customer service standards annual performance report … customer... · customer service standards...
TRANSCRIPT
1
Customer Service Standards Annual Performance Report
April 2006 to March 2007
2
Contents
Introduction...........................................................................................................3
Section 1: Telephony............................................................................................4
a) Customer Services Centre - Call Performance: .............................................4
b) Service Improvements ...................................................................................6
c) Customer Services Centre – CRM.................................................................7
d) Customer Services Centre - Payments..........................................................7
e) Repairs4you’ housing repairs – Claverings....................................................8
f) Language Needs ...........................................................................................9
g) Revenues and Benefits – Call Performance ................................................10
h) Customer Services Centre – Community Alarms calls.................................11
i) Quantative Telephone Monitoring 2006/2007 - by Departments ..................12
j) Qualitative Telephone Monitoring 2006/2007...............................................12
k) CSC Customer Satisfaction Survey .............................................................13
l) Housing Needs............................................................................................13
Section 2: Face to Face......................................................................................17
a) John Wilkes House .....................................................................................16
b) John Wilkes House – General CRM Query Types .......................................18
c) John Wilkes House – Overall Q-Matic statistics...........................................19
d) Face to Face survey/comment card results .................................................20
Section 3: Website..............................................................................................23
a) Customer Hits on Enfield Council’s Website ................................................23
Section 4: Annual Complaints Report...............................................................23
Section 5: Recommended actions 24
3
Introduction The ‘Customer Service Standards Annual Performance Report’ is an annual review on how the Council is performing across its main access channels. Telephony, website and face to face counter services, as well as including information on the customer perceptions of our key reception areas such as the Civic Centre, libraries and our new access point John Wilkes House. The Council has a duty to deliver services, which are responsive to the needs of its citizens. We aim to ensure that all the people who need or want information have it, whatever their circumstances. Good communications and effective public relations will ensure that everyone has the opportunity to contribute to and debate issues facing the borough and will be able to hold the Council accountable. The statistics shown in this report focuses on departmental call performance and customer facing statistics covering the main customer-facing services (shown below):
• Customer Services Centre.
• John Wilkes House – Housing advice.
• ‘Repairs4you’ housing repairs.
• Revenues and Benefits.
• Community Alarms
It also covers Internet usage and benchmarking data from other local authorities on the Customer Services Centres performance indicators. Enfield’s performance for April 2006 to March 2007 has been generally a very good year across it’s three main access channels: Telephony Our customer services centre has provided frontline telephony service, handling nearly 650,000 enquiries with over 80% of calls answered within 20 seconds and 98% of all incoming calls to the Customer Services Centre were answered at the first point of contact. Website Our newly designed website www.enfield.gov.uk was used by a total of 591,672 unique monthly users during 06/07 representing a 33.2% increase in users (147,603) from the previous year (05/06). Face to face Based on feedback gained from multiple sites across the Borough, 67.2% of customers were very satisfied with the overall service they received. Between June 2006 and March 2007 John Wilkes House served over 28,000 customers with an average transaction time of 5 minutes and 40 seconds at general enquiries.
4
Section 1: Telephony
a) Customer Services Centre - Call Performance:
The Customer Services Centre is the main access point to access Council services. The Customer Service Centre achieved both its performance targets of ‘Service Level’ and Call Abandonment’ for the period April 2006 – March 2007. The average service level was 88.5%. The target of 80 % was met. The average call abandonment rate was 1.8%. The target of <5% was met. Average talk time 3 minutes 47 seconds, which includes after call work. The Customer Service Centre successfully answered 98.3% of all calls received within the year 06/07.
Customer Services Centre - Call Performance
0
100000
200000
300000
400000
500000
600000
700000
800000
2005/6 2006/7
No
of
call
s
74
76
78
80
82
84
86
88
90
Service Level %
Calls Answered Calls abandoned SL%
Performance targets
Service Level: To answer 80% of all calls within 20 seconds.
Call abandonment: Less than 5%
5
Compared to another London borough such as the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, which is a 4 star local authority, we have answered 7.5% more of incoming calls.
