Lord Chancellor s Department: Probate - Service to the Public

Transcription

1 NATIONAL AUDIT OFFICE REPORT BY THE COMPTROLLER AND AUDITOR GENERAL Lord Chancellor s Department: Probate - Service to the Public ORDERED BY THEHOUSEOFCOMMONS TO BE PRINTED 25 FEBRUARY1992 LONDON: HMSO 290 f5.20 NET

2 This report has been prepared under Section 6 of the National Audit Act, 1983 for presentation to the House of Commons in accordance with Section 9 of the Act. John Bourn Comptroller and Auditor General National Audit Office 4 February 1992 The Comptroller and Auditor General is the head of the National Audit Office employing some 900 staff. He, and the NAO, are totally independent of Government. He certifies the accounts of all Government departments and a wide range of other public sector bodies; and he has statutory authority to report to Parliament on the economy, efficiency and effectiveness with which departments and other bodies use their resources.

3 LORD CHANCELLOR'SDEPARTMENT: PROBATE-SERVICETOTHE PUBLIC Contents Introduction The views of customers on the effectiveness of the Probate Service Page 1 4 Performance of the Probate Service against targets 7 Efficiency Conclusions and economy of the Probate Service Appendices 1. Grants issued by all Probate Registries in Summary of responses to the National Audit Office questionnaire for personal applicants 3. Summary of responses to the National Audit Office questionnaire for solicitors

4 Introduction 1 Each year the Probate Service in England and Wales issue around 250,000 grants of representation to personal applicants and solicitors responsible for dealing with the affairs of deceased persons. Each grant establishes the legal authority of the applicant to administer the estate according to the will or rules of intestacy and provides a right of access to the assets of the deceased. 2 To investigate the effectiveness of the Service, the National Audit Office carried out surveys to ask personal applicants and solicitors who had used it what they thought of the service they had received. The responses showed overwhelmingly that both private citizens and solicitors were very pleased with the service provided. This was in spite of the fact that, on the evidence of test checks carried out by the National Audit Office, the Service did not meet all their own targets for the speed of dealing with applications for grants submitted to them. The general verdict therefore was that the Probate Service do provide a service which is seen by their customers as comprehensive, accurate and helpful. Background 3 The Probate Service forms part of the Family Division of the High Court of Justice and is administered by the Lord Chancellor s Department. It consists of the Principal Registry of the Family Division, situated in London; the Probate Registry of Wales and 10 District Probate Registries, each headed by a District Registrar. In addition there is a network of 18 sub-registries, and approximately 90 local offices which are staffed on a part-time basis (Figure 1). A breakdown of the numbers of grants issued by each registry in 1990 is given at Appendix 1. 4 As at 31 March 1991 some 270 staff were directly employed in the Probate Service. The total cost of the Family Division in including the Probate Service was about El0 million. Probate fees in the same period were around E33 million. 5 The legal procedures to be followed in Probate Registries before making grants of representation are specified in sections 105 to 128 of the Supreme Court Act Amongst other things, the Act confers certain delegated powers on District Registrars to make grants in non-contentious cases on behalf of the High Court; and enables the Lord Chancellor to make detailed rules for regulating and prescribing the practice and procedures for Probate business. The latest rules were promulgated in Statutory Instrument 2024 of More generally there is a considerable body of legislation governing the administration of estates, intestacy, and the treatment of wills. Together with precedents set by legal decisions in the Chancery Division of the High Court, this legislation has created a complex technical environment in which Probate staff provide their service to the public. 1

5 Figure 1: Location of Probate Registries and Sub-Registries (see paragraph 3) Leeds Stoke-o:-Trent l Nottingham The Probate Reeistrv of Wales, Llaidafi. Ipswich The Principal Registry, London Bristol Key: 0 Probate Registries l Sub-Registries There is a wide spread network of Probate Registries and Sub-Registries. 2

