View
217
Download
1
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
JUNE2016
U N I V E R S I T Y O F W E S T M I N S T E R F A C U L T Y O F S O C I A L S C I E N C E S A N D H U M A N I T I E S
4 - 1 2 L I T T L E T I T C H F I E L D S T R E E T n . c r e u t z f e l d t @ w e s t m i n s t e r . a c . u k
PROJECTREPORTTrustingthemiddle-man:
ImpactandlegitimacyofombudsmeninEurope
2016
08
NaomiCreutzfeldt
Trustingthemiddle-man:ImpactandlegitimacyofombudsmeninEurope2
CONTENTS1.Overview 5
Summaryofkeyfindings 5Theresearchproject:impactandlegitimacyofombudsmeninEurope 6Structureofthereport 7
2.Methodology 8OverviewofADRbodiesinthisstudy 8Publicandprivatedistinctioninthisreport,andterminology 11Weighting 12Brieftheoreticalcontext 14Measuringtrustandlegitimacy 14Methodology 15Limitations 15
3.Descriptivestatistics 17Thesampleofthisstudy 17Demographics 19Factorsthatweremostimportantinadecisiontocomplain 21HowdidrespondentshearabouttheADRprovider? 24HowdidyoumostlycommunicatewiththeADRprovider? 26Expecteddurationofcaseandtheactualtimeittook(self-reported) 27
4.Levelsofsatisfactionandimportanceofinteractionwithombudsmanstaff 29HowsatisfiedwereyouwithhowtheADRproviderdealtwithyourcase? 29Wasthewayinwhichyourcasewasresolvedasyouexpected? 31Respondents’impressionofstaffatfirstcontact 33Perceptionsofstaffduringtheprocedure 35Perceptionsofpeopledealingwiththeircasethroughoutthecomplaintjourney 37
5.Isitallabouttheoutcome? 40Howfairaretheprocedures? 40Wastheoutcomeofyourcaseinyourfavour? 42Areyouwillingtoaccepttheoutcome? 44Ifyouareunwillingtoaccepttheoutcome,whatwillyoudonext? 45Consideringtheoutcomeofyourcase,wouldyouagreethat… 47Wastheoutcomeofyourcasewhatyouexpected? 49Doyouthinkotherpeoplewouldgetthesameoutcomeasyou? 51Doyoufeelyouhadcontrolovertheoutcome? 53
6.Legitimacymeasures 56Areyoulikelytorecommendtheombudsmantoothers? 56Confidenceintheombudsman? 58Didtheombudsmanactaccordingtothelaw? 58
Trustingthemiddle-man:ImpactandlegitimacyofombudsmeninEurope3
Ifeltamoralobligationtofollowtheombudsman’srecommendation 60Overall,howsatisfiedwereyou? 61Variablecorrelations 63
7.Conclusions 66Mainfindingsoftheproject 66Futureresearch 67
INDEXOFTABLES 68INDEXOFFIGURES 69
Trustingthemiddle-man:ImpactandlegitimacyofombudsmeninEurope4
Firstthingsfirst:AspecialthankyoutoalltheparticipatingADRproviders!I am very grateful for the participation of all the ADR bodies in my researchproject.This is the first cross-sectorandcross-countrycomparisonofpeoples’expectations and experiences of ADR bodies. I want to thank all of theombudsmenand theirstaff for theirsupport inmyresearchand trust inme! Iamverygratefulforourcollaboration,whichextendedfromtheearlystagesofthesurveydesigntosendingoutthequestionnaireandfinalizingtheindividualreports.Theseareallavailableontheprojectwebsite. I hope that this project’s findings will contribute to a betterunderstanding of people’s expectations towards ADR providers. Itmight evenhelp manage consumers’ expectations better. It offers a window into recentusers’ self-reported attitudes to, and perceptions of, ombudsmen procedures.Thisreportpresentsthecomparativestatisticsofmyresearchproject’sfindings,wartsandall. Also,IammostgratefulforOndrejZika’shelpinputtingtogetherthefinaldatabase,creatingthegraphs,theanalysis,andforhispatienceinexplainingitalltome. WithoutthesupportoftheEconomicandSocialResearchCouncil(grantnumberES/K00820X/1)thisprojectwouldnothavebeenpossible.
Trustingthemiddle-man:ImpactandlegitimacyofombudsmeninEurope5
1.OVERVIEWSummaryofkeyfindingsv Distinctivesociodemograhiccharacteristicsofthesample
Atypicalrespondenttothesurveywasmale,middle-aged,andeducated(ethnicitywasonlyaskedfortheUKsample:Britishandwhite).
v NationaldistinctionsinexpectationsofADRproviders
ThedatashowedthattheGermanrespondentsexpectedalegalisticandformalADRprocedure;whereastheUKrespondentsvaluebeinglistenedto,preventingothersfromhavingthesameproblemandbeingtreatedwithrespect.TheFrenchrespondentsseemedunsureaboutwhattoexpectfromtheADRprocedureoverall.
v UKsample:differenceinexpectationsofpublicandprivateADR
providersTheUKrespondentsreportstarkdifferencesintheirexperienceswithpublicandprivatesectorADRproviders.
v ImportanceofstaffinteractionatfirstcontactwithADRbody(staff
proceduraljustice)Thereisahighimportanceplacedonthequalityofrespondents’interactionwiththestaffatfirstcontact.
v Peoplesexpectationsarevery(too)high
Respondents’expectationsareveryhigh;thisisinfluencedbytheircomplaintjourneybeforecontactingtheADRprovider.
v Expectationsmanagement
Ifexpectationsweremanagedbetteratfirstcontactandregularhighqualitycommunicationwereensured,thentheconsumerwouldunderstandwhattoexpect;thishasaneffectonoveralloutcomeacceptance.
v Trustinombudsmen
Providingproceduresthatusersperceiveasfairincreasespublictrustandinstitutionallegitimacyinombudsmen.
Trustingthemiddle-man:ImpactandlegitimacyofombudsmeninEurope6
Theresearchproject:impactandlegitimacyofombudsmeninEuropeThe research objective formy project1was to compare levels of engagementand trust in ombudsman systems in France, Germany and the UK.With thatobjective inmind, the researchquestionsaimed toelicitdataabout: (1)whatcitizensexpectfromtheombudsmanprocess,andtounderstandtheir levelofengagement in theombudsmancomplaintsprocesses ineachcountry; (2) theextenttowhichombudsmenexplaintheirdecisionsandtherebyengageintheprocess; (3) the role the individual ombudsman plays, measured by mediaprofileandpublicexposure,inordertounderstandbettertheplaceandstatusoftheombudsmanwithinsocietyandunderstandusers’ levelsofengagementandtrustasreflectedinthemedia. The ombudsman landscape throughout EU Member States presents avariety of institutional and jurisdictional arrangements, operational styles anddecision-makingprocesses.Althoughthisposessomechallengesinbeingabletoconceptualizeaunifiedombudsmaninstitution,itoffersdistinctadvantagesforthestudyof therelationshipbetweendecision-makingpracticeson thepartoftheombudsmenandperceptionsofproceduraljusticeandlevelsoftrustonthepartofusersacrossdifferentjurisdictionsandcultures.Despitethesignificanceof ombudsmen to our constitutional and civil-justice landscapes, very little isknownaboutusers’perceptionsofthefairnessoftheproceduresandpracticesand the significance of these perceptions for levels of trust in particularombudsmanoffices. Thisproject fills thisgap,providing importantdataandknowledge thatwillbedirectlyrelevanttothedevelopmentofnationalpoliciesandmultipleEU-level networks of policy-making. It is also a good benchmarking exercise,comparing customer satisfaction across ombudsmen. Because the researchaddressespublic attitudes to anduseof ombudsmen, itwill impact on andbepertinent to the public, to consumer groups, to ombudsmen and to policy-makersatnationalandEUlevel.Academicdebatewillbeencouragedinordertoengageincollaborationwithpractitionersandrepresentativesofthepublic. This reportbuildson theUKreportand individualombudsmenreportsthat are available on the project website: https://www.law.ox.ac.uk/trusting-middle-man-impact-and-legitimacy-ombudsmen-europe/project-reports.
1https://www.law.ox.ac.uk/projects/Ombudsmen
Trustingthemiddle-man:ImpactandlegitimacyofombudsmeninEurope7
StructureofthereportThe report is presented in six parts. Following this overview of the researchproject,thesecondpartdescribesthemethodologyandprovidesanoutlineofthesampleofthestudy,explainstheweightingandanalysis,andhighlightssomeofthelimitations.Partthree,Descriptivestatistics,introducesthesampleandprovides some key elements in the first part of the contact with the ADRprovider.Partfour,Levelsofsatisfactionandimportanceofinteractionwithombudsmanstaff,highlightsoneofthemainfindingsofthisproject,namelytheimportance of users’ expectations and experiences of the staff in relation tooverall perceived fairness. Part five, Is it all about the outcome?, provides aseriesofanswers toquestionsaboutusers’outcomes.Thisparthighlights thatusersareabletoseparatetheoutcomefromtheoverallperceptionoffairnessofa procedure. The following section, part six, showcases the legitimacymeasuresofthesurveyincludingvariablecorrelations.Finally,theconclusionbringstogetherthemainfindings.
Rather thanproviding anoverall executive summary, the keymessagesfromthedataarehighlightedinspeechbubblesnexttotherelevantgraphsandtables. I hope this will help the reader to understand the key messages incontext.
Trustingthemiddle-man:ImpactandlegitimacyofombudsmeninEurope8
2.METHODOLOGYTheprojectmainly involvedcollectingdatabysendingoutsatisfactionsurveysby post and email through the ombudsmen. The distribution of letters andemails was chosen to represent typical ombudsman users’ habits for theindividual schemes studied in this project. The surveywas sent out to peoplewho had recently been through a procedure with an ombudsman. The studyincluded fourteen ADR providers in total, from the UK, Germany and France.ADR bodies are typically free of charge for the consumer; ideally ADR shouldprovidefast,accessibleandtransparentjustice.OverviewofADRbodiesinthisstudyUNITEDKINGDOM2
(PHSO) Makes final decisions on complaints thathave not been resolved by the NHS inEngland, UK government departments orotherUKpublicorganizations.
(LGO) Looks at complaints about councils andsome other authorities and organizations,including education admissions appealpanelsandadultsocialcareproviders(suchascarehomesandhomecareproviders).
(LeO) Aschemesetuptohelpresolvelegalservicedisputes. They can look into complaintsabout all sorts of regulated legal serviceproviders: solicitors; barristers; licensedconveyancers;costlawyers;legalexecutives;notaries; patent attorneys; trade markattorneys; law firms; and companiesproviding legal services such as claimsmanagementcompanies.
