Upload
others
View
2
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Research
Report
Customer Satisfaction Surveys 2011-2012
Prepared for: The Legal Ombudsman
Customer Satisfaction Surveys 2011-2012
Prepared for: The Legal Ombudsman
Prepared by: Linda Balodis, Account Manager
November 2012
Produced by BMG Research
© Bostock Marketing Group Ltd, 2012
www.bmgresearch.co.uk
Project: 8611
Registered in England No. 2841970
Registered office:
7 Holt Court North
Heneage Street West
Aston Science Park
Birmingham
B7 4AX
UK
Tel: +44 (0) 121 3336006
UK VAT Registration No. 580 6606 32
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 20252:2006
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. Z5081943
The BMG Research logo is a trade mark of Bostock Marketing Group Ltd
Executive summary
1
Table of Contents
1 Executive summary ........................................................................................................ 3
1.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 3
1.2 Background and contact with the Legal Ombudsman (complainants) ..................... 3
1.3 Satisfaction with aspects of the Legal Ombudsman service (complainants) ............ 4
1.4 Overall views of the Legal Ombudsman (complainants) .......................................... 4
1.5 Background and contact with the Legal Ombudsman (lawyers) .............................. 5
1.6 Satisfaction with aspects of the Legal Ombudsman service (lawyers) ..................... 6
1.7 Overall views of the Legal Ombudsman (lawyers)................................................... 6
1.8 Key findings ............................................................................................................ 7
2 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 9
2.1 Background............................................................................................................. 9
2.2 Method .................................................................................................................... 9
2.3 Reporting of data .................................................................................................. 10
3 Background and contact with the Legal Ombudsman (complainants) .......................... 12
3.1 Demographic profile of complainants .................................................................... 12
3.2 Familiarity with the Legal Ombudsman ................................................................. 13
3.3 Channels of communication .................................................................................. 14
3.4 Length of case ...................................................................................................... 18
3.5 Level of contact with the Legal Ombudsman ......................................................... 20
3.6 Satisfaction with the outcome ............................................................................... 22
4 Satisfaction with aspects of the Legal Ombudsman service (complainants) ................. 23
4.1 Satisfaction in initial contact (Assessment Centre stage) ...................................... 23
4.2 Satisfaction with the investigator (Resolution Centre stage) .................................. 25
4.3 Satisfaction with written communication (Ombudsman stage) ............................... 27
5 Overall views of the Legal Ombudsman (complainants) ............................................... 29
5.1 Overall satisfaction with the professional service provided by the Legal
Ombudsman .................................................................................................................... 29
5.2 Reasons for satisfaction and dissatisfaction .......................................................... 31
5.3 Things that have worked well or could be improved .............................................. 33
5.4 Advocacy .............................................................................................................. 36
5.5 Perceptions of how fairly complainants feel they have been treated ..................... 37
6 Background and contact with the Legal Ombudsman (lawyers) ................................... 38
Customer Satisfaction Surveys 2011-2012
2
6.1 Profile of lawyers .................................................................................................. 38
6.2 Familiarity with the Legal Ombudsman ................................................................. 40
6.3 Channels of communication .................................................................................. 41
6.4 Length of case ...................................................................................................... 45
6.5 Number of times contacted the Legal Ombudsman............................................... 47
6.6 Satisfaction with the outcome ............................................................................... 49
7 Satisfaction with aspects of the Legal Ombudsman service (lawyers) .......................... 50
7.1 Satisfaction with the investigator (Resolution Centre stage) .................................. 50
7.2 Satisfaction with written communications (Ombudsman stage) ............................. 52
8 Overall views of the Legal Ombudsman (lawyers) ........................................................ 53
8.1 Overall satisfaction with the professional service .................................................. 53
8.2 Reasons for satisfaction and dissatisfaction .......................................................... 55
8.3 Things that have worked well or could be improved .............................................. 57
8.4 Advocacy .............................................................................................................. 59
8.5 Perceptions of how fairly lawyers feel they have been treated .............................. 60
Executive summary
3
1 Executive summary
1.1 Introduction
The Legal Ombudsman wished to conduct a programme of surveys to assess
customers’ perceptions of their confidence in, and satisfaction with, their services.
In the first year of the survey programme, 4 quarterly surveys were undertaken among
both complainants and lawyers who had complaints made against them. 1048
interviews with complainants (mainly by telephone) and 484 interviews with lawyers
(mainly online) were completed between August 2011 and July 2012. Whilst the
survey was conducted quarterly, to ensure that respondents would be able to recall
details of their case, the annual data set will be used as a benchmark for future data.
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 Background and contact with the Legal Ombudsman (complainants)
Key demographic information about complainants includes:
A fairly even mix of males and females;
59% being 26-55 year olds;
29% have a medical condition;
15% from Black and Minority Ethnic (BME) groups (including 4% of Indian, 3% of
Pakistani, 3% Caribbean, 2% African and 2% of mixed race origin).
In terms of channels of communication and complainants’ knowledge of the Legal
Ombudsman:
91% were making their first complaint to the Legal Ombudsman;
27% say they were told about the Legal Ombudsman by their solicitor (with
or without prompting);
Other main sources of information about the Legal Ombudsman were from
friends/family (23%) and internet searches/Legal Ombudsman’s website (30%);
66% first made contact by phone, 15% by email and 14% by letter;
62% of those visiting the Legal Ombudsman’s website found it useful.
There is also a mix of reaction as to whether the time taken to resolve cases is slower
(28%), faster (20%) or about as expected (41%).
Complainants’ frequency of contact with the Legal Ombudsman also varies, with 10%
saying 1-3 times to 26% more than 10 times. However, the number of times is
generally as expected (73%).
46% of complainants are very/fairly dissatisfied with the outcome of their case, whilst
43% are very/fairly satisfied and 11% ‘satisfied’ (rating 3 out of 5).
Customer Satisfaction Surveys 2011-2012
4
1.3 Satisfaction with aspects of the Legal Ombudsman service
(complainants)
Whilst respondents were asked to express satisfaction with different aspects of the
process of their case irrespective of the outcome, in practice this was difficult to do. A
positive or negative outcome is often an important influence on satisfaction levels.
Generally complainants are satisfied with most aspects of initial contact
(Assessment Centre stage, ie when complainants first made contact with the
Legal Ombudsman). More than two thirds are ‘very satisfied’ with staff being
polite and courteous (68%), and more than half that staff on the telephone are
clear/easy to understand (56%), calls are answered quickly (51%), letters/emails
are easy to understand (51%) and staff clearly explain what will happen (51%).
However, two aspects attract sizeable proportions of complainants who are
‘very dissatisfied; confidence in staff’s ability to help (16%) and staff
understanding the nature of the complaint (13%).
Again, complainants are generally satisfied with different aspects of the
Resolution Centre (ie once the case had been accepted by the Legal
Ombudsman and the case was investigated). More than half are ‘very satisfied’
with letters/emails being easy to understand (54%), staff on the telephone being
easy to understand (54%), being contacted when agreed (54%) and staff being
easy to get hold of (52%). However, two aspects attract sizeable proportions of
complainants who are ‘very dissatisfied’; confidence in the handling of the
complaint (25%) and the investigation process being fair (23%).
Where complainants’ case continued to Ombudsman stage, satisfaction levels
are comparatively lower for all aspects of written communication (ranging from
9% to 28% saying ‘very satisfied’). This is not surprising given the nature of the
case process, and the fact that these cases were not resolved before reaching
Ombudsman stage. Dissatisfaction is particularly high in terms of reflecting the
case accurately (54% saying ‘very dissatisfied’) and taking into account
complainants’ comments (42%).
1.4 Overall views of the Legal Ombudsman (complainants)
Overall, more than seven in ten complainants (72%) are satisfied with the
professional service provided by the Legal Ombudsman, whilst just under three
in ten (28%) are dissatisfied. As will be seen throughout this report, satisfaction with
the professional service is closely linked with satisfaction with case outcome.
