FINAL REPORT CUSTOMER EXPERIENCE SURVEY 2018 … · Accountant in Bankruptcy: Customer Experience...

Accountant in Bankruptcy: Customer Experience Survey 2018

FINAL REPORT CUSTOMER EXPERIENCE SURVEY 2018 December 2018

PREPARED FOR: Accountant in Bankruptcy


Customer Experience Survey 2018 Ashbrook Research & Consultancy Ltd December 2018

Project Contacts Report prepared for: Accountant in Bankruptcy

Stuart Riddell Phone: 0300 200 2634

Business Support Manager E-mail: [email protected]

Suzan Gunn Phone: 0300 200 2631

Communications Officer E-mail: [email protected]

Report prepared by: Ashbrook Research & Consultancy Ltd

Dr David Brooks Phone: 0141 226 3798

Managing Director E-mail: [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]




of 77

CONTENTS

Page No.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

4

1.0 INTRODUCTION

9

2.0 TELEPHONE CONTACT PROFILE

11

3.0 WRITTEN & E-MAIL CONTACT PROFILE

27

4.0 FACE-TO-FACE CONTACT PROFILE

36

5.0 FORMS & GUIDES PROFILE

40

6.0 GENERAL RESULTS PROFILE 44

6.1 Profile of Quantitative Responses – AiB 44

6.2 Profile of Qualitative Responses – AiB 48

6.3 Profile of Quantitative Responses – Agents/Providers 53

6.4 Profile of Qualitative Responses – Agents/ Providers

55

7.0 AiB WEBSITE PROFILE 58

7.1 Profile of Quantitative Information 58

7.2 Profile of Qualitative Information

61

8.0 AiB IT SYSTEMS 64

8.1 Profile of Quantitative Information 64


70

9.0 KEY MESSAGES 73

9.1 Telephone Contact Profile – AiB 73

9.2 Telephone Contact Profile – Agents/Providers Operating on Behalf of AiB

73

9.3 Written & E-mail Contact Profile 74

9.4 Face-to-Face Contact Profile 75

9.5 Forms & Guides Profile 75

9.6 General Results Profile 76

9.7 AiB’s Website Profile 76

9.8 AiB’s IT Systems 77

9.9 Overarching Key Message 77


of 77

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Telephone Contact Profile – AiB

There are very high levels of telephone contact with AiB by Money Advisers and

Creditors (particularly the former) but levels of telephone contact are far lower for

Debtors.

Levels of satisfaction with telephone contacts with AiB are extremely high in terms of

the time it took to get through to the right person, particularly amongst Money

Advisers and Debtors.

For almost all Money Advisers who had contacted AiB by telephone, the person they

spoke to gave them their name, with this applying to the vast majority of Insolvency

Practitioners and Debtors and most Creditors.

A majority of respondents – and, in most cases, a very significant majority – who had

contacted AiB by telephone stated that they were able to speak to the right person

first time, although this outcome was lowest amongst Insolvency Practitioners (for

whom, only around half this was the case).

Levels of satisfaction with the politeness and courtesy of those who had spoken by

telephone with AiB are high, particularly amongst Debtors, Money Advisers and

Creditors.

The overwhelming majority of Debtors, Creditors and Money Advisers who had

contacted AiB by telephone noted their satisfaction with the way their query was dealt

with. This also applied to a notable majority of Insolvency Practitioners.

Telephone Contact Profile – Agents/Providers Operating on Behalf of AiB

Most Debtors had telephoned an agent or provider operating on behalf of AiB.

However, this applied to less than half of Money Advisers and Creditors.

The vast majority of Debtors who had contacted an agent or provider operating on

behalf of AiB by telephone noted their satisfaction with the time it took to get through

to the right person, with this also applying to most Money Advisers and Creditors.


of 77

The vast majority of both Debtors and Money Advisers who had contacted an agent or

provider operating on behalf of AiB by telephone stated that the person they spoke to

gave them their name. However, this applied to well under half of Creditors.

The vast majority of Debtors who had contacted an agent or provider operating on

behalf of AiB by telephone stated that they were able to speak to the right person first

time. However, this applied to only around half of both Money Advisers and Creditors.

The vast majority of Debtors, Creditors and Money Advisers who had contacted an

agent or provider operating on behalf of AiB by telephone noted their satisfaction with

the politeness or courtesy of the person they spoke with (with this outcome being

particularly notable amongst Debtors).

Levels of satisfaction in terms of how queries were dealt with amongst Debtors and

Creditors who had contacted an agent or provider operating on behalf of AiB by

telephone were very high but far lower amongst Money Advisers (around half of

whom expressed satisfaction in this regard).

Written & E-mail Contact Profile

There were high levels of written and e-mail contacts to AiB by Money Advisers and

Creditors, but far more limited levels of written or e-mail contacts to AiB by Debtors.

Levels of satisfaction amongst both Debtors and Money Advisers who had written or

e-mailed AiB relating to the time taken to respond to such contacts were high, but

lower amongst both Creditors and Insolvency Practitioners (amongst whom, around

half expressed satisfaction in this regard).

Levels of satisfaction with the way queries were dealt with that had taken the form of

written or e-mail contacts with AiB were high, particularly amongst Debtors.

Levels of written or e-mailed contacts with agents/providers operating on behalf of AiB

were much lower amongst Money Advisers and Creditors than had been the case in

terms of such contacts directly with AiB. However, these types of contacts with AiB

directly and with agents or providers operating on behalf of AiB were very similar for

Debtors.


of 77

Levels of satisfaction amongst Debtors and Creditors who had written to or e-mailed

an agent or provider operating on behalf of AiB were high in terms of the time taken to

respond to such contacts, but significantly lower for Money Advisers (amongst whom,

under half noted satisfaction in this regard).

Levels of satisfaction amongst Debtors and Creditors who had written or e-mailed an

agent or provider operating on behalf of AiB were extremely high in terms of how their

query was dealt with, but more limited amongst both Money Advisers (of whom,

around half expressed satisfaction in this regard).

Face-to-Face Contact Profile

Very few Debtors stated that they had visited the office of AiB. However, on a highly

indicative basis, there was evidence to suggest that levels of satisfaction with being

seen promptly were relatively high and that there was very little dissatisfaction in this

regard.

Approaching a quarter of Debtors stated that they had visited the office of an agent or

provider operating on behalf of AiB, with levels of satisfaction in terms of being seen

promptly during such visits being extremely high.

Forms & Guides Profile

Levels of satisfaction with information contained within any AiB leaflets, guides or

forms read by Debtors, Money Advisers and Insolvency Practitioners were high, but

somewhat lower for Creditors (amongst whom, around half expressed satisfaction in

this regard).

Most Insolvency Practitioners and Money Advisers noted a preference to receive

forms and guidance as a downloadable electronic document, but this applied to a far

lower proportion of Creditors and Debtors (particularly the latter).

Levels of preference to receive forms and guidance from AiB in a paper/booklet

format were highest amongst Debtors and Money Advisers, but low amongst both

Creditors and Insolvency Practitioners.


of 77

Levels of preference to receive forms and guidance to read on a website were

relatively low across all three audiences.

General Results Profile

Money Advisers, Debtors and Creditors place high levels of importance upon a wide

range of factors in terms of the service provided by AiB or its agents/providers, i.e. in

terms of speed of response, quality of service, efficiency, clear communications and

knowledgeable staff.

The overwhelming majority of Money Advisers had some level of contact with AiB,

with this applying to around two thirds of both Debtors and Creditors.

Levels of overall satisfaction with the service provided by AiB (amongst those who

had some level of contact with AiB) were high, particularly amongst Debtors, Creditors

and Money Advisers.

Most Debtors had some form of contact with an agent or provider operating on behalf

of AiB. However, levels of such contacts were more limited amongst both Money

Advisers and Creditors.

Levels of overall satisfaction with the service provided by agents or providers

operating on behalf of AiB (amongst those who had some level of contact with such

agents or providers) were high, particularly amongst Debtors and Creditors.

AiB Website Profile

The vast majority of respondents across all four audiences believed that it was easy

to find the information they were looking for on the aib.gov.uk website.

The vast majority of both Money Advisers and Debtors expressed their satisfaction

with AiB’s website, with this applying to most Creditors and Insolvency Practitioners.


of 77

AiB’s IT Systems

The vast majority of Creditors and Money Advisers noted their satisfaction with both

the ASTRA and BASYS IT systems for debt relief products. However, levels of

satisfaction in this regard were far lower amongst Insolvency Practitioners.

Around half of Creditors noted their satisfaction with DASH. However, this applied to

a far lower proportion of both Money Advisers and Insolvency Practitioners.

Around half of Creditors, Money Advisers and Insolvency Practitioners noted their

satisfaction in terms of being provided with sufficient information about updates to

ASTRA.

Most Money Advisers and Creditors expressed their satisfaction in this regard in

respect of BASYS, whilst this applied to around half of Insolvency Practitioners.

Finally, most Creditors and Money Advisers noted their satisfaction in terms of being

provided with sufficient information about updates to DASH. However, this applied to

a far lower proportion of Insolvency Practitioners.


of 77

1.0 INTRODUCTION

This report details findings of a Customer Experience Survey undertaken on

behalf of Accountant in Bankruptcy (AiB) by Ashbrook Research & Consultancy

Ltd in October/November 2018.

Information was derived by means of online questionnaires which were

administered to four audiences:

Debtors (in relation to which, 498 completed questionnaires were received)

Creditors (in relation to which, 50 completed questionnaires were received)

Money Advisers (in relation to which, 157 completed questionnaires were

received)

Insolvency Practitioners (in relation to which, 44 completed questionnaires

were received)

The questionnaire was made available to potential respondents:

By accessing a link to an online questionnaire contained within an e-mail

issued to them by AiB

Through a link which was posted on the AiB website

Sections 2.0 to 9.0 inclusive provide a profile of findings in relation to the following

subjects:

Telephone contact

Written and e-mail contact

Face-to-face contact

Forms and guidance

General results

AiB website

AiB IT systems

Finally, Section 10.0 provides a number of key messages for AiB which have

emerged from the study.


of 77

A Customer Experience Survey was undertaken on behalf of AiB by Ashbrook

Research & Consultancy Ltd in October/November 2016 amongst the same four

audiences. Accordingly, where the same questions were asked – and where it is

statistically appropriate – comparisons are drawn between the outcomes of

questions in 2016 and 2018. In addition, a number of specific questions were

asked for the first time in the 2018 survey which are reported upon in Section 9.0.


of 77

2.0 TELEPHONE CONTACT PROFILE

“Did you contact AiB (Accountant in Bankruptcy) by telephone?”

