House Sales Customer Satisfaction Survey (Published June 2007)

House Sales Customer Satisfaction

Survey

Prepared for: Land and Property By: Research Unit, Northern Ireland Housing Executive Web site: www.nihe.gov.uk

http://www.nihe.gov.uk/

House Sales Customer Satisfaction Survey

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background to the Research......................................................................3 1.2 Research Objectives ..................................................................................3 1.3 Methodology and Sample...........................................................................3 1.4 Fieldwork....................................................................................................4 1.5 Response Rate ..........................................................................................4 2.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY..................................................................5 COMMENTARY ...........................................................................................7 3.0 HOUSEHOLD PROFILE ...................................................................................8 4.0 CURRENT ACCOMMODATION........................................................................12 5.0 CONTACT WITH AREA LAND AND PROPERTY OFFICE......................................14 6.0 COMPLETING FORMS ..................................................................................16 7.0 ADDITIONAL COMMENTS..............................................................................17 APPENDICES.................................................................................................18 APPENDIX 1: PRESENTATION OF FINDINGS..............................................................19 APPENDIX 2: TABULAR REPORT..............................................................................20

2


1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background to the Research

As part of the Customer Satisfaction Survey Programme, Land and Property

asked the Research Unit to commission research to determine why such a

high proportion of tenants apply to purchase their home and subsequently do

not proceed. The Research Unit appointed Millward Brown Ulster to conduct

a telephone survey of people who had applied to purchase their home from

the Housing Executive and subsequently decided not to proceed to

completion.

1.2 Research Objectives The overall aim of the research was to identify why tenants were applying to

purchase their home and subsequently not proceeding. Land and Property

were concerned that the drop-out rate was related in some way to the service

they provide.

The questionnaire was designed to assess satisfaction with a number of

service related issues. The Research Unit consulted with Land and Property

on the aims of the survey, questionnaire design, survey methodology and

sample frame. Findings would determine tenants’ satisfaction levels with the

house sales process and provide a socio-economic profile of respondents

who were applying to purchase their home and subsequently not proceeding.

1.3 Methodology and Sample Due to the wide dispersal of addresses in the sample frame, the agreed

methodology was a telephone survey. This methodology was considered the

most cost-effective way to maximise the response rate, due to the high costs

associated with face-to-face interviews and the relatively low response rate of

postal surveys.

The questionnaire design, analysis and report writing were the responsibility

of the Housing Executive’s Research Unit. The content of the questionnaire

was agreed in consultation with Land and Property.

It was agreed that the sample frame should include all tenants who had

applied to purchase their home and decided not to proceed between 1 August

3


2006 and 31 October 2006. Three months was agreed as an appropriate cut-

off period, bearing in mind the length of time house sales applicants could be

expected to remember details of the house sales process and the vast

number of applications the Housing Executive receives each month. Land

and Property’s computerised database identified a total of 1,265 applicants to

be included in the sample frame; of these, telephone numbers were available

for 1,145 applicants.

1.4 Fieldwork Millward Brown Ulster carried out the interviews between November 2006 and

January 2007. It was agreed that a minimum of 100 and a maximum of 150

interviews for each Land and Property area would be sufficient for analysis.

Telephone calls were made at varying times of the day; however, if there was

no reply the next person on the database was selected. Fieldworkers asked

to speak to a named person on the database or the person who was

responsible for the rent and rates of the property; if this person was

unavailable, their partner was interviewed. Data was captured using

Computer Assisted Personal Interviewing (CAPI) and was delivered to the

Research Unit in SPSS format.

1.5 Response Rate From an eligible population of 1,145 households, a non-probability1 quota

sample2 was selected as the most appropriate method of conducting the

research as it was important to get a general ‘feel’ than to make accurate

measurements. A minimum of 100 and a maximum of 150 interviews were to

be completed for each Land and Property Area. It was agreed that this would

be sufficient for analysis. In total 477 interviews were completed across all

three areas (105 interviews were completed in the Belfast Area, 150 in the

South Area and 222 in the West Area).

1 ‘The difference between non-probability and probability sampling is that non-probability sampling does not involve random selection and probability sampling does’ (www.socialresearchmethods.net). 2 Quota sampling involves selecting people non-randomly according to a fixed quota (in the case of this research, by Area).

4

http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/sampprob.php

http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/


2.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2.1 Profile of Household/Household Reference Person (HRP):

• Almost three-quarters (72%) of HRPs3 were female and 29% were male.