6 Scope of the 7 Against this background the National Audit Office examined whether the National Audit Office Probate Service in England and Wales: examination. have set standards of service to be achieved;. are providing a service to the standards set and whether customers reasonable expectations are satisfied. The examination also reviewed important aspects of the economy and efficiency with which the Probate Service is delivered. 8 The National Audit Office visited the Principal Registry, the Probate Registry of Wales and all the District Registries. They also carried out a detailed examination of a sample of non-contentious applications for grants at seven of these locations. Contentious cases decided by the Chancery Division of the High Court, which often involve complex legal issues and number only a few hundred each year, were not covered by the examination. The study did not look at Probate arrangements in Scotland where a different legal system applies. 8 In addition to their review of registries, the National Audit Office, with the assistance of the Probate Service and in conjunction with National Opinion Polls Ltd, obtained information and views on the service through a questionnaire sent to a sample of personal applicants and solicitors. They also sought evidence from the Inland Revenue on certain aspects of the service and obtained views from the Law Society, the Consumers Association and the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux. The National Audit Office acknowledge the assistance provided by all parties. 3

7 The views of customers on the effectiveness of the service Personal applicants 10 Of the 245,000 grants of representation made by the Probate Service in 1990, some 49,000 (20 per cent) were to personal applicants. The application procedure involves completion of the relevant Probate and Inland Revenue forms to provide details of the deceased and any will, the estate and the applicant. These forms, together with the death certificate and the will as appropriate, are then sent for processing to any Probate Registry. In addition, all personal applicants are required to attend an interview at the Probate Registry or at a convenient local Probate office, at which they must swear on oath as to the propriety of their claim to a grant of representation. 11 To determine whether customers are satisfied with the service provided, the National Audit Office sent a questionnaire to each of the 2,000 or so personal applicants who received a grant of representation between 1 July 1991 to 12 July Around 1,200 of the recipients replied, giving a response rate of about 60 per cent. 12 Replies to the questionnaire indicated that personal applicants are very satisfied with the Probate Service. Ninety-six per cent of respondents would advise someone in a similar position to apply for Probate personally rather than employ a solicitor. The most significant views of personal applicants are summarised below. A more detailed report on the response to the questionnaire is at Appendix Respondents ranked aspects of the service in the following order of importance:. speedy processing of applications;. accurate grant;. knowledgeable staff:. helpful staff:. sympathetic and sensitive staff;. easily-reached offices;. privacy at interviews; and. good surroundings at interview. 14 With regard to the speedy processing of applications, personal applicants reported that the average time that they had to wait for their grant, after the payment of fees and any Inheritance Tax, was nine days. The average time between interview at individual registries and receipt of grant ranged from four days (Winchester) to 13 days (Principal Registry). Only three per cent of respondents found that these times caused them any problems. Ninety-four per cent reported that their grants of representation were completely accurate; only two per cent reported inaccuracies. 4

8 LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT: PROBATE-SERVICE TO THE PUBLIC Figure 2: Personal applicants views on the sympathy and sensitivity of Probate staff.fsee oaraoraoh 151 P00rlVwy Poor 3% Source: National Audit Office questionnaire survey. The overwhelming maiarity of personal applicants rated Probate staff as excellent or very good far their sympathy and sensitivity in handling their applications. 15 Eighty-one per cent of personal applicants replying to the questionnaire rated the Probate staff as excellent or very good for their sympathy and sensitivity at the interview stage, and only an insignificant number (three per cent) thought them poor or very poor (see Figure 2). All the registries were highly regarded in this respect (see Appendix 2, question 17). 16 Most people found the application forms easy to complete. This reflects the efforts of the Probate Service to simplify their forms, on which they took account of the advice of the Plain English Campaign. Most people also found the Inland Revenue Inheritance Tax form easy, although a small minority (14 per cent) had difficulty with it. As part of their close liaison arrangements, the Probate Service and the Inland Revenue are discussing ways of devising a simpler document. Solicitors 17 In 1990 the Probate Service made around 196,000 grants of representation to solicitors, which is 80 per cent of all grants issued. When dealing with an application a solicitor is responsible for many of the procedures that the Probate Service carry out for personal applicants. These include drawing up the oath, having it sworn, and dealing directly with the Inland Revenue. Probate s role in these cases is therefore mainly confined to assessing the validity and legality of the application. 18 To determine the level of satisfaction with the service provided, the National Audit Office sent a questionnaire with each of the 2,300 grants of representation issued to solicitors between 2 and 4 July Around 1,100 5

