Pripremljeno za: Pripremio: Datum: Customer satisfaction poll at land registries of municipal courts...

Pripremljeno za:Pripremio:Datum:

Customer satisfaction poll at land registries of municipal courts and cadastral offices, and public

perception

Real Property Registration and Cadastre ProjectPULS14 December 2006

2

Table of Contents Introduction and methodology – customer satisfaction

Results of customer satisfaction polls at land registries and cadastral offices

Customer satisfaction at land registries of municipal courts

Customer satisfaction at cadastral offices

Methodology – public perception

Poll results – public perception

land registries

cadastre

real property status

“Organized Land“ Project

Methodology – customer satisfaction – legal entities

Poll results – customer satisfaction – legal entities

land registries of municipal courts

cadastral offices

“Organized Land“ Project

3

Methodology – customer satisfaction

The poll was carried out using the methodology defined in the bidding documents while the implementation plan was proposed by the Puls Agency.

The poll was carried out at all land registries of municipal courts and all cadastral offices and branch offices.

Customers filled in a questionnaire handed out at counters and admission desks in the offices where the poll was being carried out. The staff of the municipal court land registries and cadastral offices were obliged to inform the customers about the poll and offer them the questionnaire.

After filling it in, the customers had to put the questionnaire in a sealed box posted at a visible location near the exit from the land registry/cadastre.

4


The field research lasted 10 days: 6-17 November. At certain offices, the polling started on 7 November due to

technical reasons and was accomplished there one day later.

At the land registry of the Zagreb Municipal Court, the polling was additionally extended due to a small number of questionnaires (about 100) filled in during the regular polling. Therefore, the polling was extended between 20 and 24 November.

Apart from extending, in this period we began to actively distribute the questionnaires through the Puls Agency associates and land registry staff in order to motivate as many customers as possible to take part in the poll.

In total, the customers’ response was relatively scarce. A total of 11,520 questionnaires was filled in out of 33,000 that were distributed, accounting for about 1/3.

Out of the planned 12,000 questionnaires, 5,289 (ca. 44%) were filled in at the cadastre while ca. 6,231 out of the planned 21,000 (ca. 30%) were filled in at land registries.

5


At several land registries and cadastral offices, there were difficulties with people disregarding the instructions on how to organize the poll implementation which was mostly rectified by subsequent interventions.

Some of the initial problems when launching the poll were caused by a relatively belated distribution of information within the system.

In order to boost the poll effectiveness in terms of collecting as many questionnaires as possible, additional, previously unscheduled activities were carried out during the polling, both by the Puls Agency and the Client.

Puls organized a field visit to most cadastral offices and land registries after the first few days of the polling in order to check out whether all materials had been placed according to instructions and to inform the staff once again about the need to elicit customers’ participation.

The Client additionally called upon all land registries and cadastral offices in order to further motivate the staff to cooperate.

6

POLL RESULTSPOLL RESULTS

7


Customer satisfaction at cadastre

Poll results – customer satisfaction – natural persons

8

Sample realization – land registries

Municipal court atPlanned sample

Sample obtained

%

Belom manastiru 200 56 28%

Benkovcu 50 48 96%

Biogradu na moru 100 21 21%

Bjelovaru 250 64 26%

Blatu 50 15 30%

Bujama 300 119 40%

Buzetu 60 57 95%

Crikvenici 150 49 33%

Čabru 50 16 32%

Čakovcu 350 37 11%

Čazmi 70 48 69%

Daruvaru 100 38 38%

Delnicama 50 53 106%

Donjem Lapcu 50 32 64%

Donjem Miholjcu 80 69 86%

Donjoj Stubici 80 64 80%

Drnišu 60 41 68%

Dubrovniku 300 43 14%

Dugom selu 150 84 56%

Dvoru 50 0%

Đakovu 250 196 78%

Đurđevcu 100 56 56%


Sample obtained

%

Garešnici 70 70 100%

Glini 50 48 96%

Gospiću 80 34 43%

Gračacu 50 6 12%

Grubišnom polju 60 14 23%

Gvozdu 50 40 80%

Hrvatskoj Kostajnici 50 24 48%

Iloku 80 58 73%

Imotskom 50 42 84%

Ivancu 100 59 59%

Ivanić gradu 100 33 33%

Jastrebarskom 150 37 25%

Karlovcu 400 26 7%

Kaštel Lukšiću 150 53 35%

Klanjcu 50 50 100%

Kninu 60 22 37%

Koprivnici 250 73 29%

Korčuli 70 55 79%

Korenici 50 14 28%

Krapini 80 28 35%

Križevcima 150 15 10%

Krku 250 89 36%

LRs marked in red had 20% lesser achievement than planned

9



Sample obtained

%

Kutini 200 90 45%

Labinu 150 92 61%

Ludbregu 100 4 4%

Makarskoj 150 32 21%

Malom Lošinju 100 44 44%

Metkoviću 50 45 90%

Našicama 150 23 15%

Novi Vinodolski 60 17 28%

Novoj gradiški 200 94 47%

Novom marofu 100 35 35%

Novskoj 100 55 55%

Obrovcu 50 28 56%

Ogulinu 100 46 46%

Omišu 70 15 21%

Opatiji 250 83 33%

Orahovici 60 47 78%

Osijeku 650 130 20%

Otočcu 100 71 71%

Ozlju 50 41 82%

Pagu 50 10 20%

Pakracu 100 46 46%

Pazinu 100 86 86%


Sample obtained

%

Petrinji 100 46 46%

Pitomači 60 18 30%

Pločama 50 53 106%

Poreču 300 272 91%

Požegi 300 123 41%

Pregradi 50 49 98%

Prelogu 100 15 15%

Puli 800 53 7%

Rabu 80 10 13%

Rijeci 800 99 12%

Rovinju 200 176 88%

Samoboru 250 247 99%

Senju 50 17 34%

Sesvetama 250 71 28%

Sinju 100 12 12%

Sisku 300 31 10%

Slatini 100 35 35%

Slavonskom Brodu 500 30 6%

Slunju 50 42 84%

Solinu 150 10 7%

Splitu 850 94 11%

Starom gradu 100 15 15%


10



Sample obtained

%

Supetru 150 60 40%

Svetom Ivanu Zelini 100 35 35%

Šibeniku 300 67 22%

Tisnom 70 47 67%

Trogiru 150 4 3%

Valpovu 150 30 20%

Varaždinu 400 90 23%

Velikoj gorici 300 99 33%

Vinkovcima 300 124 41%

Virovitici 250 111 44%

Vojniću 50 41 82%

Vrbovcu 100 38 38%

Vrbovskom 50 12 24%

Vrgorcu 50 48 96%

Vukovaru 200 147 74%

Zaboku 100 81 81%

Zadru 650 11 2%

Zagrebu 3320 290 9%

Zaprešiću 250 57 23%

Zlataru 80 27 34%

Županji 200 64 32%


11

58%

20%

6%

4%

2%

2%

2%

2%

1%

1%

1%

1%

7%

4%

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

Obtain title deed

Register transfer of title

Register mortgage

Purge mortgage

Register subdivision

Register an object

Register condominium ownership

Correct address or parcel number

Register fiduciary right

Register co-ownership division or annulment

Register dispute or custody

Delete life-long enjoyment, minority

Other

Unknown

Reasons for visiting a land registryFor what purpose/service did you come to the land registry today?

12

Case status What is the status of your case?

20% 17% 44% 19%

Recently submitted Being processed Processed No reply

13

Duration of procedureHow long has the procedure lasted in days or months since its start (if the case has been processed, then since the date of processing)? – Only the respondents, whose case has been or is being processed, answered this question!

25%

12%

2%

43%

4%6%

3%5%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

1 day Up to 1week

1 to 2weeks

2 weeks to1 month

1 to 6months

6 monthsto a year

Over ayear

No reply

All respondents answering this question43% respondents, whose case has been or is being processed, have not stated the duration of procedure!

¼ respondents stated that the procedure had lasted 1 day.

14

Duration of procedureHow long has the procedure lasted in days or months since its start (if the case has been processed, then since the date of processing)? – Only the respondents, whose case has been or is being processed, answered this question!

44%

21%

7%

11%8%

5% 4%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

1 day Up to 1week

1 to 2 weeks 2 weeks to 1month

1 to 6months

6 months toa year

Over a year

Only respodents having stated the duration ofprocedure

Average = 59 days

When the respondents, who have failed to state the duration of proceedings but should have done it because their case has been or is being processed, are omitted from the analysis, we come up with about 2/3 cases being processed within two weeks.

However, due to the extremely long duration of certain cases, the average is relatively high!

15

Duration of procedure by case type

* Broj ispitanika manji od 50

** Broj ispitanika manji od 20

Samo ispitanici za koje je poznato trajanje predmeta

28%16%

45%

10% 19% 13%24% 30% 21%

8%20% 27% 25% 24% 27% 24%

14% 6%

3% 7% 3% 9% 7% 10% 5% 4% 2%

5% 11% 3%17% 13% 14% 9% 9% 4%

3% 10% 3% 11% 12% 7% 9% 9% 6%

3% 4% 1% 4% 3% 4% 1% 2% 3%

1% 5% 0% 5% 6% 8% 1% 4% 5%

49%26% 17% 18% 17% 17%

27% 28%52%

1 day

Up to a week

1 to 2 weeks

1 to 6 months

Over a year

No reply

Ob

tain

tit

le d

ee

d

Re

gis

ter

titl

e c

ha

ng

e

Re

gis

ter

mo

rtg

ag

e

Re

gis

ter

su

bd

ivis

ion

Re

gis

ter

an

ob

jec

t

Re

gis

ter

co

nd

om

iniu

mo

wn

ers

hip

Pu

rge

mo

rtg

ag

e

Co

rre

ct

cu

rre

nt

ad

dre

ss

Oth

er

2 weeks to a month

6 months to 1 year

17

On behalf of whom is the case handled Do you handle the case for your private purposes, for the legal entity you work for or for a party you represent?

69% 9% 10% 12%

Private purposes Legal entity I work for I represent a party No reply

18

Satisfaction with the services rendered in the procedurePlease rate your satisfaction with the services rendered in the procedure you are involved in or were involved at this land registry.

