Upload
gloria-norman
View
213
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Pripremljeno za:Pripremio:Datum:
Customer satisfaction poll at land registries of municipal courts and cadastral offices, and public
perception
Real Property Registration and Cadastre ProjectPULS14 December 2006
2
Table of Contents Introduction and methodology – customer satisfaction
Results of customer satisfaction polls at land registries and cadastral offices
Customer satisfaction at land registries of municipal courts
Customer satisfaction at cadastral offices
Methodology – public perception
Poll results – public perception
land registries
cadastre
real property status
“Organized Land“ Project
Methodology – customer satisfaction – legal entities
Poll results – customer satisfaction – legal entities
land registries of municipal courts
cadastral offices
“Organized Land“ Project
3
Methodology – customer satisfaction
The poll was carried out using the methodology defined in the bidding documents while the implementation plan was proposed by the Puls Agency.
The poll was carried out at all land registries of municipal courts and all cadastral offices and branch offices.
Customers filled in a questionnaire handed out at counters and admission desks in the offices where the poll was being carried out. The staff of the municipal court land registries and cadastral offices were obliged to inform the customers about the poll and offer them the questionnaire.
After filling it in, the customers had to put the questionnaire in a sealed box posted at a visible location near the exit from the land registry/cadastre.
4
Methodology – customer satisfaction
The field research lasted 10 days: 6-17 November. At certain offices, the polling started on 7 November due to
technical reasons and was accomplished there one day later.
At the land registry of the Zagreb Municipal Court, the polling was additionally extended due to a small number of questionnaires (about 100) filled in during the regular polling. Therefore, the polling was extended between 20 and 24 November.
Apart from extending, in this period we began to actively distribute the questionnaires through the Puls Agency associates and land registry staff in order to motivate as many customers as possible to take part in the poll.
In total, the customers’ response was relatively scarce. A total of 11,520 questionnaires was filled in out of 33,000 that were distributed, accounting for about 1/3.
Out of the planned 12,000 questionnaires, 5,289 (ca. 44%) were filled in at the cadastre while ca. 6,231 out of the planned 21,000 (ca. 30%) were filled in at land registries.
5
Methodology – customer satisfaction
At several land registries and cadastral offices, there were difficulties with people disregarding the instructions on how to organize the poll implementation which was mostly rectified by subsequent interventions.
Some of the initial problems when launching the poll were caused by a relatively belated distribution of information within the system.
In order to boost the poll effectiveness in terms of collecting as many questionnaires as possible, additional, previously unscheduled activities were carried out during the polling, both by the Puls Agency and the Client.
Puls organized a field visit to most cadastral offices and land registries after the first few days of the polling in order to check out whether all materials had been placed according to instructions and to inform the staff once again about the need to elicit customers’ participation.
The Client additionally called upon all land registries and cadastral offices in order to further motivate the staff to cooperate.
6
POLL RESULTSPOLL RESULTS
7
Customer satisfaction at land registries of municipal courts
Customer satisfaction at cadastre
Poll results – customer satisfaction – natural persons
8
Sample realization – land registries
Municipal court atPlanned sample
Sample obtained
%
Belom manastiru 200 56 28%
Benkovcu 50 48 96%
Biogradu na moru 100 21 21%
Bjelovaru 250 64 26%
Blatu 50 15 30%
Bujama 300 119 40%
Buzetu 60 57 95%
Crikvenici 150 49 33%
Čabru 50 16 32%
Čakovcu 350 37 11%
Čazmi 70 48 69%
Daruvaru 100 38 38%
Delnicama 50 53 106%
Donjem Lapcu 50 32 64%
Donjem Miholjcu 80 69 86%
Donjoj Stubici 80 64 80%
Drnišu 60 41 68%
Dubrovniku 300 43 14%
Dugom selu 150 84 56%
Dvoru 50 0%
Đakovu 250 196 78%
Đurđevcu 100 56 56%
Municipal court atPlanned sample
Sample obtained
%
Garešnici 70 70 100%
Glini 50 48 96%
Gospiću 80 34 43%
Gračacu 50 6 12%
Grubišnom polju 60 14 23%
Gvozdu 50 40 80%
Hrvatskoj Kostajnici 50 24 48%
Iloku 80 58 73%
Imotskom 50 42 84%
Ivancu 100 59 59%
Ivanić gradu 100 33 33%
Jastrebarskom 150 37 25%
Karlovcu 400 26 7%
Kaštel Lukšiću 150 53 35%
Klanjcu 50 50 100%
Kninu 60 22 37%
Koprivnici 250 73 29%
Korčuli 70 55 79%
Korenici 50 14 28%
Krapini 80 28 35%
Križevcima 150 15 10%
Krku 250 89 36%
LRs marked in red had 20% lesser achievement than planned
9
Sample realization – land registries
Municipal court atPlanned sample
Sample obtained
%
Kutini 200 90 45%
Labinu 150 92 61%
Ludbregu 100 4 4%
Makarskoj 150 32 21%
Malom Lošinju 100 44 44%
Metkoviću 50 45 90%
Našicama 150 23 15%
Novi Vinodolski 60 17 28%
Novoj gradiški 200 94 47%
Novom marofu 100 35 35%
Novskoj 100 55 55%
Obrovcu 50 28 56%
Ogulinu 100 46 46%
Omišu 70 15 21%
Opatiji 250 83 33%
Orahovici 60 47 78%
Osijeku 650 130 20%
Otočcu 100 71 71%
Ozlju 50 41 82%
Pagu 50 10 20%
Pakracu 100 46 46%
Pazinu 100 86 86%
Municipal court atPlanned sample
Sample obtained
%
Petrinji 100 46 46%
Pitomači 60 18 30%
Pločama 50 53 106%
Poreču 300 272 91%
Požegi 300 123 41%
Pregradi 50 49 98%
Prelogu 100 15 15%
Puli 800 53 7%
Rabu 80 10 13%
Rijeci 800 99 12%
Rovinju 200 176 88%
Samoboru 250 247 99%
Senju 50 17 34%
Sesvetama 250 71 28%
Sinju 100 12 12%
Sisku 300 31 10%
Slatini 100 35 35%
Slavonskom Brodu 500 30 6%
Slunju 50 42 84%
Solinu 150 10 7%
Splitu 850 94 11%
Starom gradu 100 15 15%
LRs marked in red had 20% lesser achievement than planned
10
Sample realization – land registries
Municipal court atPlanned sample
Sample obtained
%
Supetru 150 60 40%
Svetom Ivanu Zelini 100 35 35%
Šibeniku 300 67 22%
Tisnom 70 47 67%
Trogiru 150 4 3%
Valpovu 150 30 20%
Varaždinu 400 90 23%
Velikoj gorici 300 99 33%
Vinkovcima 300 124 41%
Virovitici 250 111 44%
Vojniću 50 41 82%
Vrbovcu 100 38 38%
Vrbovskom 50 12 24%
Vrgorcu 50 48 96%
Vukovaru 200 147 74%
Zaboku 100 81 81%
Zadru 650 11 2%
Zagrebu 3320 290 9%
Zaprešiću 250 57 23%
Zlataru 80 27 34%
Županji 200 64 32%
LRs marked in red had 20% lesser achievement than planned
11
58%
20%
6%
4%
2%
2%
2%
2%
1%
1%
1%
1%
7%
4%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Obtain title deed
Register transfer of title
Register mortgage
Purge mortgage
Register subdivision
Register an object
Register condominium ownership
Correct address or parcel number
Register fiduciary right
Register co-ownership division or annulment
Register dispute or custody
Delete life-long enjoyment, minority
Other
Unknown
Reasons for visiting a land registryFor what purpose/service did you come to the land registry today?
12
Case status What is the status of your case?
20% 17% 44% 19%
Recently submitted Being processed Processed No reply
13
Duration of procedureHow long has the procedure lasted in days or months since its start (if the case has been processed, then since the date of processing)? – Only the respondents, whose case has been or is being processed, answered this question!
25%
12%
2%
43%
4%6%
3%5%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
1 day Up to 1week
1 to 2weeks
2 weeks to1 month
1 to 6months
6 monthsto a year
Over ayear
No reply
All respondents answering this question43% respondents, whose case has been or is being processed, have not stated the duration of procedure!
¼ respondents stated that the procedure had lasted 1 day.
14
Duration of procedureHow long has the procedure lasted in days or months since its start (if the case has been processed, then since the date of processing)? – Only the respondents, whose case has been or is being processed, answered this question!
44%
21%
7%
11%8%
5% 4%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
1 day Up to 1week
1 to 2 weeks 2 weeks to 1month
1 to 6months
6 months toa year
Over a year
Only respodents having stated the duration ofprocedure
Average = 59 days
When the respondents, who have failed to state the duration of proceedings but should have done it because their case has been or is being processed, are omitted from the analysis, we come up with about 2/3 cases being processed within two weeks.
However, due to the extremely long duration of certain cases, the average is relatively high!
15
Duration of procedure by case type
* Broj ispitanika manji od 50
** Broj ispitanika manji od 20
Samo ispitanici za koje je poznato trajanje predmeta
28%16%
45%
10% 19% 13%24% 30% 21%
8%20% 27% 25% 24% 27% 24%
14% 6%
3% 7% 3% 9% 7% 10% 5% 4% 2%
5% 11% 3%17% 13% 14% 9% 9% 4%
3% 10% 3% 11% 12% 7% 9% 9% 6%
3% 4% 1% 4% 3% 4% 1% 2% 3%
1% 5% 0% 5% 6% 8% 1% 4% 5%
49%26% 17% 18% 17% 17%
27% 28%52%
1 day
Up to a week
1 to 2 weeks
1 to 6 months
Over a year
No reply
Ob
tain
tit
le d
ee
d
Re
gis
ter
titl
e c
ha
ng
e
Re
gis
ter
mo
rtg
ag
e
Re
gis
ter
su
bd
ivis
ion
Re
gis
ter
an
ob
jec
t
Re
gis
ter
co
nd
om
iniu
mo
wn
ers
hip
Pu
rge
mo
rtg
ag
e
Co
rre
ct
cu
rre
nt
ad
dre
ss
Oth
er
2 weeks to a month
6 months to 1 year
17
On behalf of whom is the case handled Do you handle the case for your private purposes, for the legal entity you work for or for a party you represent?
69% 9% 10% 12%
Private purposes Legal entity I work for I represent a party No reply
18
Satisfaction with the services rendered in the procedurePlease rate your satisfaction with the services rendered in the procedure you are involved in or were involved at this land registry.
Very poor
2 3 4Very good
Don’t know
Average
Courtesy of the staff 1% 1% 3% 7% 78% 10% 4,77
Accuracy and completeness of the information obtained from the staff
2% 1% 3% 9% 72% 13% 4,69
Speed of processing a case 4% 2% 6% 11% 68% 9% 4,49
Availability of the information necessary during the procedure
3% 2% 5% 11% 65% 14% 4,55
Possibility of getting information during the procedure
3% 2% 4% 10% 66% 15% 4,58
Simplicity of procedure 4% 3% 7% 14% 60% 13% 4,41
Length of waiting in the office 4% 3% 8% 15% 58% 12% 4,36
Overall experience with the land registry processing a case
3% 2% 5% 13% 68% 9% 4,55
19
Satisfaction with the services rendered in the procedurePlease rate your satisfaction with the services rendered in the procedure you have been or were involved at this land registry.