9 replies were received, a response rate of 47 per cent, from some 950 solicitors. 19 Responses to the questionnaire showed that solicitors are very satisfied with the Probate Service. In particular, they rated Probate staff very highly on their helpfulness, knowledge and accessibility. Solicitors ranked aspects of the service in the following order of importance: l l accuracy of grant; speed of response;. knowledgeable staff; l helpful staff: and. ready access to a local office. The responses to other questions about the quality of service were generally very positive. A summary of solicitors views is at Appendix 3. 6

10 Performance of the Probate Service against targets Personal applicants Up to 31 August 1991 the main target set by the Lord Chancellor s Department for personal applications was that 65 per cent of grants should be issued within one month of receipt of the application forms. Within this target there is an implicit expectation on the part of the Department that all grants should be accurate. From 1 September 1991 the target was increased to 85 per cent within one month. In January 1991 some supplementary quality of service criteria were introduced including:. answering incoming telephone calls within 30 seconds;. the ready availability of Probate forms; and. the availability of seating and the decoration of waiting areas and interview rooms. The National Audit Office examined a sample of 290 personal applications made in October 1990 and June 1991 at seven registries. The elapsed time between the receipt of the application and the issue of the grant was computed in each case to determine whether the main target set by the Lord Chancellor s Department (paragraph 20) was being met. Figure 3 displays the performance of the seven registries examined against the target that 65 per cent of grants should be issued within one month. Figure 3: Percentage of grants to personal applicants issued by Probate Registries within one month (see paragraphs 21 and 22) Principal Registry Oxford Brighton Winchester Leeds Newcastle b ;o io Lie 40 io so 70 so 90 lb0 Percentages Source: National Audit Omce examination of case files. Notes: f. The average number of days to process an application is shown against each registry 2. Processing time includes the day of receipt of the application and the day of issue of the grant. The target set by the Lord Chancellor s Department is that 65 per cent of grants should be issued within one month. Three registries failed to meet this target in the period sampled by the National Audit Office. 7

11 23 Overall, 54 per cent of all personal applicants in the sample received their grant within 20 working days, taken as the equivalent of a calendar month. This is below the target of 65 per cent. However, if the results of the Principal Registry in London, which has particular problems relating to accommodation, support services and the recruitment and retention of staff, are excluded, then in the remaining registries the figure rises to 73 per cent. The test results indicate that over 75 per cent of all personal applicants received their grants within six weeks. 24 The average time taken from receipt of the application to the issue of a grant to a personal applicant was 23 days (only 18 days if the results of the Principal Registry are ignored). This finding is consistent with information reported by respondents to the National Audit Office s questionnaire on how long they had to wait for their grant after the payment of fees and any Inheritance Tax (paragraph 14). The average time taken to process an application by individual registries is shown in Figure 3 above. Solicitors 25 The main service target set by the Lord Chancellor s Department for applications from solicitors is that 95 per cent should be issued within seven working days of submission to the Probate Service of correct papers. 26 The National Audit Office examined a sample of 930 applications from solicitors made in October 1990 and June 1991 at seven registries. The elapsed time between receipt of the correct papers and the issue of the grant was computed in each case to determine whether the target set by the Lord Chancellor s Department (paragraph 25) was being met. 27 Figure 4 shows the performance of the seven registries against the target that 95 per cent should be issued within seven working days of submission to Probate of correct working papers. 28 In the cases examined 83 per cent of all solicitors received their grant within seven working days. This is below the target of 95 per cent, but, excluding the Principal Registry for the reasons noted in paragraph 23, the figure rises to 91 per cent. 29 The average time taken to issue a grant to a solicitor from the date that correct working papers were received was six working days. Average times for each registry are shown in Figure 4 above. These performance results, while falling slightly short of the Department s target, compare favourably with solicitors expectations of the service. In response to the National Audit Office s questionnaire, solicitors considered that on average 10 working days would be a reasonable length of time to wait for a grant, and that the maximum tolerable delay should be no more than 18 days. 30 As noted in paragraph 17, the Probate Service s role in dealing with solicitors cases should be confined to assessing the validity of submitted applications. However, in 30 per cent of the cases in the National Audit Office s sample test, case papers had needed to be returned to solicitors for revision. Dealing with errors in applications from solicitors is a significant and sensitive element of the registries service. When case papers are returned to solicitors the registry should attach an explanatory letter. In 19 per cent of the grant cases covered by the National Audit Office 8