(FOS) FOSlooksatcomplaintsaboutmostfinancialproblems involving: PPI (paymentprotection insurance); banking; insurance;mortgages; credit cards and store cards;loans and credit; payday lending and debtcollecting; pensions; savings andinvestments; hire purchase andpawnbroking; money transfer; financialadvice; stocks; shares; unit trusts; andbonds.
2PHSO:http://www.ombudsman.org.uk;LGO:http://www.lgo.org.uk;LeO:http://www.legalombudsman.org.uk;FOS:http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk;OS:https://www.ombudsman-services.org
Trustingthemiddle-man:ImpactandlegitimacyofombudsmeninEurope9
Energy
(OS:E) OS:Edealswithproblemswith energybills;problems resulting from an energycompany’ssalesactivity;problemsresultingfrom switching gas or electricity supplier;physical problems relating to the supply ofenergytoahomeorsmallbusiness,suchaspower cuts and connections; microgeneration and feed-in tariffs (FITs); andproblems relating to the provision ofservicesundertheGreenDeal.
Communications
(OS:C) Looks at billing problems; problemsresulting from a company’s sales activity;problemsresultingfromswitchingfromonecompany to another; poor service, forexample,failingtoactonarequest;premiumrate services (PRS); pay TV; voice-on-demand(VOD);andmobilephonehandsets.
Property
(OS:P) Dealswithapparentbreachesofobligations;unfairtreatment;avoidabledelays;failuretofollow proper procedures; rudeness ordiscourtesy; not explaining matters; andpoororincompetentservice.
GERMANY3
Petitionsausschuss
(PetA) The Petitionsausschuss in Germany, alsocalled the ‘parliament’s seismograph’, has amandatetoexaminetheimpactoflegislationonordinarypeople.Anyletterswithrequestsor complaints addressed to the Bundestag(the lowerhouseof theGermanparliament)are passed on to the Committee, whichexaminesanddeliberatesonthesepetitions.Thismakesita‘seismograph’,whichrecordsthemoodamongthepopulation,onthebasisthat citizens are best placed to saywhetherlegislation is achieving its intended aims orcausingnewproblemsand, therefore,needsto be reviewed critically, or whether theBundestag should take action to address aparticular concern. In 2015 there were15,325petitionsfiledbyindividuals.
3PetA:https://www.bundestag.de/petition;söp:http://www.soep-online.de;VO:http://www.versicherungsombudsmann.de/home.html;SchliE:https://www.schlichtungsstelle-energie.de;SchliT:http://www.bundesnetzagentur.de/DE/Sachgebiete/Telekommunikation/Verbraucher/Streitbeilegung/Streitbeilegung.html
Trustingthemiddle-man:ImpactandlegitimacyofombudsmeninEurope10
(söp) Söp was founded in December 2009 anddealswith complaints about travel by train,bus, aeroplane and ship. In 2013 the söpcompleted 3,576 cases. For the presentstudy, only airline disputes are considered,which were dealt with online. These aremainly about delays, cancellations andbaggage.
(VO) Theinsuranceombudsmanwasfoundedin2001.Theinsuranceombudsmancanissueabindingdecisiononacomplaintupto10,000Euroagainsttheinsurer.
(SchliE) Theconciliationbodyforenergyisanindependentandneutralinstitutionthatdealswithdisputesbetweenenergycompaniesandtheirconsumers.TheConciliationBodyEnergyisjointlyfundedbytheVerbraucherzentraleBundesverbande.v.andtheassociationsoftheenergymarket.
SchlichtungsstelleTelekom
(SchliT) TheConciliationBodyTelecommunicationaimstosettledisputesbetweenprovidersoftelecommunicationservicesandtheircustomers.Theconciliationbodyhasbeenrunningsince1999asaneutralbody,createdbytheTelekommunikationsgesetzes(TKG).InApril2016theConciliationBodyTelecomwasrenamedConsumerConciliationBodyoftheBundesnetzagentur.
FRANCE4
(MedE) TheNationalEnergyOmbudsmanisanindependentpublicauthorityestablishedbythelawof7December2006ontheenergysectorandassuchhasfullguaranteesofindependence:financialindependence;legalpersonality;andthegovernmentappointstheombudsmanforatermof6yearswhichisnon-renewable.TheNationalEnergyOmbudsmanhastwostatutorytasks:(1)toparticipateininformingconsumersabouttheirrights(www.energie-info.fr);and,(2)recommendingsolutionstodisputes
4 MedE:http://www.energie-mediateur.fr;MedT:http://www.mediateur-telecom.fr/home
Trustingthemiddle-man:ImpactandlegitimacyofombudsmeninEurope11
(www.energie-mediateur.fr).TheombudsmanreportstoParliament.
(MedT) MedT gives opinions based on law andequity on disputes between telecomsproviders and consumers. They host anannualeventtopresenttheiractivitiestoallstakeholders in the sector (consumerassociations, ARCEP, DGCCRF and telecomsproviders).
Publicandprivatedistinctioninthisreport,andterminologyIwouldliketoclarifythedistinctionbetweenpublicandprivateADRbodiesinthisreport.Theboundariesareblurry,andwecanarguethatmanyombudsmenare actually amixture of both. For the purpose of this report, the graphs andtablesdonot lookat individualombudsmen;rather, theyaregrouped into thefollowingcategories,bycountries:PUBLICSECTOR
v ParliamentaryandHealthServicesOmbudsman(UK)v LocalGovernmentOmbudsman(UK)v Petitionsausschuss(Germany)
PRIVATESECTOR
v Lemédiateurnationaldel’énergie(France)v Lemédiateurdescommunicationsélectroniques(France)v SchlichtungsstelleTelekom(Germany)v SchlichtungsstellefürdenöffentlichenPersonenverkehr(Germany)v Versicherungsombudsmann(Germany)v SchlichtungsstelleEnergie(Germany)v LegalOmbudsman(UK)v FinancialOmbudsmanServices(UK)v OmbudsmanServices:Energy(UK)v OmbudsmanServices:Communications(UK)v OmbudsmanServices:Property(UK)
AnotherpointtomentionhereisthatthereisnoconsistentterminologyinthenamesoftheADRprovidersinthisstudy(acrosscountries);therefore,Ichosetouse the terms ombudsman and ADR provider interchangeably throughout thisreport.Also,thewomenwhohavethejobtitle‘Ombudsman’arehappyformetorefertothemassuch.
Trustingthemiddle-man:ImpactandlegitimacyofombudsmeninEurope12
WeightingThedatasetusedintheanalysiswasweightedtoreflecttheactualfrequencyofcases for each of the ADR providers. This involved collating data on thefrequency of cases from annual reports, calculating the relative proportion ofeach schemeand thenweighting thedataset to reflect theseproportions. ThiswasnecessaryasFOSdealswithsignificantlymorecasesthanallitscolleagues(seeTable1).Duetothevariationsinterminologyofpublishingdatainannualreports throughout theADRproviders, I didmybest to find the relevant casenumbers,referringtocasesthathavebeenacceptedforacomplaintsprocedure. Two points are important to mention here: First, the number of caseslistedforthePHSO(seeTable1)reflectthenumberofcasesthatwentthroughthewhole complaints procedure. The amount of 25,000would have been themore appropriate one to have listed in Table 1 and used for the analysis.However, as the statistical analyses were already done by the time this wasbrought tomy attention, we did not incorporate this change of weight to themainreport.Figures1aand1bdemonstratetheminimalchangeinpercentagesinducedbychangingthePHSOcasesfrom3,900to25,000.
Figure1a:Satisfactionwithdealings,withoutFOS,PHSOnumberofcasesat3,900
Figure1b:Satisfactionwithdealings,withoutFOS,PHSOnumberofcasesat25,000
Second, although I have all the figures and graphswith andwithout FOS, thedifferencewasnotsignificantsoIchosetoincludethefiguresinthetextwherenecessary,ratherthanaddingmoregraphs.
Trustingthemiddle-man:ImpactandlegitimacyofombudsmeninEurope13
Table1.NumberofcasesdealtwithbyADRprovider2013/14(fromannualreports)
ADRbodies Casesdealtwith2013/14
UnitedKingdomFOS 518,778OSE 46,632OSC 15,173LeO 8,055LGO 4,780PHSO 3,900OSP 934
GermanyVO 12,429PetA 9,498SchliE 7,500Söp 4,813SchliT 930
FranceMedE 14,412MedT 7,922
Inthisreport,fiveseparateweightingswereapplied5:
1. Byombudsman–includingFOS2. Byombudsman–excludingFOS3. Bysector(private/public)UKonly–excludingFOS4. Bycountry–privateonly–includingFOS5. Bycountry–privateonly–excludingFOS
1) Aweightwasapplied toreturn therelativeproportionsofeachschemeto
theiractualproportions.Thiswasusedwhenlookingatallrespondentsorcases(typicallyreferredtoas‘allrespondents’inthereport).
2) Thesecondweightwassimilarinconstructionto1,butexcludedFOScasesto avoid them exerting excessive influence (since FOS cases are so muchmorefrequentthancasesforotherschemes).Thisweightwasusedtolookatalldata,butexcludingFOScases(typicallyreferredtoas‘allrespondentsexcludingFOS’inthereport).
5Althoughtheweightsarelistedhere,IwillnotusealltheseweightsforeverysinglethemeIintroducebelow.
Trustingthemiddle-man:ImpactandlegitimacyofombudsmeninEurope14
3) A third weight applied weights to UK public and private schemesindependently (so they could be compared). This weight was used toproduce statistics for public and private schemes without FOS (typicallyreferredtoas‘UKprivate/publicexcludingFOS’inthereport).
4) The fourth weighting was by country. Only private ADR bodies wereincluded in this comparison (public schemes significantly skewed the UKoverall numbers, yielding the percentages for the three countries hard tocompare).Thesearereferredtoas‘privateincludingFOS’.
5) The fifth weight replicated 4 but excluded FOS from the comparison(typicallyreferredtoas‘privateexcludingFOS’).