Very poor

2 3 4Very good

Don’t know

Average

Courtesy of the staff 1% 1% 3% 7% 78% 10% 4,77

Accuracy and completeness of the information obtained from the staff

2% 1% 3% 9% 72% 13% 4,69

Speed of processing a case 4% 2% 6% 11% 68% 9% 4,49

Availability of the information necessary during the procedure

3% 2% 5% 11% 65% 14% 4,55

Possibility of getting information during the procedure

3% 2% 4% 10% 66% 15% 4,58

Simplicity of procedure 4% 3% 7% 14% 60% 13% 4,41

Length of waiting in the office 4% 3% 8% 15% 58% 12% 4,36

Overall experience with the land registry processing a case

3% 2% 5% 13% 68% 9% 4,55

19

Satisfaction with the services rendered in the procedurePlease rate your satisfaction with the services rendered in the procedure you have been or were involved at this land registry.

4,1

4,0

4,6

4,4

4,1

4,2

4,2

4,2

4,5

4,4

4,8

4,7

4,4

4,6

4,6

4,6

2 3 4 5

Speed of case processing (from applicationthrough decision)

Length of queuing at the office to submit orobtain documents

Courtesy of staff

Accuracy and completeness of theinformation obtained from the staff

Simplicity of procedure

Availability of the information necessary inthe procedure

Possibility of getting information on theprocedure

Overall experience with the procedure

Assessed averages Non-assessed averages

The averages were assessed on the basis of the ratio of a specific land registry in the overall number of cases, in order to neutralize the difference in the return of the questionnaires between the land registries!

20

Satisfaction with services rendered in the procedure at a land registry

Pro

ce

ss

ing

sp

ee

d

Wa

iting

pe

riod

Sta

ff co

urte

sy

Ac

cu

rac

y o

f info

rma

tion

Sim

ple

pro

ce

ed

ing

s

Av

aila

bility

of in

form

atio

n

Po

ss

ibility

of o

bta

inin

g

info

rma

tion

Ov

era

ll ex

pe

rien

ce

Ivanec 4,98 4,86 4,98 4,98 4,95 4,98 4,98 5

Vrgorec 4,98 4,96 4,98 5 4,69 4,98 4,98 5

Garešnica 4,96 4,95 5 4,98 4,87 4,93 4,97 4,99

Labin 4,96 4,8 4,99 4,97 4,69 4,87 4,9 4,98

Čazma 4,87 4,87 4,97 4,95 4,83 4,95 4,91 4,95

Ozalj 4,9 4,92 4,97 4,95 4,89 4,89 4,95 4,95

Poreč 4,8 4,64 4,97 4,93 4,86 4,9 4,9 4,91

Beli Manastir 4,88 4,67 4,88 4,9 4,83 4,84 4,98 4,91

Daruvar 4,92 4,71 4,94 4,92 4,74 4,82 4,77 4,91

Novska 4,79 4,69 4,96 4,92 4,6 4,8 4,82 4,91

Bjelovar 4,9 4,58 4,93 4,88 4,74 4,75 4,89 4,9

Donji Miholjac 4,9 4,95 4,98 4,94 4,81 4,88 4,91 4,9* Only for courts with more than 30 valid questionnaires filled in

21


Pro

ce

ss

ing

sp

ee

d

Wa

iting

pe

riod

Sta

ff co

urte

sy

Ac

cu

rac

y o

f info

rma

tion

Sim

ple

pro

ce

ed

ing

s

Av

aila

bility

of in

form

atio

n

Po

ss

ibility

of o

bta

inin

g

info

rma

tion

Ov

era

ll ex

pe

rien

ce

Vojnić 4,93 4,97 5 4,95 4,95 4,92 4,92 4,9

Županja 4,83 4,86 4,92 4,93 4,86 4,89 4,83 4,89

Glina 4,79 4,71 4,94 4,89 4,76 4,88 4,85 4,89

Donja Stubica 4,82 4,58 4,87 4,92 4,42 4,65 4,68 4,88

Slunj 4,93 4,88 4,94 4,97 4,94 4,87 4,9 4,88

Ivanić Grad 4,84 4,89 4,93 4,81 4,79 4,75 4,85 4,87

Nova Gradiška 4,84 4,67 4,89 4,95 4,81 4,87 4,91 4,85

Drniš 4,81 4,76 4,89 4,81 4,89 4,89 4,94 4,85

Jastrebarsko 4,88 4,84 5 4,97 4,8 5 4,97 4,83

Pazin 4,74 4,51 4,96 4,9 4,69 4,76 4,87 4,83

Korčula 4,78 4,7 4,91 4,9 4,54 4,85 4,83 4,83

22


Pro

ce

ss

ing

sp

ee

d

Wa

iting

pe

riod

Sta

ff co

urte

sy

Ac

cu

rac

y o

f info

rma

tion

Sim

ple

pro

ce

ed

ing

s

Av

aila

bility

of in

form

atio

n

Po

ss

ibility

of o

bta

inin

g

info

rma

tion

Ov

era

ll ex

pe

rien

ce

Gvozd 4,58 4,8 4,85 4,69 4,08 4,59 4,75 4,83

Virovitica 4,81 4,83 4,95 4,92 4,86 4,92 4,89 4,81

Metković 4,76 4,78 4,86 4,78 4,68 4,77 4,74 4,8

Samobor 4,76 4,49 4,94 4,93 4,57 4,76 4,83 4,78

Pakrac 4,6 4,73 4,73 4,78 4,62 4,79 4,81 4,78

Rovinj 4,77 4,64 4,82 4,81 4,71 4,77 4,83 4,77

Klanjec 4,77 4,98 5 4,87 4,77 4,91 4,93 4,77

Slavonski Brod 4,85 4,61 4,68 4,81 4,75 4,89 4,89 4,75

Slatina 4,76 4,61 4,81 4,81 4,59 4,69 4,75 4,75

Požega 4,54 4,27 4,77 4,77 4,53 4,61 4,64 4,74

Đakovo 4,73 4,61 4,91 4,9 4,68 4,77 4,85 4,74

23


Pro

ce

ss

ing

sp

ee

d

Wa

iting

pe

riod

Sta

ff co

urte

sy

Ac

cu

rac

y o

f info

rma

tion

Sim

ple

pro

ce

ed

ing

s

Av

aila

bility

of in

form

atio

n

Po

ss

ibility

of o

bta

inin

g

info

rma

tion

Ov

era

ll ex

pe

rien

ce

Đurđevac 4,81 4,86 4,94 4,94 4,76 4,88 4,82 4,74

Mali Lošinj 4,47 4,32 4,8 4,77 4,49 4,64 4,59 4,74

Orahovica 4,66 4,86 4,82 4,75 4,4 4,72 4,79 4,74

Sesvete 4,78 4,59 4,88 4,8 4,5 4,58 4,69 4,72

Ilok 4,74 4,67 4,94 4,82 4,71 4,77 4,74 4,71

Ploče 4,67 4,76 4,91 4,74 4,67 4,7 4,69 4,71

Otočac 4,83 4,77 4,95 4,89 4,64 4,78 4,8 4,7

Novi Marof 4,52 4,61 4,71 4,64 4,46 4,48 4,62 4,7

Kaštel Lukšić 4,45 4,51 4,93 4,76 4,39 4,65 4,7 4,69

Rijeka 4,56 4,28 4,8 4,72 4,38 4,59 4,71 4,68

Ogulin 4,66 4,34 4,81 4,66 4,5 4,66 4,62 4,67

24


Pro

ce

ss

ing

sp

ee

d

Wa

iting

pe

riod

Sta

ff co

urte

sy

Ac

cu

rac

y o

f info

rma

tion

Sim

ple

pro

ce

ed

ing

s

Av

aila

bility

of in

form

atio

n

Po

ss

ibility

of o

bta

inin

g

info

rma

tion

Ov

era

ll ex

pe

rien

ce

Buzet 4,82 4,81 4,92 4,83 4,71 4,79 4,83 4,64

Kutina 4,62 4,39 4,87 4,81 4,51 4,59 4,69 4,62

Vukovar 4,62 4,24 4,71 4,62 4,49 4,62 4,63 4,6

Varaždin 4,58 4,5 4,66 4,69 4,51 4,54 4,55 4,59

Buje 4,66 3,98 4,78 4,68 4,42 4,62 4,58 4,59

Zabok 4,62 4,61 4,74 4,61 4,41 4,61 4,63 4,58

Sveti Ivan Zelina 4,58 4,35 4,94 4,75 4,34 4,59 4,7 4,56

Petrinja 4,56 4,46 4,87 4,51 4,42 4,62 4,61 4,56

Čakovec 4,55 4,62 4,74 4,52 4,3 4,26 4,38 4,55

Gospić 4,65 4,24 4,86 4,76 4,4 4,56 4,75 4,55

Zlatar 4,48 4,55 4,88 4,86 4,42 4,52 4,48 4,48

25


Pro

ce

ss

ing

sp

ee

d

Wa

iting

pe

riod

Sta

ff co

urte

sy

Ac

cu

rac

y o

f info

rma

tion

Sim

ple

pro

ce

ed

ing

s

Av

aila

bility

of in

form

atio

n

Po

ss

ibility

of o

bta

inin

g

info

rma

tion

Ov

era

ll ex

pe

rien

ce

Vrbovec 4,32 4,39 4,86 4,68 4,29 4,39 4,38 4,44

Dubrovnik 4,4 4,22 4,76 4,53 4,09 4,46 4,59 4,41

Tisno 4,5 4,33 4,75 4,66 4,66 4,5 4,56 4,39

Šibenik 4,42 4,51 4,79 4,76 4,47 4,59 4,54 4,37

Vinkovci 4,32 3,79 4,54 4,55 4,05 4,26 4,37 4,36

Krk 4,27 3,79 4,68 4,55 4,04 4,29 4,38 4,34

Osijek 4,45 3,72 4,69 4,67 4,34 4,36 4,46 4,33

Imotski 4,14 4,5 4,63 4,45 3,88 4,27 4,43 4,33

Velika Gorica 4,33 3,82 4,8 4,55 4,19 4,32 4,28 4,3

Opatija 4,24 3,26 4,62 4,37 4,02 4,15 4,06 4,16

Benkovac 3,5 4,06 4,76 4,41 3,89 4,31 4,35 4,11

26


Pro

ce

ss

ing

sp

ee

d

Wa

iting

pe

riod

Sta

ff co

urte

sy

Ac

cu

rac

y o

f info

rma

tion

Sim

ple

pro

ce

ed

ing

s

Av

aila

bility

of in

form

atio

n

Po

ss

ibility

of o

bta

inin

g

info

rma

tion

Ov

era

ll ex

pe

rien

ce

Pula 3,96 3,38 4,38 4,07 3,91 3,85 3,85 3,98

Delnice 3,66 3,72 4,46 4,43 3,65 4,06 4,09 3,92

Split 3,34 3,24 4,39 4,29 3,5 3,84 3,69 3,77

Zaprešić 3,71 3,47 4,22 4,04 3,77 3,81 3,8 3,71

Zagreb 2,17 2,51 3,64 3,2 2,48 2,64 2,73 2,61

Makarska 1,9 2,56 3,18 2,92 2,18 2,68 2,64 2,28

27

Cost estimateHow would you rate the costs incurred during this procedure?

