Our performance – previous

2015/16

Key performance indicators are quantifiable measures and targets that we use to demonstrate how effectively we are working, which ensure we are providing a high quality service to all our customers.

We publish our key performance indicators (KPI) on a quarterly and yearly basis. The five areas that our performance will be measured against are:

  • Timeliness
  • Quality
  • Cost
  • Reputation
  • Impact

Please click on the tabs below to view an overview of information about each of our KPIs.

Strategic objective: Resolve complaints quickly and with minimum formality

We aim to resolve cases as quickly and fairly as possible. We measure the time taken from when a complainant agrees with us on the nature of the complaint to the point at which we resolve it.

The time it takes to resolve a complaint depends to a large extent on the parties to the complaint. If a case can be resolved informally, it tends to take less time than if a longer investigation or an ombudsman’s decision is required.

We aim to improve the speed with which we resolve cases and have set ourselves a challenging target.

2013-14 2014-15 2015-16
Target Actual Target Actual Target Actual
Cases resolved within 56 days 38% 40% 34% 40% 30%
Resolve 60% of cases within 90 days 60% 67% 70% 65% 70% 51%
Resolve 90% of cases within 180 days 90% 94% 95% 93% 95% 91%
Resolve 100% of cases within 365 days 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

We start counting the Timeliness KPI from the point at which we agree with the complainant what the complaint is about and that it is something we can help with. Because of the way we measure this KPI the data about our performance will only be available 56, 90, 180 and 365 days after the end of the month in which the complaint was agreed.

The Timeliness KPI is to achieve our target for every month, not just on average across the year, so we report on this on a monthly basis. We report the last available result by the month in which each measure is first complete. (for example: April’s 90 day target shows the percentage of cases resolved that were accepted in January – i.e. 90 days previously. April’s 180 day target shows the percentage of cases resolved that were accepted in September i.e. 180 days previously, and April’s 365 day target shows the percentage of cases resolved that were accepted the previous April – i.e. 365 days previously.)

KPI 2015 – 16
Apr May June Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar
Resolve 40% of cases within 56 days 35% 36% 30% 29% 32% 33% 28% 33% 33%  24% 19% 22%
Resolve 70% of cases within 90 days 59% 57% 59% 51% 48% 49% 48% 49% 56%  48% 45%  41%
Resolve 95% of cases within 180 days 91% 94% 93% 91% 93% 91% 88% 89% 89%  89% 89%  92%
Resolve 100% of cases within 365 days 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%  99% 100% 99%

Strategic objective: Offer a professional, high quality service that responds to the needs of individual customers

Delivering a high-quality service is of fundamental importance to us. It is what matters most to our customers and stakeholders. We are committed to improving the standard and consistency of our work. We have subsequently put in place a quality framework that specifies and reinforces the standards that we set ourselves. It helps us monitor and evaluate our performance; identifying areas where we can improve.

In 2015-16 we continued work, started in 2013-14, to develop and refine our quality systems, to assure ourselves and others that our decisions were robust and fair, using customer experience as well as internal processes to help us judge our performance. We have introduced a risk and thematic based framework to provide more detailed insight and a more responsive approach.

As part of our commitment to continuous improvement, we undertook research to get a more sophisticated understanding of our customers’ experiences, needs and expectations. Our customers are both complainants and service providers. This research provided a focused and robust evidence base that enabled us to develop a set of customer-led service principles, which are linked to our values Effective, Fair, Independent and Open. They are underpinned by service standards and behaviours. Our principles are:

  • We will always be clear with you
  • We will be understanding and approachable
  • We will make good use of everyone’s time
  • We will be impartial, thorough and base our work on facts
  • We will make a difference

They also provide a framework for understanding how to better talk about ourselves, our services, and the experience our customers can and should expect when involved in our process. We have also ensured that our internal quality framework is linked to these principles by focussing on the customer experience. This also provides us with a meaningful benchmark by which to measure and improve our ongoing performance.

At present our main external quality measure is taken from our independent customer satisfaction survey, where we survey our customers at the end of the process. Currently satisfaction survey results provide us with important feedback from our customers – both people who complain about legal services and service providers in our jurisdiction – from which we are able to track and monitor our performance.

Our KPI in this area changed in 2015-16. We worked with the LSB to develop this KPI, which more accurately reflects satisfaction with our service.