BrieftheoreticalcontextThisreportaims tobemanlydescriptiveandoffersmanydetailedvisuals thatmight be of interest to other academics who study ombudsmen as well as toombudsmenthemselves.Thisstudy,aswithmostacademicendeavours,setoutwith a theory to test and this informed themethodology.My project, broadlyspeaking, tested for procedural-justice measures and whether there areculturallyspecificpatternsinexpectationsanduseofombudsmen.Accordingtoavastbodyofliterature,ifasetofproceduralcriteriaismet,peopleareabletoseparate theexperiencedprocedure from theoutcomeandaccept anoutcomeeven if it isnot in their favour.Tyler et al6described these four criteria tobe:havingavoice,beingheard,beingtreatedwithrespectandcourtesy,andfeelingthepersondealtwithisneutral.Iwascurioustotesthowimportantproceduraljusticeisinasettingthathadnotbeenexposedtothislineofinvestigationyet,especially as all theombudsmenand complainthandlers I spoke towereverysure that it isall about theoutcome: if apersondoesnot receive theoutcometheyexpect,theywillnotliketheADRprovider,nomatterhowtheyexperiencedtheprocedure.Mydatasuggestsotherwise:itismorecomplexthanthat.MeasuringtrustandlegitimacyToconsiderpublic trust and institutional legitimacy, the interactionswithandusers’expectationsofpeopledeliveringaprocedurearesignificant.Legitimacymeasures were applied following Beetham7: legality (acting according to thelaw); shared values (same sense of right and wrong); and consent (moralobligationtofollowthedecision). In this study the trustworthiness of an ADR body, through the eyes oftheirusers,wasassessedwithinseveralmeasures.Thesewereacombinationof
6TomTyler(2006)WhypeopleobeytheLaw.PrincetonUniversityPress.7DavidBeetham(1991)TheLegitimationofPower.PalgraveMacmillan.
Trustingthemiddle-man:ImpactandlegitimacyofombudsmeninEurope15
respondents’ perceptions of the ombudsman’s procedural fairness, includingmeasuresofvoice,neutrality,respectandtrustworthiness.
Thisreportpresents(throughmanygraphs)themainmeasuresthat,puttogetherandanalyzedstatistically,makeupantecedentsofproceduraljustice–legitimacyandtrust.MethodologyThe data collected through online surveys was exported to individualombudsman databases. Summary documents provided by the survey websitewerekeptforlaterchecks.Acommonkey(namingconvention)wasestablishedinorder toallow for importingall individualdata sets intoone finaldatabase.Unfortunately, some questions were not directly comparable due to codingdifferences.Wherepossible,theanswerswerere-codedtoallowforcomparison.Wherenotpossible,thecomparisonbetweencountrieswasnotmade.Oncethefinal database was ready, descriptive statistics per country were run andcomparedwithrawsummariesprovidedbythesurveywebsite.Thiswasdonetocatchanydiscrepancies introducedbydatahandling.SPSSversion23.0wasused toanalyse thedata (forbothdescriptiveand inferential statistics)and tocreatefigures.Toexplorerelationshipsbetweenvariables,Pearson'scorrelationwas used. To determine the predictability of independent variables on overallsatisfactionandwillingnesstoaccepttheoutcome,weranlinearregressions.
LimitationsIt is very clear tome, and to all of youwith an interest in and knowledge ofombudsmen,thatthecomplaintspeoplebringtoprivatesectorombudsmenaredifferent to those brought to public sector ombudsmen. There are so manyfactorsthatplayaroleandinfluenceacomplaintjourneythroughanADRbody.Thisreportbynomeanssuggeststhatthetypesofcomplaintsarecomparable.What this report does suggest, however, is that the people who approach anombudsman, whether for a public or private complaint, share sets ofexpectations.Tounderstandthesesharedexpectations,thesurveyaskedpeoplewhohadbeen throughanADRprocedurewhat theyexpected,whathappenedandwhatoutcometheyreceived–notaboutanydetailoftheircomplaints.Iamalsoawareofthepossibilitythatpeoplewhoareupsetmightbemoreinclinedtorespondtoasurvey,ascanbeseeninthepublicsectorresponses. FourteenADRprovidersparticipated in thestudyand formostof themthe response rate was sufficient; for some, however, there were too fewresponsestobeabletoevaluatetheminameaningfulway.Theyareincludedintheoverallsample inthisreportbutnottakenintoconsiderationformyother
Trustingthemiddle-man:ImpactandlegitimacyofombudsmeninEurope16
academic publications. They are Petitionsausschuss and Bundesnetzagentur(Germany),andOmbudsmanServices:Property(UK). Finally,someoftheresponsesintheFrenchdatasetcouldnotbeusedinthe analysis. The reason for this is that when translating the questions fromEnglishtoFrenchsubtledifferenceswereintroducedand,asthedatasuggests,thosechangessignificantly influencedthewaypeopleunderstoodthequestionandtherebythewaytheyansweredit.Therefore,someofthefollowingcountrycomparisonsexcludeFrance. Having said all of this, I hope that this project will provide a fruitfulground for discussion, comparison and food for thought. The report takes abottom-upview,askingusersofthecomplaintsystemsabouttheirperceptionsandexpectations.Ibelievethatthestudyisacontributiontotheacademicandpractitioner world by starting to build a comparative view of people’sperceptions of ombudsmen across sectors and across countries. Theoreticalconsiderations (procedural justice, administrative justice, legal consciousnessand legal culture) have been explored in academic publications. This reportprovidesmostlydescriptivestatistics tohighlight themain findingsandtrendsofthedataset.ForsomepartsIaddmythoughtsaboutwhyrespondentsmighthave chosen to answer a question in a specific manner, informed byrespondents’answerstoopen-endedsurveyquestionsandoptionstocommentontheirreplies,butthereareusuallyamultitudeofreasonsthatcouldprovokethe choices respondentsmade.Here, Imerely offer suggestions for the trendsmydatashows.
Trustingthemiddle-man:ImpactandlegitimacyofombudsmeninEurope17
3.DESCRIPTIVESTATISTICSThispartprovidesanoverviewofthesample,includingtheresponseratesandthedemographics.ItgoesontoshowthefactorsthatwerereportedasthemostimportantinadecisiontocomplainaswellashowrespondentsheardabouttheADRproviderandwhatthemainmeansofcommunicationwas.ThesampleofthisstudyOverall the survey had 3,190 responses. The following graphs show thedistributionofresponsesbycountry(Figure2), theprivate/publicdistribution(Figure3),andthenumberofrespondentsbyADRprovider(Figure4); finally,Figure5showstheresponsesperADRproviderbycountry. Thepublicsectorparticipationinthestudywasnotaswidereachingasthe private sector participation, due to the simple fact that there are moreprivateADRprovidersthanpublicones.Sothatthedataisnotprejudicedbythepublicresponses,thegraphsforthisreportonlyincludethepublicombudsmenwhenillustratingthewholesampleandtheUKprivate/publiccomparison.Theyareexcluded from the country comparisons; theseare focussedon theprivateADRbodies.
Figure2.Responsestothesurveybycountry
Trustingthemiddle-man:ImpactandlegitimacyofombudsmeninEurope18
Figure3.DistributionofpublicandprivateADRprovidersinthesample
Thefollowingtwographsshowtheresponseratestothestudybyscheme(Figure4)andbycountry(Figure5).
Figure4.NumberofresponsesbyADRbody(private/publicsplit)
Trustingthemiddle-man:ImpactandlegitimacyofombudsmeninEurope19
Figure5.NumberofresponsesofADRbodybycountryDemographicsThe respondents present a distinctive pattern of age, gender and education. Iwill not generalize thisoutwards to all usersof ombudsmen;however, it doesseemtoreplicateatypicaluserofanombudsman.Figure6showsthatthemeanagebycountryisover50yearsold.Theoverallgenderdistributionwas63.1%men and 36.69% women. In the German and UK samples more malesparticipatedinthesurvey,whereasinFranceabalancebetweenthegenderscanbeseen(Figure7).
Figure6.Meanageofrespondentsbycountry
Themeanageofthesamplewasover50
yearsold.
Trustingthemiddle-man:ImpactandlegitimacyofombudsmeninEurope20
Figure7.Overallgenderdistributionofthesample,bycountry
Whenaskedabouttheirlevelofeducation,themajorityofthesamplereportedahighlevelofeducation.Splitbetweencountries,theUKsampleisinTable2,andtheGermansampleisinTable3;unfortunatelythereisnodataonlevelofeducationavailablefortheFrenchsample.Table2.Levelofeducation,UKsample
%
Bachelordegreeorequivalent 30.17
Mastersdegreeorequivalent 17.75
Diplomaorequivalent 14.62
FiveormoreGCSEsorequivalent 9.18
TwoormoreA-levelsorequivalent 9.02
14GCSEsorequivalent 7.00
Other 5.29
Doctoraldegree 4.20
Skillsforlife 2.95
Thereweremoremalerespondentsthanfemale.
UKsample:Thesamplehadahighlevelofeducation.
Trustingthemiddle-man:ImpactandlegitimacyofombudsmeninEurope21
Table3.Levelofeducation,Germansample
%
BachelororMastersdegree 39.90
GCSEs(equivalent) 26.83
A-levels(Abitur) 12.96
Doctoraldegree 6.10
Habilitation 5.37
Other 4.73
Skillsforlife 4.11FactorsthatweremostimportantinadecisiontocomplainRespondentswereaskedhowimportanttheyfeltarangeoffactorswereintheirdecisiontocomplain.Thefactorswere:resolvingtheproblem;gettingsomeonetolisten;gettinganapology;financialcompensation;changingtheproceduresofthe organization; preventing others from having the same problem; beingtreated with respect; getting an impartial view; and getting what is lawfullymine.
Figure8showstheresponsesofpublicandprivateombudsmenusersintheUK sample. It is interesting to see that, besides resolving the problem, forrespondentsofthepublicsampleitwasveryimportanttopreventothersfromhaving the same problem. This follows the general narrative I found in myqualitativedata;usersofpublicombudsmenseekaccountability,wanttochangethe system and prevent others from suffering the same problems. Further,usually a complaint brought to a public ombudsman is complex, involves amultitude of bodies and might include different procedural steps than acomplaint brought to a private ombudsman. Another example of this is thecomparably low number of respondents seeking financial compensation fromthepublicprocedures.
Germansample:Thesamplehadahighlevelofeducation.
Trustingthemiddle-man:ImpactandlegitimacyofombudsmeninEurope22
Figure8.Importanceinthedecisiontocomplaintotheombudsmen–UKprivate/publicexcludingFOS
Figure 9 presents the responses in a country comparison betweenGermanyandtheUK.(DuetoastarkdifferencefoundintheFrenchsample,wediscoveredthatthequestioncouldhavebeenmisinterpretedandthereforewechosetoexcludeFrancefromthisgraph.) Besidesthefactthatresolvingtheproblemwasthemostimportantfactorincomplaining forbothcountries,somecountryspecificchoicescanbeclearlyidentified. For example, in the UK sample getting an apology (48.7%)was farmore important than for respondents in the German sample (18.8%). On theother hand, getting what is lawfully mine (Germany: 83%; UK: 61.6%) andgetting financial compensation (Germany: 81.4%; UK: 61.9%) were the mostimportantreasonstocomplainreportedbytheGermansample.WhenexcludingFOSfromthesample,theUKpercentagesdidnotchangemuch. I believe that these trends are due to the national legal culture thatproducesaspecificdisputingbehaviourandexpectationofadisputeresolutionsystem. In Germany, all ombudsmen are retired judges and their staff arelawyers. This means that, although they are providing informal disputeresolution,theirworkreflectsthepowerofthelaw.Ithinkthatthis influenceshowpeopleexperiencetheADRproceduresaswellasinfluencingtheiroutcomeacceptance. There is a propensity to accept an outcome that is detailed by ajudge and based explicitly on the law. I argue that the remainder of the databelowsupportsthisnarrative.