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Debtors

Creditors

Money Advisers

40%

70%

96%

Base: All Respondents

Figure 1: Extent of Telephone Contact With AiB

From Figure 1, it can be seen that well over 9 out of 10 Money Advisers

participating in the research (96%) stated that they had telephoned AiB about a

client’s bankruptcy, protected trust deed or DAS debt payment programme. This

outcome is virtually identical to that found in 2016 (94%).

Figure 1 also indicates that over two thirds of Creditors (70%) stated, if they had

telephoned about a bankruptcy, protected trust deed or DAS debt payment

programme, they had contacted AiB, whilst 2 out of 5 of Debtors (40%) stated that

this was the case. Again, both of these outcomes are virtually identical to those

found in 2016 (67% and 43% respectively).


of 77

“When you contacted AiB directly by telephone, how satisfied were you with the

time it took to get through to the right person?”

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

Not Applicable

Very Dissatisfied

Dissatisfied

Neutral

Satisfied

Very Satisfied

9%

0%

5%

18%

52%

16%

0%

0%

6%

13%

56%

24%

0%

1%

1%

6%

57%

36%

3%

1%

2%

6%

34%

56%

Base: Contacted AiB By Telephone

Figure 2: Telephone Contact -Satisfaction With Time Taken to Get Through to Right Person

Debtors

Money Advisers

Creditors

InsolvencyPractitioners

Figure 2 indicates that, when respondents had contacted AiB by telephone, there

were extremely high levels of satisfaction with the time it took to get through to the

right person (in terms of being satisfied or very satisfied) with this contact across

three audiences:

Money Advisers (93%)

Debtors (90%)

Creditors (80%)

In addition, two thirds of Insolvency Practitioners (68%) noted satisfaction with

their telephone contact with AiB in this regard.


of 77

Although the outcomes noted above for Debtors, Money Advisers and Insolvency

Practitioners are identical or virtually identical to those found in 2016, since then

there has been a decline in the extent to which Creditors stated that they were

satisfied with the time taken to get through to the right person (falling from 95% to

80%). This decline was almost entirely attributable to an increase in the provision

of a neutral response to this question by Creditors (increasing from 13% to 18%)

and the provision of a not applicable response by this audience (rising from 0% to

9%).

From Figure 2, it can also be seen that approaching 3 out of 5 Debtors (56%)

specifically stated that they were very satisfied with their telephone contact with

AiB in terms of the time it took to get through to the right person, with this applying

to around a third of Money Advisers (36%), a quarter of Creditors (24%) and 1 in

6 Insolvency Practitioners (16%).

The outcomes here for Money Advisers and Insolvency Practitioners are identical

to those in 2016. However, during that time, there was a decline in the outcomes

noted by the two remaining audiences, i.e.:

Debtors (falling from 64% to 56%)

Creditors (falling from 30% to 24%)

Finally, from Figure 2, it can be seen that levels of dissatisfaction with telephone

contacts with AiB were extremely low amongst Debtors, Money Advisers and

Creditors in terms of the time it took to get through to the right person (ranging

from 2% to 6%). In this regard, however, it is of interest to note that, between

2016 and 2018, there was a notable decline in the extent to which Insolvency

Practitioners stated that they were very dissatisfied with their telephone contact

with AiB in terms of the time it took to get through to the right person (falling from

12% to 0%).


of 77

“Did the person you spoke to give you their name?”

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Creditors

Debtors

Insolvency Practitioners

Money Advisers

61%

73%

81%

95%


Figure 3: Telephone Contact - Person Give Name?

Figure 3 indicates that well over 9 out of 10 Money Advisers (95%) who had had

telephone contact with AiB stated that the person they spoke to gave them their

name, with this applying to around 4 out of 5 Insolvency Practitioners (81%),

approaching three quarters of Debtors (73%) and 3 out of 5 Creditors (61%).

These outcomes are in line with those found for Money Advisers and Debtors in

2016 (95% and 70% respectively). However, since then, there has been a slight

increase in the extent to which Insolvency Practitioners stated that the person they

spoke to gave them their name (rising from 75% to 81%), but a very significant

decline in the extent to which this was noted by Creditors (falling from 95% to

61%).


of 77

“Were you able to speak to the right person first time?”

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%


Creditors

Money Advisers

Debtors

54%

69%

76%

80%


Figure 4: Telephone Contact -Able To Speak To right Person First Time?

Figure 4 indicates that a majority of respondents – and, in most cases, a very

significant majority – who had contacted AiB by telephone stated that they were

able to speak to the right person first time, with this outcome being most

prominent amongst Debtors and Money Advisers and least prominent amongst

Insolvency Practitioners, i.e.:

Debtors (80%)


Creditors (69%)

Insolvency Practitioners (54%)

The outcomes here for Debtors, Money Advisers and Insolvency Practitioners are

identical or virtually identical to those found in 2016 and, for Creditors, very much

in line with those found in 2016 (74% compared to 69% in 2018).


of 77

“How satisfied were you with their politeness and courtesy?”

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

Not Applicable

Very Dissatisfied

Dissatisfied

Neutral

Satisfied

Very Satisfied

5%

0%

0%

16%

55%

24%

0%

3%

0%

7%

43%

47%

0%

1%

0%

7%

44%

48%

3%

0%

0%

4%

29%

64%


Figure 5: Telephone Contact -Satisfaction With Politeness/Courtesy

Debtors

Money Advisers

Creditors


Figure 5 indicates that extremely positive outcomes were noted by all audiences

here in terms of their satisfaction with the politeness and courtesy of those they

spoke to by telephone within AiB, particularly amongst Debtors, Money Advisers

and Creditors, i.e.:

Debtors (93%)


Creditors (90%)

Furthermore, approaching 4 out of 5 Insolvency Practitioners here (79%) noted

their satisfaction in this regard.


of 77

The outcomes noted here for Debtors, Money Advisers and Insolvency

Practitioners are identical or virtually identical to those found in 2016. However,

since then, there has been a decrease in the extent to which Creditors noted their

satisfaction in this regard (falling from 100% to 90%).

From Figure 5, it can also be seen that approaching two thirds of Debtors (64%)

specifically stated that they were very satisfied with the politeness and courtesy of

those they spoke to by telephone within AiB, whilst this applied to almost half of

both Money Advisers and Creditors (48% and 47% respectively), but only a

quarter of Insolvency Practitioners (24%).

The outcome for Money Advisers here is virtually identical to that found in 2016.

However, since then, there has been an increase in the extent to which Insolvency

Practitioners noted that they were very satisfied in this regard (rising from 14% to

24%), but declines in the extent to which this was the case for both Debtors and

Creditors, i.e.:



Finally, it is highly encouraging to note that levels of dissatisfaction with politeness

and courtesy of staff spoken to by telephone continued to be non-existent or

extremely low (ranging from 0% to 3%).


of 77

“How satisfied were you with the way your query was dealt with?”

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

Not Applicable

Very Dissatisfied

Dissatisfied

Neutral

Satisfied

Very Satisfied

5%

0%

3%

30%

46%

16%

0%

3%

0%

3%

59%

34%

0%

1%

5%

11%

48%

36%

3%

0%

3%

4%

29%

62%


Figure 6: Telephone Contact -Satisfaction With Way Query Was Dealt With

Debtors

Money Advisers

Creditors


From Figure 6, it can be seen that the overwhelming majority of Debtors, Creditors

and Money Advisers who had contacted AiB by telephone noted their satisfaction

with the way their query was dealt with, i.e.:

Creditors (93%)

Debtors (91%)


Thereafter, this applied to 3 out of 5 Insolvency Practitioners here (62%).

The outcomes noted above for Creditors and Money Advisers are virtually

identical to those found in 2016. However, since then, there has been a slight

increase in the extent to which Debtors noted their satisfaction in this regard (i.e.

rising from 85% to 91%).


of 77

From Figure 6, it can also be seen that around 3 out of 5 Debtors who had

contacted AiB by telephone (62%) specifically stated that they were very satisfied

with the way their query was dealt with, although this applied to a far lower

percentage of the three other audiences here, particularly Insolvency

Practitioners, i.e.:


Creditors (34%)


The outcomes noted above are virtually identical to those found in 2016 for

Creditors, Money Advisers and Insolvency Practitioners. However, since then,

there has been a slight fall in the extent to which Debtors specifically stated that

they were very satisfied in this regard (falling from 67% to 62%).

Finally, it is encouraging to note that levels of dissatisfaction with the way that

telephone queries were dealt with were extremely low across all four audiences

(ranging from 3% to 6%).

“If you have telephoned about a bankruptcy, protected trust or DAS debt payment

programme, did you contact an agent/provider operating on behalf of AiB?”

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

Creditors

Money Advisers

Debtors

41%

45%

59%


Figure 7: Extent of Telephone Contact With Agent/Provider


of 77

Figure 7 indicates that 3 out of 5 Debtors (59%) stated that, if they had telephoned

about a bankruptcy, protected trust deed or DAS debt payment programme, they

had contacted an agent/provider operating on behalf of AiB. However, this

applied to a lesser proportion of both Money Advisers and Creditors (45% and

41% respectively).

The outcomes noted above are slightly different for all three audiences compared

to those found in 2016, i.e.:

Debtors (55% compared to 59% in 2018)

Creditors (50% compared to 45%)

Money Advisers (45% compared to 41%)

“When you contacted an agent/provider operating on behalf of AiB by telephone,

how satisfied were you with the time it took to get through to the right person?”

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

Not Applicable

Very Dissatisfied

Dissatisfied

Neutral

Satisfied

Very Satisfied

0%

0%

0%

35%

53%

12%

1%

1%

7%

28%

51%

12%

3%

1%

2%

6%

34%

53%

Base: Contacted Agent/Provider By Telephone

Figure 8: Telephone Contact -Satisfaction With Time Taken to Get Through to Right Person Debtors

Money Advisers

Creditors


of 77

From Figure 8, it can be seen that approaching 9 out of 10 Debtors who had

contacted an agent/provider operating on behalf of AiB by telephone (87%) noted

their satisfaction with the time it took to get through to the right person. However,

this applied to only around two thirds of Creditors and Money Advisers here (65%

and 63% respectively).

The outcome noted above for Debtors is virtually identical to that found in 2016

and, for Money Advisers, is very similar to that found in 2016. However, since that

time, there has been an increase in the extent to which Creditors noted their

satisfaction with the time taken to get through to the right person (increasing from

54% to 65%).

From Figure 8, it can also be seen that, whilst around half of Debtors who had

contacted an agent/provider operating on behalf of AiB by telephone (53%)

specifically stated that they were very satisfied in this regard, this applied to only 1

in 8 Money Advisers and Creditors (both 12%).

