ERGP (14) 24 – report on QoS and end-user satisfaction
1
ERGP REPORT 2014 ON THE QUALITY OF
SERVICE AND END-USER SATISFACTION
ERGP (14) 24 – report on QoS and end-user satisfaction
2
Content
Page
0. Executive summary 10
1. Background 14
2. Objectives 15
3. Methodology 16
4. Current situation regarding quality of service and end-user satisfaction 17
4.1. Measurement of quality of service concerning routing times and the
regularity and reliability of services 17
4.1.1. Measurement of quality of service for single piece priority mail in
2013 23
4.1.2. Measurement of loss or substantial delay in 2013 26
4.1.3. Measurement of quality of service for single piece non-priority mail in
2013 27
4.1.4. Measurement of quality of service for bulk mail in 2013 29
4.1.5. Measurement of quality of service for Newspapers/periodicals in 2013 30
4.1.6. Measurement of quality of service for Parcels in 2013 31
4.1.7. Measurement of quality of service for registered mail in 2013 33
4.1.8. Force majeure 35
4.2. Collection and delivery 36
4.2.1. Requirements on the frequency of collection and delivery relating to
the universal service 36
4.2.1.1. Collection 36
4.2.1.2. Delivery 38
4.2.2 Exceptions on collection and delivery because of circumstances or
geographical conditions deemed exceptional 40
4.3. Access points 43
4.3.1. Collection letterboxes 43
4.3.2. Points of contact 46
4.4. Measurement of consumer satisfaction 54
4.5. Surveys regarding customers’ needs 58
ERGP (14) 24 – report on QoS and end-user satisfaction
3
5. Current situation on the assessment of complaint handling procedures
and consumer protection 61
5.1 Scope and competence of NRAs regarding complaint handling 61
5.1.1. Scope 61
5.1.2. Competence 62
5.2 Information provision and access to complaint handling and dispute
resolution 65
5.3 Implementation of Standard EN 14012: 2008 71
5.4 Compensation schemes for individual customers 72
5.5 Collection of data on complaints 78
6. Conclusions on the current practices of the NRAs regarding the quality
of service regulation, complaint handling procedures and consumer
protection
86
ERGP (14) 24 – report on QoS and end-user satisfaction
4
Tables Page
1. Answers of 32 European countries concerning regulatory objective 18
2. Countries which have regulatory objectives for services provided by non-USP/non-
Incumbents 19
3. Answers of 32 European counties concerning measurements of transit time – which
kind of services are measured 20
4. Cross-border information per country 21
5. Targets and results of single piece priority mail (2013) 23
6. Methodology for each country based on the quality of service for single piece priority
mail in 2013 26
7. Regulatory objective for loss or substantial delay regarding single piece priority mail 26
8. Targets and results of single piece non-priority mail 27
9. Methodology for each country based on the quality of service for single piece non-
priority mail in 2013 28
10. Targets and results of bulk mail (question 1.1.2) 29
11. Methodology for each country, based on the quality of service for bulk mail in 2013 30
12. Targets and results of parcels (questions 1.1.2) 31
13. Methodology for each country, based on the quality of service for parcels in 2013 32
14. Targets and results of registered mail 33
15. Methodology for each country, based on the quality of service for registered mail in
2013 34
16. Number of accepted force majeure days/incidents and reasons in 2013 35
17. Internet links with reference to the list with the exceptional circumstances in the
Member States 42
18. Requirements/standards to ensure an adequate number of collection letterboxes 43
19. Collection time displayed on collection letterboxes 45
20. Requirements/standards to ensure an adequate number of points of contact/postal
establishments 46
ERGP (14) 24 – report on QoS and end-user satisfaction
5
21. Entity entitled to check compliance with the requirements on an adequate number of
postal establishments 48
22. Prevention of the closure of postal establishments 49
23. Points of contact per country (distribution in %) 50
24. NRA uses/monitors measurement of consumer satisfaction 54
25. Links to research carried out to measure customer satisfaction 54
26. Surveys regarding customer needs 58
27. Links to research carried out to measure customer needs 58
28. NRA responsible for complaints
29. Procedures in place to resolve the issue complained
63
64
30. Postal service providers obliged to publish information about procedures to complain,
redress schemes and means of dispute resolution 65
31. Postal service providers covered by the obligation to publish information about
procedures to complain, redress schemes and means of dispute resolution 66
32. Regulation of complaint handling procedures 67
33. Scope of the regulation on complaint handling procedures 68
34. Alternative (or out-of-court) dispute resolution (ADR) 69
35. Cover of existing compensation schemes 74
36. Compensation scheme 74
37. Data on the number of complaints 79
38. Complaints received by USP about universal service, 2012-2013 (per country) 81
39. Complaints received by USP about universal service by category, 2012-2013 82
40. Complaints received by NRAs about postal services, 2012-2013 (per country) 83
41. Complaints received by the USP about cross-border services, 2012-2013 (per country) 85
ERGP (14) 24 – report on QoS and end-user satisfaction
6
Figures Page
1. Targets and results (D+1) in 32 European countries in 2013 25
2. Results (D+1) of 2012 and 2013 in 32 European countries 25
3. Number of collections/week relating to the universal service 37
4. Number of deliveries/week relating to the universal service 39
5. Reasons for exceptions regarding collection and delivery 41
6. Requirements/standards to ensure an adequate number of collection letterboxes 43
7. Where are the requirements/standards to ensure an adequate number of collection
letterboxes defined? 44
8. Collection time marked on collection letterboxes 45
9. Percentage change in the number of collection letterboxes per countries from 2008 till
2013 45
10. Requirements/standards to ensure an adequate number of points of contact/postal
establishments 47
11. Entity entitled to check compliance with the requirements on adequate number of
postal establishments 48
12. Is that entity empowered to prevent the closure of postal establishments? 49
13. Percentage by type of points of contact in 2013 51
14. Evolution of the number of points of contact by type in the in the period 2008 – 2013 52
15. Location of post agencies managed by third parties 53
16. Implementation of standard EN 14012: 2008 71
17. Mandatory compensation schemes for individual customers 72
18. Existing compensation schemes for individual customers by type of service failure 73
ERGP (14) 24 – report on QoS and end-user satisfaction
7
19. Mechanisms in place to make customers aware of compensation schemes 77
20. Collection of data on complaints by NRAs 78
21. Complaints received by USP about universal service, 2012-2013 (per country) 80
22. Complaints received by USP about universal service by category, 2012-2013 81
23. Complaints received by NRAs on postal services, 2012-2013 (per country) 83
24. Collection of data on complaints about cross-border services by NRAs 84
25. Data on complaints about cross-border services received by NRAs 84
26. Complaints received by the USP about cross-border services, 2012-2013 (per country) 85
ERGP (14) 24 – report on QoS and end-user satisfaction
8
Terms and abbreviations
CEN – Comité Européen de Normalisation / European Committee for Standardisation
IPC – International Post Corporation
NRA – National Regulatory Authority
US – Universal Service
USP – Universal Service Provider
USO – Universal Service Obligation
ERGP (14) 24 – report on QoS and end-user satisfaction
9
Country codes
AT – Austria BE – Belgium BG – Bulgaria CH – Switzerland
CZ – Czech Republic CY – Cyprus DE – Germany DK – Denmark
EE – Estonia EL – Greece ES – Spain FI – Finland
FR – France FYROM – Former
Yugoslav Republic of
Macedonia1
HR – Croatia
HU – Hungary
IE – Ireland IS – Iceland IT – Italy LT – Lithuania
LU – Luxembourg LV – Latvia MT – Malta NL – the Netherlands
NO – Norway PL – Poland PT – Portugal RO – Romania
RS - Serbia SE – Sweden SI – Slovenia SK – Slovakia
UK – United Kingdom
1 FY is used in tables and figures for the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.
ERGP (14) 24 – report on QoS and end-user satisfaction
10
0. Executive summary
- Background
Chapter 6 of Postal Directive 97/67/EC, as amended by Directives 2002/39 and 2008/6 (afterwards
referred to as Directive in this report), lays down that the national regulatory authorities (NRAs) shall
ensure compliance with the obligations arising from the Directive, in particular through the follow-up
of quality of service.
The Directive emphasises that the postal reform has brought significant positive developments in the
postal sector, with increased quality of service and focus on meeting consumer needs. Increased
competition allows consumers to take advantage of a wider choice of products and services offered by
postal service providers and allows these products and services to be continually improved in order to
meet consumer demand.
Quality-of-service standards are set and published in relation to the universal service in order to
guarantee a postal service of good quality.
The European Regulators Group for Postal Services (ERGP) will continuously monitor the effects of
postal liberalisation through appropriate indicators and their development over time, as well as through
the assessment of end-user complaint procedures to ensure that transparent, simple and inexpensive
complaint procedures are available to users – particularly in cases involving loss, theft, damage or
non-compliance with service quality standards – and that consumers are protected according to the
provisions of the Directive.
- Objective
The goal of this report is to provide the necessary data to monitor and follow up the quality of service,
the complaint handling and the consumer protection within the context of the regulatory measures
taken in those fields.
- Methodology
32 ERGP members have provided feedback: Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech
Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Germany,
Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, The Netherlands, Norway,
Poland, Portugal, Romania, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and the United
Kingdom.
ERGP (14) 24 – report on QoS and end-user satisfaction
11
- Current situation regarding service quality and end-user satisfaction
The quality of service and the end-user satisfaction have been analysed with a view to the following 5
dimensions:
1° Measurement of the quality of service concerning transit time
2° Collection and delivery
3° Access points
4° Measurement of consumer satisfaction
5° Surveys regarding customers’ needs
1° Measurement of the quality of service concerning routing times and the regularity and
reliability of services
In 32 ERGP members, there are always regulatory objectives for routing times (100% of the
respondents). For queuing time in post offices, there is a regulatory objective in 3 countries (9%). The
regulatory objectives deal with universal services and four countries have established regulatory
objectives for universal services provided by non-USP/non-Incumbent.
In 2013, targets for measuring the transit time of end-to-end priority mail in the domestic postal
market were established in 30 countries. There is a wide range of targets across the ERGP countries
reflecting different national considerations and, as such, comparisons between ERGP countries cannot
be drawn.
The average value of results (D+1) in countries who answered the questionnaire was 87.6% in 2013
(27 countries provided information on the results obtained), which is lower than the previous year
(88.29%). In 21 countries2 the USP achieved the targets, while in 5 countries
3 the USP did not.
In 19 countries, we have quality of service targets and mostly also results for parcels, in 17 countries
we have also quality of service targets and mostly also results for non-priority mail, and in 6 countries
we have targets and mostly also results for bulk mail.
2° Collection and delivery
Regarding the frequency of collection and delivery to be made by the USP, the responses received
from Member States revealed that the Directive has been implemented by all with at least one
collection/delivery for 5 days a week (in some countries the obligations have extended to 6 days per
week).
Exceptions have been granted in many countries regarding frequency of collection and mostly
delivery. Responses revealed that exceptions are mainly related to dispersed population, mountainous
character and islands.
2 AT, BE, CH, CY, CZ, FR, EL, HR, HU, LU, LT, MT, NO, PT, SE, SK, SI, UK 3 BG, DK, EE, PL, RO
ERGP (14) 24 – report on QoS and end-user satisfaction
12
3° Access points
The access point issue is very sensitive and this is reflected by the fact that a vast majority of the
countries consider it necessary to have requirements or standards to ensure an adequate number of
collection letterboxes and points of contact/postal establishments.
There are different types of points of contact at the European level. The most common is the
permanent post office managed by the USP with a full range of services and the permanent post
agency managed by a 3rd party.
4° Measurement of consumer satisfaction
According to the responses, 14 out of 32 NRAs (45%) use or monitor indicators of consumer
satisfaction in their countries, while 18 (55%) do not.
The results from the 2014 questionnaire show that, among the NRAs that use/monitor indicators of
consumer satisfaction, market surveys are used as the main method to identify levels of consumer
satisfaction and this ranges in frequency from adhoc to annual to twice yearly surveys. The number of
satisfaction indicators varies between NRAs depending on the nature of the research being undertaken
and its objectives, the size of the postal market and their capability to conduct research given
individual circumstances and the regulatory framework.
5° Surveys regarding customers´ needs
In terms of surveys regarding consumer needs and market, 14 NRAs (45%) answered that they
conduct such surveys and 17 NRAs (55%) do not. Surveys are mostly carried out annually or on an ad
hoc basis to serve regulatory needs. Usually, the surveys are conducted by an independent body.
Different methodologies are used, including telephone interviews/computer-assisted telephone
interviews (CATIs), standardised questionnaires and face to face interviews.
- Current situation regarding complaint handling and consumer protection
The report examines five key issues in the field of complaint handling and consumer protection,
namely:
a) Scope and competence of NRAs regarding complaint handling
b) Information provision and access to complaint handling and dispute resolution
c) Implementation of Standard EN 14012:2008
d) Compensation schemes for individual customers
e) Collection of data on complaints
1° Scope and competence of NRAs regarding complaint handling
This part is dealing with the legal framework on complaint handling. First of all, it illustrates in some
more detail the respective legal basis as set within the Postal Directives. Secondly, it evaluates the
scope and the competence of the NRAs in handling complaints on postal services, and it looks at the
other organisations a customer4 can address himself to in case of a complaint.
4 “Customer” has a broader meaning so that it can include customer or user
ERGP (14) 24 – report on QoS and end-user satisfaction
13
According to the answers to the 2014 questionnaire, in 25 (81%) out of the 31 responding countries,
the NRA is generally responsible for dealing with user complaints. In three of these countries (10%),
the NRA only handles complaints with regard to the Universal Service, while in the vast majority
(71%) all postal service issues can be addressed. 5 (16%) NRAs stated that they are not obliged to
handle user complaints.
2° Information provision and access to complaint handling and dispute resolution
This part analyses the information available for users on complaint handling procedures, redress
schemes and means of dispute resolution.
There have not been any major changes in the number of countries obliging the postal service
providers to publish information. In most countries, universal postal service providers are generally
obliged to publish information about complaint handling procedures and redress schemes, which was
mentioned by 27 (85%) and 25 (78%) NRAs respectively. In fewer countries 10 (31%), there is an
obligation covering information on means of dispute resolution.
3° Implementation of Standard EN 14012:2008
This part presents data on the situation regarding the implementation of the CEN Standard EN
14012:2008 (Postal Services - Quality of Service - Complaints handling principles) by postal service
providers.
Almost half the respondent NRAs (45%) indicated that the USP has implemented the CEN standard.
However, concerning other postal service providers active in the universal service area, the standard is
only implemented in 2 (7%) countries and is not implemented in any country for other postal service
providers. The majority of NRAs (55%) indicated that the standard has not been implemented by any
service provider.
4° Compensation schemes for individual customers
In this part, the scope of existing compensation schemes is analysed. In most countries (17 out of 31),
an obligation for a specific compensation scheme exists and covers the USP in almost all of them; this
also extends to other postal service providers. These results show that no significant change occurred
in this field when comparing with the data collected in 2013.
5° Collection of data on complaints
This part looks at the data that NRAs collect and have available on complaints about postal services in
general and about cross-border services in particular.
Almost all respondent NRAs collect data on complaints received by the USP regarding universal
services (28 out of 32). Out of these, 21 indicated to collect data by category and 16 by service. Fewer
NRAs collect data on complaints received by the USP about non-universal services (16 out of 32).
ERGP (14) 24 – report on QoS and end-user satisfaction
14
1. Background
Chapter 6 of Postal Directive 97/67/EC, as amended by Directives 2002/39 and 2008/6 (afterwards
referred to as Directive in this report), lays down that the national regulatory authorities (NRAs) shall
ensure compliance with the obligations arising from the Directive, in particular through the follow-up
of quality of service.
The Directive emphasises that the postal reform has brought significant positive developments in the
postal sector, with increased quality of service and focus on meeting consumer needs. Increased
competition allows consumers to take advantage of a wider choice of products and services offered by
postal service providers and allows these products and services to be continually improved in order to
meet consumer demand.
Quality-of-service standards are established and published in relation to the universal service in order
to guarantee a postal service of good quality. Quality standards have to focus, in particular, on routing
times and on the regularity and reliability of services.
The European Commission established, by the decision of 10 August 20105, the European Regulators
Group for Postal Services (ERGP). The ERGP's tasks shall be:
a) to advise and assist the Commission in consolidating the internal market for postal services;
b) to advise and assist the Commission on any matter related to postal services within its
competence;
c) to advise and assist the Commission as to the development of the internal market for postal
services and as to the consistent application in all Member States of the regulatory framework
for postal services;
d) to consult, in agreement with the Commission, extensively and at an early stage of its expert
work with market participants, consumers and end-users in an open and transparent manner.
The ERGP Plenary approved the ERGP work programme for 2014. This programme includes the
elaboration of a report on QoS indicators, including cross-border QoS results and complaints.
The ERGP will continuously monitor the effects of postal liberalisation through appropriate indicators
such as benchmarking the quality of postal services and their development over time, including end-
user complaint procedures to ensure that consumers are protected according to the provisions of the
Directive.
The goal is to collect the necessary data to monitor quality of service, linked back to regulatory
measures taken in that field. Particular attention will also be given to complaint handling procedures
and analysis of trends.
