Customer satisfaction poll at land registries of municipal

Скачать презентацию Customer satisfaction poll at land registries of municipal

d1d91792c7488207eeb6eff9223e1255.ppt

Количество слайдов: 132

Customer satisfaction poll at land registries of municipal courts and cadastral offices, and public perception Pripremljeno za: Real Property Registration and Cadastre Project Pripremio: PULS Datum: 14 December 2006

Table of Contents q Introduction and methodology – customer satisfaction q Results of customer satisfaction polls at land registries and cadastral offices q Customer satisfaction at land registries of municipal courts q Customer satisfaction at cadastral offices q Methodology – public perception q Poll results – public perception q land registries q cadastre q real property status q “Organized Land“ Project q Methodology – customer satisfaction – legal entities q Poll results – customer satisfaction – legal entities q land registries of municipal courts q cadastral offices q “Organized Land“ Project 2

Methodology – customer satisfaction v The poll was carried out using the methodology defined in the bidding documents while the implementation plan was proposed by the Puls Agency. v The poll was carried out at all land registries of municipal courts and all cadastral offices and branch offices. v Customers filled in a questionnaire handed out at counters and admission desks in the offices where the poll was being carried out. The staff of the municipal court land registries and cadastral offices were obliged to inform the customers about the poll and offer them the questionnaire. v After filling it in, the customers had to put the questionnaire in a sealed box posted at a visible location near the exit from the land registry/cadastre. 3

Methodology – customer satisfaction v The field research lasted 10 days: 6 -17 November. v At certain offices, the polling started on 7 November due to technical reasons and was accomplished there one day later. v At the land registry of the Zagreb Municipal Court, the polling was additionally extended due to a small number of questionnaires (about 100) filled in during the regular polling. Therefore, the polling was extended between 20 and 24 November. v Apart from extending, in this period we began to actively distribute the questionnaires through the Puls Agency associates and land registry staff in order to motivate as many customers as possible to take part in the poll. v In total, the customers’ response was relatively scarce. A total of 11, 520 questionnaires was filled in out of 33, 000 that were distributed, accounting for about 1/3. v Out of the planned 12, 000 questionnaires, 5, 289 (ca. 44%) were filled in at the cadastre while ca. 6, 231 out of the planned 21, 000 (ca. 30%) were filled in at land registries. 4

Methodology – customer satisfaction v At several land registries and cadastral offices, there were difficulties with people disregarding the instructions on how to organize the poll implementation which was mostly rectified by subsequent interventions. v Some of the initial problems when launching the poll were caused by a relatively belated distribution of information within the system. v In order to boost the poll effectiveness in terms of collecting as many questionnaires as possible, additional, previously unscheduled activities were carried out during the polling, both by the Puls Agency and the Client. v Puls organized a field visit to most cadastral offices and land registries after the first few days of the polling in order to check out whether all materials had been placed according to instructions and to inform the staff once again about the need to elicit customers’ participation. v The Client additionally called upon all land registries and cadastral offices in order to further motivate the staff to cooperate. 5

POLL RESULTS 6

Poll results – customer satisfaction – natural persons q Customer satisfaction at land registries of municipal courts q Customer satisfaction at cadastre 7

Sample realization – land registries Planned sample Sample obtained % Belom manastiru 200 56 28% Garešnici 70 70 100% Benkovcu 50 48 96% Glini 50 48 96% Biogradu na moru 100 21 21% Gospiću 80 34 43% Bjelovaru 250 64 26% Gračacu 50 6 12% Blatu 50 15 30% Grubišnom polju 60 14 23% Bujama 300 119 40% Gvozdu 50 40 80% Buzetu 60 57 95% Hrvatskoj Kostajnici 50 24 48% Crikvenici 150 49 33% Iloku 80 58 73% Čabru 50 16 32% Imotskom 50 42 84% Čakovcu 350 37 11% Ivancu 100 59 59% Čazmi 70 48 69% Ivanić gradu 100 33 33% Daruvaru 100 38 38% Jastrebarskom 150 37 25% Delnicama 50 53 106% Karlovcu 400 26 7% Donjem Lapcu 50 32 64% Kaštel Lukšiću 150 53 35% Donjem Miholjcu 80 69 86% Klanjcu 50 50 100% Donjoj Stubici 80 64 80% Kninu 60 22 37% Drnišu 60 41 68% Koprivnici 250 73 29% Dubrovniku 300 43 14% Korčuli 70 55 79% Dugom selu 150 84 56% Korenici 50 14 28% Dvoru 50 0% Krapini 80 28 35% Đakovu 250 196 78% Križevcima 150 15 10% Đurđevcu 100 56 56% Krku 250 89 36% Municipal court at LRs marked in red had 20% lesser achievement than planned 8

Sample realization – land registries Planned sample Sample obtained % Kutini 200 90 45% Petrinji 100 46 46% Labinu 150 92 61% Pitomači 60 18 30% Ludbregu 100 4 4% Pločama 50 53 106% Makarskoj 150 32 21% Poreču 300 272 91% Malom Lošinju 100 44 44% Požegi 300 123 41% Metkoviću 50 45 90% Pregradi 50 49 98% Našicama 150 23 15% Prelogu 100 15 15% Novi Vinodolski 60 17 28% Puli 800 53 7% Novoj gradiški 200 94 47% Rabu 80 10 13% Novom marofu 100 35 35% Rijeci 800 99 12% Novskoj 100 55 55% Rovinju 200 176 88% Obrovcu 50 28 56% Samoboru 250 247 99% Ogulinu 100 46 46% Senju 50 17 34% Omišu 70 15 21% Sesvetama 250 71 28% Opatiji 250 83 33% Sinju 100 12 12% Orahovici 60 47 78% Sisku 300 31 10% Osijeku 650 130 20% Slatini 100 35 35% Otočcu 100 71 71% Slavonskom Brodu 500 30 6% Ozlju 50 41 82% Slunju 50 42 84% Pagu 50 10 20% Solinu 150 10 7% Pakracu 100 46 46% Splitu 850 94 11% Pazinu 100 86 86% Starom gradu 100 15 15% Municipal court at LRs marked in red had 20% lesser achievement than planned 9

Sample realization – land registries Planned sample Sample obtained % Supetru 150 60 40% Svetom Ivanu Zelini 100 35 35% Šibeniku 300 67 22% Tisnom 70 47 67% Trogiru 150 4 3% Valpovu 150 30 20% Varaždinu 400 90 23% Velikoj gorici 300 99 33% Vinkovcima 300 124 41% Virovitici 250 111 44% Vojniću 50 41 82% Vrbovcu 100 38 38% Vrbovskom 50 12 24% Vrgorcu 50 48 96% Vukovaru 200 147 74% Zaboku 100 81 81% Zadru 650 11 2% Zagrebu 3320 290 9% Zaprešiću 250 57 23% Zlataru 80 27 34% Županji 200 64 32% Municipal court at LRs marked in red had 20% lesser achievement than planned 10

Reasons for visiting a land registry For what purpose/service did you come to the land registry today? 11

Case status What is the status of your case? 12

Duration of procedure How long has the procedure lasted in days or months since its start (if the case has been processed, then since the date of processing)? – Only the respondents, whose case has been or is being processed, answered this question! Average = 59 days When the respondents, who have failed to state the duration of proceedings but should have done it because their case has been or is being processed, are omitted from the analysis, we come up with about 2/3 cases being processed within two weeks. However, due to the extremely long duration of certain cases, the average is relatively high! 14

16% 27% 25% 24% 27% 3% 5% 11% 3% 3% 10% 3% 1% 24% 30% Other 13% Correct current address Register condominium ownership 19% Purge mortgage Register an object Register mortgage 10% 45% 20% 8% Register subdivision 28% Register title change Obtain title deed Duration of procedure by case type 21% 14% 6% 9% 7% 10% 5% 4% 2% 17% 13% 14% 9% 9% 4% 3% 11% 12% 7% 9% 9% 6% 4% 1% 4% 3% 4% 1% 2% 3% 5% 0% 5% 6% 8% 1% 4% 5% 1 day Up to a week 1 to 2 weeks to a month 1 to 6 months to 1 year Over a year 52% 49% 26% 17% 18% 17% * Broj ispitanika manji od 50 ** Broj ispitanika manji od 20 17% 27% Samo ispitanici za koje je poznato trajanje predmeta 28% No reply 15