5% 4%

63%

9%15%

4%0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Much lessthan

appropriate

Less thanappropriate

Appropriate More thanappropriate

Much morethan

appropriate

No reply

28


Customer satisfaction at cadastral offices

Poll results – customer satisfaction – natural persons

29

Sample realization – cadastral offices

OfficePlanned sample

Sample obtained

%

Bjelovar 100 22 22%

Beli Manastir 100 73 73%

Benkovac 75 24 32%

Biograd na moru 100 31 31%

Blato 75 27 36%

Buje 75 56 75%

Buzet 75 55 73%

Cres 100 18 18%

Crikvenica 100 71 71%

Čabar 75 43 57%

Čakovec 150 75 50%

Čazma 75 50 67%

Daruvar 75 44 59%

Delnice 75 47 63%

Donja Stubica 75 36 48%

Donji Lapac 75 17 23%

Donji Miholjc 100 29 29%

Drniš 100 10 10%

Dubrovnik 150 61 41%

Duga resa 75 29 39%

Dugo Selo 100 97 97%

Dvor 75 5 7%


Sample obtained

%

Đakovo 100 98 98%

Đurđevac 100 34 34%

Garešnica 75 17 23%

Glina 75 47 63%

Gospić 100 20 20%

Gračac 75 0%

Grubišno polje 75 33 44%

Hrvatska Kostajnica 75 11 15%

Hvar 100 7 7%

Ilok 75 10 13%

Imotski 75 33 44%

Ivanec 75 7 9%

Ivanić Grad 75 43 57%

Jastrebarsko 100 89 89%

Karlovac 150 41 27%

Kaštel Sućurac 75 110 147%

Klanjec 75 44 59%

Knin 100 36 36%

Koprivnica 150 32 21%

Korčula 75 19 25%

Korenica 75 23 31%

Krapina 150 63 42%

Offices marked in red had 20% lesser achievement than planned

30



Sample obtained

Office

Križevci 100 31 31%

Krk 100 32 32%

Kutina 75 42 56%

Labin 75 41 55%

Lovinac 75 7 9%

Ludbreg 75 33 44%

Makarska 100 19 19%

Mali Lošinj 100 10 10%

Metković 100 38 38%

Našice 100 88 88%

Nova Gradiška 100 100 100%

Novalja 75 8 11%

Novi Marof 75 11 15%

Novska 75 11 15%

Obrovac 75 21 28%

Ogulin 75 14 19%

Omiš 100 62 62%

Opatija 100 46 46%

Orahovica 75 48 64%

Osijek 150 113 75%

Otočac 75 39 52%

Ozalj 75 12 16%


Sample obtained

Office

Pag 75 7 9%

Pakrac 100 34 34%

Pazin 150 116 77%

Petrinja 75 32 43%

Pitomača 75 35 47%

Ploče 100 30 30%

Poreč 150 98 65%

Požega 150 125 83%

Pregrada 75 67 89%

Prelog 75 54 72%

Pula 150 38 25%

Rab 100 23 23%

Rijeka 200 38 19%

Rovinj 150 45 30%

Samobor 100 97 97%

Senj 100 16 16%

Sinj 75 46 61%

Sisak 150 70 47%

Sl. Brod 150 142 95%

Slatina 75 72 96%

Slunj 75 48 64%

Solin 100 29 29%


31



Sample obtained

Office

Split 200 176 88%

Stari Grad 100 15 15%

Supetar 100 14 14%

Sv.Ivan Zelina 100 21 21%

Šibenik 150 29 19%

Topusko 75 6 8%

Trogir 100 6 6%

Valpovo 100 28 28%

Varaždin 150 100 67%

Vel.Gorica 100 99 99%

Vinkovci 100 43 43%

Virovitica 150 41 27%


Sample obtained

Office

Vis 75 38 51%

Vojnić 75 25 33%

Vrbovec 100 56 56%

Vrbovsko 75 58 77%

Vrgorac 75 28 37%

Vukovar 150 92 61%

Zabok 75 37 49%

Zadar 150 124 83%

Zagreb 1.100 222 20%

Zaprešić 100 63 63%

Zlatar 75 73 97%

Županja 100 70 70%


32

42%

38%

8%

5%

4%

4%

2%

1%

1%

0%

13%

4%

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

Obtain cadastral map extract

Obtain possessory title

Request house number assignment

Request subdivision confirmation

Register object with the parcel

Request title holder change

Register title holder

Register real property shape

Register real property size

Register land use

Something else

Unknown

Reasons for visiting a cadastral officeFor what purpose/service did you come to the cadastre today?

33

Case status What is the status of your case?

18% 15% 53% 15%

Recently submitted Being processed Processed No reply

34

Case processing duration How long do the proceedings last from its start until today in days or months (if the case has been processed then until the date of processing)? – This question was answered only by the respondents whose case has been or is being processed

42%

10%

2% 5%

37%

4%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

1 day Between 2 and7 days

Between 8 and14 days

Between 14 and30 days

More than 30days

No reply

All respondents answering this question37% respondents, whose case has been or is being processed, have not stated the case processing duration!

42% respondents stated that the proceedings lasted 1 day.

35

Case processing duration How long has the procedure lasted in days or months since its start (if the case has been processed, then since the date of processing)? – Only the respondents, whose case has been or is being processed, answered this question

66%

16%

4%8% 7%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

1 day Between 2 and 7days

Between 8 and 14days

Between 14 and 30days

More than 30 days

Only the respondents who stated the caseprocessing duration

Average = 15 days

When the respondents, who have failed to state the case processing duration because their case has been or is being processed, are excluded from the analysis, we get that about 2/3 cases are processed within a day while an additional 16% are processed within a week.

36

Case processing duration according to case type

48% 45%

17% 15%

44%24%

39%

8% 13% 18% 19% 11% 16%6%

1% 2% 8% 8% 2% 6% 1%

3% 3%24% 26%

4%17%

3%

4% 4%14% 11% 4% 11% 4%

36% 32%19% 20%

35%26%

46%

1 day

Between 2 and 7 days

Between 8and 14 days

Between 14and 30 days

More than 30 days

No reply

Ob

tain

Po

ss

es

so

ry t

itle

Ob

tain

ca

da

str

al

ma

p e

xtr

ac

t

Re

qu

es

t s

ub

div

isio

n

co

nfi

rma

tio

n

Re

gis

ter

ob

jec

t w

ith

a p

arc

el

Re

qu

es

t h

ou

se

n

um

be

r a

ss

ign

me

nt

Re

qu

es

t ti

tle

ho

lde

r c

ha

ng

e

So

me

thin

g e

lse

38

On behalf of whom is the case brought up? Is the case handled for private purposes, legal entity you work for or do you represent a client?

71% 12% 8% 10%

For private purposes The legal entity I work for I represent a client No reply

39

Satisfaction with the services rendered in the procedurePlease rate your satisfaction with the services rendered in the procedure you are involved in or were involved at this cadastral office.

Very poor

2 3 4Very good

Don’t know

Average

Courtesy of the staff 0% 1% 2% 5% 82% 10% 4,87

Accuracy and completeness of the information obtained from the staff

1% 1% 4% 11% 75% 7% 4,70

Speed of processing a case 0% 1% 2% 8% 76% 13% 4,83

Availability of the information necessary during the procedure

1% 1% 3% 10% 71% 14% 4,73

Possibility of getting information during the procedure

1% 2% 5% 13% 67% 13% 4,63

Simplicity of procedure 1% 1% 3% 9% 71% 15% 4,76

Length of waiting in the office 2% 2% 5% 13% 65% 13% 4,59

Overall experience with the land registry processing a case

1% 1% 3% 10% 75% 11% 4,77

40

Satisfaction with the services rendered in the procedurePlease rate your satisfaction with the services rendered in the procedure you are involved in or were involved at this cadastral office?

4,6

4,5

4,8

4,8

4,5

4,6

4,7

4,7

4,7

4,6

4,9

4,8

4,6

4,7

4,8

4,8

2 3 4 5

Speed of case processing (from applicationthrough decision)

Length of queuing at the office to submit orobtain documents

Courtesy of staff

Accuracy and completeness of theinformation obtained from the staff

Simplicity of procedure

Availability of the information necessary inthe procedure

Possibility of getting information on theprocedure

Overall experience with the procedure

Assessed average Non- assessed average

The averages were assessed on the basis of the ratio of a specific office in the overall number of cases, in order to neutralize the difference in the return of the questionnaires between the offices!

41

Satisfaction with services rendered in the procedure at a cadastral office

Pro

ce

ss

ing

sp

ee

d

Wa

iting

pe

riod

Sta

ff co

urte

sy

Ac

cu

rac

y o

f info

rma

tion

Sim

ple

pro

ce

ed

ing

s

Av

aila

bility

of in

form

atio

n

Po

ss

ibility

of o

bta

inin

g

info

rma

tion

Ov

era

ll ex

pe

rien

ce

Grubišno polje 4,85 4,88 5 4,85 4,82 4,91 4,97 5

Klanjec 4,91 4,93 5 4,98 4,86 4,95 5 5

Vrgorac 5 4,92 5 4,96 4,96 4,84 4,96 5

Slatina 4,99 5 4,98 5 4,97 4,97 4,98 5

Delnice 4,84 4,98 4,98 5 4,88 4,93 4,98 4,98

Đurđevac 4,94 4,88 5 4,91 4,88 4,97 4,91 4,97

Imotski 4,97 4,93 5 5 4,83 4,93 4,93 4,97

Ivanić Grad 5 4,91 5 4,91 4,91 4,94 4,97 4,97

Dugo Selo 4,91 4,95 4,98 4,98 4,86 4,9 4,96 4,96

Virovitica 4,98 4,88 4,93 4,98 4,85 4,93 4,95 4,95

Vinkovci 4,93 4,95 5 4,95 4,85 4,95 4,97 4,95

Prelog 4,92 4,98 4,98 4,92 4,75 4,92 4,86 4,94* Only cadastral offices with more than 30 correctly filled-in questionnaires