12 Figure 4: Percentage of grants to solicitors issued by Probate Registries within seven working days (see paragraphs 26 and 27) Principal Registry Leeds Oxford Brighton Winchester I I I I I I I I I I Percentages Source: National Audit Ohice examination of c&-e files. Notes: 1. The average number of days to process an application is shown against each registry 2. The cases examined were those that had not been queried and returned to solicitors. 3. Processing time includes the day of receipt of the application and the day of issue of the grant. 4. The performance of the Leeds Regisby was adversely affected by temporary disruption caused by the kistallation of a microcomputer in June The National Audit Office found that in the sample of applications made in October 1991, 98 per cent were issued within seven working days. The target set by the Lord Chancellor s Department is that 95 per cent of grants should be issued within seven working days. Three registries failed to meet this target in the period sampled by the National Audit Office. questionnaire solicitors stated that case papers had been returned to them for revision. Ninety-two per cent of the solicitors involved felt that the accompanying letter from the Probate Registry was clear. 9

13 Efficiency and economy of the Probate Service 31 In the cost of the Family Division of the High Court, of which the Probate Service is a major part, was E9.8 million. Table 1 gives a breakdown of this expenditure. Most expenditure is controlled centrally by the Lord Chancellor s Department. The management of certain minor running cost budgets for items such as the purchases of stationery, telephone bills and staff travel and subsistence, is delegated to District Registries. 32 Income from Probate fees in amounted to around E33 million. The determination of fees follows rules and guidelines promulgated by the Treasury. The governing principle set by the Treasury is that fees should be sufficient to cover the cost of the business, which in the case of the Lord Chancellor s Department, is the provision of court services. Probate fees are therefore set to meet a financial target, approved by the Treasury, which represents the cost (excluding the cost of the judiciary) of providing all court services. 33 The Probate Service are proposing to carry out an investigation covering aspects of efficiency and economy, which was postponed because of the National Audit Office study. The National Audit Office s examination suggests that there are a number of subjects that this investigation ought to cover: staffing levels; the organisation storage of records: and computerisation. of the service; Staffing levels 34 As noted in Table 1, salaries are the most significant cost in the Probate Service budget, To test that staffing levels were of the right order, the Department commissioned between 1977 and 1983 a series of staff inspections which covered all registries individually. Since 1983 no further inspections have been carried out. Table 1: Family Division expenditure in EOOO % Salaries, travel and subsistence 6,650 Accommodation Charges Other costs zi 12 Total expenditure Source: Oeparrmental accounting records

