an understanding of how satisfied customers (those people who use the Legal Ombudsman service: complainants and their representatives, and lawyers) are with the service they provide; To gain an understanding of how successfully the Legal Ombudsman delivers against their stated vision and values; To gain an understanding of customers experiences as they progress through the service; Monitor changing patterns in customer satisfaction and confidence to inform future operational development; To establish a baseline of customers satisfaction and confidence to inform organisational objectives and targets. The survey has now been undertaken for 2 years, October September 2012 and October 2012-September Method In the second year of the survey programme, 4 quarterly surveys were undertaken among both complainants and lawyers who had complaints made against them. Respondents were contacted as soon as possible after their case was closed, to ensure that they would be able to recall the details of their case. Whilst both complainants and lawyers were reminded throughout the survey that their responses should relate to the Legal Ombudsman s processes and customer service, irrespective of the outcome of the case, inevitably case outcome (in particular whether it was favourable towards the respondent or not) had a sizeable impact on views. A target of 250 complainant interviews were set per quarter. Surveys were conducted with a sample of customers who had had their case resolved / closed in the preceding quarter. At the time of contact with Legal Ombudsman staff, complainants were asked for their consent to participate in the research, and those who did not give this were screened out of the surveys. 22

27 Introduction The majority of complainant interviews were undertaken over the telephone, and each interview lasted up to 15 minutes. Prisoners were also included in the quarterly samples, and these questionnaires were self completion and returned by post. In total 60 prisoner questionnaires were returned over the four quarters. Both telephone and postal respondents were offered the interview in another language if required. A target of 100 lawyer questionnaire completions were set per quarter. These were completed online, sending an to all lawyers in the sample, inviting them to take part in the online survey, and providing them with a link to the website and a unique reference number to access the questionnaire. Reminder s were also sent to non-responders a couple of weeks after the first . Some barristers, who did not have addresses were offered an interview by telephone or their address was collected by telephone and they were sent an with a link to the online survey. In total 12 barristers completed a telephone interview. The questionnaire was developed with the client, encompassing each stage of the complaint process. Minor changes were made to the questionnaire after the first year of the survey, including additional questions about the importance of aspects during the Resolution stage. All contacts were provided by the client, including additional information on case closure date, closure stage, Case ID number, whether fee was waived or not and whether representative or complainant (complainants only). The table below shows the number of completed interviews each quarter. Figure 17: Number of interviews completed per quarter Period in which case was resolved Fieldwork period Complainant interviews Lawyer interviews Quarter 1 July-September 2012 October-November Quarter 2 October-December 2012 January-February Quarter 3 January-March 2013 April-May Quarter 4 April-June 2013 July-August Total In order to ensure the sample was representative of the population, data was weighted by resolution method (whether completed at pre-assessment stage, Resolution Centre stage or Ombudsman stage) and whether the fee was waived or not (which relates to the number of times that a lawyer has had a complaint made against them). Due to changes in profile of cases being undertaken by the Legal Ombudsman, a different set of weights was applied in Year 2 of the survey. 23

28 Customer Satisfaction Surveys Reporting of data This report contains a written analysis of the data for all four quarters as an annual data set. Graphs and tables are used throughout the report to assist explanation and analysis. Although occasional anomalies appear due to rounding differences, these are never more than +/-. These occur where, for example, rating scales have been added to calculate proportions of respondents who are satisfied at all (i.e. either very or fairly satisfied). Rating questions have been reported on those who provided a valid response, i.e. taking out don t know, not applicable and not provided responses. In addition to this written report, a separate data report has been produced, which shows the total results for each question and also the results cross-tabulated by sub group. The sub groups included in the complainant analysis are: Quarterly data Closure stage; Whether fee waived or not; Whether prisoner or not; Whether representative or not; No. of complaints made; Source of info about the Legal Ombudsman; Initial method of contact; Length of case; Amount of contact; Overall satisfaction with professional service Satisfaction with outcome of case; Gender; Age; Impairment; Ethnicity; Area of law (group); Nature of complaint. The sub groups included in the lawyer analysis are: Quarterly data; Lawyer type (solicitor, barrister etc); Closure stage; Whether fee waived or not; No. of employees in the practice; Respondent status (complaint handler or person complained about); Knowledge of the Legal Ombudsman Number of times involved with the Legal Ombudsman; Main method of contact; Length of case; 24

29 Introduction Amount of contact; Overall satisfaction with professional service Satisfaction with outcome of case; Gender; Age; Impairment; Ethnicity; Area of law (group); Nature of complaint. Data has been analysed by the above sub groups where appropriate to the question and also where sub groups show a statistically significant difference in response. In order to clearly distinguish between the results among complainants and results among lawyers, the former headings are shown in blue and the latter headings are shown in green throughout this report. 25

30 Customer Satisfaction Surveys Background and contact with the Legal Ombudsman (complainants) 4.1 Demographic profile of complainants Just over a half of complainants were male. The majority were in the age group years, and three in ten had a medical condition (self classified). Eight in ten were of white ethnic origin, with ethnic minority groups represented being varied. The graph below shows the full demographic breakdown of complainants. Figure 18: Q21-Q25 Profile of complainants (all complainants) Male 58% Female % 29% % % Prefer not to say Has medical condition 29% No medical condition 69% Prefer not to say 3% White 79% Asian or Asian British 7% Mixed/multiple ethnic groups Black/African/Caribbean/Black British Other Ethnic group 6% 5% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% Unweighted base=1070 About one in twenty (6%) of the weighted complainants sample were prisoners. A very small proportion () had used a representative to deal with the Legal Ombudsman, mainly a friend or relative. 26

31 Background and contact with the Legal Ombudsman (complainants) 4.2 Familiarity with the Legal Ombudsman Just under nine in ten complainants had not made any previous complaints to the Legal Ombudsman, prior to the current complaint. Figure 19: Q2 Number of complaints made to the Legal Ombudsman (all complainants) First complaint 88% Second complaint 9% Third complaint Four or more complaints 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Unweighted base=

32 Customer Satisfaction Surveys Channels of communication The main sources of first hearing about the Legal Ombudsman were internet searches, from complainants lawyers or from friends & family, each cited by at least one in six respondents. Figure 20: Q3a How first heard about the Legal Ombudsman (all complainants) From an internet search 2 From your lawyer 19% From friends/ family/ work colleagues 16% Citizen's Advice Bureau/CAB* Solicitors Regulation Authority/SRA* 4% 5% From a newspaper or magazine From TV or radio The Law Society* From a poster From a link on another website From the Legal Ombudsman's website From a Legal Ombudsman's leaflet From a consumer or advice organisation Another way 9% Always known about them/already aware* 15% Don't know 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% Unweighted base=1070 * new codes added, Quarter 2-Quarter 4 Those complainants who had not mentioned their lawyer asked how they first heard about the Legal Ombudsman, were further prompted and asked whether their lawyer had told them about the Legal Ombudsman. Thus, in total 34% of complainants had been signposted to the Legal Ombudsman by their lawyer. The only group of respondents significantly more likely to have been signposted by their lawyer were those whose case involved family law (4). 28