• One-quarter (25%) of HRPs were aged between 45 and 54; 21% were aged

65 and older and one-fifth (20%) were aged between 55 and 64.

• 26% of HRPs were retired and 25% were not working long term (more than

one year).

• One-third (33%) of households comprised one person.

• Almost half (48%) of respondents stated that at least one household member

had a disability which limits day-to-day activities.

• The overwhelming majority (99%) of HRPs described their ethnic origin as

white.

• Almost one-third (31%) of households had an annual income of less than

£7,500.

• The main benefits received by household members were Housing Benefit

(69%), Income Support (49%) and Disability Benefit (46%).

• Almost half (47%) of respondents described the religion of their household as

Protestant and 40% were Catholic.

2.2 Current Accommodation

• Almost three-quarters (71%) of respondents had been Housing Executive

tenants for more than 15 years.

• The majority (82%) of respondents lived in houses.

• Almost three-quarters (72%) of respondents had decided to withdraw their

house sales application after receiving the formal offer.

• Over two-thirds (68%) of respondents reported the main reason for

withdrawing their application was due to the high price of the property.

• Overall, 76% of comments made by respondents related to a range of

financial reasons for withdrawing their house sales application.

2.3 Contact with Area Land and Property Office

• Almost three-quarters (74%) of respondents were very satisfied/satisfied with

the inspection stage of the process.

3 HRP related to named contact on database (see Appendix 1 for definition of the term Household Reference Person).

5


• The majority (81%) of respondents reported that they had received a letter of

offer within the relevant timescale.

• Most respondents (85%) who had telephoned the Area Office were satisfied

with the overall service they had received.

2.4 Completing Forms

• More than four-fifths (88%) reported the house sales application had been

clear and 83% reported that it had not been difficult to complete.

• Equal proportions (90%) of respondents agreed that the letters from the Area

Office had been clear and easy to understand.

• The majority (89%) of respondents were very satisfied/satisfied with the

letters they had received from the Area Office.

• More than four-fifths (84%) were very satisfied/satisfied with the overall

service they had received when they applied to buy their home from the

Housing Executive.

6


COMMENTARY

7


3.0 Household Profile

3.1 Gender and age of Household Reference Person (HRP) Almost three-quarters (72%) of HRPs were female and 29% were male

(Table 1).

One-quarter (25%) of HRPs were aged between 45 and 54; 21% were 65 or

older and one-fifth (20%) were aged between 55 and 64. Almost one-fifth

(19%) were aged between 35 and 44 and 13% were between 25 and 34. A

small proportion of HRPs (2%) were aged between 16 and 24 (Figure 1;

Table 2).

Figure 1: Age of Household Reference Person (by Area) (%)

4

13

17

2523

18

00

14

18

25

21 21

12

13

20

24

18

23

1

16-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+ Refused

Belfast West South

3.2 Employment Status of HRP

Twenty-six percent of HRPs were retired and one-quarter (25%) were not

working long-term (more than one year). One-fifth (20%) were long-term sick

or disabled, 10% were working full-time and 8% were working part-time. Six

percent of HRPs were looking after family/home and equal proportions (3%)

were self-employed and not working short-term (less than one year). Fewer

HRPs were students (further/higher education) (<1%) (Figure 2; Table 3).

8


Figure 2: Employment Status of Household Reference Person (by Area) (%)

21

28

25

10 11

2 1 2 1 0

27

21

17

13

7 7

42

02

27 26

19

8 7 6

3 4

0 1

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Retired

Not work

ing lo

ng te

rm

Long

term

sick

or di

sable

d

Working

full-t

ime

Working

part-t

ime

Look

ing af

ter fa

mily or

home

Self-em

ploye

d

Not work

ing sh

ort te

rm

Studen

t

Refuse

d

Belfast West South

3.3 Number of people per household

One-third (33%) of households comprised one person and 30% had two

persons. Less than one-fifth (19%) of households comprised three persons

and 17% of households had four or more persons (Table 4).

3.4 Household members with a disability Almost half (48%) of respondents stated that at least one household member

had a disability which limits day-to-day activities (Figure 3; Table 5).

Figure 3: Does any member of your household have a disability which limits day-to-day activities? (by Area)

51

4748 48

50

5352 52

Belfast South West All respondents

Yes No

9


3.5 Ethnic origin of HRP

The overwhelming majority (99%) of HRPs described their ethnic origin as

white (Table 6).