5 OJ C 217, 11.8.2010, p. 7.
ERGP (14) 24 – report on QoS and end-user satisfaction
15
2. Objectives
The report examines five key issues in the field of quality of service and end-user satisfaction, namely:
a) measurement of quality of service concerning transit time
b) collection and delivery
c) access points
d) measurement of consumer satisfaction
e) surveys regarding customers’ needs
The report also examines five key issues in the field of complaint handling and consumer protection,
namely:
a) scope and competence of NRAs on complaint handling
b) information provision and access to complaint handling and dispute resolution
c) implementation of standard EN 14012
d) compensation schemes for individual customers
e) collection of data on complaints
The goals are to collect the necessary data to monitor quality of service, end-user satisfaction,
complaint handling and consumer protection within the context of the regulatory measures taken in
those fields.
The document aims at:
a) reporting on the core quality of service indicators to monitor market development, evaluating
the results of regulatory measures and the consumer protection measures taken especially in
the field of complaint handling;
b) reporting on the core indicators to monitor complaint handling and consumer protection.
The report looks at the current and past situation (starting point) of data collection and published
indicators regarding quality of service.
Then, it analyses this data and identifies market trends regarding quality of service, e.g. results of mail
transit time, quality of delivery, customer satisfaction and development of the postal network. The
objective is to update this report on an annual basis.
This ERGP report describes the current practices of NRAs concerning quality of service, complaint
handling and consumer protection as well as the current scope, competencies and powers of NRAs.
Also, the provision of information on complaint handling procedures and implementation of the
complaint handling standard EN 14012 is analysed in detail. Moreover, the document makes reference
to compensation schemes in place and collects data regarding complaints.
ERGP (14) 24 – report on QoS and end-user satisfaction
16
3. Methodology
To obtain information regarding quality of service and end-user satisfaction in the broad sense of the
term, including complaint handling and consumer protection, a questionnaire has been issued to
collect information on the current situation.
This report is based on the feedback provided by 32 ERGP members: Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria,
Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Former Yugoslav Republic of
Macedonia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, the
Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden,
Switzerland and the United Kingdom.
The analysis is primarily based on the answers provided to the questionnaires (June 2014), which in
general, reflects the legislation and practice in place at the end of 2013.
ERGP (14) 24 – report on QoS and end-user satisfaction
17
4. Current situation regarding quality of service and end-user satisfaction
The quality of service and the end-user satisfaction have been analysed with a view to the following 5
dimensions:
1° measurement of the quality of service concerning transit time
2° collection and delivery
3° access points
4° measurement of consumer satisfaction
5° surveys regarding customer needs
Of course, other elements could also be used to monitor quality of service and end-user satisfaction,
but in this report the scope has been limited to the dimensions above.
We have also referred to the technical standards developed by CEN (European Committee for
Standardisation) in the field of quality of service, as laid down in Article 20 of the Directive.
4.1 Measurement of quality of service concerning routing times and the regularity and
reliability of services
The legal ground for measuring quality of service was laid down in Directive 97/67/EC (Chapters 6 &
7 and Annex 2). Concerning quality, Article 16 of the Directive 97/67/EC states:
“Member States shall ensure that quality-of-service standards are set and published in relation to
universal service in order to guarantee a postal service of good quality. Quality standards shall
focus, in particular, on routing times and on the regularity and reliability of services.
….
Independent performance monitoring shall be carried out at least once a year by external bodies
having no links with the universal service providers under standardized conditions to be specified in
accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 21 and shall be the subject of reports published
at least once a year.”
Based on the ERGP questionnaire, the table 1 gives details regarding the definition of regulatory
objective for routing time (transit time) and queuing time in post offices.
ERGP (14) 24 – report on QoS and end-user satisfaction
18
Table 1 – Answers of 32 European countries concerning regulatory objective
Routing time
(transit time) Queuing time
in post offices
Austria Yes No
Belgium Yes Yes6
Bulgaria Yes Yes
Croatia Yes No
Cyprus Yes No
Czech Republic Yes No
Denmark Yes No
Estonia Yes No
Finland Yes No
Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia Yes No
France Yes No
Germany Yes No
Greece Yes No
Hungary Yes No
Ireland Yes No
Italy Yes No
Latvia Yes No
Lithuania Yes No
Luxembourg Yes No
Malta Yes No
Netherlands Yes No
Norway Yes No
Poland Yes No
Portugal Yes Yes
Romania Yes No
Serbia Yes No
Slovakia Yes No
Slovenia Yes No
Spain Yes Yes7
Sweden Yes No
Switzerland Yes No
United Kingdom Yes No
Total 32 32 4
6 Regulatory objective based on the management contract between bpost and the State. 7 In Spain, measuring the queuing time in post offices is a regulatory commitment although no target is met.
ERGP (14) 24 – report on QoS and end-user satisfaction
19
In 32 ERGP members, there are always regulatory objectives which deal with universal services for
routing times (100% of the respondents). For loss or substantial delay, there is a regulatory objective
in 11 countries (34%) and, for queuing time in post offices, there is a regulatory objective in 4
countries (13%).
In 4 countries (16% - AT, DE8, LU and RO
9) regulatory objectives are established for services
provided by non-USP/non-Incumbents, as shown on table 2.
Even without regulatory objectives set out by the NRA or regulatory framework, the non-
USP/non-incumbents measured and published the quality levels of services effectively offered
according to parameters or common rules set by the NRA. This is the case in 3 of the ERGP countries,
namely DK, RS and UK. For example, in DK, the non-USP/non-incumbents only have to publish the
results and send a statement to the NRA while, in the UK, the non-USP/non-incumbents have to
submit the consumer complaint numbers via Consumer Protection regulatory conditions.
Table 2 – Countries which have regulatory objectives for services provided by non-USP/non-Incumbents
Austria 90% for D+2 delivery of letter items and 85% for D+3
delivery of parcel items
Germany
80% for D+1 and 95% for D+2 delivery of letter items
(including registered mail) and 80% for D+2 delivery
regarding parcel items
Luxembourg 85% and 99% for D+2 and D+5 delivery, respectively,
of items within the scope of the universal service
Romania 80% for D+3 and 95% for D+5
8 German regulatory law does not differentiate the incumbent’s services and those of its competitors, because the US
provided not only the incumbent but also the entirety of postal service providers. 9 For the authorization regime in RO.
ERGP (14) 24 – report on QoS and end-user satisfaction
20
Table 3 below indicates which countries measure transit time and for which kind of services, namely:
- Priority mail
- Non-priority mail
- Bulk mail
- Newspapers and periodicals
- Parcels
- Registered items
Table 3 – Answers of 32 European countries concerning measurements of transit time – which kind of services are
measured
Priority mail Non-priority
mail Bulk mail
Newspapers /
periodicals Parcels Registered items
AT √ - - √ -
BE √ √ - - √ √
BG √ √ - - √ -
CH √ √ - - √ -
CY √ - - - - -
CZ √ - - - - -
DE √ - - - - -
DK √ √ - √ √ -
EE √ - - - - -
EL √ - - - - -
ES √ - - √ -
FI √ √ - - - -
FR √ √ √ √ √ √
FY √ √ - - - -
HR √ √ - - - -
HU √ √ √ - √ √
IE √ - - - - -
IT √ - √ - √ √
LT √ - - - - -
LU √ - √ - - √
LV √ √ - - - -
MT √ - √ - √ √
NL √ - - - - -
NO √ √ - - - -
PL √ √ - - √ -
PT √ √ - √ √ -
RO √ - - - - -
RS √ - - - - -
SE √ - - - - -
SI √ - - - √ √
SK √ √ - - √ √
UK √ √ - - - -
Total 32 32 15 5 3 14 8
Note: AT and ES did not differentiate between priority and non-priority mail. Non-priority mail is not applicable in CY, CZ,
DE, EE, IE, IT, LU, MT, NL. SI doesn’t differentiate on priority and non-priority mail.; the measurement is done for items of
correspondence which includes, if compared to the definition of priority mail/non-priority mail, a broader range of services.
ERGP (14) 24 – report on QoS and end-user satisfaction
21
Priority mail is measured in all ERGP members, considering that AT, ES and SI did not differentiate
between priority and non-priority mail. Parcels are measured in 14 of the 32 (44%) ERGP members,
registered items in 8 of the 32 (25%) ERGP members, bulk mail in 5 of the 32 (16%) ERGP members
and newspapers / periodicals in 3 of the 32 (10%) ERGP members.
In 14 ERGP members, the non-priority mail is effectively measured, given that the following countries
do not have non-priority mail: CY, CZ, DE, EE, IE, IT, LU, MT, NL, which indicates that, 14 of 23
(61%) of the ERGP members measured these services.
Table 14 below gives details about the regulatory objective regarding cross-border services on the
following issue:
- Regulatory objectives related to cross-border services
- Regarding cross-border flows
- Source of such information
Table 4 - Cross-border Information per Country
Regulatory
objectives regarding
cross-border
services
Results regarding
cross-border flows?
Source
Austria Yes Yes USP
Belgium Yes Yes IPC
Bulgaria Yes Yes IPC10
Croatia Yes Yes USP
Cyprus Yes Yes IPC
Czech Republic No Yes USP
Denmark Yes No /
Estonia No Yes USP
Finland Yes No /
Former Yugoslav Republic of
Macedonia Yes Yes USP
11
France Yes Yes IPC
Germany Yes Other12
IPC
Greece Yes Yes IPC
Hungary Yes Yes USP
Ireland Yes Yes IPC
Italy Yes Yes IPC13
10 The information was provided to the CRC by the USP, but the original source was the IPC. 11 The Postal Agency has the total flow of cross-border services of the USP, but does not have the specific information, i.e.
concerning the results, the methodology used and the measurement. 12 Results regarding cross-border flows were delivered by the incumbent until 2012. New arrangements are in progress. 13 The data are generated by IPC, but are communicated to the regulatory authority by the USP.
ERGP (14) 24 – report on QoS and end-user satisfaction
22
Latvia No Yes IPC
Lithuania Yes Yes IPC
Luxembourg Yes Yes IPC
Malta Yes Yes IPC
Netherlands No No /
Norway Yes Yes IPC
Poland No No /
Portugal Yes Yes USP14
Romania Yes Yes IPC15
Serbia Yes Yes USP
Slovakia No No /
Slovenia Yes Yes USP16
Spain Yes Yes IPC
Sweden No No /
Switzerland Yes Yes USP17
United Kingdom Yes Yes USP
Total 25 25 n.a.
25 out of the 32 (78%) ERGP countries have regulatory objectives for cross-border services. In 3
ERGP countries, there are regulatory objectives but the NRA does not obtain the results. But in one of
them, it is temporary, since they are working to solve the issue.
The information source is the USP or IPC. In 10 countries, it is the USP; in 15 countries, it is IPC.
Of all the 32 countries, only Czech Republic, Estonia, Latvia, the Netherlands, Poland, Slovakia and
Sweden answered that there are no regulatory objectives related to cross-border services.
The remaining countries established objectives regarding D+3 and D+5 delivery, except for Malta
(94%) and Belgium (90%), which established additional targets for the incoming cross-border mail
regarding D+1 delivery.
Concerning D+3 delivery, all countries set the target value at 85%, except for France (90%), Portugal
(88%) and Austria (90% for cross-border extra-community priority letter mail items and postal parcel
items).
Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Latvia, the Netherlands, Poland, Slovakia,
Sweden, Switzerland and United Kingdom did not define a target value for cross-border extra-
community priority letter mail items and postal parcel items. Ireland and Serbia have regulatory
objectives related to cross-border services, but did not indicate the target values for 2013.
14 Based on info provided by IPC. 15
The data are generated by IPC, but are communicated to the regulatory authority by the USP 16
Based on info provided by IPC. 17 Idem
ERGP (14) 24 – report on QoS and end-user satisfaction
23
Concerning D+5 delivery, the countries set the target value at 97%, except Czech Republic, Denmark,
Estonia, Finland, France, Latvia, the Netherlands, Poland, Slovakia, Sweden, Switzerland and the
United Kingdom, which do not define a target value for cross-border extra-community priority letter
mail items and postal parcel items. Ireland and Serbia have regulatory objectives related to cross-
border services, but did not indicate the target values for 2013.
4.1.1. Measurement of quality of service for single piece priority mail in 2013
In 2013, targets for measuring the transit time of end-to-end priority mail in the domestic postal
market were established in 30 countries.
There is a wide range of targets across the ERGP countries reflecting different national considerations
and, as such, comparisons between ERGP countries cannot be drawn.
Table 5 – Targets and results of single piece priority mail (2013)
D+1 D+2 D+3 D+4 D+5
Target Results Target Results Target Results Target Results Target Results
AT 95,00 95,50 98,00 99,50 / 99,90 100,00 100,00 / /
BE 90,00 95,70 97,00 99,24 / / / / / /
BG 80,00 50,70 95,00 75,60 / / / / / /
CH 97,00 97,60 / / / / / / / /
CY 90,00 90,00 n.a. n.a. 97,00 97,00 / n.a. / /
CZ 92,00 93,09 / / / / / / / /
DE 80,00 91,2018
95,00 / / / / / / /
DK 93,00 93,20 / / / / / / / /
EE 90,00 88,70 / / / / / / / /
EL 87,00 90,50 / / 98,00 99,70 / / / /
ES / / / / 93,00 96,56 / / 99,00 99,16
FI 80,00 90,20 / / / / / / / /
FR 85,0019
87,40 / / 99,00 99,30 / / / /
FY / / / / / / / / / /
HR 85,00 85,20 95,00 95,80 / / / / / /
HU 90,00 92,80 / / 97,00 99,60 / / / /
IE 94,00 /20
/ / 99,50 / / / / /
IT 89,00 90,40 / / 98,00 99,20 / / / /
LT 85,00 90,03 / / 97,00 99,56 / / / /
LU n/a 97,06 85,00 99,63 99,00 n.a. n.a. n.a. / /
18 Only the transit times of the incumbent were measured. The target also applies for other service providers. 19 The target must be greater than or equal to 85. 20 Results are not currently available.
ERGP (14) 24 – report on QoS and end-user satisfaction
24
D+1 D+2 D+3 D+4 D+5
Target Results Target Results Target Results Target Results Target Results
LV 90,00 90,53 / / / / / / / /
MT 94,00 95,16 98,00 98,71 99,00 99,03 / / / /
NL 95,00 95,80 / / / / / / / /
NO 85.00 86.00 / / 97.00 99.40 / / / /
PL 82.00 66.70 90.00 90.80 94.00 96.70 / / / /
PT21
94.50 94.90 87.00 93.30 / / / / / /
RO 85.00 34.00 97.00 71.00 / / / / / /
RS / / / / / / / / / /
SE 85.00 94.90 / / 97.00 99.90 / / / /
SI22
95.00 96.20 99,50 99.60 100.00 99.90 / / / /
SK 93.00 94.65 / / / / / / / /
UK 93.00 93.2 / / / / / / / /
Total 28 27 11 10 14 13 1 1 1 1
Average 89.2 87.6 94.2 92,3 97.5 98.9 100 100 99 99.2
The average value of results (D+1) in countries who answered the questionnaire was 87.61% in 2013
(27 countries provided information on the results obtained), which is lower than the previous year
(88.29%).
Table 5 above shows the countries that established targets for D+1, D+2, D+3 and other higher
delivery, as well as their results. Based on this table, we can notice the following points:
- 11 countries23
established targets for D+2 delivery. Luxembourg (85%), Poland (90%) and
Portugal (87%)24
have the lowest targets, while Malta (98%) and Slovenia (99.5%) have the
highest targets. Bulgaria (difference of 19.4% compared to the target) and Romania
(difference of 26% compared to the target) failed to achieve their targets;
- 14 countries25
established targets for D+3 delivery. France, (99%), Ireland (99.5%),
Luxembourg (99%), Malta (99%) and Slovenia (100%) have the highest targets. Poland (94%)
and Spain (93%) presented relatively low targets compared to other countries, although results
in Spain are above 96%;
- Austria (100%) and Spain (99%) established targets for D+4 and D+5 respectively, and both
have achieved the target.
21 D+1 applies to letters sent between any locations on Portugal’s Mainland and D+2 applies to letters sent from, between or
to any location of the Autonomous Regions of Azores and Madeira. 22 SI doesn’t differentiate on priority and non-priority mail. SI measurement for D+1, D+2 and D+3 is done for items of
correspondence which includes, if compared to the definition of single piece priority mail, a broader range of services. 23 BE, BG, DE, HR, LU, MT, PL, PT, RO, SI. 24 Applies to letters sent from, between or to any location of the Autonomous Regions of Azores and Madeira. 25 CY, EL, ES, FR, HU, IE, IT, LT, LU, MT, NO, PL, SE, SI.
ERGP (14) 24 – report on QoS and end-user satisfaction
25
Figure 1 shows that in 2013 21 countries26
achieved their targets, while 5 countries27
did not.
Figure 1 – Targets and results (D+1) in 32 European countries in 2013
As figure 2 shows, in 2013, in comparison with 2012, 10 countries improved the quality of time
measurement (D+1), while 14 countries did not. Two countries recorded the same quality of time
measurement and the figures are not available yet in 2 other countries.
Figure 2 – Results (D+1) of 2012 and 2013 in 32 European countries
26 AT, BE, CH, CY, CZ, DE, EL, FI, FR, HR, HU, IT, LT, LV, MT, NO, PT, SE, SI, SK, UK 27 BG, DK, EE, PL, RO
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
AT
BE
BG
CH
CY
CZ
DE
DK
EE
EL
ES FI
FR
FY
HR
HU IE IT LT
LU
LV
MT
NL
NO PL
PT
RO
RS
SE SI
SK
UK
Targets Results
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
AT
BE
BG
CH
CY
CZ
DE
DK
EE
EL
ES FI
FR
FY
HR
HU IE IT LT
LU
LV
MT
NL
NO PL
PT
RO
RS
SE SI
SK
UK
2013 2012
ERGP (14) 24 – report on QoS and end-user satisfaction
26
Table 6 below indicates which methodology each country has used for the measurement of single
piece priority mail. All countries have used the European standard EN 1385028
.