The outcomes noted above for Debtors and Money Advisers are identical or

virtually identical to those found in 2016. However, since then, there has been an

increase in the extent to which this was the case for Money Advisers (rising from

0% to 12%).

Finally, from Figure 8 it can be seen that levels of dissatisfaction here were non-

existent or very minimal for both Creditors and Debtors (0% and 3% respectively),

but slightly higher amongst Money Advisers (8%).

It should also be noted that the outcome here for Debtors is almost identical to

that found in 2016 but that, since then, there has been a slight decrease in the

extent to which both Money Advisers and Creditors noted their dissatisfaction with

the time taken to get through to the right person, i.e.:

Money Advisers (falling from 12% to 8% in 2018)



of 77

“Did the person you spoke to give you their name?”

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

Creditors

Money Advisers

Debtors

41%

78%

80%

Base: Contacted Agent/Provider By Telelphone

Figure 9: Telephone Contact - Person Give Name?

From Figure 9, it can be seen that the vast majority of both Debtors and Money

Advisers who had contacted an agent/provider operating on behalf of AiB by

telephone stated that the person they spoke to gave them their name (80% and

78% respectively). However, this applied to a far lower proportion of Creditors

(41%).

The outcome noted above for Debtors is virtually identical to that found in 2016.

However, since then, there has been a slight fall in the extent to which this was

the case for Money Advisers (falling from 84% to 78%) and a much more

significant fall in the extent to which this was the case for Creditors (falling from

69% to 41%).


of 77

“Were you able to speak to the right person first time?”

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

Creditors

Money Advisers

Debtors

50%

54%

80%

Base: Contacted Agent/Provider By Telelphone

Figure 10: Telephone Contact -Able To Speak to Right Person First Time?

Figure 10 indicates that 4 out of 5 Debtors who had contacted an agent/provider

operating on behalf of AiB by telephone (80%) stated that they were able to speak

to the right person first time. However, this applied to only just over half of Money

Advisers (54%) and exactly half of Creditors (50%) here.

The outcome noted above for Money Advisers is virtually identical to that found in

2016. However, since then, there has been an increase in the extent to which

both Debtors and Creditors (particularly the latter) stated that they were able to

speak to the right person first time, i.e.:

Debtors (rising from 72% to 80% in 2018)

Creditors (rising from 30% to 50%)


of 77

“How satisfied were you with their politeness and courtesy?”

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

Not Applicable

Very Dissatisfied

Dissatisfied

Neutral

Satisfied

Very Satisfied

0%

0%

0%

18%

71%

12%

0%

1%

1%

19%

61%

17%

2%

1%

0%

3%

31%

63%


Figure 11: Telephone Contact -Satisfaction With Politeness/Courtesy

Debtors

Money Advisers

Creditors

From Figure 11, it can be seen that over 9 out of 10 Debtors who had contacted

an agent/provider operating on behalf of AiB by telephone (94%) noted their

satisfaction with the politeness or courtesy of the person they spoke with, with this

applying to over 4 out of 5 Creditors (83%) and approaching 4 out of 5 Money

Advisers (78%) here.

The outcome noted above for Creditors is virtually identical to that found in 2016.

However, since then, there has been an increase in the extent to which both

Debtors and Money Advisers noted their satisfaction with the politeness/courtesy

of the person they spoke to, i.e.:

Debtors (rising from 88% to 94% in 2018)

Money Advisers (rising from 69% to 78%)


of 77

Figure 11 also indicates that, whilst approaching two thirds of Debtors (63%)

specifically stated that they were very satisfied in this regard, this applied to a far

lower proportion of both Money Advisers and Creditors (17% and 12%

respectively).

The outcomes above for Debtors and Money Advisers are virtually identical to

those found in 2016. However, since then, there has been a slight increase in the

extent to which Creditors specifically stated that they were very satisfied with the

politeness/courtesy of the person they spoke to (rising from 8% to 12%).

Finally, it is encouraging that levels of dissatisfaction with the politeness and

courtesy of agents/providers operating on behalf of AiB by telephone were non-

existent or very minimal across all three audiences (ranging from 0% to 2%) and,

indeed, between 2016 and 2018, there was a decline in the extent to which Money

Advisers noted their dissatisfaction in this regard (falling from 7% to 2%).


0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

Not Applicable

Very Dissatisfied

Dissatisfied

Neutral

Satisfied

Very Satisfied

0%

6%

6%

6%

65%

18%

0%

1%

9%

36%

45%

9%

3%

1%

2%

5%

31%

57%


Figure 12: Telephone Contact -Satisfaction With Way Query Was Dealt With

Debtors

Money Advisers

Creditors


of 77

From Figure 12, it can be seen that approaching 9 out of 10 Debtors who had

contacted an agent/provider operating on behalf of AiB by telephone (88%) noted

their satisfaction with the way their query was dealt with, with this applying to over

4 out of 5 Creditors (83%), but just over half of Money Advisers (54%).

The outcomes here for both Debtors and Money Advisers are virtually identical to

those found in 2016. However, since then, there has been a notable increase in

the extent to which Creditors noted their satisfaction with the way their query was

dealt with (rising from 67% to 83%).

Figure 12 also indicates that, whilst approaching 3 out of 5 Debtors (57%)

specifically stated that they were very satisfied in this regard, this applied to a

much lower proportion of both Creditors and Money Advisers, particularly the

latter (i.e. 18% and 9% respectively).

The outcome noted above for Money Advisers is identical to that found in 2016.

However, since then, there has been an increase in the extent to which Creditors

specifically stated that they were very satisfied with the way their query was dealt

with (rising from 8% to 18%), but a slight fall in this regard in the outcome for

Debtors (falling from 63% to 57%).

Finally, Figure 12 indicates that very few Debtors (only 3%) who had contacted an

agent/provider operating on behalf of AiB by telephone noted their dissatisfaction

with the way their query was dealt with. However, 1 in 10 Money Advisers (10%)

stated that this was the case, with this applying to 1 in 8 Creditors (12%).

The outcome noted above for Debtors is very similar to that in 2016. However,

since that time, there has been a slight decrease in the extent to which Money

Advisers noted their dissatisfaction with the way their query was dealt with (falling

from 14% to 10%) and a notable increase in the extent to which Creditors noted

their dissatisfaction with the way their query was dealt with (rising from 0% to

12%).


of 77

3.0 WRITTEN & E-MAIL CONTACT PROFILE

“Have you written to or e-mailed AiB?”

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Debtors

Creditors

Money Advisers

38%

70%

88%


Figure 13: Written To Or E-mailed AiB?

Figure 13 indicates that almost 9 out of 10 Money Advisers participating in the

research (88%) stated that they had written to or e-mailed AiB. This also applied

to over two thirds of Creditors (70%), but only around 2 out of 5 Debtors (38%).

The outcomes here for Money Advisers and Debtors are very similar to those

found in 2016. However, since then, there has been a slight decrease in the

extent to which Creditors stated that they had written to or e-mailed AiB (falling

from 77% to 70%).


of 77

“When you wrote or e-mailed AiB, how satisfied were you with the time taken to

respond?”

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

Not Applicable

Very Dissatisfied

Dissatisfied

Neutral

Satisfied

Very Satisfied

3%

3%

8%

32%

46%

8%

4%

4%

11%

26%

37%

19%

0%

1%

14%

12%

50%

23%

4%

2%

2%

6%

28%

59%

Base: Written To/E-mailed AiB

Figure 14: Written/E-mail Contact -Satisfaction With Time Taken to Respond

Debtors

Money Advisers

Creditors


From Figure 14, it can be seen that levels of satisfaction amongst both Debtors

and Money Advisers who had written to or e-mailed AiB with the time taken to

respond to such contacts were high, i.e.:

Debtors (87%)


Thereafter, levels of satisfaction in this regard are lower amongst Creditors and

Insolvency Practitioners (56% and 54% respectively).

The outcomes noted above for Debtors and Money Advisers are almost identical

to those found in 2016. However, between 2016 and 2018, there was an increase

in the extent to which Insolvency Practitioners noted their satisfaction with the time

taken to respond to written or e-mail contacts with AiB (rising from 43% to 54%),

but a notable decrease in the extent to which Creditors noted satisfaction in this

regard (falling from 85% to 56%).


of 77

From Figure 14, it can also be seen that 3 out of 5 Debtors here (59%) specifically

stated that they were very satisfied with the time taken to respond to their written

or e-mail communication with AiB. This outcome is virtually identical to that found

in 2016.

Thereafter, this applied to a much lower proportion of the three remaining

audiences (particularly Insolvency Practitioners), i.e.:


Creditors (19%)


The outcome here relating to Money Advisers is very largely in line with that found

in 2016. However, since then, there has been a decrease in the extent to which

Creditors noted that they were very satisfied in this regard (falling from 32% to

19%) but an increase in the extent to which Insolvency Practitioners stated that

they were very satisfied with the time taken to respond to their written or e-mail

communication with AiB (rising from 0% to 8%).

Finally, from Figure 14, it can be seen that there were relatively minimal levels of

dissatisfaction across all four audiences in terms of the time taken to respond to

their written or e-mail communications with AiB (ranging from 4% for Debtors to

15% for both Money Advisers and Creditors).

These outcomes varied little between 2016 and 2018 for Debtors and Money

Advisers. However, during that time, there was a notable increase in the extent to

which dissatisfaction was noted here by Creditors (rising from 5% to 15%) and a

notable decrease in this regard amongst Insolvency Practitioners (falling from

31% to 11%).


of 77


0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

Not Applicable

Very Dissatisfied

Dissatisfied

Neutral

Satisfied

Very Satisfied

3%

3%

5%

27%

54%

8%

4%

4%

7%

11%

52%

22%

1%

2%

7%

16%

45%

28%

2%

2%

2%

6%

30%

59%

Base: Written To/E-mailed AiB

Figure 15: Written/E-mail Contact -Satisfaction With Way Query Was Dealt With

Debtors

Money Advisers

Creditors


Figure 15 indicates that 9 out of 10 Debtors who had written to or e-mailed AiB

(89%) noted their satisfaction with the way their query was dealt with, with this

applying to around three quarters of both Creditors and Money Advisers (74% and

73% respectively) and 3 out of 5 Insolvency Practitioners (62%).

The outcomes noted above for Debtors and Money Advisers are identical or

almost identical to those found in 2016 and, indeed, for Creditors, are broadly in

line with the outcome found in 2016. However, between 2016 and 2018, there

was a very notable increase in the extent to which Insolvency Practitioners noted

their satisfaction here (rising from 42% to 62%).