33 Background and contact with the Legal Ombudsman (complainants) Those complainants who had first heard of the Legal Ombudsman via an internet search, a link to another website or the Legal Ombudsman website were asked how useful they had found the website. They were asked to rate it using a 5 point scale, where 1 indicates not at all useful and 5 indicates very useful. Almost two thirds of complainants (64% rating 4-5) had found the website useful, whilst just over one in ten (13% rating 1-2) had not found it useful. Figure 21: Q4a Usefulness of the Legal Ombudsman s website (all complainants who used the website providing a valid response) 1 - Not at all useful 5% 2 7% 3 24% 4 25% 5 - Very useful 39% Not useful 13% Unweighted base=226 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% Those complainants whose case involved residential conveyancing were significantly more likely to find the website very/fairly useful (90%) than other groups. Those involved with family law were more likely to find the website not very/not at all useful (18%). Usefulness of the website was also affected by stage at which the case closed, with those closing at Ombudsman stage more likely to find the website not useful (25%) and those closing at the Resolution stage useful (85%). 29

34 Customer Satisfaction Surveys Complainants who had not found the Legal Ombudsman s website useful (rating 4-5) were asked how it could be improved, on an unprompted basis. Due to the small sample size, it was not possible to create a code frame for the question, but the verbatim responses are shown below: It was difficult to find a contact telephone number. It needs to be a lot clearer about the process and also when you re filling out the complaints form, there is not enough space to put details in. If experiencing a lot of problems with your solicitor you should be able to list every complaint. Clearer information as to what the possible outcomes are. It indicates that it can do things that the Ombudsman s staff say that they cannot. Ask the people that use the site so customers can give specifics about the website, rather than generalities. They could give you more detail on it, they should be clear that they do not look at the professional advice given by the solicitor. All they look at is procedures, for example whether things are sent out on time. It should be made clear that they are not lawyers. But if they are not lawyers how they can decide on a case? It doesn't tell you anything, there is nothing about the complaints process. I filled in a form and I had to repeat myself a lot. I don't know, I just rang them off the website as there was not much detail. It was very difficult to navigate. It didn't answer any questions. It just gave case reference's and every ones case is different. It doesn't do what they say. They are portrayed to be an impartial service, but I don't think it is. It is run by solicitors, for solicitors. It was just very difficult to manage my way around it. It needs to have more general information about the powers and the general cases they can take on. The cases they can take on. And how likely it would be for there to be a positive outcome. That they are biased on the side of solicitors. It's not the website it s the investigation. They claim to be looking over what the solicitors do but they are not. It s a bit of a closed shop, they don t want to find anything wrong anyone else in the legal profession. It s not very accessible to the general public, it discourages people to use them. It should be more clearer what they can and can't do. 30

35 Background and contact with the Legal Ombudsman (complainants) Not enough background info about what would happen in the process and in the initial contact. Very basic with their references. It didn't give me the specific areas of expertise that I needed. That was my issue with the Legal Ombudsman they didn't understand the issues I had at all. I can't use 0845 numbers so I had to look deeper for a regular land line. I didn't really use the website that much. I didn't find the service useful. Basically it's not given the information that is needed, it's very difficult to find who you need to contact. You should be able to do it online but you still have to write into them as well, I'd rather do it by . I can t really remember, I can only assume I couldn't find the information I wanted so I rang up instead. There's a whole booklet I've now downloaded on my ipad, but I didn't find that at the beginning. The website wasn't useful, it only gives you a number. They did not even help me in any matter, they are useless. Eight complainants had found out about the Legal Ombudsman via the Legal Ombudsman s leaflet. Of these, 5 found it useful (rating 4-5), 2 found it average (rating 3) and 1 did not find it useful (rating 1-2). 31

36 Customer Satisfaction Surveys Just under two thirds of complainants first made contact with the Legal Ombudsman by telephone. About one in six each made initial contact by and letter. Figure 22: Q6 How first contact was made with the Legal Ombudsman (all complainants) By phone 63% By letter 15% By 17% Other Don't know Unweighted base=1070 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% Method of initial contact varied mainly by area of law. Those complainants involved in personal injury were more likely to telephone the Legal Ombudsman (78%), whilst those involved in crime, as an area of law, were more likely to have sent a letter (39%). Those involved in employment law (25%), family law (24%), residential conveyancing (24%), wills & probate (23%) and litigation (2) were more likely to the Legal Ombudsman. 32

37 4.4 Length of case Background and contact with the Legal Ombudsman (complainants) The majority of cases lasted between 1 and 4 months, however some complainants said they had taken much longer; in a small number of cases longer than 12 months. Figure 23: Q7 Time taken to resolve the case (all complainants) Less than 1 month months 26% 3-4 months 30% 5-6 months 14% 7-9 months 8% months Longer than 12 months 3% Not sure 5% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% Unweighted base=1070 As to be expected, length of case was closely aligned with closure stage. Around a half of complainants whose case had not progressed (48%) or closed at Resolution stage (54%) said it lasted less than 2 months, compared to only 17% of those whose case closed at Ombudsman stage. 33

38 Customer Satisfaction Surveys About a quarter of complainants felt that the time taken to complete the case was slower than expected, whilst about one in five felt it was faster than expected. More than four in ten felt it was about as expected, whilst one in ten had had no prior expectations. Figure 24: Q8 Whether the time taken was slower, faster or about as expected (all complainants) Slower than expected 26% About as expected 44% Faster than expected 19% Not sure Had no prior expectations 9% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% Unweighted base=1070 Not surprisingly, the speed of case followed closely the perceived length of case, with complainants who had been involved in cases lasting 7+ months much more likely to say the case had been slower than expected (66%). 34

39 Background and contact with the Legal Ombudsman (complainants) 4.5 Level of contact with the Legal Ombudsman The number of times complainants had spoken to or had contact with the Legal Ombudsman varied. Just over one in ten had done so up to 3 times, whilst over one in five had done so more than 10 times. Figure 25: Q9 Number of times spoken to / had contact with the Legal Ombudsman (all complainants) 1-3 times 13% 4-6 times 39% 7-10 times 25% More than 10 times 2 Not sure Unweighted base=1070 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% Again the number of times contact was made was closely aligned with closure stage and perceived length of case. 35