On behalf of whom is the case handled Do you handle the case for your private purposes, for the legal entity you work for or for a party you represent? 17

Satisfaction with the services rendered in the procedure Please rate your satisfaction with the services rendered in the procedure you are involved in or were involved at this land registry. Very poor 2 3 4 Very good Don’t know Average Courtesy of the staff 1% 1% 3% 7% 78% 10% 4, 77 Accuracy and completeness of the information obtained from the staff 2% 1% 3% 9% 72% 13% 4, 69 Speed of processing a case 4% 2% 6% 11% 68% 9% 4, 49 Availability of the information necessary during the procedure 3% 2% 5% 11% 65% 14% 4, 55 Possibility of getting information during the procedure 3% 2% 4% 10% 66% 15% 4, 58 Simplicity of procedure 4% 3% 7% 14% 60% 13% 4, 41 Length of waiting in the office 4% 3% 8% 15% 58% 12% 4, 36 Overall experience with the land registry processing a case 3% 2% 5% 13% 68% 9% 4, 55 18

Satisfaction with the services rendered in the procedure Please rate your satisfaction with the services rendered in the procedure you have been or were involved at this land registry. The averages were assessed on the basis of the ratio of a specific land registry in the overall number of cases, in order to neutralize the difference in the return of the questionnaires between the land registries! 19

Satisfaction with services rendered in the procedure at a land registry Processing speed Waiting period Staff courtesy Accuracy of information Simple proceedings Availability of information Possibility of obtaining information Overall experience Ivanec 4, 98 4, 86 4, 98 4, 95 4, 98 5 Vrgorec 4, 98 4, 96 4, 98 5 4, 69 4, 98 5 Garešnica 4, 96 4, 95 5 4, 98 4, 87 4, 93 4, 97 4, 99 Labin 4, 96 4, 8 4, 99 4, 97 4, 69 4, 87 4, 98 Čazma 4, 87 4, 97 4, 95 4, 83 4, 95 4, 91 4, 95 Ozalj 4, 92 4, 97 4, 95 4, 89 4, 95 Poreč 4, 8 4, 64 4, 97 4, 93 4, 86 4, 91 Beli Manastir 4, 88 4, 67 4, 88 4, 9 4, 83 4, 84 4, 98 4, 91 Daruvar 4, 92 4, 71 4, 94 4, 92 4, 74 4, 82 4, 77 4, 91 Novska 4, 79 4, 69 4, 96 4, 92 4, 6 4, 82 4, 91 Bjelovar 4, 9 4, 58 4, 93 4, 88 4, 74 4, 75 4, 89 4, 9 Donji Miholjac 4, 95 4, 98 4, 94 4, 81 4, 88 4, 91 4, 9 * Only for courts with more than 30 valid questionnaires filled in 20

Satisfaction with services rendered in the procedure at a land registry Processing speed Waiting period Staff courtesy Accuracy of information Simple proceedings Availability of information Possibility of obtaining information Overall experience Vojnić 4, 93 4, 97 5 4, 95 4, 92 4, 9 Županja 4, 83 4, 86 4, 92 4, 93 4, 86 4, 89 4, 83 4, 89 Glina 4, 79 4, 71 4, 94 4, 89 4, 76 4, 88 4, 85 4, 89 Donja Stubica 4, 82 4, 58 4, 87 4, 92 4, 42 4, 65 4, 68 4, 88 Slunj 4, 93 4, 88 4, 94 4, 97 4, 94 4, 87 4, 9 4, 88 Ivanić Grad 4, 84 4, 89 4, 93 4, 81 4, 79 4, 75 4, 87 Nova Gradiška 4, 84 4, 67 4, 89 4, 95 4, 81 4, 87 4, 91 4, 85 Drniš 4, 81 4, 76 4, 89 4, 81 4, 89 4, 94 4, 85 Jastrebarsko 4, 88 4, 84 5 4, 97 4, 83 Pazin 4, 74 4, 51 4, 96 4, 9 4, 69 4, 76 4, 87 4, 83 Korčula 4, 78 4, 7 4, 91 4, 9 4, 54 4, 85 4, 83 21

Satisfaction with services rendered in the procedure at a land registry Processing speed Waiting period Staff courtesy Accuracy of information Simple proceedings Availability of information Possibility of obtaining information Overall experience Gvozd 4, 58 4, 85 4, 69 4, 08 4, 59 4, 75 4, 83 Virovitica 4, 81 4, 83 4, 95 4, 92 4, 86 4, 92 4, 89 4, 81 Metković 4, 76 4, 78 4, 86 4, 78 4, 68 4, 77 4, 74 4, 8 Samobor 4, 76 4, 49 4, 94 4, 93 4, 57 4, 76 4, 83 4, 78 Pakrac 4, 6 4, 73 4, 78 4, 62 4, 79 4, 81 4, 78 Rovinj 4, 77 4, 64 4, 82 4, 81 4, 77 4, 83 4, 77 Klanjec 4, 77 4, 98 5 4, 87 4, 77 4, 91 4, 93 4, 77 Slavonski Brod 4, 85 4, 61 4, 68 4, 81 4, 75 4, 89 4, 75 Slatina 4, 76 4, 61 4, 81 4, 59 4, 69 4, 75 Požega 4, 54 4, 27 4, 77 4, 53 4, 61 4, 64 4, 74 Đakovo 4, 73 4, 61 4, 9 4, 68 4, 77 4, 85 4, 74 22

Satisfaction with services rendered in the procedure at a land registry Processing speed Waiting period Staff courtesy Accuracy of information Simple proceedings Availability of information Possibility of obtaining information Overall experience Đurđevac 4, 81 4, 86 4, 94 4, 76 4, 88 4, 82 4, 74 Mali Lošinj 4, 47 4, 32 4, 8 4, 77 4, 49 4, 64 4, 59 4, 74 Orahovica 4, 66 4, 82 4, 75 4, 4 4, 72 4, 79 4, 74 Sesvete 4, 78 4, 59 4, 88 4, 58 4, 69 4, 72 Ilok 4, 74 4, 67 4, 94 4, 82 4, 71 4, 77 4, 74 4, 71 Ploče 4, 67 4, 76 4, 91 4, 74 4, 67 4, 69 4, 71 Otočac 4, 83 4, 77 4, 95 4, 89 4, 64 4, 78 4, 7 Novi Marof 4, 52 4, 61 4, 71 4, 64 4, 46 4, 48 4, 62 4, 7 Kaštel Lukšić 4, 45 4, 51 4, 93 4, 76 4, 39 4, 65 4, 7 4, 69 Rijeka 4, 56 4, 28 4, 72 4, 38 4, 59 4, 71 4, 68 Ogulin 4, 66 4, 34 4, 81 4, 66 4, 5 4, 66 4, 62 4, 67 23

Satisfaction with services rendered in the procedure at a land registry Processing speed Waiting period Staff courtesy Accuracy of information Simple proceedings Availability of information Possibility of obtaining information Overall experience Buzet 4, 82 4, 81 4, 92 4, 83 4, 71 4, 79 4, 83 4, 64 Kutina 4, 62 4, 39 4, 87 4, 81 4, 59 4, 62 Vukovar 4, 62 4, 24 4, 71 4, 62 4, 49 4, 62 4, 63 4, 6 Varaždin 4, 58 4, 5 4, 66 4, 69 4, 51 4, 54 4, 55 4, 59 Buje 4, 66 3, 98 4, 78 4, 68 4, 42 4, 62 4, 58 4, 59 Zabok 4, 62 4, 61 4, 74 4, 61 4, 41 4, 63 4, 58 Sveti Ivan Zelina 4, 58 4, 35 4, 94 4, 75 4, 34 4, 59 4, 7 4, 56 Petrinja 4, 56 4, 46 4, 87 4, 51 4, 42 4, 61 4, 56 Čakovec 4, 55 4, 62 4, 74 4, 52 4, 3 4, 26 4, 38 4, 55 Gospić 4, 65 4, 24 4, 86 4, 76 4, 4 4, 56 4, 75 4, 55 Zlatar 4, 48 4, 55 4, 88 4, 86 4, 42 4, 52 4, 48 24