From Figure 15, it can also be seen that 3 out of 5 Debtors who had written or e-

mailed AiB (59%) specifically stated that they were very satisfied with the way

their query was dealt with, with this applying to nearly 3 out of 10 Money Advisers

(28%), over 1 in 5 Creditors (22%) and 1 in 12 Insolvency Practitioners (8%).


of 77

The outcome noted above for Debtors are virtually identical to those found in

2016. However, since then, there has been a slight fall in the extent to which

Money Advisers specifically stated that they were very satisfied with the way their

query was dealt with, a more notable fall in the extent to which this was the case

for Creditors (from 32% to 22%), but a rise in the extent to which this was the case

for Insolvency Practitioners (rising from 0% to 8%).

Finally, Figure 15 indicates that levels of dissatisfaction in this regard were low

across all four audiences (ranging from 4% for Debtors to 11% for Creditors). It

should also be noted that the outcomes here for both Debtors and Money

Advisers are very similar to those found in 2016 but that, during that time, there

was an increase in the extent to which Creditors noted their dissatisfaction with

the way their query was dealt with (rising from 5% to 11%), but a decrease in the

extent to which this was the case amongst Insolvency Practitioners (falling from

16% to 8%).

“Have you written to or e-mailed an agent/provider operating on behalf of AiB?”

0% 10% 20% 30% 40%

Money Advisers

Debtors

Creditors

31%

42%

49%


Figure 16: Have You Written To Or E-mailed An Agent/Provider Operating On Behalf of AiB?

From Figure 16, it can be seen that almost exactly half of Creditors (49%) stated

that they had written to or e-mailed an agent/provider operating on behalf of AiB,

whilst this applied to around 2 out of 5 Debtors (42%) and around a third of Money

Advisers (31%).


of 77

The outcome noted above for Money Advisers is very similar to that found in

2016. However, since that time, there has been an increase in the extent to which

such contacts had been made by both Creditors and Debtors with an agent/

provider operating on behalf of AiB, i.e.:


Debtors (rising from 36% to 42%)

“When you wrote to or e-mailed an agent/provider operating on behalf of AiB, how

satisfied were you with the time taken to respond?”

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

Not Applicable

Very Dissatisfied

Dissatisfied

Neutral

Satisfied

Very Satisfied

0%

0%

16%

11%

74%

0%

0%

11%

23%

23%

34%

9%

1%

4%

3%

8%

37%

47%

Base: Written To/E-mailed Agent/Provider

Figure 17: Written/E-mail Contact -Satisfaction With Time Taken To Respond

Debtors

Money Advisers

Creditors

From Figure 17, it can be seen that over 4 out of 5 Debtors who had written to or

e-mailed an agent/provider operating on behalf of AiB (84%) stated that they were

satisfied with the time taken for them to respond. This also applied to three

quarters of Creditors (74%), but only around 2 out of 5 Money Advisers here

(43%).


of 77

Thereafter, it is of interest to note that, between 2016 and 2018, there was an

increase in the extent to which Creditors who had written to or e-mailed an

agent/provider operating on behalf of AiB noted their satisfaction with the time

taken to respond (rising from 44% to 74%) but that, during that time, there was a

decrease in the extent to which Money Advisers expressed their satisfaction in

this regard (falling from 50% to 43%).

Figure 17 also indicates that just under half of Debtors who had written to or e-

mailed an agent/provider operating on behalf of AiB (47%) specifically stated they

were very satisfied with the time taken for them to respond. However, this applied

to only around 1 in 10 Money Advisers here (9%) and no Creditors here (0%).

The outcome noted above for Debtors was broadly similar in both 2016 and 2018.

However, during that time, there was a decreasing extent to which both Money

Advisers and Creditors specifically stated that they were very satisfied in this

regard, i.e.:

Money Advisers (falling from 16% to 9%)


Finally, from Figure 17, it can be seen that levels of dissatisfaction amongst both

Creditors and Debtors were relatively limited (16% and 7% respectively), but were

more notable amongst Money Advisers (34%).

Indeed, although the outcome here for Debtors is identical to that found in 2016,

since then, there has been a notable fall in the extent to which Creditors noted

their dissatisfaction here (from 45% to 16%), but an increase in the extent to

which Money Advisers noted their dissatisfaction here (i.e. from 26% to 34%).


of 77


0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

Not Applicable

Very Dissatisfied

Dissatisfied

Neutral

Satisfied

Very Satisfied

0%

11%

5%

5%

79%

0%

0%

6%

26%

21%

40%

6%

0%

4%

4%

8%

34%

51%

Base: Written To/E-mailed Agent/Provider

Figure 18: Written/E-mail Contact -Satisfaction With Way Query Was Dealt With

Debtors

Money Advisers

Creditors

From Figure 18, it can be seen that well over 4 out of 5 Debtors who had written to

or e-mailed an agent/provider operating on behalf of AiB (85%) noted their

satisfaction with the way their query was dealt with, with this applying to almost

exactly 4 out of 5 Creditors here (79%) and approaching half of Money Advisers

here (46%).

The outcomes noted above for both Debtors and Money Advisers are very similar

or virtually identical to those found in 2016. However, since then, there has been

an increasing extent to which Creditors who had written to or e-mailed an

agent/provider operating on behalf of AiB noted their satisfaction with the way

their query was dealt with (rising from 56% to 79%).

Figure 18 also indicates that around half of Debtors who had written to or e-mailed

an agent/provider operating on behalf of AiB (51%) specifically stated that they

were very satisfied with the way their query was dealt with. However, this applied

to a far lower proportion of both Money Advisers and Creditors (6% and 0%

respectively).


of 77

Whilst the outcome noted above for Debtors is almost exactly the same as in

2016, since then – for both Money Advisers and Creditors – there has been a

decrease in the extent to which it was stated that they were very satisfied with the

way their written or e-mailed query was dealt with, i.e.:



Finally, it is of interest to note from Figure 18 that levels of dissatisfaction with the

way written or e-mailed queries were dealt with varied notably across the three

audiences, i.e.:


Creditors (16%)

Debtors (8%)

Indeed, it is also of interest to note that, whist the outcome noted above for

Debtors was identical to that found in 2016, since that time there has been a

notable increase in the extent to which both Money Advisers and Creditors noted

their dissatisfaction in this regard, i.e.:




of 77

4.0 FACE-TO-FACE CONTACT PROFILE

As was the case in 2016, a number of questions were asked only of Debtors in

2018 in relation to their face-to-face contacts with AiB.

“Have you visited the office of AiB?”

Yes 4%

No 96%

Figure 19: Visited Office of AiB?

Base: All Debtors

From Figure 19, it can be seen that very few Debtors participating in the research

(only 4%) stated that they had visited the office of AiB. This figure is almost

identical to that found in 2016 (5%).


of 77

“When you visited AiB’s office, how satisfied were you that you were seen

promptly?”

Very satisfied 22%

Satisfied 44%

Very dissatisfied4%

Not applicable 30%

Figure 20: Face-to-Face Contact - Satisfaction That You Were Seen Promptly (Indicative)

Base: 'Yes' in Figure 19

The outcomes noted in Figure 20 are highly indicative in nature due to the small

number of Debtors participating in the research who had visited AiB’s office but,

nonetheless, indicate that:

Levels of satisfaction with being seen promptly are relatively high

There is very little evidence of dissatisfaction in this regard

It should be noted that, due to the highly indicative nature of the data presented in

Figure 20, it is not appropriate to draw any comparisons with the outcomes found

in 2016.


of 77

“Have you visited the office of an agent/provider operating on behalf of AiB?”

Yes 23%

No 77%

Figure 21: Visited Office of Agent/Provider Operating on Behalf of AiB?

Base: All Debtors

Figure 21 indicates that approaching a quarter of Debtors participating in the

research (23%) stated that they had visited the office of an agent/provider

operating on behalf of AiB. This outcome is virtually identical to that found in 2016

(22%).


of 77

“When you visited the agent’s/provider’s office, how satisfied were you that you

were seen promptly?”

Very satisfied 61%

Satisfied 31%

Neutral 3%

Dissatisfied1% Not applicable

4%

Figure 22: Face-to-Face Contact - Satisfaction That You Were Seen Promptly


From Figure 22, it can be seen that, amongst those who had visited the office of

an agent/provider operating on behalf of AiB:

Over 9 out of 10 (92%) noted their satisfaction in terms of being seen promptly

3 out of 5 (61%) specifically stated that they were very satisfied in terms of

being seen promptly

Almost no respondents (1%) noted their dissatisfaction in terms of being seen

promptly

Levels of overall satisfaction and dissatisfaction amongst those who had visited

the office of an agent/provider operating on behalf of AiB in respect of being seen

promptly varied little between 2016 and 2018. However, during that time, there

was a decrease in the extent to which respondents specifically stated that they

were very satisfied in this regard (falling from 76% to 61%).


of 77

5.0 FORMS & GUIDES PROFILE

“How satisfied were you with the information contained within any of the AiB

leaflets/guides/forms you may have read?”

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

Not Applicable

Very Dissatisfied

Dissatisfied

Neutral

Satisfied

Very Satisfied

3%

0%

3%

22%

62%

11%

18%

0%

3%

24%

47%

8%

4%

1%

3%

14%

51%

27%

8%

0%

1%

10%

36%

45%


Figure 23: Satisfaction With Information Contained Within AiB Leaflets/Guides/Forms

Debtors

Money Advisers

Creditors


From Figure 23, it can be seen that levels of satisfaction with information

contained within any of the AiB leaflets, guides or forms read by Debtors, Money

Advisers and Insolvency Practitioners are high, i.e.:

Debtors (81%)



However, levels of satisfaction in this regard are lower amongst Creditors (55%).

Between 2016 and 2018, there was a slight fall in levels of satisfaction noted here

by Debtors (falling from 86% to 81%). However, there were more notable falls in

this regard in terms of levels of satisfaction with AiB leaflets, guides or forms that

Money Advisers and Creditors had read, i.e.:


of 77



In contrast, between 2016 and 2018, there was a slight increase in the extent to

which Insolvency Practitioners noted their satisfaction here (rising from 68% to

73%).

Figure 23 also indicates that approaching half of Debtors (45%) specifically stated

that they were very satisfied with information contained within AiB leaflets, guides

and forms which they had read, with this applying to around a quarter of Money

Advisers (27%), but a far lower proportion of both Insolvency Practitioners and

Creditors (11% and 8% respectively).