40 Customer Satisfaction Surveys About seven in ten complainants felt the amount of contact was about right, whilst one in five felt it was too little. Figure 26: Q10 Whether the amount of contact was too little, too much or about the right amount (all complainants) Too much 6% About the right amount 69% Too little 2 Had no prior expectations 5% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% Unweighted base=1070 Those more likely to say the amount of contact was too little included those whose case was closed at Ombudsman stage (33%), particularly among those who rejected the Ombudsman s decision (4). 36

41 4.6 Satisfaction with the outcome Background and contact with the Legal Ombudsman (complainants) Complainants were reminded throughout the interview, that the questions concerned the process and not the outcome of their involvement with the Legal Ombudsman. However, it was felt important to understand their perceptions of the outcome of the case. Thus, they were asked how satisfied they had been with the outcome. Overall, more than half of complainants were dissatisfied (57% rating very/fairly dissatisfied) with the outcome of their case. About a third were satisfied (3 rating very/fairly satisfied). However, as can be seen in the graph below, there was a lot of strong feeling at both ends of the rating scale, with almost a half very dissatisfied and more than one in five very satisfied. Figure 27: Q19 Satisfaction with the outcome of the case (all complainants providing a valid response) 1 - Very dissatisfied 47% 2 10% % 5 - Very satisfied 2 Unweighted base=1058 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% Those more likely to be dissatisfied (very or fairly dissatisfied) with the case outcome were: Those whose case closed at Ombudsman stage (79%), and indeed 9 of those who rejected the Ombudsman s decision; Those whose case involved crime as the area of law (76%); Those whose case lasted 7+ months (70%). Those complainants more likely to be satisfied (very or fairly satisfied) were: Those whose cased closed at Resolution stage (56%); Those whose case lasted up to 2 months (45%); Those whose case involved personal injury as the area of law (44%). 37

42 Customer Satisfaction Surveys Importance of and satisfaction with aspects of the Legal Ombudsman service (complainants) 5.1 Importance of aspects of contact with the investigator (Resolution Centre stage) Complainants were asked how important different aspects were with respect to staff and process at Resolution Centre stage. The graph below shows the responses (on a 5 point scale, where 1 indicates not at all important and 5 indicates very important ) for each statement concerning the Resolution Centre. The responses are based on valid responses only, having taken out don t know, refused or other invalid responses. Generally complainants found most aspects of the Resolution Centre important, with more than six in ten rating each very important. In particular high proportions found staff knowing what they were talking about, the process being fair & impartial, staff understanding the nature of the complaint, having confidence in the handling of the complaint and being given a clear understanding of the process very important. Calls being answered quickly was perceived as average importance by 13%, however 63% still found this aspect very important. 38

43 Importance of and satisfaction with aspects of the Legal Ombudsman service (complainants) Figure 28: Q11 Importance of contact with the investigator (all complainants providing a valid response, Quarter 2 to Quarter 4) Staff knowing what they were talking about The investigation process being fair and impartial Staff understanding the nature of your complaint Your confidence in their handling of the complaint Being given a clear understanding of what you could expect from the process Staff understanding your desired outcome Staff on the telephone being clear and easy to understand Being contacted when agreed The reasons for the recommendation were clearly explained Staff understanding of how the problems you encountered affected you Letters and s being easy to understand Being kept informed of progress My calls were answered quickly 3% 9% 3% 3% 8% 3% 1 4% 3% 9% 4% 15% 4% 3% 15% 5% 17% 4% 18% 4% 17% 5% 15% 7% 19% 5% 19% 13% 2 85% 85% % 78% 77% 77% 77% 76% 73% 73% 63% Unweighted bases vary 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 1 - Not at all important Very important 39

44 Customer Satisfaction Surveys Satisfaction with the investigator (Resolution Centre stage) Complainants were also asked to rate the same set of statements about the Resolution Centre in terms of their satisfaction with each. They were asked to use a five point scale, where 1 indicates very dissatisfied and 5 indicates very satisfied. Generally, complainants were satisfied (scoring 4-5) with most of the aspects, with at least 50% satisfied with each with the exceptions of staff understanding of how the problems complainants encountered affected them, confidence in the handling of the complaint and the investigation process being fair & impartial. More than half were very satisfied with staff on the telephone being clear & easy to understand, being contacted when agreed, calls being answered quickly and letters & s being easy to understand. Reflecting the lower satisfaction above, some aspects attracted high levels of dissatisfaction. Those aspects rated very dissatisfied by at least a quarter of respondents included complainants confidence in the handling of the complaint, the investigation process being fair & impartial, staff understanding of how the problems encountered affected complainants, and staff understanding complainants desired outcomes. 40

45 Importance of and satisfaction with aspects of the Legal Ombudsman service (complainants) Figure 29: Q12 Satisfaction with the investigator (all complainants providing a valid response) Staff on the telephone being clear and easy to understand 8% 5% 1 20% 56% Being contacted when agreed 10% 5% 1 20% 54% My calls were answered quickly 9% 5% 14% 20% 5 Letters and s being easy to understand 7% 5% 13% 23% 5 Being kept informed of progress 1 9% 13% 19% 47% Staff knowing what they were talking about 18% 9% 1 17% 44% Being given a clear understanding of what you could expect from the process 14% 10% 13% 20% 43% The reasons for the recommendation were clearly explained 19% 9% 13% 15% 43% Staff understanding the nature of your complaint 20% 10% 14% 17% 39% The investigation process being fair and impartial 33% 8% 10% 10% 39% Your confidence in their handling of the complaint 34% 9% 9% 1 36% Staff understanding your desired outcome 25% 1 14% 15% 35% Staff understanding of how the problems you encountered affected you 28% 1 13% 14% 33% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 1 - Very dissatisfied Very satisfied Unweighted bases vary 41

46 Customer Satisfaction Surveys Overall, satisfaction levels are fairly high for staff knowing what they were talking about, with 6 being very/fairly satisfied and 27% being very/fairly dissatisfied. The table below shows the levels of satisfaction for this aspect by complainants responses to the question about overall satisfaction with the outcome of the case. The figures in bold indicate significantly higher responses. Almost all of those complainants who were very/fairly satisfied with the outcome of their case, were also very/fairly satisfied with staff knowledge. In contrast a high proportion of those very/fairly dissatisfied with the case outcome were also very/fairly dissatisfied with staff knowledge. Clearly, there is a high correlation between perceptions of outcome of case and perceptions of staff knowledge. Figure 30: Q12e Satisfaction with staff knowing what they were talking about by outcome of case (all complainants providing a valid response) Satisfaction With Outcome Of Case Very/ Fairly satisfied Satisfied Very/ Fairly dissatisfied Very/ fairly satisfied (4-5) 97% 80% 37% Satisfied (3) 1 18% Very/ fairly dissatisfied (1-2) 8% 45% Unweighted Bases In terms of other aspects which impact on perceptions of staff knowledge, those more likely to be very/fairly satisfied are: Those more likely to be satisfied with the professional service of the Legal Ombudsman (93%); Those whose case was closed at Resolution Centre stage (8); Those whose complaint was about failure to keep papers safe (8); Those whose complaint was about failure to keep them informed (78%); Those involved in residential conveyancing (78%); Those whose case lasted up to two months (76%). Those more likely to be very/fairly dissatisfied are: Those dissatisfied with the professional service of the Legal Ombudsman (6); Those who case was resolved at Ombudsman stage (44%); Those whose case lasted 7+ months (43%); Those who were involved with crime as an area of law (4). Whilst case outcome has a strong correlation with staff knowledge, especially among those who are satisfied with staff knowledge, there are other factors which also have an impact. Some of these are more strongly correlated than case outcome, particularly among those dissatisfied with staff knowledge. For example, 42