KPI Q1
(Apr – Jun)
Q2
(July – Sept)
Q3
(Oct – Dec)
Q4
(Jan – March)
Overall
% of complainants and lawyers satisfied with the service they received, irrespective of case outcome (must not fall below 40% in any quarter) 58% 55% 62% 66% 60%

Strategic objective: Provide a value for money service that uses best practice from other ombudsman schemes

Our cost KPI includes two aspects: the unit cost is the annual cost of the whole organisation divided by the number of cases we resolve. Our target unit cost for the financial year 2015/16 is £1,750. The unit cost per case depends on how many complaints we receive and so is outside our control to some extent. We’re also committed to contain our overall expenditure levels within the agreed annual budget.

Period Total Cost Cases resolved Unit Cost
Year ending 31 March 2016 £11,646 £6,445 £1,807
April – December 2015 £8,584 £4,778 £1,797
April – September 2015 £5,821 £3,120 £1,866
Year ending 31 March 2015 £12,764 £7,440 £1,716

Strategic objective: Build credibility and openly share best practice with stakeholders

During 2012 / 2013 we began receiving and publishing the results of an independent survey of satisfaction levels among our customers (consumers and lawyers). This survey includes an indicator for how many of those who have had contact with us would recommend us to others. It also includes an indicator for how well we worked with our stakeholders.

We will publish the results of this survey on an annual basis.

We will provide two measures of our reputation and this information is derived from consumer and lawyer satisfaction levels based on their responses to the following questions:

Advocacy: % of respondents who are satisfied with the outcome of their case and would speak highly of LeO without being asked / if asked.

Source: As part of our customer satisfaction survey we ask:
Which of these statements comes closest to how you feel about the Legal Ombudsman?

  • I would speak highly of the Legal Ombudsman without being asked
  • I would speak highly of the Legal Ombudsman if asked
  • I would be neutral when speaking about the Legal Ombudsman
  • I would be critical of the Legal Ombudsman if asked
  • I would be critical of the Legal Ombudsman without being asked
Reputation Indicator 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16
Percentage of respondents who are satisfied with the outcome of their case and would speak highly of LeO without being asked / if asked. Complainants: 93%
Lawyers: 60%
Complainants: 85%
Lawyers: 53%
Complainants: 79%
Lawyers: 49%

Stakeholder satisfaction: % of stakeholders satisfied with overall level of engagement.

2013-2014: 90%
2014-2015: 92%
2015-2016: 79%

Strategic objective: Seek to promote the regulatory objectives of the Legal Services Act 2007 in such a way as is compatible with our primary role

We know that, while the strategic objectives support our primary role of running an exemplary ombudsman scheme, we also have the broader responsibility of contributing towards achieving all of the eight regulatory objectives of the Legal Services Act. We therefore do work that goes beyond (but does not conflict with) our primary role. For example, work we do with other ombudsmen schemes or regulators to help consumers access redress goes towards helping us to meet the regulatory objectives of protecting and promoting the interests of consumers and improving access to justice.

Impact links closely to reputation, looking at the effectiveness of our efforts to feedback knowledge and learning to the profession and consumers. This KPI has been designed to measure the effectiveness of the effort we put in to a range of initiatives, including:

  • Providing feedback and evidence from our complaint handling;
  • Publishing decisions and statistics;
  • Informing wider policy debates;
  • Raising awareness; and
  • Building confidence among the general public to contribute to regulatory objectives in the Act.

We will publish the results of this survey on an annual basis.

This information is derived from responses to the following questions:
Stakeholder confidence: % of stakeholders who have confidence in our delivery against our mission.

Source: As part of our annual stakeholder survey we ask:
‘How confident are you that the Legal Ombudsman is delivering against its mission?’

Reputation Indicator: Percentage of stakeholders who have confidence in our delivery against our mission.

2013-2014: 59%
2014-2015: 65%
2015-2016: 44%

Awareness: % of users of legal services in the last two years that have heard of the Legal Ombudsman

Source: As part of our annual awareness survey we ask:
‘Have you personally used and paid for a legal service in the past 2 years?’
‘Before today, had you heard of the Legal Ombudsman?’

Reputation Indicator: Percentage of users of legal services in the last two years that have heard of the Legal Ombudsman

2013-2014: 78%
2014-2015: 77%
2015-2016: 56%

2014/15

Key performance indicators are quantifiable measures and targets that we use to demonstrate how effectively we are working, which ensure we are providing a high quality service to all our customers.