Table 6 – Methodology for each country based on the quality of service for single piece priority mail in 2013
Count Country %
EN 13850 25
AT, BE, BG, CH, CZ, DE, DK, EL,
ES, FR, HR, HU, IE, IT, LT, LV, MT,
NL, NO, PL, PT, RO, SE, SI29
, SK.
100
4.1.2. Measurement of loss or substantial delay in 2013
Countries that have regulatory objectives for loss or substantial delay regarding single piece priority
mail, are shown in table 7. Only Portugal claimed to have regulatory objectives for loss or substantial
delay. Portugal has a target for D+10 set at 99.85% for which the USP achieved a result of 99.87%.
Regarding regulatory objectives for loss or substantial delay, about single piece non priority mail, only
Portugal mentioned the existence of objectives. Portugal sets a target for D+15 delivery at 99.86% for
which the result (99.85%) fell short by 0.01 pp.
Regarding regulatory objectives for loss or substantial delay, about registered mail in 2013, only
France mentioned the existence of objectives for these services. France reported that, in 2013, it had an
indicator for loss or substantial delay, but that the target value was not defined.
Table 7 – Regulatory objectives for loss or substantial delay regarding single piece priority mail
D+1 D+2 D+3 D+10
Target Results Target Results Target Results Target Results
PT / / / / / / 99.85 99.87
Total / / / / / / 1 1
Average / / / / / / 99.9
28 EN 13850 is a CEN standard for Postal Services – Quality of Services – Measurement of the transit time for single piece
priority mail and first class mail 29 SI doesn’t differentiate on priority and non-priority mail. The measurement standard EN 13850 is used in SI for items of
correspondence which includes, if compared to the definition of single piece priority mail, a broader range of services.
ERGP (14) 24 – report on QoS and end-user satisfaction
27
4.1.3. Measurement of quality of service for single piece non-priority mail in 2013
Table 8 below presents the countries which have a regulatory objective for routing time for single
piece non-priority mail.
Table 8 – Targets and results of single piece non-priority mail
D+1 D+2 D+3 D+4 D+5 D+6
Target Results Target Results Target Results Target Results Target Results Target Results
BE / / 95.0030 97.91 / 99.48 / / / / / /
BG / / 80.00 81.00 95.00 90.40 / / / / / /
CH / / / / 97.00 98.80 / / / / / /
DK 95,00 98,60
FI / / 95.00 92.70 98.00 98.90 / / / / / /
FR / / 93.00 92.80 / / / / / / / /
FY 85.00 / 90.00 / 95.00 / / / / / / /
HR / / / / 95.00 95.10 / / / / / /
HU / / / / 85.00 93.40 / / 97.00 99.30 /
LU n.a. 97.06 85.00 99.63 99.00 n.a. n.a. n.a. / / / /
LV / / / / 98.00 99.70 / / / / / /
NO / / / / / / 85.00 93.70 / / 97.00 97.30
PL / / / / 85.00 85.40 / / 97.00 98.40 / /
PT / / / / 96.30 97.60 / / / / / /
RS / / 90.00 98.86 98.60 98.74 / / 99.50 100.00 / /
SI31
95.00 96.20 99.50 99.60 100.00 99.9 / / / / / /
SK / / 93.00 93.42 / / / / / / / /
UK / / / /
98.50
or
90.00
/ / / / / / /
Total 2 2 9 8 14 12 1 1 3 3 1 1
Average 90.0 96.6 91.2 94.5 95.4 96.3 85.0 93.7 97.8 99.2 97.0 97.3
30 Objective for the overall small consumer baskets which consists of 5 key services of single piece (priority, non-priority,
inbound, registered and parcels). 31 SI doesn’t differentiate on priority and non-priority mail. SI measurement for D+1, D+2 and D+3 is done for items of
correspondence which includes, if compared to the definition of single piece priority mail, a broader range of services.
ERGP (14) 24 – report on QoS and end-user satisfaction
28
Based on this table we can notice the following points:
- Only the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (85%) and Slovenia (95%) have target
values regarding D+1 delivery. Slovenia (96.20%) exceeded the target value. Results for the
Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia are not yet available and Luxembourg has results
regarding D+1 (97,06%);
- 9 countries32
have targets concerning D+2 delivery. Bulgaria (80%) and Luxembourg (85%)
have considerably lower targets than the other 7 countries especially when compared with
Belgium (95%), Finland (95%) and Slovenia (99.6%). All countries achieved their targets
except for Finland (difference of 2,3% compared to its target) and France (difference of 0,2%
compared to its target). The average result was 94.5%;
- 14 countries have targets concerning D+3 delivery. Hungary and Poland (85%) showed the
lowest target while Luxembourg (99%), Serbia (98.6%), Slovenia (100%) and the United
Kingdom (98.5%) presented the highest ones. Only Bulgaria (difference of 4,6% compared to
its target) failed to achieve their targets.
- Only Norway sets targets for D+4 (85%) and D+6 (97%) which are surpassed by the results,
respectively 93.7% for D+4 and 97.3% for D+6;
- Only Hungary (97%), Poland (97%) and Serbia (99.5%) set targets for D+5 delivery. These
countries achieved and exceeded their targets with results equal to 99.3%, 98.4% and 100%,
respectively.
Table 9 below indicates which methodology each country has used for the measurement of single
piece non-priority mail. Most countries (85%) used the European standard EN 1450833
, but 2 countries
(15%) used the EN 1385034
.
Table 9 – Methodology for each country based on the quality of service for single piece non-priority mail in 2013
Count Country %
EN 13850 2 NO, SI35
15
EN 14508 11 BE, BG, CH, HR, DK, FR, HU, PL,
PT, SK, UK 85
32 BE, BG, FI, FR, FY, LU, RS, SI, SK. 33 EN 14508 is a CEN standard for Postal Services – Quality of Services – Measurement of the transit time for single piece
non-priority mail and second class mail 34 EN 13850 is a CEN standard for Postal Services – Quality of Services – Measurement of the transit time for single piece
priority mail and first class mail 35 SI doesn’t differentiate on priority and non-priority mail. SI measurement for D+1, D+2 and D+3 is done for items of
correspondence which includes, if compared to the definition of single piece priority mail, a broader range of services.
ERGP (14) 24 – report on QoS and end-user satisfaction
29
4.1.4. Measurement of quality of service for bulk mail in 2013
Table 10 below presents the countries which have a regulatory objective for routing time for bulk
mail.
Table 10 – Targets and results of bulk mail (question 1.1.2)
D+1 D+2 D+3 D+4 D+5
Target Results Target Results Target Results Target Results Target Results
FR / / / 97,00 / / / / / /
HU 90,0036
/ / / 97,00
37
85,0038
95,00
39 / / 97,00
40 99,50
41
IT / / / / 94,00 94,10 / / 98,00 98,40
LU n.a. 97,06 85,00 99,63 99,00 n.a. n.a. n.a. / /
MT 94,00 94,35 98,00 97,87 99,00 98,28 / / / /
SE 85,00 / / / 97,00 / / / / /
Total 3 2 2 3 5 3 0 0 2 2
Average 89.7 95.7 91.5 98.2 97.2 95.8 n.a. n.a. 97.5 99.0
Based on this table, we can notice the following points:
- Regarding D+1 delivery, only Hungary (for priority bulk items 90%), Malta (94%) and
Sweden (85%) set targets for which Malta is the only one to have results (94.35%);
- Regarding D+2 delivery, only Luxembourg (85%) and Malta (98%) set targets. France has
results regarding D+2 (97%), but did not present the respective target value;
- Regarding D+3 delivery, Hungary (97% for priority bulk mail and 85% for non-priority bulk
mail), Italy (94%), Luxembourg (99%), Malta (99%) and Sweden (97%) established targets.
Only Hungary (95% for non-priority bulk mail), Italy (94.1%) and Malta (98.28%) presented
results;
- None of the countries have targets regarding D+4 delivery;
- Regarding D+5 delivery, only Hungary (97% for non-priority bulk mail) and Italy (98%) fixed
quality targets. Both Hungary (99.5%) and Italy (98.4%) exceeded their targets.
36 Priority. 37 Idem 38 Non-priority. 39 Idem 40 Idem 41 Idem
ERGP (14) 24 – report on QoS and end-user satisfaction
30
Table 11 below indicates which methodology each country has used for the measurement of bulk mail.
Most countries (75%) used the European standard EN 1453442
but 1 country (25%) used the
EN1385043
together with the EN 1450844
.
Table 11 – Methodology for each country, based on the quality of service for bulk mail in 2013
Count Country %
EN 13850 1 DK 25
EN 14534 3 HU, MT, SE 75
4.1.5. Measurement of quality of service for Newspapers/periodicals in 2013
Portugal established regulatory objectives for routing time for newspapers/periodicals. None of the
countries established regulatory objectives for loss or substantial delay for newspapers/periodicals.
42 EN 14534 is a CEN standard for Postal Services – Quality of Services – Measurement of the transit time for bulk mail 43 EN 13850 is a CEN standard for Postal Services – Quality of Services – Measurement of the transit time for single piece
priority mail and first class mail 44 EN 14508 is a CEN standard for Postal Services – Quality of Services – Measurement of the transit time for single piece
non-priority mail and second class mail
ERGP (14) 24 – report on QoS and end-user satisfaction
31
4.1.6. Measurement of quality of service for parcels in 2013
Table 12 below presents the countries which have a regulatory objective for routing time for parcels.
Table 12 – Targets and results of parcels (question 1.1.2)
D+1 D+2 D+3 D+4 D+5 D+6
Target Results Target Results Target Results Target Results Target Results Target Results
AT / / 90,00 94,44 / / / / 100,00 / / /
BE 95,0045 96,1146 95,0047 98,8648 / / / / / / / /
BG 80,00 89,70 95,00 99,50 / / / / / / / /
CH 95,00 97,30 95,00 97,70 / / / / / / / /
DE / / 80,00 / / / / / / / / /
DK 93,00 96,50
ES / / / / 80,00 81,10. / / 95,00 88,90 / /
FR / / 88,00 89,40 / / 98,50 99,10 / / / /
FY / / 70,00 / 75,00 / / / 80,00 / / /
HU / / 85,00 98,60 95,00 99,70 / / / / / /
IT / / / / 94,00 93,80 / / / / / /
LV / / / / / / 98,00 / / / / /
MT 98,00 98,81 99,00 99,61 99,00 99,75 / / / / / /
NO / / / / / / 85,00 88,40 / / 97,00 98,20
PL 80,00 76,80 / / 90,00 97,80 / / / / / /
PT / / / / 92,00 95,50 / / / / / /
RO / / 85,00 / / / 97,00 / / / / /
SI / / 80,00 100,00 95,00 100,00 / / / / / /
SK / / 93,00 99,34 93,00 99,17 / / / / / /
UK 93,00
and/or
91,50
/ / /
98,50
or
90,00
/ / / / / / /
Total 7 6 12 9 10 8 4 2 3 1 1 1
Average 90.6 92.5 87.9 97.5 91.2 95.9 94.6 93.8 91.7 88.9 97.0 98.2
Based on this table, we can notice the following points:
- Regarding D+1 delivery, only Belgium (95%), Bulgaria (80%), Denmark (93%), Malta (98%),
Poland (80%), Switzerland (95%) and the United Kingdom (93% and/or 91.5%) set targets. Of
45 Objective for the overall small consumer baskets which consists of 5 key services of single piece (priority, non-priority,
inbound, registered and parcels). 46 Parcels with delivery standard D+1. 47 Objective for the overall small consumer baskets which consists of 5 key services of single piece (priority, non-priority,
inbound, registered and parcels) 48 Parcels with delivery standard D+2.
ERGP (14) 24 – report on QoS and end-user satisfaction
32
these countries only Poland failed to achieve the defined target (difference of 3,2% compared
to the target) and United Kingdom did not present the results;
- Regarding D+2 delivery, 12 countries49
stated to have targets. Belgium, Bulgaria, Switzerland
(95%) and Malta (99%) presented the highest targets while the Former Yugoslav Republic of
Macedonia (70%), Germany, Slovenia (80%) and Romania (85%) established the lowest ones.
The average target was 87.92%. The countries that presented their results exceeded their
goals.
- Regarding D+3 delivery, 10 countries50
established quality targets. Hungary (95%), Italy
(94%), Malta (99%, same as D+2), Slovenia (95%) and the United Kingdom (98.5%)
presented the highest target values while the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (75%)
and Spain (80%) presented the lowest ones. Only Italy failed to achieve its target (difference
of 0,2% compared to the target). Results are not available for the Former Yugoslav Republic
of Macedonia and the United Kingdom.
- Only France (98.5%), Latvia (98%), Norway (85%) and Romania (97%) have targets
regarding D+4. Only France (99.1%) and Norway (88.4%) presented results.
- Regarding D+5 delivery, only Austria (100%), the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
(80%) and Spain (95%) have targets. None of the countries presented results except Spain,
which presented results (88,9%) below the target of 95%.
- Regarding D+6 delivery, only Norway (97%) has a target, which was achieved (98.2%).
Table 13 below indicates which methodology each country has used for the measurement of parcels.
Most countries (50%) used the European standard TR 1547251
but 2 countries (25%) used another
standard, 1 country (12,5%) used the standard EN 1385052
and 1 country (12,5%) used the EN13850
together with the EN 1450853
.
Table 13 – Methodology for each country, based on the quality of service for parcels in 2013
Question: For the service for parcels in
2013, please specify the methodology
used for the measurement: Count Country %
EN 13850 1 NO 12,5
TR 15472 4 BE, MT, PL, SI 50,0
EN 13850/EN 14508 1 SK 12,5
Other 2 BG54
, CH 25,0
49 AT, BE, BG, CH, DE, FR, FY, HU, MT, RO, SI, SK. 50 ES, FY, HU, IT, MT, PL, PT, SI, SK, UK. 51 TR 15472 is a CEN standard for Postal Services – Quality of Services – Measurement of the transit time for parcels by the
use of a track and trace system. 52 EN 13850 is a CEN standard for Postal Services – Quality of Services – Measurement of the transit time for single piece
priority mail and first class mail 53 EN 14508 is a CEN standard for Postal Services – Quality of Services – Measurement of the transit time for single piece
non-priority mail and second class mail 54 Using data from the datestamp.
ERGP (14) 24 – report on QoS and end-user satisfaction
33
4.1.7. Measurement of quality of service for registered mail in 2013
Table 14 below presents the countries which have a regulatory objective for registered mail.
Table 14 – Targets and results of registered mail
D+1 D+2 D+3 D+4 D+5
Target Results Target Results Target Results Target Results Target Results
AT 98,00 99,50
/ / 99,90 100,00 100,00 / /
BE 95,0055
96,87
DE 80,00 / 95,00 / / / / / / /
FR / / 93,00 95,20 / / / / / /
HU / / / / 85,00 98,30 / / 97,00 99,60
IT / / / / 92,50 93,70 / / 98,00 98,20
LU n.a. 97,06 85,00 99,63 99,00 n.a. n.a. n.a. / /
LV 100,00 / / / / / / / / /
MT 98,00 99,32 99,00 99,89 99,00 99,95 / / / /
RO 85,00 / 97,00 / / / / / / /
SK / / 93,00 99,34 / / / / / /
UK
93,00
and/or
91,50
and
99,00
/ / /
98,50 or
90,00
and
99,00
/ / / / /
Total 7 4 6 4 5 4 1 1 2 2
Average 93.6 98.2 93.7 98.5 94.9 98.0 100 100 97.5 98.9
Based on this table we can notice the following points:
- Regarding D+1 delivery, only Austria (98%), Belgium (95%), Germany (80%), Latvia
(100%), Malta (98%), Romania (85%) and the United Kingdom (93% and/or 91.5% and 99%)
set quality targets which are measured and achieved in Austria (99,5%), Belgium (96.87%)
and Malta (99.32%) . Luxembourg has results regarding D+1 (97,06%), but did not present the
respective target value;
- Regarding D+2 delivery, 6 countries56
established quality targets. France (93%), Germany
(95%), Luxembourg (85%), Malta (99%), Romania (97%) and Slovakia (93%). Luxembourg
established the lowest target, while Malta established the highest ones. There are no results
available for Germany and Romania. All countries that presented their results surpassed their
targets.
- Regarding D+3 delivery Hungary (85%), Italy (92.5%), Luxembourg (99%), Malta (99%),
and the United Kingdom (98.5% or 90% and 99%) have targets.
- None of the countries have targets regarding D+4 delivery;
55 Objective for the overall small consumer baskets which consists of 5 key services of single piece (priority, non-priority,
inbound, registered and parcels). 56 DE, FR, LU, MT, RO, SK
ERGP (14) 24 – report on QoS and end-user satisfaction
34
- Regarding D+5 delivery only Hungary (97%) and Italy (98%) defined quality targets, which
both countries exceeded.
Table 15 below indicates which methodology each country has used for the measurement of registered
items. Most countries used the European standard EN 1385057
(43%) or EN 1413758
(29%) but 1
country (14%) used the EN13850 and 1 country used the EN 1450859
.