42


Pro

ce

ss

ing

sp

ee

d

Wa

iting

pe

riod

Sta

ff co

urte

sy

Ac

cu

rac

y o

f info

rma

tion

Sim

ple

pro

ce

ed

ing

s

Av

aila

bility

of in

form

atio

n

Po

ss

ibility

of o

bta

inin

g

info

rma

tion

Ov

era

ll ex

pe

rien

ce

Pregrada 4,87 4,91 4,97 4,94 4,83 4,92 4,94 4,94

Knin 4,91 4,57 4,97 4,94 4,63 4,86 4,93 4,94

Benkovac 4,93 4,82 4,96 4,99 4,87 4,94 4,97 4,94

Donja Stubica 4,75 4,74 4,87 4,87 4,7 4,93 4,9 4,93

Pitomača 4,88 4,9 4,91 4,94 4,84 4,84 4,97 4,93

Crikvenica 4,83 4,83 4,98 4,92 4,74 4,88 4,89 4,92

Slunj 4,82 4,88 4,91 4,93 4,74 4,79 4,95 4,91

Pakrac 4,97 4,94 4,97 4,91 4,88 4,94 4,88 4,91

Vrbovsko 4,89 4,92 4,98 4,96 4,62 4,84 4,88 4,9

Sl. Brod 4,89 4,68 4,95 4,95 4,78 4,9 4,86 4,9

Vukovar 4,95 4,85 4,98 4,97 4,77 4,97 4,92 4,9

Buzet 4,74 4,69 4,91 4,9 4,65 4,81 4,91 4,89

43


Pro

ce

ss

ing

sp

ee

d

Wa

iting

pe

riod

Sta

ff co

urte

sy

Ac

cu

rac

y o

f info

rma

tion

Sim

ple

pro

ce

ed

ing

s

Av

aila

bility

of in

form

atio

n

Po

ss

ibility

of o

bta

inin

g

info

rma

tion

Ov

era

ll ex

pe

rien

ce

Rovinj 4,58 4,64 4,95 4,88 4,6 4,76 4,83 4,89

Daruvar 4,77 4,95 4,93 4,91 4,72 4,91 4,91 4,88

Čazma 4,84 4,84 4,89 4,91 4,78 4,89 4,84 4,87

Otočac 4,87 4,82 4,97 4,89 4,82 4,89 4,84 4,87

Omiš 4,91 4,54 4,97 4,86 4,52 4,95 4,97 4,87

Jastrebarsko 4,89 4,9 4,9 4,92 4,78 4,89 4,88 4,87

Našice 4,83 4,86 4,9 4,91 4,67 4,85 4,84 4,85

Ludbreg 4,88 4,88 4,97 5 4,72 4,88 4,91 4,85

Zabok 4,84 4,93 4,94 4,84 4,48 4,79 4,77 4,84

Vrbovec 4,88 4,83 4,88 4,88 4,8 4,88 4,86 4,84

Zlatar 4,76 4,78 4,9 4,78 4,4 4,85 4,8 4,83

Labin 4,82 4,91 4,97 4,91 4,61 4,82 4,89 4,83

44


Pro

ce

ss

ing

sp

ee

d

Wa

iting

pe

riod

Sta

ff co

urte

sy

Ac

cu

rac

y o

f info

rma

tion

Sim

ple

pro

ce

ed

ing

s

Av

aila

bility

of in

form

atio

n

Po

ss

ibility

of o

bta

inin

g

info

rma

tion

Ov

era

ll ex

pe

rien

ce

Varaždin 4,72 4,81 4,95 4,95 4,66 4,76 4,89 4,83

Požega 4,82 4,78 4,9 4,86 4,78 4,8 4,8 4,82

Orahovica 4,8 4,86 4,9 4,88 4,71 4,81 4,9 4,82

Koprivnica 4,94 4,81 5 4,91 4,72 4,77 4,84 4,81

Županja 4,77 4,65 4,82 4,89 4,69 4,79 4,72 4,81

Čabar 4,72 4,98 4,95 4,85 4,6 4,8 4,93 4,8

Karlovac 4,66 4,64 4,92 4,86 4,68 4,67 4,75 4,78

Petrinja 4,68 4,62 4,93 4,96 4,67 4,65 4,88 4,77

Vel.Gorica 4,42 4,75 4,94 4,84 4,65 4,75 4,79 4,77

Vis 4,74 4,81 4,93 4,83 4,64 4,9 4,79 4,76

Metković 4,73 4,69 4,81 4,83 4,67 4,77 4,77 4,75

Zadar 4,6 4,25 4,83 4,83 4,54 4,69 4,73 4,75

45


Pro

ce

ss

ing

sp

ee

d

Wa

iting

pe

riod

Sta

ff co

urte

sy

Ac

cu

rac

y o

f info

rma

tion

Sim

ple

pro

ce

ed

ing

s

Av

aila

bility

of in

form

atio

n

Po

ss

ibility

of o

bta

inin

g

info

rma

tion

Ov

era

ll ex

pe

rien

ce

Sinj 4,83 4,75 4,97 4,87 4,93 4,84 4,83 4,74

Zaprešić 4,6 4,58 4,88 4,85 4,68 4,69 4,74 4,74

Nova Gradiška 4,71 4,41 4,87 4,79 4,42 4,74 4,65 4,73

Sisak 4,4 4,5 4,95 4,88 4,58 4,66 4,73 4,72

Krapina 4,67 4,8 4,84 4,81 4,5 4,72 4,7 4,71

Kutina 4,37 4,72 4,89 4,69 4,36 4,55 4,52 4,71

Osijek 4,6 4,51 4,89 4,84 4,53 4,65 4,73 4,69

Đakovo 4,66 4,6 4,8 4,72 4,47 4,64 4,66 4,69

Kaštel Sućurac 4,59 4,64 4,8 4,8 4,42 4,61 4,69 4,67

Glina 4,75 4,65 4,82 4,87 4,65 4,74 4,79 4,66

Buje 4,68 4,43 4,79 4,7 4,52 4,64 4,61 4,63

Samobor 4,22 4,55 4,86 4,75 4,28 4,51 4,69 4,63

46


Pro

ce

ss

ing

sp

ee

d

Wa

iting

pe

riod

Sta

ff co

urte

sy

Ac

cu

rac

y o

f info

rma

tion

Sim

ple

pro

ce

ed

ing

s

Av

aila

bility

of in

form

atio

n

Po

ss

ibility

of o

bta

inin

g

info

rma

tion

Ov

era

ll ex

pe

rien

ce

Bjelovar 4,55 4,48 4,77 4,67 4,38 4,69 4,68 4,61

Čakovec 4,51 4,32 4,72 4,65 4,3 4,58 4,55 4,59

Split 4,59 4,22 4,78 4,74 4,42 4,58 4,56 4,59

Opatija 4,43 3,87 4,79 4,76 4,12 4,3 4,31 4,56

Poreč 4,41 4,34 4,83 4,6 3,96 4,51 4,53 4,53

Pazin 4,41 4,03 4,57 4,64 4,4 4,45 4,49 4,51

Dubrovnik 4,39 4,13 4,69 4,44 4,13 4,21 4,47 4,49

Zagreb 4,14 3,99 4,47 4,48 4,05 4,25 4,29 4,38

Pula 4,03 3,42 4,3 4,32 4,18 4,29 4,16 4,21

Rijeka 3,86 3,44 4,13 4,07 3,68 3,74 3,67 3,9

47

Cost estimateHow would you estimate the costs incurred during this procedure?

6%3%

56%

17%

10%8%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Much lessthan

appropriate

Less thanappropriate

Appropriate More thanappropriate

Much morethan

appropriate

No reply

48

Conclusion– customer satisfaction

The research results have shown surprisingly positive results of the customer satisfaction poll related to various aspects of the work of land registries at municipal courts and cadastral offices and branch offices.

The results showed that on average it takes a long time to process certain cases, especially at land registries.

However, a rather high average of waiting is not the result of a long waiting period in all cases but an extremely long waiting period for certain types of cases and for disputed cases, along with a relatively acceptable length of waiting for the majority of simple cases.

The majority of land registry customers come there to obtain a title deed while the majority of cadastre customers come there to obtain an extract of cadastral map or possessory title.

As for the cost estimate, the majority of land registry and cadastre customers consider them appropriate.

49

Conclusion– customer satisfaction

Since this research was conceived as a pilot project, the conclusions concerning the research methodology are also valuable.

Important methodological findings: The readiness of customers to participate in the poll is relatively

small so a more proactive approach in recruiting is needed if a larger number of them needs to be engaged.

Older respondents, who appear to account for a significant number of LR and cadastre customers, have difficulties in filling in the questionnaire conceived in this way.

The success of this type of research depends to a large extent on the attitude and effort of the staff which leads to various outputs in different municipal courts/cadastral offices and branch offices.

This type of polling leaves an option of filling in the questionnaire independently from the staff which may put the validity of polling in question.

Filling in the questionnaire independently leads to a relatively large number of errors in the questionnaire.

Therefore, this research should be carried out in the future using a more proactive approach, or rather to use the survey method face-to-face which means that the polling personnel recruits the respondents (unbiased selection) and fill in the questionnaire (less errors when filling in)

50

Land registries

Cadastre

Real properties status

“Organized Land” Project

Poll results – public perceptionPoll results – public perception

51

Methodology – public perception

The research was carried out by phone interview between 19 and 20 November 2006.

The questionnaire used in the previous poll carried out in the early 2006 was applied with minor changes and corrections.

The research was taken from a stratified (by region and settlement size), random and representative sample of 800 RoC citizens older than 18.

Any significant deviation of the sample from the population structure given the gender, age and education, have been subsequently cancelled through the post-stratification procedure.

52

Sample demographic structure

N %

GenderMale 379 47%

Female 421 53%

Age

Up to 30 96 12%

31 to 44 yrs 178 22%

45 to 60 yrs 272 34%

Over 60 yrs 255 32%

Education

Elementary school 261 33%

High school 438 55%

Higher education/university 101 13%

Type of settlement

Town 457 57%

Village 343 43%

Region

Zagreb and its environs 199 25%

Northern Croatia 143 18%

Slavonia 140 18%

Lika and Banovina 70 9%

Croatian Primorje and Istria 95 12%

Dalmatia 153 19%

53

General part – knowing of cadastral and LR operations

Land registries

Cadastre




54

Knowledge of land registry functionsDo you know the purpose of the land registry and what are its functions?

58%

28%

3%

4%

22%

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

Registering ownership and other realproperty titles

Registering real property in landbooks

Registering loans

Something else

Don't know

55

Knowledge of land registry document typesDo you know which documents are obtained at the land registry?

