What it is
We worked with Service Insights to survey a representative sample of 565 leaseholders.
Leaseholders were called between January to February 2024 and asked about their satisfaction with:
- responsive repairs
- major works
- service charges
- Leaseholder services
The survey results give visibility of our performance to leaseholders and give us an idea of where we can improve.
Survey results
| Measure | Percentage satisfaction score |
|---|---|
| Proportion of respondents who report that they are satisfied with the information provided for your service charges. |
42.7% |
| Proportion of respondents who report that they are satisfied with the conduct of contractors carrying out responsive repairs. |
39.2% |
| Proportion of respondents who report that they are satisfied with the information provided about the major works. | 34% |
| Proportion of respondents who report that they are satisfied with the conduct of contractors carrying out major works. |
31.9% |
| Proportion of respondents who report that they are satisfied with the overall service from London Borough of Camden Council. |
29.9% |
| Proportion of respondents who report that they are satisfied with the consultation process of major works. |
29.5% |
| Proportion of respondents who report that they are satisfied with the ease of contacting the leaseholder service. |
26.1% |
| Proportion of respondents who report that they are satisfied with the quality of responsive repairs. |
24% |
| Proportion of respondents who report that they are satisfied with the leaseholder service. |
22.7% |
| Proportion of respondents who report that they are satisfied with the quality of the major works carried out. |
21.5% |
| Proportion of respondents who report that they are satisfied with the time taken to complete responsive repairs. |
21.1% |
| Proportion of respondents who report that they are satisfied with the value for money of your service charges. |
18.9% |
| Proportion of respondents who report that they are satisfied with the value for money for major works carried out. |
10.2% |
| Proportion of respondents who report that they are satisfied with the responsive repairs service providing value for money. |
2.8% |
Overall satisfaction
This measure is often used as the main headline measure of service performance. We achieved a leaseholder satisfaction score of 29.9%, but dissatisfaction with this measure was 43.0%.
Our London borough peer group had satisfaction scores between 24.5% and 54.0%.
Highest scoring measures
The top scoring measures were satisfaction with:
- information provided for your service charges: 42.7%
- conduct of contractors carrying out responsive repairs: 39.2%
- information provided about the major works: 34.0%
Lowest scoring measures
The lowest scoring measure was ‘responsive repairs providing value for money’. This had a satisfaction score of just 2.8% and a dissatisfaction score of 97.2%.
Overall, 13 of the 14 satisfaction measures reflected higher levels of dissatisfaction than satisfaction.
Identifying what drives overall satisfaction
Based on the results, the top three service areas driving satisfaction are:
- information provided about major works
- the consultation process of the major works
- the overall quality of the major works
Investing time and energy in these areas of service will help drive overall satisfaction for the majority of leaseholders.
Conclusions
The key finding is that there are higher levels of dissatisfaction than satisfaction across the 14 satisfaction performance measures.
While the highest satisfaction was with ‘information provided for services charges’, this is still a relatively low-ranking score of 42.7%.
Leaseholder Satisfaction measures report
View the complete leaseholder satisfaction survey report (PDF).
What happens next
Based on the results, the top three service areas driving satisfaction are:
- information provided about major works
- the consultation process of the major works
- the overall quality of the major works
Investing time and energy in these areas of service will help drive overall satisfaction for the majority of leaseholders. We are also considering the co-creation of an action plan with leaseholders, staff and contractors. This will focus on areas of dissatisfaction.