Calls answered (%)
80.00%
85.00%
90.00%
95.00%
100.00%
Enfield 98.3% Kensington and
Chelsea 90.8%
Local Authority
Benchmarking Group
average 88.6%
For the period January 2007 – March 2007 Enfield Customer Services centre received the fourth highest call volumes out of the 33 other local authorities participating in the benchmarking group. Out of the top ten below we were the second highest in answered calls. January - March 2007
Statistically, it appears that both Havering and Islington are answering more calls with less staff. However it is important to note that: Havering only offer a switchboard service on their main telephone number, either transferring calls, or giving departmental telephone numbers. They do not offer part or whole service transactions at the first point of contact. Islington Councils call centre Contact Islington offer similar services as Enfield’s Customer Services Centre but at peak times they switch to customer call backs for council tax enquiries and have IT improvements such as caller line identification and automated self service payments (which the Customer Services Centre will also introduce in September 07).
6
The restructuring of Enfield’s Customer Service Centre means that staffing numbers have reduced to 45 FTE.
b) Service Improvements An interactive voice response system (IVR) was introduced on 15th March 07. This service provides a self-service information facility for main Council Tax enquiries such as entitlement for discounts or benefits. The IVR system has handled over 15000 calls in its first three months and only 8.7% of calls were routed back to the Customer Services Centre to be dealt with. This has improved the Customer Service Centres performance by giving customers accessible information without going through to a Customer Service Advisor thereby giving advisors capacity to deal with more calls and complex enquiries. The Customer Relationship Management system (CRM) was implemented on the 7th of June 06. The CRM system holds a central record of each customer, the history of contacts and the access channel the customer has chosen such as telephony, face to face or the website. The CRM system monitors the number of service requests dealt within the Customer Services Centre and the number of service requests referrals passed to back office departments. Customer interaction history can now be accessed more readily and clearly by frontline staff across the various access points across the borough such as John Wilkes House and the Civic Centre. Cost per Call Analysis The average cost per call was £2.90 for the year 06/07. In direct comparison with other Boroughs from the Local Authority Benchmarking Group, this represents very good value for money. The average cost per call for a wide range of boroughs from across the country is £4.05 – information taken from sample financial benchmarking data.
Cost per Call (£)
£0.00
£0.50
£1.00
£1.50
£2.00
£2.50
£3.00
£3.50
£4.00
£4.50
Enfield Local Authority Benchmarking
Group average
7
c) Customer Services Centre – CRM A total of 157,194 customer enquiries were dealt with through the Customer Relationship Management system for 06/07. The top 10 query types are shown below.
d) Customer Services Centre - Payments The Customer Services Centre collected a total value of £15,806,531. The total number of transactions was 56,545. We have improved our service by informing customers, when making payments, of the convenience of using the online payments facility through our website as well as offering customers the option to start paying by direct debit. This gives customers the convenience of making their payments 24 hours a day online. In August 2007 we will be launching, as part of the interactive voice response, an automated payment system, which will allow customers to make payments instantly without going through to a customer service advisor.
CSC stats
40.9%
9.4%
8.2%
4.4%
3.2%
2.0%
1.8%
1.8%
1.5%
1.4%
25.3%
E-Payments
Waste Services / waste services eform
Transfer Call / Service Message
Household waste-special collection
Non E-forms Special Collection
Flytipping Waste Services
Campaigns / Customer Survey
Waste Services / Recycling-collection sites
Council Tax - Vacating the Borough
Abandoned vehicles
Other
% against total enquiries
8
e) Repairs4you’ housing repairs – Claverings
The “Repairs4you” centre opened at the end of April 2006 giving customers access to report repairs through a free phone number. Customer enquiries totalled 89,266 in 2006/2007. This was more than double previous annual call volume. The new telephone system allowed queuing and therefore customers could get through who would previously have just received the engaged signal and have had to call back or had to call in to the office in person. The level of the increase was unexpected and additional resources had to be allocated in order to deal with this in the short term. Over the year additional staff within the teams were trained to take the calls and working practises were changed in order to ensure sufficient resources were available to take the calls without compromising other work areas. Our contractors were given access to our computer systems in order to allow them to update the status of their orders and be able to identify for themselves, orders that were going out of timescale so that action could be taken. This improved the real time
Performance targets
Service Level: To answer 80% of Calls within 20 seconds.