Satisfaction with services rendered in the procedure at a land registry Processing speed Waiting period Staff courtesy Accuracy of information Simple proceedings Availability of information Possibility of obtaining information Overall experience Vrbovec 4, 32 4, 39 4, 86 4, 68 4, 29 4, 38 4, 44 Dubrovnik 4, 4 4, 22 4, 76 4, 53 4, 09 4, 46 4, 59 4, 41 Tisno 4, 5 4, 33 4, 75 4, 66 4, 56 4, 39 Šibenik 4, 42 4, 51 4, 79 4, 76 4, 47 4, 59 4, 54 4, 37 Vinkovci 4, 32 3, 79 4, 54 4, 55 4, 05 4, 26 4, 37 4, 36 Krk 4, 27 3, 79 4, 68 4, 55 4, 04 4, 29 4, 38 4, 34 Osijek 4, 45 3, 72 4, 69 4, 67 4, 34 4, 36 4, 46 4, 33 Imotski 4, 14 4, 5 4, 63 4, 45 3, 88 4, 27 4, 43 4, 33 Velika Gorica 4, 33 3, 82 4, 8 4, 55 4, 19 4, 32 4, 28 4, 3 Opatija 4, 24 3, 26 4, 62 4, 37 4, 02 4, 15 4, 06 4, 16 Benkovac 3, 5 4, 06 4, 76 4, 41 3, 89 4, 31 4, 35 4, 11 25

Cost estimate How would you rate the costs incurred during this procedure? 27

Poll results – customer satisfaction – natural persons q Customer satisfaction at land registries of municipal courts q Customer satisfaction at cadastral offices 28

Sample realization – cadastral offices Planned sample Sample obtained % Bjelovar 100 22 22% Đakovo 100 98 98% Beli Manastir 100 73 73% Đurđevac 100 34 34% Benkovac 75 24 32% Garešnica 75 17 23% Biograd na moru 100 31 31% Glina 75 47 63% Blato 75 27 36% Gospić 100 20 20% Buje 75 56 75% Gračac 75 Buzet 75 55 73% Grubišno polje 75 33 44% Cres 100 18 18% Hrvatska Kostajnica 75 11 15% Crikvenica 100 71 71% Hvar 100 7 7% Čabar 75 43 57% Ilok 75 10 13% Čakovec 150 75 50% Imotski 75 33 44% Čazma 75 50 67% Ivanec 75 7 9% Daruvar 75 44 59% Ivanić Grad 75 43 57% Delnice 75 47 63% Jastrebarsko 100 89 89% Donja Stubica 75 36 48% Karlovac 150 41 27% Donji Lapac 75 17 23% Kaštel Sućurac 75 110 147% Donji Miholjc 100 29 29% Klanjec 75 44 59% Drniš 100 10 10% Knin 100 36 36% Dubrovnik 150 61 41% Koprivnica 150 32 21% Duga resa 75 29 39% Korčula 75 19 25% Dugo Selo 100 97 97% Korenica 75 23 31% Dvor 75 5 7% Krapina 150 63 42% Offices marked in red had 20% lesser achievement than planned 0% 29

Sample realization – cadastral offices Planned sample Sample obtained Križevci 100 31 31% Pag 75 7 9% Krk 100 32 32% Pakrac 100 34 34% Kutina 75 42 56% Pazin 150 116 77% Labin 75 41 55% Petrinja 75 32 43% Lovinac 75 7 9% Pitomača 75 35 47% Ludbreg 75 33 44% Ploče 100 30 30% Makarska 100 19 19% Poreč 150 98 65% Mali Lošinj 100 10 10% Požega 150 125 83% Metković 100 38 38% Pregrada 75 67 89% Našice 100 88 88% Prelog 75 54 72% Nova Gradiška 100 100% Pula 150 38 25% Novalja 75 8 11% Rab 100 23 23% Novi Marof 75 11 15% Rijeka 200 38 19% Novska 75 11 15% Rovinj 150 45 30% Obrovac 75 21 28% Samobor 100 97 97% Ogulin 75 14 19% Senj 100 16 16% Omiš 100 62 62% Sinj 75 46 61% Opatija 100 46 46% Sisak 150 70 47% Orahovica 75 48 64% Sl. Brod 150 142 95% Osijek 150 113 75% Slatina 75 72 96% Otočac 75 39 52% Slunj 75 48 64% Ozalj 75 12 16% Solin 100 29 29% Offices marked in red had 20% lesser achievement than planned Office 30

Sample realization – cadastral offices Planned sample Sample obtained Split 200 176 88% Vis 75 38 51% Stari Grad 100 15 15% Vojnić 75 25 33% Supetar 100 14 14% Vrbovec 100 56 56% Sv. Ivan Zelina 100 21 21% Vrbovsko 75 58 77% Šibenik 150 29 19% Vrgorac 75 28 37% Topusko 75 6 8% Vukovar 150 92 61% Trogir 100 6 6% Zabok 75 37 49% Valpovo 100 28 28% Zadar 150 124 83% Varaždin 150 100 67% Zagreb 1. 100 222 20% Vel. Gorica 100 99 99% Zaprešić 100 63 63% Vinkovci 100 43 43% Zlatar 75 73 97% Virovitica 150 41 27% Županja 100 70 70% Offices marked in red had 20% lesser achievement than planned Office 31

Reasons for visiting a cadastral office For what purpose/service did you come to the cadastre today? 32

Case status What is the status of your case? 33

Case processing duration How long do the proceedings last from its start until today in days or months (if the case has been processed then until the date of processing)? – This question was answered only by the respondents whose case has been or is being processed 37% respondents, whose case has been or is being processed, have not stated the case processing duration! 42% respondents stated that the proceedings lasted 1 day. 34

Case processing duration How long has the procedure lasted in days or months since its start (if the case has been processed, then since the date of processing)? – Only the respondents, whose case has been or is being processed, answered this question Average = 15 days When the respondents, who have failed to state the case processing duration because their case has been or is being processed, are excluded from the analysis, we get that about 2/3 cases are processed within a day while an additional 16% are processed within a week. 35

45% 44% 17% 24% 15% 8% 13% 18% 19% 1% 2% 8% 8% 24% 4% 4% 36% 32% 11% 16% 2% 6% 4% 3% 14% 19% 11% 20% Something else 39% 1 day 26% 3% Request title holder change Request house number assignment Register object with a parcel Request subdivision confirmation 48% Obtain cadastral map extract Obtain Possessory title Case processing duration according to case type 4% 35% 17% 11% 26% 6% Between 2 and 7 days 1% Between 8 and 14 days 3% Between 14 and 30 days 4% More than 30 days 46% No reply 36

On behalf of whom is the case brought up? Is the case handled for private purposes, legal entity you work for or do you represent a client? 38

Satisfaction with the services rendered in the procedure Please rate your satisfaction with the services rendered in the procedure you are involved in or were involved at this cadastral office. Very poor 2 3 4 Very good Don’t know Average Courtesy of the staff 0% 1% 2% 5% 82% 10% 4, 87 Accuracy and completeness of the information obtained from the staff 1% 1% 4% 11% 75% 7% 4, 70 Speed of processing a case 0% 1% 2% 8% 76% 13% 4, 83 Availability of the information necessary during the procedure 1% 1% 3% 10% 71% 14% 4, 73 Possibility of getting information during the procedure 1% 2% 5% 13% 67% 13% 4, 63 Simplicity of procedure 1% 1% 3% 9% 71% 15% 4, 76 Length of waiting in the office 2% 2% 5% 13% 65% 13% 4, 59 Overall experience with the land registry processing a case 1% 1% 3% 10% 75% 11% 4, 77 39

Satisfaction with the services rendered in the procedure Please rate your satisfaction with the services rendered in the procedure you are involved in or were involved at this cadastral office? The averages were assessed on the basis of the ratio of a specific office in the overall number of cases, in order to neutralize the difference in the return of the questionnaires between the offices! 40