4,1
4,0
4,6
4,4
4,1
4,2
4,2
4,2
4,5
4,4
4,8
4,7
4,4
4,6
4,6
4,6
2 3 4 5
Speed of case processing (from applicationthrough decision)
Length of queuing at the office to submit orobtain documents
Courtesy of staff
Accuracy and completeness of theinformation obtained from the staff
Simplicity of procedure
Availability of the information necessary inthe procedure
Possibility of getting information on theprocedure
Overall experience with the procedure
Assessed averages Non-assessed averages
The averages were assessed on the basis of the ratio of a specific land registry in the overall number of cases, in order to neutralize the difference in the return of the questionnaires between the land registries!
20
Satisfaction with services rendered in the procedure at a land registry
Pro
ce
ss
ing
sp
ee
d
Wa
iting
pe
riod
Sta
ff co
urte
sy
Ac
cu
rac
y o
f info
rma
tion
Sim
ple
pro
ce
ed
ing
s
Av
aila
bility
of in
form
atio
n
Po
ss
ibility
of o
bta
inin
g
info
rma
tion
Ov
era
ll ex
pe
rien
ce
Ivanec 4,98 4,86 4,98 4,98 4,95 4,98 4,98 5
Vrgorec 4,98 4,96 4,98 5 4,69 4,98 4,98 5
Garešnica 4,96 4,95 5 4,98 4,87 4,93 4,97 4,99
Labin 4,96 4,8 4,99 4,97 4,69 4,87 4,9 4,98
Čazma 4,87 4,87 4,97 4,95 4,83 4,95 4,91 4,95
Ozalj 4,9 4,92 4,97 4,95 4,89 4,89 4,95 4,95
Poreč 4,8 4,64 4,97 4,93 4,86 4,9 4,9 4,91
Beli Manastir 4,88 4,67 4,88 4,9 4,83 4,84 4,98 4,91
Daruvar 4,92 4,71 4,94 4,92 4,74 4,82 4,77 4,91
Novska 4,79 4,69 4,96 4,92 4,6 4,8 4,82 4,91
Bjelovar 4,9 4,58 4,93 4,88 4,74 4,75 4,89 4,9
Donji Miholjac 4,9 4,95 4,98 4,94 4,81 4,88 4,91 4,9* Only for courts with more than 30 valid questionnaires filled in
21
Satisfaction with services rendered in the procedure at a land registry
Pro
ce
ss
ing
sp
ee
d
Wa
iting
pe
riod
Sta
ff co
urte
sy
Ac
cu
rac
y o
f info
rma
tion
Sim
ple
pro
ce
ed
ing
s
Av
aila
bility
of in
form
atio
n
Po
ss
ibility
of o
bta
inin
g
info
rma
tion
Ov
era
ll ex
pe
rien
ce
Vojnić 4,93 4,97 5 4,95 4,95 4,92 4,92 4,9
Županja 4,83 4,86 4,92 4,93 4,86 4,89 4,83 4,89
Glina 4,79 4,71 4,94 4,89 4,76 4,88 4,85 4,89
Donja Stubica 4,82 4,58 4,87 4,92 4,42 4,65 4,68 4,88
Slunj 4,93 4,88 4,94 4,97 4,94 4,87 4,9 4,88
Ivanić Grad 4,84 4,89 4,93 4,81 4,79 4,75 4,85 4,87
Nova Gradiška 4,84 4,67 4,89 4,95 4,81 4,87 4,91 4,85
Drniš 4,81 4,76 4,89 4,81 4,89 4,89 4,94 4,85
Jastrebarsko 4,88 4,84 5 4,97 4,8 5 4,97 4,83
Pazin 4,74 4,51 4,96 4,9 4,69 4,76 4,87 4,83
Korčula 4,78 4,7 4,91 4,9 4,54 4,85 4,83 4,83
22
Satisfaction with services rendered in the procedure at a land registry
Pro
ce
ss
ing
sp
ee
d
Wa
iting
pe
riod
Sta
ff co
urte
sy
Ac
cu
rac
y o
f info
rma
tion
Sim
ple
pro
ce
ed
ing
s
Av
aila
bility
of in
form
atio
n
Po
ss
ibility
of o
bta
inin
g
info
rma
tion
Ov
era
ll ex
pe
rien
ce
Gvozd 4,58 4,8 4,85 4,69 4,08 4,59 4,75 4,83
Virovitica 4,81 4,83 4,95 4,92 4,86 4,92 4,89 4,81
Metković 4,76 4,78 4,86 4,78 4,68 4,77 4,74 4,8
Samobor 4,76 4,49 4,94 4,93 4,57 4,76 4,83 4,78
Pakrac 4,6 4,73 4,73 4,78 4,62 4,79 4,81 4,78
Rovinj 4,77 4,64 4,82 4,81 4,71 4,77 4,83 4,77
Klanjec 4,77 4,98 5 4,87 4,77 4,91 4,93 4,77
Slavonski Brod 4,85 4,61 4,68 4,81 4,75 4,89 4,89 4,75
Slatina 4,76 4,61 4,81 4,81 4,59 4,69 4,75 4,75
Požega 4,54 4,27 4,77 4,77 4,53 4,61 4,64 4,74
Đakovo 4,73 4,61 4,91 4,9 4,68 4,77 4,85 4,74
23
Satisfaction with services rendered in the procedure at a land registry
Pro
ce
ss
ing
sp
ee
d
Wa
iting
pe
riod
Sta
ff co
urte
sy
Ac
cu
rac
y o
f info
rma
tion
Sim
ple
pro
ce
ed
ing
s
Av
aila
bility
of in
form
atio
n
Po
ss
ibility
of o
bta
inin
g
info
rma
tion
Ov
era
ll ex
pe
rien
ce
Đurđevac 4,81 4,86 4,94 4,94 4,76 4,88 4,82 4,74
Mali Lošinj 4,47 4,32 4,8 4,77 4,49 4,64 4,59 4,74
Orahovica 4,66 4,86 4,82 4,75 4,4 4,72 4,79 4,74
Sesvete 4,78 4,59 4,88 4,8 4,5 4,58 4,69 4,72
Ilok 4,74 4,67 4,94 4,82 4,71 4,77 4,74 4,71
Ploče 4,67 4,76 4,91 4,74 4,67 4,7 4,69 4,71
Otočac 4,83 4,77 4,95 4,89 4,64 4,78 4,8 4,7
Novi Marof 4,52 4,61 4,71 4,64 4,46 4,48 4,62 4,7
Kaštel Lukšić 4,45 4,51 4,93 4,76 4,39 4,65 4,7 4,69
Rijeka 4,56 4,28 4,8 4,72 4,38 4,59 4,71 4,68
Ogulin 4,66 4,34 4,81 4,66 4,5 4,66 4,62 4,67
24
Satisfaction with services rendered in the procedure at a land registry
Pro
ce
ss
ing
sp
ee
d
Wa
iting
pe
riod
Sta
ff co
urte
sy
Ac
cu
rac
y o
f info
rma
tion
Sim
ple
pro
ce
ed
ing
s
Av
aila
bility
of in
form
atio
n
Po
ss
ibility
of o
bta
inin
g
info
rma
tion
Ov
era
ll ex
pe
rien
ce
Buzet 4,82 4,81 4,92 4,83 4,71 4,79 4,83 4,64
Kutina 4,62 4,39 4,87 4,81 4,51 4,59 4,69 4,62
Vukovar 4,62 4,24 4,71 4,62 4,49 4,62 4,63 4,6
Varaždin 4,58 4,5 4,66 4,69 4,51 4,54 4,55 4,59
Buje 4,66 3,98 4,78 4,68 4,42 4,62 4,58 4,59
Zabok 4,62 4,61 4,74 4,61 4,41 4,61 4,63 4,58
Sveti Ivan Zelina 4,58 4,35 4,94 4,75 4,34 4,59 4,7 4,56
Petrinja 4,56 4,46 4,87 4,51 4,42 4,62 4,61 4,56
Čakovec 4,55 4,62 4,74 4,52 4,3 4,26 4,38 4,55
Gospić 4,65 4,24 4,86 4,76 4,4 4,56 4,75 4,55
Zlatar 4,48 4,55 4,88 4,86 4,42 4,52 4,48 4,48
25
Satisfaction with services rendered in the procedure at a land registry
Pro
ce
ss
ing
sp
ee
d
Wa
iting
pe
riod
Sta
ff co
urte
sy
Ac
cu
rac
y o
f info
rma
tion
Sim
ple
pro
ce
ed
ing
s
Av
aila
bility
of in
form
atio
n
Po
ss
ibility
of o
bta
inin
g
info
rma
tion
Ov
era
ll ex
pe
rien
ce
Vrbovec 4,32 4,39 4,86 4,68 4,29 4,39 4,38 4,44
Dubrovnik 4,4 4,22 4,76 4,53 4,09 4,46 4,59 4,41
Tisno 4,5 4,33 4,75 4,66 4,66 4,5 4,56 4,39
Šibenik 4,42 4,51 4,79 4,76 4,47 4,59 4,54 4,37
Vinkovci 4,32 3,79 4,54 4,55 4,05 4,26 4,37 4,36
Krk 4,27 3,79 4,68 4,55 4,04 4,29 4,38 4,34
Osijek 4,45 3,72 4,69 4,67 4,34 4,36 4,46 4,33
Imotski 4,14 4,5 4,63 4,45 3,88 4,27 4,43 4,33
Velika Gorica 4,33 3,82 4,8 4,55 4,19 4,32 4,28 4,3
Opatija 4,24 3,26 4,62 4,37 4,02 4,15 4,06 4,16
Benkovac 3,5 4,06 4,76 4,41 3,89 4,31 4,35 4,11
26
Satisfaction with services rendered in the procedure at a land registry
Pro
ce
ss
ing
sp
ee
d
Wa
iting
pe
riod
Sta
ff co
urte
sy
Ac
cu
rac
y o
f info
rma
tion
Sim
ple
pro
ce
ed
ing
s
Av
aila
bility
of in
form
atio
n
Po
ss
ibility
of o
bta
inin
g
info
rma
tion
Ov
era
ll ex
pe
rien
ce
Pula 3,96 3,38 4,38 4,07 3,91 3,85 3,85 3,98
Delnice 3,66 3,72 4,46 4,43 3,65 4,06 4,09 3,92
Split 3,34 3,24 4,39 4,29 3,5 3,84 3,69 3,77
Zaprešić 3,71 3,47 4,22 4,04 3,77 3,81 3,8 3,71
Zagreb 2,17 2,51 3,64 3,2 2,48 2,64 2,73 2,61
Makarska 1,9 2,56 3,18 2,92 2,18 2,68 2,64 2,28
27
Cost estimateHow would you rate the costs incurred during this procedure?
