REPORT CUSTOMER EXPERIENCE SURVEY 2016 December … · REPORT . CUSTOMER EXPERIENCE SURVEY 2016 . ... Report prepared for: Accountant in Bankruptcy ... The questionnaire was also

Accountant in Bankruptcy: Customer Experience Survey 2016

REPORT CUSTOMER EXPERIENCE SURVEY 2016 December 2016

PREPARED FOR: Accountant in Bankruptcy


Customer Experience Survey 2016 Ashbrook Research & Consultancy Ltd December 2016

Project Contacts Report prepared for: Accountant in Bankruptcy

Gavin Cameron Phone: 0300 200 2636

Communications Manager 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]

mailto:[email protected]


Page 3 of 67

CONTENTS

Page No.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

4

1.0 INTRODUCTION

9

2.0 TELEPHONE CONTACT PROFILE

11

3.0 WRITTEN & E-MAIL CONTACT PROFILE

23

4.0 FACE-TO-FACE CONTACT PROFILE

31

5.0 FORMS & GUIDES PROFILE

35

6.0 GENERAL RESULTS PROFILE 38

6.1 Profile of Quantitative Responses – AiB 38

6.2 Profile of Qualitative Responses – AiB 41

6.3 Profile of Quantitative Responses – Agents/Providers 46

6.4 Profile of Qualitative Responses – Agents/ Providers

48

7.0 AiB WEBSITES PROFILE 51

7.1 Profile of Quantitative Information 51

7.2 Profile of Qualitative Information

53

8.0 AiB BUSINESS FACILITIES PROFILE

56

9.0 FINAL VERBATIM COMMENTS PROVIDED BY RESPONDENTS

61

10.0 CONCLUSIONS 64

10.1 Positive Conclusions 64

10.2 Negative Conclusions 65

10.3 Observations 66


Page 4 of 67

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Telephone Contact Profile – AiB

There are extremely high levels of telephone contact with AiB amongst Money

Advisers and Creditors but lower levels amongst Debtors.

Levels of satisfaction with telephone contacts with AiB are extremely high amongst

Creditors, Debtors and Money Advisers, but slightly lower amongst Insolvency

Practitioners.

In the overwhelming majority of cases, the person that Creditors and Money Advisers

spoke to during telephone contacts with AiB had given their name, with this applying

to the vast majority of both Insolvency Practitioners and Debtors.

Those who contacted AiB by telephone were highly likely to be able to speak to the

right person first time, although this was least likely to be the case amongst

Insolvency Practitioners.

Levels of satisfaction with the politeness and courtesy of AiB staff spoken to by

telephone are extremely high amongst Creditors, Debtors and Money Advisers and

high amongst Insolvency Practitioners.

Although levels of satisfaction amongst Debtors, Creditors and Money Advisers who

had contacted AiB by telephone in terms of the way their query was dealt with are

extremely high, they are somewhat lower amongst Insolvency Practitioners.

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

Levels of telephone contact with agents/providers operating on behalf of AiB during

bankruptcy procedures are significantly lower – although still notable – amongst

Debtors, Money Advisers and Creditors than levels of telephone contact with AiB

during such procedures.

Levels of satisfaction with telephone contacts with agents/providers operating on

behalf of AiB in terms of the time it took to get through to the right person are


Page 5 of 67

extremely high amongst Debtors, but notably lower amongst both Money Advisers

and Creditors.

In the vast majority of telephone contacts with agents/providers, the person that

Debtors, Money Advisers and – to a slightly lesser extent – Creditors spoke to gave

them their name and, thereafter, Debtors were highly likely to be able to speak to the

right person first time (although this was far less likely to be the case amongst Money

Advisers and, in particular, Creditors).

Levels of satisfaction with politeness and courtesy during telephone contacts with

agents/providers operating on behalf of AiB are extremely high amongst Debtors and

high amongst both Creditors and Money Advisers.

Levels of satisfaction with the way Debtors’ queries were dealt with during telephone

contacts with agents/providers operating on behalf of AiB are extremely high, but are

somewhat lower amongst both Creditors and, in particular, Money Advisers.

Written & E-mail Contact Profile

The vast majority of Money Advisers and Creditors had written to or e-mailed AiB, but

this was far less likely to be the case amongst Debtors.

Levels of written or e-mail contacts to AiB were slightly higher amongst Money

Advisers in 2014 than in 2016 and notably higher amongst Debtors in 2014. In

contrast, levels of such contacts by Creditors were significantly higher in 2016 than in

2014.

Levels of satisfaction amongst those who had written to or e-mailed AiB in terms of

time taken to respond were high amongst Debtors, Creditors and Money Advisers but

notably lower amongst Insolvency Practitioners (with levels of satisfaction amongst

Debtors and Money Advisers being similar to those when they were asked this

question in 2014, but higher amongst Creditors in 2016).

Levels of satisfaction with how written or e-mail contacts had been dealt with were

extremely high amongst Debtors, high amongst Creditors and Money Advisers but

notably lower amongst Insolvency Practitioners (with increased levels of satisfaction

amongst Debtors and Creditors here between 2014 and 2016 and similar levels of


Page 6 of 67

satisfaction amongst Money Advisers when these three audiences were asked this

question).

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

are relatively limited. However, whilst levels of such contacts increased amongst

Debtors between 2014 and 2016, there was a slight fall in the extent to which Money

Advisers had written to or e-mailed an agent/provider and a far more significant fall

amongst Creditors during that time.

Levels of satisfaction with written to or e-mailed contacts with agents/providers in

terms of the time taken to respond to such contacts are extremely high amongst

Debtors, but significantly lower amongst both Creditors and Money Advisers. In

addition, levels of satisfaction in this regard increased slightly amongst Money

Advisers between 2014 and 2016, increased more significantly during that time

amongst Debtors, but fell amongst Creditors.

Levels of satisfaction with written or e-mail contacts with agents/providers in terms of

how queries were dealt with were extremely high amongst Debtors, but notably lower

amongst both Creditors and Money Advisers (with levels of satisfaction in this regard

rising amongst Debtors and Money Advisers between 2014 and 2015, but falling

amongst Creditors).

Face-to-Face Contact Profile

Very few Debtors participating in the research stated that they had visited the office of

AiB. However, on an indicative basis, levels of satisfaction with these visits in terms

of being seen promptly are high, with increasing levels of satisfaction in this regard

amongst Debtors and Money Advisers between 2014 and 2016, but decreasing levels

of satisfaction amongst Creditors.

Levels of visits by Debtors to the office of agents/providers operating on behalf of AiB

are relatively limited but higher than levels of visits to AiB offices and, again, levels of

satisfaction with such visits are high in terms of being seen promptly.


Page 7 of 67

Forms & Guides Profile

There are high levels of satisfaction amongst Debtors, Money Advisers, Creditors and

Insolvency Practitioners in terms of information contained within any AiB leaflets,

guides or forms that they may have read (particularly amongst Money Advisers and

Debtors), with levels of satisfaction in this regard amongst Debtors and Creditors

being very similar to those when they were asked this question in 2014.

There are high levels of preference to receive forms and guides as downloadable

electronic documents amongst Insolvency Practitioners and Creditors, high levels of

demand to receive forms and guides to read on a website amongst Money Advisers

and relatively high levels of demand to receive forms and guides in paper/booklet

format amongst Debtors.

General Results Profile

Those participating in the research believe a wide range of factors – speed of

response, quality of service, efficiency, clear communications and knowledgeable

staff – to be important when rating the service provided by AiB or one of its providers,

although this was least likely to be the case amongst Insolvency Practitioners across

each of these indicators.