Call abandonment: Less than 5%
Housing Repairs ('Repairs4you’)
Call Performance Statistics 2006/2007
89,266
7,475
69.2
0
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
Apr 2006 - Mar 2007
Call
Vo
lum
es
0
20
40
60
80
100
Serv
ice L
evel
%
Calls offered Calls abandoned Service level %
9
information on our systems and also improved service delivery and freed up officer time to answer calls. In October 2006 we introduced an electronic appointments system so now all customers reporting a new repair are given an appointment time when the contractor will call to fix the problem. These improvements have contributed to our repairs service improving its performance overall. The percentage of urgent repairs completed on time increased from 94.44% to 98.49%. The average time to complete non-urgent repairs reduced from 11 days to 10.37 days.
We continue to improve our systems in 2007-8 we have invested in an auto-attendant system on the phone lines. This allows messages to be given to customers automatically and has separate queues for different teams so that each call can be dealt with by an experienced member of staff. It also has a call back facility so when the queues are busy the customer can choose to leave a message on the call back facility. Since bringing in this system and the associated changes in staffing levels and processes we have consistently since April 07 achieved over 90% of calls answered within service level targets and average 1.5% calls abandoned well above target level of 5%. We are entering into new partnering contracts in August 2007 these will allow us to share work much more with our contractors and it is proposed to extend the contractors access to systems to provide even better information to our customers. Over the next year these new contracts should provide our customers with a more responsive and seamless service.
f) Language Needs Translation and Interpreting The Translation and Interpreting service received 7,029 requests for interpreting and 2,145 requests for translation. The following are the top ten languages for translation and interpreting:
Text phone The Council has text phones across 27 sites. A total of 752 calls were received in February and March 07 (full data for 06/07 is not available). Data is not available for 7 of 27 sites. These statistics do not reflect the true demand as some of these calls were
Interpreting Translation
Turkish 1 Turkish
BSL/English 2 Somali
Somali 3 Polish
French 4 French
Farsi 5 Greek
Greek 6 Bengali
Polish 7 Albanian
Portuguese 8 Farsi
Romanian 9 Romanian
Bengali 10 Gujarati
10
misdialled. The main text phone number 020 8379 6551 will continue to be promoted through advertising campaigns for the Customer Services Centre.
g) Revenues and Benefits – Call Performance
Customer enquiries received via the telephony system exceeded 280,000 in 2006. This was well above normal annual call volume and was caused by the loss of the Revs and Bens IT system for one month in May/June 2006 due to system upgrade. As a result, there was: -
• A processing backlog of customer account amendments and benefit claims;
• A 20% increase in reminders and final notices issued, and
• A higher level of support needed for customers receiving new style documentation i.e. benefit notification letters
As part of the conversion project, additional resources were allocated to clearing backlogs and dealing with customer enquiries, and the call level had dropped substantially by December 2006. For 2007, the current council tax IVR self-help 24-hour call answering service is being extended to the benefit service to cover a range of benefit enquiries. This service will be going live in August 2007. This will provide useful information to customers about council tax and benefit enquiries giving them the option to speak to a customer service advisor. In addition to the self-help options being introduced, benefit claims and correspondence backlogs have largely been reduced, which will substantially reduce customer enquiry levels in 2007 and increase customer service performance.
Revenue & Benefits Call Performance Statistics 2006/2007
0
50000
100000
150000
200000
250000
300000
Call
Vo
lum
es
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Serv
ice L
evel
%
Calls offered 279573 1409 894
Calls abandoned 26102 521 337
Service level % 18.5 58.6 58.2
Main Number Appointments Complaints
Performance targets
Service Level: To answer 80% of Calls within 20 seconds.