5% 4%
63%
9%15%
4%0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Much lessthan
appropriate
Less thanappropriate
Appropriate More thanappropriate
Much morethan
appropriate
No reply
28
Customer satisfaction at land registries of municipal courts
Customer satisfaction at cadastral offices
Poll results – customer satisfaction – natural persons
29
Sample realization – cadastral offices
OfficePlanned sample
Sample obtained
%
Bjelovar 100 22 22%
Beli Manastir 100 73 73%
Benkovac 75 24 32%
Biograd na moru 100 31 31%
Blato 75 27 36%
Buje 75 56 75%
Buzet 75 55 73%
Cres 100 18 18%
Crikvenica 100 71 71%
Čabar 75 43 57%
Čakovec 150 75 50%
Čazma 75 50 67%
Daruvar 75 44 59%
Delnice 75 47 63%
Donja Stubica 75 36 48%
Donji Lapac 75 17 23%
Donji Miholjc 100 29 29%
Drniš 100 10 10%
Dubrovnik 150 61 41%
Duga resa 75 29 39%
Dugo Selo 100 97 97%
Dvor 75 5 7%
OfficePlanned sample
Sample obtained
%
Đakovo 100 98 98%
Đurđevac 100 34 34%
Garešnica 75 17 23%
Glina 75 47 63%
Gospić 100 20 20%
Gračac 75 0%
Grubišno polje 75 33 44%
Hrvatska Kostajnica 75 11 15%
Hvar 100 7 7%
Ilok 75 10 13%
Imotski 75 33 44%
Ivanec 75 7 9%
Ivanić Grad 75 43 57%
Jastrebarsko 100 89 89%
Karlovac 150 41 27%
Kaštel Sućurac 75 110 147%
Klanjec 75 44 59%
Knin 100 36 36%
Koprivnica 150 32 21%
Korčula 75 19 25%
Korenica 75 23 31%
Krapina 150 63 42%
Offices marked in red had 20% lesser achievement than planned
30
Sample realization – cadastral offices
OfficePlanned sample
Sample obtained
Office
Križevci 100 31 31%
Krk 100 32 32%
Kutina 75 42 56%
Labin 75 41 55%
Lovinac 75 7 9%
Ludbreg 75 33 44%
Makarska 100 19 19%
Mali Lošinj 100 10 10%
Metković 100 38 38%
Našice 100 88 88%
Nova Gradiška 100 100 100%
Novalja 75 8 11%
Novi Marof 75 11 15%
Novska 75 11 15%
Obrovac 75 21 28%
Ogulin 75 14 19%
Omiš 100 62 62%
Opatija 100 46 46%
Orahovica 75 48 64%
Osijek 150 113 75%
Otočac 75 39 52%
Ozalj 75 12 16%
OfficePlanned sample
Sample obtained
Office
Pag 75 7 9%
Pakrac 100 34 34%
Pazin 150 116 77%
Petrinja 75 32 43%
Pitomača 75 35 47%
Ploče 100 30 30%
Poreč 150 98 65%
Požega 150 125 83%
Pregrada 75 67 89%
Prelog 75 54 72%
Pula 150 38 25%
Rab 100 23 23%
Rijeka 200 38 19%
Rovinj 150 45 30%
Samobor 100 97 97%
Senj 100 16 16%
Sinj 75 46 61%
Sisak 150 70 47%
Sl. Brod 150 142 95%
Slatina 75 72 96%
Slunj 75 48 64%
Solin 100 29 29%
Offices marked in red had 20% lesser achievement than planned
31
Sample realization – cadastral offices
OfficePlanned sample
Sample obtained
Office
Split 200 176 88%
Stari Grad 100 15 15%
Supetar 100 14 14%
Sv.Ivan Zelina 100 21 21%
Šibenik 150 29 19%
Topusko 75 6 8%
Trogir 100 6 6%
Valpovo 100 28 28%
Varaždin 150 100 67%
Vel.Gorica 100 99 99%
Vinkovci 100 43 43%
Virovitica 150 41 27%
OfficePlanned sample
Sample obtained
Office
Vis 75 38 51%
Vojnić 75 25 33%
Vrbovec 100 56 56%
Vrbovsko 75 58 77%
Vrgorac 75 28 37%
Vukovar 150 92 61%
Zabok 75 37 49%
Zadar 150 124 83%
Zagreb 1.100 222 20%
Zaprešić 100 63 63%
Zlatar 75 73 97%
Županja 100 70 70%
Offices marked in red had 20% lesser achievement than planned
32
42%
38%
8%
5%
4%
4%
2%
1%
1%
0%
13%
4%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
Obtain cadastral map extract
Obtain possessory title
Request house number assignment
Request subdivision confirmation
Register object with the parcel
Request title holder change
Register title holder
Register real property shape
Register real property size
Register land use
Something else
Unknown
Reasons for visiting a cadastral officeFor what purpose/service did you come to the cadastre today?
33
Case status What is the status of your case?
18% 15% 53% 15%
Recently submitted Being processed Processed No reply
34
Case processing duration How long do the proceedings last from its start until today in days or months (if the case has been processed then until the date of processing)? – This question was answered only by the respondents whose case has been or is being processed
42%
10%
2% 5%
37%
4%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
1 day Between 2 and7 days
Between 8 and14 days
Between 14 and30 days
More than 30days
No reply
All respondents answering this question37% respondents, whose case has been or is being processed, have not stated the case processing duration!
42% respondents stated that the proceedings lasted 1 day.
35
Case processing duration How long has the procedure lasted in days or months since its start (if the case has been processed, then since the date of processing)? – Only the respondents, whose case has been or is being processed, answered this question
66%
16%
4%8% 7%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
1 day Between 2 and 7days
Between 8 and 14days
Between 14 and 30days
More than 30 days
Only the respondents who stated the caseprocessing duration
Average = 15 days
When the respondents, who have failed to state the case processing duration because their case has been or is being processed, are excluded from the analysis, we get that about 2/3 cases are processed within a day while an additional 16% are processed within a week.
36
Case processing duration according to case type
48% 45%
17% 15%
44%24%
39%
8% 13% 18% 19% 11% 16%6%
1% 2% 8% 8% 2% 6% 1%
3% 3%24% 26%
4%17%
3%
4% 4%14% 11% 4% 11% 4%
36% 32%19% 20%
35%26%
46%
1 day
Between 2 and 7 days
Between 8and 14 days
Between 14and 30 days
More than 30 days
No reply
Ob
tain
Po
ss
es
so
ry t
itle
Ob
tain
ca
da
str
al
ma
p e
xtr
ac
t
Re
qu
es
t s
ub
div
isio
n
co
nfi
rma
tio
n
Re
gis
ter
ob
jec
t w
ith
a p
arc
el
Re
qu
es
t h
ou
se
n
um
be
r a
ss
ign
me
nt
Re
qu
es
t ti
tle
ho
lde
r c
ha
ng
e
So
me
thin
g e
lse
38
On behalf of whom is the case brought up? Is the case handled for private purposes, legal entity you work for or do you represent a client?
71% 12% 8% 10%
For private purposes The legal entity I work for I represent a client No reply
39
Satisfaction with the services rendered in the procedurePlease rate your satisfaction with the services rendered in the procedure you are involved in or were involved at this cadastral office.
Very poor
2 3 4Very good
Don’t know
Average
Courtesy of the staff 0% 1% 2% 5% 82% 10% 4,87
Accuracy and completeness of the information obtained from the staff
1% 1% 4% 11% 75% 7% 4,70
Speed of processing a case 0% 1% 2% 8% 76% 13% 4,83
Availability of the information necessary during the procedure
1% 1% 3% 10% 71% 14% 4,73
Possibility of getting information during the procedure
1% 2% 5% 13% 67% 13% 4,63
Simplicity of procedure 1% 1% 3% 9% 71% 15% 4,76
Length of waiting in the office 2% 2% 5% 13% 65% 13% 4,59
Overall experience with the land registry processing a case
1% 1% 3% 10% 75% 11% 4,77
40
Satisfaction with the services rendered in the procedurePlease rate your satisfaction with the services rendered in the procedure you are involved in or were involved at this cadastral office?
4,6
4,5
4,8
4,8
4,5
4,6
4,7
4,7
4,7
4,6
4,9
4,8
4,6
4,7
4,8
4,8
2 3 4 5
Speed of case processing (from applicationthrough decision)
Length of queuing at the office to submit orobtain documents
Courtesy of staff
Accuracy and completeness of theinformation obtained from the staff
Simplicity of procedure
Availability of the information necessary inthe procedure
Possibility of getting information on theprocedure
Overall experience with the procedure
Assessed average Non- assessed average
The averages were assessed on the basis of the ratio of a specific office in the overall number of cases, in order to neutralize the difference in the return of the questionnaires between the offices!
