The Net Promoter Score or NPS, which is used by the largest companies in the world including Lloyds Banking Group, measures customer experience by asking one question: ‘How likely would you be to recommend brand/product/service to a friend or other colleague?’ Answers are based on a 0-10 scale. Those who score 0-6 are ‘Detractors’, 7 and 8 are ‘Passives’ and 9 and 10 are ‘Promoters’.
In our recent survey we asked that question about the service being provided by Willis Towers Watson (WTW).
The worst score you can get is -100; the highest score is +100. Any score above zero is good, anything +50 is excellent, and anything over +70 is considered world class.
Over 700 pensioners replied, a very high turnout considering the fact that most people never need to contact Willis Towers Watson, and WTW had an NPS score of -72, one of the worst we have ever seen. 78% of respondents in our recent survey were ‘Detractors’, compared to just 6% who were ‘Promoters’.
To put that score in context, Lloyds Banking Group has an NPS of +62, Apple +61, John Lewis +68, Metro Bank +82, Amazon +73, Tesla +97 and Marks and Spencer +29. The worst we could find was Aviva with a score of -28. A score of -72 is unprecedented.
It seems that members in other schemes are having the same problems. Of the 351 reviews of the performance of WTW on Trustpilot, 87% of respondents gave it a 1 out of 5 rating. Many of the withering reviews left by customers reflect what members have been telling us about WTW over the last few months.
Further results from the survey include:
- 75% of respondents said they were aware that WTW administered all of the Group’s pension schemes.
- 36% of respondents said they had contacted WTW in the last 12 months.
- 72% of respondents who said they had contacted WTW used either email or phone.
- 75% of respondents said that the Trustee should publish quarterly service quality metrics for WTW.
- 89% of respondents said that WTW should notify retired members of staff of their annual pension increases at the beginning of the year rather than just before the implementation date.
WTW’s level of customer service is woeful. Members complain about not being able to get through to WTW or not having letters answered. The Trustee, which is paying millions in fees to WTW, needs to get a grip of this situation now.
We will be surveying current members of Lloyds staff many of whom will have had dealings with WTW about their pensions.
Once we’ve amalgamated both sets of results, we’ll be writing to the Chairman of the Trustee Board asking for his assurance that he will tell WTW to improve their services to pension scheme members and publish regular service level agreement updates.
If WTW can’t, or won’t, commit to a better service, the contract should be moved elsewhere.
They Know What’s Best For You!
In an astonishingly arrogant policy, Lloyds is refusing to explain how it calculated individual top-up payments following the Union’s GMP victory in the High Court.
Not unreasonably, a member asked the Bank to explain the basis of the calculation in her case so she could confirm that she was being properly compensated. Lloyds’ response was that: “We are not in a position to share numeric calculations however can assure you that your top-up has been calculated using all the original factors, assumptions and market value adjustments that applied to your original transfer calculation”. For members who don’t speak this sort of language I can translate it as “we know best”.
Now, there will be very few people in the UK who can carry out this calculation and even fewer who know how this has been done in Lloyds: all these individuals will be experienced actuaries. So, this is no territory for an amateur with O Level maths!
However, it is surely reasonable for the Bank to confirm the parameters used for each individual’s calculations (not a big IT issue) and explain in simple terms the approach used. Some of the UK’s utility companies are world class providers of take it or leave it service but it’s amazing to see a leading Bank following the same line. The role of a Trustee is clearly to look after the money or other assets of the beneficiaries of a trust. Doesn’t that demand openness so beneficiaries can see what’s being done in their name and with their money?
Members concerned to pursue the question of their GMP payments should ask the Trustee to confirm what “original factors” were used in the calculation and for details of any other material factors that could have affected the amount paid. The email address for any enquiries is firstname.lastname@example.org.