47 Importance of and satisfaction with aspects of the Legal Ombudsman service (complainants) dissatisfaction with the professional service (6) has a greater impact than case outcome (45%) on dissatisfaction with staff knowledge. Just under half of complainants were very/fairly satisfied (48%) with confidence in the investigators handling of the complaint, whilst a slightly smaller proportion were very/fairly dissatisfied (43%). The table below shows the results by outcome of case, and again, there is a high correlation between this and confidence in the investigator, as the figures in bold show. Figure 31: Q12m Confidence in the investigators handling of the complaint by outcome of case (all complainants providing a valid response) Satisfaction With Outcome Of Case Very/ Fairly satisfied Satisfied Very/ Fairly dissatisfied Very/ fairly satisfied (4-5) 97% 69% 17% Satisfied (3) 3% 18% 10% Very/ fairly dissatisfied (1-2) 13% 73% Unweighted Bases Those aspects which impact on perceptions of confidence in the investigator are very similar to those impacting on staff knowledge. Those more likely to be very/fairly satisfied are: Those most likely to be satisfied with the professional service of the Legal Ombudsman (85%); Those whose case was closed at Resolution Centre stage (7); Those whose complaint was about failure to keep papers safe (67%); Those whose case involved in residential conveyancing (65%); Those whose case lasted up to two months (63%): Those whose complaint was about failure to keep them informed (60%). Those more likely to be dissatisfied are: Those dissatisfied with the professional service of the Legal Ombudsman (93%); Those who case was resolved at Ombudsman stage (67%); Those whose case lasted 7+ months (60%); Those who were involved with crime as an area of law (6); Those whose complaint was about potential misconduct (56%). 43

48 Customer Satisfaction Surveys Importance vs satisfaction with aspects of contact with the investigator The following scatter graph plots the proportions rating each aspect important (scoring 4-5) against those rating each aspect very/fairly satisfied (scoring 4-5). The graph can be divided into four quadrants, which indicate the position of each aspect in terms of strengths and weaknesses of the Legal Ombudsman. This is done by plotting horizontal and vertical lines at the average rating points for importance and satisfaction. The four quadrants indicate the following: Legal Ombudsman s strengths (where importance and satisfaction are higher than average); Areas for improvement (where importance is higher but satisfaction is lower than average); Areas to maintain (where importance is lower, but satisfaction is higher than average); Areas to monitor (where both importance and satisfaction are lower than average). The key to the scatter graph can be found below the scatter graph. Those aspects considered strengths of the Legal Ombudsman by complainants include: Being given a clear understanding of what you could expect from the process; Being contacted when agreed; Staff on the telephone being clear and easy to understand. Those which need focus for improvement: Staff understanding the nature of your complaint; The reasons for the recommendation are clearly explained; Staff understanding your desired outcome; The investigation process being fair and impartial. Those which need to be maintained: Calls are answered quickly; Letters and s being easy to understand. Those which need to be monitored: Confidence in their handling of the complaint; Staff understanding of how the problems you encountered affected you. 44

49 % rating satisfied (4-5) Importance of and satisfaction with aspects of the Legal Ombudsman service (complainants) Figure 32: Q11/Q12 Importance vs satisfaction with aspects of contact with the investigator (all complainants providing a response) 100% Maintain Strengths 90% 80% C 70% A B G F 60% E H K D 50% J M/I L Monitor Improve 40% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% % rating important (4-5) A B C D E F G H I J K L M Key to scatter graph My calls are answered quickly Letters and s being easy to understand Staff on the telephone being clear and easy to understand Staff understanding the nature of your complaint Staff knowing what they were talking about Being kept informed of progress Being contacted when agreed Being given a clear understanding of what you could expect from the process Staff understanding of how the problems you encountered affected you Staff understanding your desired outcome The reasons for the recommendation are clearly explained The investigation process being fair and impartial Your confidence in their handling of the complaint 45

50 Customer Satisfaction Surveys Satisfaction with written communication (Ombudsman stage) Those complainants whose case closed at Ombudsman stage were asked to rate their satisfaction with specific aspects of written communication. As can be seen below, satisfaction levels with all aspects of written communication at Ombudsman stage were much lower compared to satisfaction levels at Resolution Centre stage. Dissatisfaction is particularly high in terms of reflecting the case accurately and taking into account complainants comments, where about half were very dissatisfied with each. Figure 33: Q13 Satisfaction with written communication (all complainants providing a valid response) Easy to understand 19% 9% 18% 2 3 Timely 16% 10% 24% 26% 24% Took into account your comments 49% 13% 15% 1 1 Reflected your case accurately % 1 1 Unweighted bases vary ( ) 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 1 - Very dissatisfied Very satisfied As we have seen with earlier analyses, those complainants reaching Ombudsman stage have generally been more dissatisfied across many aspects than other groups. Within this group, perhaps not surprisingly, the key difference is whether the complainant accepted or rejected the Ombudsman s decision. 46

51 Overall views of the Legal Ombudsman (complainants) 6 Overall views of the Legal Ombudsman (complainants) 6.1 Overall satisfaction with the professional service provided by the Legal Ombudsman Overall, just over half of complainants (5) were very/fairly satisfied with the professional service provided by the Legal Ombudsman, whilst just over a third (36%) were very/fairly dissatisfied. The majority of respondents lie at either extreme on the rating scale, with more than a third very satisfied and just over a quarter very dissatisfied. Figure 34: Q14a Overall satisfaction with the professional service provided by the Legal Ombudsman (all complainants providing a valid response) 1 - Very dissatisfied 26% 2 10% % 5 - Very satisfied 34% Unweighted base=1067 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 47