41
Satisfaction with services rendered in the procedure at a cadastral office
Pro
ce
ss
ing
sp
ee
d
Wa
iting
pe
riod
Sta
ff co
urte
sy
Ac
cu
rac
y o
f info
rma
tion
Sim
ple
pro
ce
ed
ing
s
Av
aila
bility
of in
form
atio
n
Po
ss
ibility
of o
bta
inin
g
info
rma
tion
Ov
era
ll ex
pe
rien
ce
Grubišno polje 4,85 4,88 5 4,85 4,82 4,91 4,97 5
Klanjec 4,91 4,93 5 4,98 4,86 4,95 5 5
Vrgorac 5 4,92 5 4,96 4,96 4,84 4,96 5
Slatina 4,99 5 4,98 5 4,97 4,97 4,98 5
Delnice 4,84 4,98 4,98 5 4,88 4,93 4,98 4,98
Đurđevac 4,94 4,88 5 4,91 4,88 4,97 4,91 4,97
Imotski 4,97 4,93 5 5 4,83 4,93 4,93 4,97
Ivanić Grad 5 4,91 5 4,91 4,91 4,94 4,97 4,97
Dugo Selo 4,91 4,95 4,98 4,98 4,86 4,9 4,96 4,96
Virovitica 4,98 4,88 4,93 4,98 4,85 4,93 4,95 4,95
Vinkovci 4,93 4,95 5 4,95 4,85 4,95 4,97 4,95
Prelog 4,92 4,98 4,98 4,92 4,75 4,92 4,86 4,94* Only cadastral offices with more than 30 correctly filled-in questionnaires
42
Satisfaction with services rendered in the procedure at a cadastral office
Pro
ce
ss
ing
sp
ee
d
Wa
iting
pe
riod
Sta
ff co
urte
sy
Ac
cu
rac
y o
f info
rma
tion
Sim
ple
pro
ce
ed
ing
s
Av
aila
bility
of in
form
atio
n
Po
ss
ibility
of o
bta
inin
g
info
rma
tion
Ov
era
ll ex
pe
rien
ce
Pregrada 4,87 4,91 4,97 4,94 4,83 4,92 4,94 4,94
Knin 4,91 4,57 4,97 4,94 4,63 4,86 4,93 4,94
Benkovac 4,93 4,82 4,96 4,99 4,87 4,94 4,97 4,94
Donja Stubica 4,75 4,74 4,87 4,87 4,7 4,93 4,9 4,93
Pitomača 4,88 4,9 4,91 4,94 4,84 4,84 4,97 4,93
Crikvenica 4,83 4,83 4,98 4,92 4,74 4,88 4,89 4,92
Slunj 4,82 4,88 4,91 4,93 4,74 4,79 4,95 4,91
Pakrac 4,97 4,94 4,97 4,91 4,88 4,94 4,88 4,91
Vrbovsko 4,89 4,92 4,98 4,96 4,62 4,84 4,88 4,9
Sl. Brod 4,89 4,68 4,95 4,95 4,78 4,9 4,86 4,9
Vukovar 4,95 4,85 4,98 4,97 4,77 4,97 4,92 4,9
Buzet 4,74 4,69 4,91 4,9 4,65 4,81 4,91 4,89
43
Satisfaction with services rendered in the procedure at a cadastral office
Pro
ce
ss
ing
sp
ee
d
Wa
iting
pe
riod
Sta
ff co
urte
sy
Ac
cu
rac
y o
f info
rma
tion
Sim
ple
pro
ce
ed
ing
s
Av
aila
bility
of in
form
atio
n
Po
ss
ibility
of o
bta
inin
g
info
rma
tion
Ov
era
ll ex
pe
rien
ce
Rovinj 4,58 4,64 4,95 4,88 4,6 4,76 4,83 4,89
Daruvar 4,77 4,95 4,93 4,91 4,72 4,91 4,91 4,88
Čazma 4,84 4,84 4,89 4,91 4,78 4,89 4,84 4,87
Otočac 4,87 4,82 4,97 4,89 4,82 4,89 4,84 4,87
Omiš 4,91 4,54 4,97 4,86 4,52 4,95 4,97 4,87
Jastrebarsko 4,89 4,9 4,9 4,92 4,78 4,89 4,88 4,87
Našice 4,83 4,86 4,9 4,91 4,67 4,85 4,84 4,85
Ludbreg 4,88 4,88 4,97 5 4,72 4,88 4,91 4,85
Zabok 4,84 4,93 4,94 4,84 4,48 4,79 4,77 4,84
Vrbovec 4,88 4,83 4,88 4,88 4,8 4,88 4,86 4,84
Zlatar 4,76 4,78 4,9 4,78 4,4 4,85 4,8 4,83
Labin 4,82 4,91 4,97 4,91 4,61 4,82 4,89 4,83
44
Satisfaction with services rendered in the procedure at a cadastral office
Pro
ce
ss
ing
sp
ee
d
Wa
iting
pe
riod
Sta
ff co
urte
sy
Ac
cu
rac
y o
f info
rma
tion
Sim
ple
pro
ce
ed
ing
s
Av
aila
bility
of in
form
atio
n
Po
ss
ibility
of o
bta
inin
g
info
rma
tion
Ov
era
ll ex
pe
rien
ce
Varaždin 4,72 4,81 4,95 4,95 4,66 4,76 4,89 4,83
Požega 4,82 4,78 4,9 4,86 4,78 4,8 4,8 4,82
Orahovica 4,8 4,86 4,9 4,88 4,71 4,81 4,9 4,82
Koprivnica 4,94 4,81 5 4,91 4,72 4,77 4,84 4,81
Županja 4,77 4,65 4,82 4,89 4,69 4,79 4,72 4,81
Čabar 4,72 4,98 4,95 4,85 4,6 4,8 4,93 4,8
Karlovac 4,66 4,64 4,92 4,86 4,68 4,67 4,75 4,78
Petrinja 4,68 4,62 4,93 4,96 4,67 4,65 4,88 4,77
Vel.Gorica 4,42 4,75 4,94 4,84 4,65 4,75 4,79 4,77
Vis 4,74 4,81 4,93 4,83 4,64 4,9 4,79 4,76
Metković 4,73 4,69 4,81 4,83 4,67 4,77 4,77 4,75
Zadar 4,6 4,25 4,83 4,83 4,54 4,69 4,73 4,75
45
Satisfaction with services rendered in the procedure at a cadastral office
Pro
ce
ss
ing
sp
ee
d
Wa
iting
pe
riod
Sta
ff co
urte
sy
Ac
cu
rac
y o
f info
rma
tion
Sim
ple
pro
ce
ed
ing
s
Av
aila
bility
of in
form
atio
n
Po
ss
ibility
of o
bta
inin
g
info
rma
tion
Ov
era
ll ex
pe
rien
ce
Sinj 4,83 4,75 4,97 4,87 4,93 4,84 4,83 4,74
Zaprešić 4,6 4,58 4,88 4,85 4,68 4,69 4,74 4,74
Nova Gradiška 4,71 4,41 4,87 4,79 4,42 4,74 4,65 4,73
Sisak 4,4 4,5 4,95 4,88 4,58 4,66 4,73 4,72
Krapina 4,67 4,8 4,84 4,81 4,5 4,72 4,7 4,71
Kutina 4,37 4,72 4,89 4,69 4,36 4,55 4,52 4,71
Osijek 4,6 4,51 4,89 4,84 4,53 4,65 4,73 4,69
Đakovo 4,66 4,6 4,8 4,72 4,47 4,64 4,66 4,69
Kaštel Sućurac 4,59 4,64 4,8 4,8 4,42 4,61 4,69 4,67
Glina 4,75 4,65 4,82 4,87 4,65 4,74 4,79 4,66
Buje 4,68 4,43 4,79 4,7 4,52 4,64 4,61 4,63
Samobor 4,22 4,55 4,86 4,75 4,28 4,51 4,69 4,63
46
Satisfaction with services rendered in the procedure at a cadastral office
Pro
ce
ss
ing
sp
ee
d
Wa
iting
pe
riod
Sta
ff co
urte
sy
Ac
cu
rac
y o
f info
rma
tion
Sim
ple
pro
ce
ed
ing
s
Av
aila
bility
of in
form
atio
n
Po
ss
ibility
of o
bta
inin
g
info
rma
tion
Ov
era
ll ex
pe
rien
ce
Bjelovar 4,55 4,48 4,77 4,67 4,38 4,69 4,68 4,61
Čakovec 4,51 4,32 4,72 4,65 4,3 4,58 4,55 4,59
Split 4,59 4,22 4,78 4,74 4,42 4,58 4,56 4,59
Opatija 4,43 3,87 4,79 4,76 4,12 4,3 4,31 4,56
Poreč 4,41 4,34 4,83 4,6 3,96 4,51 4,53 4,53
Pazin 4,41 4,03 4,57 4,64 4,4 4,45 4,49 4,51
Dubrovnik 4,39 4,13 4,69 4,44 4,13 4,21 4,47 4,49
Zagreb 4,14 3,99 4,47 4,48 4,05 4,25 4,29 4,38
Pula 4,03 3,42 4,3 4,32 4,18 4,29 4,16 4,21
Rijeka 3,86 3,44 4,13 4,07 3,68 3,74 3,67 3,9
47
Cost estimateHow would you estimate the costs incurred during this procedure?
6%3%
56%
17%
10%8%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Much lessthan
appropriate
Less thanappropriate
Appropriate More thanappropriate
Much morethan
appropriate
No reply
48
Conclusion– customer satisfaction
The research results have shown surprisingly positive results of the customer satisfaction poll related to various aspects of the work of land registries at municipal courts and cadastral offices and branch offices.
The results showed that on average it takes a long time to process certain cases, especially at land registries.
However, a rather high average of waiting is not the result of a long waiting period in all cases but an extremely long waiting period for certain types of cases and for disputed cases, along with a relatively acceptable length of waiting for the majority of simple cases.
The majority of land registry customers come there to obtain a title deed while the majority of cadastre customers come there to obtain an extract of cadastral map or possessory title.
As for the cost estimate, the majority of land registry and cadastre customers consider them appropriate.
49
Conclusion– customer satisfaction
Since this research was conceived as a pilot project, the conclusions concerning the research methodology are also valuable.
Important methodological findings: The readiness of customers to participate in the poll is relatively
small so a more proactive approach in recruiting is needed if a larger number of them needs to be engaged.
Older respondents, who appear to account for a significant number of LR and cadastre customers, have difficulties in filling in the questionnaire conceived in this way.
The success of this type of research depends to a large extent on the attitude and effort of the staff which leads to various outputs in different municipal courts/cadastral offices and branch offices.
This type of polling leaves an option of filling in the questionnaire independently from the staff which may put the validity of polling in question.
Filling in the questionnaire independently leads to a relatively large number of errors in the questionnaire.
Therefore, this research should be carried out in the future using a more proactive approach, or rather to use the survey method face-to-face which means that the polling personnel recruits the respondents (unbiased selection) and fill in the questionnaire (less errors when filling in)
50
Land registries
Cadastre
Real properties status
“Organized Land” Project
Poll results – public perceptionPoll results – public perception
51
Methodology – public perception
The research was carried out by phone interview between 19 and 20 November 2006.
The questionnaire used in the previous poll carried out in the early 2006 was applied with minor changes and corrections.
The research was taken from a stratified (by region and settlement size), random and representative sample of 800 RoC citizens older than 18.
Any significant deviation of the sample from the population structure given the gender, age and education, have been subsequently cancelled through the post-stratification procedure.
52
Sample demographic structure
N %
GenderMale 379 47%
Female 421 53%
Age
Up to 30 96 12%
31 to 44 yrs 178 22%
45 to 60 yrs 272 34%
Over 60 yrs 255 32%
Education
Elementary school 261 33%
High school 438 55%
Higher education/university 101 13%
Type of settlement
Town 457 57%
Village 343 43%
Region
Zagreb and its environs 199 25%
Northern Croatia 143 18%
Slavonia 140 18%
Lika and Banovina 70 9%
Croatian Primorje and Istria 95 12%
Dalmatia 153 19%
53
General part – knowing of cadastral and LR operations
Land registries
Cadastre
Real properties status
“Organized Land” Project
Poll results – public perceptionPoll results – public perception
54
Knowledge of land registry functionsDo you know the purpose of the land registry and what are its functions?
58%
28%
3%
4%
22%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Registering ownership and other realproperty titles
Registering real property in landbooks
Registering loans
Something else
Don't know
55
Knowledge of land registry document typesDo you know which documents are obtained at the land registry?
44%
15%
8%
7%
5%
1%
8%
28%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Title deed
Possesory title
Decision on land registration
Land registration extract
Building extract
Construction permit
Other
Don't know
56
Land registry work ratings What is your opinion about the work/functioning of the land registry?
10%12%
32%
18%
11%
16%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Completelynegative
2 3 4 Completelypositive
Don't know
Average = 3.2
57
Using the services of the land registryHave you in the past five years personally used the services of the land registry or rather land registry departments of the courts?
Yes; 46% No; 53%
Don't know; 1%
YesNoDon't know
58
Ways of processing a caseHave you used the services of a lawyer, public notary, real estate agency or have you handled yourself the case which prompted you to visit last the land registry?
