Consultation response
Remote customer interaction: Consultation Response
This response document sets out our conclusions and actions in relation to the consultation around remote customer interaction.
Contents
- Summary
- Next steps
- Introduction
- Proposal 1 - Overall requirements and process
- - Overall requirements and process
- - Consultation questions on overall requirements and process
- - Respondents’ views on overall requirements and process
- - Our position on overall requirements and process
- Proposal 2 - Identifying customers at risk of harm
- - Identifying customers at risk of harm
- - Consultation questions on identifying customers at risk of harm
- - Respondents’ views on identifying customers at risk of harm
- - Our position on identifying customers at risk of harm
- Proposal 3 - Requirement to act
- - Requirement to act
- - Consultation questions on requirement to act
- - Respondents’ views on requirement to act
- - Our position on requirement to act
- Proposal 4 - Evaluation of effectiveness
- - Evaluation of effectiveness
- - Consultation questions on evaluation of effectiveness
- - Respondents’ views on evaluation of effectiveness
- - Our position on evaluation of effectiveness
- The LCCP provision
Respondents’ views on evaluation of effectiveness
The short survey did not ask questions on this issue.
A number of respondents to the main consultation did not choose to respond on this topic.
Views on the value of evaluation by operators were very mixed.
In terms of individual impact on customers, many respondents felt that responsibility should lie solely or mainly with the customer to consider how to respond to a customer interaction. Some felt that such an evaluation led to a presumption of escalating actions. Others considered that customer interaction is only valuable if it is understood what impact it has for a customer.
Respondents were generally supportive of the value of evaluating the operator’s overall approaches. Some operators highlighted their concerns about evaluation expectations and sought additional support in guidance on what was required. Others criticised operators’ current approaches to evaluation and said it was not meaningful, but that if it were meaningful, it could significantly reduce harm. Many commented that taking account of best practice and ensuring a minimum level of evaluation was necessary and appropriate.
Previous sectionConsultation questions on evaluation of effectiveness Next section
Our position on evaluation of effectiveness
Last updated: 14 April 2022
Show updates to this content
No changes to show.