The outcomes noted here for both Debtors and Money Advisers are broadly in line

with those found in 2016. However, since then, there has been a notable

decrease in the extent to which Creditors specifically stated that they were very

satisfied with the information contained within any of the AiB leaflets, guides or

forms which they had read (falling from 29% to 8%), but an increase in this regard

amongst Insolvency Practitioners (rising from 0% to 11%).

Finally, it is encouraging to note from Figure 23 that very few of those participating

in the research noted their dissatisfaction with the information contained within

any of the AiB leaflets, guides or forms they may have read (ranging from 1% to

4%). However, whilst this was also the case in 2016 for Debtors, Money Advisers

and Creditors, since then, there has been a decrease in the extent to which

Insolvency Practitioners noted their dissatisfaction in this regard (falling from 11%

to 3%).


of 77

“How do you prefer to receive forms and guidance?”

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

To read on a website

Paper/booklet

A downloadableelectronic document

23%

9%

68%

28%

10%

50%

26%

43%

65%

18%

50%

33%


Figure 24: Preferred Methods to Receive Forms & Guidance Debtors

Money Advisers

Creditors


Figure 24 indicates that around two thirds of both Insolvency Practitioners and

Money Advisers (68% and 65% respectively) noted a preference for receiving

forms and guidance as a downloadable electronic document, with this applying to

half of Creditors (50%) and a third of Debtors (33%).

The outcome noted above for Debtors is almost identical to that found in 2016.

However, for the three remaining audiences, very notable variances are apparent

during that time, i.e.:



Insolvency Practitioners (falling from 79% to 68%)

Figure 24 also indicates that exactly half of Debtors (50%) expressed a preference

to receive forms and guidance in a paper/booklet format, with this applying to over

2 out of 5 Money Advisers (43%) and around 1 in 10 of both Creditors and

Insolvency Practitioners (10% and 9% respectively).


of 77

The outcomes here for Money Advisers and Insolvency Practitioners are very

broadly in line with those found in 2016. However, since then, there has been a

decline in expressed preference for the receipt of forms and guidance in a

paper/booklet format amongst both Debtors and Creditors, i.e.:



Finally, Figure 24 indicates that around a quarter of Creditors, Money Advisers

and Insolvency Practitioners (28%, 26% and 23% respectively) expressed a

preference to receive forms and guidance to read on a website, whilst this applied

to approaching 1 in 5 Debtors (18%).

Although the outcome noted here for Insolvency Practitioners is almost identical to

that found in 2016, there were notable variances across the other three audiences

in terms of their preference to receive forms and guidance to read on a website,

i.e.:

Money Advisors (falling from 67% to 26%)




of 77

6.0 GENERAL RESULTS PROFILE

6.1 Profile of Quantitative Responses – AiB

“How important are the following when rating the service provided by AiB or one of

our providers?”

0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00

Knowledgable staff

Clearcommunications

Efficiency

Quality service

Speed of response

1.29

1.23

1.49

1.46

1.60

1.19

1.25

1.31

1.31

1.44

1.15

1.17

1.30

1.22

1.38

1.28

1.30

1.37

1.34

1.43


Figure 25: Importance of Factors When Rating Service Provided by AiB - Average Score Out Of 5

Debtors

Money Advisers

Creditors


Respondents were asked to rate the importance of a range of factors when rating

the service provided by AiB or one of its providers on a scale from 1 to 5, where

‘1’ was extremely important and ‘5’ was extremely unimportant and, on this basis,

it is of interest to note that high levels of priority are placed upon five elements of

the service provided by AiB, namely:

Speed of response

Quality of service

Efficiency

Clear communications

Knowledgeable staff


of 77

Thereafter, a number of interesting outcomes are apparent here, namely:

Speed of response is of most importance to Money Advisers, Debtors and

Creditors when rating the service provided by AiB or one of its providers (with

average scores of 1.38, 1.43 and 1.44 respectively out of a possible 5) and of

least importance to Insolvency Practitioners (1.60)

Quality of service is of most importance to Money Advisers (1.22) and of least

importance to Insolvency Practitioners (1.46)

Efficiency is of most importance to Money Advisers and Creditors (1.30 and

1.31 respectively) and of least importance to Insolvency Practitioners (1.49)

Clear communications are of most importance to Money Advisers (1.17) and

of least importance – albeit marginally – to Debtors (1.30)

Knowledgeable staff is of most importance to Money Advisers and Creditors

(1.15 and 1.19 respectively) and of least importance to Debtors and

Insolvency Practitioners (1.28 and 1.29 respectively)

Further examination of the data indicates that, between 2016 and 2018, a number

of the factors under consideration here fell in terms of their importance to one or

more of the audiences participating in the research, i.e.:

Speed of response: falling by 24.2% amongst Insolvency Practitioners and

12.9% amongst Creditors in terms of its importance

Quality of service: falling by 24.7%, 11.4% and 10.3% respectively amongst

Insolvency Practitioners, Creditors and Money Advisers

Efficiency: falling by 29.4% amongst Insolvency Practitioners

Clear communications: falling by 26.3% and 15.5% respectively amongst

Insolvency Practitioners and Creditors

Knowledgeable staff: falling by 10.4% amongst Insolvency Practitioners


of 77

“Did you have some level of contact with AiB?”

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

Creditors

Debtors

Money Advisers

63%

68%

92%


Figure 26: Some Level of Contact With AiB During Bankruptcy?

Figure 26 indicates that around 9 out of 10 Money Advisers (92%) stated that they

had had some level of contact with AiB during their client’s bankruptcy, protected

trust deed or DAS debt payment programme, whilst two thirds of Debtors (68%)

stated that they had had some level of contact with AiB during their bankruptcy,

protected trust deed or DAS debt payment programme, with this applying to

approaching two thirds of Creditors (63%) in terms of having had some level of

contact with AiB during the bankruptcy, protected trust deed or DAS debt payment

programme.

Between 2016 and 2018, there was a modest increase in the extent to which

Money Advisers stated that they had had some level of contact with AiB (rising

from 85% to 92%) and a modest fall in the extent to which Debtors stated that

they had had some level of contact with AiB (falling from 73% to 68%).

During that time, however, there was a far more dramatic rise in the extent to

which Creditors stated that they had had some level of contact with AiB (rising

from 5% to 63%).


of 77

It should be noted that the presumption had been that all Insolvency Practitioners

would have had some level of contact with AiB and, therefore, they were excluded

from the data presented in Figure 26 as they were not asked this question.

“How satisfied are you with the overall service provided by AiB?”

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

Not Applicable

Very Dissatisfied

Dissatisfied

Neutral

Satisfied

Very Satisfied

0%

0%

9%

31%

46%

14%

0%

5%

5%

0%

64%

27%

0%

2%

6%

12%

44%

36%

1%

1%

2%

5%

29%

63%


Figure 27: Overall Satisfaction With Service Provided by AiB Debtors

Money Advisers

Creditors


From Figure 27, it can be seen that 9 out of 10 Debtors and Creditors (92% and

91% respectively) who had had some level of contact with AiB noted their

satisfaction with these contacts, with this applying to 4 out of 5 Money Advisers

(80%) and 3 out of 5 Insolvency Practitioners (60%).

The outcome noted above for Debtors is virtually identical to that found in 2016.

However, during that time, there was an increase in the extent to which Insolvency

Practitioners noted their overall satisfaction with the service provided by AiB

(rising from 50% to 60%) but a fall in the extent to which this applied to Money

Advisers (from 89% to 80%)1.

1 The very small number of Creditors who had had some level of contact with AiB in 2016 is such

that it is not possible to provide even indicative comparisons for their responses between 2016 and 2018.


of 77

From Figure 27, it can also be seen that approaching two thirds of Debtors (63%)

specifically stated that they were very satisfied with the overall service provided by

AiB. This only applied to around a third of Money Advisers (36%), a quarter of

Creditors (27%) and 1 in 7 Insolvency Practitioners (14%).

The outcomes here for these three audiences are very much in line with those

found in 20162.

Finally, Figure 27 indicates that levels of dissatisfaction with the overall service

provided by AiB were minimal across all four audiences (ranging from 3% for

Debtors to 10% for Creditors) and, indeed, the outcomes here for these three

audiences are broadly in line with those found in 20162.

6.2 Profile of Qualitative Responses – AiB

Respondents in all four audiences who had had contact with AiB were given the

opportunity to provide verbatim comments about the service it provided to them.

Money Advisers

The comments provided by Money Advisers who had had contact with AiB during

their client’s bankruptcy, protected trust deed or DAS debt payment programme

were both positive and negative in nature. In particular, the primary positive

comments focused around AiB and its staff being helpful.

Thereafter, secondary positive comments focused around:

AiB providing a good service, respondents being happy with the AiB service

and respondents being satisfied with AiB’s service

Communications from AiB being clear and transparent

AiB staff being polite and courteous

AiB staff being knowledgeable

2 The very small number of Creditors who had had some level of contact with AiB in 2016 is such

that it is not possible to provide even indicative comparisons for their responses between 2016 and 2018.


of 77

Finally, more specific positive comments were made here relating to, for

example:

Respondents having largely positive experiences with AiB

AiB staff being excellent

Recent improvements in the courtesy of staff

Respondents having great dealings with AiB

AiB being an approachable organisation

AiB staff being friendly

AiB providing a great service

The ability of AiB staff to answer questions

The negative comments provided were largely specific in nature. However,

these were most notable in relation to e-mail responses being slow, not being

acknowledged or being unanswered.