Satisfaction with services rendered in the procedure at a cadastral office Processing speed Waiting period Staff courtesy Accuracy of information Simple proceedings Availability of information Possibility of obtaining information Overall experience Grubišno polje 4, 85 4, 88 5 4, 82 4, 91 4, 97 5 Klanjec 4, 91 4, 93 5 4, 98 4, 86 4, 95 5 5 Vrgorac 5 4, 92 5 4, 96 4, 84 4, 96 5 Slatina 4, 99 5 4, 98 5 4, 97 4, 98 5 Delnice 4, 84 4, 98 5 4, 88 4, 93 4, 98 Đurđevac 4, 94 4, 88 5 4, 91 4, 88 4, 97 4, 91 4, 97 Imotski 4, 97 4, 93 5 5 4, 83 4, 93 4, 97 Ivanić Grad 5 4, 91 4, 94 4, 97 Dugo Selo 4, 91 4, 95 4, 98 4, 86 4, 96 Virovitica 4, 98 4, 88 4, 93 4, 98 4, 85 4, 93 4, 95 Vinkovci 4, 93 4, 95 5 4, 95 4, 85 4, 97 4, 95 Prelog 4, 92 4, 98 4, 92 4, 75 4, 92 4, 86 4, 94 * Only cadastral offices with more than 30 correctly filled-in questionnaires 41

Satisfaction with services rendered in the procedure at a cadastral office Processing speed Waiting period Staff courtesy Accuracy of information Simple proceedings Availability of information Possibility of obtaining information Overall experience Pregrada 4, 87 4, 91 4, 97 4, 94 4, 83 4, 92 4, 94 Knin 4, 91 4, 57 4, 94 4, 63 4, 86 4, 93 4, 94 Benkovac 4, 93 4, 82 4, 96 4, 99 4, 87 4, 94 4, 97 4, 94 Donja Stubica 4, 75 4, 74 4, 87 4, 93 4, 93 Pitomača 4, 88 4, 91 4, 94 4, 84 4, 97 4, 93 Crikvenica 4, 83 4, 98 4, 92 4, 74 4, 88 4, 89 4, 92 Slunj 4, 82 4, 88 4, 91 4, 93 4, 74 4, 79 4, 95 4, 91 Pakrac 4, 97 4, 94 4, 97 4, 91 4, 88 4, 94 4, 88 4, 91 Vrbovsko 4, 89 4, 92 4, 98 4, 96 4, 62 4, 84 4, 88 4, 9 Sl. Brod 4, 89 4, 68 4, 95 4, 78 4, 9 4, 86 4, 9 Vukovar 4, 95 4, 85 4, 98 4, 97 4, 77 4, 92 4, 9 Buzet 4, 74 4, 69 4, 91 4, 9 4, 65 4, 81 4, 91 4, 89 42

Satisfaction with services rendered in the procedure at a cadastral office Processing speed Waiting period Staff courtesy Accuracy of information Simple proceedings Availability of information Possibility of obtaining information Overall experience Rovinj 4, 58 4, 64 4, 95 4, 88 4, 6 4, 76 4, 83 4, 89 Daruvar 4, 77 4, 95 4, 93 4, 91 4, 72 4, 91 4, 88 Čazma 4, 84 4, 89 4, 91 4, 78 4, 89 4, 84 4, 87 Otočac 4, 87 4, 82 4, 97 4, 89 4, 82 4, 89 4, 84 4, 87 Omiš 4, 91 4, 54 4, 97 4, 86 4, 52 4, 95 4, 97 4, 87 Jastrebarsko 4, 89 4, 92 4, 78 4, 89 4, 88 4, 87 Našice 4, 83 4, 86 4, 91 4, 67 4, 85 4, 84 4, 85 Ludbreg 4, 88 4, 97 5 4, 72 4, 88 4, 91 4, 85 Zabok 4, 84 4, 93 4, 94 4, 84 4, 48 4, 79 4, 77 4, 84 Vrbovec 4, 88 4, 83 4, 88 4, 86 4, 84 Zlatar 4, 76 4, 78 4, 9 4, 78 4, 4 4, 85 4, 83 Labin 4, 82 4, 91 4, 97 4, 91 4, 61 4, 82 4, 89 4, 83 43

Satisfaction with services rendered in the procedure at a cadastral office Processing speed Waiting period Staff courtesy Accuracy of information Simple proceedings Availability of information Possibility of obtaining information Overall experience Varaždin 4, 72 4, 81 4, 95 4, 66 4, 76 4, 89 4, 83 Požega 4, 82 4, 78 4, 9 4, 86 4, 78 4, 82 Orahovica 4, 86 4, 9 4, 88 4, 71 4, 81 4, 9 4, 82 Koprivnica 4, 94 4, 81 5 4, 91 4, 72 4, 77 4, 84 4, 81 Županja 4, 77 4, 65 4, 82 4, 89 4, 69 4, 72 4, 81 Čabar 4, 72 4, 98 4, 95 4, 85 4, 6 4, 8 4, 93 4, 8 Karlovac 4, 66 4, 64 4, 92 4, 86 4, 68 4, 67 4, 75 4, 78 Petrinja 4, 68 4, 62 4, 93 4, 96 4, 67 4, 65 4, 88 4, 77 Vel. Gorica 4, 42 4, 75 4, 94 4, 84 4, 65 4, 79 4, 77 Vis 4, 74 4, 81 4, 93 4, 83 4, 64 4, 9 4, 76 Metković 4, 73 4, 69 4, 81 4, 83 4, 67 4, 77 4, 75 Zadar 4, 6 4, 25 4, 83 4, 54 4, 69 4, 73 4, 75 44

Satisfaction with services rendered in the procedure at a cadastral office Processing speed Waiting period Staff courtesy Accuracy of information Simple proceedings Availability of information Possibility of obtaining information Overall experience Sinj 4, 83 4, 75 4, 97 4, 87 4, 93 4, 84 4, 83 4, 74 Zaprešić 4, 6 4, 58 4, 85 4, 68 4, 69 4, 74 Nova Gradiška 4, 71 4, 41 4, 87 4, 79 4, 42 4, 74 4, 65 4, 73 Sisak 4, 4 4, 5 4, 95 4, 88 4, 58 4, 66 4, 73 4, 72 Krapina 4, 67 4, 84 4, 81 4, 5 4, 72 4, 71 Kutina 4, 37 4, 72 4, 89 4, 69 4, 36 4, 55 4, 52 4, 71 Osijek 4, 6 4, 51 4, 89 4, 84 4, 53 4, 65 4, 73 4, 69 Đakovo 4, 66 4, 8 4, 72 4, 47 4, 64 4, 66 4, 69 Kaštel Sućurac 4, 59 4, 64 4, 8 4, 42 4, 61 4, 69 4, 67 Glina 4, 75 4, 65 4, 82 4, 87 4, 65 4, 74 4, 79 4, 66 Buje 4, 68 4, 43 4, 79 4, 7 4, 52 4, 64 4, 61 4, 63 Samobor 4, 22 4, 55 4, 86 4, 75 4, 28 4, 51 4, 69 4, 63 45

Satisfaction with services rendered in the procedure at a cadastral office Processing speed Waiting period Staff courtesy Accuracy of information Simple proceedings Availability of information Possibility of obtaining information Overall experience Bjelovar 4, 55 4, 48 4, 77 4, 67 4, 38 4, 69 4, 68 4, 61 Čakovec 4, 51 4, 32 4, 72 4, 65 4, 3 4, 58 4, 55 4, 59 Split 4, 59 4, 22 4, 78 4, 74 4, 42 4, 58 4, 56 4, 59 Opatija 4, 43 3, 87 4, 79 4, 76 4, 12 4, 31 4, 56 Poreč 4, 41 4, 34 4, 83 4, 6 3, 96 4, 51 4, 53 Pazin 4, 41 4, 03 4, 57 4, 64 4, 45 4, 49 4, 51 Dubrovnik 4, 39 4, 13 4, 69 4, 44 4, 13 4, 21 4, 47 4, 49 Zagreb 4, 14 3, 99 4, 47 4, 48 4, 05 4, 29 4, 38 Pula 4, 03 3, 42 4, 32 4, 18 4, 29 4, 16 4, 21 Rijeka 3, 86 3, 44 4, 13 4, 07 3, 68 3, 74 3, 67 3, 9 46

Cost estimate How would you estimate the costs incurred during this procedure? 47