Table 15 – Methodology for each country, based on the quality of service for registered mail in 2013
Question: For the service for registered
mail in 2013, please specify the
methodology used for the measurement: Count Country %
EN 13850 2 AT, DE 33
TR 15472 1 BE60
17
EN 14508 1 SK 17
EN 14137 2 FR, MT 33
57 EN 13850 is a CEN standard for Postal Services – Quality of Services – Measurement of the transit time for single piece
priority mail and first class mail 58 EN 14137 is a CEN standard for Postal Services – Quality of Services – Measurement of the loss of registered mail and
other types of postal services using track and trace system 59 EN 14508 is a CEN standard for Postal Services – Quality of Services – Measurement of the transit time for single piece
non-priority mail and second class mail 60 Technical report partly used
ERGP (14) 24 – report on QoS and end-user satisfaction
35
4.1.8. Force majeure
In measuring the transit time some events which has been considers as force majeure, can be excluded
from the measurement based on the standard. In accordance with CEN 13850 in most countries (18
countries61
) the NRA decide on the application of force majeure events on request of the operator.
In 12 countries have been defined the circumstances on which an event can be considered as a force
majeure62
, which may have implications for measurement of the quality of service.
As a result of the questionnaire in 2013, the accepted force majeure days varied between 0 and 15
days (2012: between 0 and 9 days).
In the table below 4 countries stated the number of force majeure days and reasons for those events.
Table 16 – Number of accepted force majeure days/incidents and reasons in 2013
Country Number of days Reasons
BE 7 days, of which 2
regional ones National strike and extreme weather conditions.
EL 15 National strike
PT 8 working days of
force majeure for
priority mail
(Mainland) and 11
working days of
force majeure for
non-priority mail
National strike and national airspace restrictions resulting from bad weather in the
Azores.
SK 1 heavy snow
61 BE, BG, CH, EL, FI, FY, HR, HU, IE, IT, LT, MT, PL, PT, RS, SE, SI, SK (question 1.5.2: Do you, as the NRA, decide
on the application of force majeure events on request of the operator?). 62 BE, BG, CZ, DK, FI, FY, HR, IT, LT, LV, PT, RO (question 1.5.1: Is there a definition of force majeure events in your
country, applicable to the measurement of quality of service).
ERGP (14) 24 – report on QoS and end-user satisfaction
36
4.2. Collection and delivery
Concerning delivery, in Article 3 of the Directive 97/67/EC, as amended by Directive 2008/6/EC of
the European Parliament and of the council of 20 February 2008, it is said:
“Member States shall take steps to ensure that the universal service is guaranteed not less than five
working days a week, save in circumstances or geographical conditions deemed exceptional, and that
it includes as a minimum:
- one clearance,
- one delivery to the home or premises of every natural or legal person or, by way of derogation,
under conditions at the discretion of the national regulatory authority, one delivery to appropriate
installations.’
Any exception or derogation granted by a national regulatory authority in accordance with this
paragraph must be communicated to the Commission and to all national regulatory authorities.”
4.2.1. Requirements on the frequency of collection and delivery relating to the universal service
4.2.1.1. Collection
Regarding the frequency of collections (see figure 3) to be made by the universal service provider, the
responses received from European countries have revealed that the Directive has been implemented by
all and that, with few exceptions, the rule is at least one collection/day for 5 days a week.
The exceptions are those countries in which the obligation to have the collection carried out by the
universal service provider was extended to 6 days a week. More specifically, the countries that
implemented exceptions (6 days/week) in the frequency of collection relating to the universal service
are:
- Norway, Malta, Germany and France: for all categories (correspondence, parcel and CNP63
);
- The Netherlands: only for “mourning mail” and “medical mail”;
- UK: only for correspondence and parcels;
- Estonia and Belgium: only for CNP64
;
- Bulgaria: where the universal service provider is obliged to ensure, in Sofia, two collections
per day, from Monday to Friday, and one collection per day on Saturdays and Sundays. For
the rest of the country, the universal service provider has to ensure one collection per day,
from Monday to Saturday, in geographical areas served by a sorting centre, and one collection
per day, from Monday to Friday, in geographical areas unserved by a sorting centre.
63 Catalogues, Newspapers, Prints 64 Idem
ERGP (14) 24 – report on QoS and end-user satisfaction
37
Figure 3 – Number of collections/week relating to the universal service
1 2 3 4 5 6
UK
Switzerland
Sweden
Spain
Slovenia
Slovakia
Serbia
Romania
Portugal
Poland
Norway
Nedherland
Malta
Luxembourg
Lithuania
Latvia
Italy
Ireland
Hungary
Greece
Germany
FYROM
France
Finland
Estonia
Denmark
Czech Republic
Cyprus
Croatia
Bulgaria
Belgium
Austria
Correspondence CNP Parcels
ERGP (14) 24 – report on QoS and end-user satisfaction
38
4.2.1.2. Delivery
Regarding the frequency of deliveries (figure 4) to be made by the universal service provider, the
responses received from European countries have revealed that the Directive has been implemented by
all and that, with few exceptions, the rule is at least one delivery/day for 5 days a week.
The exceptions are those countries in which the obligation to have the delivery carried out by the
universal service provider was extended to 6 days a week. More specifically, the countries that
implemented exceptions (6 days/week) in the frequency of delivery relating to the universal service
are:
- Norway, Malta, Germany and France: for all categories (correspondence, parcel and CNP);
- The Netherlands: only for “mourning mail” and “medical mail”;
- UK: only for correspondence and parcels;
- Austria, Estonia and Belgium: only for CNP;
- Switzerland: usually 5 days a week, but for priority mail, in reality the delivery rule claims 6
days a week;
- Bulgaria: where the universal service provider is obliged to ensure, in Sofia, two deliveries per
day, from Monday to Friday, and one delivery per day on Saturdays and Sundays. For the rest
of the country, the universal service provider has to ensure one delivery per day, from Monday
to Saturday, in geographical areas served by a sorting centre, and one delivery per day, from
Monday to Friday, in geographical areas unserved by a sorting centre. Another special case is
FYROM, where the universal service provider is obliged to ensure deliveries only for 3
days/week.
ERGP (14) 24 – report on QoS and end-user satisfaction
39
Figure 4 – Number of deliveries/week relating to the universal service
1 2 3 4 5 6
UK
Switzerland
Sweden
Spain
Slovenia
Slovakia
Serbia
Romania
Portugal
Poland
Norway
Nedherland
Malta
Luxembourg
Lithuania
Latvia
Italy
Ireland
Hungary
Greece
Germany
FYROM
France
Finland
Estonia
Denmark
Czech Republic
Cyprus
Croatia
Bulgaria
Belgium
Austria
Correspondence CNP Parcels
ERGP (14) 24 – report on QoS and end-user satisfaction
40
4.2.2. Exceptions on collection and delivery because of circumstances or geographical conditions
deemed exceptional.
According to Paragraph 3 of Article 3 of the Directive, there may be exceptions in the frequency of
collection/delivery in circumstances or geographical conditions deemed exceptional. It includes as a
minimum: one clearance/one delivery to the home or premises of every natural or legal person or, by
way of derogation, under conditions at the discretion of the national regulatory authorities, one
delivery to appropriate installations. It should be underlined that the same paragraph states that any
exception or derogation granted by a national regulatory authority must be communicated to the
European Commission and to all the other national regulatory authorities.
Here are the most frequently mentioned reasons for exceptions to USO obligations in the following
countries (listed in the figure 5 on next page):
- mountainous and inaccessible character;
- depopulated areas, dispersed population;
- islands;
- costs65
;
-tradition;
- extreme weather conditions;
- areas where public transport is not regularly provided;
- poor infrastructure (roads, etc.);
- fluctuation in the number of people depending on the season.
65 The postal sector has the features of a scale economy in which the providers reduce the costs incurred by the processing of
a single postal item as the real flow they process is increasing. Where the real flow is low, the processing costs increase and
the operators naturally decide to close their access/contact points deserved by personnel, ensuring most of the times (with the
agreement of the regulatory authorities) the collection and delivery of postal items 2-3 times a week.
ERGP (14) 24 – report on QoS and end-user satisfaction
41
Figure 5 – Reasons for exceptions regarding collection and delivery
Analysing the responses provided by Member States, we conclude that there are 8 countries in which
the list of settlements and cases deemed to be exceptional have been expressly defined in the
secondary legislation: Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Denmark, Greece, Romania, Slovakia, Spain and
UK. In all these cases, the list is regularly updated and published (with only one exception: Spain,
where the list is not published).
Greece is a special case. There, the responsibility for updating the list is collective. The list of
settlements located in exceptional areas due to special geographical peculiarities is formed by a
3member committee, where one member is from the Ministry of Infrastructure, Transport and
Networks, another member is from the Greek NRA (EETT) and the last one is from the USP. Once
evaluated and approved by the Minister of Infrastructure, Transport and Networks, the proposed
settlements that are excluded from the quality measurements are appended to the USP’s Management
Contract between the USP and the Ministry of Infrastructure, Transport and Networks.
10
8
15
6
3
6
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
mountainous
character
islands
dispersed
population
costs
tradition
weather
Islands:
1.
Denmark
2. Estonia
3. Finland
4. France
5. Greece
6. Spain
7. Sweden
8. UK
Weather: 1. Denmark, 2. Greece ,
3. Romania, 4. Slovenia 5. Spain, 6. UK
Mountainous
character:
1. Bulgaria
2. Croatia
3. Cyprus
2. France
3. Greece
4. FYROM
5. Romania
6. Serbia
7. Slovakia
8. Slovenia
8. Sweden
9. Switzerland
10. UK
Dispersed
population:
1. Bulgaria
2. Crotia
3. Cyprus
4. Greece
5. Italy
6. FYROM
7. Norway
8. Romania
9. Serbia
10. Slovakia
11. Slovenia
12. Spain
13. Sweden
14. Switzerland
15. UK
Costs: 1. Norway, 2. Romania, 3. Slovakia,
4. Sweden, 5. Switzerland, 6. UK
Tradition: 1. Switzerland, 2. UK, 3. Sweden
ERGP (14) 24 – report on QoS and end-user satisfaction
42
Denmark is another special case. There, in accordance with the Postal Services Directive and pursuant
to Article 15 of the Danish Postal Service Act of 2010, the Danish National Regulatory Authority (the
National Transport Authority) has stipulated that the permanent inhabitants of a number of small
Danish islands (approximately 7-8 islands) will have to pick up their postal items - letters and parcels -
at a central location on the mainland (typically in the ferry port). The inhabitants receive compensation
from the universal service provider for this derogation of the universal service. As a principle, the limit
is set at 10 permanent inhabitants, but 3-4 small islands with a population below 10 permanent
inhabitants are subject to more individual arrangements, such as the delivery of postal items in a letter
box in the ferry port or the delivery, to the homes of the inhabitants, by the boatman or by one of the
inhabitants (for which he will be compensated). For all other Danish islands with daily boat or ferry
service and with more than 10 permanent inhabitants, postal items are carried to the island on a daily
basis, Monday through Saturday, and delivered to the homes of the inhabitants. The service
requirement for domestic parcels is day-to-day delivery Monday through Friday between all Danish
cities, except for parcels to the Danish island of Bornholm (in the Baltic Sea), where an extra day must
be expected for delivery.
In all states where this list is regularly updated, it is published on the Internet, on the NRA webpage or
on the USP webpage. Table 17 below gives the internet links to the lists of areas deemed to be special
cases in the Member States.
Table 17 – Internet links with reference to the lists of exceptional circumstances in the Member States
EL https://diavgeia.gov.gr/doc/4ΙΗΝ1-Π
http://mapsrv6.terra.gr/eettpostssl/
RO http://www.ancom.org.ro/uploads/links_files/SP_lista_localitatilor_cdt_exceptionale_septembrie_2013.pdf
SK http://www.posta.sk/stranky/informacie-k-otvaracim-hodinam-post
UK for Collections: http://www.royalmailgroup.com/sites/default/files/USO_Collections_Exceptions.pdf
for Deliveries: http://www.royalmailgroup.com/sites/default/files/USO_Delivery_Exceptions.pdf
ERGP (14) 24 – report on QoS and end-user satisfaction
43
4.3. Access points
Article 2 of Directive 2008/06/EC defines access points as
“physical facilities, including letterboxes provided for the public either on the public highway or at the
premises of the postal service provider(s), where postal items may be deposited with the postal
network by senders.”
4.3.1. Collection letterboxes
To this end, the majority of responding countries with 29 NRAs (91%) have set
requirements/standards to ensure that an adequate number of collection letterboxes are provided by the
USP.
Table 18 – Requirements/standards to ensure an adequate number of collection letterboxes
Question Answer Count Country %
Requirements/standards to
ensure an adequate number
of collection letterboxes
YES 29
AT, BE, BG, HR, CY, CZ, DK, EE, FI, FY, DE,
EL, HU, IE, IT, LV, LT, LU, MT, NL, NO, PL,
RS, RO, SK, SI, SE, CH, UK
91
NO 3 FR, ES, PT66
9
Figure 6 – Requirements/standards to ensure an adequate number of collection letterboxes
66 Specific requirements/standards were defined on the 28th of August, 2014, by a decision of the NRA, and came into effect
on October 1st, 2014. No specific requirements were applicable in 2013.
29
3
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Yes No
Yes
No
Yes (AT, BE, BG, HR, CY, CZ, DK, EE, FI, FY, DE, EL, HU, IE, IT, LV, LT, LU, MT, NL, NO, PL, RS, RO, SK, SI, SE, CH, UK)
No (FR, ES, PT)
ERGP (14) 24 – report on QoS and end-user satisfaction
44
The most often mentioned applicable criteria to ensure an adequate number of collection letterboxes
are the following:
- number of collection letterboxes per locality;
- one collection letterbox per number of inhabitants depending on the type of settlement
(difference is marked between urban and rural areas);
- maximum distance that one has to travel to the collection letterbox;
- maximum (air) distance between neighbouring collection letterboxes.
In addition, there are different combinations of the above criteria. It should be noted that, in many
countries, the requirements differ regarding the criteria that apply to access points and for urban and
rural areas. Almost half of the responding countries have specific metrics for the minimum number of
collection boxes that should be in place in relation to population density and distance. A sole distance
criterium is also widely spread among Member Countries to ensure an adequate availability of
letterboxes since 45 % of the respondents rely on it.
On the other hand, Denmark, Norway and Sweden are examples of a “custom-made” approach, where
the network of letterboxes is not based on predefined criteria, but has to be built upon users’ needs.
As shown in figure 7 below, 58% of the responding countries’ requirements can be found mainly in
legislation.
Figure 7 - Where are the requirements/standards to ensure an adequate number of collection letterboxes defined?
58 %
6 %
32 %
3 %
Legislation
Authorisation/Licence
Regulation/decision issued by the NRA
Other
ERGP (14) 24 – report on QoS and end-user satisfaction
45
Collection time is marked on the collection letterboxes in 91% of the countries, as shown in table 19
below.
Table 19 – Collection time displayed on collection letterboxes
Question Answer Count Country %
Is the collection time
marked on the
collection letterboxes?
YES 29
AT, BE, BG, HR, CZ, DK, EE, FI, DE, EL, HU, IT,
LV, LT, LU, MT, NL, NO, PL, RS, SK, SI, SE, RO,
CH, UK, FR, ES, PT
91
NO 3 CY, FY, IE 9
Figure 8 – Collection time marked on collection letterboxes
Information has been collected regarding the evolution in the number of collection letterboxes since
2008 (end of 2008 and end of 2013). The figures below indicate that, although in some countries a
growth is registered or no changes have occurred, in general there is a decrease in collection
letterboxes. This is significant in the cases of Portugal (- 43%) and Latvia (- 42%).
Figure 9 – Percentage change in the number of collection letterboxes per country from 2008 till 201367
67 IE – Figures provided by the USP in its Annual Reports.
29
3
0
10
20
30
40
Nr.
of
Co
untr
ies
YES (AT, BE, BG, HR, CZ, DK, EE, FI, DE,
EL, HU, IT, LV, LT, LU, MT, NL, NO, PL,RS, RO, SK, SI, SE, CH, UK, FR, ES, PT)
NO (CY, MK, IE)
-19 -16
-9
-35
5
-7
-13 -13
-29
-5
1
-5 -5
21
-42
-31
0 0
-5
-13
-37
-43
0
-17
-24
0
-11
-21
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
AT BE BG HR CY CZ DK EE FY FR DE EL HU IE LV LT LU MT NL NO PL PT RO SK SI ES SE CH
ERGP (14) 24 – report on QoS and end-user satisfaction
46
4.3.2. Points of contact
In article 3, 2 of the Directive 2008/06/EC, it is said about points of contact
“Member States shall take steps to ensure that the density of the points of contact and of the access
points takes account of the needs of users.”
Those points of contact may be managed directly by postal operators (postal establishments), be
managed by third entities (such as retail stores…) or correspond to services directly provided by the
mailman.
Keeping in mind the above-mentioned provision, Member States should ensure that sufficient access
points are established, taking into account users’ needs in order to satisfy the universal service
obligation. It is also important to assure equal treatment of users in urban and rural areas, without
prejudice of geographical conditions.
It is a difficult task to evaluate whether the density of access points corresponds to the necessary
equilibrium between the users’ needs and the cost-efficient provision of the universal service. In some
countries, post offices have an important social function and they are quite often seen as a last
stronghold of the state in the small villages, so that the density of the access points is a particularly
sensitive issue.