Thereafter, secondary negative comments were made here in relation to:

Unnecessary or excessive information being requested

Inconsistencies in information requested/provided by different staff

Different advice given by different staff

Staff occasionally being obstructive, lacking knowledge and being unhelpful

Length of time waited for responses (for example, from payment distributors)

AiB being over-reliant on its guidelines (rather than taking into account the

circumstances of Debtors)

Finally, specific negative comments were made here in relation to:

The length of time it can take to get through to the correct person by phone

The online application process being cumbersome

Respondents encountering IT issues

DAS being difficult to administer/keep up to date with

Staff not giving their names when contacted by phone

Information provided by Money Advisers being missed (and, therefore,

requiring to be sent again)

Information in booklets being outdated


of 77

There being too many box tickers in AiB

AiB being bureaucratic

Not being provided with definitive answers to complex/unusual queries

Failures to acknowledge/reply to additional evidence supplied in support of

bankruptcy applications

Difficulties encountered for clients for whom English was not their first

language

Electronic application processes needing to be improved

Length of time taken to provide information being unsatisfactory

AiB staff occasionally being inefficient, patronising and unhelpful

Ambiguous answers being provided

Staff lacking money advice training

Lack of knowledge as to how AiB processes work

Creditors

The comments provided by Creditors in relation to the overall service provided by

AiB during the bankruptcy, protected trust deed or DAS debt payment programme

were all specific and negative in nature and were as follows:

A belief that the AiB website does not offer clear information

Concerns that AiB is trying to become self-sufficient

A belief that AiB is obstructive and very unwilling to help and that there is “a

defensiveness to its communications and no willingness to deliver solutions”

In addition, two comments were made with regard to Creditor beliefs or desires,

namely:

A belief that AiB’s focus is on Debtors and it does not care about “small

businesses like us who could go under”

A desire for the Insolvency Register to be easier to access


The comments provided by Insolvency Practitioners about the service provided by

AiB were both positive and negative in nature.


of 77

From a positive perspective, positive terms were used, such as:

Helpful

Informative

Honest when unsure

AiB providing a good service

AiB staff being knowledgeable and supportive

AiB staff being patient and courteous

Recent improvements in communications

In contrast, specific negative comments were provided in relation to:

AiB’s consistency being questionable

Changes in processes and opinions “coming out of the blue”

Delays in receiving information

AiB staff not understanding the statutory provisions/the basics of insolvency

Frustrations with AiB (for example, when dealing with fee restrictions)

There being too many box tickers in AiB

Debtors

The comments provided by Debtors who had had contact with AiB during their

bankruptcy, protected trust deed or DAS debt payment programme were

overwhelmingly positive in nature. In particular, extremely positive comments

were made about AiB staff who were noted as being:

Able to deal well with Debtors problems

Courteous, pleasant and polite

Easy to deal with

Empathetic

Fantastic

Friendly

Helpful

Kind/compassionate

Knowledgeable/informative (for example, in terms of their ability to answer

questions and explain processes)


of 77

Patient

Professional

Responsive

Supportive

Understanding

Thereafter, notable secondary positive mention was made here of:

Debtors being satisfied with their experience and service provided by AiB

The efficiency of AiB’s service and staff

AiB providing an excellent service

Debtors being dealt with without judgement

AiB taking the stress out of a very stressful situation (“putting Debtors at

ease”)

Agents that AiB had appointed being helpful

Finally, more specific positive mention was made here of:

AiB’s responses being quick

AiB being well organised

The amount of advice provided by AiB

Indeed, it should be stressed that there were a considerable number of

expressions of thanks by Debtors, together with a number of Debtors making

reference to their dealings with AiB changing their life.

The positive comments noted above should be placed within the context that

many of those providing feedback here described the process of going through

bankruptcy as being a highly stressful one and, accordingly, the assistance

provided by AiB was seen as being particularly useful/valuable.

Unlike the positive comments made by Debtors, relatively few negative

comments were provided, all of which were very specific in nature, including,

for example:

AiB being difficult to deal with

A Debtor who felt a little intimidated by an AiB staff member


of 77

Being given little information about the process

No documents being received post-insolvency

A Debtor who found the process confusing

Lack of advice provided

Being stressed by correspondence with AiB

Processes and information required not being made clear

Lack of ongoing contact from AiB

Information not being provided in a timely fashion

Some information requiring to be sent more than once

E-mails that can be threatening in nature

The time taken to respond to e-mails

Difficulties in getting through to AiB (including undelivered e-mails and

voicemails being full)

6.3 Profile of Quantitative Responses – Agents/Providers

“Did you have some level of contact with an agent/provider operating on behalf of

AiB?”

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

Creditors

Money Advisers

Debtors

42%

43%

71%


Figure 28: Contact With Agent/Provider During Bankruptcy Process?


of 77

From Figure 28, it can be seen that over two thirds of Debtors (71%) stated that

they had had some level of contact with an agent/provider operating on behalf of

AiB during their bankruptcy, protected trust deed or DAS debt payment

programme but that only around 2 out of 5 Money Advisers and Creditors (43%

and 42% respectively) stated that they had had some level of contact with an

agent/provider operating on behalf of AiB during the bankruptcy, protected trust

deed or DAS debt payment programme.

The outcomes noted above for both Debtors and Money Advisers are very similar

to those found in 2016. However, since then, there has been a notable increase

in the extent to which Creditors noted contact with an agent/provider operating on

behalf of AiB (rising from 22% to 42%).

“How satisfied are you with the overall service provided by an agent/provider

operating on behalf of AiB?”

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

Not Applicable

Very Dissatisfied

Dissatisfied

Neutral

Satisfied

Very Satisfied

0%

7%

7%

13%

67%

7%

0%

2%

13%

25%

48%

13%

0%

3%

4%

8%

28%

58%


Figure 29: Overall Satisfaction With Service Provided by Agent/Provider Operating On Behalf of AiB

Debtors

Money Advisers

Creditors


of 77

Figure 29 indicates that approaching 9 out of 10 Debtors (86%) who had contact

with an agent/provider during their bankruptcy, protected trust deed or DAS debt

payment programme process noted their satisfaction with this contact, with this

applying to three quarters of Creditors (74%) and 3 out of 5 Money Advisers

(61%) in relation to the bankruptcy, protected trust deed or DAS debt payment

programme.

Between 2016 and 2018, there was a slight fall in the extent to which Debtors

noted satisfaction here (from 92% to 86%), a modest rise in the extent to which

Money Advisers noted satisfaction here (from 56% to 61%) and a much more

notable rise in the extent to which Creditors noted their overall satisfaction with the

service provided by an agent/provider (rising from 50% to 74%).

Figure 29 also indicates that, whilst 3 out of 5 Debtors (58%) specifically stated

that they were very satisfied with the overall service provided by an agent/provider

operating on behalf of AiB, this applied to a far lower proportion of both Money

Advisers and Creditors (13% and 7% respectively).

The outcome noted above for Money Advisers is very similar to that found in

2016. However, since then, there had been a decrease in the extent to which

Debtors specifically stated that they were very satisfied with the overall service

provided by an agent/provider operating on behalf of AiB (falling from 70% to

58%) and a modest rise in this regard amongst Creditors (from 0% to 7%).

Finally, Figure 29 indicates that very few Debtors (7%) noted dissatisfaction with

the overall service provided by an agent/provider operating on behalf of AiB (as

was the case in 2016: 4%), but that levels of dissatisfaction were slightly higher

amongst both Money Advisers and Creditors, i.e.:

Money Advisers (15% compared to 5% in 2016)

Creditors (14% compared to 17% in 2016)

6.4 Profile of Qualitative Responses – Agents/Providers

Respondents in all four audiences who had had contact with an agent/provider

operating on behalf of AiB were also given the opportunity to provide verbatim

comments about the service provided to them by agents/providers.


of 77

Money Advisers

Almost all of the comments provided by Money Advisers who had had contact with

an agent/provider operating on behalf of AiB during their client’s bankruptcy,

protected trust deed or DAS debt payment programme were negative, although

very specific in nature. The exception here was that of references to difficulties in

getting agents to make decisions, provide information and provide figures.

Thereafter, more specific negative comments were provided, such as:

Agents/providers providing incorrect information to clients

Agents/providers not being professional

Agents/providers being slow to answer e-mails

Beliefs that payment distributors and DAS could do more

Agents/providers referring back to AiB too often, causing delays for clients

Third-party providers being difficult to contact

Differing attitudes and approaches by different agents/providers

Only two positive comments were provided which related to agents/providers:

Being courteous, helpful and approachable

Mostly being good

Creditors

When Creditors were asked for comments with regard to the service provided by

agents/providers operating on behalf of AiB during the bankruptcy, protected trust

deed or DAS debt payment programme, only two were provided. These were as

follows:

“The case I brought to court has been grossly mishandled by the agent”

“They tell us what they do for the Debtors but do not listen to us at all”


of 77

Debtors

The overwhelming majority of comments provided by Debtors who had had

contact with an agent/provider operating on behalf of AiB during their bankruptcy

were positive, primarily in terms of agents/providers being described as

professional, helpful, knowledgeable and very good. Thereafter, references were

made to agents/providers being perfect, providing good/clear guidance/

information, being in regular contact, being efficient/quick, being courteous, being

understanding, being fantastic, being helpful, being reassuring, being

compassionate/empathetic and explaining processes well.

Any negative comments provided here were specific in nature, namely:

AiB and its agents/providers having different procedures

Staff not being knowledgeable

Cost to call agents/providers

Lack of accessible information regarding the stages of bankruptcy and rules

during bankruptcy period

Minimal levels of contact from agents/providers

Agents/providers not caring about their clients

Agents/providers being unsympathetic

E-mail/telephone communications issues (particularly in relation to delays in

responding to e-mails)


of 77

7.0 AiB WEBSITE PROFILE

7.1 Profile of Quantitative Information

“How easy do you find the information you are looking for on the aib.gov.uk

website?”

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

Not Applicable

Very difficult

Fairly difficult

Fairly easy

Very easy

0%

3%

7%

69%

11%

18%

0%

9%

62%

12%

0%

1%

14%

70%

16%

15%

2%

4%

48%

31%


Figure 30: Ease/Difficulty to Find Information on Websites Debtors

Money Advisers

Creditors


From Figure 30, it can be seen that the vast majority of respondents across all

four audiences believed that it was easy (either fairly easy or very easy) to find

information they were looking for on the aib.gov.uk website, i.e.:



Debtors (79%)

Creditors (74%)

Between 2016 and 2018, there were modest decreases in the extent to which

both Debtors and Creditors believed that it was easy to find information they were

looking for on the aib.gov.uk website, i.e.:


of 77



During that time, however, there were also modest increases in the extent to

which both Money Advisers and Insolvency Practitioners noted ease in this

regard, i.e.:


Insolvency Practitioners (rising from 72% to 80%)

From Figure 30, it can also been seen that around a third of Debtors (31%)

specifically stated that they found it very easy to find information they were looking

for on the AiB.gov.uk website and this applied to a notably lower proportion of the

three remaining audiences, i.e.:


Creditors (12%)


In addition, the extent to which respondents found difficulty in accessing

information they were looking for on the AiB.gov.uk website was relatively limited

(ranging from 6% for Debtors to 15% for Money Advisers).

Finally, it should be stressed, however, that a proportion of both Creditors and

Debtors (18% and 15% respectively) believed that this question was not

applicable to them. This should be taken into account when considering the

outcomes noted above3.

3 It should be noted that this question was asked differently in 2016, on the basis that it referred to

the AiB.gov.uk and scotlandsfinancialhealthservice.gov.uk websites. Accordingly, comparisons are not appropriate.


of 77

“Overall, how satisfied are you with AiB’s website?”