Conclusion– customer satisfaction v The research results have shown surprisingly positive results of the customer satisfaction poll related to various aspects of the work of land registries at municipal courts and cadastral offices and branch offices. v The results showed that on average it takes a long time to process certain cases, especially at land registries. v However, a rather high average of waiting is not the result of a long waiting period in all cases but an extremely long waiting period for certain types of cases and for disputed cases, along with a relatively acceptable length of waiting for the majority of simple cases. v The majority of land registry customers come there to obtain a title deed while the majority of cadastre customers come there to obtain an extract of cadastral map or possessory title. v As for the cost estimate, the majority of land registry and cadastre customers consider them appropriate. 48

Conclusion– customer satisfaction v Since this research was conceived as a pilot project, the conclusions concerning the research methodology are also valuable. v Important methodological findings: v The readiness of customers to participate in the poll is relatively small so a more proactive approach in recruiting is needed if a larger number of them needs to be engaged. v Older respondents, who appear to account for a significant number of LR and cadastre customers, have difficulties in filling in the questionnaire conceived in this way. v The success of this type of research depends to a large extent on the attitude and effort of the staff which leads to various outputs in different municipal courts/cadastral offices and branch offices. v This type of polling leaves an option of filling in the questionnaire independently from the staff which may put the validity of polling in question. v Filling in the questionnaire independently leads to a relatively large number of errors in the questionnaire. v Therefore, this research should be carried out in the future using a more proactive approach, or rather to use the survey method face-to-face which means that the polling personnel recruits the respondents (unbiased selection) and fill in the questionnaire (less errors when filling in) 49

Poll results – public perception q Land registries q Cadastre q Real properties status q “Organized Land” Project 50

Methodology – public perception v The research was carried out by phone interview between 19 and 20 November 2006. v The questionnaire used in the previous poll carried out in the early 2006 was applied with minor changes and corrections. v The research was taken from a stratified (by region and settlement size), random and representative sample of 800 Ro. C citizens older than 18. v Any significant deviation of the sample from the population structure given the gender, age and education, have been subsequently cancelled through the post-stratification procedure. 51

Sample demographic structure N 421 53% 96 12% 31 to 44 yrs 178 22% 45 to 60 yrs 272 34% 255 32% 261 33% High school 438 55% 101 13% Town 457 57% Village 343 43% Zagreb and its environs 199 25% Northern Croatia Region Female Higher education/university Type of settlement 47% Elementary school Education 379 Over 60 yrs Age Male Up to 30 Gender % 143 18% Slavonia 140 18% Lika and Banovina 70 9% Croatian Primorje and Istria 95 12% Dalmatia 153 19% 52

Poll results – public perception q General part – knowing of cadastral and LR operations q Land registries q Cadastre q Real properties status q “Organized Land” Project 53

Knowledge of land registry functions Do you know the purpose of the land registry and what are its functions? 54

Knowledge of land registry document types Do you know which documents are obtained at the land registry? 55

Land registry work ratings What is your opinion about the work/functioning of the land registry? Average = 3. 2 56

Using the services of the land registry Have you in the past five years personally used the services of the land registry or rather land registry departments of the courts? 57

Ways of processing a case Have you used the services of a lawyer, public notary, real estate agency or have you handled yourself the case which prompted you to visit last the land registry? * Only the respondents who have used the land registry services, N=368 58

Land registry staff’s attitude and work rating How satisfied are you with the land registry staff’s attitude and work with regards to the case? Average = 3. 7 * Only respondents handling the case themselves, N=181 59

Perception of the simplicity of the procedure Can you assess the extent to which the procedure was, in your opinion, simple or complicated? * Only respondents handling the case themselves, N=181 60

Case processing speed rating Can you estimate your satisfaction with the speed of processing the case? Average = 3. 2 * Only the respondents who have used the land registry services, N=368 61

Cost perception Do you consider the cost incurred in the case. . . ? * Only the respondents who have used the land registry services, N=368 62

Land registry experience rating How would you rate your experience with the land registry for the case? Average = 3. 3 * Only the respondents who have used the land registry services, N=368 63

Poll results – public perception q LR department – Land registries q Cadastre q Real properties status q “Organized Land” Project 64

Knowledge of cadastre functions Do you know the purpose of the cadastre and what are its functions? 65

Knowledge about cadastral document types And the ones obtained in the cadastre? 66

Cadastre work rating What is your opinion about the work/functioning of the cadastre? Average = 3. 4 67

Using cadastral services Have you in the past five years used the services of the cadastre? 68

Mode of case processing Have you used the services of licensed surveying companies (surveyors) or have you handled the case yourself that made you to visit last the cadastre? * Only the respondents who have used the cadastral services, N=288 69

Licensed surveying company work satisfaction rating How satisfied are you with the licensed surveying company (surveyors) work with the case? Average = 3. 7 * Only the respondents who have used the licensed surveying company services, N=103 70

Cadastral staff’s attitude and work rating How satisfied are you with the cadastral staff’s attitude and work with regards to the case? Average = 3. 9 * Only respondents handling the case independently, N=183 71

Case processing speed rating Can you rate your satisfaction with the case processing speed? Average = 3. 5 * Only respondents using cadastral services, N=288 73

Cost perception Do you consider the costs incurred in the case. . . ? * Only respondents using cadastral services, N=288 74

Rating experience with the cadastre How would you rate your experience with the cadastre in this matter? Average = 3. 6 * Only respondents using cadastral services N=288 75

Poll results – public perception q LR department – Land registries q Cadastre q Real property status q “Organized Land” Project 76

Benefit perception for CITIZENS from real property registration In your opinion, what are the benefits for the citizens from the real property registration? 77

Benefit perception for the STATE from real property registration In your opinion, what are the benefits for the state from the citizens registering their property? 78

Real property title Are you personally the owner of the real property, i. e. flat, house, weekend cottage, business premises or land? 79

Real property registration Is your real property registered in the land registers? * Only respondents owning a real property, N=532 80

Reasons for registration What is the main reason that prompted you to register property? * Only respondents whose real property is registered, N=476 81

Reasons why the real property is not registered What is the mean reason you did not register the property? • Not processed • They haven’t requested construction permit during construction • Problems with the city • It has been paid, but not registered • They have failed to because they wait for the reform of the system * Only respondents whose real property is not registered, N=45 82

Obstacles for processing citizens’ applications Can you tell us what are, in your opinion, the biggest obstacles for processing citizens’ applications regarding the real property? * Only respondents owning a real property, N=532 83

Poll results – public perception q LR department – Land registries q Cadastre q Real property status q “Organized land” project 84

Project awareness Can you assess the level of your awareness of the Real Property Registration and Cadastre Project that is currently underway? 85

Awareness of who is running the project Do you know who is running the restructuring of the system? * Only respondents familiar with the project, N=551 86

Advertising visibility Have you noticed on TV or in the media the advertising about the real property registration and cadastre reform entitled “Organized Land “? 87

Noticed elements Which elements of that advertisement can you remember? * Only respondents who have noticed the clip, N=359 88

Advertising main message In your opinion, what is the main message of this advertising? That everyone should check the status of the land registry and cadastre records 19% That the land registration reform is underway 13% Something else 7% Put books/papers in order 6% Better/better work in general 6% Faster operation/faster processes 5% Getting the titles registered 3% Updating/backlog clearing 3% That dust needs to be wiped 2% Citizen cooperation in the land registration and cadastre reform 2% General registration 2% Computerization 2% Cleaning/clean papers 2% Registration upon European standards 1% Simpler/more accessible 1% An attempt to motivate the citizens to cooperate 6% Don’t know 20% * Only respondents who noticed clips and their important components, N=286 89

Intent to check the real property status Do you intend to soon visit the land registries/cadastre and check the status of the real property owned by you? * Only respondents owning the property 90

Conclusion – public perception v The respondents are relatively well acquainted with the land registry and cadastre function, although there is a smaller number of respondents who are not aware of these institutions. v The overall rating of the land registry and cadastre work is relatively high because the rating average exceeds 3. v However, this rating is somewhat lower among the respondents belonging to the overall population than among the respondents participating in the poll at the land registries and cadastral office. v As the main benefits of the real property registration for the owners, legal security and possibility of real property availability is perceived while the benefits for the State is perceived primarily in the sense of tax revenues and remunerations and not in the general legal security and creating preconditions for unimpeded real property transactions, and thus the development. v About 30% citizens have never heard of the Real Property Registration and Cadastre Project while about one half has just heard about the project and about 15% feels well-informed about the project. 91