As with many other questions about satisfaction, the key influences of satisfaction with
the professional service are:
Satisfaction with the outcome of case;
Length of case (the shorter the better);
Case closure stage (related to length of case);
Where closing at Ombudsman stage, whether complainants had
accepted/rejected the Ombudsman’s decision (acceptance being aligned with
satisfaction).
Executive summary
5
In addition, respondents from white ethnic groups are more likely to be satisfied with
the professional service than those from BME groups. Prisoners are more likely to be
dissatisfied.
In terms of complainants’ spontaneous reasons for being satisfied with the
professional service, a quarter mention generally that the service is good or that the
Legal Ombudsman has handled the case well (25%). Smaller numbers are more
specific saying the outcome is good (10%), the process is quick (10%), they
understand the process (8%) and that the Legal Ombudsman is helpful (8%).
Reasons for dissatisfaction with the professional service centre on the perception that
the process is biased in favour of the legal profession (32%).
The main things that complainants mention spontaneously that have worked well
include good communication/contact (13%), a satisfactory outcome (11%), good
explanations/clarity (8%), and generally the whole process (8%).
Things that have not worked so well or could be improved are more miscellaneous.
The main ones include perceptions of biased decision making (9%), the process being
too long (7%), staff not understanding the issues (7%) and more frequent/better
communication needed (6%).
Three in ten complainants would speak highly of the Legal Ombudsman to
others without being asked (30%), with a further quarter doing so if asked (24%).
However, almost one in five would be critical without being asked (17%), and a
further one in seven doing so if asked (13%).
More than a half of complainants (56%) feel they have been treated fairly by the
Legal Ombudsman in relation to this complaint, whilst a third (33%) feel they
have been treated unfairly.
1.5 Background and contact with the Legal Ombudsman (lawyers)
Key profile information about lawyers1 include:
Size of organisation varies from 9% with only one employee to 5% with 200+
employees:
61% of lawyers responding to the survey are the person handling the complaint
process, whilst 37% are the person involved in the original case with the
complainant.
In terms of channels of communication and lawyers’ knowledge of the Legal
Ombudsman:
70% know a great deal/fair bit about the Legal Ombudsman, whilst 30% know a
little/nothing about it (although all have heard of the organisation);
For 48%, it is the first time they had been involved with the Legal Ombudsman;
Of those visiting the Legal Ombudsman’s website, 41% found it useful, 14%
found it not useful and 45% were neutral;
1 The term ‘lawyer’ has been used throughout this report to denote the respondent completing the
survey on behalf of the law firm.
Customer Satisfaction Surveys 2011-2012
6
The main method of contact is email (54%), with 28% using the phone and 17%
the post.
Perceived length of case varies from 17% saying less than 1 month to 9% longer than
6 months. However, 58% of lawyers feel this is as expected.
The number of times lawyers have had contact with the Legal Ombudsman varies;
ranging from 27% of lawyers who have had contact 1-3 times to 16% more than 10
times. Again, this is as expected for most lawyers (83%).
More than a half of lawyers (56%) are very/fairly satisfied with the outcome of the
case. In contrast, 20% are very/fairly dissatisfied and 24% ‘satisfied’ (rating 3).
1.6 Satisfaction with aspects of the Legal Ombudsman service
(lawyers)
In terms of the investigator (Resolution Centre stage), more than four in ten
lawyers are ‘very satisfied’ with letters/emails being easy to understand (41%),
letters/emails being professional (41%) and staff on the telephone being easy to
understand (41%). However, there are other aspects which attract high levels of
‘very dissatisfied’ lawyers. These are confidence in the Legal Ombudsman’s
handling of the complaint (12%), the investigation process being fair (10%) and
staff knowing what they are talking about (8%).
Again, more than a half of lawyers are satisfied with all aspects of written
communication (Ombudsman stage). However, at least one in ten are ‘very
dissatisfied’ that written communication reflected the case accurately (10%) and
that the process took into account lawyers’ comments (11%).
1.7 Overall views of the Legal Ombudsman (lawyers)
Eight in ten lawyers (80%) are satisfied with the professional service provided by
the Legal Ombudsman, whilst one in five (20%) are dissatisfied. As with
complainants, lawyers’ satisfaction with the professional service is closely
linked with satisfaction with case outcome.
As with other aspects of satisfaction, satisfaction with the professional service is
mainly influenced by:
Closure stage (related to length of case);
Where progressing to Ombudsman stage, complainant’s acceptance/rejection of
the Ombudsman’s decision (rejection being aligned with lawyers’ satisfaction);
Length of case (the shorter the better);
Those cases where the fee has been waived.
Among those satisfied with the professional service provided by the Legal
Ombudsman, the main reasons for this are that the case was handled fairly (27%) or
the service was generally effective/professional (27%). Sizeable proportions of
lawyers also mention a quick process (19%) or positive outcome (12%).
Executive summary
7
Reasons for dissatisfaction with the professional service centre on a perception by
lawyers that decisions are biased (25%). Sizeable proportions also mention staff’s
lack of knowledge (15%) or inadequate communication (12%).
All lawyers were asked what had worked well on a spontaneous basis. At least one in
ten each mention the satisfactory outcome (13%), good communication generally
(11%) and contact by email (10%).
Suggestions of improvement tend to be miscellaneous. However, at least one in
twenty mention reducing the length of the process (7%), better communication (6%),
ensuring staff have a good knowledge of the issues (6%) and the need to take a more
balanced view (5%).
Four in ten lawyers (40%) would be neutral when speaking about the Legal
Ombudsman. However, a third say they would speak highly of the Legal
Ombudsman if asked (33%), with just under one in ten saying they would speak
highly of the organisation without being asked (8%).
More than a half of lawyers (58%) feel they have been treated fairly by the Legal
Ombudsman, with three in ten saying ‘very fairly’. A quarter feel they have not
been treated fairly (24%).
1.8 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 have a greater
knowledge of the organisation. This translates into their expectations more
likely to be met in terms of length of case and amount of contact.
Complainants are more likely to find the Legal Ombudsman’s website useful
than lawyers. Those who did not find it useful, feel there needs to be more
specific information about case outcomes, and more information for
complainants rather than lawyers. Lawyers in contrast feel the website is too
focussed on complainants’ issues, however they also mention a lack of detailed
information.
Whilst complainants are slightly more satisfied with aspects of the Resolution
Centre contact, lawyers tend to be more satisfied with the Ombudsman stage
contact. It is not clear, whether this is a reflection of lawyers’ better
understanding of the process, or complainants being more likely to get 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.
Opinions are similar among both groups in terms of satisfaction with the
professional service and perceptions of how fairly they were treated. However,
lawyers tend to be more neutral in terms of advocacy of the Legal Ombudsman,
whilst complainants tend to be more positive.
Customer Satisfaction Surveys 2011-2012
8
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 both complainants and lawyers, critical
factors include:
Confidence in the process;
Decisions making being fair;
Information provided and used that reflected the case details;
Taking into account complainants’/lawyers’ views at all stages;
Speed of case;
Confidence that the case has been fully investigated.
The only aspects that differ between complainants and lawyers is that
complainants also need to understand the process and have issues explained to
them. Lawyers feel conducting the case effectively and professionally is more
important.
Introduction
9
2 Introduction
2.1 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.
2.2 Method
In the first 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.
The majority of complainant interviews were undertaken over the telephone, and each
interview lasted up to 15 minutes. From Quarter 2, prisoners were also included in the
Customer Satisfaction Surveys 2011-2012
10
quarterly samples, and these questionnaires were self completion and returned by
post. In total 41 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 email 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 emails were also sent to
non-responders a couple of weeks after the first email.
Some barristers, who did not have email addresses were offered an interview by
telephone. In total 23 barristers completed a telephone interview.