A significant majority of Money Advisers and Debtors stated that they had had some

level of contact with AiB during their client’s/their own bankruptcy. However, this

applied to very few Creditors in terms of their bankruptcy.

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

had had some level of contact with AiB during bankruptcy procedures – are extremely

high amongst Debtors and Money Advisers, but somewhat lower amongst Insolvency

Practitioners.

Around two thirds of Debtors stated that they had had some form of contact with an

agent/provider operating on behalf of AiB during their bankruptcy. However, this

applied to a far lower proportion of Money Advisers and, in particular, Creditors in

relation to their own bankruptcy. Thereafter, whilst levels of satisfaction with such

contacts were extremely high amongst Debtors, they were somewhat lower amongst

both Money Advisers and Creditors.


Page 8 of 67

AiB Websites Profile

The vast majority of respondents in all four audiences – and, in particular, Debtors

and Creditors – believed that it was easy to find the information they were looking for

on the aib.gov.uk or scotlandsfinancialhealthservice.gov.uk websites.

Levels of satisfaction with AiB websites are high amongst Debtors, Creditors and

Money Advisers but somewhat lower amongst Insolvency Practitioners.

AiB Business Facilities Profile

The fact that AiB’s office is open to drop-in callers in person and by telephone from

Monday to Friday 9:00 until 16.30 largely meets the needs of Debtors but tends not to

meet the needs of Insolvency Practitioners, with Money Advisers and Creditors being

relatively evenly split in terms of their views in this regard.

A reduction in drop-in hours or a move to AiB’s office being available to personal

callers only by an appointment would be unlikely to have a significant impact on how

AiB provides the service that Money Advisers, Debtors, Insolvency Practitioners and,

in particular, Creditors need.

A change to AiB closing its office earlier on a Friday (i.e. at 14:30) is likely to impact

on a majority of Insolvency Practitioners and Money Advisers, but relatively few

Debtors and Creditors.

There would appear to be little demand for the use of Twitter, Facebook, WhatsApp or

Google+ as methods for contacting AiB, but a degree of demand amongst Debtors,

Money Advisers and Creditors to make use of online live chat.


Page 9 of 67

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 2016.

Information was derived by means of online questionnaires which were

administered primarily to four audiences:

Debtors (in relation to which, 379 completed questionnaires were received)

Creditors (in relation to which, 32 completed questionnaires were received)

Money Advisers (in relation to which, 202 completed questionnaires were

received)

Insolvency Practitioners (in relation to which, 25 completed questionnaires

were received)

The questionnaire was also administered to a small number of Providers.

However, the level of response achieved was insufficient to allow any meaningful

feedback to be provided for this audience.

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 websites

The overwhelming majority of completed questionnaires (96%) were returned via

the link contained within the e-mails issued by AiB.

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 guides

General results


Page 10 of 67

AiB websites

AiB business facilities

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

Research & Consultancy Ltd in October/November 2014 amongst Debtors,

Creditors and Money Advisers. Accordingly, where the same questions were

asked – and where it is statistically appropriate – comparisons are drawn between

the outcomes of questions in 2014 and 2016.


Page 11 of 67

2.0 TELEPHONE CONTACT PROFILE

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

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

Debtors

Creditors

Money Advisers

43%

67%

94%

Base: All Respondents

Figure 1: Extent of Telephone Contact With AiB

Figure 1 indicates that virtually all of the Money Advisers participating in the

research (94%) stated that they had telephoned AiB about a client’s bankruptcy,

protected trust deed or DAS debt payment programme.

Thereafter, two thirds of Creditors (67%) stated, if they had telephoned about a

bankruptcy, protected trust deed or DAS debt payment programme, they had

contacted AiB, whilst over 2 out of 5 of Debtors (43%) stated that this was the

case.

This question was asked in a different format in 2014, referring to having been

contacted by AiB – or having contacted AiB – by telephone. Accordingly, it is not

appropriate to provide a comparison between the outcomes in 2014 and those in

2016. This also means that it is not possible to provide comparisons for the two

surveys between the outcomes noted in Figures 2 to 6 inclusive.


Page 12 of 67

“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

0%

8%

4%

20%

52%

16%

0%

0%

5%

0%

65%

30%

0%

0%

2%

7%

55%

36%

2%

0%

2%

5%

27%

64%

Base: Contacted AiB By Telephone

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

Debtors

Money Advisers

Creditors

InsolvencyPractitioners

From Figure 2, it can be seen that, when respondents had contacted AiB directly

by telephone, there were extremely high levels of satisfaction (in terms of being

satisfied or very satisfied) with this contact across three audiences:

Creditors (95%)

Debtors (91%)

Money Advisers (91%)

Indeed, over two thirds of Insolvency Practitioners here (68%) noted satisfaction

with their telephone contact with AiB.

Figure 2 also indicates that approaching two thirds of Debtors (64%) specifically

stated that they were very satisfied with their telephone contact with AiB, with this

applying to around a third of Money Advisers and Creditors, but relatively few

Insolvency Practitioners, i.e.:



Page 13 of 67

Creditors (30%)

Insolvency Practitioners (16%)

Finally, Figure 2 indicates that levels of dissatisfaction with telephone contact

were extremely low amongst Debtors, Money Advisers and Creditors (ranging

from 2% to 5%). However, it is of interest to note that around 1 in 8 Insolvency

Practitioners (12%) stated that they were very dissatisfied with their telephone

contact with AiB.

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

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

Debtors

Insolvency Practitioners

Money Advisers

Creditors

70%

75%

93%

95%


Figure 3: Telephone Contact - Person Give Name?

From Figure 3, it can be seen that over 9 out of 10 Creditors and Money Advisers

(95% and 93% respectively) who had had telephone contact with AiB stated that

the person they spoke to gave them their name, whilst this applied to three

quarters of Insolvency Practitioners and Debtors here (75% and 70%

respectively).


Page 14 of 67

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

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%


Creditors

Money Advisers

Debtors

55%

74%

74%

80%


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

From Figure 4, it can be seen 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 least prominent amongst Insolvency

Practitioners, i.e.:

Debtors (80%)


Creditors (74%)



Page 15 of 67

“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%

4%

18%

64%

14%

0%

0%

0%

0%

42%

58%

0%

1%

0%

8%

40%

51%

1%

1%

0%

5%

21%

72%


Figure 5: Telephone Contact -Satisfaction With Politeness/Courtesy

Debtors

Money Advisers

Creditors


From Figure 5, it can be seen 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 Creditors,

Debtors and Money Advisers, i.e.:

Creditors (100% satisfied/very satisfied)

Debtors (93%)


Indeed, approaching 4 out of 5 Insolvency Practitioners here (78%) noted their

satisfaction in this regard.

Figure 5 also indicates that approaching three quarters of Debtors (72%)

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 approaching 3

out of 5 Creditors (58%), around half of Money Advisers (51%), but only around 1

in 7 Insolvency Practitioners (14%).


Page 16 of 67

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

and courtesy of staff spoken to by telephone were non-existent or extremely low

(ranging from 0% to 4%).

“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

0%

5%

5%

24%

47%

19%

0%

0%

0%

10%

58%

32%

0%

1%

5%

12%

50%

32%

1%

3%

3%

8%

18%

67%


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

Debtors

Money Advisers

Creditors


Figure 6 indicates 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 (90% satisfied/very satisfied)

Debtors (85%)


Thereafter, this applied to around two thirds of Insolvency Practitioners here

(66%).