14 35 In the absence of a comprehensive and up-to-date analysis of the adequacy of staffing levels, the National Audit Office calculated, from data supplied by the Probate Service about their operations in 1990, the number of grants issued at registries for each staff member (Figure 5). The performance of individual registries ranged from 650 grants issued at the Principal Registry for each staff member to 1,630 grants at the Winchester District Registry. The National Audit Office s calculations provide a crude indication of the performance of each registry. Various quantitative and qualitative factors may explain these variations such as the ratio of personal applicants to solicitors applications; the number of sub-registries and offices attached to each registry; and the quality and complexity of applications received. 36 The National Audit Office recommend that the Probate Service should consider the effect of these factors as part of the review they are due to undertake (paragraph 33). If the variation in the performance of individual registries cannot be adequately explained, Probate may wish to identify best practice, establish and prescribe performance standards, then re-organise methods of work, where appropriate, so that all registries may meet the required standards. Figure 5: Number of grants issued for each staff member in 1990 (see paragraph 35) Principal Registry Liverpool tpswich Manchester Leeds Oxford Birmingham Newcastle Bristol Brighton Winchester b Number of grants Source: Natioml Audit Office analysis provided by Probate Service. Note: figures based on average staff in post during 1990; excludkig sfaft at Leeds, London and York who are not directly involved in processing grants. The evidence suggests that there is sufficient variation in the performance of individual registries to warrant further investigation by the Probate Service. 11

15 LORD CHANCELLOR S DEPARTMENT: PROBATE --SERVICE TO THE PUBLIC The organisation of the Service 37 The present form of the Probate Service (paragraph 3) dates from a major reorganisation in 1969 which established the basic structure and location of District Registries, sub-registries and local offices. In 1979, there was some re-organisation of sub-registries in order to spread the workload more evenly between District Registries. Responses to the questionnaire issued by the National Audit Office showed that the average distance travelled by personal applicants to attend a Probate interview was 14 miles. This suggests that the present network of offices provides comprehensive coverage of England and Wales. However, one consequence of this is that in 1990 five Probate local offices received less than 60 applications. The average number of applications for each local office was In two changes in operational procedures were implemented in order to lessen the burden on the Principal Registry. Firstly, the central index of Probate cases was transferred from the Principal Registry to Leeds District Registry. As a result, an important check to ensure that there are no legal impediments to issuing a grant, which had previously taken up to 10 days to complete, is now routinely dealt with by return of post. Secondly, the Probate Service re-directed all written requests for copies of grants and wills to York sub-registry. This sub-registry forwards the copy request to the registry that issued the grant who then provide a copy direct to the customer. A similar arrangement was made at Newcastle District Registry to deal with requests for copy documents from the Department of Social Security. 39 Whilst these re-organisations have improved both the efficiency and speed of the service, the National Audit Office consider that as part of their forthcoming review, the Probate Service should re-examine the distribution of work between registries and the location of local offices. This might consider whether those offices with low workloads are viable, bearing in mind the need to maintain a good quality and economical service to the public. Storage of records 40 The volume of records that the Probate Service are required to keep is enormous and grows inexorably. Original wills are kept for ever, while oaths and copy grants are required to be kept for 50 years. Each registry stores original wills and copies of grants proved there, whilst the Principal Registry keeps copies of all grants and wills proved there and in District Registries. The Department do not know the total volume of Probate records that are currently held, but in 1986 a management review of the storage of court records estimated that they occupied some 24 miles of shelving. The review estimated that the annual cost of this storage was s376,ooo increasing by about G,OOO each year. In interviews with Registrars, the National Audit Office found that storage was widely regarded as a major problem, with many registries approaching the limit of their storage capacity. 41 The Department have recognised the need for a clearer policy for Probate records stating what is to be stored, how and where it is to be stored and for how long, and what type of viewing and copying services are to be provided to the public. The production of the detailed policy statement was postponed pending the outcome of the National Audit Office s examination. Future decisions on whether fewer records need to be stored and whether records could be stored more cheaply cannot be made until such a policy is 12

