User Survey CAU Functions

The Central Accounting Unit Customer Survey 2000
The Results

This document was created in July 2001

CAU Functions

The units functions were divided into six specific aspects of service provision. Customers in the main presented a positive response although without exception there is room for improvement. This question was broken down to cover the separate activities of each section of CAU. The information we were trying to obtain was how important the different activities are in the context of the IPs work and how satisfied they are with the service provided.

9.1) CUSTOMER SERVICES

Figure 11

The majority of IPs stated that this service was very important (5), but the majority rating for satisfaction was satisfied (4). This would indicate that the satisfaction rating falls short of that of the importance rating. None of the respondents gave a satisfaction rating below 3. Customer Services is the main contact for the majority of enquiries in CAU and the overall figures illustrate that IPs are not dissatisfied with the quality of service provided.

Figure 12

The majority (73%) thought that this factor was very important (5) with 56% of respondents being very satisfied (5) with the service, the remainder being split, 32% rating 4 and 12% rating 3. An area of improvement that was suggested in response to question 13 was to be able to request more balances at any one time. The policy in place is that a maximum of five balance requests can be made per telephone call. This is an area requiring further clarification by both the IPs and CAU.

Figure 13

Again the majority of respondents believed that the importance rating was 5 and the satisfaction rating was 4. This shows that there is still room for improvement. 1% of respondents were very unsatisfied (1). This needs to be investigated in further detail. The main area of concern was the regularity of sending out statements.

Figure 14

49% of respondents rated the importance of issuing automatic statements bi-annually at 5 and this activity drew the most comments in the survey. Many of the respondents would prefer them to be issued on a monthly basis but others would only require them on request.. (See questions 12 and 13).

Figure 15

A third of all responses fell between rating 1-3. The majority of respondents were satisfied, rating 4. This shows that the satisfaction rating nearly matches the importance rating. The importance rating also shows that there are a few respondents who rated it as importance level 1 and 2. The satisfaction rating also has a few responses of 1 or 2. This may mean that those who believed it to be not very important have responded as not being very satisfied.

Figure 16

There is almost an equal divide between the importance rating 4 and 5. 40% and 37% respectively. The majority of respondents, 46%, rate as being satisfied with only 16% rating it as 5, very satisfied.

9.2) INVESTMENTS

A significant change to the investments procedures was put into place on the 3rd April 2000 by the Bank of England, with which CAU had to comply. The purchasing of Treasury Bills was reduced to once a week, on Mondays, instead of daily. Therefore when a Treasury Bill matures and is required to rollover, it cannot be repurchased until the next purchase day, whereas before it would be automatically re-purchased on the day of maturity.

This
subject of a once a week purchasing of Treasury Bills was commented upon in question 13 as not being an improvement to the service. Although unable to influence the change in procedures put into place by the Bank of England CAU management have made alternative arrangements for purchasing Treasury Bills and have been able to resort to daily purchases since December 2000.

The low number of Treasury Bill transactions is reflected in the small number of responses. (120 completed the performance rating and 109 of these completed the satisfaction rating). This was the lowest response rate for the whole survey.

Figure 17

Figure 18

The satisfaction rating does not always meet the importance rating, indicating that there is room for improvement in this area. The low satisfaction rating may be due to the respondents rating it as low because it is of low importance to them. Only 76% filled out the importance rating and 72% filled out the satisfaction rating. Figure 13 shows mixed ratings on 4 and 5. A comment made to question 13 was that written notifications of Treasury Bill transactions were not always arriving on a timely basis.

9.3) RECEIPTS AND PAYMENTS

The overall results show that the majority of respondents believe that the importance rating is 5 for all the different areas of work. This sections work received the highest % rating for importance. The standards fell short when the importance rating was compared directly with the satisfaction rating.

Figure 19

Figure 20

The speed of posting receipts to estates was commented on in responses to question 13, some IPs being concerned about the length of time this was taking, occasionally resulting in requisitions being returned to the IP due to insufficient funds. The two days normally taken for funds to reach an insolvent estate usually involves a cheque being paid into an IPs local bank, accompanied by a CAU bank giro credit slip. Once cleared, the funds are paid into the Insolvency Services Account (ISA) at the Bank of England. The bank giro credits are then forwarded to CAU and the receipts are posted to the individual estate accounts.