Call abandonment: Less than 5%
11
h) Customer Services Centre – Community Alarms calls Call statistics April 2006 – March 2007
The above service standards meet with the minimum acceptable Telecare Services Association (TSA) accreditation standards. Our performance for these standards also exceeds the London Telecare Benchmarking average. Community Alarm was inspected in July 2006 by the TSA Inspection Body and acquired part 3 of the code of practice and was re-inspected on parts 1&2, which was retained. The half yearly London Telecare Benchmarking Report (April – Sept) 2006 – 07 compared the performance of Enfield, Greenwich, Havering, Kensington & Chelsea, Lewisham, Newham. Of the group, we are the only Borough to be accredited with all three parts of the code of practice, which ensures that the quality of our service provision is consistent, and of a very high standard. We also handle more calls per connection than any other borough in the group.
Performance targets
Service Level: To answer 80% of Alarm Calls within 30 seconds.Service Level: To answer 90% (+0,-2%) of Alarm Calls within 60 seconds.
Community Alarm Call Performance Statistics
2006-2007
94000
96000
98000
100000
102000
104000
106000
Total calls Calls accepted within
30 seconds
Calls accepted within
60 seconds
93.9%
97.8%
Avg call acceptance time of 12 seconds
103,771
calls
12
Part One - Telecare Calls Handling Operational Requirements relate to the planning, management and operation of Telecare Response Centres. Part Two - Telecare Installation Operational Requirements relate to the planning, management and installation of telecare equipment in the homes of service users. Part Three - Mobile Response Operational Requirements relate to the planning, management and delivery of planning and/or emergency mobile response services. The Community Alarms customer base has 2823 live connections of customers using the service in 06/07. A connection can represent more than one customer i.e. in sheltered accommodation. There is capacity to take on further customers, as we seem to have less than the average connections as a percentage of those aged over 75 than other boroughs. Further research and comparisons with other boroughs will be conducted in 07/08 to see if there is any variation in customer profile. The Community Alarms service will be focusing on increasing take up of the new Telecare Service this year, which aims to reduce the number of vulnerable and elderly customers going into residential care.
i) Quantative Telephone Monitoring 2006/2007 - by Departments
In 2006/2007 there were three occasions were quantative telephone monitoring surveys were conducted across the Council. Overall 96.3% of calls were answered within 20 seconds. From the surveys, it has been identified that only those staff who need to have voicemail will be given it. The voicemail functionality will intercept unanswered and engaged calls further improving the customer experience.
j) Qualitative Telephone Monitoring 2006/2007 In 2006/2007 the councils consultancy team carried out quality monitoring by surveying customers who contacted the Customer Services Centre in April, May, June, July, and August 06. The following is based on a sample base of 89 customers who answered the following questions, which are based on the service offered by Customer Service Advisors. 99% were found to have the correct standard council greeting 100% were found to have the correct tone and pace 98% were found to have met the criteria for good listening skills
13
100% were found to have met the criteria for showing good empathy / rapport and offering apology
98% were found to have identified the correct group quickly and efficiently 100% were found to have been dealt with in a professional manner
k) CSC Customer Satisfaction Survey A telephone survey was undertaken from a sample of 200 customers of which 50 participated in the survey. These customers had contacted the Customer Services centre during the first two weeks of May 2006. Although some of the questions were similar to those in the Customer Satisfaction Survey undertaken in September 2005 (which focussed on the quality of Customer Service Advisors) additional questions were designed to explore customers’ opinion of e.g. call routing, and satisfaction with service delivery. Call Routing System - Although a 38% of respondents didn’t like voice prompt, they generally added that they appreciated that it made the service more efficient.
However, when asked if they objected to voice systems in principle, 71% had no objection.
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
38.8
38.8
22.4
Yes
No
No opinion
Q7 Is current routing system helpful?
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
18.4
71.4
10.2
Yes
No
No opinion
Q8 Do you mind recorded voice systems?