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

Not Applicable

Very Dissatisfied

Dissatisfied

Neutral

Satisfied

Very Satisfied

0%

0%

9%

34%

54%

3%

9%

0%

3%

21%

56%

12%

0%

1%

5%

20%

56%

18%

14%

1%

1%

12%

39%

33%


Figure 31: Overall Satisfaction With AiB's Website Debtors

Money Advisers

Creditors


From Figure 31, it can be seen that three quarters of both Money Advisers and

Debtors (74% and 72% respectively) stated that they were satisfied with AiB’s

website, with this applying to two thirds of Creditors (68%) and approaching 3 out

of 5 Insolvency Practitioners (57%).

Figure 31 also indicates that around a third of Debtors (33%) specifically stated

that, overall, they were very satisfied with the AiB website, with this applying to

approaching 1 in 5 Money Advisers (18%), 1 in 8 Creditors (12%) but very few

Insolvency Practitioners (3%).

Finally, Figure 31 indicates that levels of overall dissatisfaction with the AiB

website are minimal (ranging from 2% to Debtors to 9% for Insolvency

Practitioners)4.

4 It should be noted that this question was asked differently in 2016, on the basis that it referred to

the AiB.gov.uk and scotlandsfinancialhealthservice.gov.uk websites. Accordingly, comparisons are not appropriate.


of 77


Again, at this point in the questionnaire, respondents were given the opportunity to

provide verbatim comments about AiB’s websites.

Money Advisers

Virtually all of the comments provided about AiB’s website by Money Advisers

were negative in nature and, in particular, focused around difficulties in

navigation/finding documents and information (with specific references being

made here to the search function of the website).

Thereafter, more specific negative comments were provided about AiB’s

website in terms of the website:

Not being sufficiently user-friendly

Not being particularly intuitive

Lacking explanatory notes in languages other than English

Having too much prominence placed on AiB news

Lacking specific sections (for, for example, Money Advisers and Debtors)

Being more difficult to navigate since recent changes to the website

Having problems in terms of elements of the website crashing/logging users

out (with particular references being made here to DAS)

Lacking a focus on Debtors

Lacking guidance for Money Advisers (e.g. information on rules and

regulations when inputting a DAS or bankruptcy)

Having a hard delete immediately when transferred to BASYS

Only one positive comment was provided here which was specific in nature

and related to the updated bankruptcy application processes on BASYS having

improved vastly and being easier to input applications.

Creditors

Only three comments were provided by Creditors in relation to the AiB website

which were as follows:


of 77

“Easy to search if you have customer name but, when trying to search for any

bankruptcy etc. in Highland area only, have to put lots of separate postcodes

in which is time consuming. Also to have to keep on resetting site when doing

searches”

“I think it is one of the better Government websites”

“It needs to be more easily accessible like the English Insolvency Register

where all that is needed is the individual’s name”


Only six comments were noted by Insolvency Practitioners with regard to the AiB

website, all of which were specific and negative. These were as follows:

“A lot of out-of-date information on the website”

“Navigating through CFT and BASYS can be very time consuming. Being able

to link to areas without having to go back through individual pages would be

very useful”

“Overall, not very user-friendly. Typical Government site”

“The front page is very busy. Loads of information, boxes and links. Could be

more streamlined”

“Too many clicks, too much own information, difficult to navigate at times”

“Too many dead links”

Debtors

The comments provided by Debtors with regard to the AiB website were both

positive and negative.

In particular, the primary positive comments made about the website were that:

It was a good source of information and provided a significant amount of

valuable information (which made processes clearer)

It was easy to navigate/find information

Thereafter, more specific positive comments were made with regard to the AiB

website in terms of it:


of 77

Being ok or fine

Being helpful and easy to understand

Providing answers to all the questions that a Debtor could have

Being clear and concise

Being informative

Being professional

The primary negative comments made by Debtors about the AiB website

related to it being difficult to navigate, use and find information on (as a function of

being poorly structured and complicated).

Thereafter, more specific negative comments were made here by Debtors in

terms of the AiB website:

Having language which was difficult to understand

Being confusing (unless all options and processes associated with, for

example, trust deeds and bankruptcy were understood)

Lacking detail regarding how processes work and other information (for

example, in relation to personal limits)

Lacking non-English language content

It should also be noted that a significant number of Debtors made reference here

to having not used the AiB website (on the basis that a third party had provided

support to them), whilst a number of others were unaware of the AiB website.


of 77

8.0 AiB IT SYSTEMS

8.1 Profile of Quantitative Information

Money Advisers, Creditors and Insolvency Practitioners were asked a number of

questions pertaining to AiB’s IT systems. This was the first occasion that these

questions had been asked.

The data presented in Figures 32 to 37 inclusive exclude respondents who stated

that a question was not applicable to them.

“How satisfied are you with the IT systems AiB provide for debt relief products -

ASTRA?”

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

Very Dissatisfied

Dissatisfied

Neutral

Satisfied

Very Satisfied

14%

14%

25%

33%

4%

20%

0%

0%

40%

40%

2%

5%

14%

61%

17%

Base: All Respondents (Excluding 'Not Applicable')

Figure 32: Satisfaction With IT Systems That AiB Provide for Debt Relief Products: ASTRA

Money Advisers

Creditors


From Figure 32, it can be seen that 4 out of 5 Creditors and Money Advisers (80%

and 78% respectively) noted their satisfaction with the ASTRA IT system.

Thereafter, 1 in 6 Money Advisers (17%) specifically stated that they were very

satisfied with ASTRA, whilst this applied to 2 out of 5 Creditors (40%).


of 77

Figure 32 also indicates that approaching 2 out of 5 Insolvency Practitioners

(37%) noted their satisfaction with ASTRA, but very few (only 4%) specifically

stated that they were very satisfied with this IT system.

Finally, Figure 32 indicates that approaching 3 out of 10 Insolvency Practitioners

(28%) noted their dissatisfaction with ASTRA, with this applying to 1 in 5 Creditors

(20%) and very few Money Advisers (only 7%).

“How satisfied are you with the IT systems AiB provide for debt relief products -

BASYS?”

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

Very Dissatisfied

Dissatisfied

Neutral

Satisfied

Very Satisfied

11%

11%

37%

34%

6%

0%

0%

0%

50%

50%

2%

5%

14%

61%

17%


Figure 33: Satisfaction With IT Systems That AiB Provide for Debt Relief Products: BASYS

Money Advisers

Creditors


Figure 33 indicates that all Creditors and 4 out of 5 Money Advisers (100% and

78% respectively) noted their satisfaction with BASYS, with 1 in 6 Money Advisers

(17%) specifically stating that they were very satisfied with BASYS and this

applying to half (50%) of Creditors.

Figure 33 also indicates that 2 out of 5 Insolvency Practitioners (40%) noted their

satisfaction with BASYS, but that very few (only 6%) specifically stated that they

were very satisfied with it.


of 77

Finally, Figure 33 indicates that over 1 in 5 Insolvency Practitioners (22%) noted

their dissatisfaction with BASYS. However, this applied to no Creditors and very

few Money Advisers (0% and 7% respectively).

“How satisfied are you with the IT systems AiB provide for debt relief products –

DASH?”

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

Very Dissatisfied

Dissatisfied

Neutral

Satisfied

Very Satisfied

17%

14%

46%

22%

0%

0%

23%

27%

34%

15%

16%

24%

30%

25%

5%


Figure 34: Satisfaction With IT Systems That AiB Provide for Debt Relief Products: DASH

Money Advisers

Creditors


From Figure 34, it can be seen that almost exactly half of Creditors (49%) noted

their satisfaction with DASH. However, this applied to a far lower proportion of

both Money Advisers and Insolvency Practitioners (30% and 22% respectively).

Figure 34 also indicates that around 1 in 6 Creditors (15%) specifically stated that

they were very satisfied with DASH. However, this applied to no Insolvency

Practitioners and very few Money Advisers (0% and 5% respectively).

Finally, Figure 34 indicates that 2 out of 5 Money Advisers (40%) noted their

dissatisfaction with DASH, with this applying to almost a third of Insolvency

Practitioners (31%) and almost a quarter of Creditors (23%).


of 77

“Do you feel you are provided with sufficient information about updates to AiB’s IT

systems - ASTRA?”

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

Very Dissatisfied

Dissatisfied

Neutral

Satisfied

Very Satisfied

0%

8%

46%

42%

4%

0%

11%

33%

33%

22%

0%

0%

47%

29%

24%


Figure 35: Sufficiency of Information re Updates to AiB's IT Systems: ASTRA

Money Advisers

Creditors


Figure 35 indicates that around half of Creditors, Money Advisers and Insolvency

Practitioners (55%, 53% and 46% respectively) noted their satisfaction in terms of

being provided with sufficient information about updates to ASTRA.

Thereafter, around a quarter of both Money Advisers and Creditors (24% and 22%

respectively) specifically stated that they were very satisfied with being provided

with sufficient information about updates to ASTRA, although this applied to very

few Insolvency Practitioners (only 4%).

Finally, Figure 35 indicates that levels of dissatisfaction with ASTRA were low

(ranging from 0% for Money Advisers to 11% for Creditors).


of 77


systems - BASYS?”

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

Very Dissatisfied

Dissatisfied

Neutral

Satisfied

Very Satisfied

0%

9%

38%

47%

6%

0%

11%

23%

34%

34%

1%

6%

25%

52%

17%


Figure 36: Sufficiency of Information re Updates to AiB's IT Systems: BASYS

Money Advisers

Creditors


Figure 36 indicates that around two thirds of both Money Advisers and Creditors

(69% and 68% respectively) noted their satisfaction in terms of being provided

with sufficient information about updates to BASYS, with this applying to around

half of Insolvency Practitioners (53%).

Figure 36 also indicates that a third of Creditors (34%) specifically stated that they

were very satisfied in terms of being provided with sufficient information about

updates to BASYS, with this applying to 1 in 6 Money Advisers (17%) and very

few Insolvency Practitioners (only 6%).

Finally, Figure 36 indicates that levels of dissatisfaction with being provided with

sufficient information about updates to BASYS were low (ranging from 7% for

Money Advisers to 11% for Creditors).


of 77


systems - DASH?”

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

Very Dissatisfied

Dissatisfied

Neutral

Satisfied

Very Satisfied

0%

4%

56%

35%

4%

4%

14%

18%

43%

22%

3%

8%

27%

45%

16%


Figure 37: Sufficiency of Information re Updates to AiB's IT Systems: DASH

Money Advisers

Creditors


Figure 37 indicates that approaching two thirds of Creditors (65%) stated that they

were satisfied in terms of being provided with sufficient information about updates

to DASH. This applied to a slightly lower proportion of Money Advisers (61%) and

a much lower proportion of Insolvency Practitioners (39%).

