EQC customer satisfaction survey results

From the EQC website:

UMR Research has been commissioned by EQC to undertake a regular survey to determine the level of customer satisfaction with EQC’s claim handling process. 

• The telephone survey targets claimants who had their claim settled in the previous month. (Claimants have the option to opt out of the sample.)
• The analysis is undertaken at quarterly intervals.

Quarterly claimant satisfaction reports (quite lengthy) for the periods between April 2011 and September 2012 can be downloaded from here.  Each report covers a wide range of areas where performance was measured and assigns values to the quality of performance.

A check of the reports indicates the survey did not identify the respondent’s location, and so the results for earthquake claims were not broken down by claimant context. The consequence is the responses from those in the Red Zones, or TC3 areas, or the hills, are not separated out from those where damage was less severe or did not involve land problems. We don’t know how many from each category took part in the survey and how representative it is of the overall earthquake/EQC experience. This prevents investigation of how the quality service varied depending on the complexity of the claim. Such an approach inherently hides bad performance.

An interesting approach taken in the surveys is to compare satisfaction ratings against whether or not a claim was accepted. This can lead to the view that the grumpy ones were those who had their claim denied in some way. What isn’t clear is how many who had their claims declined had a legitimate complaint based on an incorrect decision.

As with reading other such corporate material you need to prepare to have your view of reality seriously challenged.

From the introduction to the report for the period July to September 2012 (page 5)

2.2 Satisfaction with claims process
The highest level of satisfaction was for ‘The way EQC handled things when the claim was first made’ with 65% of claimants stating they were satisfied. This was followed by 62% of claimants expressing satisfaction for ‘The way the inspection was carried out’ and over half (54%) for ‘The overall quality of service delivery’.

2.3 Satisfaction with inspection process
The highest level of satisfaction (70%) was expressed for, ‘The attitude and approach of the people who inspected your property’ followed by ‘The thoroughness of the people who inspected your property’ (56%). The lowest level of satisfaction (45%) was expressed for ‘How well you were kept informed during the assessment process’.

2.5 Satisfaction with 0800 process
Half (50%) of claimants rang the 0800 number during the life of the claim. Of these, 71% agreed that staff were courteous and helpful. Fifty-seven percent agreed that it was easy to get through to someone to discuss their claim. Forty-eight percent agreed the person they spoke to was competent and knowledgeable and the same proportion agreed that the person they spoke to did what they said they would do. A further 36% thought that their questions were answered and they knew what would happen next.

In the April to June 2011 report we have the following (pages 5-6):

 

2.2 Most important aspects of claims process
While all aspects of the claims process were rated as important, the way the inspection was carried out was rated most important by 68% of claimants. This was followed by 52% who rated, ‘how the EQC handled things when the claim was first made’ as important, and 35% who rated ‘How the claim was processed,’ as important.

2.3 Satisfaction with inspection process
The highest level of satisfaction (72%) was expressed for, ‘The attitude and approach of the people who inspected your property.’ The lowest level of satisfaction (44%) was expressed for, ‘How well you were kept informed during the assessment process.’

2.5 Satisfaction with 0800 process
Fifty-eight percent of claimants rang the 0800 number during the life of the claim. Of these, 82% agreed that staff were courteous and helpful. Thirty percent agreed the person they spoke to was competent and knowledgeable. Forty-two percent agreed that the person they spoke to did what they said they would do. Thirty-nine percent agreed that it was easy to get through to someone to discuss their claim, while a quarter (26%) thought that their questions were answered and they knew what would happen next.

Clearly there is more to the reports than the bits above, however it does give an idea what information was being fed to the Government and why Minister Brownlee may have said some of the things he did.

.