3.6 Annual Household Income

Almost one-third (31%) of households had an annual income of less than

£7,500 and 16% had between £7,501 and £10,000. Equal proportions (9%)

of households had an annual income of between £10,001 and £12,500 and

£12,501 or more (Figure 4; Table 7).

Figure 4: Household Income

34%

3%

2%

4%

16%

31%

9%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%

Refused

£20,001+

£15,001 - £20,000

£12,501 - £15,000

£10,001 - £12,500

£7,501 - £10,000

Less than £7,500

%

3.7 Benefits received by household members All respondents supplied information on the benefits received by their

household. The main benefits received were Housing Benefit (69%), Income

Support (49%) and Disability Benefit (46%). More than one-third (34%) of

households received Child Benefit, 27% received Incapacity Benefit and 21%

received a Retirement Pension. Equal proportions (18%) of households were

in receipt of Pension Credit and Child Tax Credit. Fewer households were in

receipt of Working Tax Credit (10%) and Jobseekers Allowance (5%). Other

benefits included Carer’s Allowance and Widow’s Pension (8%) (Figure 5;

Table 8).

10


Figure 5: Main benefits received by Household Members

8

5

10

18

21

27

34

46

49

69

18

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Other

Jobseekers Allowance

Working Tax Credit

Child Tax Credit

Pension Credit

Retirement Pension

Incapacity Benefit

Child Benefit

A Disability Benefit

Income Support

Housing Benefit

%

3.8 Household religion Almost half (47%) of respondents described the religion of their household as

Protestant and 40% were Catholic. Equal proportions (3%) of households

were described as mixed religion (Protestant/Catholic) and of no religion; 1%

of respondents described their household religion as ‘other’. The remaining

6% of respondents refused to state the religion of their household (Figure 6;

Table 9).

Figure 6: Household Religion

40%

3%

3%

1%

6%

47%

Protestant Catholic Mixed Religion None Other Refused

11


4.0 CURRENT ACCOMMODATION

4.1 Length of Tenancy Almost three-quarters (71%) of respondents had been Housing Executive

tenants for more than 15 years, 15% for 10 to 15 years and 10% for five to 10

years. Fewer respondents (5%) had been Housing Executive tenants for less

than five years (Table 10).

4.2 Dwelling Type The majority (82%) of respondents lived in houses, 11% lived in bungalows

and 8% lived in flats (Figure 7; Table 11).

Figure 7: Dwelling Type

8%

11%

82%

House Flat Bungalow

4.3 Stage in Process When Application Was Withdrawn Almost three-quarters (72%) of respondents stated that they had decided to

withdraw their application after receiving the formal offer and 19% had done

so before receiving the formal offer. Fewer respondents (6%) had withdrawn

their application after accepting the formal offer (Table 12).

4.4 Reasons for Withdrawing Application (NB: respondents could state more than one reason) Respondents were asked to state their main reasons for withdrawing their

house sales application. In total 477 respondents gave 739 responses. More

than two-thirds (68%) of respondents said the main reason had been the high

price of the property and insufficient discount (23%). Fourteen per cent of

12


respondents said that they had withdrawn their application because they had

been unable to get a mortgage, their financial circumstances had changed

(12%) and their family circumstances had changed (8%). Fewer respondents

gave other reasons for withdrawing their house sales application including

‘applied out of curiosity’ (4%) and ‘the area was deteriorating’ (3%). A full

breakdown of other responses can be found in the appendix tables (Figure 8;

Table 13).

Figure 8: Main reasons for withdrawing application

3

16

0.2

2

3

4

8

12

14

23

68

2

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 7

Don't know

Other

Wanted to buy on open market

Process too complicated

Too slow in processing

Area deteriorating

Only applied out curiosity

Change of family circumstances

Change of financial circumstances

Unable to get mortgage

Insufficient discount

Price was too high

%0

13


5.0 CONTACT WITH AREA LAND AND PROPERTY OFFICE

5.1 More than four-fifths (86%) of respondents reported that the Housing

Executive had arranged a valuation of their property to be carried out. The

majority (93%) of respondents said the valuer had made an appointment and

99% reported that the appointment had been kept (Tables 14 - 16).