49%
48%
29%
6%
3%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Handled the caseindependently
Public notary
Lawyer
Real estate agency
Third party services
* Only the respondents who have used the land registry services, N=368
59
Land registry staff’s attitude and work ratingHow satisfied are you with the land registry staff’s attitude and work with regards to the case?
10%6%
22%
31%
1%
30%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Completelydissatisfied
2 3 4 Completelysatisfied
Don't know
Average = 3.7
* Only respondents handling the case themselves, N=181
60
Perception of the simplicity of the procedureCan you assess the extent to which the procedure was, in your opinion, simple or complicated?
* Only respondents handling the case themselves, N=181
14%11%
1%
13%
18%
25%
19%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Completelycomplicated
Complicated Mostlycomplicated
Neithersimple nor
complicated
Mostly simple Completelysimple
Don't know
61
Case processing speed ratingCan you estimate your satisfaction with the speed of processing the case?
18%15%
21%
17%
2%
27%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Completelydissatisfied
2 3 4 Completelysatisfied
Don't know
Average = 3.2
* Only the respondents who have used the land registry services, N=368
62
Cost perceptionDo you consider the cost incurred in the case... ?
Appropriate; 46%
Small; 8%
Too high; 42%
Don't know; 5%
* Only the respondents who have used the land registry services, N=368
63
Land registry experience ratingHow would you rate your experience with the land registry for the case?
15%12%
24%27%
3%
20%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Completelynegative
2 3 4 Completelypositive
Don't know
Average = 3.3
* Only the respondents who have used the land registry services, N=368
64
Poll results – public perceptionPoll results – public perception
LR department – Land registries
Cadastre
Real properties status
“Organized Land” Project
65
Knowledge of cadastre functionsDo you know the purpose of the cadastre and what are its functions?
13%10%
10%
8%
8%
4%
4%
3%
3%
2%
2%
1%
1%
1%
9%
34%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
Register the real property areaPlots/parcels
Land/land informationRegister real property shape
Parcel, real property, plot ownershipTo pay taxes/tax return
Proof of possessionRegister land use
Register the real property/its locationSurvey(plot, land, house)
Similar (same) as the land registryCheck when buying, selling, taking loan
Drafts/land sketchesPlan/location plan
OtherDon't know/don't want to say
66
Knowledge about cadastral document typesAnd the ones obtained in the cadastre?
21%
15%
11%
10%
6%
2%
1%
6%
41%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
Cadastral map excerpt
Possessory title
Title deed
Land plots/parcel no.
Location / sketch
Construction permit
Certificates, decisions in general
Other
Don't know/don't want to say
67
Cadastre work ratingWhat is your opinion about the work/functioning of the cadastre?
6%10%
30%
22%
16%15%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Completelynegative
2 3 4 Completelypositive
Don't know
Average = 3.4
68
Using cadastral servicesHave you in the past five years used the services of the cadastre?
Yes; 36%
No; 64%
Yes No
69
Mode of case processingHave you used the services of licensed surveying companies (surveyors) or have you handled the case yourself that made you to visit last the cadastre?
36% 64% 4%
Through licensed surveing company (surveyor) Yourself Don't know
* Only the respondents who have used the cadastral services, N=288
70
Licensed surveying company work satisfaction rating How satisfied are you with the licensed surveying company (surveyors) work with the case?
10%8%
16%
32%
3%
31%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Completelydissatisfied
2 3 4 Completelysatisfied
Don't know
Average = 3.7
* Only the respondents who have used the licensed surveying company services, N=103
71
Cadastral staff’s attitude and work ratingHow satisfied are you with the cadastral staff’s attitude and work with regards to the case?
4%6%
20%
29%
2%
39%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Completelydissatisfied
2 3 4 Completelysatisfied
Don't know
Average = 3.9
* Only respondents handling the case independently, N=183
73
Case processing speed ratingCan you rate your satisfaction with the case processing speed?
13%
8%
23% 22%
4%
30%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Completelydissatisfied
2 3 4 Completelysatisfied
Don't know
Average = 3.5
* Only respondents using cadastral services, N=288
74
Cost perceptionDo you consider the costs incurred in the case... ?
Appropriate; 52%
Little; 7%
Too high; 37%
Don' know; 3%
* Only respondents using cadastral services, N=288
75
Rating experience with the cadastreHow would you rate your experience with the cadastre in this matter?
7%9%
26%30%
3%
24%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Completelynegative
2 3 4 Completelypositive
Don't know
Average = 3.6
* Only respondents using cadastral services N=288
76
Poll results – public perceptionPoll results – public perception
LR department – Land registries
Cadastre
Real property status
“Organized Land” Project
77
Benefit perception for CITIZENS from real property registration In your opinion, what are the benefits for the citizens from the real property registration?
23%
21%
12%
9%
5%
4%
1%
1%
1%
7%
33%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
Title deed
Legal security
Legalization in general
Simplified real property sale
Possibility of obtaining mortgage loan
Possibility of obtaining construction permit
No benefit
No inheritance problems
Paying taxes
Other
Don't know
78
Benefit perception for the STATE from real property registration In your opinion, what are the benefits for the state from the citizens registering their property?
37%
18%
8%
6%
1%
1%
1%
1%
6%
35%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
Recording property for tax purposes
Money from registration process
Register title
Land registration
Real property market development
Rule of law
Construction and other permit issue
Better urban planning
Other
Don't know
79
Real property titleAre you personally the owner of the real property, i.e. flat, house, weekend cottage, business premises or land?
Yes; 67%
No; 33%
Yes No
80
Real property registrationIs your real property registered in the land registers?
No; 8%
Da; 83%
In the process of registration; 7%
Don't know; 2%
* Only respondents owning a real property, N=532
81
Reasons for registrationWhat is the main reason that prompted you to register property?
53%
13%
9%
8%
4%
2%
2%
1%
4%
5%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
I wish to register my title
It was already registered when bought
It has to be under the law
Real property transaction
Bank loan (mortgage)
For security
To obtain construction permit
To further invest in business
Ohter
Don't know/don't want to say
* Only respondents whose real property is registered, N=476
82
Reasons why the real property is not registeredWhat is the mean reason you did not register the property?
43%
12%
7%
3%
23%
11%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Too complicated/toomany owners/heirs
Too expensive
I have done nothingin this respect
It is unimportant tome
Ohter
Don't know
* Only respondents whose real property is not registered, N=45
• Not processed• They haven’t requested construction permit during construction• Problems with the city• It has been paid, but not registered • They have failed to because they wait for the reform of the system
83
Obstacles for processing citizens’ applicationsCan you tell us what are, in your opinion, the biggest obstacles for processing citizens’ applications regarding the real property?
28%
18%
6%
4%
2%
1%
1%
1%
3%
4%
33%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
Land registries
In other offices
In cadastral offices
Obstables are everywhere
Court
Interrelation of the entire system
Bad personnel
People seeking resolution are to blame
Administration in general
Other
Don't know
* Only respondents owning a real property, N=532
84
Poll results – public perceptionPoll results – public perception
LR department – Land registries
Cadastre
Real property status
“Organized land” project
85
Project awarenessCan you assess the level of your awareness of the Real Property Registration and Cadastre Project that is currently underway?
55% 14% 28% 3%
I have only heard about it Well aware Unaware Don't know
86
Awareness of who is running the projectDo you know who is running the restructuring of the system?
25%8%
5%5%4%4%3%2%2%1%1%1%1%1%
5%42%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Ministry of Justice
State Geodetic Administration
State
RoC Government
Land registry/Cadastre
Court
Municipality
EU
Local self-government
World Bank
Other international organizations
Ministry of Construction
Ministries in general
Vesna Škare Ožbolt
Other
Don't know
* Only respondents familiar with the project, N=551
87
Advertising visibilityHave you noticed on TV or in the media the advertising about the real property registration and cadastre reform entitled “Organized Land “?
Spontaneous awareness;
36%
Awakened awareness;
23%
Have not noticed; 42%
88
Noticed elementsWhich elements of that advertisement can you remember?
28%
16%
11%
9%
3%
1%
1%
1%
7%
47%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
Oliver Mlakar
Real property registration and cadastre
Dusting the courts and cadastre
Web pages/Internet access
Real property and cadastre reform
Remembers the billboard (leaflet)
Clean/unaltered data
Faster/faster registration
Something else
Don't know
* Only respondents who have noticed the clip, N=359
89
Advertising main messageIn your opinion, what is the main message of this advertising?
* Only respondents who noticed clips and their important components, N=286
That everyone should check the status of the land registry and cadastre records
19%
That the land registration reform is underway 13%
Something else 7%
Put books/papers in order 6%
Better/better work in general 6%
Faster operation/faster processes 5%
Getting the titles registered 3%
Updating/backlog clearing 3%
That dust needs to be wiped 2%
Citizen cooperation in the land registration and cadastre reform 2%
General registration 2%
Computerization 2%
Cleaning/clean papers 2%
Registration upon European standards 1%
Simpler/more accessible 1%
An attempt to motivate the citizens to cooperate 6%
Don’t know 20%
90
Intent to check the real property statusDo you intend to soon visit the land registries/cadastre and check the status of the real property owned by you?
Yes; 37%
No; 60%
Other; 3%Yes No
Other
* Only respondents owning the property
91
Conclusion – public perception
The respondents are relatively well acquainted with the land registry and cadastre function, although there is a smaller number of respondents who are not aware of these institutions.
The overall rating of the land registry and cadastre work is relatively high because the rating average exceeds 3.
However, this rating is somewhat lower among the respondents belonging to the overall population than among the respondents participating in the poll at the land registries and cadastral office.
As the main benefits of the real property registration for the owners, legal security and possibility of real property availability is perceived while the benefits for the State is perceived primarily in the sense of tax revenues and remunerations and not in the general legal security and creating preconditions for unimpeded real property transactions, and thus the development.
About 30% citizens have never heard of the Real Property Registration and Cadastre Project while about one half has just heard about the project and about 15% feels well-informed about the project.
92
Conclusion – public perception
Cca. 60% of citizens has noticed the media campaign “Organized Land”, while the majority of them spontaneously remembered the campaign itself (ca. 60% of those who noticed).
The campaign visibility is higher among the highly educated, respondents from the cities and respondents with higher income.
Characteristic campaign elements that have been particularly visible are Oliver Mlakar, the message about real property registration and the message about dusting the land registers.
The majority, ca. 80%, of those who have noticed the campaign recognize more or less the main campaign message.
93
Cadastral offices
Land registries at municipal court
“Organized land” project
Poll results – Customer satisfaction – legal Poll results – Customer satisfaction – legal entitiesentities
94
Methodology – regular customer satisfaction
The poll was conducted among 101 legal entity in total. The sample included 27 developers; 25 licensed surveyors; 20
public notaries, 19 lawyers and 10 banks.
The developers are defined as legal entities who built at least one real property for the market in the past year. The companies recruited are registered for “Development of entire objects” and “Building new real property”. The biggest companies meeting the above-mentioned criteria have been recruited.