52 Customer Satisfaction Surveys The table below shows clearly that the outcome of case has a big impact on overall satisfaction levels. The figures in bold are significantly higher than their counterparts. Thus, more than nine in ten of those satisfied with the outcome of their case were also satisfied with the professional service. In contrast six in ten who were dissatisfied with the outcome were also dissatisfied with the professional service. Figure 35: Q14a Overall satisfaction with the professional service provided by the Legal Ombudsman by outcome of case (all complainants providing a valid response) Satisfaction With Outcome Of Case Very/ Fairly satisfied Satisfied Very/ Fairly dissatisfied Very/ fairly satisfied (4-5) 96% 7 24% Satisfied (3) 3% 23% 15% Very/ fairly dissatisfied (1-2) 5% 60% Unweighted Bases In addition to outcome of case, other aspects which impact on overall satisfaction are shown below. Those more likely to be satisfied with the professional service were: Those where the case closed at Resolution stage (74%); Those whose complaint was about failure to keep papers safe (70%); Those where length of case was up to 2 months (69%). Those more likely to be dissatisfied were: Those who were involved with crime as the area of law (57%); Those whose case closed at Ombudsman stage (56%); Those where length of case was 7+ months (48%); 48

53 6.2 Reasons for satisfaction and dissatisfaction Overall views of the Legal Ombudsman (complainants) Complainants were asked to explain, on an unprompted basis, the reasons for rating the Legal Ombudsman s overall professional service as they did. The first graph below shows the main responses from those saying they were satisfied with the professional service. A quarter mentioned generally that the service had been good/that the Legal Ombudsman handled the case well. Smaller numbers were more specific saying the Legal Ombudsman was professional, they explained things well or the outcome was good. Clearly, some respondents also gave negative feedback, even if their overall satisfaction was positive. 49

54 Customer Satisfaction Surveys Figure 36: Q14b Reasons for satisfaction with the professional service provided by the Legal Ombudsman - unprompted (where very/fairly satisfied) Service was good / they did a good job / I'm happy with the service / they handled it well / sorted it 25% They were professional 16% They explained things to me (inc. how the case was to progress) The outcome was good / case was resolved satisfactorily / I achieved what I wanted to 1 13% I didn't get the outcome I wanted / a favourable result / the compensation I expected They were quick / speedy Communication was good / I could talk to them / they kept in contact 8% 8% 9% They kept me informed / feedback was good 6% They were helpful They did all they could / there was nothing else they could do They were clear in their actions / I understood what they were doing They understood me / knew what I was going on about Customer service has been good (inc. I have been treated well / had no problems / they were polite) They were efficient They did what they said they would / what was expected It was impartial / fair / equally-balanced 6% 5% 4% 4% 4% 4% 3% 3% They were understanding / showed sympathy It was biased in favour of the legal profession / not impartial / unfair 3% 3% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% Unweighted base=579 Where mentioned by at least 3% 50

55 Overall views of the Legal Ombudsman (complainants) Among those who were dissatisfied with the professional service provided by Legal Ombudsman, reasons for this centred on the process being biased in favour of the legal profession, evidence being disregarded, lack of understanding the case, not taking the complainant s views into account and it generally being a poor service. Figure 37: Q14b Reasons for dissatisfaction with the professional service provided by the Legal Ombudsman unprompted (where very/fairly dissatisfied) It was biased in favour of the legal profession / not impartial / unfair 24% Evidence was disregarded / misconstrued / they recorded things that were incorrect 17% They didn't understand my case / complaint / point of view They didn't value my case / consider my point of view / take me seriously / weren't considerate 13% 13% It was a waste of time / a useless service I didn't get the outcome I wanted / a favourable result / the compensation I expected 9% 10% Customer service has been poor They didn't do anything / check out my complaint / file 6% 7% My side had little legal knowledge / the other party knew more about the Law than mine / had a legal They didn't listen to me They 'fob you off' / said things just to put me off / tried to persuade me to drop the case / to take They took too long to act I had questions / had no idea what was happening / they were unclear I had to chase them up / they didn't contact me back They didn't obtain all the evidence / investigate the case thoroughly 4% 4% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% Unweighted base=374 Where mentioned by at least 3% 51

56 Customer Satisfaction Surveys Things that have worked well or could be improved All complainants were asked (unprompted) what had worked well during the process of the complaint. The main things mentioned included good communication/contact, a satisfactory outcome, quick response, a supportive process and generally the whole process being good. 52

57 Overall views of the Legal Ombudsman (complainants) Figure 38: Q15 Things that have worked well - unprompted (all complainants) Communication / contact generally Satisfactory outcome / my case was resolved / Quick response / resolution They were understanding / supportive / helpful Everything / the whole process Things were explained to me / made clear / so The service generally Regular contact / being kept informed / updated They were professional / did things correctly They were easy to get hold of / accessible Contact by They were well-informed / saw the way / Being listened to / paid attention to Initial contact Contact by phone / calls The initial aspect of the complaint Letters / correspondence They negotiated with my solicitor / were a They were efficient / competent / on-the-ball They kept going / wanted to resolve things / got They were patient / polite / nice They did more than I expected / I expected nothing They were fair / balanced Knowing that they re impartial / independent I got my money back / a rebate As soon as they were involved the case was They gave me confidence / my worries were Not much The case is still ongoing 5% 5% 5% 4% 4% 3% 3% 3% 10% 13% 0% 4% 6% 8% 10% 1 14% Unweighted base=1070 Where mentioned by at least 53

58 Customer Satisfaction Surveys In terms of things that had not worked so well or could be improved, the main comment was the biased decision making, mentioned spontaneously by more than one in ten complainants. Other comments included the need for better communication, the results being unsatisfactory, the Ombudsman lacking power and the case not being investigated properly. 54

59 Overall views of the Legal Ombudsman (complainants) Figure 39: Q16 Things that could be improved (all complainants) Biased decision making / need to take a more 1 More frequent / better communication needed / Results in case have been unsatisfactory / better 7% 7% Ombudsman lacks power to enforce decisions / Issue / case wasn t Investigated enough / should 6% 6% We weren t being listened to / need to listen more Procedure / information wasn t understood / Staff lack understanding / experience/ knowledge Some staff needed better training 4% 4% 4% 4% Generally everything / the whole of the process Process / service is time consuming / took a long Issues with time restrictions / dealing with issues Spend more time on increasing the understanding 3% 3% 3% 3% Case / issue hasn t been resolved / is still ongoing Poor access to information / make information Remit needs to be fulfilled / do what they need to Lack of suitable support services / more support / Issues relating to the levels of compensation Dealing with the red tape / form filling / levels of Information wasn t collected / written down Need to clearly define the range of powers of the Not all issues were being dealt with / issues were Lack of face-to-face meetings To be honest / truthful To take into consideration all information / To publicise / make aware of their services available 0% 4% 6% 8% 10% 1 14% Unweighted base=1070 Where mentioned by at least 55