5.2 Almost three-quarters (74%) of respondents were very satisfied/satisfied with

the inspection stage of the process, 15% were neither satisfied nor

dissatisfied and 11% were dissatisfied/very dissatisfied with the inspection

stage of the process. Reasons for dissatisfaction included: the valuer didn’t

spend much time in the property and they thought the house was over-valued

(11%) (Table 18). 5.3 The majority (81%) of respondents reported that they had received a letter of

offer within the relevant timescale (10 weeks for those wishing to purchase

their house and 12 weeks for those wishing to purchase their flat) from

receipt of a fully completed application (Table 19). 5.4 Eleven per cent of respondents had telephoned the Area Land and Property

Office at some time when they applied to purchase their home. Of these

respondents, one-third (18; 33%) had been told the name of the person

dealing with their call. The overwhelming majority of respondents agreed that

staff had been polite (52; 96%), more than four-fifths of respondents agreed

that staff had been knowledgeable (46; 85%) and not in a hurry or rushed

(48; 89%) (Tables 20 - 24). 5.5 Of the respondents who had telephoned the Area Land and Property Office,

more than four-fifths (45; 83%) said the person who took the call had been

able to deal with their query. The remaining 17% (9 respondents) said the

person had not been able to deal with their query; of these respondents, a

small number (<5) said they had been put through to someone else who had

been able to help (Tables 25 & 26). 5.6 Of the respondents who had telephoned the Area Land and Property Office,

the majority (46; 85%) were satisfied with the overall service they had

received, 9% (<5 respondents) were neither satisfied nor dissatisfied and 6%

14


(<5 respondents) were dissatisfied with the service they had received (Figure

9; Table 27).

Figure 9: Overall Satisfaction with Telephone Service

52

33

96

0

Very satisfied Satisfied Neither satisfiednor dissatisfied

Dissatisfied Very dissatisfied

Per

cent

ages

15


6.0 COMPLETING FORMS

6.1 Respondents were asked for their opinion of the house sales application

forms. Most respondents said the application had been clear (88%) and not

difficult to complete (83%) (Tables 28 & 29).

6.2 Equal proportions (90%) of respondents agreed that the letters from the Area

Land and Property Office had been clear and easy to understand. Overall,

the majority (89%) of respondents were very satisfied/satisfied with the letters

they had received from the Area Land and Property Office (Tables 30 - 32).

6.3 More than four-fifths (84%) of respondents were very satisfied/satisfied,

overall, with the service they had received when they applied to buy their

home from the Housing Executive; 7% were neither satisfied nor dissatisfied

and 8% were dissatisfied/very dissatisfied. The main reason for

dissatisfaction was that the property price had been too high (8%) (Figure 10;

Table 33).

Figure 10: Overall Satisfaction with House Sales Process (by Area)

4340

85 3 2

4641

73 4

1

40 42

7 72 2

43 41

7 5 3 1

Very satisfied Satisfied Neither satisfiednor dissatisfied

Dissatisfied Very dissatisfied Don't know

Belfast West South All respondents

16


7.0 ADDITIONAL COMMENTS

7.1 On completion of the questionnaire, all respondents were given the

opportunity to make general comments about the house sales process. In

total 68 respondents made 77 comments on a number of issues (Table 34).

7.2 Of the respondents who made comments, 26 (38%) reported that the property

had been too expensive and 10 respondents (15%) reported that the new

discount system was unfair. Over one-tenth (8; 12%) of respondents reported

that it was difficult to get an appointment with the Housing Executive.

7.3 Other comments (less than five in each case) included:

• Housing Executive would not sell house;

• repairs not carried out;

• would like more information on the house sales process;

• poor communication; and

• not enough time between valuation and agreeing sale.

17


APPENDICES

18


APPENDIX 1: PRESENTATION OF FINDINGS For data protection purposes it is the policy of the Research Unit that if less than five people respond in a particular way to any given question, the exact number is not reported, as it may be possible to identify individuals. Therefore, regardless of the size of the sample or sub-sample, if the number of responses is less than five, this is indicated throughout the report, in both the textual and tabular analyses, by the sign ‘<5’. Conditions regarding the inclusion of numbers and/or percentages in findings, depending on the size of the sample or sub-sample, are set out below: 1) Where the sample, or sub-sample, is 100 or more, the textual analysis (i.e. the

main body of the report) includes percentages only. The tabular analysis (i.e. the appendix tables) includes both numbers and percentages.

2) Where the sample, or sub-sample, is 50 or more but less than 100, both the

textual and tabular analyses include numbers and percentages.

3) Where the sample, or sub-sample, is less than 50, both the textual and tabular analyses include numbers, but not percentage figures.