The licensed surveyors chosen had to meet the criteria of being the biggest in their county. In principle, two biggest from each county.
The public notaries and lawyers were selected at random with smaller corrections given their main field of activity.
The biggest banks were selected, taking into account the bank representation having the seat in different cities.
95
Methodology – regular customer satisfaction
The poll was carried out using the face-to-face interviewing method.
The poll was carried out between 10 November and 8 December.
The majority of respondents were from Zagreb, cca. ¼ sample.
96
Basic data on the regular customer sample
27%
25%
20%
19%
10%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
Licensed surveyingcompany
Corporate investors
Public notary
Lawyer
Bank
23%26%
9%8% 11%16%
8%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
1-2 3-4 5-10 11-50 51-100 100+ Noreply
Type of legal entity
Number of employees
97
Cadastral office
LR departments of Municipal courts
“Organized Land” Project
Poll results – Customer satisfaction – Legal Poll results – Customer satisfaction – Legal entitiesentities
98
Frequency of use of cadastral servicesPlease tell me how often on the average does your legal entity/association use each of the following services at cadastral offices?
Se
ve
ral tim
es
a w
ee
k
On
ce
a w
ee
k
On
ce
in tw
o w
ee
ks
On
ce
in th
ree
we
ek
s
On
ce
a m
on
th
On
ce
in tw
o m
on
ths
On
ce
in th
ree
mo
nth
s
1-2
time
s in
six
m
on
ths
On
ce
a y
ea
r
Le
ss
freq
ue
nt o
r n
ev
er
Do
n’t k
no
w
Obtaining possessory title 29% 17% 13% 7% 15% 3% 3% 1% 1% 12%
Obtaining a cadastral map excerpt 24% 13% 10% 6% 13% 6% 5% 3% 3% 18%
Request for review and confirmation of geodetic records of change
16% 6% 6% 8% 7% 5% 5% 6% 5% 35% 2%
Registration of object with the plot 12% 10% 6% 5% 4% 6% 3% 9% 13% 33%
Request for registering change of real property contour
5% 6% 10% 1% 8% 4% 5% 8% 8% 43% 3%
Request for registration of title holder over the real property
4% 6% 5% 2% 9% 4% 7% 7% 5% 50% 2%
Request for title holder change 4% 4% 1% 5% 8% 4% 7% 10% 7% 50% 1%
Request for registering change of real property area
4% 4% 6% 4% 9% 4% 8% 6% 4% 48% 4%
Request for registering change of land use
4% 4% 3% 4% 9% 4% 4% 7% 9% 50% 3%
Request for obtaining house number 1% 3% 2% 1% 2% 3% 6% 2% 11% 64% 5%
99
Cadastral services use – according to the type of legal entity
80%65%
43% 37%9% 22% 30% 27% 24% 26%
50% 40%
0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%84% 76%
32%8%
0%12% 16% 8% 16% 16%
100% 100% 96% 93%
33% 37%
74% 74% 63%41%
55%
15% 5% 10%0%
10% 5% 0% 0%15%
89%68%
42% 42%
0%
37% 26% 26% 16%42%
Entire sample
Bank
Developpers
Licensed surveying company
Public notary
Lawyer
Ob
tain
p
os
se
ss
ory
ti
tle
Ob
tain
ca
da
str
al
ma
p e
xtr
ac
t
Re
qu
es
t re
vie
w o
f c
ad
as
tra
l re
co
rds
of
ch
an
ge
Re
gis
ter
ob
jec
t w
ith
th
e p
lot
Re
qu
es
t h
ou
se
N
um
be
r a
ss
ign
me
nt
Re
qu
es
t ti
tle
h
old
er
ch
an
ge
Re
qu
es
t c
ha
ng
eo
f re
al
pro
pe
rty
co
nto
ur
Re
qu
es
t c
ha
ng
e o
fre
al
pro
pe
rty
are
a
Re
qu
es
t c
ha
ng
eo
f la
nd
us
e
Re
qu
es
t ti
tle
Ho
lde
r re
gis
tra
tio
n
Percentage ofrespondents
using this service at least
once in a month!
100
Evaluation of experiences with individual servicesPlease evaluate your experiences with each of the services that your legal entity uses more frequently.
Bad experien
ce2 3 4
Good experien
ce
Don’t know
Average
Obtaining a possessory title 2% 2% 18% 23% 53% 1% 4.24
Obtaining a cadastral map excerpt 1% 3% 24% 28% 44% 1% 4.11
Request for house number assignment
5% 5% 20% 25% 30% 15% 3.82
Request for registering real property title holder
5% 2% 25% 45% 23% 3.8
Request to change real property usage
3% 3% 33% 33% 23% 5% 3.76
Request to change real property title holder
5% 9% 23% 30% 30% 2% 3.74
Request to change the real property surface area
4% 7% 27% 38% 24% 3.71
Registering objects on a parcel 2% 7% 31% 36% 20% 4% 3.68
Request for reviewing and confirming geodetic reports
3% 10% 25% 36% 22% 3% 3.65
Request for changing the real property shape
4% 6% 32% 36% 21% 3.64
* Only for services used more than once a year
101
Evaluation of experiences with individual services – according to legal entities
Whole sample
Banks
Construction investors
Certified Geodetic
companies
Public notaries
Lawyers
Ob
tain
po
ss
es
so
ry t
itle
Ob
tain
ca
da
str
al
ma
p e
xtr
ac
t
Re
qu
es
t s
ub
div
isio
nre
po
rt r
ev
iew
Re
gis
ter
ob
jec
to
n a
pa
rce
l
Re
qu
es
t h
ou
se
n
um
be
r a
ss
ign
me
nt
Re
qu
es
t c
ha
ng
e o
f t
titl
e h
old
er
Re
qu
es
t c
ha
ng
e o
fre
al
pro
pe
rty
sh
ap
e
Re
qu
es
t c
ha
ng
e o
fre
al
pro
pe
rty
are
a
Re
qu
es
t c
ha
ng
e o
fla
nd
us
e
Re
qu
es
t ti
tle
h
old
er
reg
istr
ati
on
4.24 4.11 3.65 3.68 3.82 3.74 3.64 3.71 3.76 3.80
4.33 4.29
4.04 3.92 3.47 3.50 4.143.33 3.40 3.50 3.70 3.27
4.19 4.04 3.67 3.73 3.75 3.73 3.75 3.84 3.89 3.85
4.45
4.44 4.413.45 3.80 3.91 3.73 3.60 3.50 4.00
* Only for services used more than once a year, and services used by at least 8 respondents.
102
Reasons for bad experiencesWhy do you have bad experiences with…?
Request for house number assignment (N=2)
Too slow
Unprofessional
Request for changing the title holder (user) (N=6)
Too slow
Slow in solving queries
Slow administrative procedure. Not sure this is justifiable
Unprofessional
Request for changing real property shape
(N=5)
Slow, lot of formalities
Too slow
Unprofessional
Request for changing real property surface area
(N=5)
Regulations not defined enough
Too slow
Slow administrative procedure. Not sure this is justifiable.
A lot of paperwork
Unprofessional
Request for changing real property usage (N=2)
Same as before
Too slow
Unprofessional
Request for registering the title holder (N=3)
Slow procedure
Unprofessional
Obtaining a possessory title (N=4)
Very crowded
The procedure takes too long
Too slow
Too much time wasted
Unprofessional
Obtaining cadastral map excerpts (N=3)
Very crowded
The procedure takes too long
Too slow
Unprofessional
Request for reviewing and confirming geodetic reports (N=8)
Slow (at work)
Different criteria upon review
Review frequently consists of looking for mistakes
Too long in solving the paperwork
Solving the paperwork is too complicated
The length of the implementation of subdivision and other reports
Registering objects on a parcel (N=5)
Goes through their technical then legal service
Based on the documents they issued and have, they don’t carry out change of possession
Different criteria upon review
Unnecessarily slow
Unprofessional* Only respondents who are not satisfied with the services provided (mark 1 or 2)
103
Evaluation of the different aspects of cadastral operationsPlease evaluate the different aspects of the functioning of cadastral offices and regional offices.
9%
8%
9%
9%
12%
11%
21%
25%
24%
29%
21%
31%
34%
28%
30%
48%
37%
34%
25%
27%
29%
25%
17%
26%
22%
21%
25%
17%
11%
9%
10%
4%
1%
5%
2%
1%
5%
2%
3% 14%
10%
10%
12%
11%
9%
12%
14%
9%Staff friendliness and courtesy
Staff expertise
Transparency of the procedure
Length of time spent waiting in queue
Speed of solving the case
Staff work organization
Simplicity of the official procedure
Up-to-datedness and harmonization of datawith other services
Very poor Poor Average Good Very good Don't know
4.03
3.86
3.77
3.54
3.42
Average
3.36
3.07
2.93
104
Overall mark of cadastral operations On a scale from 1 to 5, where 1 means «very poor» and 5 «very good», how would you rate cadastral operations in RoC as a whole, considering the role that the cadastre should play?
1%
11%
40%
33%
7%9%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Very poor 2 3 4 Very good Don't know
Average = 3.4
105
Average mark of cadastral operations According to the type of legal entity
3,4
3,6
3,5
3,4
3,3
3,2
1 2 3 4 5
Whole sample
Certified engineeroffices
Public notaries
Lawyers
Companies/constructioninvestors
Banks
Because of a small number of respondents, the
differences only serve as Illustration!
106
Improvement prioritiesWhat would you emphasize as the three most important priorities for improving the work of the cadastre?
21%20%
11%
10%
9%9%
8%
4%
4%
4%
4%5%
23%
13%
19%
15%
12%14%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
Hadrmonizing cadastral surveys with the situation inthe field
Harmonizing LR court dana with the cadastre
Informatization
Speed of solving cases
Streamlining the procedure
Staff education/staff expertise
Enabling cadastral data for wider usage
Regulations/ Legal framework for operations
Data up-to-datedness
Better organization of operations
Better connection with other services
Friendliness/courtesy
Adequate space
Increasing the number of staff
Better communication with officials
Everything is OK
Other
Don't know\No answer
OTHER ANSWERS WITH LESS THAN 4%:• Better organization of office hours• Shorter queues• Better equipped technically• Harmonization of data with other services• possibilities of completing work through the Internet• Manipulative expenses• Staff salary raise• Staff availability• More funds• Establishing new cadastral offices
107
Impact of cadastral operations on business activitiesHow does the existing functioning of the cadastre influence your business activities?
5%
17%
44%
16%
2%
17%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Has greatnegativeimpact
Has somenegativeimpact
Nosignificant
impact
Has somepositiveimpact
Hassignificantpositiveimpact
Don't know
Average = 3.2
108
Progress of the cadastreHave you recently noticed progress in cadastral operations?
Yes, significant
progress; 28%
Yes, some progress; 41%
No, no progresss; 27%
Don't know/No answer; 5%
109
Segments with perceived progressIn which segments of cadastral operations have you noticed progress?