14
Some customers didn’t see why they have to come through voice prompts to what they perceive as a switchboard, which just puts them through to an extension, when it would be quicker for them to ring the extension direct. However, observation of the Customer Service Advisors adding value is that they act as a router for complex enquiries, and/or provides initial information, which is essential for the delivery of the requested service. Quality of Staff Respondents were more than happy with the Customer Service Advisors themselves: Perception of Customer Services Advisors
Always Mostly Sometimes Never Base 60.9% 29.2% 9.9% - Helpful 14.4% 4.5% 1.2% - Knowledgeable 9.9% 8.2% 2.1% - Courteous 14.4% 4.5% 0.8% - Able to provide good advice
8.6% 6.6% 4.9% -
Trying to help 13.6% 5.3% 0.8% -
However, where respondents considered Customer Service Advisors to be extremely helpful and courteous, which they did consistently, this is in relation to an efficient and pleasant transfer of the call to the correct extension or the taking of a message. The people who were unable to get through tended to be those who had dialled in direct. When asked, the service customers found Customer Service Advisors most helpful for was giving out direct dial numbers e.g. to access the named individuals they have been dealing with in a particular department. This was confirmed by a survey question on whether Customer Service Advisors were able to give an actual service or whether they needed put the customer through to the back office.
15
Service Demand
Refuse / rubbish collections were the highest service demand, followed by Council Tax by customers calling in.
How long is it reasonable to wait to speak to someone: Between 1 – 20 seconds 8.2% Between 20 – 40 seconds 53.1% Between 40 – 60 seconds 38%
Council Tax23.1%
Housing Repairs5.1%
Refuse / Rubbish Collections28.2%
Housing Benefit10.3%
Flytipping2.6%
Social Worker2.6%
Pest Control7.7%
Planning7.7%
Highways Repairs / Trees5.1%
Building Control7.7%
Which services did you want?
No reply
Yes
No
No opinion
Q5 Ease of getting through
16
More importantly, a substantial majority would wait more than two minutes, as long as they knew they would receive a service at the end. Summary Based on feedback on what customers have said we have made changes to improve the service.
l) Housing needs
In July 2006 new telephony system was implemented in the housing needs assessment area. This has enabled the housing assessment team to monitor the call volumes coming into the service. Many calls are being dealt with at first point of contact, which has reduced the need for the customer to visit John Wilkes House and request appointments and personal interviews. The performance target has not been achieved due to staff shortages and an increase in customer demand. This is however being addressed to improve service delivery to customers by changes to business processes and by implementation of interactive voice response information scripts giving useful information to customers about the service to assist with basic requests for application forms and explanations of the various housing options available. This will be going live by August 2007.
Performance targets
Service Level: To answer 80% of all calls within 20 seconds.
Call abandonment: Less than 5%
Housing Needs (John Wilkes House)
Call Performance Statistics 2006/2007
26096
14404
33.8
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
2006-2007
Call
Vo
lum
es
0
10
20
30
40
50
Serv
ice L
evel
%
Calls offered Calls abandoned Service level %
17
Section 2: Face to Face Monitoring of standards at face-to-face access channels is developing. During 2006/7 the only centre with an automated system to monitoring waiting times was John Wilkes House. This system is now being implemented as part of the civic centre redevelopment and will enable more detailed statistics to be available next year. Therefore this report focuses on John Wilkes House with the results of comment cards that have been available at other reception points.
a) John Wilkes House John Wilkes House Access Centre (JWH) opened in June 2006, located in Ponders End, eastern part of the borough. The centre houses Housing Needs (Homeless Persons Team/Housing Advice Team/Housing Assessments Team) and Revenues & Benefits. A new customer queuing system (Q-matic) was implemented at JWH, to manage the queues effectively, and cut down on customer waiting times. The system allows the customer to obtain a ticket, which can be tracked, to ensure the customer is seen within the customer care standards (10 minutes from time the ticket is issued). The system also provides live data, which allows management to view the activities of the queues, and to take appropriate action to manage any queue congestion.