44%

15%

8%

7%

5%

1%

8%

28%

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

Title deed

Possesory title

Decision on land registration

Land registration extract

Building extract

Construction permit

Other

Don't know

56

Land registry work ratings What is your opinion about the work/functioning of the land registry?

10%12%

32%

18%

11%

16%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Completelynegative

2 3 4 Completelypositive

Don't know

Average = 3.2

57

Using the services of the land registryHave you in the past five years personally used the services of the land registry or rather land registry departments of the courts?

Yes; 46% No; 53%

Don't know; 1%

YesNoDon't know

58

Ways of processing a caseHave you used the services of a lawyer, public notary, real estate agency or have you handled yourself the case which prompted you to visit last the land registry?

49%

48%

29%

6%

3%

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

Handled the caseindependently

Public notary

Lawyer

Real estate agency

Third party services

* Only the respondents who have used the land registry services, N=368

59

Land registry staff’s attitude and work ratingHow satisfied are you with the land registry staff’s attitude and work with regards to the case?

10%6%

22%

31%

1%

30%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Completelydissatisfied

2 3 4 Completelysatisfied

Don't know

Average = 3.7

* Only respondents handling the case themselves, N=181

60

Perception of the simplicity of the procedureCan you assess the extent to which the procedure was, in your opinion, simple or complicated?

* Only respondents handling the case themselves, N=181

14%11%

1%

13%

18%

25%

19%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Completelycomplicated

Complicated Mostlycomplicated

Neithersimple nor

complicated

Mostly simple Completelysimple

Don't know

61

Case processing speed ratingCan you estimate your satisfaction with the speed of processing the case?

18%15%

21%

17%

2%

27%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%



Don't know

Average = 3.2


62

Cost perceptionDo you consider the cost incurred in the case... ?

Appropriate; 46%

Small; 8%

Too high; 42%

Don't know; 5%


63

Land registry experience ratingHow would you rate your experience with the land registry for the case?

15%12%

24%27%

3%

20%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Completelynegative


Don't know

Average = 3.3


64


LR department – Land registries

Cadastre



65

Knowledge of cadastre functionsDo you know the purpose of the cadastre and what are its functions?

13%10%

10%

8%

8%

4%

4%

3%

3%

2%

2%

1%

1%

1%

9%

34%

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

Register the real property areaPlots/parcels

Land/land informationRegister real property shape

Parcel, real property, plot ownershipTo pay taxes/tax return

Proof of possessionRegister land use

Register the real property/its locationSurvey(plot, land, house)

Similar (same) as the land registryCheck when buying, selling, taking loan

Drafts/land sketchesPlan/location plan

OtherDon't know/don't want to say

66

Knowledge about cadastral document typesAnd the ones obtained in the cadastre?

21%

15%

11%

10%

6%

2%

1%

6%

41%

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

Cadastral map excerpt

Possessory title

Title deed

Land plots/parcel no.

Location / sketch

Construction permit

Certificates, decisions in general

Other

Don't know/don't want to say

67

Cadastre work ratingWhat is your opinion about the work/functioning of the cadastre?

6%10%

30%

22%

16%15%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Completelynegative


Don't know

Average = 3.4

68

Using cadastral servicesHave you in the past five years used the services of the cadastre?

Yes; 36%

No; 64%

Yes No

69

Mode of case processingHave you used the services of licensed surveying companies (surveyors) or have you handled the case yourself that made you to visit last the cadastre?

36% 64% 4%

Through licensed surveing company (surveyor) Yourself Don't know

* Only the respondents who have used the cadastral services, N=288

70

Licensed surveying company work satisfaction rating How satisfied are you with the licensed surveying company (surveyors) work with the case?

10%8%

16%

32%

3%

31%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%



Don't know

Average = 3.7

* Only the respondents who have used the licensed surveying company services, N=103

71

Cadastral staff’s attitude and work ratingHow satisfied are you with the cadastral staff’s attitude and work with regards to the case?

4%6%

20%

29%

2%

39%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%



Don't know

Average = 3.9

* Only respondents handling the case independently, N=183

73

Case processing speed ratingCan you rate your satisfaction with the case processing speed?

13%

8%

23% 22%

4%

30%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%



Don't know

Average = 3.5

* Only respondents using cadastral services, N=288

74

Cost perceptionDo you consider the costs incurred in the case... ?

Appropriate; 52%

Little; 7%

Too high; 37%

Don' know; 3%

* Only respondents using cadastral services, N=288

75

Rating experience with the cadastreHow would you rate your experience with the cadastre in this matter?

7%9%

26%30%

3%

24%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Completelynegative


Don't know

Average = 3.6

* Only respondents using cadastral services N=288

76



Cadastre

Real property status


77

Benefit perception for CITIZENS from real property registration In your opinion, what are the benefits for the citizens from the real property registration?

23%

21%

12%

9%

5%

4%

1%

1%

1%

7%

33%

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

Title deed

Legal security

Legalization in general

Simplified real property sale

Possibility of obtaining mortgage loan

Possibility of obtaining construction permit

No benefit

No inheritance problems

Paying taxes

Other

Don't know

78

Benefit perception for the STATE from real property registration In your opinion, what are the benefits for the state from the citizens registering their property?

37%

18%

8%

6%

1%

1%

1%

1%

6%

35%

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

Recording property for tax purposes

Money from registration process

Register title

Land registration

Real property market development

Rule of law

Construction and other permit issue

Better urban planning

Other

Don't know

79

Real property titleAre you personally the owner of the real property, i.e. flat, house, weekend cottage, business premises or land?

Yes; 67%

No; 33%

Yes No

80

Real property registrationIs your real property registered in the land registers?

No; 8%

Da; 83%

In the process of registration; 7%

Don't know; 2%

* Only respondents owning a real property, N=532

81

Reasons for registrationWhat is the main reason that prompted you to register property?

53%

13%

9%

8%

4%

2%

2%

1%

4%

5%

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

I wish to register my title

It was already registered when bought

It has to be under the law

Real property transaction

Bank loan (mortgage)

For security

To obtain construction permit

To further invest in business

Ohter

Don't know/don't want to say

* Only respondents whose real property is registered, N=476

82

Reasons why the real property is not registeredWhat is the mean reason you did not register the property?

43%

12%

7%

3%

23%

11%

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

Too complicated/toomany owners/heirs

Too expensive

I have done nothingin this respect

It is unimportant tome

Ohter

Don't know

* Only respondents whose real property is not registered, N=45

• Not processed• They haven’t requested construction permit during construction• Problems with the city• It has been paid, but not registered • They have failed to because they wait for the reform of the system

83

Obstacles for processing citizens’ applicationsCan you tell us what are, in your opinion, the biggest obstacles for processing citizens’ applications regarding the real property?

28%

18%

6%

4%

2%

1%

1%

1%

3%

4%

33%

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

Land registries

In other offices

In cadastral offices

Obstables are everywhere

Court

Interrelation of the entire system

Bad personnel

People seeking resolution are to blame

Administration in general

Other

Don't know

* Only respondents owning a real property, N=532

84



Cadastre

Real property status

“Organized land” project

85

Project awarenessCan you assess the level of your awareness of the Real Property Registration and Cadastre Project that is currently underway?

55% 14% 28% 3%

I have only heard about it Well aware Unaware Don't know

86

Awareness of who is running the projectDo you know who is running the restructuring of the system?

25%8%

5%5%4%4%3%2%2%1%1%1%1%1%

5%42%

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

Ministry of Justice

State Geodetic Administration

State

RoC Government

Land registry/Cadastre

Court

Municipality

EU

Local self-government

World Bank

Other international organizations

Ministry of Construction

Ministries in general

Vesna Škare Ožbolt

Other

Don't know

* Only respondents familiar with the project, N=551

87

Advertising visibilityHave you noticed on TV or in the media the advertising about the real property registration and cadastre reform entitled “Organized Land “?

Spontaneous awareness;

36%

Awakened awareness;

23%

Have not noticed; 42%

88

Noticed elementsWhich elements of that advertisement can you remember?

28%

16%

11%

9%

3%

1%

1%

1%

7%

47%

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

Oliver Mlakar

Real property registration and cadastre

Dusting the courts and cadastre

Web pages/Internet access

Real property and cadastre reform

Remembers the billboard (leaflet)

Clean/unaltered data

Faster/faster registration

Something else

Don't know

* Only respondents who have noticed the clip, N=359

89

Advertising main messageIn your opinion, what is the main message of this advertising?

* Only respondents who noticed clips and their important components, N=286

That everyone should check the status of the land registry and cadastre records

19%

That the land registration reform is underway 13%

Something else 7%

Put books/papers in order 6%

Better/better work in general 6%

Faster operation/faster processes 5%

Getting the titles registered 3%

Updating/backlog clearing 3%

That dust needs to be wiped 2%

Citizen cooperation in the land registration and cadastre reform 2%

General registration 2%

Computerization 2%

Cleaning/clean papers 2%

Registration upon European standards 1%

Simpler/more accessible 1%

An attempt to motivate the citizens to cooperate 6%

Don’t know 20%

90

Intent to check the real property statusDo you intend to soon visit the land registries/cadastre and check the status of the real property owned by you?

Yes; 37%

No; 60%

Other; 3%Yes No

Other

* Only respondents owning the property

91

Conclusion – public perception

The respondents are relatively well acquainted with the land registry and cadastre function, although there is a smaller number of respondents who are not aware of these institutions.

The overall rating of the land registry and cadastre work is relatively high because the rating average exceeds 3.

However, this rating is somewhat lower among the respondents belonging to the overall population than among the respondents participating in the poll at the land registries and cadastral office.

As the main benefits of the real property registration for the owners, legal security and possibility of real property availability is perceived while the benefits for the State is perceived primarily in the sense of tax revenues and remunerations and not in the general legal security and creating preconditions for unimpeded real property transactions, and thus the development.

About 30% citizens have never heard of the Real Property Registration and Cadastre Project while about one half has just heard about the project and about 15% feels well-informed about the project.

92

Conclusion – public perception

Cca. 60% of citizens has noticed the media campaign “Organized Land”, while the majority of them spontaneously remembered the campaign itself (ca. 60% of those who noticed).

The campaign visibility is higher among the highly educated, respondents from the cities and respondents with higher income.

Characteristic campaign elements that have been particularly visible are Oliver Mlakar, the message about real property registration and the message about dusting the land registers.

The majority, ca. 80%, of those who have noticed the campaign recognize more or less the main campaign message.