41%
28%
4%
4%
3%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
9%
12%
12%
6%12%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
Speed o
f issu
ing d
ocum
ents
Info
rmat
izatio
n/Dig
italiz
atio
n
Up-to-d
ated
ness
Data o
n the In
tern
et
Speed o
f issu
ing d
ata
Speed
Organiza
tion
Data a
vaila
bility
Putting th
ings
in o
rder
Comm
unicat
ion in
genera
l
Quality
Frendlin
ess
Subdivis
ion
Precis
ion in
doin
g the w
ork
Parcel
am
algam
ation
In p
roces
sing a
pplic
ations/
prove
dbi prij
avnih
list
ova
Don't k
now\N
o answ
er
* Only respondents who perceived progress in cadastral operations, N=69
110
Experience with one or several officesAre your experiences connected primarily to one regional office or fore several regional offices?
Only one; 48%
More than one; 49%
Don't know; 4%
111
Above-average positive/negative experiencesCan you list those regional offices for which you could say that you have above-average
positive/negative experiences?
Positive Negative
N % N %
PUK Bjelovar 2 4% 1 2%
PUK Čakovec 4 8%
PUK Dubrovnik 4 8%
PUK Gospić 3 6% 2 4%
PUK Karlovac 4 8% 2 4%
PUK Koprivnica 7 14%
PUK Krapina 5 10%
PUK Osijek 2 4% 1 2%
PUK Pazin 2 4% 1 2%
PUK Požega 2 4%
PUK Rijeka 4 8% 3 6%
PUK Sisak 2 4% 1 2%
PUK Slavonski Brod 2 4%
PUK Split 3 6% 2 4%
PUK Šibenik 2 4% 1 2%
PUK Varaždin 6 12%
PUK Virovitica 1 2%
PUK Vukovar 2 4%
PUK Zadar 2 4% 2 4%
PUK Zagreb 9 18% 4 8%
GU Grad Zagreb 8 16% 8 16%
No reply 8 16% 28 57%
*Only those respondents that have experience with several cadastral offices, N=49
112
Cadastral offices
Municipal court land registries
“Organized Land” Project
Poll results – customer satisfactionPoll results – customer satisfaction
– – legal entitieslegal entities
113
Usage of LR department servicesCould you please state how often your legal entity in average uses each of the following services in
the land registry?
Se
ve
ral tim
es
a w
ee
k
On
ce
a w
ee
k
On
ce
in tw
o w
ee
ks
On
ce
in th
ree
we
ek
s
On
ce
a m
on
th
On
ce
in tw
o m
on
ths
On
ce
in th
ree
mo
nth
s
1-2
time
s in
six
m
on
ths
On
ce
a y
ea
r
Le
ss
ofte
n o
r ne
ve
r
Do
n’t k
no
w
title deed obtaining 40% 18% 11% 4% 17% 2% 3% 1% 4% 1%
Change of title registration 25% 6% 7% 5% 15% 5% 4% 6% 1% 26% 1%
Mortgage registration 21% 9% 5% 1% 9% 7% 5% 5% 3% 35% 1%
Subdivision registration 9% 13% 6% 2% 9% 8% 7% 7% 10% 28% 2%
Building registration 10% 12% 3% 6% 5% 4% 7% 10% 11% 32% 1%
Fiduciary title registration 11% 8% 2% 3% 7% 5% 6% 7% 6% 43% 3%
Mortgage deletion 11% 7% 3% 5% 10% 4% 3% 6% 10% 41% 1%
Splitting registration or co-ownership annulment
3% 6% 1% 5% 9% 10% 8% 5% 9% 44% 1%
Legal suit registration, guardianship 2% 6% 3% 2% 8% 6% 1% 12% 5% 53% 2%
Purge of life-long usufruct 3% 4% 5% 2% 5% 5% 7% 3% 2% 61% 3%
Change of address 3% 3% 4% 1% 4% 1% 3% 6% 11% 61% 3%
Condominium ownership registration 3% 2% 3% 4% 7% 9% 4% 10% 16% 39% 4%
114
Bank
Constructing investors
Surveying firm
Notary public
Attorney
titl
e d
ee
do
bta
inin
g
Ch
an
ge
of
titl
e
reg
istr
ati
on
Mo
rtg
ag
e r
eg
istr
ati
on
Fid
uc
iary
tit
le
reg
istr
ati
on
Su
bd
ivis
ion
re
gis
tra
tio
n
Sp
litt
ing
re
gis
tra
tio
n
Bu
ild
ing
re
gis
tra
tio
n
Co
nd
om
iniu
m
ow
ne
rsh
ip r
eg
istr
ati
on
Le
ga
l s
uit
re
gis
tra
tio
n
Mo
rtg
ag
e r
eg
istr
ati
on
Pu
rge
of
life
-lo
ng
us
ufr
uc
t
Ch
an
ge
of
ad
dre
ss
Total
89%57% 45% 31% 39% 24% 36% 19% 21%
36%19% 15%
90%
30%
90%70%
10% 0% 10% 10% 0%
80%
30%0%
84%48% 40%
16% 16% 12% 8% 4% 4% 16% 12% 0%93%
22% 11% 11%
81%
33%
85%
26%4% 7% 7% 19%
85% 90%70% 55%
20% 20% 15% 15%40% 55%
30% 30%
95% 100%
47% 32% 42% 42% 37% 37%58% 58%
26% 21%
Usage – towards legal entities Percentage of respondents
stating that theyuse the service at least once in one month!
115
Evaluation of experience with individual serviceCould you please now evaluate your experience with performance of each service used most frequently by your entity.
Bad
experience
2 3 4Good
experienceDon’t know
Average
Change of address 4% 28% 36% 32% 3.96
Legal suit registration, guardianship 10% 18% 33% 28% 13% 3.89
Mortgage registration 2% 13% 18% 32% 31% 5% 3.81
Fiduciary title registration 12% 27% 22% 33% 6% 3.8
Purge of mortgage 2% 8% 24% 31% 29% 6% 3.8
title deed obtaining 9% 11% 18% 29% 30% 2% 3.61
Purge of life-long usufruct 3% 15% 32% 24% 24% 3% 3.52
Change of title registration 8% 18% 22% 27% 21% 4% 3.36
Subdivision registration 3% 23% 30% 18% 23% 3% 3.36
Splitting registration or co-ownership annulment
2% 21% 34% 13% 23% 6% 3.36
Building registration 7% 19% 28% 18% 23% 5% 3.31
Condominium ownership registration 12% 14% 38% 12% 19% 5% 3.13
* Samo za usluge koji se koriste češće od jednom godišnje
116
Bank
Constructing investors
Surveying firm
Notary public
Attorney
titl
e d
ee
d
ob
tain
ing
Ch
an
ge
of
titl
e
reg
istr
ati
on
Mo
rtg
ag
e r
eg
istr
ati
on
Fid
uc
iary
tit
le
reg
istr
ati
on
Su
bd
ivis
ion
re
gis
tra
tio
n
Sp
litt
ing
re
gis
tra
tio
n
Bu
ild
ing
re
gis
tra
tio
n
Co
nd
om
iniu
m
ow
ne
rsh
ip r
eg
istr
ati
on
Le
ga
l s
uit
re
gis
tra
tio
n
Pu
rge
of
mo
rtg
ag
e
Pu
rge
of
lon
g-l
ife
us
ufr
uc
t
Ch
an
ge
of
ad
dre
ss
Total
Evaluation of experience with individual services – for legal entities
3.61 3.36 3.81 3.80 3.36 3.36 3.31 3.133.89 3.80 3.52 3.96
3.20 3.78 3.67 3.63
3.38 2.86 3.44 3.382.69 2.33 2.60 2.55
3.50
3.69 3.67 3.88 3.86 3.88 3.56
4.35 4.33 4.31 4.23 3.67 4.00 3.86 4.44 4.17 4.14 4.25
3.29 3.22 3.772.80 2.82 3.22 3.67 3.75 3.31 3.38
117
Reasons for bad experienceWhy do you have bad experience with …?
title deed obtaining (N=20)
Due to slowness of procedure
Due to long queues, you sign up in the morning, they start to work at 8 a.m. and you wait until noon, people enter out of order
A lot of time
Informatization
Long queues
Too slow
Service is too slow
When issuing the owner’s extract, the issued extract doesn’t have the date when it was issued, but shows the state one day ago
Slow, there are no data etc.
Employees are unready to help
Due to unregistered land books
Slowness, if more copies are needed, we do not obtain them all and they do not say why
One should enable the party to obtain the data in a different, simpler and faster way
It takes a lot of time
It is hard to obtain the data
Extracts from the Internet are not valid as the official ones
Change of title registration (N=19)
Capability of registration procedure
A lot of time and long procedure, it lasts long
Long queues
Additional papers are always needed
A lot of formality, LR clerks are unkind
Cases are slowly processed
Due to long processing
Employees are unready to help
One should enable the party to obtain the data in a different, simpler and faster way
There is no communication between the LR clerks and the client
Different practices
It is hard to obtain the data
Inaccurate information on the status of service
Non-transparency of the party’s LR clerk
Uneven practices
Data from the Internet are not valid as the official ones
Self-will of LR clerks
Lack of communication with clients
* Only the respondents that evaluated the services with 1 or 2
118
Reasons for bad experienceWhy do you have bad experience with …?
Mo
rtgag
e registratio
n (N
=9)
Due to slowness of procedure
Long queues
Too slow
Due to long processing
Due to insufficient knowledge of regulations
Employees are unwilling to help
It takes a lot of time
It is hard to obtain the data
Uneven practices
Data from the Internet are not valid as the official ones
Self-will of LR clerks
Lack of communication with clients
Fid
uciary title reg
istration
(N=
6)
Too slow
Employees are unwilling to help
Long queues
Inaccurate information on the status of service
It takes a lot of time
Different practices
It is hard to obtain the data
It is hard to obtain the data
Data from the Internet are not valid as the official ones
Self-will of LR clerks
Su
bd
ivision
registratio
n (N
=16)
Unharmonized data
Long legal procedure, it takes a lot of time
A lot of formalities, LR clerks are unkind
When a document is missing in the case, the application is refused
Too slow
Refusal without correcting
Slow
Much too slow
Because it takes a lot of time
Employees are unwilling to help
One should enable the party to obtain the data in a different, simpler and faster way
Leg
al suit reg
istration
, g
uard
iansh
ip
(N=
4)
Too slow
Employees are unwilling to help
Different practices
Different interpretation of laws and other regulations among individual LR clerks and judges, which causes making of different decisions for the same type of case
Uneven practices
Application is immediately refused without notifying the party first and give the possibility to correct it
Self-will of LR clerks
Lack of communication with clients
* Only the respondents that evaluated the services with 1 or 2
119
Reasons for bad experienceWhy do you have bad experience with …?