Conclusion – public perception v Cca. 60% of citizens has noticed the media campaign “Organized Land”, while the majority of them spontaneously remembered the campaign itself (ca. 60% of those who noticed). v The campaign visibility is higher among the highly educated, respondents from the cities and respondents with higher income. v Characteristic campaign elements that have been particularly visible are Oliver Mlakar, the message about real property registration and the message about dusting the land registers. v The majority, ca. 80%, of those who have noticed the campaign recognize more or less the main campaign message. 92

Poll results – Customer satisfaction – legal entities q Cadastral offices q Land registries at municipal court q “Organized land” project 93

Methodology – regular customer satisfaction v The poll was conducted among 101 legal entity in total. v The sample included 27 developers; 25 licensed surveyors; 20 public notaries, 19 lawyers and 10 banks. v The developers are defined as legal entities who built at least one real property for the market in the past year. The companies recruited are registered for “Development of entire objects” and “Building new real property”. The biggest companies meeting the above-mentioned criteria have been recruited. v The licensed surveyors chosen had to meet the criteria of being the biggest in their county. In principle, two biggest from each county. v The public notaries and lawyers were selected at random with smaller corrections given their main field of activity. v The biggest banks were selected, taking into account the bank representation having the seat in different cities. 94

Methodology – regular customer satisfaction v The poll was carried out using the face-to-face interviewing method. v The poll was carried out between 10 November and 8 December. v The majority of respondents were from Zagreb, cca. ¼ sample. 95

Basic data on the regular customer sample Type of legal entity Number of employees 96

Poll results – Customer satisfaction – Legal entities q Cadastral office q LR departments of Municipal courts q “Organized Land” Project 97

Frequency of use of cadastral services Please tell me how often on the average does your legal entity/association use each of the following services at cadastral offices? Once a week Once in two weeks Once in three weeks Once a month Once in two months Once in three months 1 -2 times in six months Once a year Less frequent or never 29% 17% 13% 7% 15% 3% 3% 1% 1% 12% Obtaining a cadastral map excerpt 24% 13% 10% 6% 13% 6% 5% 3% 3% 18% Request for review and confirmation of geodetic records of change 16% 6% 6% 8% 7% 5% 5% 6% 5% 35% Registration of object with the plot 12% 10% 6% 5% 4% 6% 3% 9% 13% 33% Request for registering change of real property contour 5% 6% 10% 1% 8% 4% 5% 8% 8% 43% 3% Request for registration of title holder over the real property 4% 6% 5% 2% 9% 4% 7% 7% 5% 50% 2% Request for title holder change 4% 4% 1% 5% 8% 4% 7% 10% 7% 50% 1% Request for registering change of real property area 4% 4% 6% 4% 9% 4% 8% 6% 4% 48% 4% Request for registering change of land use 4% 4% 3% 4% 9% 4% 4% 7% 9% 50% 3% Request for obtaining house number 1% 3% 2% 1% 2% 3% 6% 2% 11% 64% 5% 98 Don’t know Several times a week Obtaining possessory title 2%

37% 9% 50% 0% 0% 12% 16% 8% 16% 74% 63% Request title Holder registration 26% Request change of land use 24% Request change of real property area 27% 0% 0% 100% 96% 8% 93% 0% 33% 37% 41% 55% 15% 89% Entire sample Bank 76% 32% 100% 30% Percentage of respondents using this service at least once in a month! 40% 0% 84% 22% 74% Request house Number assignment Register object with the plot Request review of cadastral records of change 43% Request change of real property contour 65% Request title holder change 80% Obtain cadastral map extract Obtain possessory title Cadastral services use – according to the type of legal entity 68% 5% 10% 42% 0% 10% 5% 0% 0% 37% 0% 26% 16% 15% Developpers Licensed surveying company Public notary 42% Lawyer 99

Evaluation of experiences with individual services Please evaluate your experiences with each of the services that your legal entity uses more frequently. Bad experien ce 4 Good experien ce 2 3 Don’t know Average Obtaining a possessory title 2% 2% 18% 23% 53% 1% 4. 24 Obtaining a cadastral map excerpt 1% 3% 24% 28% 44% 1% 4. 11 Request for house number assignment 5% 5% 20% 25% 30% 15% 3. 82 Request for registering real property title holder 5% 2% 25% 45% 23% Request to change real property usage 3% 3% 33% 23% 5% 3. 76 Request to change real property title holder 5% 9% 23% 30% 2% 3. 74 Request to change the real property surface area 4% 7% 27% 38% 24% Registering objects on a parcel 2% 7% 31% 36% 20% 4% 3. 68 Request for reviewing and confirming geodetic reports 3% 10% 25% 36% 22% 3% 3. 65 Request for changing the real property shape 4% 6% 32% 36% 21% * Only for services used more than once a year 3. 8 3. 71 3. 64 100

3. 64 3. 71 3. 76 Request title holder registration 3. 74 Request change of land use 3. 82 Request change of real property area Request change of t title holder 3. 68 Request change of real property shape Request house number assignment 3. 65 Register object on a parcel 4. 11 Request subdivision report review 4. 24 Obtain cadastral map extract Obtain possessory title Evaluation of experiences with individual services – according to legal entities 3. 80 Whole sample 4. 33 4. 29 Banks 4. 04 3. 92 3. 47 3. 50 4. 14 3. 33 3. 40 3. 50 3. 70 3. 27 Construction investors 4. 19 4. 04 3. 67 3. 73 3. 75 3. 84 3. 89 3. 85 4. 45 Certified Geodetic companies Public notaries 4. 44 4. 41 3. 45 3. 80 3. 91 3. 73 3. 60 3. 50 4. 00 Lawyers * Only for services used more than once a year, and services used by at least 8 respondents. 101

Reasons for bad experiences Why do you have bad experiences with…? Very crowded Obtaining a possessory title (N=4) The procedure takes too long Too slow Very crowded Different criteria upon review Solving the paperwork is too complicated The length of the implementation of subdivision and other reports Too slow Regulations not defined enough Too slow Request for changing real property surface area (N=5) Slow administrative procedure. Not sure this is justifiable. A lot of paperwork Unprofessional Same as before Based on the documents they issued and have, they don’t carry out change of possession Request for changing real property usage (N=2) Different criteria upon review Request for registering the title holder (N=3) Unnecessarily slow Slow administrative procedure. Not sure this is justifiable Unprofessional Goes through their technical then legal service Registering objects on a parcel (N=5) Slow in solving queries Slow, lot of formalities Request for changing real property shape (N=5) Review frequently consists of looking for mistakes Too long in solving the paperwork Unprofessional Too slow Slow (at work) Request for reviewing and confirming geodetic reports (N=8) Request for changing the title holder (user) (N=6) The procedure takes too long Unprofessional Too slow Too much time wasted Unprofessional Obtaining cadastral map excerpts (N=3) Request for house number assignment (N=2) Too slow Unprofessional * Only respondents who are not satisfied with the services provided (mark 1 or 2) Slow procedure Unprofessional 102

Evaluation of the different aspects of cadastral operations Please evaluate the different aspects of the functioning of cadastral offices and regional offices. 4. 03 3. 86 3. 77 3. 54 3. 42 3. 36 3. 07 2. 93 Average 103

Overall mark of cadastral operations On a scale from 1 to 5, where 1 means «very poor» and 5 «very good» , how would you rate cadastral operations in Ro. C as a whole, considering the role that the cadastre should play? Average = 3. 4 104

Average mark of cadastral operations According to the type of legal entity Because of a small number of respondents, the differences only serve as Illustration! 105

Improvement priorities What would you emphasize as the three most important priorities for improving the work of the cadastre? OTHER ANSWERS WITH LESS THAN 4%: • Better organization of office hours • Shorter queues • Better equipped technically • Harmonization of data with other services • possibilities of completing work through the Internet • Manipulative expenses • Staff salary raise • Staff availability • More funds • Establishing new cadastral offices 106

Impact of cadastral operations on business activities How does the existing functioning of the cadastre influence your business activities? Average = 3. 2 107