The questionnaire was developed with the client, encompassing each stage of the
complaint process. Before the first Quarter fieldwork began, a cognitive pilot was
undertaken to develop and test questionnaire content. This included 4 complainant
interviews and 6 lawyer interviews. Minor changes or additional questions were added
each Quarter to ensure relevant and useful information was being captured on an
ongoing basis.
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 1: Number of interviews completed per quarter
Period in which case
was resolved Fieldwork period
Complainant interviews
Lawyer interviews
Quarter 1 July-September 2011 October-November
2011 250 118
Quarter 2 October-December
2011 January-February 2012 271 150
Quarter 3 January-March 2012 April 2012 264 99
Quarter 4 April-June 2012 July 2012 263 117
Total 1048 484
In order to ensure the sample was representative of the population, data was weighted
by resolution method (whether completed at pre-assessment stage, Assessment
Centre 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).
2.3 Reporting of data
This report contains a written analysis of the data for all four quarters as an annual
data set.
Introduction
11
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 +/-1%. 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:
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.
The sub groups included in the lawyer analysis are:
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;
Amount of contact;
Overall satisfaction with professional service
Satisfaction with outcome of case.
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.
A copy of the complainant questionnaire can be found in Appendix 1 and a copy of the
lawyer questionnaire in Appendix 2.
Customer Satisfaction Surveys 2011-2012
12
3 Background and contact with the Legal Ombudsman
(complainants)
3.1 Demographic profile of complainants
Just over a half of complainants were male. The majority were in the age group 26-55
years, and three in ten 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 complainants.
Figure 2: Q21-Q25 Profile of complainants (all complainants)
Unweighted bases shown in brackets
54%
46%
2%
30%
29%
26%
11%
1%
29%
69%
2%
82%
8%
2%
5%
1%
3%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%
Male
Female
16-25
26-45
46-55
56-65
66+
Prefer not to say
Has medical condition
No medical condition
Prefer not to say
White groups
Asian or Asian British groups
Mixed/multiple ethnic groups
Black/African/Caribbean/Black British groups
Other Ethnic groups
Prefer not to say
Annual data (1048)
Background and contact with the Legal Ombudsman (complainants)
13
3.2 Familiarity with the Legal Ombudsman
In total, 11 complainants had used a representative to deal with the Legal
Ombudsman. Of these 8 were friends or relatives.
Nine in ten complainants had not made any previous complaints to the Legal
Ombudsman, prior to the current complaint.
Figure 3: Q2 Number of complaints made to the Legal Ombudsman (all complainants)
Unweighted bases shown in brackets
Those who were more likely to use the phone for initial contact (94%) were more likely
to be making their first complaint than those who had sent a letter (88%) or email
(85%).
91%
7%
1%
1%
0% 50% 100%
First complaint
Second complaint
Third complaint
Four or more complaints
Annual data (1048)
Customer Satisfaction Surveys 2011-2012
14
3.3 Channels of communication
Almost a quarter of complainants had first heard about the Legal Ombudsman from
friends or family. Just under one in five had heard about the organisation from an
internet search or from their lawyer.
Figure 4: Q3a How first heard about the Legal Ombudsman (all complainants)
Unweighted bases shown in brackets Multi response question
Those complainants who had not mentioned their lawyer above, were further prompted
and asked whether their lawyer had told them about the Legal Ombudsman. Thus, in
total 27% of complainants had been signposted to the Legal Ombudsman by
their lawyer. This was particularly so among those whose case closed at
Ombudsman stage (35%). It was also higher among 46-55 year olds (34%) and those
from white ethnic groups (31%).
23%
18%
17%
12%
7%
4%
4%
3%
2%
2%
1%
1%
1%
1%
15%
<0.5%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%
From friends/ family/ work colleagues
From an internet search
From your lawyer
From the Legal Ombudsman's website
From a consumer or advice organisation
From a newspaper or magazine
From TV or radio
Always known about them/already aware
From a link on another website
From a Legal Ombudsman's leaflet
From a poster
Citizen's Advice Bureau/CAB
The Law Society
Solicitors Regulation Authority/SRA
Another way
Can't recall
Annual data (1048)
Background and contact with the Legal Ombudsman (complainants)
15
Those who had first heard of the Legal Ombudsman via 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 (62% rating 4-5) had found the website useful, whilst
just over one in ten (12% rating 1-2) had not found it useful.
Figure 5: Q4a Usefulness of the Legal Ombudsman’s website (all complainants providing a valid response)
Unweighted bases shown in brackets
Those most likely to have found the website useful were:
Those satisfied (very/fairly satisfied) with the case outcome (85%);
Those satisfied (very/fairly satisfied) with the Legal Ombudsman’s professional
service (81%);
Those whose case lasted up to 2 months (72%);
Those where the case was closed at Resolution Centre stage (70%).
Those more likely to find the website not useful were:
Those dissatisfied (very/fairly dissatisfied) with Legal Ombudsman’s professional
service (35%);
Those whose case lasted 7+ months (27%);
Those dissatisfied (very/fairly dissatisfied) with the case outcome (22%).
4%
8%
27%
26%
35%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40%
1 - Not at all useful
2
3
4
5 - Very useful
Annual data (193)
Customer Satisfaction Surveys 2011-2012
16
Complainants who had not found the Legal Ombudsman’s website useful 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:
“There seems to be more information for solicitors and they seem more biased towards solicitors, rather than clients.”
“The website was extremely confusing, about when you should contact the Legal Ombudsman, i.e. at what stage of the case. It should be made crystal clear which body you should contact, in which case.”
“Targeted for the legal profession not the consumer.”
“They can be more honest and transparent They say that they are impartial but they are not.”
“I only used it to get the number.”
“I felt it was hard navigating round just to get a number.”
“The fact that they can't do very much about anything.”
“It didn’t give any information about what they did and how they went about doing “it.”
“The problem was that it didn't discuss individual names of the solicitor that people were having problems with. There were literally one or two cases listed on the site.”
“I don't think anything could be improved. I just think you need personal advice, rather than the website information.”
Twenty-three complainants had found out about the Legal Ombudsman via the Legal
Ombudsman’s leaflet. Of these, 8 found it useful (rating 4-5), 9 found it ‘average’
(rating 3) and 5 did not find it useful (rating 1-2). One further respondent felt unable to
respond.
Background and contact with the Legal Ombudsman (complainants)
17
Two thirds of complainants first made contact with the Legal Ombudsman by
telephone. About one in seven each made initial contact by email and letter.
Figure 6: Q6 How first contact was made with the Legal Ombudsman (all complainants)
Unweighted bases shown in brackets
Method of initial contact was generally determined by age group. 66+ year olds were
much more likely to contact the Legal Ombudsman by letter (29%) than other age
groups, whilst 36-45 year olds were much more likely to phone (76%). Females (71%)
were also more likely to phone than males (58%).
66%
15%
14%
<0.5%
1%
3%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
By phone
By email
By letter
Incorrectly answered
Other
Don't know
Annual data (1048)
Customer Satisfaction Surveys 2011-2012
18
3.4 Length of case
The majority of cases lasted between 1 and 6 months, however some complainants
felt they had taken much longer; in a small number of cases longer than 12 months.
Figure 7: Q7 Time taken to resolve the case (all complainants)
Unweighted bases shown in brackets
As might be expected, perceptions of length of case were closely aligned with closure
stage. A third (32%) of those reaching Ombudsman stage took more than 6 months to
complete. In contrast, almost a half of those not being progressed (ie closing before
reaching Assessment Centre Stage) lasted up to 2 months.