16 LORD CHANCELLOR S DEPARTMENT: PROBATE -SERVICE TO THE PUBLIC in place. The National Audit Office therefore urge the Department to progress this matter as soon as possible. Computerisation 42 In 1985, a study by a firm of external consultants of the Family Division recommended a major computerisation programme which would provide the Probate Service with a country-wide linked network. The consultants estimated that capital costs of around cl million would be fully recovered within two years of implementation. They suggested that in the Probate Service direct savings of around E200,OOO would be realised immediately and that there would be significant but less tangible benefits in many aspects of the service. Having considered the consultants recommendations in the light of other demands, the Lord Chancellor s Department decided not to proceed with computerisation and down-graded the priority assigned to the programme accordingly. 43 In 1987, the Probate Service installed a microcomputer system in three of its registries and a sub-registry to investigate and develop the potential for using information technology. An evaluation of this pilot project in 1989 suggested that, although the staff savings realised were relatively insignificant, a reduction of E60,OOO a year could be made in payments to the Department of National Savings for the production of microfilm and printed indexes of all grants issued. The evaluation also concluded that other benefits had resulted which could not be easily quantified. 44 In , the Probate Service introduced an enhanced micro-computer system to its remaining nine registries at a cost of some E83,OOO. Although some work has been carried out to determine the feasibility of computerising the production of grants, the Department have no plans at this time to extend the computerisation programme for the Probate Service. The National Audit Office consider that the Department s Information Technology Strategy for Probate should consider the scope for further improving efficiency and economy by enhancing the existing microcomputer system or by introducing a comprehensive linked network. 13

17 Conclusions 45 The Probate Service deal very affectively with their customers through a widespread network of registries, sub-registries and local offices. In the majority of cases personal applicants and solicitors have their applications dealt with accurately and promptly. They are likely to find that Probate staff are sympathetic and sensitive to personal applicants and generally helpful, knowledgeable and accessible when dealing with solicitors. Nearly all personal applicants will be sufficiently satisfied with the service to advise others in a similar position to apply personally rather than engage a solicitor. 46 In order to maintain an effective service the Probate Service have set challenging but achievable targets for how long it should take to issue a grant; and there is an underlying requirement that all grants should be legally correct. This closely matches their customers priorities which are that there should be an accurate and speedy response to grant applications. Although the National Audit Office s sample examination of cases indicated that a few Probate Registries have failed to meet their targets, there is no evidence that this has significantly affected their customers generally positive views of the service. 47 Moreover, the average level of performance is reduced by that achieved by the Principal Registry in London. To alleviate its difficulties a number of steps have been taken to ease the pressure by spreading the work elsewhere. 48 To provide good value for money a service needs to be efficient and economical as well as effective. To this end the forthcoming investigation of aspects of efficiency and economy should establish whether current staffing levels, not inspected since 1983, are of the right order. This review might also consider the organisation of the Service which has remained virtually unchanged since There is clearly a difficult balance to be drawn between minimising the distance that members of the public have to travel to a registry or office, and maintaining an excessive number of offices. 49 Problems related to the storage of documents have not yet been resolved satisfactorily, and it is disappointing that there is no clear policy on what is to be stored, where it is to be stored and for how long; and what type of service is to be provided for members of the public who wish to have access. Such a policy needs to be in place before it will be practicable for the Service to determine whether their storage arrangements are economical and efficient. Until then the volume of records to be kept will increase inexorably, along with the associated costs. 50 The installation of micro-computers in all District Registries has been a successful but limited exercise. The Department have no plans to extend their computerisation programme to provide the Probate Service with, for example, a country-wide linked network. This is an area where there may be potential for improving efficiency and economy and one where the Department might usefully review their strategic requirements. 14

18 LORD CHANCELLOR S DEPARTMENT: PROBATE-SERVICE TO THE PUBLIC Appendix 1 Grants issued by all Probate Registries in 1990 Regislry Solicitors Personal Applicants All ( 000) (000) rooo) Principal Registry Probate Registry of Wales Birmingham Brighton Bristol Ipswich Leeds Liverpool Manchester NWCaStltY Oxford Winchester Total :: 16 1: i: ::