Table 20 below shows NRAs in relation to requirements/standards to ensure an adequate number of
points of contact/postal establishments, with 27 NRAs (84%) who confirm requirements/standards are
in place in their countries and 5 NRAs (16%) who do not. The same question concerning the existence
of requirements/standards in respect of an adequate number of collection letterboxes shows that some
countries have requirements for collection letterboxes but do not have requirements concerning the
number of contact/postal establishments, and vice versa.
Table 20 - Requirements/standards to ensure an adequate number of points of contact/postal establishments
Question Answer Count Country %
Requirements/standards to
ensure an adequate number
of point of contact/postal
establishments
YES 27
AT, BE, BG, HR, CZ, DK, EE, FI, DE, EL,
HU, IT, LV, LT, LU, MT, NL, NO, PL, RS,
RO, SK, SI, SE, CH, UK, FR,
84
NO 5 CY, IE, LU, PT68
, ES 16
68 Specific requirements/standards were defined on the 28th of August, 2014, by a decision of the NRA, and came into effect
on October 1st, 2014. No specific requirements were applicable in 2013.
ERGP (14) 24 – report on QoS and end-user satisfaction
47
Figure 10 – Requirements/standards to ensure an adequate number of points of contact/postal establishments
The large majority of the countries have confirmed that they have requirements/standards in place.
53% of those countries include their requirements in the legislation. In 21% of the countries,
requirements/standards are contained in regulations/decisions issued by the NRAs. Combinations of
criteria are used in 19% of countries. An example of such combination is Hungary, where criteria can
be found partly in legislation and party in Universal Postal Public Service Contract. Only one country
has set the requirements in Authorisation/Licence. Belgium is listed as an exception, since the criteria
to ensure an adequate number of postal establishments are found in the management contract between
the State and bpost.
Common criteria applied for an adequate number of points of contact/postal establishments are:
- number of postal establishments per locality;
- one postal establishment per number of inhabitants, which could depend on the size of the
settlement. Also, differences between rural and urban areas are not an exception;
- maximum distance that one has to travel to the nearest postal establishment;
- maximum (air) distance between neighbouring postal establishments;
- minimum number of post offices, providing UPS or full range of postal services;
- percentage of population at a certain distance from the postal establishment.
Generally, a combination of criteria is used, which varies between countries and depends on the
geographic and demographic peculiarities.
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Nr.
of
Co
un
trie
s
YES
NO
ERGP (14) 24 – report on QoS and end-user satisfaction
48
As shown in table 21 below, NRA is a common authority for checking the compliance with the
requirements on an adequate number of postal establishments on the national territory. In the majority
of cases, the supervision is done by demanding information to the USP or to various local
authorities/organisations (58% of the respondents). The second most common method is obtaining
information by using publicly accessible information (25% of the respondents). In addition, there are
also combinations of the above methods. Though, only 69% of the respondents indicated to have a
system of sanctions in place in the case of non-compliance with the requirements on an adequate
number of postal establishments.
Table 21 - Entity entitled to check compliance with the requirements on an adequate number of postal establishments
Question Answer Count Country %
Entity entitled to check
compliance with the
requirements on an
adequate number of
postal establishments
NRA 22
AT, BE, BG, CH, HR, CZ, DK, EE, FI, FR,
FY,DE, IT, LV, LT, LU, MT, NL, NO,RO, SK,
SI, SE
85
Ministry 1 RS
4
NRA +
Ministry 3 EL, HU, PL 11
Figure 11 – Entity entitled to check compliance with the requirements on an adequate number of postal
establishments
In most cases of non-compliance with requirements on the number of postal establishments, the
competent authority could resort to fines/penalties (62% of the respondents) or perform a regulatory
action, e.g. administrative or legal sanctions (38% of the respondents). Usually, measures are graded:
first the USP is asked to comply with the requirements and, only after that, a corrective measure is
applied.
22
1
3
0
5
10
15
20
25
Nr.
of
Co
un
trie
s
NRA (AT, BE, BG, CH, HR, CZ, DK, EE,
FI, FR, FY,DE, IT, LV, LT, LU, MT, NL,NO, RO, SK, SI, SE)
Ministry (RS)
NRA + Ministry (EL, HU, PL)
ERGP (14) 24 – report on QoS and end-user satisfaction
49
Table 22 below shows if the NRAs have the power to prevent closure of postal establishments. Based
on table 22 indicates that almost 60% of the NRAs have these powers and 40% who do not have these
powers.
Table 22 - Prevention of the closure of postal establishments
Question Answer Count Country %
Is that entity
empowered to prevent
the closure of postal
establishments?
YES 16 AT, BG, HR, CZ, EE, FY, EL, HU
69, IT, LT,
MT, NO, RS, SK, SI, CH 59
NO 11 DE, FI, FR, DE, LV, LU, NL, PO, PT, RO, SE 41
Figure 12 – Is that entity empowered to prevent the closure of postal establishments?
Article 3, 1 of the Directive 2008/06/EC specifies
“Member States shall ensure that users enjoy the right to a universal service involving the permanent
provision of a postal service of specified quality at all points in their territory at affordable prices for
all users.”
Keeping in mind this provision of the Directive, postal points of contact should be accessible for all
users, including disabled persons. Only in Cyprus, Finland, Italy, Luxembourg, Poland, Sweden and
Switzerland, most postal establishments are equipped for disabled persons.
69 The NRA and the Ministry have no right to directly prevent the closure of postal establishments. However, the NRA can
start a procedure if the closure of postal establishments is in breach of law and/or of the Universal Postal Public Service
Contract (UPPSC). In case of serious breach of the UPSC, the NRA can submit an official decision to the Minister
responsible for the postal sector. The Minister can draw the USP’s attention to cease the breach. If it fails, the Minister is
entitled to withdraw the contract.
16
11
0
5
10
15
20
Nr.
of
Co
un
trie
s
YES (AT, BG, HR, CZ, EE, FY, EL, HU,
IT, LT, MT, NO, RS, SK, SI, CH)
NO (DK, FI, FR, DE, LV, LU, NL, PL, PT,
RO, SE)
ERGP (14) 24 – report on QoS and end-user satisfaction
50
Table 23 below illustrates the percentage of distribution of points of contact in each country in 2013.
Table 23 – Points of contact per country (distribution in %)
Permanent PO full
range of
services
Permanent PO limited
range of
services
Mobile post
offices
Mailman
170 Mailman 271
Seasonal post
office
Permanent PA
managed by 3rd entity
Other
Austria 29.0 71,0
Belgium 50,2 49,8
Bulgaria 54,0 1,0 45,0
Croatia 99,5 0,2 0,3
Cyprus 100,0
Czech
Republic 46,9 0,2 51,1 1,8
Denmark 3,0 58,0 39,0
Estonia
Finland 8,0 60,0 32,0
Former
Yugoslav
Republic of
Macedonia 73,9 22,5 0,7 0,7 2,2
France 57,0 43,0
Germany
Greece 15,0 55,0 15,0 15,0
Hungary 60,0 29,0 11,0
Ireland 4,96 95,04
Italy 100,0
Latvia 94,8 0,2 5,0
Lithuania 81,5 2,3 16,2
Luxembourg 83,6 16,4
Malta 52,3 3,1 44,6
Netherlands
Norway 3,3 53,0 43,7
Poland 60,0 40,0
Portugal 25,3 0,2 74,5
Romania
Serbia 64,7 19,9 15,5
70 Mail man is providing a full range of services offered by postman of the USP 71 Mail man is providing a basic services offered by postman of the USP
ERGP (14) 24 – report on QoS and end-user satisfaction
51
Slovakia 86,00 11,00 0,3 2,7
Slovenia 89,9 0,7 4,3 5,0
Spain 26,0 7 0,0 6772
Sweden 4,0 33,0 25,0 38,0
Switzerland 47,0 36,0 16,0
Figure 13 – Percentage by type of points of contact in 2013
The most common type of points of contact at the European level remains the access to a permanent
post office with full range of service. This is the case for all respondents. This is followed by
permanent post agency managed by a 3rd
entity, mobile postal office, permanent post office managed
by USP limited range of service and mail man 173
. The level of seasonal post office is so small that the
percentage level did not reach 1%.
Furthermore, information has been collected on the evolution of the number of points of contact of the
Universal Service Provider for the period 2008 – 2013. Most of the countries are experiencing a
decrease in the number of permanent post offices managed by the USP with full range of service, and
an increase of other types of points of contact, especially permanent post agencies managed by a 3rd
entity.
72 ES; others include mailman and mobile post offices 73 Mail man is providing a full range of services offered by postman of the USP
51 %
5 %
6 %
5 %
3 % 0 %
23 %
5 %
Permanent PO managed byUSP full range of service
Permanent PO managed byUSP limited range ofserviceMobile PO
Mail man 1
Mail man 2
Seasonal PO
Permanent PO managed by3rd
Other
ERGP (14) 24 – report on QoS and end-user satisfaction
52
However, there were also some countries with an increase in the total number of contact points. This
was the case for Cyprus, Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Malta. Apart from them, only
Spain had an increase in the number of permanent post offices managed by the USP with full range of
service.
The figure 14 below illustrates the evolution by type of points of contact between 2008 and 2013.
Data obtained from the questionnaire show a general decrease of 14% in the total number of contact
points. There was a 7% decrease of permanent postal offices managed by USP with full range of
service, a significant 64% decrease of mobile postal offices, a 45% decrease of mail man 274
and a
20% increase of permanent post offices managed by a 3rd
entity.
Figure 14 – Evolution of the number of points of contact by type in the period 2008 – 2013
Information has also been collected regarding the range of services offered by post agencies managed
by third entities. From collected data, it appears that different countries have different approaches of
the subject. Full range of services is offered by 59% of the respondents, while the other 41% offers
limited or basic range of services.
74 Mail man is providing a basic services offered by postman of the USP
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
60000
PermanentPO
managedby USP full
range ofservice
PermanentPO
managedby USPlimited
range ofservice
Mobile PO Mail man 1 Mail man 2 PermanentPO
managedby 3rd
Other
Nu
mb
er
of
po
ints
of
con
tact
Type of points of contact
2008
2013
ERGP (14) 24 – report on QoS and end-user satisfaction
53
The figure 15 below illustrates the location of postal agencies managed by third parties.
Figure 15 – Location of post agencies managed by third parties
Postal agencies managed by third entities are mainly located in shops, followed by kiosks and petrol
stations, while the lowest share goes to bars.
13%
17%
44%
6%
19%
Petrol stations
Kiosks
Shops
Bars
Other
ERGP (14) 24 – report on QoS and end-user satisfaction
54
4.4. Measurement of consumer satisfaction
In 2013, the overall trend of those NRAs monitoring consumer satisfaction remained relatively
consistent. The resources required to undertake monitoring must also be taken account of when
deciding to engage a monitoring programme. It may be exclusive and resource-intensive to do so.
According to the responses to the 2014 questionnaire, 14 (44%) out of the 32 responding NRAs use or
monitor indicators of consumer satisfaction in their country, while 18 (56%) NRAs do not. In 4 (CH,
DK, NO and SI) out of the 18 countries, where the NRA does not use or monitor indicators of
consumer satisfaction, the USP conducts surveys on this issue and publishes the results.
Table 24 - NRA uses/monitors measurement of consumer satisfaction
Question Answer Count Country %
Do you use/monitor
indicators of consumer
satisfaction in your
country?
Yes 14 BE, CY, FI, EL, IE, LT, LI, MK, MT,
PT, RS, SE, SK, UK
44%
No 18 AT, BG, CH, CZ, DE, DK, EE, ES, FR,
HR, HU, IT, LV, NL, NO, PL, RO, SI 56%
Two NRAs require the USP by legal obligation to have consumer satisfaction measures in place.
The results from the 2014 questionnaire show that, in the NRAs that use/monitor indicators of
consumer satisfaction, market surveys are used as the main method to identify levels of consumer
satisfaction. Those surveys range in frequency from adhoc to annual to twice yearly surveys. The
number of satisfaction indicators varies between NRAs depending on the nature and objectives of the
research being undertaken, the size of the postal market and their capability to conduct research given
individual circumstances and regulatory framework.
Table 25 -Links to research carried out to measure customer satisfaction
Belgium:
BIPT is publishing data on consumer satisfaction annually, as well as the action done and foreseen to
improve consumer satisfaction
http://www.bipt.be/nl/operatoren/post/universele-en-niet-universele-postdiensten/advies-van-de-raad-
van-het-bipt-van-24-december-2013-met-betrekking-tot-het-verbeteringsplan-2012-en-het-actieplan-
2013-naar-aanleiding-van-het-klantentevredenheidsonderzoek-2012?sid=%2FIBPT-CMS%2FIBPT-
documents-AvecDoc%2F%7C21138-nl-document_page-%2F1%2F3%2F11%2F20507%2F
Cyprus:
http://www.ocecpr.org.cy/nqcontent.cfm?a_id=1188&tt=ocecpr&lang=gr
ERGP (14) 24 – report on QoS and end-user satisfaction
55
Denmark:
Data on consumer satisfaction published by USP. Only available in Danish.
http://www.postdanmark.dk/da/om%20os/kvalitet/kunder/Sider/Kundetilfredshed.aspx
The Danish USP, Post Denmark, conducts ongoing surveys of customer satisfaction and loyalty.
Below are the results from the recent years (indexed).
Year Private Business
2012 71 70
2011 71 67
2010 69 69
2009 68 66
2008 62 61
Ireland:
http://www.askcomreg.ie/post/market_research.99.LE.asp
Lithuania:
Consumer satisfaction surveys conducted every two years.
http://www.rrt.lt/download/16986/ataskaita%20-%20rrt%20201210(2).ppt
Malta:
http://www.mca.org.mt/consumer/surveys/consumer-perception-survey-households-postal-
services?language=en
http://www.mca.org.mt/consumer/surveys/micro-businesses-perception-survey-postal-
services?language=en
http://www.mca.org.mt/service-providers/surveys/large-bulk-mailers-perception-survey-postal-
services?language=en
Portugal:
ANACOM conducts a survey every 2 years. The survey includes questions concerning satisfaction
with:
- The service as a whole;
- Specific issues concerning postal establishments (information transparency, waiting time, opening
hours, accessibility and location, personal interaction);
- Every individual service (non-priority, priority, parcels, express…);
- Specific issues concerning individual services (delivery times, prices, inviolability);
- Mail delivery.
Quality is measured in a 1 to 10 scale.
http://www.anacom.pt/render.jsp?contentId=1166565&languageId=1.
ECSI – Portugal conducts a customer satisfaction survey and publishes its findings once a year.
ERGP (14) 24 – report on QoS and end-user satisfaction
56
Serbia:
In January 2011, 2012 and 2014, in accordance with the Law on Postal Services and in cooperation
with a specialized marketing company, the NRA, undertook research on the needs of users of
universal postal service – “Researching the Level of Need Fulfilment of Universal Postal Services
Usersˮ. The method chosen for data collection was terrain survey "face to face" (F2F). Annually, the
NRA shall submit a report to the National Assembly about its activities, containing information
about achieved level in realization of the universal postal service, as well as the estimation of the
level of customers’ satisfaction.
http://www.rapus.rs/download/istrazivanje_izvestaj_fizicka_lica2013.pdf
http://www.rapus.rs/download/istrazivanje_izvestaj_pravna_lica2013.pdf
http://www.rapus.rs/o-nama/projektiIstrazivanje-Izvestaj-Fizicka_lica-2011.pdf
Slovakia:
The USP is legally bound to submit annual reports to the NRA on levels of consumer satisfaction
with the universal service, and to report on steps to improve its performance in identified areas. An
overview of the results is available in English at:
http://www.posturad.sk/en/customer-satisfaction
Slovenia:
The Agency conducts the research of user’s satisfaction/habits (general public and business public)
with postal services on an annual basis. It is done with the assistance of an external contractor. The
objective of such research is to establish the level of satisfaction with the quality of postal services,
user’s awareness of the variety of postal services and providers and to provide a range of comparable
data to the public and to the regulator.
http://www.akos-rs.si/raziskave-o-zadovoljstvu-uporabnikov
Sweden:
PTS makes annual telephone surveys of Swedish households’ use of and satisfaction with the postal
establishments.
http://www.pts.se/en-GB/Documents/Reports/Post/2014/The-Swedish-populations-use-of-postal-
services-2014---PTS-ER-20179/
Also, the USP conducts consumer satisfaction surveys and publishes the results.
http://www.posten.se/sv/Documents/PDF/postens%20service_och_kvalitet_2013.pdf http://www.postnord.com/globalassets/global/english/document/reports/annual-reports/2013/postnord-annual-report-2013.pdf (page 54)
ERGP (14) 24 – report on QoS and end-user satisfaction
57
Switzerland:
USP conducts annual consumer satisfaction surveys and publishes the results :
http://www.poste.ch/en/post-startseite/post-konzern/post-publikationen/post-dossiers/post-pv-
poststellennetz/post-poststellennetz-kundenzufriedenheit.htm
United Kingdom:
Annual business and residential customer surveys are conducted by the NRA.
The survey data and accompanying technical report (a document detailing methodology, weighting
mechanisms, etc.) are published.
http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/market-data-research/statistics/
ERGP (14) 24 – report on QoS and end-user satisfaction
58
4.5. Surveys regarding customers’ needs
In terms of surveys regarding consumer needs and market, 13 NRAs (43%) answered that they
conduct such surveys, while the other 17 NRAs (57%) do not. This represents a slight increase in the
number of NRAs collecting data from 2013 (12 and 19 respectively in 2012). However, there had been
a decrease of the same amount in the previous year, so that the overall number of NRAs conducting
surveys regarding consumer needs and market remains static.