10%
25%
26%
13%
10%
3%
4%
9%
0% 10% 20% 30%
Less than 1 month
1 - 2 months
3 - 4 months
5 - 6 months
7 - 9 months
10 - 12 months
Longer than 12 months
Not sure
Annual data (1048)
Background and contact with the Legal Ombudsman (complainants)
19
Just under three in ten complainants felt that the time taken to complete the case was
slower than expected, whilst one in five felt it was faster than expected. Four in ten felt
it was about as expected, whilst one in ten had had no prior expectations.
Figure 8: Q8 Whether the time taken was slower, faster or about as expected (all complainants)
Unweighted bases shown in brackets
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 (65%).
28%
41%
20%
11%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
Slower than expected
About as expected
Faster than expected
Not sure/no prior expectations
Annual data (1048)
Customer Satisfaction Surveys 2011-2012
20
3.5 Level of contact with the Legal Ombudsman
The number of times complainants had spoken to or had contact with the Legal
Ombudsman varied. One in ten had done so up to 3 times, whilst over a quarter had
done so more than 10 times.
Figure 9: Q9 Number of times spoken to / had contact with the Legal Ombudsman (all complainants)
Unweighted bases shown in brackets
Again the number of times contact was made was closely aligned with closure stage
and perceived length of case.
10%
37%
24%
26%
2%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%
1 - 3 times
4 - 6 times
7 - 10 times
More than 10 times
Not sure
Annual data (1048)
Background and contact with the Legal Ombudsman (complainants)
21
Almost three quarters of complainants felt the amount of contact was about right, with
very few saying it was too much or too little.
Figure 10: Q10 Whether the amount of contact was too little, too much or about the right amount (all complainants)
Unweighted bases shown in brackets
6%
73%
15%
6%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
Too much
About the right amount
Too little
Not sure/no prior expectations
Annual data (1048)
Customer Satisfaction Surveys 2011-2012
22
3.6 Satisfaction with the outcome
Whilst complainants were reminded throughout the interview, to provide responses
irrespective of the outcome of the case, it was felt important to monitor their
perceptions against the outcome. Thus, they were asked how satisfied they had been
with the outcome.
Overall, similar proportions of complainants were satisfied (43% rating very/fairly
satisfied) or dissatisfied (46% rating very/fairly dissatisfied).
Figure 11: Q19 Satisfaction with the outcome of the case (all complainants providing a valid response)
Unweighted bases shown in brackets
Those complainants more likely to be satisfied with the case outcome were:
Those where the case was closed at Resolution Centre stage (55% satisfied);
Those where length of case was up to 2 months (59%);
Those who were making their first complaint (45%);
Those from white ethnic groups (44%).
Those more likely to be dissatisfied were:
Those where the case was closed at Ombudsman stage (76% dissatisfied);
Those who had made more than one complaint (62%);
Those where length of case was perceived as being 7+ months (60%) or 3-6
months (52%);
Those from BME ethnic groups (54%).
38%
8%
11%
16%
28%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40%
1 - Very dissatisfied
2
3
4
5 - Very satisfied
Annual data (1013)
Satisfaction with aspects of the Legal Ombudsman service (complainants)
23
4 Satisfaction with aspects of the Legal Ombudsman service
(complainants)
4.1 Satisfaction in initial contact (Assessment Centre stage)
Complainants were asked about the different stages of contact, and how satisfied they
were with specific aspects of the service and staff they had contact with at the Legal
Ombudsman. The graph below shows the responses (on a 5 point scale, where 1
indicates ‘very dissatisfied’ and 5 indicates ‘very satisfied’) for each statement
concerning initial contact (Assessment Centre stage). The responses are based on
valid responses only, having taken out ‘don’t know’, ‘refused’ or other invalid
responses.
Generally complainants were satisfied with most aspects of initial contact. More
than two thirds were ‘very satisfied’ with staff being polite and courteous, and
more than half that staff on the telephone were clear/easy to understand, calls
were answered quickly, letters/emails were easy to understand and staff clearly
explained what would happen.
There was less satisfaction with complainant’s confidence in staff’s ability to
help and staff understanding the nature of the complaint, with more than one in
ten complainants being ‘very dissatisfied’ with each of these.
Figure 12: Q11 Satisfaction with initial contact with the Legal Ombudsman (all complainants providing a valid response)
Unweighted bases vary
3%
5%
4%
5%
8%
16%
13%
2%
4%
5%
5%
6%
8%
8%
6%
8%
12%
9%
12%
12%
15%
21%
27%
27%
30%
23%
18%
21%
68%
56%
51%
51%
51%
46%
42%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Staff being polite and courteous
Staff on the telephone being clear and easy to understand
My calls were answered quickly
Letters and emails being easy to understand
Staff clearly explaining what would happen
Your confidence in their ability to help
Staff understanding the nature of your complaint
1 - Very dissatisfied 2 3 4 5 - Very satisfied
Customer Satisfaction Surveys 2011-2012
24
Focussing on those aspects attracting the highest levels of dissatisfaction, those
complainants most likely to be ‘very dissatisfied’ with their confidence in staff’s ability
to help were:
Those where the case was closed at Ombudsman stage (34%);
Those dissatisfied with the outcome of the case (33%);
Prisoners (29%);
Those who had made more than one complaint (29%).
Those whose cases lasted 7+ months (29%).
Those complainants most likely to be ‘very dissatisfied’ with staff understanding the
nature of the complaint were generally the same groups, including:
Prisoners (37%);
Those where the case was closed at Ombudsman stage (29%);
Those who had made more than one complaint (29%);
Those dissatisfied with the outcome of the case (27%).
Satisfaction with aspects of the Legal Ombudsman service (complainants)
25
4.2 Satisfaction with the investigator (Resolution Centre stage)
In a similar way to rating of satisfaction with the Assessment Centre, complainants
were asked to rate specific aspects of the Resolution Centre.
Again, generally complainants were satisfied with different aspects of the
Resolution Centre. More than half were ‘very satisfied’ with letters/emails being
easy to understand, staff on the telephone being easy to understand, being
contacted when agreed and staff being easy to get hold of.
However, two aspects attracted sizeable proportions of complainants who were
‘very dissatisfied’; confidence in the handling of the complaint and the
investigation process being fair, with more than one in five saying this for each
of these statements.
Figure 13: Q12 Satisfaction with the investigator (all complainants providing a valid response)
Unweighted bases vary
6%
6%
8%
7%
16%
11%
12%
17%
23%
25%
5%
5%
5%
7%
7%
9%
10%
9%
9%
10%
11%
11%
11%
12%
12%
13%
14%
13%
11%
10%
24%
24%
22%
22%
18%
21%
19%
18%
13%
14%
54%
54%
54%
52%
47%
46%
45%
44%
44%
41%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Letters and emails being easy to understand
Staff on the telephone being easy to understand
Being contacted when agreed
Staff being easy to get hold of
Staff knowing what they were talking about
Being given a clear understanding of what you could expect from the process
Being kept informed of progress
Staff understanding the nature of your complaint
The investigation process being fair and impartial
Your confidence in their handling of the complaint
1 - Very dissatisfied 2 3 4 5 - Very satisfied
Customer Satisfaction Surveys 2011-2012
26
Again focussing on those aspects attracting the highest levels of dissatisfaction, those
complainants most likely to be ‘very dissatisfied’ with their confidence in staff’s ability
to help were:
Those dissatisfied with the outcome of the case (55%);
Those where the case was closed at Ombudsman stage (54%);
Prisoners (43%);
Those who had made more than one complaint (43%).
Those whose cases lasted 7+ months (42%).
Those complainants most likely to be ‘very dissatisfied’ with the investigation process
being fair and impartial were:
Those where the case was closed at Ombudsman stage (51%);
Those dissatisfied with the outcome of the case (50%);
Prisoners (40%);
Those whose cases lasted 7+ months (40%);
Those who had made more than one complaint (38%);
BME groups (34%).