60 Customer Satisfaction Surveys Advocacy Views were varied in terms of how complainants would speak about the Legal Ombudsman; overall 43% would speak highly of it and 4 would be critical. Again, quite high proportions show strong feelings in either direction. Figure 40: Q17 How complainants would speak about the Legal Ombudsman to others (all complainants providing a valid response) I would be critical of the Legal Ombudsman without being asked 24% I would be critical of the Legal Ombudsman if asked 18% I would be neutral when speaking about the Legal Ombudsman 15% I would speak highly of the Legal Ombudsman if asked 20% I would speak highly of the Legal Ombudsman without being asked 23% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% Unweighted base=1050 The table below again shows a strong correlation between satisfaction with the outcome of the case and advocacy of the Legal Ombudsman. Figure 41: Q17 Advocacy of the Legal Ombudsman by outcome of case (all complainants providing a valid response) Satisfaction With Outcome Of Case Very/ Fairly satisfied Satisfied Very/ Fairly dissatisfied I would speak highly (4-5) 93% 59% 1 I would be neutral (3) 5% 3 19% I would be critical (1-2) 1 70% Unweighted Bases No other aspects correlate as highly as outcome of case with advocacy of the Legal Ombudsman, except case closure stage. Almost seven in ten (68%) of those whose case closed at Ombudsman stage would be critical of the Legal Ombudsman. Indeed, eight in ten (80%) of those who rejected the Ombudsman s decision would be critical. 56

61 Overall views of the Legal Ombudsman (complainants) 6.5 Perceptions of how fairly complainants feel they have been treated Views are polarised in terms of how fairly complainants felt they have been treated by the Legal Ombudsman. Overall, 47% felt they were treated very/quite fairly, whilst 4 felt they were treated very/quite unfairly. The individual ratings are even more polarised with strong views from sizeable proportions of respondents at both extremes. Figure 42: Q18 How fairly complainants have been treated by the Legal Ombudsman (all complainants providing a valid response) 1 - Very unfairly 30% % 5 - Very fairly 38% Unweighted base=1057 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% Again, there is a high correlation between outcome of call and how fairly complainants perceive they have been treated, as the table below shows. Indeed the correlation between dissatisfaction with the case outcome and dissatisfaction with how fairly people were treated is particularly high, reflecting an obvious relationship between outcomes and fairness. Figure 43: Q18 How fairly the complainant has been treated by the Legal Ombudsman by outcome of case (all complainants providing a valid response) Satisfaction With Outcome Of Case Very/ Fairly satisfied Satisfied Very/ Fairly dissatisfied Very/ quite fairly (4-5) 97% 68% 15% Fairly (3) 30% 13% Very/ quite unfairly (1-2) 3% 73% Unweighted Bases

62 Customer Satisfaction Surveys Those dissatisfied with the professional service provided by the Legal Ombudsman (89%) and rejecting an Ombudsman decision (83%) are also more likely than other groups to feel they have been treated unfairly. 58

63 Background and contact with the Legal Ombudsman (lawyers) 7 Background and contact with the Legal Ombudsman (lawyers) 7.1 Demographic profile of lawyers Six in ten lawyers in the sample were male. The majority were in the age group years, and very few had a medical condition (self classified). More than eight in ten were of white ethnic origin, with the biggest other ethnic group being Asian or Asian British. The table below shows the full demographic breakdown of lawyers. Figure 44: Q21-Q25 Profile of lawyers (all lawyers, Quarters 2-4) Male 6 Female 36% <0.5% % Prefer not to say Has medical condition 5% 3% 4% No medical condition 87% Prefer not to say 9% White 83% Asian or Asian British 7% Mixed/multiple ethnic groups Black/African/Caribbean/Black British Other Ethnic group Prefer not to say <0.5% 6% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Unweighted base=366 59

64 Customer Satisfaction Surveys Profile of business Lawyers organisations were a broad mix of size bands, with just over one in ten having just one employee/self employed to one in ten with 200+ employees. Figure 45: Q1 Size of organisation (all lawyers) 1 / Self employed 1 2 to 5 10% 6 to 9 9% 10 to 24 16% 25 to 49 18% 50 to 99 14% 100 to to 499 6% % Not provided <0.5% Unweighted base=485 0% 4% 6% 8% 10% 1 14% 16% 18% 20% 60

65 Background and contact with the Legal Ombudsman (lawyers) In seven in ten cases, the lawyer dealing with the Legal Ombudsman was the person handling the complaint process. In just over one in ten cases it was the person involved in the original case. Figure 46: Q1a Whether the respondent is the complaint handler or person being complained about (all lawyers) Involved in original case with the complainant 1 Person handling the complaint process 69% Both - involved in the original case and handled the complaint process 18% Other/don't know <0.5% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% Unweighted base= Familiarity with the Legal Ombudsman More than a half of lawyers said they knew a fair bit about the Legal Ombudsman before this complaint, whilst just under three in ten knew a great deal. Very few knew nothing about the organisation, and almost all lawyers had at least heard of the Legal Ombudsman. Figure 47: Q2 Level of knowledge of the Legal Ombudsman (all lawyers providing a valid response) Knew a great deal about it 28% Knew a fair bit about it 53% Knew a little about it 17% Had heard of it but knew nothing about it Had never heard of it <0.5% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Unweighted base=485 61

66 Customer Satisfaction Surveys Just over a quarter of lawyers had only been involved in the one current case with the Legal Ombudsman. In contrast, one in ten had been involved more than ten times. Figure 48: Q5 Number of times been involved with the Legal Ombudsman (all lawyers) First time 27% Second time 2 Third time Fourth to fifth time 14% 15% Sixth to tenth time 1 More than ten times 10% Don't know/not provided 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% Unweighted base= Channels of communication About three quarters of lawyers said they had visited the Legal Ombudsman website at least once. This ranges from about one in seven who have visited it just once to one in five who have visited it at least 10 times. Figure 49: Q3 Number of times used the Legal Ombudsman website (all lawyers) No, I have never visited the website 23% I have visited it once 14% I have visited it a few times (but less than 10) 4 I have visited it many times (10 or more) 1 I use it on a regular basis and have visited it more than 20 times 9% I can't recall 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% Unweighted base=485 62

67 Background and contact with the Legal Ombudsman (lawyers) Among those who had visited the Legal Ombudsman s website, more than four in ten (46%) had found the website useful (rating 4-5). In contrast, just over one in ten (13%) had found the website not useful (rating 1-2). Figure 50: Q4a Usefulness of the Legal Ombudsman website (where used the Legal Ombudsman s website and provided a valid response) 1 = Not at all useful = Very useful 14% Unweighted base=373 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% Those lawyers more likely to find the website useful (rating 4-5) were: Those who had only contacted the Legal Ombudsman 1-3 times (63%); Those who were involved in the case itself (6); Those with 50+ employees (53%). Lawyers who found the website not very/not at all useful (rating 1-2) were asked why not or how it could be improved. Their verbatim comments are shown below: Biased towards the complainant. Contact details difficult to find. Didn't give me any new information. Does not address the fundamental problem of unqualified inexperienced staff handling complaints about sophisticated legal matters and advice. Geared towards the client not the lawyer. I believe it should provide clear information about all of LeO's processes i.e. recommendation and when this is used, and also some information in respect of what 'reasonable' is considered to be. I do not find it has much information for lawyers. 63