Trustingthemiddle-man:ImpactandlegitimacyofombudsmeninEurope23
In theUK,gettinganapology isoneof themost important factors inanindividual’sdecisiontocomplain.Thenotionofgettingthecompanythatcausedthecomplainttoacknowledgetheywerewrongandtochangetheirproceduresseems very important. I would argue that this is also a cultural impulse; itappears to be important for respondents in the UK sample to hear from thecompanythattheymadeamistakeandtogetanapology.Also,theimportanceofbeing treatedwith respect and trying topreventothers fromhaving the sameproblemrevealssignificantdifferencesincomparisontotheGermansample.
Figure9.Importanceinthedecisiontocomplaintotheombudsman–privateincludingFOS
UKsample:Themostimportant
factorsweregettinganapologyandsomeonetolisten.
Germansample:Themostimportant
factorswerelawfulnessand
financialcompensation.
Trustingthemiddle-man:ImpactandlegitimacyofombudsmeninEurope24
HowdidrespondentshearabouttheADRprovider?
ThereareseveralwaysinwhichapersoncanhearaboutanADRbody;ideally,thecompanythatiscomplainedaboutwilldirecttheconsumertotheADRbodyafter their internal complaints process did not produce a result for theconsumer.Themajorityoftheoverallsample(excludingFOS)reportedthattheyheard about theADRbody through an internet search (31.59%) and from thecompanycomplainedabout(19.87%)(seeFigure10).
Figure10.Howdidyouhearabouttheombudsman?–allrespondentsexcludingFOS
Thefollowinggraphsshowthatthepatternremainsthesame.LookingattheUKpublicandprivateombudsmen(Figure11),peoplereportedtheyheardabouttheprivateADRbodiesthroughaninternetsearch(29%)andthroughthecompany complained about (28%). Similarly, 27% of the public ombudsmenwerefoundviathepublicbodycomplainedaboutand25%throughaninternetsearch.Inacountrycomparisonoftheprivateombudsmen(Figure12),thetwomain channels were the internet and the companies complained about.Comparing results by country, the German and French respondents mostlyheard about the ombudsman through the internet (Germany: 40%; France:41%),whereas30%of theUKrespondentsheardabout theombudsman fromthecompanycomplainedabout.
Mainwaysofhearing:internetsearches,from
thecompanycomplainedabout
Trustingthemiddle-man:ImpactandlegitimacyofombudsmeninEurope25
Figure11.Howdidyouhearabouttheombudsmen?–UKprivate/publicexcludingFOS
Figure12.Howdidyouhearabouttheombudsmen?–privateincludingFOS
Trustingthemiddle-man:ImpactandlegitimacyofombudsmeninEurope26
HowdidyoumostlycommunicatewiththeADRprovider?The next graphs showhowpeople communicatedwith theADRproviders. Ascan be seen in Figure 13, all respondents (excluding FOS) in the samplepredominantly used email (76.1%), phone (55.4%) and letters (21.3%) tocommunicatewiththeADRproviderduringtheprocedure.
Figure 13. Main communication channel with ombudsman –all respondentsexcludingFOS
Looking at theUK sample (Figure 14), email, phone and letters remaintheleadingchannels;however,lettersareusedmoreofteninthepublicsample(29.9%)ascomparedtotheprivatesample(19.2%). Thecountrycomparison(Figures15)showsdifferentpatternswithinthethreemain channels, by country. The French sample reported themajority asletters(52.8%),phone(38.3%)andemail(21.8%).Thefactthatlettersareoneof the main methods of communication will influence the timeliness of theprocedure. The German sample reported email (67.9%), post (26.5%), andphone (13.9%) as their main channels of communication. The UK sample(including FOS) reported email (75.9%), phone (57.7%), and post (36.6%).ThesepercentagesonlychangedslightlyonceFOSwastakenoutofthesample.It is interesting to see that in the UK sample the phone was a very commonmeansofcommunicationcomparedtobothothercountries.
Mainchannelsofcommunication:email,phone,letter
Trustingthemiddle-man:ImpactandlegitimacyofombudsmeninEurope27
Figure14.Maincommunicationchannel–UKprivate/privateexcludingFOS
Figure15.Maincommunicationchannel–privateincludingFOSExpecteddurationofacaseandtheactualtimeittook(self-reported)Thefinalquestionpresentedinthispartisbasedonthefactthatpeopleusuallyhave predetermined ideas about how long a procedure ought to take. Whenthese expectations are not met, it influences their overall perception of the
Frenchsample:letterGermansample:phone
UKsample:email
Trustingthemiddle-man:ImpactandlegitimacyofombudsmeninEurope28
procedure. I tested this in my survey and surely, most people expected aproceduretotakebetween1and3months(asseeninTable4below). As Table 6 shows, 58.8% of the private sample reported the expecteddurationasexpected,whereas52.1%ofthepublicsamplestatedtheircasetooklongerthanexpected. Thecountrycomparisonoftheprivatecases(Table7)showsthattheFrench(52.6%)andGermansample(42.6%)reportedtheircasestookthetimethattheyexpected;withtheUKsample,47.6%reportedthesametimeand41.5%reportedthatittooklongerthanexpected.Table4.Expecteddurationofcaseandactualduration–allrespondents
ExpectedLength ActualLength WithFOS Without
FOSWithFOS Without
FOSLessthan1month 15.4% 20.7% 10.2% 17.1%1–3months 42.5% 64.1% 24% 43.8%Morethan3months 42.5% 12.8% 65.8% 39.1%*Percentagesarecalculatedbasedonactualresponse;thatis,participantsthatdidnotanswerthisquestionwereexcludedfromthissummary.
Table5.Comparisonofexpectedandactualduration–allrespondents
WithFOS WithoutFOSLongerthanexpected 32.2% 40%Sameasexpected 58.1% 44%Shorterthanexpected 9.8% 16%
Table6.Comparisonofexpectedandactualduration–private/publicincludingFOS Private PublicLongerthanexpected 31.5% 52.1%Sameasexpected 58.8% 35.1%Shorterthanexpected 9.7% 12.8%Table7.Comparisonofexpectedandactualduration–privateincludingFOS UnitedKingdom Germany FranceLongerthanexpected 41.5% 22.5% 32.6%Sameasexpected 47.6% 42.6% 52.6%Shorterthanexpected 10.9% 35% 14.8%
Private:58.8%felttheactualdurationwasthesameasexpected.
Public:52.1%felttheactualdurationwaslongerthanexpected.
Trustingthemiddle-man:ImpactandlegitimacyofombudsmeninEurope29
4. LEVELS OF SATISFACTION AND IMPORTANCE OFINTERACTIONWITHOMBUDSMANSTAFFThe following presents some of the main factors contributing to overallconsumersatisfactioninthisstudy:thetreatmentthrough,andinteractionwith,members of ombudsmen staff. Responses to questions posed throughout thesurvey about the staff at various points during the procedure (first contact,during,andoverall)areoffered.HowsatisfiedwereyouwithhowtheADRproviderdealtwithyourcase?The reported satisfaction of the overall dataset shows that 46.3%were ‘verysatisfied’and17.7%were ‘somewhatsatisfied’withtheprocedure(Figure16).These percentages only change slightlywhen excluding FOS from the sample:45.1%‘verysatisfied’and18.5%‘somewhatsatisfied’(Figure17).LookingattheUKdataset(Figure18)thereportedsatisfactionwiththeprivateombudsmenis61.8%‘verysatisfied’andthepublicombudsmen57.1%‘verydissatisfied’. Differences became very apparent when looking at the reportedsatisfaction levelswiththe individualADRprovidersbycountryexcludingFOS(Figure19).
Figure16.Respondents’satisfaction–allrespondents
Figure17.Respondents’satisfaction–allrespondentsexcludingFOS
Trustingthemiddle-man:ImpactandlegitimacyofombudsmeninEurope30
Figure18.SatisfactionlevelswithADRproviders–UKprivate/publicexcludingFOS
Figure19.SatisfactionlevelswithADRproviders–privateexcludingFOS
Private:61.8%werevery
satisfied.
Public:57.1%wereverydissatisfied.
Trustingthemiddle-man:ImpactandlegitimacyofombudsmeninEurope31
The country comparisonsof privateombudsmen (Figure20) show that47% of the UK respondents were ‘very satisfied’ as compared to 68% of theGermansampleand60%oftheFrenchsample.ThesepercentagesonlychangeslightlyintheUKsamplewhenexcludingFOS.
Figure20.SatisfactionlevelswithADRproviders–privateincludingFOSWasthewayinwhichyourcasewasresolvedasyouexpected?Oneofthesurveyquestionsaskedtherespondentstostateifthecasehasbeenresolved according to what they had expected; 29.86% of all respondentsansweredthatitwas ‘exactlyastheyexpected’,29.70%replied‘notatallwhatthey expected’ and 28.77% claimed it was ‘close to what they expected’ (seeFigure21).
Trustingthemiddle-man:ImpactandlegitimacyofombudsmeninEurope32
Figure21.Wasthewayyourcasewasresolvedasyouexpected?–allrespondents
Figure 22 shows the different expectations for the public ombudsmenand private ombudsmen.Here, 30.99%of the private sector respondents saidtheircasewashandledexactlyastheyexpected,and60.82%ofthepublicsectorrespondentssaidtheresolutionwasnotatallwhattheyexpected.
Figure22.Wasthewayyourcasewasresolvedasyouexpected?–UKprivate/publicexcludingFOS
Public:60.82%feltthatitwasnotatallwhattheyexpected.
Trustingthemiddle-man:ImpactandlegitimacyofombudsmeninEurope33
Looking at the responses by country, interesting trends can be seen(Figure23).Forexample,for58.6%oftheGermansamplethecasewasresolvedexactly as they expected. Another striking finding is that 43.8%of the Frenchsampledidnotknowwhattoexpect.For26.2%oftheUKsampleitwasnotatallwhattheyexpected.