Satisfaction with aspects of the Legal Ombudsman service (complainants)
27
4.3 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 were much lower for all aspects of
written communication, with dissatisfaction high; particularly in terms of
reflecting the case accurately, where more than half were ‘very dissatisfied’.
Figure 14: Q13 Satisfaction with written communication (all complainants providing a valid response)
Unweighted bases vary
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.
74% of those most likely to be ‘very dissatisfied’ with how written communication
reflected their case accurately were those who rejected the Ombudsman’s
decision;
61% of those most likely to be ‘very dissatisfied’ with how written communication
took into account complainants’ comments were those who rejected the
Ombudsman’s decision;
33% of those most likely to be ‘very dissatisfied’ with how written communication
was timely were those who rejected the Ombudsman’s decision;
17%
25%
42%
54%
14%
7%
19%
15%
16%
19%
19%
10%
25%
23%
9%
12%
28%
26%
10%
9%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Easy to understand
Timely
Took into account your comments
Reflected your case accurately
1 - Very dissatisfied 2 3 4 5 - Very satisfied
Customer Satisfaction Surveys 2011-2012
28
28% of those most likely to be ‘very dissatisfied’ with how easy written
communication was to understand were those who rejected the Ombudsman’s
decision.
Overall views of the Legal Ombudsman (complainants)
29
5 Overall views of the Legal Ombudsman (complainants)
5.1 Overall satisfaction with the professional service provided by the
Legal Ombudsman
Overall, more than seven in ten complainants (72%) were satisfied with the
professional service provided by the Legal Ombudsman, whilst just under three
in ten (28%) were dissatisfied.
Figure 15: Q14a Overall satisfaction with the professional service provided by the Legal Ombudsman (all complainants providing a valid response)
Unweighted bases shown in brackets
21%
7%
13%
19%
40%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
1 - Very dissatisfied
2
3
4
5 - Very satisfied
Annual data (1044)
Customer Satisfaction Surveys 2011-2012
30
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 16: 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 93% 60% 24%
Satisfied 5% 32% 16%
Very/ fairly dissatisfied 1% 8% 59%
Unweighted Bases 398 109 505
Apart from 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 length of case was up to 2 months (79% very/fairly satisfied);
Those where the case was closed at Resolution Centre stage (70%);
Those from white ethnic groups (64%).
Those more likely to be dissatisfied were:
Those whose case closed at Ombudsman stage and where the complainant
rejected the Ombudsman’s decision (74% rated very/fairly dissatisfied);
Those whose case closed at Ombudsman stage irrespective of whether the
decision was accepted or rejected (52%)
Those who had made more than one complaint (46%);
Those where length of case was 7+ months (44%);
Those from BME ethnic groups (43%);
Prisoners (42%).
There is a high correlation between many of these determinants of dissatisfaction, for
example, prisoners are more likely to be dissatisfied with the outcome and therefore
also more likely to be dissatisfied with the professional service.
Overall views of the Legal Ombudsman (complainants)
31
5.2 Reasons for satisfaction and dissatisfaction
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 responses from those saying they were satisfied with the professional
service.
A quarter mentioned generally that the service had been good or that the Legal
Ombudsman handled the case well. Smaller numbers were more specific saying the
outcome was good, the process was quick, they understood the process and that the
Legal Ombudsman was helpful.
Figure 17: Q14b Reasons for satisfaction with the professional service provided by the Legal Ombudsman - unprompted (where satisfied)
Unweighted bases shown in brackets
25%
10%
10%
8%
8%
7%
6%
6%
6%
5%
5%
5%
19%
5%
0% 10% 20% 30%
Service was good / they did a good job / I'm happy with the service / they handled it well / sorted it out
The outcome was good / case was resolved satisfactorily / I achieved what I wanted to
They were quick / speedy
They were clear in their actions / I understood what they were doing
They were helpful
I didn't get the outcome I wanted / a favourable result / the compensation I expected
They understood me / knew what I was going on about
They explained things to me (inc. how the case was to progress)
They kept me informed / feedback was good
They were professional
Customer service has been good (inc. I have been treated well / had no problems / they were polite)
They did all they could / there was nothing else they could do
Other
No reason
Annual data (437)
Customer Satisfaction Surveys 2011-2012
32
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 or unfair.
Figure 18: Q14b Reasons for dissatisfaction with the professional service provided by the Legal Ombudsman – unprompted (where dissatisfied)
Unweighted bases shown in brackets
32%
14%
10%
9%
7%
7%
7%
6%
5%
5%
5%
5%
23%
<0.5%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%
It was biased in favour of the legal profession / not impartial / unfair
They didn't understand my case / complaint / point of view
They didn't obtain all the evidence / investigate the case thoroughly
I didn't get the outcome I wanted / a favourable result / the compensation I expected
Evidence was disregarded / misconstrued / they recorded things that were incorrect
It was a waste of time / a useless service
I had to chase them up / they didn't contact me back
My side had little legal knowledge / the other party knew more about the Law than mine / had …
They didn't value my case / consider my point of view / take me seriously / weren't considerate …
They took too long to act
Not every issue was looked into
They were not professional
Other
No reason
Annual data (252)
Overall views of the Legal Ombudsman (complainants)
33
5.3 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, good explanations/clarity, and generally the whole process being
good.
Figure 19: Q15 Things that have worked well - unprompted (all complainants)
Unweighted bases shown in brackets
13%
11%
8%
8%
6%
5%
5%
5%
4%
3%
3%
3%
16%
12%
1%
<0.5%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20%
Communication / contact generally
Satisfactory outcome / my case was resolved / they dealt with it
Things were explained to me / made clear / so that I understood / feedback was good
Everything / the whole process
They were understanding / supportive / helpful
Regular contact / being kept informed / updated
Quick response / resolution
They were well-informed / saw the way / understood what was wanted
They negotiated with my solicitor / were a mediator / third party
Initial contact
The service generally
They were good / handled it well
Other
Nothing
Don’t know
Refused
Annual data (1048)
Customer Satisfaction Surveys 2011-2012
34
In terms of things that had not worked so well or could be improved, most of the
responses were miscellaneous, with less than one in ten complainants mentioning
each. The main ones included biased decision making, the process being too long,
staff not understanding the issues and more frequent/better communication needed.
Overall views of the Legal Ombudsman (complainants)
35
Figure 20: Q16 Things that could be improved (all complainants)
Unweighted bases shown in brackets
9%
7%
7%
6%
5%
5%
5%
4%
4%
3%
19%
22%
3%
<0.5%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%
Biased decision making / need to take a more balanced view / be more impartial
Process / service is time consuming / took a long time / needs to be sped up
Staff lack understanding / experience/ knowledge of the issues involved
More frequent / better communication needed / keeping in contact with clients / update people
more often
Ombudsman lacks power to enforce decisions / needs greater powers
Procedure / information wasn’t understood / explained well enough / need to be given a clearer /
better explanation
Issue / case wasn’t Investigated enough / should be investigate more deeply/ (incl. information used in
case was incorrect)
We weren’t being listened to / need to listen more
Results in case have been unsatisfactory / better results needed
Issues with time restrictions / dealing with issues within time limits / longer time limits needed
Other
Nothing (Nothing went wrong)
Don’t know / can’t remember
Refused
Annual data (1048)
Customer Satisfaction Surveys 2011-2012
36
5.4 Advocacy
Three in ten complainants would speak highly of the Legal Ombudsman to
others without being asked, with a further quarter doing so if asked. However,
almost one in five would be critical of the Legal Ombudsman without being
asked, and a further one in seven doing so if asked.
Figure 21: Q17 How complainants would speak about the Legal Ombudsman to others (all complainants providing a valid response)
Unweighted bases shown in brackets
Those most likely to speak highly of Legal Ombudsman without being asked were:
Those satisfied (very/fairly satisfied) with the case outcome (57%);
Those satisfied (very/fairly satisfied) with the professional service (49%);
Those whose case length was up to 2 months (41%).