93

Cadastral offices

Land registries at municipal court

“Organized land” project

Poll results – Customer satisfaction – legal Poll results – Customer satisfaction – legal entitiesentities

94

Methodology – regular customer satisfaction

The poll was conducted among 101 legal entity in total. The sample included 27 developers; 25 licensed surveyors; 20

public notaries, 19 lawyers and 10 banks.

The developers are defined as legal entities who built at least one real property for the market in the past year. The companies recruited are registered for “Development of entire objects” and “Building new real property”. The biggest companies meeting the above-mentioned criteria have been recruited.

The licensed surveyors chosen had to meet the criteria of being the biggest in their county. In principle, two biggest from each county.

The public notaries and lawyers were selected at random with smaller corrections given their main field of activity.

The biggest banks were selected, taking into account the bank representation having the seat in different cities.

95

Methodology – regular customer satisfaction

The poll was carried out using the face-to-face interviewing method.

The poll was carried out between 10 November and 8 December.

The majority of respondents were from Zagreb, cca. ¼ sample.

96

Basic data on the regular customer sample

27%

25%

20%

19%

10%

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

Licensed surveyingcompany

Corporate investors

Public notary

Lawyer

Bank

23%26%

9%8% 11%16%

8%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

1-2 3-4 5-10 11-50 51-100 100+ Noreply

Type of legal entity

Number of employees

97

Cadastral office

LR departments of Municipal courts


Poll results – Customer satisfaction – Legal Poll results – Customer satisfaction – Legal entitiesentities

98

Frequency of use of cadastral servicesPlease tell me how often on the average does your legal entity/association use each of the following services at cadastral offices?

Se

ve

ral tim

es

a w

ee

k

On

ce

a w

ee

k

On

ce

in tw

o w

ee

ks

On

ce

in th

ree

we

ek

s

On

ce

a m

on

th

On

ce

in tw

o m

on

ths

On

ce

in th

ree

mo

nth

s

1-2

time

s in

six

m

on

ths

On

ce

a y

ea

r

Le

ss

freq

ue

nt o

r n

ev

er

Do

n’t k

no

w

Obtaining possessory title 29% 17% 13% 7% 15% 3% 3% 1% 1% 12%

Obtaining a cadastral map excerpt 24% 13% 10% 6% 13% 6% 5% 3% 3% 18%

Request for review and confirmation of geodetic records of change

16% 6% 6% 8% 7% 5% 5% 6% 5% 35% 2%

Registration of object with the plot 12% 10% 6% 5% 4% 6% 3% 9% 13% 33%

Request for registering change of real property contour

5% 6% 10% 1% 8% 4% 5% 8% 8% 43% 3%

Request for registration of title holder over the real property

4% 6% 5% 2% 9% 4% 7% 7% 5% 50% 2%

Request for title holder change 4% 4% 1% 5% 8% 4% 7% 10% 7% 50% 1%

Request for registering change of real property area

4% 4% 6% 4% 9% 4% 8% 6% 4% 48% 4%

Request for registering change of land use

4% 4% 3% 4% 9% 4% 4% 7% 9% 50% 3%

Request for obtaining house number 1% 3% 2% 1% 2% 3% 6% 2% 11% 64% 5%

99

Cadastral services use – according to the type of legal entity

80%65%

43% 37%9% 22% 30% 27% 24% 26%

50% 40%

0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%84% 76%

32%8%

0%12% 16% 8% 16% 16%

100% 100% 96% 93%

33% 37%

74% 74% 63%41%

55%

15% 5% 10%0%

10% 5% 0% 0%15%

89%68%

42% 42%

0%

37% 26% 26% 16%42%

Entire sample

Bank

Developpers

Licensed surveying company

Public notary

Lawyer

Ob

tain

p

os

se

ss

ory

ti

tle

Ob

tain

ca

da

str

al

ma

p e

xtr

ac

t

Re

qu

es

t re

vie

w o

f c

ad

as

tra

l re

co

rds

of

ch

an

ge

Re

gis

ter

ob

jec

t w

ith

th

e p

lot

Re

qu

es

t h

ou

se

N

um

be

r a

ss

ign

me

nt

Re

qu

es

t ti

tle

h

old

er

ch

an

ge

Re

qu

es

t c

ha

ng

eo

f re

al

pro

pe

rty

co

nto

ur

Re

qu

es

t c

ha

ng

e o

fre

al

pro

pe

rty

are

a

Re

qu

es

t c

ha

ng

eo

f la

nd

us

e

Re

qu

es

t ti

tle

Ho

lde

r re

gis

tra

tio

n

Percentage ofrespondents

using this service at least

once in a month!

100

Evaluation of experiences with individual servicesPlease evaluate your experiences with each of the services that your legal entity uses more frequently.

Bad experien

ce2 3 4

Good experien

ce

Don’t know

Average

Obtaining a possessory title 2% 2% 18% 23% 53% 1% 4.24

Obtaining a cadastral map excerpt 1% 3% 24% 28% 44% 1% 4.11

Request for house number assignment

5% 5% 20% 25% 30% 15% 3.82

Request for registering real property title holder

5% 2% 25% 45% 23% 3.8

Request to change real property usage

3% 3% 33% 33% 23% 5% 3.76

Request to change real property title holder

5% 9% 23% 30% 30% 2% 3.74

Request to change the real property surface area

4% 7% 27% 38% 24% 3.71

Registering objects on a parcel 2% 7% 31% 36% 20% 4% 3.68

Request for reviewing and confirming geodetic reports

3% 10% 25% 36% 22% 3% 3.65

Request for changing the real property shape

4% 6% 32% 36% 21% 3.64

* Only for services used more than once a year

101

Evaluation of experiences with individual services – according to legal entities

Whole sample

Banks

Construction investors

Certified Geodetic

companies

Public notaries

Lawyers

Ob

tain

po

ss

es

so

ry t

itle

Ob

tain

ca

da

str

al

ma

p e

xtr

ac

t

Re

qu

es

t s

ub

div

isio

nre

po

rt r

ev

iew

Re

gis

ter

ob

jec

to

n a

pa

rce

l

Re

qu

es

t h

ou

se

n

um

be

r a

ss

ign

me

nt

Re

qu

es

t c

ha

ng

e o

f t

titl

e h

old

er

Re

qu

es

t c

ha

ng

e o

fre

al

pro

pe

rty

sh

ap

e

Re

qu

es

t c

ha

ng

e o

fre

al

pro

pe

rty

are

a

Re

qu

es

t c

ha

ng

e o

fla

nd

us

e

Re

qu

es

t ti

tle

h

old

er

reg

istr

ati

on

4.24 4.11 3.65 3.68 3.82 3.74 3.64 3.71 3.76 3.80

4.33 4.29

4.04 3.92 3.47 3.50 4.143.33 3.40 3.50 3.70 3.27

4.19 4.04 3.67 3.73 3.75 3.73 3.75 3.84 3.89 3.85

4.45

4.44 4.413.45 3.80 3.91 3.73 3.60 3.50 4.00

* Only for services used more than once a year, and services used by at least 8 respondents.

102

Reasons for bad experiencesWhy do you have bad experiences with…?

Request for house number assignment (N=2)

Too slow

Unprofessional

Request for changing the title holder (user) (N=6)

Too slow

Slow in solving queries

Slow administrative procedure. Not sure this is justifiable

Unprofessional

Request for changing real property shape

(N=5)

Slow, lot of formalities

Too slow

Unprofessional

Request for changing real property surface area

(N=5)

Regulations not defined enough

Too slow

Slow administrative procedure. Not sure this is justifiable.

A lot of paperwork

Unprofessional

Request for changing real property usage (N=2)

Same as before

Too slow

Unprofessional

Request for registering the title holder (N=3)

Slow procedure

Unprofessional

Obtaining a possessory title (N=4)

Very crowded

The procedure takes too long

Too slow

Too much time wasted

Unprofessional

Obtaining cadastral map excerpts (N=3)

Very crowded

The procedure takes too long

Too slow

Unprofessional

Request for reviewing and confirming geodetic reports (N=8)

Slow (at work)

Different criteria upon review

Review frequently consists of looking for mistakes

Too long in solving the paperwork

Solving the paperwork is too complicated

The length of the implementation of subdivision and other reports

Registering objects on a parcel (N=5)

Goes through their technical then legal service

Based on the documents they issued and have, they don’t carry out change of possession

Different criteria upon review

Unnecessarily slow

Unprofessional* Only respondents who are not satisfied with the services provided (mark 1 or 2)

103

Evaluation of the different aspects of cadastral operationsPlease evaluate the different aspects of the functioning of cadastral offices and regional offices.

9%

8%

9%

9%

12%

11%

21%

25%

24%

29%

21%

31%

34%

28%

30%

48%

37%

34%

25%

27%

29%

25%

17%

26%

22%

21%

25%

17%

11%

9%

10%

4%

1%

5%

2%

1%

5%

2%

3% 14%

10%

10%

12%

11%

9%

12%

14%

9%Staff friendliness and courtesy

Staff expertise

Transparency of the procedure

Length of time spent waiting in queue

Speed of solving the case

Staff work organization

Simplicity of the official procedure

Up-to-datedness and harmonization of datawith other services

Very poor Poor Average Good Very good Don't know

4.03

3.86

3.77

3.54

3.42

Average

3.36

3.07

2.93

104

Overall mark of cadastral operations On a scale from 1 to 5, where 1 means «very poor» and 5 «very good», how would you rate cadastral operations in RoC as a whole, considering the role that the cadastre should play?

1%

11%

40%

33%

7%9%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Very poor 2 3 4 Very good Don't know

Average = 3.4

105

Average mark of cadastral operations According to the type of legal entity

3,4

3,6

3,5

3,4

3,3

3,2

1 2 3 4 5

Whole sample

Certified engineeroffices

Public notaries

Lawyers

Companies/constructioninvestors

Banks

Because of a small number of respondents, the

differences only serve as Illustration!

106

Improvement prioritiesWhat would you emphasize as the three most important priorities for improving the work of the cadastre?

21%20%

11%

10%

9%9%

8%

4%

4%

4%

4%5%

23%

13%

19%

15%

12%14%

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

Hadrmonizing cadastral surveys with the situation inthe field

Harmonizing LR court dana with the cadastre

Informatization

Speed of solving cases

Streamlining the procedure

Staff education/staff expertise

Enabling cadastral data for wider usage

Regulations/ Legal framework for operations

Data up-to-datedness

Better organization of operations

Better connection with other services

Friendliness/courtesy

Adequate space

Increasing the number of staff

Better communication with officials

Everything is OK

Other

Don't know\No answer

OTHER ANSWERS WITH LESS THAN 4%:• Better organization of office hours• Shorter queues• Better equipped technically• Harmonization of data with other services• possibilities of completing work through the Internet• Manipulative expenses• Staff salary raise• Staff availability• More funds• Establishing new cadastral offices

107

Impact of cadastral operations on business activitiesHow does the existing functioning of the cadastre influence your business activities?