Figure 37 also indicates that over 1 in 5 Creditors (22%) specifically stated that

they were very satisfied in terms of being provided with sufficient information

about updates to DASH, whilst this applied to 1 in 6 Money Advisers (16%) but

very few Insolvency Practitioners (only 4%).

Finally, Figure 37 indicates that approaching 1 in 5 Creditors (18%) noted their

dissatisfaction in terms of being provided with sufficient information about updates

to DASH. This also applied to 1 in 10 Money Advisers (11%) but very few

Insolvency Practitioners (only 4%).


of 77


Once again, at this point in the questionnaire, respondents were given the

opportunity to provide verbatim comments about AiB’s IT systems.

Money Advisers

The comments made concerning AiB’s IT systems by Money Advisers were

mostly specific in nature, with two exceptions, in relation to which more

prominent comments were made. These were as follows:

Criticisms of DASH – which were significant and related to, for example, it not

being sufficiently user-friendly, not being fit for purpose, being difficult to

navigate, being confusing and being unnecessarily complicated

Positive comments about AIB’s IT systems having improved recently

(including BASYS)

With one exception, all of the remaining comments were specific and negative in

nature, including:

Difficulties encountered when using BASYS

AiB’s IT systems not running smoothly

AiB’s IT systems being cumbersome (particularly DASH)

Difficulties with firewalls and browsers

Not having an individual at AiB to call if IT problems are encountered

The laborious process to enter debt information on to the sequestration

application form

The extent to which it is time consuming to enter dates into systems

Lack of notifications when a system is not working (which users may not know

until “they are kicked out in the middle of the work”)

Difficulties in changing passwords

The one specific positive comment made relating to AiB’s IT systems was that

“whenever there is an issue with the IT system, it is very quickly resolved”.

In the context of the comments noted above regarding DASH, it should be noted

that a number of Money Advisers made reference to looking forward to EDEN


of 77

being brought in to replace DASH (which, it was believed, would be far better than

the existing system).

It should also be noted that three observations are worthy of note, namely

desires:

For DASH to be made more like BASYS when it comes to Creditors

For more end-user testing of new systems before they go live

To be told about changes made in order to minimise difficulties for users

Creditors

When Creditors were asked if they had any other comments they would like to

make concerning AiB’s IT systems, three negative comments were provided.

These were as follows:

“Difficult to navigate and insufficient help”

“Some pages a little clunky/old-fashioned”

“Very slow and not clear how to make changes”

In addition, one Creditor made the following comment – “The sooner EDEN

replaces DASH the better. I know you are nearly there and the workshop in

Glasgow for Creditors was excellent”.


Finally, when Insolvency Practitioners were asked if they had any other comments

regarding AiB’s IT systems, three negative comments were made which were as

follows, namely:

“Could do with updating”

“The BASYS system is not user-friendly at all. The amount of times password

changes are requested is ridiculous. That there is not a user e-mail

notification system for documents uploaded by the AiB to BASYS is extremely

unhelpful”

“Too many systems. Need to be consolidated a bit more. Cumbersome and

difficult to move around it”


of 77

In addition, two suggestions were made here by Insolvency Practitioners,

namely:

“BASYS should adopt the same system, obviously where relevant, that

ASTRA has. There are similar questions/parts on each. Both systems are

different, although ASTRA is the better system of the two”

“If they could all be the same or similar, that would help”


of 77

9.0 KEY MESSAGES

9.1 Telephone Contact Profile – AiB

AiB should be greatly encouraged by the outcomes pertaining to telephone

contact with the organisation in terms of:

Levels of satisfaction with telephone contact

The extent to which staff are providing their name to those who telephone

them

The extent to which those contacting AiB by telephone are able to speak to the

right person first time

Levels of satisfaction with the politeness and courtesy of those who contact

AiB by telephone

Levels of satisfaction with the way in which telephone queries are dealt with

Nonetheless, there is scope for improvement in some areas, including, for

example:

Levels of satisfaction with telephone contacts amongst Insolvency

Practitioners

The extent to which staff give their name when speaking to Creditors

The extent to which Insolvency Practitioners are able to speak to the right

person first time when they call AiB

9.2 Telephone Contact Profile – Agents/Providers Operating on Behalf of AiB

AiB should also be greatly encouraged by the profile of opinions provided in

relation to telephone contacts with agents and providers operating on its behalf,

including:

Levels of satisfaction with the time it took to get through to the right person

The extent to which agent/provider staff provide their name when speaking to

Debtors and Money Advisers

The extent to which Debtors were able to speak to the right person first time

when they telephoned an agent/provider


of 77

The extent of satisfaction with the politeness and courtesy of agent/provider

staff when contacted by telephone

The level of satisfaction amongst Debtors and Creditors in terms of how their

query was dealt with by an agent/provider

Despite this, there is scope for improvement in a number of areas, including:

The extent to which Money Advisers and Creditors are able to get through to

the right person when they telephone agents/providers

The extent to which agent/provider staff provide Creditors with their name

The extent to which Money Advisers and Creditors are able to speak to the

right person first time when they telephone agents/providers

The extent of satisfaction amongst Money Advisers in terms of the way their

query is dealt with when contacting agents/providers by telephone

9.3 Written & E-mail Contact Profile

In terms of written and e-mail contacts to AiB, the organisation should be

encouraged by the positive profile which emerged in this regard in terms of:

The levels of satisfaction amongst Debtors and Money Advisers relating to the

time taken to respond to such contacts

The levels of satisfaction with the way written or e-mailed queries are dealt

with

Again, nonetheless, despite these positive outcomes, there is scope for improving

the extent to which Creditors and Insolvency Practitioners are satisfied with the

time taken to respond to their written or e-mailed contacts with AiB and, to some

extent, levels of satisfaction amongst Insolvency Practitioners in terms of how

written or e-mailed queries are dealt with.

AiB should also be encouraged by the levels of satisfaction noted by Debtors and

Creditors in terms of the time it takes agents/providers to respond to written or e-

mail contacts and the extent to which Debtors and Creditors noted satisfaction in

terms of the way their written or e-mail queries are dealt with by agents/providers.


of 77

Again, however, there is scope for improvement in terms of written and e-mail

contacts with agents/providers, particularly in terms of:

Increasing the extent to which Money Advisers are satisfied with the time

taken to respond to written or e-mail contacts with agents/providers

Increasing the extent to which Money Advisers are satisfied with the way their

written or e-mail queries are dealt with by agents/providers

9.4 Face-to-Face Contact Profile

On the basis of the indicative data gathered in relation to face-to-face contacts,

there is evidence that:

Those who had visited the office of AiB were satisfied in terms of being seen

promptly

Those who had visited the office of an agent or provider were also satisfied in

terms of being seen promptly

9.5 Forms & Guides Profile

In terms of forms and guides, AiB should be encouraged by the levels of

satisfaction with information contained within their leaflets, guides or forms,

particularly the levels of satisfaction noted by Debtors, Money Advisers and

Insolvency Practitioners. Nonetheless, there is scope for improvement here to the

extent of satisfaction amongst Creditors in this regard.

Those participating in the research have varying preferences in terms of receipt of

forms and guidance in future, including:

Insolvency Practitioners and Money Advisers having a particular preference to

do so through downloadable electronic documents

Debtors and Money Advisers having the greatest preference to receive forms

and guidance in a paper or booklet format

Levels of preference to receive forms and guidance to be read on a website

being relatively low across all three audiences


of 77

9.6 General Results Profile

Money Advisers, Debtors and Creditors place a significant degree of importance

on a number of the elements of the service provided to them by AiB and its

agents/providers, namely speed of response, quality of service, efficiency, clear

communications and knowledgeable staff.

AiB should be encouraged that:

Amongst those who have had some level of contact with AiB, overall levels of

satisfaction are high, particularly amongst Debtors, Creditors and Money

Advisers. Nonetheless, there is some scope for improvement here in terms of

the overall satisfaction of Insolvency Practitioners with the service provided by

AiB

Those who have had some level of contact with agents or providers also

expressed high levels of satisfaction with the overall service that they

provided, particularly Debtors and Creditors. However, there is some scope

for improvement in this regard in terms of levels of satisfaction noted by

Money Advisers

9.7 AiB’s Website Profile

AiB should be encouraged that, across each of the four audiences participating in

the research, there was a very strong belief that it is easy to find information they

are looking for on the aib.gov.uk website.

In addition, it is encouraging that Money Advisers and Debtors are very largely

satisfied with AiB’s website. Nonetheless, there is some scope to improve the

levels of satisfaction amongst Insolvency Practitioners with AiB’s website and, to a

lesser extent, the levels of satisfaction of Creditors in this regard.


of 77

9.8 AiB’s IT Systems

AiB should be encouraged that the vast majority of Creditors and Money Advisers

are satisfied with the ASTRA and BASYS IT systems for debt relief products.

However, this was far less likely to be the case amongst Insolvency Practitioners

and, accordingly, there is significant scope for improvement in this regard.

AiB should take note that there is significant scope to improve the extent to which

Creditors, Money Advisers and Insolvency Practitioners are satisfied with the

DASH IT system.

AiB should also note that there is also scope to improve the extent to which

Money Advisers, Creditors and Insolvency Practitioners are being provided with

what they believe to be sufficient information about updates that ASTRA and that

there is scope to improve levels of satisfaction in this regard amongst Insolvency

Practitioners in relation to BASYS.

Finally, AiB should be encouraged that most Creditors and Money Advisers are

satisfied in terms of the sufficiency of information with which they are provided

about updates to DASH. However, AiB should also note that there is significant

scope for improvement in this regard amongst Insolvency Practitioners.

9.9 Overarching Key Message

AiB should be highly encouraged by the profile of results which have emerged

from this Customer Experience Survey in 2018.

In particular, there are, overall, high levels of satisfaction expressed by Debtors,

Creditors, Money Advisers and Insolvency Practitioners with the services,

processes and practices of AiB and their experiences of interacting with the

organisation per se and those who work for it specifically.

There are areas for possible improvement. However, AiB must give careful

consideration as to whether or not these improvements are necessary and, if so:

The extent of improvement that should be targeted

Timescales within which improvements should be achieved

The resources that would be required in order to achieve these improvements

FINAL REPORT CUSTOMER EXPERIENCE SURVEY 2018 … · Accountant in Bankruptcy: Customer Experience...

Documents

Transcript of FINAL REPORT CUSTOMER EXPERIENCE SURVEY 2018 … · Accountant in Bankruptcy: Customer Experience...