68 Customer Satisfaction Surveys I would like clearer guidance as to the levels of awards that are made, to assist me in making adequate offers of compensation in other cases. The guidance given has improved but is still not as helpful as the previous guidance given by the LCS (which was far from perfect). Guidance from LEO staff about the cases published on the website tends to be "those cases aren't intended to be used as comparators for working out compensation in other cases" which is hardly helpful. Information with regard to process, i.e. the investigatory process and reports etc. It encourages complaints. It gives no information as to how to complain about the Legal Services Ombudsman or the criteria for accepting a complaint. It is directed for the benefit of consumers making complaints against solicitors. Not for solicitors to be assisted with complaints against them. It is not very easy to find what you want. It needs to be more user friendly. It also needs to be provide more information for the legal profession at the moment as it is geared too much towards the complainant. It is very 'busy' and seems intent on blackening lawyers. It could be a bit cleaner and more positive. It lacks credibility. For instance the site advertises jobs at the Ombudsman's office why? The complaint process should be a serious matter as solicitors livelihoods are at stake. We have a set complaints procedure, and although the complainant is advised to follow this, all too often the Ombudsman will take a case on before the in-house procedure is complete. It seems to be more focused to consumer confidence rather than taking a balanced approach. It does not acknowledge that many complaints are vexatious, or wholly without merit, frequently exaggerated. It does not robustly inform consumers that untruthful allegations are a serious matter. It was very general. I'm not suggesting that it ought to be changed, but for that reason, I didn't find it useful. It s geared towards the public. It's unclear with regards to outcome. The caseworker is a racist. The matter should not have been brought. The client gave the caseworker the information. The cost issue was not fully explained. Had I known I would have to pay the cost I would not have settled. Lack of precise guidance to assist in complaint handling. More information. Specific cases and examples possibly? More specific guidance. More useful for consumers than for lawyers. No guidance on compensation amounts, have not visited it often simply because it is of little help to me. 64

69 Background and contact with the Legal Ombudsman (lawyers) Not always very easy to navigate to find the information you want. Not particularly easy to navigate to find what I want. Poorly set up. The advice is anodyne The information on there is not clear, and I find some of it misleading particularly in respect of time scales. There is insufficient information in respect what criteria LeO uses to resolve complaints and how a firm can match what is expected of them, i.e. I may think I have drawn reasonable conclusions and have made a reasonable offer to resolve the complaint but I am merely guessing the website doesn't tell me. The process of dealing with the complaint is not clear, there are no timescales given-in this case. I was asked to provide evidence within five days and when I queried this in comparison to other cases LeO have handled I was told there was not a standard. This basically conveys to me that the individual investigator makes it up. How can I be expected to adhere to that? There are too many layers to the site to get to relevant information. There is misleading information on there that needs to be clarified. There was nothing there that helped me. Wasn't available. What is good for the profession may also be good for the public but there are 2 different audiences and perspectives and the website cannot effectively do both at the same time. Dealing with legal services like a tin of beans is not what the public want. A bit more sophistication should be shown. 65

70 Customer Satisfaction Surveys About two thirds of lawyers said the main method of contact between them and the Legal Ombudsman was . Less than one in five used either letter or phone. Figure 51: Q6 Main method of contact with the Legal Ombudsman (all lawyers) By 65% By letter 18% By phone 15% Other Unweighted base=485 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 66

71 Background and contact with the Legal Ombudsman (lawyers) 7.5 Length of case The perceived length of case varied ranging from one in six lawyers saying less than one month to one in ten saying longer than 7 months. Figure 52: Q7 Time taken to resolve the case (all lawyers) Less than 1 month 16% 1 to 2 months 26% 3 to 4 months 34% 5 to 6 months 15% 7 to 9 months 10 to 12 months 4% 4% Longer than 12 months Not provided <0.5% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% Unweighted base=485 67

72 Customer Satisfaction Surveys Two thirds of lawyers felt the length of case was about as expected, whilst about one in seven each felt it was slower or faster than expected. Figure 53: Q8 Whether the time taken was slower, faster or about as expected (all lawyers) Slower than expected 15% About as expected 65% Faster than expected 13% No prior expectations/not provided 7% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% Unweighted base=485 68

73 Background and contact with the Legal Ombudsman (lawyers) 7.6 Number of times contacted the Legal Ombudsman The number of times that lawyers spoke to or had contact with the Legal Ombudsman for the case varied. A quarter had only been in contact 1-3 times, whilst one in ten had been in contact more than 10 times. Figure 54: Q9 Number of times had contact with /spoken to the Legal Ombudsman about the case (all lawyers) 1 to 3 times 25% 4 to 6 times 45% 7 to 10 times 19% More than 10 times 1 Not provided <0.5% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% Unweighted base=485 69

74 Customer Satisfaction Surveys The vast majority of lawyers felt the amount of contact had been about right. Figure 55: Q10 Whether the amount of contact was too little, too much or about the right amount (all lawyers) Too little About the right amount 88% Too much 4% No prior expectations/not provided 6% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Unweighted base=485 70

75 7.7 Satisfaction with the outcome Background and contact with the Legal Ombudsman (lawyers) Almost two thirds of lawyers were very/fairly satisfied (63%) with the outcome of the case. In contrast, just under one in twenty (18%) were very/fairly dissatisfied. Figure 56: Q19 Satisfaction with the outcome of the case (all lawyers providing a valid response) 1 = Very dissatisfied 10% 2 8% 3 19% 4 23% 5 = Very satisfied 40% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% Unweighted base=485 Those lawyers more likely to be very/fairly satisfied with the case outcome were: Those who rejected the Ombudsman s decision (8); Those whose fee was waived (8); Those with 50+ employees (73%); Those whose main method of contact was letter (70%) or (65%); Those from white ethnic groups (67%); Those whose case lasted up to 2 months (66%). Those more likely to be very/fairly dissatisfied were: Those where the complainant had accepted the Ombudsman s decision (54%); Those from BME ethnic groups (40%); Those whose case lasted 7+ months (27%). 71