5%

17%

44%

16%

2%

17%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Has greatnegativeimpact

Has somenegativeimpact

Nosignificant

impact

Has somepositiveimpact

Hassignificantpositiveimpact

Don't know

Average = 3.2

108

Progress of the cadastreHave you recently noticed progress in cadastral operations?

Yes, significant

progress; 28%

Yes, some progress; 41%

No, no progresss; 27%

Don't know/No answer; 5%

109

Segments with perceived progressIn which segments of cadastral operations have you noticed progress?

41%

28%

4%

4%

3%

1%

1%

1%

1%

1%

1%

1%

9%

12%

12%

6%12%

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

Speed o

f issu

ing d

ocum

ents

Info

rmat

izatio

n/Dig

italiz

atio

n

Up-to-d

ated

ness

Data o

n the In

tern

et

Speed o

f issu

ing d

ata

Speed

Organiza

tion

Data a

vaila

bility

Putting th

ings

in o

rder

Comm

unicat

ion in

genera

l

Quality

Frendlin

ess

Subdivis

ion

Precis

ion in

doin

g the w

ork

Parcel

am

algam

ation

In p

roces

sing a

pplic

ations/

prove

dbi prij

avnih

list

ova

Don't k

now\N

o answ

er

* Only respondents who perceived progress in cadastral operations, N=69

110

Experience with one or several officesAre your experiences connected primarily to one regional office or fore several regional offices?

Only one; 48%

More than one; 49%

Don't know; 4%

111

Above-average positive/negative experiencesCan you list those regional offices for which you could say that you have above-average

positive/negative experiences?

Positive Negative

N % N %

PUK Bjelovar 2 4% 1 2%

PUK Čakovec 4 8%

PUK Dubrovnik 4 8%

PUK Gospić 3 6% 2 4%

PUK Karlovac 4 8% 2 4%

PUK Koprivnica 7 14%

PUK Krapina 5 10%

PUK Osijek 2 4% 1 2%

PUK Pazin 2 4% 1 2%

PUK Požega 2 4%

PUK Rijeka 4 8% 3 6%

PUK Sisak 2 4% 1 2%

PUK Slavonski Brod 2 4%

PUK Split 3 6% 2 4%

PUK Šibenik 2 4% 1 2%

PUK Varaždin 6 12%

PUK Virovitica 1 2%

PUK Vukovar 2 4%

PUK Zadar 2 4% 2 4%

PUK Zagreb 9 18% 4 8%

GU Grad Zagreb 8 16% 8 16%

No reply 8 16% 28 57%

*Only those respondents that have experience with several cadastral offices, N=49

112

Cadastral offices

Municipal court land registries


Poll results – customer satisfactionPoll results – customer satisfaction

– – legal entitieslegal entities

113

Usage of LR department servicesCould you please state how often your legal entity in average uses each of the following services in

the land registry?

Se

ve

ral tim

es

a w

ee

k

On

ce

a w

ee

k

On

ce

in tw

o w

ee

ks

On

ce

in th

ree

we

ek

s

On

ce

a m

on

th

On

ce

in tw

o m

on

ths

On

ce

in th

ree

mo

nth

s

1-2

time

s in

six

m

on

ths

On

ce

a y

ea

r

Le

ss

ofte

n o

r ne

ve

r

Do

n’t k

no

w

title deed obtaining 40% 18% 11% 4% 17% 2% 3% 1% 4% 1%

Change of title registration 25% 6% 7% 5% 15% 5% 4% 6% 1% 26% 1%

Mortgage registration 21% 9% 5% 1% 9% 7% 5% 5% 3% 35% 1%

Subdivision registration 9% 13% 6% 2% 9% 8% 7% 7% 10% 28% 2%

Building registration 10% 12% 3% 6% 5% 4% 7% 10% 11% 32% 1%

Fiduciary title registration 11% 8% 2% 3% 7% 5% 6% 7% 6% 43% 3%

Mortgage deletion 11% 7% 3% 5% 10% 4% 3% 6% 10% 41% 1%

Splitting registration or co-ownership annulment

3% 6% 1% 5% 9% 10% 8% 5% 9% 44% 1%

Legal suit registration, guardianship 2% 6% 3% 2% 8% 6% 1% 12% 5% 53% 2%

Purge of life-long usufruct 3% 4% 5% 2% 5% 5% 7% 3% 2% 61% 3%

Change of address 3% 3% 4% 1% 4% 1% 3% 6% 11% 61% 3%

Condominium ownership registration 3% 2% 3% 4% 7% 9% 4% 10% 16% 39% 4%

114

Bank

Constructing investors

Surveying firm

Notary public

Attorney

titl

e d

ee

do

bta

inin

g

Ch

an

ge

of

titl

e

reg

istr

ati

on

Mo

rtg

ag

e r

eg

istr

ati

on

Fid

uc

iary

tit

le

reg

istr

ati

on

Su

bd

ivis

ion

re

gis

tra

tio

n

Sp

litt

ing

re

gis

tra

tio

n

Bu

ild

ing

re

gis

tra

tio

n

Co

nd

om

iniu

m

ow

ne

rsh

ip r

eg

istr

ati

on

Le

ga

l s

uit

re

gis

tra

tio

n

Mo

rtg

ag

e r

eg

istr

ati

on

Pu

rge

of

life

-lo

ng

us

ufr

uc

t

Ch

an

ge

of

ad

dre

ss

Total

89%57% 45% 31% 39% 24% 36% 19% 21%

36%19% 15%

90%

30%

90%70%

10% 0% 10% 10% 0%

80%

30%0%

84%48% 40%

16% 16% 12% 8% 4% 4% 16% 12% 0%93%

22% 11% 11%

81%

33%

85%

26%4% 7% 7% 19%

85% 90%70% 55%

20% 20% 15% 15%40% 55%

30% 30%

95% 100%

47% 32% 42% 42% 37% 37%58% 58%

26% 21%

Usage – towards legal entities Percentage of respondents

stating that theyuse the service at least once in one month!

115

Evaluation of experience with individual serviceCould you please now evaluate your experience with performance of each service used most frequently by your entity.

Bad

experience

2 3 4Good

experienceDon’t know

Average

Change of address 4% 28% 36% 32% 3.96

Legal suit registration, guardianship 10% 18% 33% 28% 13% 3.89

Mortgage registration 2% 13% 18% 32% 31% 5% 3.81

Fiduciary title registration 12% 27% 22% 33% 6% 3.8

Purge of mortgage 2% 8% 24% 31% 29% 6% 3.8

title deed obtaining 9% 11% 18% 29% 30% 2% 3.61

Purge of life-long usufruct 3% 15% 32% 24% 24% 3% 3.52

Change of title registration 8% 18% 22% 27% 21% 4% 3.36

Subdivision registration 3% 23% 30% 18% 23% 3% 3.36

Splitting registration or co-ownership annulment

2% 21% 34% 13% 23% 6% 3.36

Building registration 7% 19% 28% 18% 23% 5% 3.31

Condominium ownership registration 12% 14% 38% 12% 19% 5% 3.13

* Samo za usluge koji se koriste češće od jednom godišnje

116

Bank

Constructing investors

Surveying firm

Notary public

Attorney

titl

e d

ee

d

ob

tain

ing

Ch

an

ge

of

titl

e

reg

istr

ati

on

Mo

rtg

ag

e r

eg

istr

ati

on

Fid

uc

iary

tit

le

reg

istr

ati

on

Su

bd

ivis

ion

re

gis

tra

tio

n

Sp

litt

ing

re

gis

tra

tio

n

Bu

ild

ing

re

gis

tra

tio

n

Co

nd

om

iniu

m

ow

ne

rsh

ip r

eg

istr

ati

on

Le

ga

l s

uit

re

gis

tra

tio

n

Pu

rge

of

mo

rtg

ag

e

Pu

rge

of

lon

g-l

ife

us

ufr

uc

t

Ch

an

ge

of

ad

dre

ss

Total

Evaluation of experience with individual services – for legal entities

3.61 3.36 3.81 3.80 3.36 3.36 3.31 3.133.89 3.80 3.52 3.96

3.20 3.78 3.67 3.63

3.38 2.86 3.44 3.382.69 2.33 2.60 2.55

3.50

3.69 3.67 3.88 3.86 3.88 3.56

4.35 4.33 4.31 4.23 3.67 4.00 3.86 4.44 4.17 4.14 4.25

3.29 3.22 3.772.80 2.82 3.22 3.67 3.75 3.31 3.38

117

Reasons for bad experienceWhy do you have bad experience with …?

title deed obtaining (N=20)

Due to slowness of procedure

Due to long queues, you sign up in the morning, they start to work at 8 a.m. and you wait until noon, people enter out of order

A lot of time

Informatization

Long queues

Too slow

Service is too slow

When issuing the owner’s extract, the issued extract doesn’t have the date when it was issued, but shows the state one day ago

Slow, there are no data etc.

