project report clean - University of Oxford · PDF filePROJECT REPORT Trusting the middle ... protection insurance); banking; insurance; ... power cuts and connections; micro generation

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


Ifeltamoralobligationtofollowtheombudsman’srecommendation 60Overall,howsatisfiedwereyou? 61Variablecorrelations 63

7.Conclusions 66Mainfindingsoftheproject 66Futureresearch 67

INDEXOFTABLES 68INDEXOFFIGURES 69


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.


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.


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


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.


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


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


(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


(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.


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.


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.


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.


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


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.


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


Figure3.DistributionofpublicandprivateADRprovidersinthesample

Thefollowingtwographsshowtheresponseratestothestudybyscheme(Figure4)andbycountry(Figure5).

Figure4.NumberofresponsesbyADRbody(private/publicsplit)


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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


Figure11.Howdidyouhearabouttheombudsmen?–UKprivate/publicexcludingFOS

Figure12.Howdidyouhearabouttheombudsmen?–privateincludingFOS


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


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


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.


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


Figure18.SatisfactionlevelswithADRproviders–UKprivate/publicexcludingFOS

Figure19.SatisfactionlevelswithADRproviders–privateexcludingFOS

Private:61.8%werevery

satisfied.

Public:57.1%wereverydissatisfied.


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).


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.


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.


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.


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.


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


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


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


Thecountrycomparison(Figure33)showsapatternofdifferentlevelsofperceptionsofstaffduringthecomplaintsprocedure.Followingthepeakofthecharts for the French sample, a high rate of satisfactionwith the staff can beseen.

Figure33.Thepeoplethatdealtwithyourcomplaint–privateexcludingFOS


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


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.


Wastheoutcomeofyourcaseinyourfavour?Thenextchartsshowtheresponsestothequestionofwhethertheoutcomewasafavourableone.Figure37showsthatfor51.7%ofallrespondentsitwas,andfor34.1%itwasnot.TakingFOSoutofthesample,thesepercentageschangeto53.3%infavourand25.5%notinfavour(seeFigure38).

Figure37.Outcomeinfavour–allrespondents

Figure38.Outcomeinfavour–allrespondentsexcludingFOS


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


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.


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.


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


(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.


Figure47.Consideringtheoutcomeofyourcase–allrespondents

Figure48.Consideringtheoutcomeofyourcase–UKprivate/publicexcludingFOS


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%.


Figure50.Wastheoutcomewhatyouexpected?–allrespondents

ExpectationsreportedbytheUKsample(Figure51)werealignedwiththeabovementionedprivate/publicdivide.Notably,for57.31%ofthepublicsectorrespondentstheoutcomewasnotatallwhattheyexpectedandfortheprivatesectoritwas26.24%.

Figure51.Wastheoutcomewhatyouexpected?–UKprivate/publicexcludingFOS

Public:57.31%feltitwasnotatallwhattheyexpected.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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


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.


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.


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.


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.


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


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’.


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.


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.


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


Ifeltamoralobligationtofollowtheombudsman’srecommendationTable14. Allrespondents 60

Table15. UKprivate/publicexcludingFOS 60Table16. UKprivate/publicincludingFOS 60


VariablecorrelationsTable18. Correlations 63

Table19. Regressioncoefficientsforwillingnesstoacceptoutcome 64Table20. Regressioncoefficientsforoverallsatisfaction 64


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


HowdidyoumostlycommunicatewiththeADRprovider?Figure13. AllrespondentsexcludingFOS 26Figure14. UKprivate/publicexcludingFOS 27


HowsatisfiedwereyouwithhowtheADRproviderdealtwithyourcase?Figure16. Allrespondents 29

Figure17. AllrespondentsexcludingFOS 29

Figure18. UKprivate/publicexcludingFOS 30Figure19. PrivateexcludingFOS 30



Wasthewayinwhichyourcasewasresolvedasyouexpected?Figure21. Allrespondents 32

Figure22. UKprivate/publicexcludingFOS 32


Respondent’simpressionofstaffatfirstcontactFigure24. Allrespondents 34Figure25. UKprivate/publicexcludingFOS 34


PerceptionsofstaffduringtheprocedureFigure27. Allrespondents 36Figure28. UK 36

Figure29. Germany 37

Figure30. France 37

PerceptionsofpeopledealingwiththeircasethroughoutthecomplaintjourneyFigure31. Allrespondents 38

Figure32. UKprivate/publicexcludingFOS 38Figure33. PrivateexcludingFOS 39

Howfairaretheprocedures?Figure34. Allrespondents 40



Wastheoutcomeofyourcaseinyourfavour?Figure37. Allrespondents 42Figure38. AllrespondentsexcludingFOS 42

Figure39. UKprivate/publicexcludingFOS 43Figure40. PrivateincludingFOS 43

Areyouwillingtoaccepttheoutcome?Figure41. Allrespondents 44



Ifyouareunwillingtoaccepttheoutcome,whatwillyoudonext?Figure44. Allrespondents 46




Consideringtheoutcomeofyourcase,wouldyouagreethat…Figure47. Allrespondents 48Figure48. UKprivate/publicexcludingFOS 48


Wastheoutcomeofyourcasewhatyouexpected?Figure50. Allrespondents 50Figure51. UKprivate/publicexcludingFOS 50


Doyouthinkotherpeoplewouldgetthesameoutcomeasyou?Figure53. Allrespondents 52

Figure54. UKprivate/publicexcludingFOS 52Figure55. PrivateincludingFOS 53

Doyoufeelyouhadcontrolovertheoutcome?Figure56. Allrespondents 54



Areyoulikelytorecommendtheombudsmantoothers?Figure59. Allrespondents 56Figure60. UKprivate/publicexcludingFOS 57


Overall,howsatisfiedwereyou?Figure62. Allrespondents 61Figure63. UKprivate/publicexcludingFOS 62


Documents

project report clean - University of Oxford · PDF filePROJECT REPORT Trusting the middle ... protection insurance); banking; insurance; ... power cuts and connections; micro generation