A statement, giving the IP the account number, is automatically produced on the setting up of a new voluntary case on BANCS. From the satisfaction ratings and comments received it is apparent that this procedure is not working in every case and is therefore another area where new procedures may be necessary.

Figure 21

Figure 22

Responses to the Bona Vacantia question show that it is not considered as important a function as others, such as processing requisitions. 9% reported it as very unimportant; 9% stated it is unimportant, 31% as of average importance, 20% as important and 31% as very important. The spread of satisfaction ratings on this question may be due to this. This is evident in the comment made in question 13 suggesting that Bona Vacantia transfers to the Treasury Solicitors could be simplified.

Figure 23

A number of respondents were concerned about the amount of time they had to wait for a cheque after sending in a requisition form. The CAU 101 is normally dealt with on the day it is received into CAU, the cheques being produced and checked on day two and despatched on day three. When there are problems with a requisition, i.e. insufficient funds, the IP is notified immediately. When this occurs there will inevitably be a delay in the production and despatch of the cheques. The recently introduced 100% signature check on requisitions has not delayed the despatch of the cheques.

9.4) ACCOUNT RECONCILIATION

Figure 24

Figure 25

Figure 26

On the above three criteria for account reconciliation, it is clear that the satisfaction does not meet the importance rating. This applies only to rating 5.

Although the satisfaction rating does not always match the importance rating the majority of results for all the Account Reconciliation is satisfaction-rating 4, (satisfied). The results are all very similar.

One area of inconsistency highlighted was regarding reconciliation queries. IPs can phone in for clarification and ask for advice, but any action would require a formal written request in order for the query to be rectified. A letter and a statement should follow up any amendment made to an estate. Some IPs have stated that this is not always the case. Another suggestion made was that if a query is going to take longer than the target dates set by CAU (five days for voluntary queries and ten days for bankruptcy and compulsory queries), a courtesy call would be appreciated.

9.5) INTEREST BEARING ACCOUNTS

Figure 27

Figure 28

The satisfaction does not meet the importance rating on 5.

It was remarked upon that there was a delay in receiving the half yearly Interest Bearing notices. The CAU target of ten days has always been met. It was also requested that interest statements be sent out whenever the interest calculation changes. Some respondents discussed that they would like automatic statements on closure of the interest bearing accounts. This policy is already in place.

9.6) CASHIERS

Figure 29

Figure 30

Figure 31

Figure 32

The overall results indicate that the satisfaction rating does exceed the importance rating, apart from on rating number five for each area of cashiering work.

The time delay on receiving sterling equivalents of foreign currencies was commented on in question 13 and an improvement in the service requested. This delay is not down to CAUs working practices but is due to the banking system. Once received, CAU forward the cheque on with instructions to the Bank of England. It was also mentioned that notification of the transfer is not issued.

Also remarked upon was why telegraphic transfers can only be made for payments over £250,000. The reason for this is the charge that the ISA incurs. There is no charge on the insolvent estate. It was mentioned by one respondent that the bank giro credit books sent out were for the wrong types of cases. If this does occur it should be mentioned that receipts can be paid in using the incorrect paying in slip as the funds will still be posted to the correct account.

Customer Survey Contents

[INTRODUCTION] [GENERAL CONTEXT] [PERFORMANCE CRITERIA] [CAU FUNCTIONS] [SATISFACTION WITH STANDARD FORMS] [EXCHANGE VISITS] [BI-ANNUAL STATEMENTS] [IMPROVED SERVICES] [COMPLAINTS (& Complaints Procedure)] [GENERAL COMMENTS] [ANNEX
A – Action Plan]

[IP Banking Home]
[General Information] [Organisation] [Contacts] [Telephone List] [IP Banking User Guide] [BACS] [IP Banking User Group]
[IP Banking Customer Survey Results] [Frequently Asked Questions] [Table of Fees] [Statement Request]
[General Request]