Figure 6 also indicates that over two thirds of Debtors who had contacted AiB by

telephone (67%) specifically stated that they were very satisfied with the way their


Page 17 of 67

query was dealt with, although this applied to a far lower percentage of the three

other audiences here, particularly Insolvency Practitioners, i.e.:

Creditors (32%)



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

telephone queries were dealt with were extremely low amongst Creditors, Debtors

and Money Advisers (ranging from 1% to 6%), but were slightly higher amongst

Insolvency Practitioners (10%).

“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%

Money Advisers

Creditors

Debtors

45%

50%

55%


Figure 7: Extent of Telephone Contact With Agent/Provider

From Figure 7, it can be seen that just over half of Debtors (55%) 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, whilst exactly half of Creditors (50%) stated that this was the case. However,

a slightly lesser proportion of Money Advisers (45%) stated that they had

telephoned an agent/provider operating on behalf of AiB about a client’s

bankruptcy.


Page 18 of 67

This question was asked in a different format in 2014 (referring to having been

contacted by AiB – or having contacted AiB – by telephone). Accordingly, it is not

appropriate to provide a comparison between the outcomes here in 2014 and

2016. Consequently, it is also not appropriate to provide comparisons between

the outcomes noted in Figures 8 to 12 inclusive and those noted in the same or

similar questions asked in 2014 (on the basis that the nature of the questions

leading to these follow-up elements were different in these surveys).

“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%

7%

0%

39%

54%

0%

0%

1%

11%

29%

48%

11%

2%

1%

1%

10%

33%

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

Figure 8 indicates that approaching 9 out of 10 Debtors who had contacted an

agent/provider operating on behalf of AiB by telephone (86%) noted their

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

applied to a notably lower proportion of Money Advisers and Creditors here (59%

and 54% respectively).

Figure 8 also indicates that, whilst around half of Debtors who had contacted an

agent/provider operating on behalf of AiB by telephone (53%) specifically stated


Page 19 of 67

that they were very satisfied in this regard, this applied to very few Money

Advisers and, in particular, no Creditors (11% and 0% respectively).

Finally, Figure 8 indicates that levels of dissatisfaction here were very minimal

amongst Debtors (only 2%), but slightly higher amongst Money Advisers and

Creditors (12% and 7% respectively).

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

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

Creditors

Debtors

Money Advisers

69%

79%

84%

Base: Contacted Agent/Provider By Telelphone

Figure 9: Telephone Contact - Person Give Name?

Figure 9 indicates that the vast majority of those who had contacted an

agent/provider operating on behalf of AiB by telephone (particularly Money

Advisers and Debtors) stated that the person they spoke to gave them their name,

i.e.:


Debtors (79%)

Creditors (69%)


Page 20 of 67

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

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

Creditors

Money Advisers

Debtors

31%

53%

72%

Base: Contacted Agent/Provider By Telelphone

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

From Figure 10, it can be seen that three quarters of Debtors who had contacted

an agent/provider operating on behalf of AiB by telephone (72%) stated that they

were able to speak to the right person first time. However, this applied to only half

of Money Advisers (53%) and a third of Creditors (31%) here.


Page 21 of 67

“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%

15%

77%

8%

0%

1%

6%

24%

54%

15%

3%

1%

1%

7%

23%

65%


Figure 11: Telephone Contact -Satisfaction With Politeness/Courtesy

Debtors

Money Advisers

Creditors

Figure 11 indicates that approaching 9 out of 10 Debtors and Creditors who had

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

85% respectively) noted their satisfaction with the politeness or courtesy of the

person they spoke with, with this applying to around two thirds of Money Advisers

(69%) here.

It is also of interest to note from Figure 11 that, whilst approaching two thirds of

Debtors (65%) specifically stated that they were very satisfied in this regard, this

applied to relatively few Money Advisers and Creditors (15% and 8%

respectively).

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, although at their highest amongst Money Advisers (7%).


Page 22 of 67


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

Not Applicable

Very Dissatisfied

Dissatisfied

Neutral

Satisfied

Very Satisfied

0%

0%

0%

33%

59%

8%

0%

2%

12%

29%

48%

9%

2%

3%

2%

6%

24%

63%


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

Debtors

Money Advisers

Creditors

Figure 12 indicates that almost 9 out of 10 Debtors who had contacted an

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

satisfaction with the way their query was dealt with. However, this applied to a

lower proportion – although still a majority – of Creditors and Money Advisers here

(67% and 57% respectively).

Furthermore, Figure 12 indicates that, whilst approaching two thirds of Debtors

(63%) specifically stated that they were very satisfied in this regard, this applied to

few Money Advisers and Creditors here (9% and 8% respectively).

Finally, from Figure 12 it can be seen that no Creditors who had contacted an

agent/provider operating on behalf of AiB by telephone and very few Debtors (5%)

noted their dissatisfaction with the way their query was dealt with. In contrast,

around 1 in 7 Money Advisers here (14%) noted their dissatisfaction in this regard.


Page 23 of 67

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

35%

77%

87%


Figure 13: Written To Or E-mailed AiB?

From Figure 13, it can be seen that the vast majority of Money Advisers and

Creditors participating in the research (87% and 77% respectively) stated that

they had written to or e-mailed AiB. However, this applied to only around a third

of Debtors (35%).

Levels of written or e-mail contacts to AiB were slightly higher amongst Money

Advisers in 2014 (93% compared to 87% in 2016) and notably higher for Debtors

(47% compared to 35% in 2016). In contrast, levels of written or e-mail contacts

to AiB by Creditors were significantly higher in 2016 (77% compared to 50% in

2014).

There is the potential that these increases are likely to be attributable to higher

levels of e-mail contact with AiB in 2016.


Page 24 of 67

“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

0%

5%

26%

26%

43%

0%

0%

0%

5%

10%

53%

32%

1%

3%

10%

14%

45%

27%

2%

2%

2%

6%

28%

60%

Base: Written To/E-mailed AiB

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

Debtors

Money Advisers

Creditors


Figure 14 indicates highly positive outcomes in terms of levels of satisfaction

amongst Debtors, Creditors and Money Advisers who had written to or e-mailed

AiB relating to the time taken to respond to such contacts, i.e.:

Debtors (88% satisfied/very satisfied)

Creditors (85%)


However, this only applied to less than half of Insolvency Practitioners (43%).

When Debtors, Creditors and Money Advisers were asked this question in 2014,

the outcomes were very similar for Debtors and Money Advisers, however, levels

of satisfaction in 2014 were lower amongst Creditors than in 2016, i.e.:

Debtors (2014 = 87%; 2016 = 88%)

Money Advisers (72% in both 2014 and 2016)

Creditors (2014 = 70%; 2016 = 85%)


Page 25 of 67

Figure 14 also indicates that 3 out of 5 Debtors here (60%) specifically stated that

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

communication with AiB. However, this applied to a far lower proportion of both

Creditors and Money Advisers (32% and 27% respectively) and no Insolvency

Practitioners.

Finally, Figure 14 also indicates that there were minimal levels of dissatisfaction

amongst Debtors, Creditors and Money Advisers in respect of the time taken to

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

Debtors to 13% for Money Advisers). However, in contrast, approaching a third of

Insolvency Practitioners here (31%) noted their dissatisfaction in this regard.


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

Not Applicable

Very Dissatisfied

Dissatisfied

Neutral

Satisfied

Very Satisfied

0%

5%

11%

42%

42%

0%

0%

0%

5%

16%

47%

32%

0%

3%

9%

17%

38%

33%

1%

3%

2%

5%

32%

57%

Base: Written To/E-mailed AiB

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

Debtors

Money Advisers

Creditors



Page 26 of 67

From Figure 15, it can be seen 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 a significant majority of Creditors and Money Advisers here

(79% and 71% respectively).

In contrast, well under half of the Insolvency Practitioners who had written to or e-

mailed AiB (42%) noted their satisfaction with the way their query was dealt with.