Table 26 - Surveys regarding customer needs
Question Answer Count Country %
Do you conduct surveys
regarding customers’
needs or market surveys?
Yes 13 BE, CY, DK, FI, FR, EL, IE, LT, MT,
NL, RS, SE, UK 43%
No 17
AT, BG, CH, CR, DE, EE, ES, HR,
HU, IT, LU, LV, MK, NO, PL, RO,
SK
57%
The surveys are mostly carried out annually or on an ad hoc basis to serve regulatory needs. Usually,
the surveys are conducted by an independent body. Different methodologies are used, including
telephone interviews/computer-assisted telephone interviews (CATIs), standardised questionnaires,
and face-to-face interviews.
With regard to specific indicators as to consumer needs, 5 NRAs (FR, LT, RS, SE, UK) answered that
they had conducted special surveys to better understand the needs of postal users, or included
questions regarding costumers’ needs in a market or consumer satisfaction survey.
8 NRAs provided further details on the results of their respective surveys by way of web links. In
contrast, 4 NRAs answered that they do not conduct surveys regarding consumer needs. Greece and
Portugal conducted research in 2012, with Greece specifically targeting ‘habit and usage’ patterns of
business and private consumers. France and the United Kingdom undertook detailed studies to better
understand the needs of postal users in 2011 and 2013 respectively.
Table 27 -Links to research carried out to measure customer needs
Belgium
Survey regarding customer needs for professionals:
http://www.ibpt.be/nl/operatoren/post/universele-en-niet-universele-postdiensten/mededeling-van-
de-raad-van-het-bipt-met-betrekking-tot-de-enquete-over-de-universele-postdienst-in-belgie-gedrag-
en-wensen-van-de-professionele-gebruikers
Ireland
http://www.askcomreg.ie/post/market_research.99.LE.asp
ERGP (14) 24 – report on QoS and end-user satisfaction
59
Lithuania
The NRA does not conduct special surveys on customer needs. Certain questions related to customer
needs are included in the surveys on consumer satisfaction.
http://www.rrt.lt/download/16986/ataskaita%20-%20rrt%20201210(2).ppt Malta
http://www.mca.org.mt/consumer/surveys/consumer-perception-survey-households-postal-
services?language=en
http://www.mca.org.mt/consumer/surveys/micro-businesses-perception-survey-postal-
services?language=en
http://www.mca.org.mt/service-providers/surveys/large-bulk-mailers-perception-survey-postal-
services?language=en
Serbia:
Studies conducted in 2011 to better understand the needs of postal users
http://www.rapus.rs/download/Istrazivanje-Izvestaj-Pravna_lica-2011.pdf
http://www.rapus.rs/download/Istrazivanje-Izvestaj-Pravna_lica-2011.pdf
Slovenia
The Agency conducts the research of user’s satisfaction/habits (general public and business public) with postal services on an annual basis. It is done with the assistance of an external contractor. The objective of such research is to establish the level of satisfaction with the quality of postal services, user’s awareness of the variety of postal services / providers and to provide a range of comparable data to the public and to the regulator. Although user’s needs are not specifically targeted they
could be identified through general public and business public responsed and data. Additionally the Agency is conducting also a market survey on an annual basis.
http://www.akos-rs.si/raziskave-o-zadovoljstvu-uporabnikov
http://www.akos-rs.si/analize-trga-postnih-storitev
Sweden
The Agency conducts the research of user’s satisfaction/habits (general public and business public)
with postal services on an annual basis. It is done with the assistance of an external contractor. The
objective of such research is to establish the level of satisfaction with the quality of postal services,
user’s awareness of the variety of postal services/providers and to provide a range of comparable data
to the public and to the regulator. Although user’s needs are not specifically targeted they could be
identified through general public and business public response and data. Additionally the Agency is
conducting also a market survey on an annual basis
http://www.pts.se/en-GB/Documents/Reports/Post/2014/The-Swedish-populations-use-of-postal-
services-2014---PTS-ER-20179/
ERGP (14) 24 – report on QoS and end-user satisfaction
60
United Kingdom
As part of its statutory duties under the Postal Services Act 2011, Ofcom was required to assess the
extent to which the postal market meets the reasonable needs of users. To understand the needs of
users, Ofcom commissioned extensive deliberative and quantitative research. The findings were
published in March 2013.
http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/consultations/review-of-user-needs/
ERGP (14) 24 – report on QoS and end-user satisfaction
61
5. Current situation on the assessment of complaint handling procedures and consumer
protection
The complaint handling and consumer protection have been analysed with a view to the following 5
dimensions:
1° scope and competence of NRAs regarding complaint handling
2° information provision and access to complaint handling and dispute resolution
3° implementation of standard EN 14012:2008
4° compensation schemes for individual customers
5° collection of data on complaints
5.1. Scope and competence of NRAs regarding complaint handling
This chapter deals with the legal framework on complaint handling. First of all, it illustrates in some
more detail the respective legal basis as set within the Postal Directives. Secondly, it evaluates the
scope and competence of the NRAs in handling complaints about postal services and it looks at the
other organisations to which a customer75
can address himself in case of a complaint.
5.1.1. Scope
This section analyses the legal basis with regard to postal users’ complaints as set out in the Postal
Directive. It recalls the basic principles enshrined within this legal framework. Furthermore, it
elaborates on the respective recitals dealing with the issue of consumer protection/complaint
procedures. Finally, this section refers to two Commission recommendations dealing with principles
which are applicable to bodies responsible in the area of out-of-court settlement consumer disputes.
Article 19, subparagraph 1, of the Postal Directive stipulates that “Member States shall ensure that
transparent, simple and inexpensive procedures are made available by all postal service providers for
dealing with postal users' complaints, particularly in cases involving loss, theft, damage or non-
compliance with service quality standards (including procedures for determining where responsibility
lies in cases where more than one operator is involved), without prejudice to relevant international and
national provisions on compensation schemes”.
Furthermore, Article 19, subparagraph 2, of Directive 2008/6/EC provides that “Member States shall
adopt measures to ensure that the procedures referred to in the first subparagraph enable disputes to be
settled fairly and promptly with provision, where warranted, for a system of reimbursement and/or
compensation. Member States shall also encourage the development of independent out-of-court
schemes for the resolution of disputes between postal service providers and users.”
75 “Customer” has a broader meaning, so that it can include customer or user
ERGP (14) 24 – report on QoS and end-user satisfaction
62
Finally, it is required to “ensure that users, acting individually or, where permitted by national law,
jointly with organisations representing the interests of users and/or consumers, may bring before the
competent national authority cases where users' complaints to undertakings providing postal services
within the scope of the universal service have not been satisfactorily resolved”. (Article 19 (2)).
Within recital 42 of Directive 2008/6/EC, the following further information is provided with regard to
consumer protection/complaint procedures: “In line with existing rules in other service areas and in
order to increase consumer protection, it is appropriate to extend the application of minimum
principles concerning complaint procedures beyond universal service providers.”
Furthermore, and with regard to the issue of complaint handling procedures, this recital is referring to
two Commission recommendations dealing with principles which are applicable to bodies responsible
in the area of out-of-court settlement consumer disputes. Within these recommendations, various
principles such as independence/impartiality, transparency, effectiveness, fairness and legality are
stated and explained in more detail. They should be observed by the responsible bodies for out-of-
court settlement of disputes. In this context, the recital states that “with a view to increasing the
effectiveness of complaint handling procedures, it is appropriate to encourage the use of out-of-court
settlement procedures as set out in Commission Recommendation 98/257/EC, of 30 March 1998, on
the principles applicable to the bodies responsible for out-of-court settlement of consumer disputes,
and in Commission Recommendation 2001/310/EC, of 4 April 2001, on the principle for out-of-court
bodies involved in the consensual resolution of consumer disputes.”76
5.1.2. Competence
This section analyses the competence of the NRAs in handling complaints about postal services.
Table 28 on next page shows that in 25 (81%) out of the 31 responding countries, the NRA is
generally responsible for dealing with user complaints. In three of these countries (10%), the NRA
only handles complaints with regard to the Universal Service while, in the vast majority (71%), all
postal service issues can be addressed. 5 (16%) NRAs stated that they are not obliged to handle user
complaints.
These results represent a slight decrease in the number of NRAs dealing with complaints in
comparison to 2012, when 26 NRAs were responsible for this issue and only 3 were not.
In the Netherlands, the NRAs is not legally obliged to deal with user complaints, but it does so in case
it assumes that postal law may be alluded.
76 As set out in Commission Recommendation 98/257/EC of 30 March 1998 on the principles applicable to the bodies
responsible for out-of-court settlements of consumer disputes (OJ L 115, 17.4.1998, p. 31) and in Commission
Recommendation 2001/310/EC of 4 April 2001 on the principles for out-of-court bodies involved in the consensual
resolution of consumer disputes (OJ L 109, 19.4.2001, p. 56).
ERGP (14) 24 – report on QoS and end-user satisfaction
63
Table 28 - NRA responsible for complaints
All postal service
issues
Universal service
issues only Other situations None
Austria x
Belgium x
Bulgaria x
Croatia x
Cyprus x
Czech Republic x
Denmark x
Estonia x
Finland x
FY R. Macedonia x
France x
Germany x
Greece x
Hungary x
Italy x
Latvia x
Lithuania x
Luxembourg x
Malta x
Netherlands x
Norway x
Poland x
Portugal x
Romania x
Serbia x
Slovakia x
Slovenia x
Spain x
Sweden x
Switzerland x
United Kingdom x
Total 22 3 1 5
71% 10% 3% 16%
ERGP (14) 24 – report on QoS and end-user satisfaction
64
Table 29 below indicates which procedures are in place to resolve complaints according to the services
and the provider.
Table 29 - Procedures in place to resolve the issue complained
Services
provided by the
USP inside the
universal service
area
Services provided
inside the
universal service
area by postal
operators other
than the USP
Services provided
by the USP
outside the
universal service
area
Services provided
outside the
universal service
area by postal
operators other
than the USP
No
Austria X X X X
Bulgaria X X X X
Croatia X X X X
Cyprus X X X X
Czech Republic X X X X
Denmark X X X X
Estonia X X X X
Finland X
FY R. Macedonia X X X X
France X X X X
Germany X X
Greece X X X X
Hungary X X X X
Italy X X X X
Latvia X X X X
Lithuania X X X X
Luxembourg X X X X
Malta X X X X
Netherlands X X X
Portugal X
Serbia X X X
Slovakia X X X X
Slovenia X
Spain X X
Sweden X X X X
Switzerland X X X X
Total 25 22 21 21 1
96% 85% 81% 81% 4%
Except for those NRAs, who stated that they are not responsible for dealing with complaints, only one
(4%) does not have procedures in place to resolve the issue complained. The majority of these NRAs
(21 of the 26 or 81%) use its procedures to handle complaints with regard to all kinds of postal
services - be it inside or outside the scope of the Universal Service - provided by the USP or by any
other postal operator
ERGP (14) 24 – report on QoS and end-user satisfaction
65
5.2 Information provision and access to complaint handling and dispute resolution
This chapter analyses the information available for users on complaint handling procedures, redress
schemes and means of dispute resolution as well as on the number of complaints received by postal
service providers and the NRAs. It also looks at the existence of regulation on complaint.
Table 30 below indicates of postal service providers are obliged to publish information about
procedures to complain, redress schemes and means of dispute resolution
Table 30 – Postal service providers obliged to publish information about procedures to complain, redress schemes and
means of dispute resolution
Procedures to
complain
Compensation/redress
schemes
Dispute resolution
(e.g. ADR) No
Austria X
Belgium X X
Bulgaria X X
Croatia X X
Cyprus X X
Czech Republic X
Denmark X
Estonia X X X
Finland X
FY R. Macedonia X X X
France X X X (only USP)
Germany X
Greece X X X
Hungary X X
Ireland X X X
Italy X X X
Latvia X X
Lithuania X X
Luxembourg X X
Malta X X
Netherlands X
Norway X X
Poland X X
Portugal X X X
Romania X X
Serbia X X
Slovakia X X
Slovenia X
Spain X X X
Sweden X
Switzerland X X
United Kingdom X X X
Total 27 25 10 5
84% 78% 31% 16%
ERGP (14) 24 – report on QoS and end-user satisfaction
66
There have not been major changes in the number of countries obliging the postal service providers to
publish information. In most countries, universal postal service providers are generally obliged to
publish information about complaint handling procedures and redress schemes, which was mentioned
by 27 (84%) and 25 (78%) of the NRAs, respectively. In fewer countries 10 (31%), there is an
obligation covering information on means of dispute resolution.
Table 31 below shows of postal service providers are covered by the obligation to publish information
about procedures to complain, redress schemes and means of dispute resolution.
Table 31 – Postal service providers covered by the obligation to publish information about procedures to complain,
redress schemes and means of dispute resolution
USP
Other postal service providers
active in the universal service Other postal service providers
Austria
Belgium X X X
Bulgaria X X X
Croatia X X X
Cyprus X X X
Czech Republic X X X
Denmark
Estonia X X
Finland X
FY R. Macedonia X X X
France X X (except for dispute resolution) X (except for dispute resolution)
Germany
Greece X X X
Hungary X X X
Ireland X X X
Italy X X X
Latvia X
Lithuania X X X
Luxembourg X X
Malta X X X
Netherlands
Norway X
Poland X X X
Portugal X X X
Romania X
Serbia X X
Slovakia X X X
Slovenia X X X
Spain X
Sweden
Switzerland X X X
United Kingdom X X X
Total 27 17 19
84% 53% 59%
ERGP (14) 24 – report on QoS and end-user satisfaction
67
In most cases the obligation to publish information also (partially) extends to other postal service
providers. The USP is the only provider obliged to publish any information with regard to the above-
mentioned issues in only 5 countries.
Table 32 below indicates which postal services are subjected to regulation of regulation of complaint
handling procedures.
Table 32 – Regulation of complaint handling procedures
USP
Other postal service
providers active in the
universal service
Other postal service
providers No
Austria X
Belgium X X X
Bulgaria X X X
Croatia X X X
Cyprus X X X
Czech Republic X X X
Denmark X
Estonia X
Finland X
FY R. Macedonia X X X
France X X X
Germany X
Greece X X X
Hungary X X X
Ireland X X X
Italy X X X
Latvia X X X
Lithuania X X X
Luxembourg X
Malta X
Netherlands X
Norway X
Poland X X X
Portugal X X X
Romania X X X
Serbia X X
Slovakia X X X
Slovenia X X X
Spain X X X
Sweden X
Switzerland X
United Kingdom X X
Total 25 20 20 7
78% 63% 63% 22%
ERGP (14) 24 – report on QoS and end-user satisfaction
68
The postal services providers’ complaint handling procedures are regulated in the majority (25
countries, or 78%) of the cases. 7 (22%) out of the 32 responding NRAs stated that a regulation does
not take place. This represents a slight increase in the number of countries having these procedures
being regulated (21 out of 30 in 2012).
The regulation covers the USP in all cases. Other services providers active within the scope of the
universal service and other operators providing services outside the universal service scope are
covered in 20 (63%) cases respectively.
Table 33 below shows the scope of the regulation on complaint handling procedures.
Table 33 – Scope of the regulation on complaint handling procedures
Principles for
complaints
handling
Channels for
lodging
complaints
Deadlines for
answering to
complaints
Access conditions
to dispute
resolution
Other
Austria
Belgium X X
Bulgaria X X X
Croatia X X X X
Cyprus
Czech Republic X
Denmark
Estonia
Finland X
FY R. Macedonia X X X X
France X X X X
Germany
Greece X X X X
Hungary X X X X
Ireland X X X X
Italy X X X X
Latvia X X X X
Lithuania X X
Luxembourg
Malta X
Netherlands
Norway X X X
Poland X X X
Portugal X x
Romania X
Serbia X X X
Slovakia X X
Slovenia X X
Spain X X X X X
Sweden
Switzerland X X X X
United Kingdom X X X
Total 21 15 18 11 4
65% 47% 56% 34% 2%
ERGP (14) 24 – report on QoS and end-user satisfaction
69
The scope of the regulation on complaint handling procedures varies between the countries. In most
cases the principles for complaint handling and the deadlines for answering to complaints are
regulated, in 21 countries (65%) and 18 (56%) respectively. 15 countries (47%) or NRAs answered
that the postal service providers’ channels for lodging complaints are subject to regulation and in 11
countries (34% of cases) the conditions of access to dispute resolution are regulated.
Table 34 below indicates of an Alternative dispute resolution (ADR) exists and which kind.
Table 34 - Alternative (or out-of-court) dispute resolution (ADR)
Yes, Mandatory77 YES, Voluntary78 No
Austria X
Belgium X
Bulgaria X
Croatia X
Cyprus X
Czech Republic X
Denmark X
Estonia X
Finland X
FY R. Macedonia X
France X
Germany X
Greece X
Hungary X
Ireland X
Italy X
Latvia X
Lithuania X
Luxembourg X
Malta X
Netherlands X
Norway X
Poland X
Portugal X X
Romania X
Serbia X
Slovakia X
Slovenia X
Spain X
Sweden X
Switzerland X
United Kingdom X
Total 11 14 8
33% 43% 24%
77 Mandatory: operator is obliged to accept the dispute resolution through ADR 78 Voluntary: operator is not obliged to accept the dispute resolution through ADR
ERGP (14) 24 – report on QoS and end-user satisfaction
70
Most countries have Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR). This can be either general or specific to
the postal sector. ADR is voluntary in 14 (43%) countries, whilst it is mandatory in 11 (33%)
countries.