The total achieved response in this survey was 477. Questions were directed at sub-samples of less than 100 and also less than 50 respondents. Therefore, all three conditions apply to sections of both the textual and tabular analyses. In line with other government bodies, the Housing Executive’s Research Unit has replaced the term ‘Head of Household’ (HoH) with that of ‘Household Reference Person’ (HRP). The HRP is the household member who: 1) owns the dwelling/accommodation, or 2) is legally responsible for the rent of the dwelling/accommodation, or 3) is living in the dwelling/accommodation as an emolument or perquisite, or 4) is living in the dwelling/accommodation by virtue of some relationship to the

owner or lessee, who is not a member of the household. In the case of a joint tenancy or joint ownership of a dwelling, the person with the higher annual income is the HRP. If both people have the same income, the older of the two is the HRP.

19

APPENDIX 2: TABULAR REPORT Note: Due to rounding some tables may not add to 100%. Also, where the number of responses is less than five, the actual figure is omitted for Data protection purposes, shown as <5). Table 1 Gender of Household Reference Person

Area Belfast South West

Total

Gender Number % Number % Number % Number % Male 20 19 51 34 65 29 136 29

Female 85 81 99 66 157 71 341 72 Total 105 100 150 100 222 100 477 100

Base: 477 respondents N.B. Due to rounding percentages do not add to 100 Table 2 Age of Household Reference Person


Total

Age Groups Number % Number % Number % Number % 16-24 <5 4 - - <5 2 8 2 25-34 14 13 21 14 29 13 64 13 35-44 18 17 27 18 44 20 89 19 45-54 26 25 38 25 53 24 117 25 55-64 24 23 31 21 40 18 95 20

65+ 19 18 31 21 50 23 100 21 Refusal - - <5 1 <5 1 <5 1

Total 105 100 150 100 222 100 477 100 Base: 477 respondents

N.B. Due to rounding percentages do not add to 100

20

Table 3 Employment details of Household Reference Person


Total Employment

status of HRP Number % Number % Number % Number % Retired 22 21 41 27 59 27 122 26

Not working long term

(more than 1 year)29 28 31 21 57 26 117 25

Long term sick or disabled 26 25 26 17 42 19 94 20

Working full-time 10 10 19 13 18 8 47 10 Working part-time 12 11 10 7 15 7 37 8

Looking after family/home <5 2 11 7 13 6 26 6

Self-employed <5 1 6 4 7 3 14 3 Not working short

term (less than 1 year)

<5 2 <5 2 9 4 14 3

Student in full time education

(further/higher)<5 1 - - - - <5 <1

Refused - - <5 2 <5 1 5 1 Total 105 100 150 100 222 100 477 100

Base: 477 respondents N.B. Due to rounding percentages do not add to 100 Table 4 Number of people in each household

Number Percentage One Person 159 33 Two People 145 30

Three People 90 19 Four or more People 83 17

Total 477 100 Base: 477 respondents

N.B. Due to rounding percentages do not add to 100 Table 5 Household members with a disability


Total

Number % Number % Number % Number % Yes 53 51 70 47 106 48 229 48 No 52 50 80 53 116 52 248 52



21

Table 6 Ethnic group


Total

Ethnic group Number % Number % Number % Number % White 104 99 150 100 218 98 472 99 Other - - - - <5 1 <5 <1

Refused <5 1 - - <5 1 <5 1 Total 105 100 150 100 222 100 477 100

Base: 477 respondents N.B. Due to rounding percentages do not add to 100 Table 7 Annual Household Income


Total

Annual Household

Income Number % Number % Number % Number % Less than 7,500 31 30 41 27 75 34 147 31

7,501-10,000 16 15 21 14 41 19 78 16 10,001-12,500 13 12 15 10 17 8 45 9 12,501-15,000 9 9 6 4 5 2 20 4 15,001-20,000 - - 6 4 <5 1 8 2

20,001+ <5 2 7 5 6 3 15 3 Refused 34 32 54 36 76 34 164 34


N.B. Due to rounding percentages do not add to 100 Table 8 Benefits received by household members

Number Percentage Housing Benefit 330 69 Income Support 235 49

Disability Benefit 220 46 Child Benefit 161 34

Incapacity Benefit 127 27 Retirement Pension (inc works pension) 99 21

Pension Credit 87 18 Child Tax Credit 85 18

Working Tax Credit 49 10 Jobseekers Allowance 25 5

Other benefits (including: carers allowance and widows pension 36 8

Base: 477 respondents N.B. As respondents can receive one or more benefits the percentages total more than 100.