Progress of the cadastre Have you recently noticed progress in cadastral operations? 108

Segments with perceived progress In which segments of cadastral operations have you noticed progress? * Only respondents who perceived progress in cadastral operations, N=69 109

Experience with one or several offices Are your experiences connected primarily to one regional office or fore several regional offices? 110

Above-average positive/negative experiences Can you list those regional offices for which you could say that you have above-average positive/negative experiences? Positive Negative N % PUK Bjelovar 2 4% 1 2% PUK Čakovec 4 8% PUK Dubrovnik 4 8% PUK Gospić 3 6% 2 4% PUK Karlovac 4 8% 2 4% PUK Koprivnica 7 14% PUK Krapina 5 10% PUK Osijek 2 4% 1 2% PUK Pazin 2 4% 1 2% PUK Požega 2 4% PUK Rijeka 4 8% 3 6% PUK Sisak 2 4% 1 2% PUK Slavonski Brod 2 4% PUK Split 3 6% 2 4% PUK Šibenik 2 4% 1 2% PUK Varaždin 6 12% PUK Virovitica 1 2% PUK Vukovar 2 4% PUK Zadar 2 4% PUK Zagreb 9 18% 4 8% GU Grad Zagreb 8 16% No reply 8 16% 28 57% *Only those respondents that have experience with several cadastral offices, N=49 111

Poll results – customer satisfaction – legal entities q Cadastral offices q Municipal court land registries q “Organized Land” Project 112

Usage of LR department services Could you please state how often your legal entity in average uses each of the following services in the land registry? Less often or never Don’t know 1 -2 times in six months 5% 3% 35% 1% 7% 7% 10% 28% 2% 4% 7% 10% 11% 32% 1% 7% 5% 6% 7% 6% 43% 3% 5% 10% 4% 3% 6% 10% 41% 1% 1% 5% 9% 10% 8% 5% 9% 44% 1% 6% 3% 2% 8% 6% 1% 12% 5% 53% 2% 3% 4% 5% 2% 5% 5% 7% 3% 2% 61% 3% Change of address 3% 3% 4% 1% 3% 6% 11% 61% 3% Condominium ownership registration 3% 2% 3% 4% 7% 9% 4% 10% 16% 39% 4% 18% 11% 4% 17% 2% 3% 1% Change of title registration 25% 6% 7% 5% 15% 5% 4% 6% Mortgage registration 21% 9% 5% 1% 9% 7% 5% Subdivision registration 9% 13% 6% 2% 9% 8% Building registration 10% 12% 3% 6% 5% Fiduciary title registration 11% 8% 2% 3% Mortgage deletion 11% 7% 3% Splitting registration or co-ownership annulment 3% 6% Legal suit registration, guardianship 2% Purge of life-long usufruct Once a year 40% Once in three months Once in two months Once a month 1% Once in three weeks 26% Once in two weeks 1% Once a week 1% Several times a week 4% title deed obtaining 113

Legal suit registration 19% 21% Change of address Condominium ownership registration 36% Purge of life-long usufruct Building registration 24% Mortgage registration Splitting registration Subdivision registration Fiduciary title registration Mortgage registration Change of title registration title deed obtaining Usage – towards legal entities Percentage of respondents stating that they use the service at least once in one month! 89% 57% 90% 45% 90% 31% 39% 10% 84% 48% 40% 16% 93% 85% 16% 0% 12% 90% 11% 70% 10% 8% 33% 11% 10% 4% 26% 55% 20% 95% 15% 30% 0% 4% 16% Bank 0% 12% 0% 7% 19% 20% 15% 42% 37% 4% 40% 7% 55% 30% 32% Constructing investors 30% Surveying firm Notary public 100% 47% Total 85% 81% 22% 19% 80% 70% 36% 58% 26% 21% Attorney 114

Evaluation of experience with individual service Could you please now evaluate your experience with performance of each service used most frequently by your entity. Bad experience 2 3 4 Good experience Change of address 4% 28% 36% 32% Legal suit registration, guardianship 10% 18% 33% 28% 13% 3. 89 13% 18% 32% 31% 5% 3. 81 12% 27% 22% 33% 6% 3. 8 Mortgage registration 2% Fiduciary title registration Don’t know Average 3. 96 Purge of mortgage 2% 8% 24% 31% 29% 6% 3. 8 title deed obtaining 9% 11% 18% 29% 30% 2% 3. 61 Purge of life-long usufruct 3% 15% 32% 24% 3% 3. 52 Change of title registration 8% 18% 22% 27% 21% 4% 3. 36 Subdivision registration 3% 23% 30% 18% 23% 3% 3. 36 Splitting registration or co-ownership annulment 2% 21% 34% 13% 23% 6% 3. 36 Building registration 7% 19% 28% 18% 23% 5% 3. 31 Condominium ownership registration 12% 14% 38% 12% 19% 5% 3. 13 * Samo za usluge koji se koriste češće od jednom godišnje 115

3. 80 3. 36 3. 31 3. 13 3. 80 3. 52 Change of address 3. 89 Purge of long-life usufruct Condominium ownership registration Building registration Splitting registration Subdivision registration Fiduciary title registration Mortgage registration 3. 81 Purge of mortgage 3. 36 Legal suit registration 3. 61 Change of title registration title deed obtaining Evaluation of experience with individual services – for legal entities 3. 96 Total 3. 78 3. 20 3. 67 3. 63 Bank 3. 38 2. 86 3. 44 3. 69 3. 38 3. 67 2. 69 2. 33 2. 60 3. 88 3. 86 3. 88 3. 50 2. 55 3. 56 Constructing investors Surveying firm 4. 35 4. 33 4. 31 4. 23 3. 67 4. 00 3. 86 4. 44 4. 17 4. 14 4. 25 Notary public 3. 29 3. 22 3. 77 2. 80 2. 82 3. 22 3. 67 3. 75 3. 31 3. 38 Attorney 116

Reasons for bad experience Why do you have bad experience with …? title deed obtaining (N=20) Change of title registration (N=19) Due to slowness of procedure Due to long queues, you sign up in the morning, they start to work at 8 a. m. and you wait until noon, people enter out of order Capability of registration procedure A lot of time and long procedure, it lasts long A lot of time Long queues Informatization Additional papers are always needed A lot of formality, LR clerks are unkind Long queues Cases are slowly processed Too slow Due to long processing Service is too slow Employees are unready to help When issuing the owner’s extract, the issued extract doesn’t have the date when it was issued, but shows the state one day ago One should enable the party to obtain the data in a different, simpler and faster way There is no communication between the LR clerks and the client Slow, there are no data etc. Employees are unready to help Due to unregistered land books Slowness, if more copies are needed, we do not obtain them all and they do not say why One should enable the party to obtain the data in a different, simpler and faster way Different practices It is hard to obtain the data Inaccurate information on the status of service Non-transparency of the party’s LR clerk Uneven practices Data from the Internet are not valid as the official ones It takes a lot of time Self-will of LR clerks It is hard to obtain the data Lack of communication with clients Extracts from the Internet are not valid as the official ones * Only the respondents that evaluated the services with 1 or 2 117

Reasons for bad experience Why do you have bad experience with …? Due to slowness of procedure Unharmonized data Long queues Long legal procedure, it takes a lot of time Due to long processing Due to insufficient knowledge of regulations Employees are unwilling to help It takes a lot of time It is hard to obtain the data Uneven practices Data from the Internet are not valid as the official ones Self-will of LR clerks Subdivision registration (N=16) Mortgage registration (N=9) Too slow Long queues Inaccurate information on the status of service It takes a lot of time Different practices It is hard to obtain the data Data from the Internet are not valid as the official ones Self-will of LR clerks Legal suit registration, guardianship (N=4) Fiduciary title registration (N=6) Employees are unwilling to help When a document is missing in the case, the application is refused Too slow Refusal without correcting Slow Much too slow Because it takes a lot of time Employees are unwilling to help One should enable the party to obtain the data in a different, simpler and faster way Lack of communication with clients Too slow A lot of formalities, LR clerks are unkind * Only the respondents that evaluated the services with 1 or 2 Too slow Employees are unwilling to help Different practices Different interpretation of laws and other regulations among individual LR clerks and judges, which causes making of different decisions for the same type of case Uneven practices Application is immediately refused without notifying the party first and give the possibility to correct it Self-will of LR clerks Lack of communication with clients 118