19 Appendix 2 Summary of responses to the National Audit Office questionnaire for personal applicants 1 Have you ever applied before, in person, for a grant of representation? Yes 21 per cent No 79 per cent 2 In which way did you first become aware of the probate service? The most significant ways were: General knowledge 40 per cent Relative or friend 20 per cent Registrar of Deaths 17 per cent 3 From where did you obtain the probate application forms? The most significant ways were: Probate Registry Citizens Advice Bureau Registrar of Deaths 91 per cent 3 per cent 2 per cent 4 Why did you apply for probate in person rather than using a solicitor? To save money 34 per cent Easy to do/simple estate 30 per cent To save time 9 per cent 5 Was obtaining the probate application forms easy or not easy? Easy 98 per cent Not easy 1 per cent 6 Was completing the probate application form easy or not easy? Easy 91 per cent Not easy 6 per cent 7 Was completing the Inland Revenue form easy or not easy? Easy 83 per cent Not easy 14 per cent 8 Did you need to contact the Probate Registry for assistance when completing any of the forms? Yes 15 per cent No 83 per cent 9 Did you get the assistance you needed? Yes 96 per cent No 2 per cent 16 Did you ask any other organisation for help in completing the forms? Yes 8 per cent No 88 per cent 11 How far did you have to travel to the probate office? Mean distance travelled 14 miles Range of mean distances for individual registries was 10 to 7.0 miles 16

20 12 Were the opening hours of this office convenient? Very convenient Not very convenient but acceptable Very inconvenient 75 per cent 24 per cent 1 per cent 13 Were you kept waiting for more than 15 minutes after the time fixed for your appointment? Yes 4 per cent No 95 per cent 14 Were the surroundings in which your final interview took place...? Very pleasant Quite pleasant Not very pleasant 20 per cent 69 per cent 9 per cent 15 Did the surroundings make the handling of your case more difficult? Yes 2 per cent No 96 per cent 16 Was your interview held in private? Yes 96 per cent No 3 per cent 17 How would you rate the officer who interviewed you for being sympathetic and sensitive to your situation? Excellent 52 per cent Very good 29 per cent Good 16 per cent P00r 3 per cent Very poor c-1 [An analysis by individual Figure 6) registry of the response to this question is shown at 18 How long did you wait for your grant of representation after you paid your fees and Inheritance Tax? Mean waiting time 9 days Range of meaning waiting times for individual registries 4 to 13 days 19 Did this length of wait cause any difficulties? Yes 3 per cent No 95 per cent 20 Was the grant of representation completely accurate? Yes 94 per cent No 2 per cent 21 Rank the following aspects of the probate service in order of importance? Ordering was as follows, with the mean score given in brackets: 1. Speedy processing of grant (2.7) 2. Accurate grant (3.0) 3. Knowledgeable staff (3.7) 4. Helpful staff (4.0) 5. Sympathetic and sensitive staff ( Easily-reached offices (5.0) 7. Privacy at interview (5.2) 0. Good surroundings for interview (7.3) 17

21 22 Would you advise someone else in the same position to apply for probate themselves or employ a solicitor? Do it themselves Use a solicitor 96 per cent 2 per cent Figure 6: Personal applicants views on the sympathy and sensitivity of Probate staff analysed by individual registry (see paragraph 15 of report) Percentage j gj Excellent Very Goad m Good Source: Nafional Audit Office questionnaire survey. All registries were highly regarded by personal applicants. 18

22 Appendix 3 Summary of responses to the National Audit Office questionnaire for solicitors 1 How many times a year do you make probate applications? AVerage Range for registries 40 times 30 to 48 times 2 How would you rate probate staff on a scale of 1-5 for each of the following? Helpfulness Knowledge Accessibility 1 -Excellent Poor - 1 Mean Score Range of mean 1.1 to to to Length of time between correct submission of papers to receipt of grant-average times in the following categories: Reasonable length Maximum tolerable delay Actual delay for this grant Range of actual delays 10.3 working days 18.1 working days 8.3 working days 5 to 12 working days 4 Were any of the documents returned to you for amendment or additional information? Yes 19 per cent No 80 per cent 5 Was the letter accompanying the returned documents clear? Yes 92 per cent No 6 per cent 6 Rank the following elements in order of importance. Order was as follows, with mean scores in brackets: 1. Accuracy of grant (2.2) 2. Speed of response (2.4) 3. Knowledgeable staff (2.7) 4. Helpful staff (3.0) 5. Having a local office (4.2) Other questions of detail were asked. 19