ERGP (14) 24 – report on QoS and end-user satisfaction
71
5.3. Implementation of Standard EN 14012: 2008
This chapter presents data on the situation regarding the implementation of the CEN Standard EN
14012:2008 (Postal Services - Quality of Service - Complaints handling principles) by postal service
providers.
Figure 16 indicates that almost half the respondent NRAs (45%) indicated that the USP has
implemented the CEN standard. However, concerning other postal service providers active in the
universal service area, the standard is only implemented in 2 countries ( 6%) and is not implemented
in any country for other postal service providers. The majority of NRAs (55%) indicated that the
standard has not been implemented by any service provider.
These results show an increase in the number of countries where the standard has been implemented
by the USP (14 out of 31 against 10 out of 30 from the data collected in 2013). The situation remains
the same in what concerns other postal service providers.
Figure 16 – Implementation of standard EN 14012:2008 79 80
79 NRAs notes:
BE: partly
CH: Only some parts of the EN 14012.
CZ: The USP uses some methods described in this standard, but there is no obligation to use it for any provider.
EL: USP concerning complaints handling is certificated with EN ISO 9001:2008,
www.elta.gr/Portals/0/pdf/Pistopoiitiko2.pdf.
ES: The USP states that compliance with this rule, but this has not been audited by the NRA.
IE: Currently USP measures according to 14012:2003.
HU: Other postal service providers active in the universal service provide “postal services substituting the US” and at present
only the USP is active there, and implemented EN 14012:2008 for business letters belonging to this category.
IR: Currently USP measures according to 14012:2003.
NL: Not in the sense that it is legally required. We have no information on whether the USP or other PSP’s apply this
standard and measure the outcomes.
PT: Although the NRA did not determine the USP to implement EN 14012, the NRA did: (i) determine that the classification
of complaints consider EN 14012; (ii) recommend that future evolution of the complaints handling system to take into
consideration EN 14012.
SE: The standard is used by the USP but it is not implemented as a regulatory measure. 80 Source ERGP (31 NRAs).
14 (45,2%)
2 (6,5%)
17 (54,8%)
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
Yes, by the USP (BE, CH, DK, ES,
FR, HR, HU, LT, MT, PT, SE, SI,SK, UK)
Yes, by other postal service providers
active in the universal service (HU,UK)
No (AT, BG, CY, CZ, EE, FI, FY,
EL, IE, IT, LV, LU, NL, NO, PL,RO, RS)
Nu
mb
er o
f co
un
trie
s
Answers
ERGP (14) 24 – report on QoS and end-user satisfaction
72
5.4. Compensation schemes for individual customers
In this chapter the scope of the existing compensation schemes is analysed.
In most countries (17 out of 31), an obligation for a specific compensation scheme exists and covers
the USP in almost all of them; in most of them (14 out of 31), this also extends to other postal service
providers. These results show that no significant change occurred in this field when compared with the
data collected in 2013.
When asked to explain why there is no obligation on this matter, the countries that were in this
situation (13) mentioned as reasons the following: the scope of liability is covered by general terms
and conditions and civil law (AT); cases which are not solved by the postal law are judged by a court
(CZ); we are in the process of implementing such scheme (CY); the NRA makes sure that the postal
operators publish their compensation conditions (DK); postal service providers are free to set their
own compensation scheme in their standard conditions - for licensed services these conditions have to
be co-ordinated with the NRA (EE); one of several reasons why the NRA has not deemed it necessary
to introduce an obligation for a specific compensation scheme is that the USP's policy is to always
follow the decisions of The National Board for Consumer Disputes (ARN) (SE). Figure 17 - Mandatory compensation schemes for individual customers 81 82 83
81 NRAs notes: DK: The USP however is liable to pay compensation for delays, loss or damage of domestic items covered by
the universal service, provided the delays, loss or damage are due to intentional or negligence attributable to the USP. 82 ERGP (31 NRAs) 83 RO answered “yes”, but did not indicate which service providers are covered.
17 (56,7%)
14 (46,7%) 14 (46,7%) 13 (43,3%)
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
YES, for the USP (BG, EL,
ES, FR, FY, HR, HU, IE, IT,LU, LV, MT, PL, RS, SI, SK,
UK)
YES, for other postal service
providers active in theuniversal service (BG, EL,
ES, FR, FY, HR, HU, IE, IT,
LU, LV, PL, SI, SK)
YES, for other postal service
providers (BG, EL, ES, FR,FY, HR, HU, IE, IT, LV, PL,
RS, SI, SK)
NO (AT, BE, CH, CY, CZ,
DE, DK, EE, LT, NL, NO,PT, SE)
Nu
mb
er o
f co
un
trie
s
Answers
ERGP (14) 24 – report on QoS and end-user satisfaction
73
Figure 18 below shows if a compensation schemes exist for individual customer and for which type of service failure.
Figure 18 – Existing compensation schemes for individual customers by type of service failure 84
For 22 NRAs, existing compensation schemes cover, for the USP, items lost or substantially delayed
and items damaged. Items arriving late were mentioned as being covered by 14 NRAs. In most of
these countries compensations schemes also cover these types of service failures for other postal
service providers (active or not in the universal service area).
84 NRAs notes:
EE: Item arriving late applies only for express mail.
EL: USP: only registered items are compensated (since only these are tracked). COURIER: all items are compensated (since
all are tracked and traced).
LT: There are no specific requirements for compensation schemes of substantially delayed postal items.
PT: For the USP, existing compensations schemes derive from the regime established by articles 77 to 83 of Decree-Law no.
176/88, of 18 May, which approves the Regulation for Public Postal Service, referring to registered mail, to mail with
declared value and parcels. For other postal services there is no specific legal regime applicable. However the Portuguese
Postal Law no 17/2012, of 26 April (article. 41, paragraph 1 b)) states a principle of adequacy of reimbursement and
compensation systems to be established by postal service providers.
SE: All these categories are at least in some degree covered by existing compensation schemes.
SI: The compensation scheme is covering damage caused during the routing of registered and insured postal items and postal
parcels due to: (1.) loss, damage, theft or robbery; (2.) exceeding the time limit for routing; (3.) unexecuted or incompletely
or incorrectly executed postal services.
SK: (Item lost or substantially delayed covers) Only lost recorded items, only substantially delayed express items.
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Other
How complaints are treated
Mis-delivery
Mail delivery or collection
Change of adress
Item damaged
Item arriving late
Item lost or substantially delayed
Number of countries
Ty
pes
of
servic
e f
ail
ure
Other postal service providersOther postal service providers active in the universal serviceUniversal service provider
ERGP (14) 24 – report on QoS and end-user satisfaction
74
Table 35 – Cover of existing compensation schemes85
Universal service provider Other postal service
providers active in US
Other postal service
providers
Item lost or substantially delayed
BG, EE, EL, ES, FR,
FYROM, HR, HU, IE, IT, LT,
LU, LV, MT, NO, PL, PT, RO, RS, SI, SK, UK
BG, EL, ES, FR, FYROM,
HR, HU, IE, IT, LT, LU, LV,
PL, RO, SI, SK
BG, EE, EL, ES, FR, FYROM,
HR, HU, IE, IT, LT, LV, PL,
RS, RO, SI, SK
Item arriving late
BG, FR, FYROM, HR, HU,
IE, IT, LU, NO, PL, PT, RS,
SI, UK
BG, FR, FYROM, HR, HU,
IE, IT, LU, PL, SI
BG, EL, ES, FR, FYROM,
HR, HU, IE, IT, PL, RS, SI
Item damaged
BG, HR, LV, RO, EL, EE, ES,
FYROM, PT, FR, HU, IE, IT, LT, MT, NO, PL, RS, SI, SK,
UK, LU
BG, EL, ES, FR, FYROM,
HR, HU, IE, IT, LT, LU, LV, PL, RO, SI, SK
BG, EE, EL, ES, FR, FYROM,
HR, HU, IE, IT, LT, LV, RO, PL, SK
Change of address - - -
Mail delivery or collection IE, IT, SI IE, IT, SI IE, IT, SI
Mis-delivery ES, IE, IT, LT, PT, RS, SI IE, IT, LT, SI IE, IT, LT, RS, SI
How complaints are treated IE, IT, PL IE, IT, PL IE, IT, PL
Other IE IE IE
NRAs were also asked to indicate how, when and what level of compensation is paid by postal service
providers, having pointed out that all these aspects differ significantly depending on the type of service
failure. Most NRAs indicated that these aspects were determined by law and/or established in general
terms and conditions for the provision of services.
The table 35 below lists some country examples.
Table 36 – Compensation schemes
Country Compensation schemes
DK
Loss or damage is maximal recoverable by the value of the content value, delays are maximal recoverable by shipment
costs. Shipment to and from abroad are covered by the rules of the UPU or the agreements reached by the concerned postal operator.
EL
USP: only registered items are compensated (since only these are tracked). COURIER: all items are compensated (since all are tracked and traced).
For (the above items) the level of compensation is:
1. For a lost, stolen or completely destroyed envelope : from 50-70 € (plus credit the initial postal charge to customer) 2. For a lost, stolen or completely destroyed parcel: from 100-400 € (plus credit the initial postal charge to customer)
3. Categories 1 and 2 that in addition are insured : the above compensation plus the insured amount of money
4. Envelope or parcel partially lost, stolen or destroyed: the compensation amount is equivalent to the value of the lost, stolen or destroyed part provided that the compensation does not exceed the compensation amount of the categories 1 and
2.
5. Category 4. that in addition is insured: the compensation amount is equivalent to the value of the lost, stolen or destroyed part provided that the compensation does not exceed the compensation amount of category 3.
6. Non-delivered postal item: credit the postal charges to consumer 7. Delay in delivery (only applies for courier): 6 € for each day of delay
8. Delay in delivery that exceeds five times the agreed delivery time: 6 € for each day of delay (plus credit the postal
charges to consumer)
FR
Principles and terms of compensation (cases, level of compensation) are provided by national legislation, for example:
1) Loss or damage Ordinary mail: compensation = twice the postage tariff
Registered mail: compensation = 16€
85 Source: ERGP (22 NRAs)
ERGP (14) 24 – report on QoS and end-user satisfaction
75
Parcels: 23€/kg
2) Delay: compensation = the postage tariff
Postal service providers can provide higher levels of compensation.
FYROM
It depends on the type of item; (a) loss or complete damage:
- For insured postal items, the amount of the marked value;
- for registered postal items and parcels, 15 times the amount paid for the service; b) partial damage or reduction of the item content:
- for insured postal items, the amount of the real value of the damage, but not higher than the marked value;
- for registered postal items and parcels, 10 times the amount paid for the service; c) exceeding the deadline for delivery of:
- priority postal items, 10 times the amount paid for the service;
- non-priority postal items, 5 times the amount paid for the service;
HU
(1) Flat rate compensation: Registered postal item destructed, lost in whole or in part or damaged.
a) destructed or lost in whole, flat rate compensation is fifteen times the fee charged for the service, b) Partially lost or damaged, flat rate compensation proportioned to the entire amount specified in paragraph a) in the same
manner as the damage caused proportioned to the full value of the postal item.
(2) In the event specified under paragraph (1) a), the postal service provider shall also repay the charge paid for the service. (3) Compensation: Insured item destructed, lost in whole or in part or damaged:
a) Destroyed or lost in whole, the compensation is the amount specified in the value guarantee.
b) Partially lost or damaged, the compensation proportioned to the amount specified in the value declaration for insurance in the same manner as the damage caused proportioned to the full value of the postal item.
(4) Flat rate compensation for the delayed delivery of a guaranteed delivery time postal item. The amount of the flat rate
compensation is twice the fee paid for the guaranteed delivery time postal service.
IE
ComReg has recommended that a compensation scheme would apply in respect of any loss, theft, or damage to a postal packet or any failure to provide a postal service of sufficient quality and that compensation will include a refund of the cost
of postage; recompense for the cost of any wrapping or protective material used in the postal packet; and recompense for
any other relevant and reasonable costs incurred.
ComReg has also recommended that postal service providers provide some redress to postal service users who have made a
complaint when the response times and /or maximum handling times are not met. See: ComReg Document 14/06
LT
Where, through the fault of a postal service provider, postal items are lost or damaged, articles (merchandise) are missing or
damaged therein or the articles (merchandise) are damaged, the postal service provider shall pay compensation: 1) for a lost registered postal item as well as for a part of lost or damaged articles (merchandise) contained or all damaged
articles (merchandise) contained therein – twice the amount of posting expenses;
2) for a lost insured postal item – an amount equal to posting expenses plus insured value; 3) for a part of lost or damaged articles (merchandise) in an insured postal item accompanied by a list of articles
(merchandise) – an amount equal to posting expenses and the value of the lost or damaged article (merchandise) indicated in
the list, which in no case shall exceed the insured value of the whole insured postal item.
LU The compensation for loss has to be a multiple of the amount paid as compensation for delay.
MT
COMPENSATION LIMITS
LOCAL
DOMESTIC SERVICES MAXIMUM COMPENSATION LIMIT
Ordinary Items 12 x Stamp Value per Item
Registered Items 30 SDRs* Maximum (approx. €33)
Parcel Items 40 SDRs* per parcel plus 4.5 SDRs per kg*(approx. €45 per parcel,
plus €5 per kg)
FOREIGN
INTERNATIONAL SERVICES MAXIMUM COMPENSATION LIMIT
Ordinary Items N/A
Registered Items 30 SDRs* Maximum (approx. €33)
Ordinary Parcels 40 SDRs* per parcel plus 4.5 SDRs per kg* (approx. €45 per parcel, plus €5 per kg)
* As per Universal Postal Union (UPU) Regulations More information on the Compensation Schemes offered by the USP is available from the following link:
http://www.maltapost.com/committed-to-deliver
NL
Level of compensation is limited by administrative order of 25 March 2009 to an amount of € 50 for registered items and €
1.500 for insured items. Article 29 of the Postal Act states:
1. A Universal Postal Service Provider shall only be liable for damage resulting from the loss of, damage to, or delayed
delivery of domestic Postal Items if the Sender makes use of a manner of conveyance whereby a Postal Item is registered according to rules to be set forth in the general terms and conditions of the Postal Conveyance Company.
2. The liability referred to in paragraph 1 of this article shall not apply if the damage incurred results solely from one or
more of the following circumstances: a. the nature of or a defect in the item conveyed;
ERGP (14) 24 – report on QoS and end-user satisfaction
76
b. inadequate packaging of the item by a party other than a Universal Postal Service Provider or its subordinates;
c. a cause attributable to the Sender;
d. an act of war or armed conflict; e. seizure on the instructions of an authority competent to order such seizure.
3. Claims may be submitted solely by the Sender. If the damage has been incurred by a party other than the Sender, the
Sender shall be entitled by operation of law to bring the claim on behalf of that other party, either in the Sender’s own name or as the representative of the said party.
4. Amounts may be determined by a general administrative order above which liability within the meaning of paragraph 1
of this article shall not extend, whereby the size of the separate amounts may be determined according, for example, to the type of registration or the nature and value of the Postal Item concerned.
5. A Universal Postal Service Provider shall not be entitled to invoke an exclusion or restriction of its liability ensuing from
the previous paragraphs of this article if the damage incurred is the result of its own act or omission, with such having
occurred either with intent to cause the said damage or due to recklessness and in the knowledge that the said damage would
be likely to result.
6. A Universal Postal Service Provider shall only be liable in respect of the Postal Conveyance from or to areas outside the Netherlands in accordance with the provisions of the Acts of the Universal Postal
Union or other treaties or decisions of international institutions that are binding for the Netherlands.
7. Any stipulation that provides for a departure from this article shall be legally void.
NO
According to the postal regulation there shall be compensation for registered items, for unregistered items. The USP is only obliged to have a compensation scheme if the item is lost etc. due to gross negligence (by the USP). The compensation
amounts are limited.
PL The level of compensation varies according to the type of the service failed. In general, the operators are responsible for
non-performance or improper performance both of universal postal service and of service not being universal postal service.
PT For the USP, please see the regime foreseen by articles 77 to 83 of Decree-Law no. 176/88, of 18 May, which approves the
Regulation for Public Postal Service, available at www.anacom.pt/render.jsp?contentId=980542&languageId=1.
SI
The Postal Service Act requires that the maximum indemnity for:
1. loss, damage, theft or robbery of an insured item shall be the postal item’s stated value;
2. loss or theft of a postal parcel or of a registered postal item shall be the price paid for the executed postal service
multiplied by a factor of 15;
3. theft or damage of a postal parcel or of a registered postal item shall be the price paid for the executed postal service multiplied by a factor of 10;
4. unexecuted, incomplete or incorrectly executed postal service relating to the routing of a registered and insured postal
item or postal parcel shall be the price paid for the executed postal service; 5. exceeding the time limit for routing of a registered and insured postal item and of a postal parcel shall be the price paid
for the executed postal service;
6. loss of a postal item with receipt shall be the price paid for the executed postal service. (3) In cases under points 1, 2 and 3 of the preceding paragraph, the user of postal services shall be entitled to reimbursement
of the price paid for routing of the postal item, excluding the part of the price relating to postal item insurance.
(4) Notwithstanding the provisions of the second paragraph of this article, the highest possible indemnities for cross-border postal items shall be determined in accordance with the provisions of Universal Postal Union acts applicable in Slovenia.