When Debtors, Creditors and Money Advisers were asked this question in 2014,

the outcomes for Money Advisers were very similar (2014 = 72%; 2016 = 71%).

However, between 2014 and 2016, there was an increased level of satisfaction

amongst both Debtors and Creditors here (especially the latter), i.e.:

Debtors (2014 = 85%; 2016 = 89%)

Creditors (2014 = 65%; 2016 = 79%)

Figure 15 also indicates that approaching 3 out of 5 Debtors who had written to or

e-mailed AiB (57%) specifically stated that they were very satisfied with the way

their query was dealt with, with this applying to around a third of both Money

Advisers and Creditors (33% and 32% respectively) but no Insolvency

Practitioners here.

Finally, Figure 15 indicates that levels of dissatisfaction with the way written or e-

mail contacts had been dealt with were low across all four audiences, although

they were at their highest amongst Insolvency Practitioners (16%).


Page 27 of 67

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

30% 32% 34% 36% 38% 40%

Money Advisers

Creditors

Debtors

34%

36%

36%


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

Figure 16 indicates that around a third of Debtors, Creditors and Money Advisers

participating in the research (36%, 36% and 34% respectively) stated that they

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

Between 2014 and 2016, there was a slight fall in the extent to which Money

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

(from 40% to 34%) and a far more significant fall amongst Creditors (from 48% to

36%). In contrast, between 2014 and 2016, there was an increase in the extent to

which Debtors had written to or e-mailed an agent/provider operating on behalf of

AiB (from 23% to 36%).


Page 28 of 67

“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%

45%

11%

33%

11%

0%

8%

18%

24%

34%

16%

0%

4%

3%

6%

36%

51%

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 approaching 9 out of 10 Debtors who had

written to or e-mailed an agent/provider operating on behalf of AiB (87%) noted

their satisfaction with the time taken to respond, with this applying to half of Money

Advisers here (50%), but less than half of Creditors (44%).

Amongst Debtors, there was an increase in levels of satisfaction here between

2014 and 2016 (from 77% to 87%) and a slight rise in this regard amongst Money

Advisers (from 45% to 50%). However, between 2014 and 2016, levels of

satisfaction fell amongst Creditors (from 57% to 44%).

Figure 17 indicates that just over half of Debtors who had written to or e-mailed an

agent/provider operating on behalf of AiB (51%) specifically stated they were very

satisfied in this regard. However, this applied to around 1 in 6 Money Advisers

(16%) and 1 in 10 Creditors (11%).

Furthermore, Figure 17 indicates that very few Debtors who had written to or e-

mailed an agent/provider operating on behalf of AiB (only 7%) noted their


Page 29 of 67

dissatisfaction with the time taken to respond, whilst this applied to a quarter of

Money Advisers here (26%) and nearly half of Creditors (45%).


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

Not Applicable

Very Dissatisfied

Dissatisfied

Neutral

Satisfied

Very Satisfied

0%

0%

11%

33%

45%

11%

0%

10%

11%

29%

34%

16%

1%

4%

4%

4%

34%

53%

Base: Written To/E-mailed Agent/Provider

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

Debtors

Money Advisers

Creditors

Figure 18 also, again, indicates that around 9 out of 10 Debtors who had written to

or e-mailed an agent/provider operating on behalf of AiB (87%) noted their

satisfaction with the way their query was dealt with. This applied to a lower

proportion of both Creditors and Money Advisers here (56% and 50%

respectively).

Between 2014 and 2016, there was an increase in levels of satisfaction in this

regard amongst both Debtors and Money Advisers, i.e.:

Debtors (rising from 79% to 87%)

Money Advisers (rising from 42% to 50%)

In contrast, between 2014 and 2016, there was a decrease in levels of satisfaction

with the way Creditors’ queries were dealt with (falling from 70% to 56%).


Page 30 of 67

Figure 18 also indicates that, again, whilst just over half of Debtors here (53%)

specifically stated that they were very satisfied with the way their written or e-mail

query was dealt with, this applied to only around 1 in 6 Money Advisers here

(16%) and 1 in 10 of Creditors (11%).

Finally, it is of interest to note from Figure 18 that, whilst around 1 in 12 Debtors

here (8%) and 1 in 10 Creditors (11%) noted their dissatisfaction with the way

their query was dealt with, this applied to around 1 in 5 Money Advisers (21%).


Page 31 of 67

4.0 FACE-TO-FACE CONTACT PROFILE

A number of questions were asked only of Debtors in relation to their face-to-face

contacts with AiB.

“Have you visited the office of AiB?”

Yes 5%

No 95%

Figure 19: Visited Office of AiB?

Base: All Debtors

Figure 19 indicates that very few Debtors participating in the research (only 5%)

stated that they had visited the office of AiB.

This figure is lower than that found in 2014 (10%) and is such that it is not

statistically appropriate to draw comparisons between the outcomes for Debtors in

2014 and 2016.


Page 32 of 67

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

promptly?”

Very satisfied 62%

Satisfied 23%

Not applicable 15%

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 high

A majority of respondents were very satisfied with how promptly they were

seen when they visited AiB’s office


Page 33 of 67

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

Yes 22%

No 78%

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

Base: All Debtors

From Figure 21, it can be seen that over 1 in 5 Debtors participating in the

research (22%) stated that they had visited the office of an agent/provider

operating on behalf of AiB.


Page 34 of 67

“When you visited the providers’ office, how satisfied were you that you were seen

promptly?”

Very satisfied 76%

Satisfied 20%

Neutral 2%

Very dissatisfied 2%

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:

Almost all (96%) noted their satisfaction in terms of being seen promptly

Three quarters (76%) specifically stated that they were very satisfied in terms

of being seen promptly


Page 35 of 67

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

0%

0%

11%

21%

68%

0%

12%

0%

0%

21%

38%

29%

2%

1%

1%

8%

62%

26%

6%

1%

1%

6%

37%

49%


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

Debtors

Money Advisers

Creditors


Figure 23 indicates high levels of satisfaction across all four audiences and, in

particular, Money Advisers and Debtors in terms of the information contained

within any of the AiB leaflets, guides or forms they may have read, i.e.:

Money Advisers (88% satisfied/very satisfied)

Debtors (86%)


Creditors (67%)

These outcomes for Debtors and Creditors are broadly in line with those found in

2014, i.e.:

Debtors (2014 = 90%; 2016 = 86%)

Creditors (2014 = 66%; 2016 = 67%)


Page 36 of 67

Figure 23 also indicates that, whilst around a half of Debtors (49%) specifically

stated that they were very satisfied in this regard, this applied to around 3 out of

10 Creditors (29%), a quarter of Money Advisers (26%) and no Insolvency

Practitioners.

It is also encouraging to note from Figure 23 that none of the Creditors

participating in the research and very few Debtors or Money Advisers (both only

2%) noted dissatisfaction with the information contained within any of the AiB

leaflets, guides or forms they may have read. However, this applied to around 1

in 10 Insolvency Practitioners (11%).

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

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

To read on a website

A downloadableelectronic document

Paper/booklet

26%

79%

5%

17%

71%

17%

67%

23%

39%

24%

31%

59%


Figure 24: Preferred Methods to Receive Forms & Guidance Debtors

Money Advisers

Creditors


From Figure 24, it can be seen that a significant majority of Insolvency

Practitioners and Creditors noted a preference for receiving forms and guidance

as a downloadable electronic document, i.e.:


Creditors (71%)


Page 37 of 67

However, this applied to less than a third of Debtors (31%) and around a quarter

of Money Advisers (23%).