22

Table 9 Household Religion

Number Percentage Protestant 223 47

Catholic 190 40 Refused 28 6

Mixed Religion 15 3 None 15 3 Other 6 1 Total 477 100

Base: 477 respondents N.B. Due to rounding percentages do not add to 100

Table 10 Length of Tenancy


Total

Length of Tenancy Number % Number % Number % Number % Less than 5 years 7 7 7 5 9 4 23 5

5 years or more but less than 10 years 9 9 17 11 21 10 47 10

10 years or more but less than 15 years 20 19 20 13 29 13 69 15

15 years or more 69 66 106 71 163 73 338 71 Total 105 100 150 100 222 100 477 100

Base: 477 respondents N.B. Due to rounding percentages do not add to 100 Table 11 House Type


Total

House Type Number % Number % Number % Number % House 97 92 120 80 173 78 390 82

Flat 7 7 12 8 18 8 37 8 Bungalow <5 1 18 12 31 14 50 11



23

Table 12 Stage in the process when application was withdrawn


Total

Number % Number % Number % Number % Before the formal

offer was received from the Housing

Executive

16 15 29 19 47 21 92 19

After the formal offer was received

(decided not to proceed)

78 74 109 73 154 69 341 72

After the formal offer was received and

accepted (later decided to withdraw

application)

7 7 8 5 14 6 29 6

Don’t know/Can’t remember <5 4 <5 3 7 3 15 3


N.B. Due to rounding percentages do not add to 100 Table 13 Main reasons for withdrawing application

Number Percentage Price was too high 325 68

Insufficient discount 111 23 Unable to get mortgage 66 14

Change of financial circumstances 58 12 Change of family circumstances 39 8

Only applied out of curiosity 17 4 Area deteriorating 13 3

Too slow in processing 11 2 Process too complicated 9 2

Wanted to buy property on open market <5 <2 Other (including: not eligible to buy,

changed mind, house being renovated and house in bad condition)

74 16

Don’t know 15 3 Base: 477 respondents who give 739 responses

24

Table 14 Did the Housing Executive arrange a valuation of your property?


Total


Don’t know <5 1 <5 1 <5 1 <5 1 Total 105 100 150 100 222 100 477 100

Base: 477 respondents N.B. Due to rounding percentages do not add to 100 Table 15 Did the valuer make an appointment?


Total

Number % Number % Number % Number % Yes 87 93 122 96 174 92 383 93 No 6 6 <5 3 12 6 22 5

Don’t know <5 1 <5 1 <5 2 5 1 Total 94 100 127 100 189 100 410 100

Base: 410 respondents N.B. Due to rounding percentages do not add to 100 Table 16 Was the appointment kept?


Total

Number % Number % Number % Number % Yes 85 98 121 99 172 99 378 99 No <5 2 <5 1 <5 1 5 1


N.B. Due to rounding percentages do not add to 100 Table 17 If no, was a reason given?

NumberYes <5 No <5

Total 5 Base: 5 respondents


25

Table 18 How satisfied or dissatisfied were you with the inspection stage?


Total

Number % Number % Number % Number % Very satisfied 32 34 44 35 75 40 151 37

Satisfied 39 42 55 44 57 31 151 37 Neither satisfied nor

dissatisfied 10 11 16 13 36 19 62 15

Dissatisfied 9 10 5 4 13 7 27 7 Very dissatisfied <5 3 6 5 5 3 14 4


N.B. Due to rounding percentages do not add to 100 Table 19 Did you receive a letter offer within the relevant timescale?


Total


Don’t know 6 6 5 3 <5 2 15 3 Total 105 100 150 100 222 100 477 100

Base: 477 respondents N.B. Due to rounding percentages do not add to 100 Table 20 Did you telephone your Area Office at any time?


Total


Don’t know <5 3 <5 3 7 3 14 3 Total 105 100 150 100 222 100 477 100

Base: 477 respondents N.B. Due to rounding percentages do not add to 100 Table 21 Were you told the name of the person dealing you’re call?