Figure23.Wasthewayyourcasewasresolvedasyouexpected?–privateincludingFOSRespondents’impressionofstaffatfirstcontactRespondents were asked to give their impression of ombudsman staff uponinitialcontact,acrossarangeofdomains.Figure24showshowrespondentsfeltaboutombudsman staff for all respondents.The criteria forprocedural justice(mentionedabove)areincludedinallofthequestionsandinformthestatisticalanalysis. Respondentsreportedtheir impressionofthestaffwashelpful(68.8%),they felt treatedwith respect and courtesy (67%), and thought the staffwereactingwithgoodintent(62.3%).
Germansample:58.6%feltthatitwasexactlywhatthey
expected.
Frenchsample:43.8%werenotsurewhattheyexpected.
Trustingthemiddle-man:ImpactandlegitimacyofombudsmeninEurope34
Figure24.Impressionofstaffatfirstcontact–allrespondents
Figure 25 presents similar UK data in a private/public comparisonwithout FOS. Here I would like to highlight the noticeable difference inexperiencewiththestaffatfirstcontactbetweentheusersofapublicbodyandaprivatebody.
Figure25:Impressionofstaffatfirstcontact–UKprivate/publicexcludingFOS
Initialimpressionsweresignificantlymorefavourableforprivatestaffthanfor
publicstaff.
Overall,impressionswere
favourable.
Trustingthemiddle-man:ImpactandlegitimacyofombudsmeninEurope35
Figure26presents thecountrycomparison(withFOS).Therearea fewpointstomentionhere.Highlevelsreportedstaffbeing‘helpful’(70%)andwho‘understoodmyproblem’(68%)intheGermansample.TheFrenchsamplealsoreported high levels of staff being ‘helpful’ (60%) and who ‘understood myproblem’ (66%). For the UK sample the followingwas noted: ‘helpful’ (69%),‘treated me with respect’ (64%) and ‘acted with good intent’ (61%). Thesepercentages only change slightlywhen taking FOS out of the sample: ‘helpful’(69%),‘treatedmewithrespect’(62%),and‘actedwithgoodintent’(60%).
Figure26.Impressionofstaffatfirstcontact–privateincludingFOSPerceptionsofstaffduringtheprocedureThis question about the staff was posed about halfway through the survey.Respondentswerepresentedwitha seriesof statements relating tohow theircasewashandled(priortoafinaldecision)andaskedtheextenttowhichtheyagreedordisagreedwiththem.Toanswerthisquestion,severalanswerscouldbe selected. Figure 27 shows the extent to which respondents agreed ordisagreedwithstatementsforallcases.
Trustingthemiddle-man:ImpactandlegitimacyofombudsmeninEurope36
Figure27.Perceptionsofstaffduringtheprocedure–allrespondents
The following country graphs for the UK (Figure 28), Germany (Figure29)andFrance(Figure30)clearlyshowthatconsumersweremostconcernedwithelementsofproceduraljusticethroughoutthecasemanagement.Thereareslight differences in levels of importance of the criteria. The UK respondentsnoted that they were treated with respect, the communication was easy tounderstand and that the information received was accurate. In Germany therespondentsnotedthattheyweretreatedwithrespect,communicationwaseasytounderstandandtheywerekeptinformedwhilethecasewasprogressing.ThetopthreecriteriaobservedbytheFrenchrespondentsintheirinteractionwiththe staff were: the information was accurate; they felt that the case handlerunderstoodtheproblem;andtheywerekept informedas tohowthecasewasprogressing.
Figure28.Perceptionsofstaffduringtheprocedure–UK
Trustingthemiddle-man:ImpactandlegitimacyofombudsmeninEurope37
Figure29.Perceptionsofstaffduringtheprocedure–Germany
Figure30.Perceptionsofstaffduringtheprocedure–FrancePerceptions of people dealing with their case throughout thecomplaintjourneyThis last section of part four shows responses to the question posed aboutexperienceswith thepeople thatweredealingwithcomplaints throughout thecomplaintjourney.Thisquestionwasposedtowardstheendofthesurveyandhighlights (as with the above examples) which staff qualities were most
Trustingthemiddle-man:ImpactandlegitimacyofombudsmeninEurope38
important for complainants. For the overall sample it was important that thepeople theyweredealingwithalwaysdidwhat theysaid theywould (70.8%),understood the problem (69.6%), had the authority to dealwith the problemandwereeasytoget intouchwith(68.7%)(seeFigure31).LookingattheUKgraph that separates public and private ombudsmen (Figure 32), the dividebetweenbothisveryobvious.
Figure31.Thepeoplethatdealtwithyourcomplaint–allrespondents
Figure 32. The people that dealt with your complaint – UK private/publicexcludingFOS
Trustingthemiddle-man:ImpactandlegitimacyofombudsmeninEurope39
Thecountrycomparison(Figure33)showsapatternofdifferentlevelsofperceptionsofstaffduringthecomplaintsprocedure.Followingthepeakofthecharts for the French sample, a high rate of satisfactionwith the staff can beseen.
Figure33.Thepeoplethatdealtwithyourcomplaint–privateexcludingFOS
Trustingthemiddle-man:ImpactandlegitimacyofombudsmeninEurope40
5.ISITALLABOUTTHEOUTCOME?Movingon to thenextpieceof thepuzzle – thequestionabouthowmuch theoutcomematters intheoverallperceptionof theprocess–thispartshowstheresponses to questions about perceived fairness, outcome favourability andoutcomeacceptance.Howfairaretheprocedures?The majority of the respondents (61.4%) felt that the procedure was veryfair/somewhat fair (Figure 34). Figure 35 for the UK, separating public andprivate, echoes previous discoveries: there is a divide between perceptions ofpublicandprivateADRproviders–48.2%feltthattheprivatebodieshadveryfairprocedures,whereas42.16%ofthepublicrespondentsfelttheprocedureswereveryunfair.
Figure34.Howfairaretheprocedures?–allrespondents
Trustingthemiddle-man:ImpactandlegitimacyofombudsmeninEurope41
Figure35.Howfairaretheprocedures?–UKprivate/publicexcludingFOS
The country comparison of fairness perceptions of private ombudsmen(Figure36)showsthatthemajorityofthesampleseemedtothinktheprocedureis fair (very fair/somewhat fair). The highest level is reported by the Germansample,whichmightrelatetothefactmentionedaboveaboutthelegalityofthewholeADRprocess.
Figure36.Howfairaretheprocedures?–privateincludingFOS
Public:42.18%felttheprocedureswereveryunfair.
Private:48.20%felttheprocedureswereveryfair.
Germansample:61%felttheprocedureswereveryfair.
Trustingthemiddle-man:ImpactandlegitimacyofombudsmeninEurope42
Wastheoutcomeofyourcaseinyourfavour?Thenextchartsshowtheresponsestothequestionofwhethertheoutcomewasafavourableone.Figure37showsthatfor51.7%ofallrespondentsitwas,andfor34.1%itwasnot.TakingFOSoutofthesample,thesepercentageschangeto53.3%infavourand25.5%notinfavour(seeFigure38).
Figure37.Outcomeinfavour–allrespondents
Figure38.Outcomeinfavour–allrespondentsexcludingFOS
Trustingthemiddle-man:ImpactandlegitimacyofombudsmeninEurope43
FollowingthesamepatternbetweentheUKpublicandprivatesamples,66.35% reported a favourable outcome in the private cases and 10.39%reportedafavourableoutcomeinthepubliccases(seeFigure39).
Figure39.Outcomeinfavour–UKprivate/publicexcludingFOS
The country comparison for theprivate sectorADRproviders inFigure40showsthatthemajorityofeachsamplereceivedafavourableoutcome:66%of theGerman sample, 62%of theUK sample and54%of the French sample.ExcludingFOSfromtheUKresultedin66%ofoutcomesbeinginfavour.
Figure40.Outcomeinfavour–privateincludingFOS
Private:66.35%felttheoutcome
wasintheirfavour.
Public:60.48%felttheoutcomewasnotintheirfavour.
UKsample:62%Yes
Germansample:66%Yes
Frenchsample:54%Yes
Trustingthemiddle-man:ImpactandlegitimacyofombudsmeninEurope44
Areyouwillingtoaccepttheoutcome?This sectionpresents responsesaboutoutcomeacceptance.Respondentswereasked if theywerewilling to accept the outcome they received from the ADRprovider.Theoverallsampleresponded‘verywilling’/‘fairlywilling’61.8%(and62.1% without FOS), ’fairly unwilling’/‘very unwilling’ 26.9% (and 25.7%withoutFOS)(seeFigure41).
Figure41.Willingnesstoaccepttheoutcome–allrespondents
TheUKcomparisonofpublicandprivatebodies(Figure42)showsthat52.09% of the respondents using a private ADR scheme are very willing toaccepttheoutcome,whereas50.94%ofthepublicsectorrespondentsareveryunwillingtoaccepttheoutcome.
Figure42.Willingnesstoaccepttheoutcome–UKprivate/publicexcludingFOS
Overall:42.7%areverywillingto
accepttheoutcome.
Private:52.09%areverywillingto
accepttheoutcome.
Public:50.94%areveryunwillingtoaccepttheoutcome.
Trustingthemiddle-man:ImpactandlegitimacyofombudsmeninEurope45
The country comparison (Figure 43) shows that 76% of the Germanprivateombudsmanusersareverywillingtoaccepttheiroutcome,comparedto49%oftheUKsample,and37%oftheFrenchsample.Justlookingatthe‘verywilling’ choice, I believe that not only are respondents willing to accept theoutcome if it is in their favourbutalso if they feel that theyhavebeentreatedfairlyduringtheprocedure.
Figure43.Willingnesstoaccepttheoutcome–privateincludingFOSIfyouareunwillingtoaccepttheoutcome,whatwillyoudonext?For those who reported that they were unwilling to accept the outcome, afurtherquestionwasposedastowhattheywoulddonext(seeFigure44).Thelargestamountofrespondentsticked‘other’(42.6%).Whenlookingattheopen-endedresponseoptionittranspiredthatmostpeopledidnotknowyetwhethertheyweregoingtotakeanyfurtheractionornot.Inlinewithmyexpectations,27.6%oftheoverallsamplesaidtheywoulddonothing(astheyfeltexhaustedandhadspentenoughtimeandenergydealingwith italready).LookingattheUKgraph (Figure45), that separatespublic andprivatebodies, it canbe seenthatherealsotheoption ‘other’waschosen(public:34.66%;private:35.33%),and26.63%of the respondentsusing theprivate sector said theywill takenofurtheractionascomparedto18.16%ofthepublicADRbodyusers.Formostoftherespondentswhochose‘other’,itwastoosoonaftertheiroutcomeandtheywerestillthinkingaboutoptions,ortheydidnotknowwhattodonext.