We publish our key performance indicators (KPI) on a quarterly and yearly basis. The five areas that our performance will be measured against are:

  • Timeliness
  • Quality
  • Cost
  • Reputation
  • Impact

Please click on the tabs below to view detailed information about each of our KPIs.

Strategic objective: Resolve complaints quickly and with minimum formality

We aim to resolve cases as quickly and fairly as possible. We measure the time taken from when a complainant agrees with us on the nature of the complaint to the point at which we resolve it.

The time it takes to resolve a complaint depends to a large extent on the parties to the complaint. If a case can be resolved informally, it tends to take less time than if a longer investigation or an ombudsman’s decision is required.

We aim to improve the speed with which we resolve cases and have set ourselves a challenging target.

Cases resolved within 56 days

2012-13 Target: na
2012-13 Actual: 37%
2013-14 Target: na
2013-14 Actual: 38%
2014-15 Target: 40%
2014-15 Actual: 34%
2012-13 2013-14 2014-15
Target Actual Target Actual Target Actual
Cases resolved within 56 days 37% 38% 40% 34%
Resolve 60% of cases within 90 days 55% 57% 60% 67% 70% 65%
Resolve 90% of cases within 180 days 80% 93% 90% 94% 95% 93%
Resolve 100% of cases within 365 days 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Our target for 2015/16 is to continue to improve so that by March 2016 we will be regularly:

  • Resolving 40% of cases within 56 days
  • Resolving 70% of cases within 90 days
  • Resolving 95% of cases within 180 days
  • Resolving 100% of cases within 365 days

We start counting the Timeliness KPI from the point at which we agree with the complainant what the complaint is about and that it is something we can help with. Because of the way we measure this KPI the data about our performance will only be available 56, 90, 180 and 365 days after the end of the month in which the complaint was agreed.

The Timeliness KPI is to achieve our target for every month, not just on average across the year, so we report on this on a monthly basis. We report the last available result by the month in which each measure is first complete. (for example: April’s 90 day target shows the percentage of cases resolved that were accepted in January – i.e. 90 days previously. April’s 180 day target shows the percentage of cases resolved that were accepted in September i.e. 180 days previously, and April’s 365 day target shows the percentage of cases resolved that were accepted the previous April – i.e. 365 days previously.)

KPI 2014 – 15
Apr May June Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar
Resolve 40% of cases within 56 days 39% 31% 37% 40% 33% 32%  34%  36% 34% 26% 31% 33%
Resolve 70% of cases within 90 days 71% 70% 65% 73% 73% 63%  62%  66% 65% 59% 58% 60%
Resolve 95% of cases within 180 days 95% 95% 94% 95% 95% 92%  95% 94% 92% 92% 93% 92%
Resolve 100% of cases within 365 days 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%  100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Strategic objective: Offer a professional, high quality service that responds to the needs of individual customers

We are committed to improving the quality and consistency of our work. In 2013/14 we revised our quality framework to focus on quality improvement. We also altered our quality KPI to reflect what our customers believe the quality of service has been. This information is obtained through an independent customer satisfaction survey conducted by ICM on a quarterly basis. Satisfaction with service is so largely influenced by customers’ satisfaction with outcome that we report the KPI separately for those who were satisfied with their outcome and those who were not satisfied with their outcome.

Satisfaction with service (Average 2013/14)

Complainant satisfied with outcome: 94%
Service provider satisfied with outcome: 96%
Complainant dissatisfied with outcome: 24%
Service provider dissatisfied with outcome: 30%
Satisfaction with service
Avg 2012/13 Avg 2013/14 Q1
Complainant Lawyer Complainant Lawyer Complainant Lawyer
Satisfied with outcome 97% 95% 94% 96% 95% 91%
Dissatisfied with outcome 42% 38% 24% 30% 28% 41%

For complainants the main drivers for satisfaction in the last quarter were:

  • They had the opportunity to have their say;
  • They had the opportunity to provide relevant evidence;
  • They were contacted when agreed; and
  • The complaint process was clearly explained.

For lawyers the main drivers for satisfaction in the last quarter were:

  • They had the opportunity to have their say;
  • They had the opportunity to provide relevant evidence;
  • The investigator was knowledgeable; and
  • The process and investigation was fair and impartial.