Figure 24 also indicates that, around 3 out of 5 Debtors (59%) expressed a

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

applying to around 2 out of 5 Money Advisers (39%), 1 in 6 Creditors (17%) and

very few Insolvency Practitioners (5%).

Finally, Figure 24 indicates that whilst two thirds of Money Advisers expressed a

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

far lower proportion of Insolvency Practitioners, Debtors and Creditors, i.e.


Debtors (24%)

Creditors (17%)


Page 38 of 67

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

1.44

1.67

2.11

1.94

2.11

1.26

1.48

1.39

1.48

1.65

1.22

1.26

1.40

1.36

1.48

1.28

1.30

1.34

1.33

1.42


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,

a number of interesting outcomes are apparent, namely:

Speed of response is of most importance amongst Debtors and Money

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

average scores of 1.42 and 1.48 respectively out of a possible 5) and least

important amongst Insolvency Practitioners (2.11)

Quality of service is of most importance amongst Debtors and Money Advisers

(1.33 and 1.36 respectively) and of least importance amongst Insolvency

Practitioners (1.94)

Efficiency is of virtually equal most importance amongst Debtors, Creditors

and Money Advisers (1.34, 1.39 and 1.40 respectively) and of least

importance amongst Insolvency Practitioners (2.11)


Page 39 of 67

Clear communications is of most importance amongst Money Advisers and

Debtors (1.26 and 1.30 respectively) and least importance amongst Insolvency

Practitioners (1.67)

Knowledgeable staff is of virtually equal importance amongst Money Advisers,

Creditors and Debtors (1.22, 1.26 and 1.28 respectively) and of least

importance amongst Insolvency Practitioners (1.44)

With two exceptions, levels of importance in the rating of the service provided by

AiB or one of its providers are significantly lower than the mean importance score

(of 2.5 out of a possible 5), with these exceptions relating to speed of response

and efficiency, which are closest to the mean importance score of 2.5 (i.e. on the

basis that both scores are 2.11 out of a possible 5).

Accordingly, it can be concluded from this that all of the factors under

consideration are of significant importance when rating the service provided by

AiB or one of its providers, although this is less likely to be the case amongst

Insolvency Practitioners across each of these indicators.

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

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

Creditors

Debtors

Money Advisers

5%

73%

85%


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


Page 40 of 67

From Figure 26, it can be seen that a significant majority of Money Advisers (85%)

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

whilst three quarters of Debtors (73%) stated that they had some level of contact

with AiB during their bankruptcy.

However, very few of the Creditors participating in the research process (only 5%)

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

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

would have had some level of contact with AiB during bankruptcy proceedings

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?”1

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

Not Applicable

Very Dissatisfied

Dissatisfied

Neutral

Satisfied

Very Satisfied

0%

6%

0%

44%

33%

17%

0%

1%

3%

7%

57%

32%

0%

0%

2%

5%

25%

68%


Figure 27: Overall Satisfaction With Service Provided by AiB Debtors

Money Advisers


Figure 27 indicates that the overwhelming majority of Debtors and Money

Advisers who had had some level of contact with AiB during their bankruptcy/ their

client’s bankruptcy noted their satisfaction with this contact, i.e.:

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

not possible to provide even indicative outcomes for their response to this question.


Page 41 of 67

Debtors (93% satisfied/very satisfied)


However, this only applied to half of Insolvency Practitioners here (50%).

Figure 27 also indicates that, whilst around two thirds of Debtors here (68%)

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

AiB, this applied to only around a third of Money Advisers (32%) and 1 in 6

Insolvency Practitioners (17%).

Finally, it should be noted that levels of dissatisfaction with the overall service

provided by AiB were very minimal (ranging from 2% amongst Debtors to 6%

amongst Insolvency Practitioners).

6.2 Profile of Qualitative Responses – AiB

Respondents in all four audiences who had had contact with AiB were provided

with 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 were very largely positive in nature and primary

incorporated comments which referred to terms such as helpful/very helpful and

polite/courteous.

Thereafter, comments incorporated notable secondary mention to terms such

as:

Efficient

Friendly

Knowledgeable

Professional

Satisfaction with service

Furthermore, more specific reference was made in comments to terms such as:


Page 42 of 67

Accessible

Approachable

Cannot be faulted

Collaboration

Excellent

Listen

Pleasure to deal with

Responsive

The negative comments provided tended to be more specific in nature – and often

related to providers/agents rather than AiB. Indeed, the only notable negative

comments incorporated terms relating to inconsistent or conflicting information or

advice.

Thereafter, further negative comments were very specific in nature (i.e. being

mentioned by only one or two respondents) and included reference to terms such

as:

Dealt with in an inappropriate manner

Defensive

Dismissive

External providers being aggressive, dismissive and unprofessional

Frustration

Hit and miss

Lack of common sense

Lack of response/acknowledge of e-mails

Non-committed

Petty questions

System glitches

Third party slow to respond

Time taken for agents to respond

Unclear information on website/difficulties navigating website

Unhappy DAS admin (“need to cheer up”)

Unhelpful

Vagueness

Variable performance by agents/providers


Page 43 of 67

It should be stressed, however – as noted above – whilst the list above is lengthy,

these terms were used by only one or two respondents.

Creditors

There were no notable comments made by Creditors in relation to the overall

service provided by AiB during their bankruptcy.


There were a very limited number of comments provided by Insolvency

Practitioners about the service provided by AiB. However, one was very positive

on the basis that a respondent stated that he/she “always find staff very courteous

to my staff”.

Another comment provided by an Insolvency Practitioner was more mixed in

nature:

“In summary, I would say you have a few very good, knowledgeable and

helpful staff such as (two named individuals). However, this is often

outweighed by other staff in teams who lack basic understanding of how

insolvency works in the real world and/or who take a very pedantic approach

which is untargeted. We all know which firms are ‘bad apples’ but either

nothing gets done about them or the same pedantic approach is taken with all

firms irrespective of the AiB’s and Creditors’ experience of those firms”.

Finally, one comment provided by an Insolvency Practitioner provided a

suggestion for improvement:

“It would be useful to have AiB staff informed as to practicalities rather than

reading from a manual. Insolvency legislation seems to take a back foot from

AiB processes”.


Page 44 of 67

Debtors

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

bankruptcy were very largely positive in nature, with primary unprompted

reference being made in comments to terms such as:

A great/excellent/first-class service

Helpful

Thereafter, notable secondary mention was made in comments to terms

including those such as:

Expressions of thanks

Friendly

Highly efficient staff

Pleasant

Polite

Processes working well

Professional


Finally, more specific references were made in comments – by single Debtors –

to terms such as:

Being made to feel comfortable

Courteous

Diligent

Empathetic

Information being easy to read

Knowledgeable

Making the process very easy

Non judgemental

Open and honest communications

Responsive

Supportive

Understanding


Page 45 of 67

Indeed, it should be stressed that, in many of the comments provided, reference

was made here to the role of AiB in helping and supporting Debtors through

stressful and difficult times.

The negative comments made were all very specific in nature (i.e. at most being

noted by two Debtors) and related to comments which incorporated terms such

as:

Appointed companies being rude/abrupt

Appointed companies being slow

Appointed companies being unsatisfactory

Being passed from person to person

Clueless

Disappointment re lack of response to e-mail

Disorganised

Errors by AiB

Failure to provide information requested

Incorrect information being provided by AiB

Lack of accessibility of person being contacted

Lack of sympathy

Regretting entering into the process with AiB

Slow service

Upsetting/disappointing experience


Page 46 of 67

6.3 Profile of Quantitative Responses – Agents/Providers

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

AiB during your bankruptcy?”