Those most likely to be critical without being asked were:
Those dissatisfied (very/fairly dissatisfied) with the professional service (50%);
Those who rejected the Ombudsman’s decision (47%);
Those dissatisfied (very/fairly dissatisfied) with the case outcome (37%);
Those whose case closed at the Ombudsman stage irrespective of whether they
accepted/rejected the Ombudsman’s decisions (34%).
30%
24%
16%
13%
17%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40%
I would speak highly of the Legal Ombudsman without being asked
I would speak highly of the Legal Ombudsman if asked
I would be neutral when speaking about the Legal Ombudsman
I would be critical of the Legal Ombudsman if asked
I would be critical of the Legal Ombudsman without being asked
Annual data (1030)
Overall views of the Legal Ombudsman (complainants)
37
5.5 Perceptions of how fairly complainants feel they have been treated
More than a half of complainants (56%) felt they had been treated fairly by the
Legal Ombudsman in relation to this complaint (rating 4-5), whilst a third (33%)
felt they had been treated unfairly (rating 1-2).
Figure 22: Q18 How fairly complainants have been treated by the Legal Ombudsman (all complainants providing a valid response)
Unweighted bases shown in brackets
Opinions were more varied on this aspect than a lot of other aspects. Those more
likely to feel they had been treated fairly were:
Those satisfied (very/fairly satisfied) with the case outcome (97%);
Those satisfied (very/fairly satisfied) with the professional service (87%);
Those whose case length was up to 2 months (76%).
Those most likely to feel they had been treated unfairly were:
Those dissatisfied (very/fairly dissatisfied) with the professional service (90%);
Those who rejected the Ombudsman’s decision (88%);
Those dissatisfied (very/fairly dissatisfied) with the case outcome (73%);
Those whose case closed at the Ombudsman stage irrespective of whether they
accepted/rejected the Ombudsman’s decisions (66%).
24%
9%
11%
16%
40%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
1 - Very unfairly
2
3
4
5 - Very fairly
Annual data (1033)
Customer Satisfaction Surveys 2011-2012
38
6 Background and contact with the Legal Ombudsman (lawyers)
6.1 Profile of lawyers
Lawyers’ organisations were a broad mix of size bands, with one in ten having just one
employee/self employed to one in twenty with 200+ employees.
Figure 23: Q1 Size of organisation (all lawyers)
Unweighted bases shown in brackets
9%
14%
8%
26%
13%
16%
9%
4%
1%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%
1 / Self employed
2-5
6-9
10-24
25 - 49
50 - 99
100 - 199
200 - 499
500+
Annual data (484)
Background and contact with the Legal Ombudsman (lawyers)
39
In six in ten cases, the lawyer dealing with the Legal Ombudsman was the person
handling the complaint process. In one in seven cases it was the person involved in
the original case, and in a quarter of cases it was both.
Figure 24: Q1a Whether the respondent is the complaint handler or person being complained about (all lawyers)
Unweighted bases shown in brackets
There were fairly few differences across sub groups. However, those lawyers most
likely to be the person handling the complaint process rather than involved in the
original case were:
Those with 50+ employees (81%);
Those who had been involved with the Legal Ombudsman more than once
(73%).
Those lawyers more likely to be the person involved in the original case were:
Those with 1-5 employees (27%);
Those who had contact with the Legal Ombudsman 1-3 times (22%);
Those where the case was the first one they had been involved in (21%).
14%
61%
23%
>0.5%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
Involved in original case with the complainant
Person handling the complaint process
Both - involved in the original case and handled the complaint process
Other
Annual data (484)
Customer Satisfaction Surveys 2011-2012
40
6.2 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 one in six knew a great deal. Very few knew nothing
about the organisation, and all lawyers had at least heard of the Legal Ombudsman.
Figure 25: Q2 Level of knowledge of the Legal Ombudsman (all lawyers providing a valid response)
Unweighted bases shown in brackets
Those lawyers with 50+ employees were the most likely to say they knew a great deal
about the Legal Ombudsman (31%) compared to 9% of those with 1-5 employees and
11% those with 6-49 employees.
17%
53%
27%
3%
0%
0% 20% 40% 60%
Knew a great deal about it
Knew a fair bit about it
Knew a little about it
Had heard of it but knew nothing about it
Had never heard of it
Annual data (484)
Background and contact with the Legal Ombudsman (lawyers)
41
Just under a half of lawyers had only been involved in the one current case with the
Legal Ombudsman. In contrast, more than one in twenty had been involved more than
5 times.
Figure 26: Q5 Number of times been involved with the Legal Ombudsman (all lawyers)
Unweighted bases shown in brackets
6.3 Channels of communication
Seven in ten lawyers said they had visited the Legal Ombudsman website with more
than one in ten having visited it at least 10 times.
Figure 27: Q3 Number of times used the Legal Ombudsman website (all lawyers)
Unweighted bases shown in brackets
48%
21%
12%
12%
5%
1%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
First time
Second time
Third time
Fourth - fifth time
Sixth - tenth time
More than ten times
Annual data (484)
30%
14%
45%
9%
2%
1%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
No, I have never visited the website
I have visited it once
I have visited it a few times (but less than 10 times)
I have visited it many times (10 or more times)
I use it on a regular basis and have visited it more than 20 times
I can't recall
Annual data (484)
Customer Satisfaction Surveys 2011-2012
42
Among those who had visited the Legal Ombudsman’s website, more than four in ten
(41%) had found the website useful (rating 4-5). In contrast, one in seven (14%) had
found the website not useful (rating 1-2).
Figure 28: Q4a Usefulness of the Legal Ombudsman website (all lawyers providing a valid response)
Unweighted bases shown in brackets
Those lawyers more likely to find the website not useful were
Those who had rejected the Ombudsman’s decision (24%);
Those who were both complaint handler and person being complained about
(23%).
Lawyers who found the website not very/not at all useful were asked why not or how it
could be improved. Their verbatim comments are shown below:
“It didn't give me any information I wasn't aware of or needed.”
“It needs to show how decisions are made and that they are impartial, which unfortunately, at the moment they are not.”
“It is designed to assist the complainants rather than legal professionals.”
“It's rather predictable in its content, as it has not offered me anything I didn't already know.”
“For practitioners, it's not very precise and does not clearly explain the Ombudsman's remit.”
“There needs to be clear information about the procedure which should be coming from the Legal Ombudsman. It would be useful to provide guidelines on compensation.”
“Provide more information on level of conciliation payments. Legal Ombudsman have these internally as far as I am aware. If this was made
2%
12%
45%
27%
14%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
1 = Not at all useful
2
3
4
5 = Very useful
Annual data (325)
Background and contact with the Legal Ombudsman (lawyers)
43
available, it would assist us in pitching the conciliation payment at the correct level.”
“More aimed at complainers, rather than the people whom receive the complaint.”
“I don't remember it as being particularly informative. I think I just logged in to examine the process.”
“Provide information on how to deal with a complaint and what are the ground rules when the Legal Ombudsman receives a complaint about a lawyer.”
“We found it difficult to source the relevant information on how their decisions are reached.”
“Stories? What's that about? I found it patronising, even to the people who complain! Having stories implies an element of fiction, so actually may not be to off when I think about it!.”
“No facilities on the website to give any advice.”
“It doesn't have much guidance for solicitors.”
“It's information is misleading, can lead to mistakes and misunderstandings.”
“Too much complainant orientated.”
“Search facility”
“There seems to be a lack of ease to find guidance on the process that the LeO follows and the circumstances in which the £400 does and does not apply.”
“The site needs to be more easily navigable.”
“The way one can navigate is very old fashioned.”
“Did not seem to address whatever point I was looking for help with.”
Customer Satisfaction Surveys 2011-2012
44
More than a half of lawyers said the main method of contact between them and the
Legal Ombudsman was email. Just under three in ten used the phone and one in six
corresponded by letter.