Employees are unready to help

Due to unregistered land books

Slowness, if more copies are needed, we do not obtain them all and they do not say why

One should enable the party to obtain the data in a different, simpler and faster way

It takes a lot of time

It is hard to obtain the data

Extracts from the Internet are not valid as the official ones

Change of title registration (N=19)

Capability of registration procedure

A lot of time and long procedure, it lasts long

Long queues

Additional papers are always needed

A lot of formality, LR clerks are unkind

Cases are slowly processed

Due to long processing

Employees are unready to help


There is no communication between the LR clerks and the client

Different practices


Inaccurate information on the status of service

Non-transparency of the party’s LR clerk

Uneven practices

Data from the Internet are not valid as the official ones

Self-will of LR clerks

Lack of communication with clients

* Only the respondents that evaluated the services with 1 or 2

118


Mo

rtgag

e registratio

n (N

=9)

Due to slowness of procedure

Long queues

Too slow


Due to insufficient knowledge of regulations

Employees are unwilling to help



Uneven practices




Fid

uciary title reg

istration

(N=

6)

Too slow


Long queues

Inaccurate information on the status of service


Different practices





Su

bd

ivision

registratio

n (N

=16)

Unharmonized data

Long legal procedure, it takes a lot of time

A lot of formalities, LR clerks are unkind

When a document is missing in the case, the application is refused

Too slow

Refusal without correcting

Slow

Much too slow

Because it takes a lot of time



Leg

al suit reg

istration

, g

uard

iansh

ip

(N=

4)

Too slow


Different practices

Different interpretation of laws and other regulations among individual LR clerks and judges, which causes making of different decisions for the same type of case

Uneven practices

Application is immediately refused without notifying the party first and give the possibility to correct it




119


Splitting registration or co-ownership annulment (N=11)

The same as before

A lot of administrative problems, a lot of necessary papers

Registered under a new number

Too slow

Refusal without possibility to correct

Slow

Each a bit less typical case can hardly be finished

Lack of knowledge on the basic institutes of LR law




Different practices

Different interpretation of laws and other regulations among individual LR clerks and judges

Lack of professionalism

Uneven practices


Lack of motivation



Building registration (N=15)

Unharmonized data

Due to long queues, you sign up in the morning, they start to work at 8 a.m. and you wait until noon, people enter out of order

Long procedure

A lot of formalities, LR clerks are unkind



Slow processing

Too slow

Too much unnecessary documentation is needed due too lack of connection between the departments




Different practices


Uneven practices





120


Condominium ownership registration (N=11)

Long queues

Procedure takes a lot of time

A lot of formalities


Because the procedure takes a lot of time

Too slow


Slow processing


Due to bad organization of work


Lack of professionalism and interest in employees

Employees are unkind

Different practices

Different interpretation of laws and other regulations among individual LR clerks and judges, which causes making of different decisions for the same type of cases

Uneven practices




Purge of mortgage

(N=5)

Banks and my firm are not the same

Procedure takes a lot of time

Too slow

Now it is OK


Long queues

Different practices

Uneven practices



Purge of life-long usufruct

(N=6)

Too slow

Cases are handled very slow


Long queues

Different practices


Uneven practices




Change of address (N=1)



121

Evaluation of various aspects of land registry operationsCould you please now evaluate various aspects of the work of LR departments and branch offices

7%

10%

19%

14%

20%

15%

18%

28%

24%

19%

33%

25%

23%

37%

25%

35%

34%

39%

20%

27%

21%

22%

18%

25%

18%

16%

18%

16%

20%

12%

8%

17%

7%

12%

5%

4%

14%

10%

14% 23%

2%

3%

5%

6%

1%

9%

10%

Kindness

Professionalism

Transparency

Organization

Fast handling

Long queues

Sinplicity of regulated procedure

Up-to-dateness and harmonization of danawith other departments

Very bad Bad Medium Good Very good Don't know

3.62

3.55

3.45

3.3

3.15

Prosjek

3.13

3.08

2.67

122

Evaluation of land registry operations as a whole On a scale from 1 to 5, where 1 means “very bad” and 5 means “very good”, how would you rate the land registry operations in the Republic of Croatia as a whole, concerning the role that the land registry should play?

7%

24%

40%

21%

1%

8%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

1 2 3 4 5 Don't know

Average = 2.99

123

3,0

3,6

3,2

2,9

2,6

2,7

1 2 3 4 5

Entire sample

Notary public

Certified surveying firm/ Certfieid engineeroffices

Bank

Attorney

Firms/ Construction investors

Evaluation of land registry operations as a wholeAccording to the type of legal entity

Because of a small number of respondents, the differences only serve as illustration!

124

Priorities for improvementWhat would you point out as three most important priorities to be improved in the land registry operations?

26%20%

9%9%9%

7%7%

6%6%

5%5%

4%4%

31%9%

20%

14%

11%14%

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

Informatization

Harmonization with Cadastre

Expertise of emplyoees

Work speed

Up-to-dateness

Speed of documents issuing

Access from Internet

Kindness/Better contact with cleints

Simpler legal procedures

More employees

Land books registration

Better organization

Better contact with LR clerks

More adequate office space

Working hours

Transparency

Availability of data

Other

Don't know

OTHER REPLIES LESS THAN 4%:• Backlogs clearing• Satisfied with the work of LR department• Rule of equality• Accurate books• Be co-operative with clients• Phone communication with LR clerk• Validation of data from the Internet• Uniformity of practices• Know-how• Reducing of tasks• Faster registration of changes per LR applications• Better technical quality of equipment• Faster changes registration• Opening of new LR departments• dealing with corruption• Flexibility• Better financial support

125

Impact of the land registry operations on business In which way does the current functioning of the land registry impact your business?

20%24%

20%24%

13%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

It has a highnegativeimpact

It has a lownegativeimpact

It has nosignificant

impact

It has a hugenegativeimpact

It has asignificant

positive impact

Average = 2.9

126

Land registry progressHave you lately noticed any progress in the land registry operations?

Don't know; 1%

No, there is no progress; 27%

Yes, there is some

progress; 40%

Yes, significant

progress; 33%

127

Segments with perceived progress In which segments of the land registry operations have you noticed progress?

33%

16%

4%

4%

4%

3%

3%

3%

17%

7%

12%

12%

4%

12%

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

Informatization/Digitalization

Speed of issuing documents

Data up-to-datednessData visibility on the

InternetSpeed/Don't have to wait

long

Don't have to wait long

Speed of data availability

Harmonization

Getting information

Organization

Larger number of staff

Issuing of excerpts

Other

Don't know

OTHER ANSWERS WITH LESS THAN 2%:• Better connection with other services• Establishing EDP• Functionality• Uniform form for the entire Croatia• Friendliness of clerks• Data processing• Change of space• Terrain registration• Change of ownership registration• Obtaining ownership certificate / possessory title• Receipt of all applications• Public awareness about o regulations connections in LR

* Only respondents who noticed progress in the work of land registries, N=73

128

Experience with one or more officesAre your experiences connected primarily to one municipal court land registry or more of them?

Only one; 39%

More of them; 61%

129

Above-average positive/negative experiencesCan you single out those municipal courts with land registries where you have above-average positive/negative experiences?

Positive Negative

N N

Beli Manastir 1

Benkovac 1

Biograd na moru 1 1

Bjelovar 2 1

Buje 2

Crikvenica 2

Čazma 1

Donja Stubica 1

Dubrovik 2 1

Dugo Selo 2

Đurđevac 1

Garešnica 1

Gospić 1

Imotski 2

Ivanec 1

Ivanić-grad 2

Jastrebarsko 1

Karlovac 3 2

Klanjec 1

Korčula 2

Koprivnica 5

Krapina 1

Positive Negative

N N

Križevci 5

Krk 1 4

Makarska 6

Mali Lošinj 1

Metković 1

Novi Marof 1 1

Novska 2

Splitu 2

Omiš 1

Opatija 3

Otočac 1

Ozalj 1 1

Pag 1 5

Petrinja 1

Pregrada 1

Pula 1 2

Rab 1

Rijeka 2 2

Rovinj 1

Samobor 2 2

Sesvete 1

Sisak 1

Positive Negative

N N

Senj 2

Splitu 2

Stari grad (Hvar)

1

Sveti Ivan Zelina

1

Šibenik 1 4

Trogir 2

Valpovo 1

Varaždin 9

Velika Gorica 1 3

Zabok 3

Zadar 5

Zagreb 5 18

Zaprešić 1

Osijek 2 1

Županja 2

All of Istria 2

Land registries in smaller towns

1

All 1

No answer 15 15

* Only respondents experienced with more land registries

130

Cadastral offices

Municipal court land registries

“Organized Land” project

Poll results – customer satisfaction – legal Poll results – customer satisfaction – legal entitiesentities

131

Information about the projectTo what extent are you personally aware of the activities within the Real Property Registration and Cadastre Project?

1%

12%

27%

43%

18%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Very little A little Average Well Very well

Average = 3.6

132

Project evaluationHow would you rate this project in general, from 1 to 5, where 1 means «very poor», and 5 «very good».

2%

12%

36%

28%

3%

20%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Very poor 2 3 4 Very good Don't know

Average = 3.5

133

Project priorities What would you give as priorities within the Real Property Registration and Cadastre Project?

36%

18%

7%

5%4%4%

4%3%3%

2%2%2%

20%7%

10%

9%

8%8%

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

Data harmonization

Informatization/Digitalization

Staff expertise

Data up-to-datedness

Speed of issuing documents

Complete the project

Speed

Legal framework

Streamlining the procedureHarmonization of data withthe real situation in the field

Decreasing the fees

Solving the backlogs

Greater number of staffEnsuring the availability of

LR excerptsGreater financial support

Connection with otherservices

Other

Don't know

OTHER ANSWERS WITH LESS THAN 2%:• Better equipped technically• Getting rid of public ownership • Many services are finally being standardized• Getting rid of state ownership•Getting rid of county ownership• Informing the public about the differences between the cadastre and the land registry • Removal of corrupt officials• They are not available even over the telephone• Reform of as many land registers as possible • Enabling communication of clerks with clients• Respecting of pre-emption• Increase transparency• Legal security• Priority is that the status from cadastre is governing• Professionalism• Restructuring agricultural lands• Scanning all cadastral maps• Registering ownership• Registering residential objects

134

Conclusions – the satisfaction of regular customers

Out of cadastral services, the regular customers most frequently use the service of obtaining the possessory title and obtaining excerpts from the cadastral map.

The customers are also satisfied the most with the way these services are provided. Specific comments regarding the work of the cadastre in general deal with the length of certain procedures, how slow they are, and in some cases, the unfriendliness of staff and their lack of expertise. In addition, some procedures are considered too complicated, and it’s believed that they could be streamlined.

The regular users rated the work of the cadastre lower than physical entities, both overall and on the level of individual aspects. This grade is a lot closer to the grade of the general population.

Harmonization with the real situation and with the situation in the land registries, and informatization and speeding up the procedures are given as main priorities for improving the work of the cadastre.

However, the majority of the regular users still perceives significant progress recently in the work of the cadastre.

135

Conclusions – the satisfaction of regular customers

In land registries, regular users most frequently request possessory title, register change of ownership and register mortgages.

Customer satisfaction with the work of land registries is somewhat lower than with the work of the cadastre, both overall and for individual services.

A significant part of regular users mention that problems in the land registry work to some extent have a negative impact on their work.

Over 70% of the regular users have noticed an improvement recently in the work of land registries. Further improvement is needed in informatization, harmonization with the cadastre, greater speed and up-to-datedness and staff expertise.

Most customers are well informed about the project and give it quite a high grade.

Pripremljeno za: Pripremio: Datum: Customer satisfaction poll at land registries of municipal courts...

Documents

Transcript of Pripremljeno za: Pripremio: Datum: Customer satisfaction poll at land registries of municipal courts...