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

Creditors

Money Advisers

Debtors

22%

40%

69%


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

Figure 28 indicates that over two thirds of Debtors (69%) stated that they had had

some level of contact with an agent/provider operating on behalf of AiB during

their client’s bankruptcy but that only 2 out of 5 Money Advisers and around 1 in 5

Creditors (40% and 22% respectively) stated that they had had some level of

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


Page 47 of 67

“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

17%

0%

0%

33%

50%

0%

1%

4%

11%

28%

39%

17%

0%

3%

1%

4%

22%

70%


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

Debtors

Money Advisers

Creditors

From Figure 29, it can be seen that 9 out of 10 Debtors (92%) who had contact

with an agent/provider during their bankruptcy process noted their satisfaction with

this contact. However, this applied to just over half of Money Advisers (56%) in

terms of contacts with an agent/provider during their client’s bankruptcy process

and exactly half of Creditors (50%) during their bankruptcy.

Figure 29 also indicates that Debtors here were far more likely than Money

Advisers and, in particular, Creditors to specifically state that they were very

satisfied with the overall service provided by an agent/provider operating on behalf

of AiB (70% compared to 17% and 0% respectively).

Finally, Figure 29 indicates that levels of dissatisfaction with the overall service

provided by an agent/provider operating on behalf of AiB were non-existent

amongst Creditors (0%), extremely low amongst Debtors (4%) but slightly higher

amongst Money Advisers (15%).


Page 48 of 67

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 during their or their client’s bankruptcy were also given

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

by agents/providers.

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 were

negative – although very specific in nature (i.e. being noted by only one

respondent in each case). There were, however, a number of respondents who

made reference here to duplication of work – particularly in terms of agents

reiterating what is written in application forms – “this is wasting my time, client time

and agent time”.

Thereafter, a number of comments were made which incorporated specific

mention of terms such as:

Dismissive

Less efficient

Less satisfactory experience

Negative feedback from clients

Not willing to listen

Patronising

Poor customer service

Slow to respond

Unhelpful

Unmotivated

Very abrupt

Very blunt

Very disappointing

Indeed, only two positive comments were provided here, which incorporated

the terms:


Page 49 of 67

Generally okay

Service is good

In both cases, they were provided by single respondents.

Creditors

The comments provided by Creditors here were very limited in number, with the

most notable comment being made by a Creditor in relation to the service

received from an agent/provider operating on behalf of AiB during their bankruptcy

was that “some providers offer a better service than others: fees are high”.

Debtors

Most of the comments provided by Debtors who had had contact with an

agent/provider operating on behalf of AiB during their bankruptcy were positive in

nature, with the primary positive comments incorporating references to terms

such as:

Brilliant

Excellent

Expressions of thanks

Helpful

Thereafter, more specific positive references were made in comments to terms

including:

Approachable

Clear and concise

Easy to deal with

Efficient

Fantastic

Good service


Supportive

Thorough explanation

Thoughtful


Page 50 of 67

There were, however, a number of negative comments made here, with these

being specific in nature (i.e. being noted by only one Debtor) and referring to

terms such as:

Difficulties in getting access to the person sought

Insensitive

Judgemental

Lack of understanding

No service

Rude and abrupt

Shocking service

Finally, it should be noted that one comment referred to having a mixed

experience with agents/providers, whilst another respondent stated that an

agent/provider with which he/she had dealt with was “much better than AiB”.


Page 51 of 67

7.0 AiB WEBSITES PROFILE

7.1 Profile of Quantitative Information

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

scotlandsfinancialhealthservice.gov.uk websites?”

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

Not Applicable

Very difficult

Fairly difficult

Fairly easy

Very easy

0%

11%

17%

67%

5%

5%

0%

11%

63%

21%

3%

1%

20%

67%

9%

9%

1%

5%

51%

34%


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 – and, in particular, Debtors and Creditors – believed that it was

easy (either fairly easy or very easy) to find information they were looking for on

the AiB.gov.uk or on scotlandsfinancialhealthservice.gov.uk websites, i.e.:

Debtors (85%)

Creditors (84%)



Figure 30 also indicates that Creditors and, in particular, Debtors were far more

likely to specifically state that they found it very easy to find the information they

were looking for on the AiB.gov.uk or on scotlandsfinancialhealthservice.gov.uk


Page 52 of 67

websites (21% and 34% respectively compared to 9% for Money Advisers and 5%

for Insolvency Practitioners).

Finally, Figure 30 indicates that Money Advisers and Insolvency Practitioners

were most likely to state that it was difficult (either fairly difficult or very difficult) to

find the information they were looking for on these websites, i.e.:



Creditors (11%)

Debtors (6%)

“Overall, how satisfied are you with our websites?”

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

Not Applicable

Very Dissatisfied

Dissatisfied

Neutral

Satisfied

Very Satisfied

0%

0%

17%

33%

44%

6%

0%

0%

5%

16%

68%

11%

0%

0%

7%

22%

60%

11%

9%

0%

0%

9%

43%

39%


Figure 31: Overall Satisfaction With AiB Websites Debtors

Money Advisers

Creditors


Figure 31 indicates that a notable majority of Debtors, Creditors and Money

Advisers stated that they were satisfied with the AiB websites but that this applied

to a somewhat lower proportion of Insolvency Practitioners, i.e.:

Debtors (82%)

Creditors (79%)


Page 53 of 67



When this question was asked of Creditors and Debtors in 2014, the outcome for

Debtors was very similar (2014 = 84%; 2016 = 82%). However, between 2014

and 2016, there was a decline amongst Creditors here in terms of their

satisfaction with the AiB websites (falling from 87% to 79%).

Figure 31 also indicates that Debtors were most likely to specifically state that

they were very satisfied with the AiB websites (39% compared to between 6% and

11% for the three other audiences).

Finally, Figure 31 indicates that Insolvency Practitioners were most likely to note

their overall dissatisfaction with the AiB websites (i.e. 17% compared to 0% for

Debtors and 7% for Money Advisers and 5% for Creditors).

7.2 Profile of Qualitative Information

Again, at this point in the questionnaire, respondents were provided with the

opportunity to provide verbatim comments about AiB’s websites.

Money Advisers

Most of the comments provided about AiB’s websites by Money Advisers were

negative, but very specific in nature and related to references to terms such as:

Could be more user-friendly

Difficult to navigate

Input elements being shocking (due to lack of intuitive logic/duplication of input

requirements)

Need to be tidied up/streamlined

Should have more information

Stilted access to systems

Very slow at times


Page 54 of 67

However, it should be stressed that by far the most common negative

comments provided by a number of respondents related to difficulties in finding

information on the websites.

It should also be noted that relatively few positive comments were made

concerning AiB websites by Money Advisers, with each of these being made by a

single respondent and including comments which incorporated terms such as:

Fine

Good information

Great

User friendly

Creditors

Only one comment was provided by a Creditor in relation to AiB websites which

was “make it idiot proof – as clear as possible please”.


The comments noted by Insolvency Practitioners with regard to the AiB websites

were few but all were negative. These were as follows:

“The websites are fine, but the portals for submitting information on some of

the forms have clearly either not been tested properly in advance of going live

or simply designed by people who have no idea how insolvency should work”

“Astra and BASYS are not (terribly) user friendly”

“Search engine could be more user friendly”

Debtors

There were relatively few comments provided by Debtors with regard to AiB’s

websites. However, those which were provided were largely positive in nature,

referring to, for example, the websites being:

Clear and concise

Easy to navigate


Page 55 of 67

High-quality IT support

Very good

Very helpful

In addition, there were a number of suggestions for improvements made by

Debtors to AiB’s websites, including desires for:

All information to be correct

Better search facilities

Easier navigation of websites

Forms being available to download

Less acronyms

More videos


Page 56 of 67

8.0 AiB BUSINESS FACILITIES PROFILE

“AiB’s office is open to drop-in callers in person and by telephone from Monday to

Friday, 9:00 to 16:30. To what degree does this meet your needs?”