Figure 29: Q6 Main method of contact with the Legal Ombudsman (all lawyers)
Unweighted bases shown in brackets
Larger organisations (65% of those with 50+ employees) were even more likely to use
email as their main means of communication.
28%
17%
54%
1%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
By phone
By letter
By email
Other
Annual data (484)
Background and contact with the Legal Ombudsman (lawyers)
45
6.4 Length of case
The length of case varied from one in six lawyers saying less than one month to one in
ten saying longer than 7 months.
Figure 30: Q7 Time taken to resolve the case (all lawyers)
Unweighted bases shown in brackets
Not surprisingly, perceived length of case closely corresponded to the stage at which
the case was closed. 51% of complainants that did not reach Assessment Centre
stage were resolved within 2 months, whilst in contrast, 26% of those closing at
Ombudsman stage lasted at least 7 months.
17%
29%
31%
14%
6%
3%
<0.5%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%
Less than 1 month
1 - 2 months
3 - 4 months
5 - 6 months
7 - 9 months
10 - 12 months
Longer than 12 months
Annual data (484)
Customer Satisfaction Surveys 2011-2012
46
The majority of lawyers felt the length of case was about expected, whilst about one in
six each felt it was slower or faster than expected.
Figure 31: Q8 Whether the time taken was slower, faster or about as expected (all lawyers proving a valid response)
Unweighted bases shown in brackets
Those with 50+ employees were more likely to feel the case had progressed as
expected (67%), whilst those with 1-5 employees were more likely to feel it had been
slower than expected (19%).
14%
58%
16%
11%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
Slower than expected
About as expected
Faster than expected
No prior expectations
Annual data (484)
Background and contact with the Legal Ombudsman (lawyers)
47
6.5 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. More than a quarter had only been in contact 1-3 times, whilst one
in six had been in contact more than 10 times.
Figure 32: Q9 Number of times had contact with /spoken to the Legal Ombudsman about the case (all lawyers)
Unweighted bases shown in brackets
Again, the number of times lawyers had been in contact with the Legal Ombudsman
related closely to the stage at which the case was closed as well as the length of case.
27%
39%
17%
16%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45%
1 - 3 times
4 - 6 times
7 - 10 times
More than 10 times
Annual data (484)
Customer Satisfaction Surveys 2011-2012
48
The vast majority of lawyers felt the amount of contact had been about right.
Figure 33: Q10 Whether the amount of contact was too little, too much or about the right amount (all lawyers providing a valid response)
Unweighted bases shown in brackets
Interestingly, those lawyers whose case closed at Ombudsman stage were more likely
to feel the amount of contact was too little (8%) or too much (14%) than those whose
case closed earlier.
4%
83%
7%
6%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%
Too little
About the right amount
Too much
No prior expectations
Annual data (484)
Background and contact with the Legal Ombudsman (lawyers)
49
6.6 Satisfaction with the outcome
More than a half of lawyers were satisfied (rating very/fairly satisfied) with the outcome
of the case. In contrast, one in twenty were dissatisfied (rating very/fairly dissatisfied).
Figure 34: Q18 Satisfaction with the outcome of the case (all lawyers providing a valid response)
Unweighted bases shown in brackets
Those lawyers more likely to be satisfied were:
Those whose fee was waived (76% very/fairly satisfied);
Those whose case did not progress to Assessment Stage (69%);
Those who had contact with the Legal Ombudsman 1-3 times (69%);
Those whose case lasted up to 2 months (68%);
Those who rejected the Ombudsman’s decision (67%);
Those with 50+ employees (65%).
Those more likely to be dissatisfied were:
Those where the complainant had accepted the Ombudsman’s decision (62%);
Those whose case closed at Ombudsman stage (35%);
Those whose case lasted 7+ months (29%);
Those who had contact with the Legal Ombudsman 7+ times (29%).
10%
10%
24%
23%
33%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%
1 = Very dissatisfied
2
3
4
5 = Very satisfied
Annual data (484)
Customer Satisfaction Surveys 2011-2012
50
7 Satisfaction with aspects of the Legal Ombudsman service
(lawyers)
7.1 Satisfaction with the investigator (Resolution Centre stage)
Lawyers are generally satisfied with aspects of the investigator, with each
aspect being rated satisfactory (rating 4-5) by more than a half of lawyers.
Indeed, more than four in ten were each ‘very satisfied’ with letters/emails being
easy to understand, letters/emails being professional and staff on the telephone
being easy to understand.
Those areas attracting the highest levels of ‘very dissatisfied’ lawyers were
confidence in the Legal Ombudsman handling of the complaint, the investigation
process being fair and staff knowing what they were talking about.
Figure 35: Q11 Satisfaction with the investigator (all lawyers providing a valid response)
Unweighted bases shown in brackets
3%
3%
3%
5%
4%
5%
3%
10%
8%
6%
12%
5%
6%
6%
5%
5%
7%
5%
11%
11%
7%
12%
15%
14%
16%
18%
22%
20%
18%
17%
17%
19%
15%
36%
37%
34%
33%
30%
31%
36%
25%
29%
34%
27%
41%
41%
41%
39%
38%
38%
37%
37%
36%
34%
34%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Letters and emails being easy to understand
Letters and emails being professional
Staff on the telephone being easy to understand
Having the opportunity to have your say
My calls were answered quickly
Being given a clear understanding of what you could expect from the process
Being contacted when agreed
The investigation process being fair and impartial
Staff knowing what they were talking about
Being kept informed of progress
Your confidence in their handling of the complaint
1 - Very dissatisfied 2 3 4 5 - Very satisfied
Satisfaction with aspects of the Legal Ombudsman service (lawyers)
51
Once again, focussing on those aspects which received a higher number of negative
responses, those more likely to be ‘very dissatisfied’ with their confidence in Legal
Ombudsman handling the complaint were:
Those who were dissatisfied with the case outcome (45%);
Those where the complainant had accepted the Ombudsman’s decision (29%);
Those whose case lasted 7+ months (26%);
Those whose case closed at Ombudsman stage (21%);
Those more likely to be ‘very dissatisfied’ with the investigation process being fair
were:
Those who were dissatisfied with the case outcome (39%);
Those whose case lasted 7+ months (20%).
Those more likely to be ‘very dissatisfied’ with the staff knowing what they were talking
about were:
Those who were dissatisfied with the case outcome (26%);
Those whose case lasted 7+ months (19%).
Customer Satisfaction Surveys 2011-2012
52
7.2 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.
Again, more than a half 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 36: Q12 Satisfaction with written communications (all lawyers providing a valid response)
Unweighted bases shown in brackets
There were few significant differences across sub groups due to small sample sizes.
2%
10%
11%
5%
2%
14%
12%
9%
33%
19%
24%
33%
30%
23%
19%
21%
34%
34%
33%
31%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Written communication was easy to understand
Written communication reflected the case accurately
Written communication took into account your comments
Written communication was timely
1 - Very dissatisfied 2 3 4 5 - Very satisfied
Overall views of the Legal Ombudsman (lawyers)
53
8 Overall views of the Legal Ombudsman (lawyers)
8.1 Overall satisfaction with the professional service
Eight in ten lawyers (80%) were satisfied with the professional service provided
by the Legal Ombudsman, whilst one in five (20%) were dissatisfied.
Figure 37: Q13a Satisfaction with the professional service provided by the Legal Ombudsman (all lawyers providing a valid response)
Unweighted bases shown in brackets
As the table below shows, those lawyers satisfied with the case outcome were much
more likely to be satisfied with Legal Ombudsman’s professional service. Figures
shown in bold are significantly higher.