Number % Yes 18 33 No 20 37

Don’t know 16 30 Total 54 100


26

Table 22 The staff were polite (agree/disagree)

Number % Strongly agree 41 76 Slightly agree 11 20

Neither agree nor disagree <5 4


N.B. Due to rounding percentages do not add to 100 Table 23 The staff were knowledgeable (agree/disagree)

Number % Strongly agree 32 59 Slightly agree 14 26

Neither agree nor disagree 5 9

Slightly disagree <5 2 Strongly disagree <5 4


N.B. Due to rounding percentages do not add to 100 Table 24 The staff were in a hurry or rushed (agree/disagree)

Number % Strongly agree <5 2 Slightly agree <5 6

Neither agree nor disagree <5 4

Slightly disagree 19 35 Strongly disagree 29 54


N.B. Due to rounding percentages do not add to 100 Table 25 Was the person who took your call able to deal with your query?

Number % Yes 45 83 No 9 17



27

Table 26 If no, were you put through to someone else who was able to help you?

NumberYes <5 No 6

Total 9 Base: 9 respondents

N.B. Due to rounding percentages do not add to 100 Table 27 How satisfied/dissatisfied were you with the telephone service?

Number % Very satisfied 28 52

Satisfied 18 33 Neither satisfied nor

dissatisfied <5 9

Dissatisfied <5 6 Total 54 100

Base: 54 respondents N.B. Due to rounding percentages do not add to 100 Table 28 The forms were clear (agree/disagree)


Total

Number % Number % Number % Number % Strongly agree 65 62 81 54 136 61 282 59 Slightly agree 27 26 51 34 60 27 138 29

Neither agree nor disagree <5 4 6 4 10 5 20 4

Slightly disagree <5 2 <5 2 <5 2 9 2 Strongly disagree - - <5 1 <5 1 4 1

Don’t know 7 7 7 5 10 5 24 5 Total 105 100 150 100 222 100 477 100


28

Table 29 The forms were difficult to complete (agree/disagree)


Total

Number % Number % Number % Number % Strongly agree <5 1 <5 1 <5 1 <5 1 Slightly agree <5 4 12 8 6 3 22 5

Neither agree nor disagree 5 5 6 4 16 7 27 6

Slightly disagree 39 37 56 37 66 30 161 34 Strongly disagree 49 47 66 44 120 54 235 49

Don’t know 7 7 8 5 13 6 28 6 Total 105 100 150 100 222 100 477 100

Base: 477 respondents N.B. Due to rounding percentages do not add to 100 Table 30 The letters were clear (agree/disagree)


Total


Neither agree nor disagree <5 3 <5 2 12 5 18 4

Slightly disagree <5 1 - - <5 1 <5 1 Don’t know 7 7 7 5 12 5 26 6


N.B. Due to rounding percentages do not add to 100 Table 31 The letters were easy to understand (agree/disagree)


Total


Neither agree nor disagree <5 2 6 4 6 3 14 3

Slightly disagree <5 2 <5 1 <5 1 6 1 Strongly disagree - - <5 1 <5 1 <5 <1

Don’t know 6 6 6 4 13 6 25 5 Total 105 100 150 100 222 100 477 100


29

Table 32 How satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the letters you received?


Total



dissatisfied 7 7 7 5 12 5 26 6

Dissatisfied <5 2 - - <5 1 <5 1 Very dissatisfied - - <5 1 <5 1 <5 1

Don’t know <5 4 6 4 11 5 21 4 Total 105 100 150 100 222 100 477 100

Base: 477 respondents N.B. Due to rounding percentages do not add to 100 Table 33 Overall how satisfied or dissatisfied were you with the service you received when you applied to buy your home?


Total



dissatisfied 8 8 11 7 15 7 34 7

Dissatisfied 5 5 10 7 7 3 22 5 Very dissatisfied <5 3 <5 2 8 4 14 3

Don’t know <5 2 <5 2 <5 1 6 1 Total 105 100 150 100 222 100 477 100

Base: 477 respondents N.B. Due to rounding percentages do not add to 100 Table 34: Additional Comments

Number Percentage House too expensive 26 38

New discount system unfair 10 15 Hard to get an appointment with Housing Executive 8 12

Housing Executive would not sell house <5 6 Repairs not done <5 6

Would like more information <5 4 Poor communication <5 4

Not enough time between valuation and agreeing sale <5 4 Other (including: very helpful and quick, good service and

complicated process 16 21

Base: 68 respondents who gave 77 comments

30

House Sales Customer Satisfaction Survey (Published June 2007)

Documents

Transcript of House Sales Customer Satisfaction Survey (Published June 2007)