Germansample:76%areverywillingtoaccepttheoutcome.
Trustingthemiddle-man:ImpactandlegitimacyofombudsmeninEurope46
Figure44.Ifunwillingtoacceptoutcome,whatnext?–allrespondents
Figure 45. If unwilling to accept outcome, what next? – UK private/publicexcludingFOS
The country comparison (Figure 46) sheds more light on nationaldistinctions.Thesamepatternofthetwotopactions–‘other’and‘Iwilltakenofurtheraction’–isapparent.IwouldliketocommentontheGermansampleinthis graph. TheGerman respondentswould choose to take their case to court
Trustingthemiddle-man:ImpactandlegitimacyofombudsmeninEurope47
(16%), involvea lawyer(12%),and involveanotherbody(8%) if theydidnotreceive the outcome they expected. A possible reason for the 46% of Germanrespondents,27%ofUKrespondentsand15%ofFrenchrespondentswhowereunwillingtoaccepttheoutcomeyetwillnottakeanyfurtheractionisthattheyare fed up, exhausted and feel they have spent enough time and energy ondealingwiththecomplaint.Therespondentswhoticked‘other’weremainlystilldecidingiftheywantedtotakeanyfurtheraction.
Figure46.Ifunwillingtoacceptoutcome,whatnext?–privateincludingFOSConsideringtheoutcomeofyourcase,wouldyouagreethat…Therespondentswereaskedtocommentonthequalityofdecision-makingtheyexperienced. Of the overall sample, 72.6% stated that their outcome wasexplainedclearlybutonly52.2%feltthatthetimeittookwasappropriate(seeFigure 47). The next UK graph (Figure 48), separating public and private,continuesinthepreviouslyfoundpatternwithastrongdividebetweenanswersaccordingtoperceptionsofpublicandprivatebodies.
Trustingthemiddle-man:ImpactandlegitimacyofombudsmeninEurope48
Figure47.Consideringtheoutcomeofyourcase–allrespondents
Figure48.Consideringtheoutcomeofyourcase–UKprivate/publicexcludingFOS
Trustingthemiddle-man:ImpactandlegitimacyofombudsmeninEurope49
Lookingatthecountrycomparisonofprivateombudsmen(Figure49),itcanbeseenthatthemajorityofthesamplefeltthattheoutcomewasexplainedclearly to them (UK: 75%; Germany: 82%; and France: 88%). For all othermeasuresthemajorityofthesamplereportedpositiveexperiences.ThechartfortheUKisinterestingasitshowsthat54%ofthesamplefelttheproceduretooklongerthanexpected.
Figure49.Consideringtheoutcomeofyourcase–privateincludingFOSWastheoutcomeofyourcasewhatyouexpected?Respondentswereaskediftheoutcomereflectedwhattheyexpected.Figure50showsthat30.8%saiditwasexactlywhattheyexpectedand24.2%saiditwasclosetowhattheyexpected;11.4%werenotsurewhattoexpectandfor33.7%itwasnotatallwhat theyexpected.ThesepercentageschangedslightlywhenexcludingFOS:‘exactlywhatIexpected’34.6%;‘closetowhatIexpected’26.6%;‘notsurewhatIexpected’11.7%;and‘notatallwhatIexpected’27.1%.
Trustingthemiddle-man:ImpactandlegitimacyofombudsmeninEurope50
Figure50.Wastheoutcomewhatyouexpected?–allrespondents
ExpectationsreportedbytheUKsample(Figure51)werealignedwiththeabovementionedprivate/publicdivide.Notably,for57.31%ofthepublicsectorrespondentstheoutcomewasnotatallwhattheyexpectedandfortheprivatesectoritwas26.24%.
Figure51.Wastheoutcomewhatyouexpected?–UKprivate/publicexcludingFOS
Public:57.31%feltitwasnotatallwhattheyexpected.
Trustingthemiddle-man:ImpactandlegitimacyofombudsmeninEurope51
Breaking down the outcome expectance into country specific units(Figure 52), it is apparent that 58% of the German sample got exactly theoutcometheyexpected,comparedto48%oftheFrenchsampleand31%oftheUKsample.Anotherinterestingcolumnistheonethatshowsthat26%oftheUKsample reported that they did not get at allwhat they expected. I suspect thereasons for respondents reporting that they did not get what they expectedmight be related to expectations being too high from the outset as well asexpectationsnotbeingmanagedthroughoutthecomplaintjourney.
Figure52.Wastheoutcomewhatyouexpected?–privateincludingFOSDoyouthinkotherpeoplewouldgetthesameoutcomeasyou?Apart of people feeling treated fairly and an of institution being legitimate ispeoplethinkingthatothersaretreatedthesamebytheinstitution.Theanswersto the question ofwhether otherswould get the same outcome are shown inFigures53–55. Fromtheoverall sample,33.9%thoughtotherswouldreceive thesameoutcomeastheydid,and32.5%thoughtthatitwasverylikelythattheywould.
Germansample:58%feltitwasexactlywhatthey
expected.
Trustingthemiddle-man:ImpactandlegitimacyofombudsmeninEurope52
Figure53.Doyouthinkotherswouldgetthesameoutcome?–allrespondents
OftherespondentsfromtheprivatesectorintheUKsample(Figure54),
33.27%reportedthattheythoughtthatpeoplewouldgetthesameoutcomeand32.32%thatitwaslikelytheywould,ascomparedto37.37%and17.58%inthepublicsector.
Figure 54. Do you think others get the same outcome? – UK private/publicexcludingFOS
Private:33.27%believedotherswouldreceivethesameoutcome.
Public:37.37%believedotherswouldreceivethesameoutcome.
Trustingthemiddle-man:ImpactandlegitimacyofombudsmeninEurope53
In the country comparison (Figure 55), 52% of the French samplethoughtotherswouldgetthesameoutcomeasthemselves,comparedto46%oftheGermansampleand33%oftheUKsample.
Figure55.Doyouthinkothersgetthesameoutcome?–privateincludingFOSDoyoufeelyouhadcontrolovertheoutcome?Whenaskingrespondentsaboutthecontroltheyfelttheyhadovertheoutcome,13.2%thought itwas likely that theydidand43.2%thought theydidnot(seeFigure56).ExcludingFOSfromthesamplechangedthesepercentagesto23.1%thinkingtheyhadcontroland31.3%sayingtheyfelttheyhadnocontrol.
Trustingthemiddle-man:ImpactandlegitimacyofombudsmeninEurope54
Figure56.Doyoufeelyouhadcontrolovertheoutcome?–allrespondents
The UK graph (Figure 57) shows that 68.20% of the users of publicschemesthoughttheydidnothaveanyinfluenceontheoutcomeand28.14%ofthepeoplegoingthroughaprivatecomplaint felt theyhadnocontrolover theoutcome.
Figure57.Doyoufeelyouhadcontrolovertheoutcome?–UKprivate/publicexcludingFOS
Overall:43.2%felttheyhadnocontrolovertheoutcome.
Public:68.20%felttheyhadnocontrolovertheoutcome.
Trustingthemiddle-man:ImpactandlegitimacyofombudsmeninEurope55
Lookingatthecountrybreakdown(Figure58)itisapparentthat56%oftheGermansample felt theyhadcontrolover theoutcome.Thismay relate tothe fact that they were dealing with lawyers and felt they had input in thecomplaintprocess.Further,itisnotuncommoninGermanytoberepresentedbya lawyer in the procedurewith the ombudsman – so thismight influence thefeelingofcontrolfortheconsumer.
Figure 58.Doyou feelyouhadcontrolover theoutcome?–private includingFOS
Germansample:56%felttheyhadcontrol
overtheoutcome.
Trustingthemiddle-man:ImpactandlegitimacyofombudsmeninEurope56
6.LEGITIMACYMEASURESEvaluationsaboutthelegitimacyofaninstitutionareshapedbyperceptionsofthefairnessofitsprocedures,andmorespecifically,thequalityofinterpersonaltreatmentandthequalityofdecision-making.Ifpeoplefeelthattheinstitutionislegitimate they are more inclined to feel an obligation towards it and aresponsibility to cooperate with it. They are also more likely to accept itsdecisions. The following presents some of the questions in the survey thatprobedlegitimacymeasures.Areyoulikelytorecommendtheombudsmantoothers?In response to the question of whether people would recommend theombudsman to others, 57.7% of the overall sample said it was very likely(Figure59).TakingFOSoutofthesamplechangedthisto56.7%.
Figure59.Howlikelyareyoutorecommendtheombudsmantosomeoneelse?–allrespondents
Of the UK respondents, 56.74% would recommend the private sectorombudsmen theyused,and52.38%of thepublicuserswouldnot recommendthisservicetoothers(seeFigure60).
Overall:57.7%areverylikelytorecommendtoothers.
Trustingthemiddle-man:ImpactandlegitimacyofombudsmeninEurope57
Figure60.Howlikelyareyoutorecommendtheombudsmantosomeoneelse?–UKprivate/publicexcludingFOS
Figure61showsacountrycomparison.Hereitisclearlyvisiblethatthemajorityofthesamplewouldrecommendtheombudsman.Thepercentagesare57%fortheUKsampleand79%fortheGermanandFrenchsamples.
Figure61.Howlikelyareyoutorecommendtheombudsmantosomeoneelse?–privateincludingFOS
Private:56.74%areverylikelytorecommendto
others.
Public:52.38%areveryunlikelytorecommendtoothers.
German/Frenchsample:79%areverylikelytorecommendto
others.
Trustingthemiddle-man:ImpactandlegitimacyofombudsmeninEurope58
Confidenceintheombudsman?Theoverallsample(Table8)reported50.2%confidenceintheombudsman;thischangedto47.8%whenexcludingFOS.LookingatTable9fortheUK,itcanbeseenthat50.7%oftheprivateombudsmanusershadconfidenceandonly12.4%reportedconfidenceinthepublicsectorbody.Table8.Confidenceintheombudsman–allrespondents WithFOS WithoutFOSYes 50.2% 47.8%Likely 12.4% 16.0%Notsure 11.1% 11.8%Probablynot 5.2% 5.3%No 21.0% 19.1%Table9.Confidenceintheombudsman–UKprivate/publicincludingFOS Private PublicYes 50.7% 12.4%Likely 12.5% 5.7%Notsure 11.1% 15.8%Probablynot 5.2% 10.4%No 20.5% 55.7%
Lookingatthecountrysplit(Table10),theGermanrespondentsreportedaconfidencelevelof66.8%,followedbyFranceat54.4%andtheUKat47.9%.ThispercentagechangedslightlyfortheUKwhenexcludingFOS(46.9%).Table10.Confidenceintheombudsman–privateincludingFOS UnitedKingdom Germany FranceYes 47.9% 66.8% 54.4%Likely 14.6% 14.9% 25.6%Notsure 10.3% 10.7% 13.6%Probablynot 6.0% 2.3% 2.0%No 21.2% 5.3% 4.4%Didtheombudsmanactaccordingtothelaw?WhenaskingabouttheperceivedlawfulnessoftheADRbodyIwastestingfornotonlylegitimacymeasuresbutalsotryingtogetanideaaboutwherepeopleplacetheADRbodywithinthelegalsystem.DotheythinkthatinformaljusticeprovidedbyADRisoutsidethelaw,orthatitisboundbylegalnorms?