0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50

Debtors

Creditors

Money Advisers


2.07

2.46

2.53

3.33


Figure 32: Degree to Which AiB Business Facilities Meet Needs -Average Score Out of 5

When respondents were informed that AiB’s office is open to drop-in callers in

person and by telephone from Monday to Friday, 9:00 to 16:30, were then asked

to what degree this met their needs on a scale from 1 to 5, where ‘1’ was fully

meets my needs and ‘5’ was does not meet my needs at all, Debtors provided the

most positive response (i.e. providing a mean score of 2.07 out of a possible 5)

which is significantly less than the mean score of 2.5 out of a possible 5, i.e. this

infers that these arrangements largely meet their needs.

In contrast, Insolvency Practitioners provided a mean score of 3.33 out of a

possible 5 (i.e. in excess of the mean of 2.5), suggesting that these arrangements

tend not to meet their needs.

Finally, Figure 32 indicates that Money Advisers and Creditors provided average

scores very close to the mean of 2.5 out of a possible 5 (2.53 and 2.46

respectively), suggesting that there is a balance between those who believe that

these arrangements do meet their needs and those who believe that these

arrangements do not meet their needs.


Page 57 of 67

“To what extent would a reduction in drop-in hours or a move to the office being

available to personal callers only by an appointment have an impact on how AiB

provides the service you need?”

0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50

Creditors

Money Advisers

Debtors


1.23

1.96

2.13

2.17


Figure 33: Extent to Which AiB Business Facility Changes Have An Impact On How AiB Provides Services Needed -

Average Score Out of 5

Again, when respondents were asked to note the extent to which a reduction in

the drop in hours or a move to the office being available to personal callers only

by appointment would have an impact on how AiB provides the service to them

(again, on a scale from 1 to 5, where ‘1’ was no impact to my needs at all and ‘5’

was a major impact on my needs), the most positive outcomes were found

amongst Creditors (i.e. 1.23 out of a possible 5) which would suggest that these

changed arrangements would have relatively little impact on how AiB provides the

service they need.

Indeed, for the three remaining audiences, the average scores provided were

lower than the mean of 2.5 out of a possible 5, i.e.:

Money Advisers (1.96)

Debtors (2.13)

Insolvency Practitioners (2.17)


Page 58 of 67

Accordingly, on balance, this would suggest that for most Money Advisers,

Debtors and Insolvency Practitioners, these changed arrangements would not

have a significant impact on how AiB provides the service they need.

“To what degree would it affect your needs should AiB close its office earlier on a

Friday (i.e. 14:30)?”

0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50

Creditors

Debtors

Money Advisers


1.54

1.64

2.62

2.75


Figure 34: Extent of Affect on Needs of AiB Closing Offices Early On A Friday -

Average Score Out of 5

When respondents were asked to what degree would it affect their needs should

AiB close its office early on a Friday (i.e. 14:30) – again, on a scale from 1 to 5,

where ‘1’ was no real impact and ‘5’ was significant impact – Figure 34 indicates

that the lowest impacts were noted amongst Creditors and Debtors (on the basis

of them providing average scores in excess of 2.5 out of a possible 5), i.e.:

Creditors (1.54 out of a possible 5)

Debtors (1.64)

In contrast, greater impacts were noted by most Money Advisers and Insolvency

Practitioners (on the basis of them providing average scores in excess of 2.5 out

of a possible 5), i.e.:

Insolvency Practitioners (2.75)



Page 59 of 67

Accordingly, this would suggest that these arrangements would impact upon a

majority of Insolvency Practitioners and Money Advisers, but relatively few

Debtors and Creditors.

“How likely would you be to use one of the following methods for contacting AiB?”

0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00

Online live chat

Google+

WhatsApp

Facebook

Twitter

4.22

4.72

4.67

4.72

4.56

3.17

4.50

4.38

4.73

4.73

3.06

4.44

4.62

4.74

4.82

2.69

3.95

4.05

4.33

4.69


Figure 35: Likelihood of Contacting AiB By Various Methods -Average Score Out of 5

Debtors

Money Advisers

Creditors


Finally, when respondents were asked how likely it was that they would use one of

a range of methods for contacting AiB, again on a scale from 1 to 5, where ‘1’ was

extremely likely and ‘5’ was extremely unlikely, it can be seen that most scores

were in excess of 4 out of a possible 5, i.e. close to the extremely unlikely end of

the scale for each of the methods under consideration across all of the audiences

participating in the research.

Indeed, the most positive outcomes related to online live chats, which were most

attractive to Debtors, Money Advisers and Creditors (albeit exhibiting scores in

excess of the mean of 2.5 out of a possible 5), thereby suggesting that they would

be likely to be used by a minority of individuals in each of these audiences, i.e.:

Debtors (2.69 out of a possible 5)



Page 60 of 67

Creditors (3.17)

Accordingly, these outcomes would suggest that there is little demand for the use

of Twitter, Facebook, WhatsApp or Google+, but there is a degree of demand

amongst Debtors, Money Advisers and Creditors to make use of online live chat.


Page 61 of 67

9.0 FINAL VERBATIM COMMENTS PROVIDED BY RESPONDENTS

At the end of the questionnaire, respondents were asked if they had any final

comments they would like to make.

Money Advisers

A number of comments were made by Money Advisers at the end of the

questionnaire relating to potential changes in AiB’s business facilities

(questions about which had been asked immediately before this question). The

following are typical of these comments:

“I don’t have any need to visit AiB in person. However, if you are going to

reduce telephone opening hours, that could have an impact on my ability to

help my customers”.

“Maintain telephone contact and do not reduce the hours.”

“It is important that Money Advisers are able to access advice when required

so as not to prejudice our clients.”

“We provide a service to our clients from 9am to 5pm, Monday to Friday. If we

are seeing someone to complete a BASYS application and they wish to pay by

phone, this must be done before 4.30. Changing opening times on a Friday

could impact on the service we provide.”

Other comments provided here were more general and positive in nature,

including, for example:

“Excellent service. Knowledgeable and accommodating.”

“Found most AiB staff to be very helpful.”

“Over the past year, the service from AiB has improved”

However, other comments were more mixed and included:

“Congratulations to the staff who are doing a difficult job, but they should all be

seconded to a busy money advice centre as part of their core training in order

that they may experience the impact of bankruptcy as human beings and not

pieces of paper covered with numbers and letters”


Page 62 of 67

“I have found the BASYS to be extremely helpful. The DAS team not so

much. Some agents are better than others”.

Finally, it should be noted that there were some negative comments made here,

including:

“The BASYS should be made more flexible to different client circumstances”.

“The lack of guidance to advisers compared to that provided by the insolvency

services in England, Wales and Northern Ireland is very frustrating”.

“Often advice given out by different AiB advisers is inconsistent and varies

depending on who you speak to”.

Creditors

The only comment of note to emerge from Creditors at the end of the

questionnaire related to the previous questions which focused on AiB’s business

facilities, and was as follows – “Online chat? What hours would that be offered

for? Same as office hours?”.


There were three comments made at the end of the questionnaire by Insolvency

Practitioners, two of which were positive and as follows:

“I think the service that AiB now provides is excellent. I have worked in

insolvency now for 15 years and the developments in the supervision aspects

in the last few years are particularly welcomed”

“AiB are always willing to help with any insolvency query we have and help us

with a solution”

It should be noted, however, that the first of these comments went on to state that

“There remain instances where I feel that AiB and staff could think outside the box

as opposed to restricting themselves to a ‘it doesn’t tick the box’ decision/criteria.