76 Customer Satisfaction Surveys Importance of and satisfaction with aspects of the Legal Ombudsman service (lawyers) 8.1 Importance of aspects of contact with the investigator (Resolution Centre Stage In the same way as complainants, lawyers were asked how important different aspects of the staff and process at Resolution Centre stage were. The graph below shows the responses for each statement. The responses are again, based on valid responses only, having taken out don t know, refused or other invalid responses. Generally, lawyers found most of the aspects of the Resolution Centre important, with at least a half saying very important in respect of each aspect apart from calls being answered quickly. The most important aspects were the investigation process being fair & impartial, having the opportunity to have their say, confidence in the handling of the complaint and staff knowing what they were talking about. Calls being answered quickly was perceived of average importance by 18%, however 48% still found this aspect very important. 72

77 Importance of and satisfaction with aspects of the Legal Ombudsman service (lawyers) Figure 57: Q11 Importance of aspects of contact with the investigator (all lawyers providing a valid response, Quarters 2-4) The investigation process being fair and impartial Having the opportunity to have your say 4% 9% 6% 15% 84% 78% Your confidence in their handling of the complaint 5% 15% 78% Staff knowing what they were talking about 5% 17% 76% The reasons for the recommendation were clearly explained 7% 2 69% Letters and s being easy to understand 3% 1 25% 6 Letters and s being professional 10% 27% 6 Staff on the telephone being easy to understand 8% 28% 6 Being kept informed of progress 1 26% 60% Being given a clear understanding of what you could expect from the process 13% 25% 60% Being contacted when agreed 10% 30% 58% My calls were answered quickly 4% 18% 29% 48% Unweighted bases vary 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 1 = Not at all important = Very important 73

78 Customer Satisfaction Surveys Satisfaction with the investigator (Resolution Centre stage) Lawyers are generally satisfied with all aspects of the Resolution centre, with each aspect being rated satisfactory (rating 4-5) by at least seven in ten lawyers. Those attracting the highest level of very satisfied ratings were letters & s being professional, letters & s being easy to understand, staff on the telephone being easy to understand and having the opportunity to have their say. Those areas attracting the highest levels of very dissatisfied ratings were the investigation process being fair & impartial, confidence in the Legal Ombudsman s handling of the complaint and staff knowing what they were talking about. 74

79 Importance of and satisfaction with aspects of the Legal Ombudsman service (lawyers) Figure 58: Q12 Satisfaction with the investigator (all lawyers providing a valid response) Letters and s being professional 3% 13% 33% 50% Letters and s being easy to understand 4% 14% 33% 47% Staff on the telephone being easy to understand 3% 1 36% 47% Having the opportunity to have your say 3% 8% 10% 3 47% The reasons for the recommendation were clearly explained 4% 5% 1 33% 46% The investigation process being fair and impartial 10% 7% 1 26% 46% Your confidence in their handling of the complaint 9% 9% 1 26% 45% Staff knowing what they were talking about 6% 7% 16% 27% 44% Being contacted when agreed 4% 14% 36% 44% My calls were answered quickly % Being given a clear understanding of what you could expect from the process 6% 19% 3 4 Being kept informed of progress 5% 19% 35% 40% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 1 = Very dissatisfied = Very satisfied Unweighted bases vary 75

80 Customer Satisfaction Surveys Overall, 7 of lawyers were very/fairly satisfied with staff knowing what they were talking, with 13% very/fairly dissatisfied. As with complainants, there was a high level of correlation between outcome of the case and staff knowledge, as the table below demonstrates. Figure 59: Q12e Satisfaction with staff knowing what they were talking about by outcome of case (all lawyers providing a valid response) Satisfaction With Outcome Of Case Very/ Fairly satisfied Satisfied Very/ Fairly dissatisfied Very/ fairly satisfied (4-5) 86% 6 29% Satisfied (3) 9% 28% 27% Very/ fairly dissatisfied (1-2) 5% 1 44% Unweighted Bases Other groups of lawyers who were more likely to be satisfied with staff knowledge included: Those satisfied with the professional service (89%); Those involved in personal injury cases (88%); Those with 50+ employees (80%); Those whose case lasted up to 2 months (79%). Other groups who were more likely to be dissatisfied included: Those dissatisfied with the professional service (65%); Those where the complainant had accepted the Ombudsman s decision (35%). It is interesting to observe that satisfaction with the professional service has slightly more impact on satisfaction with staff knowledge than case outcome. This is usually the result among dissatisfied groups, but not often the result among satisfied groups. 76

81 Importance of and satisfaction with aspects of the Legal Ombudsman service (lawyers) 8.3 Importance vs satisfaction with aspects of contact with the investigator In a similar manner to the complainants scatter graph, the following scatter graph plots the proportions of lawyers rating each aspect important (scoring 4-5) against those rating each aspect very/fairly satisfied (scores 4-5). Those aspects considered strengths of the Legal Ombudsman among lawyers include: Staff on the telephone being clear and easy to understand; The reasons for the recommendation were clearly explained; Having the opportunity to have your say. Those which need focus for improvement: The investigation process being fair and impartial; Confidence in the handling of the complaint; Staff knowing what they were talking about. Those which need to be maintained: Letters and s being easy to understand. Those which need to be monitored: Being kept informed of progress; Being given a clear understanding of what you could expect from the process; Calls were answered quickly. 77

82 % rating satisfied (4-5) Customer Satisfaction Surveys Figure 60: Q11/12 Importance vs satisfaction with aspects of contact with the investigator (all lawyers providing a valid response) 100% Maintain Strengths 90% 80% B C D H A G J F K 70% I L E 60% 50% Monitor Improve 40% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% % rating important (4-5) A B C D E F G H I J K L Key to scatter graph My calls were answered quickly Letters and s being easy to understand Letters and s being professional Staff on the telephone being clear and easy to understand Staff knowing what they were talking about Having the opportunity to have your say Being kept informed of progress Being contacted when agreed Being given a clear understanding of what you could expect from the process The reasons for the recommendation were clearly explained The investigation process being fair and impartial Your confidence in the handling of the complaint 78

83 Importance of and satisfaction with aspects of the Legal Ombudsman service (lawyers) 8.4 Satisfaction with written communications (Ombudsman stage) Where the case was closed at Ombudsman stage, lawyers were asked how satisfied they were with specific aspects of written communication. More than two thirds of lawyers were satisfied (rating 4-5) with all aspects of written communication. However, at least one in five were each dissatisfied (rating 1-2) that written communication reflected the case accurately and that it took into account their comments. Figure 61: Q13 Satisfaction with written communications (all lawyers providing a valid response) Written communication was easy to understand 3% 14% 4 4 Written communication took into account your comments 1 10% 1 30% 38% Written communication reflected the case accurately 1 9% 10% 33% 38% Written communication was timely 4% 4% 20% 4 3 Unweighted bases vary ( ) 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 1 = Very dissatisfied = Very satisfied 79