Overall:50.2%hadconfidenceintheombudsman.
Private:50.7%hadconfidenceintheombudsman.
Public:12.4%hadconfidenceintheombudsman.
Trustingthemiddle-man:ImpactandlegitimacyofombudsmeninEurope59
Whenaskedthequestionoflawfulnessoftheombudsman,oftheoverallsample(Table11),54.1%thoughttheprivateADRbodiesactedaccordingtothelaw,thischangedto49.2%whenexcludingFOS.
Adivideisvisible,again,intheUKsamplebetweenthepublicandprivatebodies: 54.7% claimed the private bodies were acting according to the law,whereas only 15.3%of the public ombudsmen users thought the ombudsmanwasactingaccordingtothelaw(Table12).Table11.Doestheombudsmanactaccordingtothelaw?–allrespondents WithFOS WithoutFOSYes 54.1% 49.2%Likely 18.9% 22.4%Notsure 15.3% 19.3%Probablynot 4.9% 3.4%No 6.7% 5.7%Table12.Doestheombudsmanactaccordingtothelaw?–UKprivate/publicincludingFOS Private PublicYes 54.7% 15.3%Likely 18.9% 17.6%Notsure 15.1% 33.7%Probablynot 4.9% 7.9%No 6.4% 25.5%
Lookingattheindividualcountries(Table13),66.3%oftheGermansamplethoughttheombudsmanactedaccordingtothelaw,followedbytheFrenchat57.5%,andtheUKat50.4%.TheUKpercentagechangedto48.5%whentakingFOSout.Table13.Doestheombudsmanactaccordingtothelaw?–privateincludingFOS United
KingdomGermany France
Yes 50.4% 66.3% 57.5%Likely 23.4% 20.2% 20.8%Notsure 17.4% 10.5% 17.5%Probablynot 3.7% 1.1% 1.5%No 5.1% 1.9% 2.8%
Overall:54.1%felttheombudsmanhadactedinaccordancewiththelaw.
Private:54.7%felttheombudsmanhadactedinaccordancewiththelaw.
Public:15.3%felttheombudsmanhadactedinaccordancewiththelaw.
UKsample:50.4%Yes
Germansample:66.3%Yes
Frenchsample:57.5%Yes
Trustingthemiddle-man:ImpactandlegitimacyofombudsmeninEurope60
I felt a moral obligation to follow the ombudsman’srecommendationTheanswers to thisquestionwereaimedat findingout ifpeople thought theyhad to follow the recommendations they received from the ombudsmen. Thefiguresbelowarepercentagestakenfromthevalidresponses. Of the overall sample, 35.5% thought they had to follow theombudsman’s recommendation (Table 14). Table 15 shows that 33.2% of theprivatesectorUKsamplefelttheyhadtofollowtherecommendationcomparedto10.1%ofthepublicschemeusers.Table14.Moralobligationtofollowrecommendation–allrespondents WithFOS WithoutFOSYes 35.3% 31.6%Likely 18.8% 20.4%Notsure 20.2% 20.9%Probablynot 6.2% 5.2%No 19.5% 22.0%*PercentagesofvalidresponsesTable15.Moralobligationtofollowrecommendation–UKprivate/publicexcludingFOS Private PublicYes 33.2% 10.1%Likely 21.4% 7.0%Notsure 20.6% 24.6%Probablynot 5.0% 7.0%No 19.8% 51.3%Table16.Moralobligationtofollowrecommendation–UKprivate/publicincludingFOS Private PublicYes 35.7% 10.1%Likely 18.9% 7.0%Notsure 20.1% 24.6%Probablynot 6.2% 7.0%No 19.1% 51.3%
Thecountrysplit(Table17)showsthat37%oftheUKsample,35.9%oftheGermansampleand29.6%of theFrenchsample feelobliged to follow therecommendations they received. This percentage changed to 37.2% whenexcludingFOS.
Trustingthemiddle-man:ImpactandlegitimacyofombudsmeninEurope61
Table17.Moralobligationtofollowrecommendation–privateincludingFOS UnitedKingdom Germany FranceYes 37.0% 35.9% 29.6%Likely 20.4% 20.8% 29.4%Notsure 17.9% 19.6% 25.1%Probablynot 5.1% 4.7% 6.6%No 19.7% 19.1% 9.3%Overall,howsatisfiedwereyou?As a last question, the overall satisfaction level was probed. Of the overallsample, 49.2% respondents reported they were very satisfied (Figure 62).Followingthepatterndiscussedabove,51.04%oftheprivatesectorUKsamplereportedoverallsatisfactionand57.31%ofthepublicusersreportedtheywereverydissatisfiedwiththeoverallprocedures(seeFigure63).
Figure62.Overallsatisfaction–allrespondents
Overall:49.2%wereverysatisfied.
Trustingthemiddle-man:ImpactandlegitimacyofombudsmeninEurope62
Figure63.Overallsatisfaction–UKprivate/publicexcludingFOS
Thereportedoverallsatisfactionlevelsbycountry(Figure64)showthat68% of the German sample, 63% of the French sample and 51% of the UKsampleweresatisfiedwiththeoverallprocedure.
Figure64.Overallsatisfaction–privateincludingFOS
Private:51.04%wereverysatisfied.
Public:57.31%wereverydissatisfied.
Trustingthemiddle-man:ImpactandlegitimacyofombudsmeninEurope63
Sohowdoesallofthisfittogether?Thenextpartwillhighlighthowtheabove (endless) charts are related to one another. Recall that the surveyquestionswereposedaccordinglyinordertotesttheimportanceofproceduraljustice in the ombudsman context and explore legitimacy and trust. The nextpartprovidessomecorrelationsandregressions.VariablecorrelationsTo determine relationships between survey variables, exploratory correlationanalyseswererun.Table18belowlistsvariablesthatsignificantlycorrelate(atp<0.01)withourtwomostimportantoutcomemeasures:willingnesstoacceptoutcomeandoverallsatisfaction.Table18.Correlations
Willing to accept the
outcome Overall
satisfaction Resolution as expected Pearson Correlation .672 .724
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 Process length Pearson Correlation .282 .313
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 Outcome expected Pearson Correlation .694 .716
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 Willing to accept the outcome
Pearson Correlation 1 .800 Sig. (2-tailed) .000
Perceived control over outcome
Pearson Correlation .614 .631 Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000
Confidence in ombudsman Pearson Correlation .663 .850 Sig. (2-tailed) .005 .000
Ombudsman lawfulness Pearson Correlation .683 .796 Sig. (2-tailed) .004 .000
Process fairness Pearson Correlation .765 .870 Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000
Would recommend Pearson Correlation .759 .909 Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000
Overall satisfaction Pearson Correlation .800 1 Sig. (2-tailed) .000
Tofurtherdeterminewhichindependentfactorspredictwillingnessto
acceptoutcomeandoverallsatisfaction,linearregressionwasrun.
Trustingthemiddle-man:ImpactandlegitimacyofombudsmeninEurope64
1)WillingnesstoacceptoutcomeResolutionexpectancy,processlength,controloveroutcome,perceivedprocessfairnessandoverallsatisfactionwereincludedaspredictorvariables.Allexceptprocesslengthwerefoundtosignificantlypredictwillingnesstoacceptoutcome(F(1,6)=1054.26,p<0.001).Table19summarizesBetaparameters, t-statisticsandsignificancelevelsforindividualindependentvariables.Thebestpredictorsofwhetherpeoplewerewillingtoaccepttheoutcomewereoverallsatisfactionandperceivedprocessfairness.Table19:Regressioncoefficientsforwillingnesstoacceptoutcome
Model
StandardizedCoefficients
t Sig.Beta1 Q13_ResolutionAsExpected .039 2.160 .031
Q19_ActualProcLength -.005 -.471 .638Q23_OutcomeExpected .192 10.741 .000Q29_ControlOverOutcome .080 5.338 .000Q32_HowFairProc .216 9.694 .000Q34_OverallSatis .396 16.193 .000
2)OverallsatisfactionResolutionexpectancy,processlength,controloveroutcome,perceivedprocessfairnessandperceivedfairnesswereincludedaspredictorvariables.Allexceptprocesslengthwerefoundtosignificantlypredictwillingnesstoacceptoutcome(F(1,6)=2315.60,p<0.001).Table20summarizesBetaparameters, t-statisticsandsignificance levels for individual independentvariables.Thebestpredictorof overall satisfaction was by far perceived process fairness as it explained52.3%ofvarianceintheoverallsatisfactionvariable.
Table20:Regressioncoefficientsforoverallsatisfaction
Model
StandardizedCoefficients
t Sig.Beta Q13_ResolutionAsExpected .164 12.497 .000
Q19_ActualProcLength .007 .813 .416Q23_OutcomeExpected .077 5.708 .000Q29_ControlOverOutcome .031 2.783 .005Q32_HowFairProc .523 38.854 .000Q25_WillingToAccept .216 16.193 .000
Trustingthemiddle-man:ImpactandlegitimacyofombudsmeninEurope65
3)ProcessfairnessTofurthertestwhetherperceivedfairnessinfluenceshowwillingpeoplearetoaccept the outcomewe ran a t-test using outcome acceptance as independentvariable and process fairness as dependent variable. The result shows thatrespondents were significantly more likely to accept the outcome when theyperceivedtheprocessasfair,t(2653)=-62,88,p<0.001.
This whistle stop tour through correlations and regressionsdemonstrates that procedural justice doesmatter in the ombudsman context.However, the perceptions of process fairness are not clearly distinguishablefromthereceivedoutcome.Thismeansthatpeoplearemoreoutcomefocussedcomparedtomoreformalsettings(e.g.criminaljustice).
In an academic paper8we explore whether the theory of procedural
justicecouldexplain, as itdoes inothercontexts,whypeopleacceptdecisionshandeddownbyauthorities.Theombudsisahybridmodelinthejusticesystemand we explored what motivates people to accept a decision made by anombuds. In a nutshell, we found that outcome favourability and proceduraljusticearekeyfactorsinshapingdecision-acceptance.