The needs of the clients I have met in recent years are in very vulnerable

situations, often people now turning to alcohol, drugs and gambling, where going

back 10 years, they wouldn’t have, and need help from people in a position to do

so. This includes IPs and AiB and a large Insolvency Service for Scotland”.


Page 63 of 67

There was also one negative comment made by an Insolvency Practitioner. This

was as follows – “The questions about drop-in and phone call hours lead me to

believe that you are considering cutting these. My main comment would be that

your office or staff already appear to knock off way before anybody in the industry

as, too often when I phone I am told the person has already finished for the day

and nobody else is able to help. All too often I will get an e-mail from someone at

the AiB and when I immediately phone that person to talk about it, they have

already finished for the day”.

Debtors

The final comments made by Debtors incorporated a number of expressions of

thanks, together with respondents referring to AiB’s service being great or

excellent and AiB being supportive.

In addition, a number of desires were noted relating to, for example:

More paper-based correspondence

Improving customer service for disabled and vulnerable people

Furthermore, some concerns were raised with regard to contact methods used by

AiB in future in terms of avoiding the potential for information – which is very often

sensitive in nature – being accessible to third parties (including family members).


Page 64 of 67

10.0 CONCLUSIONS

10.1 Positive Conclusions

It can be readily concluded from the study that customer experiences of those

who interact with AiB and its partners/agents are very largely positive. This is

evidenced by the high levels of satisfaction which are apparent in respect of:

Telephone contacts with AiB, particularly amongst Creditors, Debtors and

Money Advisers

Telephone contacts with partners/agents across all indicators amongst

Debtors and a number of indicators amongst Creditors and Money Advisers

Written and e-mail contacts with AiB amongst Debtors, Creditors and Money

Advisers in terms of the time taken to respond to queries and the way queries

were dealt with, and high levels of satisfaction in these regards amongst

Debtors who had written to or e-mailed an agent/provider

How promptly Debtors were seen when they visited AiB’s office and the

offices of agents and providers

Information contained within AiB leaflets, guides and forms which they have

read across all four audiences

Overall levels of satisfaction amongst Debtors and Money Advisers who had

contact with AiB during bankruptcy procedures

Overall levels of satisfaction amongst Debtors who had contacted an

partner/agent during bankruptcy procedures

The extent to which all four audiences find it easy to find information on AiB

websites

AiB’s websites across all four audiences

AiB’s office being open to drop-in callers in person and by telephone from

Monday to Friday from 9:00 to 16:30 meeting the needs of most Debtors and

many Money Advisers and Creditors


Page 65 of 67

AiB should be greatly encouraged by the positive conclusions noted above, on the

basis that they represent a range of indicators, in relation to which AiB and its

partners are performing well and, indeed – as indicated in the Executive Summary

– is performing increasingly well in terms of some indicators for some audiences.

The challenge for AiB and its partners/agents will be to ensure that they continue

to perform to a high level in these regards. Indeed, in many cases, such is the

level of performance that it may be difficult for AiB and its partners/agents to

perform more effectively and, in particular, there may be the requirement to

devote significant time and resources to achieve only marginal improvements in

service quality.

10.2 Negative Conclusions

There are a number of negative conclusions to emerge from the study which are

worthy of consideration:

Although levels of satisfaction with telephone contacts with AiB in terms of

how queries are dealt with are high amongst Insolvency Practitioners, they

are lower than those found amongst the other three audiences

Levels of satisfaction with telephone contacts with partners and agents in

terms of how queries are dealt with are significantly lower amongst Money

Advisers and Creditors than amongst Debtors in relation to the time taken to

get through to the right person, being able to speak to the right person first

time and the way queries were dealt with

There are relatively low levels of satisfaction with written/e-mail contacts with

AiB in terms of time taken to respond and the way queries were dealt with are

apparent amongst Insolvency Practitioners, and also relatively low levels of

satisfaction in both of these regards amongst Creditors and Money Advisers

who had written to or e-mailed agents/providers

Lower levels of satisfaction are apparent in terms of the overall service

provided by AiB amongst Insolvency Practitioners who had contact with

them during bankruptcy procedures compared to those cited by Debtors and

Money Advisers

Lower levels of satisfaction with the overall service provided by

partners/agents amongst Money Advisers and Creditors who had contact


Page 66 of 67

with them during bankruptcy procedures are apparent compared to the levels

of satisfaction cited by Debtors

Levels of satisfaction with AiB websites are lower amongst Insolvency

Practitioners than amongst the other three audiences

AiB’s office being open to drop-in callers in person by telephone from Monday

to Friday from 9:30 to 16:30 is not meeting the needs of most Insolvency

Practitioners and many Money Advisers and Creditors

Each of these negative conclusions should be considered and reviewed by AiB

from two perspectives. Firstly, in terms of whether AiB believes these negative

outcomes – which are based on the views of those participating in the research

process – are valid. Secondly, if these negative conclusions are found to be valid,

AiB should then consider whether or not they require to be addressed and, if so,

the extent of improvements to be targeted, how these improvements will be

achieved, what resources will be required to achieve these improvements and the

timescales associated with these improvements.

It should also be stressed that the negative conclusions noted above tend to be

audience-specific and, as such, should be easier to address than would be the

case were these negative conclusions to be applicable to all audiences.

10.3 Observations

Finally, a number of observations to emerge from the study are worthy of being

highlighted, namely:

Debtors are less likely to make contact with AiB by telephone than Money

Advisers and Creditors

Levels of telephone contact with agents and providers by Debtors, Money

Advisers and Creditors are lower than is the case with AiB

There is limited written or e-mail contact across all audiences with agents and

providers

Levels of personal visits to agent/provider offices by Debtors are higher than

those to the AiB office

Levels of contact by Debtors with an agent/provider operating on behalf of AiB

during their bankruptcy are notably higher than such contacts by Money

Advisers and, in particular, Creditors


Page 67 of 67

There is significant desire amongst Creditors and Insolvency Practitioners

for downloadable electronic documents to be made available and a notable

desire amongst Debtors for paper/booklet documents

It is critical that AiB and its agents/providers perform effectively in terms of

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

having knowledgeable staff

Reducing the drop-in hours or a move in AiB’s office being available to

personal callers only by appointment would not have a significant impact on

how AiB provides the service that Money Advisers, Debtors, Insolvency

Practitioners and, in particular, Creditors need

Closing AiB’s office early on a Friday is likely to have an impact on most

Money Advisers and Insolvency Practitioners but relatively few Debtors

and Creditors

Again, these observations are worthy of consideration and review by AiB. In

particular, AiB may wish to consider why some of these outcomes have emerged

and whether they require to be addressed.

In addition, AiB should give consideration to the desires noted in relation to the

use of various mechanisms to make documents available, in order to ensure that

the needs of specific audiences are being met in these regards.

Furthermore, although it is evident that AiB is performing very effectively in its

interactions with the four audiences under consideration, future service delivery

must be underpinned by the need for AiB and its agents/providers to perform

effectively in terms of their speed of response, quality of service, efficiency,

clarity of communications and knowledge of its staff.

Finally, AiB should give consideration as to the impact of changing the business

practices under consideration in terms of potential implications for specific

audiences and the extent to which these implications need to be taken into

account when decisions are being made.

Documents

REPORT CUSTOMER EXPERIENCE SURVEY 2016 December … · REPORT . CUSTOMER EXPERIENCE SURVEY 2016 . ... Report prepared for: Accountant in Bankruptcy ... The questionnaire was also