Initially there were some teething problems with the system, with management information not consistent or reflective and also some training issues. However, these have been identified and resolved. The initial set up of the system was not as effective as it could be, with one generic “All Enquires” queue being used by all customers. Customers have to go through the general enquiries zone (Fast Track), and are either dealt with at this point, or sign-posted to the relevant specialist area for their transaction to be dealt with.
The Q-matic system was re-configured in early March 07, in order to improve the following:
• Customer waiting times
• Improved and flexible queue management
• Improve Management Information The “All Enquiries” queue was replaced with two queues, Housing Enquiries and Benefits Enquiries, clearly defining the two services, and giving a clear indication of customer footfall for each. All frontline customer facing reception staff (Fast-Track) have been
18
crossed trained and are able to deal with customer enquiries from either queue, using the CRM system. Since the introduction of this new queuing system, there has been a marked improvement in the overall service level, and customer waiting times. This should be reflected in future reporting. Management Information is now more defined and reflective of the two services performance, with management having a greater control on queue management. There has also been a recent customer satisfaction survey carried out by the Customer Service for London Group. This group consists of the majority of London boroughs, and some provincial boroughs. 15 boroughs took part in the survey, with each having to submit 200 (minimum) surveys to be analyised. Enfield submitted 300 (JWH) surveys. The analysis shows that customers are satisfied with the service being provided at the first point of contact at JWH, with some very encouraging results in certain areas. Further surveys will take place, with an appropriate improvement plan put in place to ensure customer satisfaction is kept to a high level.
b) John Wilkes House – General CRM Query Types Top face-to-face query types at Fast- Track (taken from CRM): Please note – Both Housing Needs and Revs & Bens data are shown.
19
c) John Wilkes House – Overall Q-Matic statistics
John Wilkes House, Face to Face Statistics
Revenue Information Officers
89%
11%
Customers seen within 30 minutes (SLA)
Customers seen over 30 minutes
Average customer transaction
time of 15 mins 22 seconds
John Wilkes House, Face to Face Statistics
Fast Trak Service
63%
37%
Customers seen within 10 mins (SLA)
Customers seen over 10 minutes
Average customer transaction
time of 5 mins 40 seconds
Performance targets
Fast-track – All Customers: To see customers within 10 minutes of arriving
To see a RIO: Within 30 minutes after the fast-track
20
d) Face to Face survey/comment cards In the last year there were three occasions were customer comment card exercises were conducted throughout the borough across the following key reception areas: Civic Centre, John Wilkes House, Environment Direct, Palmers Green Library, Enfield Central Library, Edmonton Green Library. The results below are based on a sample base of 732 customers who answered the following question: ‘Overall, how satisfied were you with the service you received from our staff today?’ 67.2% of customers were very satisfied with the overall service they received. 22.6% of customers were satisfied with the service they received. 0.8% of customers responded as ‘Don’t know’. 2.5% of customers were unsatisfied with the service they received. 2.2% of customers were very unsatisfied with the service they received. 4.5% of customers did not answer this question. In addition Enfield participated in the Customer Services for London Group survey in May 2007. In total 17 authorities took part in the face to face survey, 16 of which were London boroughs. Enfield’s survey was conducted at John Wilkes House and 300 people took part. The results were very positive and compare positively with other authorities. This is especially pleasing due to the nature of the services provided at the John Wilkes House. The results are below Why did you choose to visit this centre? Borough I prefer
face to face
Difficulty in
phoning
Difficulty in finding
information on the web
Only way for the enquiry
to be handled
Convenience Other
Enfield 2007
67.7% (199)
9.5% (28) 2% (6) 16.7% (49)
13.9% (41) 0.3% (1)
Overall average 2007
47.3% 8.2% 2.3% 27.5% 13.7% 0.2%
How long did you have to wait to be seen by a member of staff regarding your enquiry?
Borough 0-5 minutes 5-10 minutes Over 10 minutes Enfield 2007 77.6% (232) 20.4% (61) 2% (6) Overall average 2007
55.8% 22.2% 22.0%
21
Was the time that you waited acceptable given the nature of your enquiry?