When it came to dissatisfaction, the main driver for both parties was when they felt they did not achieve the outcome they wanted, which was the same as in the previous quarters. This aside, the main drivers for complainants’ dissatisfaction were:

  • They didn’t have confidence that the investigator could handle the complaint;
  • The investigator didn’t understand the issues; and
  • They believed the investigation wasn’t impartial enough

For lawyers the main drivers for dissatisfaction were:

  • The investigator demonstrated a lack of understanding of the issues involved;
  • They didn’t have confidence that the investigator could handle the complaint;
  • They were not contacted when agreed; and
  • The investigator did not explain things clearly on the telephone

Strategic objective: Provide a value for money service that uses best practice from other ombudsman schemes

Our cost KPI includes two aspects: the unit cost is the annual cost of the whole organisation divided by the number of cases we resolve. Our target unit cost for the financial year 2015/16 is £1,750. The unit cost per case depends on how many complaints we receive and so is outside our control to some extent. We’re also committed to contain our overall expenditure levels within the agreed annual budget.

April 2014 to December 2014

Full year

Total cost of the ombudsman scheme £’000

————————————

————————————

Cases resolved

————————————

————————————

Unit cost

Under budget

Under budget

Performance against budget £’000

Strategic objective: Build credibility and openly share best practice with stakeholders

During 2012 / 2013 we began receiving and publishing the results of an independent survey of satisfaction levels among our customers (consumers and lawyers). This survey includes an indicator for how many of those who have had contact with us would recommend us to others. It also includes an indicator for how well we worked with our stakeholders.

We will publish the results of this survey on an annual basis.

We will provide two measures of our reputation and this information is derived from consumer and lawyer satisfaction levels based on their responses to the following questions:

Advocacy: % of respondents who are satisfied with the outcome of their case and would speak highly of LeO without being asked / if asked.

Source: As part of our customer satisfaction survey we ask:
Which of these statements comes closest to how you feel about the Legal Ombudsman?

  • I would speak highly of the Legal Ombudsman without being asked
  • I would speak highly of the Legal Ombudsman if asked
  • I would be neutral when speaking about the Legal Ombudsman
  • I would be critical of the Legal Ombudsman if asked
  • I would be critical of the Legal Ombudsman without being asked
Reputation Indicator 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15
Percentage of respondents who are satisfied with the outcome of their case and would speak highly of LeO without being asked / if asked. Complainants: 93%
Lawyers: 60%
Complainants: 93%
Lawyers: 60%
Complainants: 85%
Lawyers: 53%

Stakeholder satisfaction: % of stakeholders satisfied with overall level of engagement.

2012-2013: 85%
2013-2014: 90%
2014-2015: 92%

Strategic objective: Seek to promote the regulatory objectives of the Legal Services Act 2007 in such a way as is compatible with our primary role

We know that, while the strategic objectives support our primary role of running an exemplary ombudsman scheme, we also have the broader responsibility of contributing towards achieving all of the eight regulatory objectives of the Legal Services Act. We therefore do work that goes beyond (but does not conflict with) our primary role. For example, work we do with other ombudsmen schemes or regulators to help consumers access redress goes towards helping us to meet the regulatory objectives of protecting and promoting the interests of consumers and improving access to justice.

Impact links closely to reputation, looking at the effectiveness of our efforts to feedback knowledge and learning to the profession and consumers. This KPI has been designed to measure the effectiveness of the effort we put in to a range of initiatives, including:

  • Providing feedback and evidence from our complaint handling;
  • Publishing decisions and statistics;
  • Informing wider policy debates;
  • Raising awareness; and
  • Building confidence among the general public to contribute to regulatory objectives in the Act.

We will publish the results of this survey on an annual basis.

This information is derived from responses to the following questions:
Stakeholder confidence: % of stakeholders who have confidence in our delivery against our mission.

Source: As part of our annual stakeholder survey we ask:
‘How confident are you that the Legal Ombudsman is delivering against its mission?’

Reputation Indicator: Percentage of stakeholders who have confidence in our delivery against our mission.

2012-2013: 56%
2013-2014: 59%
2014-2015: 65%

Awareness: % of users of legal services in the last two years that have heard of the Legal Ombudsman

Source: As part of our annual awareness survey we ask:
‘Have you personally used and paid for a legal service in the past 2 years?’
‘Before today, had you heard of the Legal Ombudsman?’

Reputation Indicator: Percentage of users of legal services in the last two years that have heard of the Legal Ombudsman

2012-2013: 78%
2013-2014: 78%
2014-2015: 77%