Reasons for bad experience Why do you have bad experience with …? Splitting registration or co-ownership annulment (N=11) Building registration (N=15) The same as before Unharmonized data A lot of administrative problems, a lot of necessary papers Due to long queues, you sign up in the morning, they start to work at 8 a. m. and you wait until noon, people enter out of order Registered under a new number Long procedure Too slow Refusal without possibility to correct A lot of formalities, LR clerks are unkind Registered under a new number Slow Each a bit less typical case can hardly be finished Lack of knowledge on the basic institutes of LR law Employees are unwilling to help One should enable the party to obtain the data in a different, simpler and faster way Refusal without possibility to correct Slow processing Too slow Too much unnecessary documentation is needed due too lack of connection between the departments Due to long processing It takes a lot of time Employees are unwilling to help Different practices Different interpretation of laws and other regulations among individual LR clerks and judges One should enable the party to obtain the data in a different, simpler and faster way Different practices Lack of professionalism Uneven practices Different interpretation of laws and other regulations among individual LR clerks and judges Application is immediately refused without notifying the party first and give the possibility to correct it Uneven practices Lack of motivation Application is immediately refused without notifying the party first and give the possibility to correct it Self-will of LR clerks Lack of communication with clients * Only the respondents that evaluated the services with 1 or 2 119

Reasons for bad experience Why do you have bad experience with …? Condominium ownership registration (N=11) Long queues Banks and my firm are not the same Procedure takes a lot of time A lot of formalities Too slow Registered under a new number Because the procedure takes a lot of time Too slow Now it is OK Purge of mortgage (N=5) Employees are unwilling to help Long queues Refusal without possibility to correct Different practices Slow processing Uneven practices Employees are unwilling to help Self-will of LR clerks Due to bad organization of work Lack of communication with clients One should enable the party to obtain the data in a different, simpler and faster way Too slow Lack of professionalism and interest in employees Employees are unwilling to help Employees are unkind Long queues Different practices Different interpretation of laws and other regulations among individual LR clerks and judges, which causes making of different decisions for the same type of cases Cases are handled very slow Purge of lifelong usufruct (N=6) Different interpretation of laws and other regulations among individual LR clerks and judges Uneven practices Application is immediately refused without notifying the party first and give the possibility to correct it Self-will of LR clerks Lack of communication with clients Different practices Lack of communication with clients Change of address (N=1) * Only the respondents that evaluated the services with 1 or 2 Employees are unwilling to help 120

Evaluation of various aspects of land registry operations Could you please now evaluate various aspects of the work of LR departments and branch offices 3. 62 3. 55 3. 45 3. 3 3. 15 3. 13 3. 08 2. 67 Prosjek 121

Evaluation of land registry operations as a whole On a scale from 1 to 5, where 1 means “very bad” and 5 means “very good”, how would you rate the land registry operations in the Republic of Croatia as a whole, concerning the role that the land registry should play? Average = 2. 99 122

Evaluation of land registry operations as a whole According to the type of legal entity Because of a small number of respondents, the differences only serve as illustration! 123

Priorities for improvement What would you point out as three most important priorities to be improved in the land registry operations? OTHER REPLIES LESS THAN 4%: • Backlogs clearing • Satisfied with the work of LR department • Rule of equality • Accurate books • Be co-operative with clients • Phone communication with LR clerk • Validation of data from the Internet • Uniformity of practices • Know-how • Reducing of tasks • Faster registration of changes per LR applications • Better technical quality of equipment • Faster changes registration • Opening of new LR departments • dealing with corruption • Flexibility • Better financial support 124

Impact of the land registry operations on business In which way does the current functioning of the land registry impact your business? Average = 2. 9 125

Land registry progress Have you lately noticed any progress in the land registry operations? 126

Segments with perceived progress In which segments of the land registry operations have you noticed progress? OTHER ANSWERS WITH LESS THAN 2%: • Better connection with other services • Establishing EDP • Functionality • Uniform for the entire Croatia • Friendliness of clerks • Data processing • Change of space • Terrain registration • Change of ownership registration • Obtaining ownership certificate / possessory title • Receipt of all applications • Public awareness about o regulations connections in LR * Only respondents who noticed progress in the work of land registries, N=73 127

Experience with one or more offices Are your experiences connected primarily to one municipal court land registry or more of them? 128

Above-average positive/negative experiences Can you single out those municipal courts with land registries where you have above-average positive/negative experiences? Positive Negative N Beli Manastir Negative N N N Križevci 5 1 Krk 1 1 Benkovac Senj 2 4 Splitu 2 Stari grad (Hvar) 1 Biograd na moru 1 1 Makarska 6 Bjelovar 2 1 Mali Lošinj 1 Buje 2 Crikvenica Metković 2 1 Novi Marof 1 Čazma 1 Novska 2 Donja Stubica 1 Splitu 2 Dubrovik 2 Dugo Selo Đurđevac 1 1 2 Opatija 3 1 Otočac 1 Garešnica 1 Ozalj 1 1 5 Gospić 1 Pag 1 Imotski 2 Petrinja 1 Ivanec 1 Pregrada 1 Ivanić-grad 2 Pula 1 Jastrebarsko 1 Rab 1 Karlovac 3 Rijeka 2 Klanjec 1 Rovinj 1 Samobor 2 Korčula 2 2 1 Šibenik 1 Trogir Omiš 1 Sveti Ivan Zelina 2 Valpovo 1 Varaždin 9 Velika Gorica 1 Zabok 3 Zadar 2 2 3 5 Zagreb 5 Zaprešić 2 4 1 Osijek 2 Županja 2 All of Istria 2 Land registries in smaller towns 1 Koprivnica 5 Sesvete 1 All 1 Sisak 1 No answer 15 1 1 Krapina 18 * Only respondents experienced with more land registries 15 129

Poll results – customer satisfaction – legal entities q Cadastral offices q Municipal court land registries q “Organized Land” project 130

Information about the project To what extent are you personally aware of the activities within the Real Property Registration and Cadastre Project? Average = 3. 6 131

Project evaluation How would you rate this project in general, from 1 to 5, where 1 means «very poor» , and 5 «very good» . Average = 3. 5 132

Project priorities What would you give as priorities within the Real Property Registration and Cadastre Project? OTHER ANSWERS WITH LESS THAN 2%: • Better equipped technically • Getting rid of public ownership • Many services are finally being standardized • Getting rid of state ownership • Getting rid of county ownership • Informing the public about the differences between the cadastre and the land registry • Removal of corrupt officials • They are not available even over the telephone • Reform of as many land registers as possible • Enabling communication of clerks with clients • Respecting of pre-emption • Increase transparency • Legal security • Priority is that the status from cadastre is governing • Professionalism • Restructuring agricultural lands • Scanning all cadastral maps • Registering ownership • Registering residential objects 133

Conclusions – the satisfaction of regular customers v Out of cadastral services, the regular customers most frequently use the service of obtaining the possessory title and obtaining excerpts from the cadastral map. v The customers are also satisfied the most with the way these services are provided. Specific comments regarding the work of the cadastre in general deal with the length of certain procedures, how slow they are, and in some cases, the unfriendliness of staff and their lack of expertise. In addition, some procedures are considered too complicated, and it’s believed that they could be streamlined. v The regular users rated the work of the cadastre lower than physical entities, both overall and on the level of individual aspects. This grade is a lot closer to the grade of the general population. v Harmonization with the real situation and with the situation in the land registries, and informatization and speeding up the procedures are given as main priorities for improving the work of the cadastre. v However, the majority of the regular users still perceives significant progress recently in the work of the cadastre. 134

Conclusions – the satisfaction of regular customers v In land registries, regular users most frequently request possessory title, register change of ownership and register mortgages. v Customer satisfaction with the work of land registries is somewhat lower than with the work of the cadastre, both overall and for individual services. v A significant part of regular users mention that problems in the land registry work to some extent have a negative impact on their work. v Over 70% of the regular users have noticed an improvement recently in the work of land registries. Further improvement is needed in informatization, harmonization with the cadastre, greater speed and upto-datedness and staff expertise. v Most customers are well informed about the project and give it quite a high grade. 135