Borough Yes No Enfield 2007 97.6% (284) 2.4% (7) Overall average 2007 90% 10%
Was the Customer Services officer you spoke with welcoming and helpful when handling your enquiry?
Borough Yes No Enfield 2007 100% (297) - Overall average 2007 98% 2%
Did the person you spoke with have the appropriate knowledge to deal with your enquiry?
Borough Yes No Enfield 2007 97.9% (284) 2.1% (6) Overall average 2007 95.9% 4.1%
Was the centre welcoming and user friendly?
Borough Yes No Enfield 2007 99.7% (298) 0.3% (1)
Overall average 2007 96.5% 3.5% Was your enquiry resolved on this visit?
Borough Yes No Enfield 2007 80.6% (232) 19.4% (56) Overall average 2007 79.3% 20.7%
If not resolved were you appropriately directed to the correct point of contact?
Borough Yes No Enfield 2007 93.3% (111) 6.7% (8) Overall average 2007 90.9% 9.1%
How do you rate the service that you received from our staff today?
Borough Excellent Very good Good Satisfactory Poor Enfield 2007 27% (80) 50% (148) 19.6% (58) 3% (9) 0.3% (1) Overall average 2007
43% 33.1% 16.3% 5.1% 2.5%
22
If you thought that the service was poor please tell us why? Was it because: Borough I wasn’t
entitled to the
service I called about
I didn’t like the attitude of the staff
I was kept
waiting too long
The information/form
that I wanted was not available
This was a repeat visit
Other
Enfield 2007
34.8% (8) 8.7% (2) 4.3% (1) 17.4% (4) 39.1% (9)
-
Overall average 2007
19.1% 18.1% 25% 10.2% 26.3% 1.3%
23
Section 3: Website
a) Customer Hits on Enfield Council’s Website The www.enfield.gov.uk website was used by a total of 591,672 unique monthly users during 06/07. Collectively they looked at 5,921,423 pages. This represents a 33.2% increase in users (147,603) thanks to a successful take up campaign and a 5.4% decrease in page views (-331,458). This decrease in page views is attributed to the fact that pages are more easily found within the newly designed website. This compares to 05/06, which had a 23.3% increase in users and a 32.7% increase in page views. E-payments went live on 22nd June 2006. This facility allows customers to make payments ranging from business rates to housing rent. A total of 10,021 transactions were made totalling £1,657,732.44 was paid through the website for payments. Top 10 titles of web hits for the period 1 April 2006 – 31 March 2007
E-Forms are electronic forms enabling customers to use various services. From making reporting abandoned vehicles and fly tipping, to making payments, a total of 92417 e-forms were used. 64353 of these were for e-payments, the online payments facility (69.6%)
Section 4: Annual Complaints Report The Annual Complaints Report 06/07 outlines Enfield’s performance and organisational learning in respect of complaints handling and lessons learnt to 31st March 2007 and will be presented to Cabinet in September 2007. The full-year complaints performance, including learning from complaints has been provided for inspection. Corporate Management Board has already considered complaints performance for 06/7, including learning from complaints, on 29/5/07.
24
Section 5: Recommended actions
� All reception areas carry out regular customer satisfaction surveys.
� The number of surveys conducted throughout the survey period should be standardised across each site. This follows the example from the Customer Service for London Group requiring a minimum number of 200 surveys carried out from each borough.
� To actively survey customers with physical disabilities, sensory impairment and learning difficulties to see if they can access Council services.
� For those services not achieving service standards to provide a quarterly review to the Access to Service Board on any changes made to business processes and an action plan for where service standards have not been achieved.
� It is recommended that Repairs4you housing repairs telephony service to
benchmark their performance against other boroughs providing a similar service. � Recommendation that the new Civic Access Centre monitors its queue
performance regularly. To ensure any long term measures to address queue underperformance are carried out as early as possible.
� Better forward planning and contingency measures on resource alignment for
service delivery for Housing Needs assessment team. � To monitor the textphone and interpreting/translation service usage throughout the
Council and query types.