(5) A postal service provider shall on no account be held liable for indirect damage or profits lost.
SK
The sender is entitled to a compensation for damage, for which the postal company is liable according to § 38 of the Postal
Act, to the following extent:
a) twenty times the postal charge for the service “registered” according to the tariff in the case of failure to deliver a
registered item or destruction of its content;
b) the actual damage, up to the double the lowest postal charge according to the tariff per 500 g of the content in the case of
failure to deliver an uninsured parcel, its damage or reduction of its content; c) the actual damage, up to the specified value, in the case of failure to deliver an insured item, its destruction or damage or
reduction of its content;
d) three times the postal charge paid in the case of a postal item with a guaranteed delivery period, which has not been delivered within the delivery period according to the postal terms and conditions.
ERGP (14) 24 – report on QoS and end-user satisfaction
77
Figure 19 below lists if there is a mechanism in place to make customers aware of compensation
schemes.
Figure 19 – Mechanisms in place to make customers aware of compensation schemes 8687
The majority of NRAs (24 out of 29) indicated that in their countries there are mechanisms in place to
make consumers aware that compensation schemes are available. Only 19 NRAs had answered
positively to this question in 2013.
86 NRAs notes: SE: Especially the website of the USP and NRA. 87 Source: ERGP (29 NRAs)
82,8%
17,2%
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
YES (BG, CZ, EE, EL, ES, FR, FY, HR, HU, IE, IT,
LT, LU, LV, MT, NO, PL, PT, RO, RS, SE, SI, SK,UK)
NO (AT, BE, CH, CY, DK)
Nu
mb
er o
f co
un
trie
s
Answers
ERGP (14) 24 – report on QoS and end-user satisfaction
78
5.5. Collection of data on complaints
This chapter looks at the data that NRAs collect and make available on complaints about postal
services in general and, in particular, about cross-border services.
Figure 20 below indicates if the NRAs are collecting data on complaints and from which postal
providers.
Figure 20 – Collection of data on complaints by NRAs88
88 NRAs notes:
PT: The data refer to answered complaints by the USP
HU: This area is called “postal services substituting the US” and at present only the USP is active there with services that are
outside the scope of the USO and are not classified as non-US services.
BG: Data on the number of complaints vary according to cause.
IE: The NRA does not hold data for complaints to the USP, but relies on the information on complaints published by the USP
in its annual report. www.anpost.ie/NR/rdonlyres/98741681-6E66-4387-BAD9-
87994D06442D/0/AnPostAnnualReport2013Commentary.pdf.
28
16
11 10
13
21
10
7 6
7
16
6
3
1
3 4
16
19 20
17
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
Received by universal
service provider aboutUS
Received by universal
service provider aboutnon-US
Received by other postal
service providers activein the US about US
Received by other postal
service providers activein the US about non-US
Received by other postal
service providers
Nu
mb
er o
f co
un
trie
s
Answers
Yes By category By service No
ERGP (14) 24 – report on QoS and end-user satisfaction
79
Table 37 below shows from which operators and for which services the NRAs are collecting data on
complaints.
Table 37 – Data on the number of complaints89 90
Received by the universal
service provider
Received by other postal
service providers active in
US
Received by other postal
service providers
About US
Total
AT, BG, CH, CY, CZ, DK,
EL, ES, FI, FR, FYROM, HR, HU, IE, IT, LT, LU,
LV, MT, NO, PL, PT, RO,
RS, SE, SI, SK, UK
BG, DK, EL, FYROM, HU,
IT, LT, LU, PL, SI, UK
By category
CH, CZ, DK, EL, ES, FR,
FYROM, HR, HU, IE, IT,
LT, LV, MT, PL, PT, RS, SE, SI, SK, UK
DK, EL, HU, IT, PL, SI, UK
By service
CH, DK, EL, ES, FR, FYROM, HR, HU, IT, LT,
LV, NO, PT, RS, SI, UK
HU, IT, UK
No BE, DE, EE, NL
BE, CH, CY, CZ, DE, EE,
ES, FR, HR, IE, LV, MT, NL, NO, PT, RO, RS, SE,
SK
About non-US
Total
BG, CY, CZ, EL, FI, HU,
IE, IT, LT, LU, PL, NO, RO, RS, SK, UK
BG, CZ, EL, HU, IT, LT, LU, PL, SI, SK
BG, CY, CZ, DK, EL,
FYROM, HU, IT, LT, PL, RS, SI, SK
By category CZ, EL, HU, IE, IT, LT, PL, RS, SK, UK
CZ, EL, IT, PL, SI, SK CZ, DK, EL, IT, RS, SI, SK
By service EL, IT, LT, NO, RS, UK IT DK, IT, RS
No
BE, CH, DE, DK, EE, ES, FR, FYROM, HR, LV, MT, NL, PT, RS, SE, SI
BE, CH, CY, DE, DK, EE, ES, FR, FYROM, HR, IE, LV, MT, NL, NO, PT, RO, RS, SE, UK
BE, CH, DE, EE, ES, FR,
HR, IE, LU, LV, MT, NL, NO, PT, RO, SE, UK
Almost all respondent NRAs collect data on complaints received by the USP regarding universal
services (28 out of 32). 21 out of these indicated to collect data by category and 16 by service. Fewer
NRAs collect data on complaints received by the USP about non-universal services (16 out of 32).
The majority of NRAs do not collect data on complaints received by other postal service providers
active in the universal area about universal services or non-universal services (19 and 20 out of 32,
respectively). Besides, the majority of NRAs do not collect data on complaints received by other
postal service providers (17 out of 32).
The results this year show a similar situation to the one portrayed in 2013 in what regards the
collection of data on complaints by NRAs.
89
Source: ERGP (32 NRAs). 90
Note: “No” includes situations where other postal service providers active in US are not applicable.
ERGP (14) 24 – report on QoS and end-user satisfaction
80
Next figure 21 and table 38 show data on complaints received by the USP in 2012 and 2013 per
country and also data on these complaints by category. NRAs numbers on complaints about postal
services are also shown.
Figure 21 – Complaints received by USP on universal service, 2012-2013 (per country) 91
91 NRAs notes:
BG: Number of justified complaints.
CZ: The decrease in number of postal items is due to the fact that the USP sent data about all postal services in the year 2012,
not only about US.
ES: These data include a corresponding admission that is not part of the USO and cannot be identified. The corresponding
distribution part, however, is USO.
FR: Since 2009, the system in place ensures a better accounting of complaints submitted by customers thanks to a systematic
recording. Beside this, the USP systematically provides a compensation when parcels are not delivered within D+2, which
encourages postal users to complain
HU: Actual number of complaints: 23.492 because one complaint could have been classified into more categories by the
USP.
IE: These complaint statistics only relate to written complaints received and do not include complaints received by phone or
email. According to the annual report of An Post “In 2013, there were 514,698 telephone calls made to An Post Customer
Services. Most of these were routine or general enquiries rather than complaints”.
LT: Number of postal items is universal service items of USP. The essential difference between results of 2012 and 2013 is
due to the new Postal Law. According to it, bulk mail services were removed from the scope of the universal postal service.
PT: The values refer to answered complaints.
(a) “Item lost or substantially delayed” includes Item arriving late.
(b) “Change of address” includes redirection complaint.
(c) “Mail delivery includes complaints concerning delivery and mis-delivery.
(d) “Behaviour and competence of postal personnel” is included in “other complaints”.
UK: All complaints data published here:
www.royalmailgroup.com/customers/quality-service/quality-service-reports
0 200000 400000 600000 800000 1000000 1200000 1400000 1600000
United Kingdom
Sweden
Spain
Slovenia
Slovakia
Serbia
Romania
Portugal
Poland
Norway
Malta
Luxembourg
Lithuania
Latvia
Italy
Ireland
Hungary
Greece
France
Denmark
Czech Republic
Croatia
Bulgaria
Austria
Number of complaints
Co
un
trie
s
2013 2012
ERGP (14) 24 – report on QoS and end-user satisfaction
81
Table 38 - Complaints received by USP about universal service, 2012-2013 (per country)
2012 2013
Austria 176232 194815
Bulgaria 491 996
Croatia 27753 30105
Czech Republic 121988 105638
Denmark 9195 7013
France 1333958 1410665
Greece 9133 10886
Hungary 23918 24133
Ireland 23443 25815
Italy 44202 55025
Latvia 945 777
Lithuania 2659 1760
Luxembourg 2428 2903
Malta 1347 1424
Norway 70601 69665
Poland 175748 133894
Portugal 50196 54 056
Romania 1188 1585
Serbia 3048 1078
Slovakia 23429 22229
Slovenia 1889 1902
Spain 76252 65913
Sweden 75295 71929
United Kingdom 888882 /
Source: ERGP (23 NRAs)
Figure 22 and table 39 below compare the complaints received by USP about universal service by
category for the period 2012-2013.
Figure 22 – Complaints received by USP about universal service by category, 2012-2013
0 100000 200000 300000 400000 500000
Item lost or substantially delayed
Item arriving late
Item damaged
Change of address
Mail delivery or collection
Other complaints
Number of complaints
Co
mp
lain
ts c
ate
go
rie
s
2013 2012
ERGP (14) 24 – report on QoS and end-user satisfaction
82
Table 39 – Complaints received by USP about universal service by category, 2012-201392 93
Item lost or
substantially
delayed
Item arriving
late Item damaged
Change of
address
Mail delivery or
collection Other complaints
2012 2013 2012 2013 2012 2013 2012 2013 2012 2013 2012 2013
Bulgaria 444 979 10 3 9 14 / / / / 34 0
Croatia 22900 22304 288 815 178 1 565 14 40 283 617 4090 4764
Denmark 1331 1055 801 638 7063 5230 0 / 0 / 0 90
Greece 353 73 14 61 11 56 / / / / 8755 60
Hungary 11130 10181 805 731 900 921 512 418 5050 5109 5521 6773
Ireland 18287 20630 351 346 980 1062 919 590 464 117 2297 2910
Latvia 91 93 14 64 103 128 3 18 346 209 388 265
Lithuania 1313 308 63 51 249 199 10 5 463 782 561 415
Malta 73 77 28 10 99 107 254 271 21 27 872 932
Norway 14304 15440 2487 2568 2664 3380 17662 13756 / / 33514 34521
Poland / 96488 / 152 / 1197 / / / / / 35432
Portugal 15114 17537 / / 1071 1236 735 1103 14307 14018 18969 20162
Serbia 3015 1039 8 13 25 26 / / / / 0 0
Slovenia 1437 1494 8 17 64 92 8 16 168 156 204 127
Sweden 44468 47272 4709 4512 5963 6379 / / / / 20155 13766
United
Kingdom 306106 / 35695 / 35543 / 81340 / 69888 / 330242 /
It should be taken into consideration that comparisons between years are not always rigorous because
the source of the data in each year is not exactly the same in some cases. Besides, comparisons
between countries have to bear in mind that the numbers may reflect differences in the legal and
regulatory frameworks, market volumes/structure, etc.
92 Source: ERGP (16 NRAs) 93 Note: Includes NRAs that had figures at least on 4 of the 6 categories selected. Categories were selected based on the
number of complaints and data availability.
ERGP (14) 24 – report on QoS and end-user satisfaction
83
Figure 23 and table 40 below compare the complaints received by NRAs on postal services for the
period 2012-2013.
Figure 23 – Complaints received by NRAs on postal services, 2012-2013 (per country) 94
Table 40 – Complaints received by NRAs on postal services, 2012-2013 (per country – source 18 countries)
2012 2013
Austria 59 69
Bulgaria 104 127
Cyprus 5 7
Czech Republic 382 164
Estonia 26 61
FYROM 30 20
France 53 71
Germany 1298 1228
Greece 172 203
Hungary 92 87
Italy 412 353
Lithuania 56 82
Malta 16 12
Portugal 9377 8300
Slovakia 38 77
Slovenia 19 32
Spain 182 173
United Kingdom 602 385
94 NRAs notes: CZ: Data from 2012 are only from the USP.
EE: Includes all complaints concerning any postal service (domestic and cross-border). ES: Refers to the universal postal services only.
UK: Ofcom does not have regulatory responsibility for handling and dealing with postal complaints from individual consumers. Ofcom does,
however, respond to complaints referred to it in cases where the postal operator has failed to resolve the complaint or where the complaint may potentially suggest there is a wider or more significant issue that may require regulatory intervention. The above figures represent those
directly received by the NRA from consumers as opposed to the total number of consumer complaints received by the USP as shown in table
6.10.1. In terms of the categories, Ofcom separates postal complaints into 58 categories. The complaint categories ticked above denote the
ones we record.
FYROM: The figures given in 2012 refer to the total number of complaints received by the Postal Agency.
PT: Portugal’s figures on complaints are largely justified by the existing law that states that all service provider must have a “complaints book” on every establishment opened to the public and that they have to, submitted to penalty, send to the NRA all the complaints fulfilled
on the complaints books (over 85% of the complaints received by the NRA are complaints presented through the “complaints book”).
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000
United Kingdom
Slovenia
Portugal
Lithuania
Hungary
Germany
FYROM
Czech Republic
Bulgaria
Number of complaints
Co
un
trie
s
2013 2012
ERGP (14) 24 – report on QoS and end-user satisfaction
84
It should be taken into consideration, when analysing the data shown in figure 23 and table 40, that the
numbers on complaints received by NRAs reflect not only the differences in the number of
users/postal items operated, but also in the scope of NRAs’ competences on complaint handling and
the legal framework applicable.
Figures 24 and 25 below show data on complaints about cross-border services collected by NRAs.
Figure 24 – Collection of data on complaints about cross-border services by NRAs (source 28 NRAs)
The majority of NRAs collect data on complaints about cross-border services (18 out of 28), all of
these at least for the USP numbers. Fewer NRAs collect this information with regard to other postal
service providers.
Figure 25 – Data on complaints about cross-border services received by NRAs (source 27 NRAs)
Turning to data on complaints about cross-border services received by the NRAs, there is almost an
even split between NRAs that have this information and NRAs that do not.
64,3%
14,3% 17,9%
35,7%
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
YES, by the universal
service provider (BG, CH,CZ, DK, EL, FYROM, HR,
HU, IT, LT, LV, MT, PL,
PT, RS, SE, SI, SK)
YES, by other postal service
providers active in theuniversal service (BG, CZ,
FYROM, IT)
YES, by other postal service
providers (CZ, FYROM, IT,RS, SK)
NO (AT, BE, CY, DE, EE,
FR, IE, NL, NO, RO)
Nu
mb
er o
f co
un
trie
s
Answers
51,9% 48,1%
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
YES (CH, CY, CZ, EE, EL, ES, FYROM, HR,
HU, IT, LT, LV, MT, PT)
NO (BE, BG, DE, DK, FR, IE, NL, NO, PL, RS,
SE, SI, SK)
Nu
mb
er o
f co
un
trie
s
Answers
ERGP (14) 24 – report on QoS and end-user satisfaction
85
Figure 26 and table 40 below give figures on the complaints received by USPs about cross-border
services per country. Complaints about cross-border services seem to have grown between 2012 and
2013 in most countries, except for Denmark, Lithuania and Sweden. Nevertheless, it should again be
considered that differences between the figures per country can reflect differences in the markets and
legal frameworks at national level.
Figure 26 – Complaints received by the USP on cross-border services, 2012-2013 (per country) 95
Table 41 – Complaints received by the USP on cross-border services, 2012-2013 (per country – source 16 NRAs)
2012 2013
UN % UN %
Bulgaria 457 53 984 82
Croatia 5416 / 6773 /
Czech Republic / / 109 10,32
Denmark 3721 40,5 2504 35,7
FYROM 1258 27,3 1930 47,7
Greece 8188 90 9596 89
Hungary 4106 17.5 5158 21,4
Italy 23931 12,9 29212 14,5
Latvia 146 15,5 202 26
Lithuania 1616 60,8 595 33,8
Malta 7 0,52 2 0,14
Poland 33210 18,9 / /
Portugal 17398 34,7 22029 40,7
Serbia 12 0,004 12 0,011
Slovakia 9405 17,09 11348 21,9
Slovenia 386 10,22 345 18,13
95 NRAs notes:
CZ: We do not have data from 2012. Regarding other postal providers we do not distinguish whether the complaints concern US or other
services. HU: only US.
PT: The values refer to answered complaints.
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000
Sweden
Slovenia
Slovakia
Serbia
Portugal
Poland
Malta
Lithuania
Latvia
Italy
Hungary
Greece
FYROM
Denmark
Czech Republic
Croatia
Bulgaria
Number of complaints
Co
un
trie
s
2013 2012
ERGP (14) 24 – report on QoS and end-user satisfaction
86
Sweden 25050 24 21331 29
6 Conclusions on the current practices of the NRAs regarding the quality of service
regulation, complaint handling procedures and consumer protection
To ensure compliance with the obligations arising from the Postal Directives, two particular tasks are
usually assigned to national regulatory authorities (NRAs):
- the follow-up of quality of service issues and end-user satisfaction
- the follow-up of complaint handling procedures and consumer protection.
In this report the ERPG has collected core indicators and instruments to monitor the quality of service
and end-user satisfaction, on the one hand, and complaint handling and consumer protection, on the
other hand, linked back to regulatory measures taken in those fields.
The ERPG has also collected data regarding these core indicators and the report analyses the data,
identifies trends on the market and describes the competence and current practices of NRAs.
Top Related