IfusersoftheADRsystemexperienceproceduraljustice(amongstother
things)thenlegitimacyandtrustisbuilt.
8Creutzfeldt,N.&Bradford,B.(2016forthcoming)‘DisputeResolutionoutsideofcourts:proceduraljusticeanddecision-acceptanceamongusersofombudsservicesintheUK’.
Trustingthemiddle-man:ImpactandlegitimacyofombudsmeninEurope66
6.CONCLUSIONSIhopethatthisreporthasprovidedsomeinsightsintoconsumers’expectationsofADRprocedures.Asmentionedabove,I intendedittobeafairlydescriptivesummaryofmyfindingswithafewaddedflavoursofsomeofmythoughtsaboutwhycertainpatternsarefoundinthedata.Influencedbythoughtsaboutaccessto justiceandexpectationsof the informalsystem, I canconclude that there isstillalotofworktobedonetofullyunderstandthechangingneedsofusersofthegrowingADRsystem.MainfindingsofthereportClearnarrativesmydataprovidesarearound:
v Adistinctivesociodemographicgroupusesombudsmen This is possibly the same group that are able to navigate through theformaljusticesystem.
v National distinctions in expectations of the provision of ADRThese are possibly based on peoples’ legal cultures and legalsocialization.
v A stark divide between satisfaction levels of private and publicsectorombudsmenintheUK Thisinvolvesacomplexsetofexplanations,startingwithdifferenttypesof complaints, different levels of complexity of complaints, levels ofimpactonpersonalcircumstances….
v The importance of the quality of the initial contact with the staffStaff procedural justice – voice, being heard, treated respectfully andneutrality– isvery important in theombudsmancontextandpromotesoutcomeacceptance.
v Peoples’expectationsaremostlytoohighortheydonotknowwhattoexpect AnADRbodycanonlybecontactedafterunsuccessfullycompleting theinternal complaints procedure with the body complained about – thismeansthepersonapproachingtheombudsmanhasalreadybeenthroughaveryunsatisfyingprocedureandarefilledwithemotions.
v Expectationsmanagement The data suggests that if expectations were managed better at firstcontact and high quality regular communication throughout thecomplaint journey were to be provided, people would know what toexpectandthishasaneffectonoutcomeacceptance.
Trustingthemiddle-man:ImpactandlegitimacyofombudsmeninEurope67
ThisreportprovidedcomparativedataonexpectationsandperceptionsofrecentusersofombudsmeninGermany,theUKandFrance.Itisthefirststudyof its kind in applying the same methodology (survey) throughout manydifferent ADR providers. Appreciating the limitations and difficulties incomparing all these ombudsmen, I do hope that my study contributes to adiscussionabouthowprocedurescanbebettersuitedtoconsumerexpectationsand where these expectations are unable to be met. The value of proceduraljusticeandtransparentcommunicationisevidentandapplicabletoallbodies.
Futureresearch…It hasbeen a very interesting and steep learning curve forme to conduct thislargeproject.IfIamhonest,IfeelthatIhaveonlyexploredthetipoftheicebergof perceptions, expectations, legitimacy and trust in relation to ombudsmen,ADR and informal justice. I hope that my study provides some insights intopeoples’ expectations of ombudsmen in different countries and in differentsectors.Thisreportisintentionallydescriptiveinordertosharemyfindingsindetailsoothersmightusethemandexposefurtherinterestingbitsofmydata.IwilluploadmydatabasetotheESRCrepositoryforpublicuse,induecourse. I have used my data to explore questions of procedural justice,legitimacy, trust and cultural specific disputing behaviour in informal disputeresolution.TheresultingpublicationscanbefoundinacademicpublicationsonmystaffwebsiteatWestminster:https://www.westminster.ac.uk/about-us/our-people/directory/creutzfeldt-naomi;andonmyprojectwebsiteatOxford:https://www.law.ox.ac.uk/trusting-middle-man-impact-and-legitimacy-ombudsmen-europe.Someprojectsdevelopedoutofthisone:
1) A project on online critics of the ombudsmen. Together with Chris Gill fromQMUinEdinburgh,Iconductedastudyintothephenomenonofonlineactivismthrough ‘ombudsman watcher’ websites (https://www.law.ox.ac.uk/research-and-subject-groups/online-critics-ombudsmen).
2) Iamconductingsmall-scalecase-studyresearchinto(self-declared)vulnerableconsumers that have recently been through a procedure with OmbudsmanServices: Energy and the Local Government Ombudsman. Intrigued by thedemographic pattern that seemed to manifest itself in my dataset, we areexploring how vulnerable groups experience an ADR procedure. This mightdevelopintoanotherprojectonenergypovertyandvulnerability.
Pleasecontactmeifyouhaveanyqueries,commentsorwouldlikecopiesofmyotherpublications.
Trustingthemiddle-man:ImpactandlegitimacyofombudsmeninEurope68
INDEXOFTABLESWeightingTable1. NumberofcasesdealtwithbyADRprovider2013/14 13
DemographicsTable2. Levelofeducation,UKsample 20
Table3. Levelofeducation,Germansample 21
ExpecteddurationofacaseandtheactualtimeittookTable4. Expecteddurationofcaseandactualduration–allrespondents 28Comparisonofexpectedandactualduration
Table5. Allrespondents 28
Table6. UKprivate/publicincludingFOS 28Table7. PrivateincludingFOS 28
Confidenceintheombudsman?Table8. Allrespondents 58
Table9. UKprivate/publicincludingFOS 58
Table10. PrivateincludingFOS 58
Doestheombudsmanactaccordingtothelaw?Table11. Allrespondents 59Table12. UKprivate/publicFOS 59
Table13. PrivateincludingFOS 59
Ifeltamoralobligationtofollowtheombudsman’srecommendationTable14. Allrespondents 60
Table15. UKprivate/publicexcludingFOS 60Table16. UKprivate/publicincludingFOS 60
Table17. PrivateincludingFOS 61
VariablecorrelationsTable18. Correlations 63
Table19. Regressioncoefficientsforwillingnesstoacceptoutcome 64Table20. Regressioncoefficientsforoverallsatisfaction 64
Trustingthemiddle-man:ImpactandlegitimacyofombudsmeninEurope69
INDEXOFFIGURESWeightingSatisfactionwithdealings
Figure1a. WithoutFOS,PHSOnumberofcasesat3,900 12Figure1b. WithoutFOS,PHSOnumberofcasesat25,000 12
ThesampleofthisstudyFigure2. Responsestothesurveybycountry 17
Figure3. DistributionofpublicandprivateADRprovidersinthesample 18
Figure4. NumberofresponsesbyADRbody(private/publicsplit) 18Figure5. NumberofresponsesofADRbodybycountry 19
DemographicsFigure6. Meanageofrespondentsbycountry 19
Figure7. Overallgenderdistributionofthesample,bycountry 20
FactorsthatweremostimportantinadecisiontocomplainFigure8. UKprivate/public–excludingFOS 22
Figure9. PrivateincludingFOS 23
HowdidrespondentshearabouttheADRprovider?Figure10. AllresponsesexcludingFOS 24Figure11. UKprivate/publicexcludingFOS 25
Figure12. PrivateincludingFOS 25
HowdidyoumostlycommunicatewiththeADRprovider?Figure13. AllrespondentsexcludingFOS 26Figure14. UKprivate/publicexcludingFOS 27
Figure15. PrivateincludingFOS 27
HowsatisfiedwereyouwithhowtheADRproviderdealtwithyourcase?Figure16. Allrespondents 29
Figure17. AllrespondentsexcludingFOS 29
Figure18. UKprivate/publicexcludingFOS 30Figure19. PrivateexcludingFOS 30
Figure20. PrivateincludingFOS 31
Trustingthemiddle-man:ImpactandlegitimacyofombudsmeninEurope70
Wasthewayinwhichyourcasewasresolvedasyouexpected?Figure21. Allrespondents 32
Figure22. UKprivate/publicexcludingFOS 32
Figure23. PrivateincludingFOS 33
Respondent’simpressionofstaffatfirstcontactFigure24. Allrespondents 34Figure25. UKprivate/publicexcludingFOS 34
Figure26. PrivateincludingFOS 35
PerceptionsofstaffduringtheprocedureFigure27. Allrespondents 36Figure28. UK 36
Figure29. Germany 37
Figure30. France 37
PerceptionsofpeopledealingwiththeircasethroughoutthecomplaintjourneyFigure31. Allrespondents 38
Figure32. UKprivate/publicexcludingFOS 38Figure33. PrivateexcludingFOS 39
Howfairaretheprocedures?Figure34. Allrespondents 40
Figure35. UKprivate/publicexcludingFOS 41
Figure36. PrivateincludingFOS 41
Wastheoutcomeofyourcaseinyourfavour?Figure37. Allrespondents 42Figure38. AllrespondentsexcludingFOS 42
Figure39. UKprivate/publicexcludingFOS 43Figure40. PrivateincludingFOS 43
Areyouwillingtoaccepttheoutcome?Figure41. Allrespondents 44
Figure42. UKprivate/publicexcludingFOS 44
Figure43. PrivateincludingFOS 45
Ifyouareunwillingtoaccepttheoutcome,whatwillyoudonext?Figure44. Allrespondents 46
Trustingthemiddle-man:ImpactandlegitimacyofombudsmeninEurope71
Figure45. UKprivate/publicexcludingFOS 46
Figure46. PrivateincludingFOS 47
Consideringtheoutcomeofyourcase,wouldyouagreethat…Figure47. Allrespondents 48Figure48. UKprivate/publicexcludingFOS 48
Figure49. PrivateincludingFOS 49
Wastheoutcomeofyourcasewhatyouexpected?Figure50. Allrespondents 50Figure51. UKprivate/publicexcludingFOS 50
Figure52. PrivateincludingFOS 51
Doyouthinkotherpeoplewouldgetthesameoutcomeasyou?Figure53. Allrespondents 52
Figure54. UKprivate/publicexcludingFOS 52Figure55. PrivateincludingFOS 53
Doyoufeelyouhadcontrolovertheoutcome?Figure56. Allrespondents 54
Figure57. UKprivate/publicexcludingFOS 54
Figure58. PrivateincludingFOS 55
Areyoulikelytorecommendtheombudsmantoothers?Figure59. Allrespondents 56Figure60. UKprivate/publicexcludingFOS 57
Figure61. PrivateincludingFOS 57
Overall,howsatisfiedwereyou?Figure62. Allrespondents 61Figure63. UKprivate/publicexcludingFOS 62
Figure64. PrivateincludingFOS 62
Recommended