Figure 38: Q13a Satisfaction with the professional service provided by the Legal Ombudsman 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 86 44 11
Satisfied 10 39 24
Very/ fairly dissatisfied 4 17 65
Unweighted Bases 312 95 77
Looking at other sub groups, those lawyers more likely to be satisfied with the
professional service were:
10%
10%
19%
29%
32%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%
1 = Very dissatisfied
2
3
4
5 = Very satisfied
Annual data (484)
Customer Satisfaction Surveys 2011-2012
54
Those where the complaint did not progress to Assessment Centre stage (76%
very/fairly satisfied);
Those where the case lasted up to 2 months (75%);
Those where the fee had been waived (73%).
Those more likely to be dissatisfied were:
Those where the case lasted 7+ months (47% very/fairly dissatisfied);
Those where the complainant had accepted the Ombudsman’s decision (44%).
Overall views of the Legal Ombudsman (lawyers)
55
8.2 Reasons for satisfaction and dissatisfaction
Among those satisfied with the professional service provided by the Legal
Ombudsman, the main reasons for this were that the case was handled fairly or the
service was generally effective/professional. Sizeable proportions of lawyers also
mentioned a quick process or positive outcome.
Figure 39: Q13b Reasons for satisfaction n with the professional service provided by the Legal Ombudsman - unprompted (where satisfied)
Unweighted bases shown in brackets
27%
27%
19%
12%
8%
5%
4%
4%
3%
3%
2%
13%
27%
0% 10% 20% 30%
Handled fairly / objectively / impartially
Generally effective / professional service
Speedy / quick process
Outcome of process is positive / correct / right for us
Case Worker understood the nature of the compliant
Listen to us / our views / points of view
Found service helpful (inc. provided with guidance)
Provided good customer service
Process was clear / understandable
Decision was made with care / consideration
They had to dealt with a difficult situation
Other
Not provided
Annual data (314)
Customer Satisfaction Surveys 2011-2012
56
Reasons for dissatisfaction with the professional service centred on a perception by
lawyers that decisions were biased. Sizeable proportions also mentioned staff’s lack
of knowledge or inadequate communication.
Figure 40: Q13b Reasons for dissatisfaction with the professional service provided by the Legal Ombudsman - unprompted (where dissatisfied)
Unweighted bases shown in brackets
25%
15%
12%
10%
10%
9%
6%
4%
2%
1%
43%
36%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
Case worker / process seemed /was biased regarding decisions
Case worker / investigator hadn't the required knowledge / experience to deal with the case
Inadequate communication between the involved parties / not kept informed / updated
Basically we / things we said were ignored
Case wasn't fully Investigated / didn't go deep enough / go into detail (incl. details were missed)
Tight deadlines given
Complaints procedure should been stopped sooner / not treated as genuine
Slow process (inc. long periods waiting for response)
Required to do a lot of (unpaid) work to resolve issues
System is just used to satisfy the unreasonable / unrealistic expectations of the client
Other
Not provided
Annual data (80)
Overall views of the Legal Ombudsman (lawyers)
57
8.3 Things that have worked well or could be improved
All lawyers were asked what had worked well on a spontaneous basis. At least one in
ten each mentioned the satisfactory outcome, good communication generally and
contact by email.
Figure 41: Q14 Things that have worked well - unprompted (all lawyers)
Unweighted bases shown in brackets
13%
11%
10%
8%
6%
4%
4%
4%
3%
3%
3%
3%
3%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
30%
23%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40%
Satisfactory outcome / my case was resolved
Communication / contact generally
Contact by email
Quick response / resolution
They were well-informed / understood what was …
They were professional / did things correctly
They were fair / balanced
Knowing that they're impartial / independent
Contact by phone / calls
Things were explained to me / made clear / …
They were understanding / supportive / helpful
Not much
The level of customer service
Regular contact / being kept informed / updated
Letters / correspondence
They negotiated with my solicitor / were a …
Being listened to / paid attention to
Everything / the whole process
They were sensible / logical
Other
Nothing/don't know/not provided
Annual data (484)
Customer Satisfaction Surveys 2011-2012
58
Suggestions of improvement tended to be miscellaneous. However, at least one in
twenty mentioned reducing the length of the process, better communication, ensuring
staff had good knowledge of the issues and the need to take a more balanced view.
Figure 42: Q15 Things that could be improved - unprompted (all lawyers)
Unweighted bases shown in brackets
7%
6%
6%
5%
3%
3%
3%
3%
2%
2%
2%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
20%
48%
0% 20% 40% 60%
Process / service is time consuming
More frequent / better communication needed
Staff lack understanding / experience/ knowledge of the issues involved
Biased decision making / need to take a more balanced view
Generally everything / the whole of the process
Dealing with the red tape / / paperwork involved
Procedure / information wasn't understood / explained well enough
Issues with time restrictions / longer time limits needed
Results in case have been unsatisfactory / better results needed
Handled by different members of staff / problems with high staff turnover
Issue / case wasn't Investigated enough
Case / issue hasn't been resolved / is still ongoing
Poor access to information / make information more available
We weren't being listen to
Information wasn't collected / written down correctly
Staff should easier to contact / reach
Increase the understanding of the issues involved
Other
Nothing/don't know/not provided
Annual data (484)
Overall views of the Legal Ombudsman (lawyers)
59
8.4 Advocacy
Four in ten lawyers would be neutral when speaking about the Legal
Ombudsman. However, a third would speak highly of the Legal Ombudsman if
asked, with just under one in ten saying they would speaking highly of the
organisation without being asked.
Figure 43: Q16 How lawyers would speak about the Legal Ombudsman to others (all lawyers providing a valid response)
Unweighted bases shown in brackets
Those who would speak highly of the Legal Ombudsman without being asked were:
Those where the complaint did not progress to Assessment Centre stage (20%);
Those where the fee had been waived (16%).
Those who would be critical without being asked were:
Those who were dissatisfied with the case outcome (26%);
Those where the case lasted 7+ months (21%);
Those whose case closed at Ombudsman stage (12%).
8%
33%
40%
12%
6%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45%
I would speak highly of the Legal Ombudsman without being asked
I would speak highly of the Legal Ombudsman if asked
I would be neutral when speaking about the Legal Ombudsman
I would be critical of the Legal Ombudsman if asked
I would be critical of the Legal Ombudsman without being asked
Annual data (484)
Customer Satisfaction Surveys 2011-2012
60
8.5 Perceptions of how fairly lawyers feel they have been treated
More than a half of lawyers (58% rating 4-5) felt they had been treated fairly by
the Legal Ombudsman, with three in ten saying ‘very fairly’. A quarter felt they
had not been treated fairly (24% rating 1-2).
Figure 44: Q18 How fairly lawyers have been treated by the Legal Ombudsman (all lawyers providing a valid response)
Unweighted bases shown in brackets
Those more likely to feel they had been treated ‘very fairly’ were:
Those satisfied with the case outcome (52%)
Those where the complaint did not progress to Assessment Centre stage (52%);
Those where the fee had been waived (50%);
Those satisfied with the professional service (48%).
Those where the case lasted up to 2 months (38%);
Those where the complainant had rejected the Ombudsman’s decision (34%).
Those more likely to feel they had been treated ‘very unfairly’ were:
Those dissatisfied with the case outcome (38%);
Those dissatisfied with the professional service (30%);
Those where the complainant had accepted the Ombudsman’s decision (27%);
Those whose case closed at Ombudsman stage (18%);
Those where the case lasted 7+ months (18%).
10%
15%
18%
27%
30%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%
1 = Very unfairly
2
3
4
5 = Very fairly
Annual data (484)
With more than 20 years’ experience, BMG Research has established a strong reputation for delivering high quality research and consultancy.
BMG serves both the social public sector and the commercial private sector, providing market and customer insight which is vital in the development of plans, the support of campaigns and the evaluation of performance.
Innovation and development is very much at the heart of our business, and considerable attention is paid to the utilisation of the most recent technologies and information systems to ensure that market and customer intelligence is widely shared.