Splitting registration or co-ownership annulment (N=11)
The same as before
A lot of administrative problems, a lot of necessary papers
Registered under a new number
Too slow
Refusal without possibility to correct
Slow
Each a bit less typical case can hardly be finished
Lack of knowledge on the basic institutes of LR law
Employees are unwilling to help
One should enable the party to obtain the data in a different, simpler and faster way
It takes a lot of time
Different practices
Different interpretation of laws and other regulations among individual LR clerks and judges
Lack of professionalism
Uneven practices
Application is immediately refused without notifying the party first and give the possibility to correct it
Lack of motivation
Self-will of LR clerks
Lack of communication with clients
Building registration (N=15)
Unharmonized data
Due to long queues, you sign up in the morning, they start to work at 8 a.m. and you wait until noon, people enter out of order
Long procedure
A lot of formalities, LR clerks are unkind
Registered under a new number
Refusal without possibility to correct
Slow processing
Too slow
Too much unnecessary documentation is needed due too lack of connection between the departments
Due to long processing
Employees are unwilling to help
One should enable the party to obtain the data in a different, simpler and faster way
Different practices
Different interpretation of laws and other regulations among individual LR clerks and judges
Uneven practices
Application is immediately refused without notifying the party first and give the possibility to correct it
Self-will of LR clerks
Lack of communication with clients
* Only the respondents that evaluated the services with 1 or 2
120
Reasons for bad experienceWhy do you have bad experience with …?
Condominium ownership registration (N=11)
Long queues
Procedure takes a lot of time
A lot of formalities
Registered under a new number
Because the procedure takes a lot of time
Too slow
Refusal without possibility to correct
Slow processing
Employees are unwilling to help
Due to bad organization of work
One should enable the party to obtain the data in a different, simpler and faster way
Lack of professionalism and interest in employees
Employees are unkind
Different practices
Different interpretation of laws and other regulations among individual LR clerks and judges, which causes making of different decisions for the same type of cases
Uneven practices
Application is immediately refused without notifying the party first and give the possibility to correct it
Self-will of LR clerks
Lack of communication with clients
Purge of mortgage
(N=5)
Banks and my firm are not the same
Procedure takes a lot of time
Too slow
Now it is OK
Employees are unwilling to help
Long queues
Different practices
Uneven practices
Self-will of LR clerks
Lack of communication with clients
Purge of life-long usufruct
(N=6)
Too slow
Cases are handled very slow
Employees are unwilling to help
Long queues
Different practices
Different interpretation of laws and other regulations among individual LR clerks and judges
Uneven practices
Application is immediately refused without notifying the party first and give the possibility to correct it
Self-will of LR clerks
Lack of communication with clients
Change of address (N=1)
Employees are unwilling to help
* Only the respondents that evaluated the services with 1 or 2
121
Evaluation of various aspects of land registry operationsCould you please now evaluate various aspects of the work of LR departments and branch offices
7%
10%
19%
14%
20%
15%
18%
28%
24%
19%
33%
25%
23%
37%
25%
35%
34%
39%
20%
27%
21%
22%
18%
25%
18%
16%
18%
16%
20%
12%
8%
17%
7%
12%
5%
4%
14%
10%
14% 23%
2%
3%
5%
6%
1%
9%
10%
Kindness
Professionalism
Transparency
Organization
Fast handling
Long queues
Sinplicity of regulated procedure
Up-to-dateness and harmonization of danawith other departments
Very bad Bad Medium Good Very good Don't know
3.62
3.55
3.45
3.3
3.15
Prosjek
3.13
3.08
2.67
122
Evaluation of land registry operations as a whole On a scale from 1 to 5, where 1 means “very bad” and 5 means “very good”, how would you rate the land registry operations in the Republic of Croatia as a whole, concerning the role that the land registry should play?
7%
24%
40%
21%
1%
8%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
1 2 3 4 5 Don't know
Average = 2.99
123
3,0
3,6
3,2
2,9
2,6
2,7
1 2 3 4 5
Entire sample
Notary public
Certified surveying firm/ Certfieid engineeroffices
Bank
Attorney
Firms/ Construction investors
Evaluation of land registry operations as a wholeAccording to the type of legal entity
Because of a small number of respondents, the differences only serve as illustration!
124
Priorities for improvementWhat would you point out as three most important priorities to be improved in the land registry operations?
26%20%
9%9%9%
7%7%
6%6%
5%5%
4%4%
31%9%
20%
14%
11%14%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
Informatization
Harmonization with Cadastre
Expertise of emplyoees
Work speed
Up-to-dateness
Speed of documents issuing
Access from Internet
Kindness/Better contact with cleints
Simpler legal procedures
More employees
Land books registration
Better organization
Better contact with LR clerks
More adequate office space
Working hours
Transparency
Availability of data
Other
Don't know
OTHER REPLIES LESS THAN 4%:• Backlogs clearing• Satisfied with the work of LR department• Rule of equality• Accurate books• Be co-operative with clients• Phone communication with LR clerk• Validation of data from the Internet• Uniformity of practices• Know-how• Reducing of tasks• Faster registration of changes per LR applications• Better technical quality of equipment• Faster changes registration• Opening of new LR departments• dealing with corruption• Flexibility• Better financial support
125
Impact of the land registry operations on business In which way does the current functioning of the land registry impact your business?
20%24%
20%24%
13%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
It has a highnegativeimpact
It has a lownegativeimpact
It has nosignificant
impact
It has a hugenegativeimpact
It has asignificant
positive impact
Average = 2.9
126
Land registry progressHave you lately noticed any progress in the land registry operations?
Don't know; 1%
No, there is no progress; 27%
Yes, there is some
progress; 40%
Yes, significant
progress; 33%
127
Segments with perceived progress In which segments of the land registry operations have you noticed progress?
33%
16%
4%
4%
4%
3%
3%
3%
17%
7%
12%
12%
4%
12%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
Informatization/Digitalization
Speed of issuing documents
Data up-to-datednessData visibility on the
InternetSpeed/Don't have to wait
long
Don't have to wait long
Speed of data availability
Harmonization
Getting information
Organization
Larger number of staff
Issuing of excerpts
Other
Don't know
OTHER ANSWERS WITH LESS THAN 2%:• Better connection with other services• Establishing EDP• Functionality• Uniform form for the entire Croatia• Friendliness of clerks• Data processing• Change of space• Terrain registration• Change of ownership registration• Obtaining ownership certificate / possessory title• Receipt of all applications• Public awareness about o regulations connections in LR
* Only respondents who noticed progress in the work of land registries, N=73
128
Experience with one or more officesAre your experiences connected primarily to one municipal court land registry or more of them?
Only one; 39%
More of them; 61%
129
Above-average positive/negative experiencesCan you single out those municipal courts with land registries where you have above-average positive/negative experiences?
Positive Negative
N N
Beli Manastir 1
Benkovac 1
Biograd na moru 1 1
Bjelovar 2 1
Buje 2
Crikvenica 2
Čazma 1
Donja Stubica 1
Dubrovik 2 1
Dugo Selo 2
Đurđevac 1
Garešnica 1
Gospić 1
Imotski 2
Ivanec 1
Ivanić-grad 2
Jastrebarsko 1
Karlovac 3 2
Klanjec 1
Korčula 2
Koprivnica 5
Krapina 1
Positive Negative
N N
Križevci 5
Krk 1 4
Makarska 6
Mali Lošinj 1
Metković 1
Novi Marof 1 1
Novska 2
Splitu 2
Omiš 1
Opatija 3
Otočac 1
Ozalj 1 1
Pag 1 5
Petrinja 1
Pregrada 1
Pula 1 2
Rab 1
Rijeka 2 2
Rovinj 1
Samobor 2 2
Sesvete 1
Sisak 1
Positive Negative
N N
Senj 2
Splitu 2
Stari grad (Hvar)
1
Sveti Ivan Zelina
1
Šibenik 1 4
Trogir 2
Valpovo 1
Varaždin 9
Velika Gorica 1 3
Zabok 3
Zadar 5
Zagreb 5 18
Zaprešić 1
Osijek 2 1
Županja 2
All of Istria 2
Land registries in smaller towns
1
All 1
No answer 15 15
* Only respondents experienced with more land registries
130
Cadastral offices
Municipal court land registries
“Organized Land” project
Poll results – customer satisfaction – legal Poll results – customer satisfaction – legal entitiesentities
131
Information about the projectTo what extent are you personally aware of the activities within the Real Property Registration and Cadastre Project?
1%
12%
27%
43%
18%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Very little A little Average Well Very well
Average = 3.6
132
Project evaluationHow would you rate this project in general, from 1 to 5, where 1 means «very poor», and 5 «very good».
2%
12%
36%
28%
3%
20%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Very poor 2 3 4 Very good Don't know
Average = 3.5
133
Project priorities What would you give as priorities within the Real Property Registration and Cadastre Project?
36%
18%
7%
5%4%4%
4%3%3%
2%2%2%
20%7%
10%
9%
8%8%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
Data harmonization
Informatization/Digitalization
Staff expertise
Data up-to-datedness
Speed of issuing documents
Complete the project
Speed
Legal framework
Streamlining the procedureHarmonization of data withthe real situation in the field
Decreasing the fees
Solving the backlogs
Greater number of staffEnsuring the availability of
LR excerptsGreater financial support
Connection with otherservices
Other
Don't know
OTHER ANSWERS WITH LESS THAN 2%:• Better equipped technically• Getting rid of public ownership • Many services are finally being standardized• Getting rid of state ownership•Getting rid of county ownership• Informing the public about the differences between the cadastre and the land registry • Removal of corrupt officials• They are not available even over the telephone• Reform of as many land registers as possible • Enabling communication of clerks with clients• Respecting of pre-emption• Increase transparency• Legal security• Priority is that the status from cadastre is governing• Professionalism• Restructuring agricultural lands• Scanning all cadastral maps• Registering ownership• Registering residential objects
134
Conclusions – the satisfaction of regular customers
Out of cadastral services, the regular customers most frequently use the service of obtaining the possessory title and obtaining excerpts from the cadastral map.
The customers are also satisfied the most with the way these services are provided. Specific comments regarding the work of the cadastre in general deal with the length of certain procedures, how slow they are, and in some cases, the unfriendliness of staff and their lack of expertise. In addition, some procedures are considered too complicated, and it’s believed that they could be streamlined.
The regular users rated the work of the cadastre lower than physical entities, both overall and on the level of individual aspects. This grade is a lot closer to the grade of the general population.
Harmonization with the real situation and with the situation in the land registries, and informatization and speeding up the procedures are given as main priorities for improving the work of the cadastre.
However, the majority of the regular users still perceives significant progress recently in the work of the cadastre.
135
Conclusions – the satisfaction of regular customers
In land registries, regular users most frequently request possessory title, register change of ownership and register mortgages.
Customer satisfaction with the work of land registries is somewhat lower than with the work of the cadastre, both overall and for individual services.
A significant part of regular users mention that problems in the land registry work to some extent have a negative impact on their work.
Over 70% of the regular users have noticed an improvement recently in the work of land registries. Further improvement is needed in informatization, harmonization with the cadastre, greater speed and up-to-datedness and staff expertise.
Most customers are well informed about the project and give it quite a high grade.