Go to top of page

The amendment demand process—working with our clients to ensure the Register is accurate

22 March 2018
Blog entry

In my last blog post, I talked about data integrity, and touched on a number of measures that we have in place to support this. The amendment demand process is one tool which is used to help parties ensure the Register accurately reflects what’s been agreed between the parties—or even if the registration should be on the Register.

In my blog post of November 2016, I explained the amendment demand process and its importance:

‘Regardless of the process chosen (direct, administrative or judicial), an efficient, well administered amendment demand process is an important element of any effective security interest register, as it provides a safety valve to not only preserve the rights and interests of parties to a registration, but also helps to ensure that the registration is an accurate record of what has been agreed between the parties.’

An efficient and well administered process is key—and this is where we’ve turned our focus. The process only benefits those who are able to use it. So it’s imperative that the process serves the interests of different user groups and ultimately, equity of access to the remedy that it provides.

As a service-orientated organisation, it’s essential that we understand the impact of the process on those who use it—and as part of that—identify any accessibility issues that impede engagement. Working to improve and streamline the process also assists us in our commitment to ensuring the integrity of PPSR data.

We recently applied human-centred design principles and the Australian Government’s digital service standard to the amendment demand process, to examine the experience of clients. In this exercise, (conducted between May – October 2017), three findings emerged:

  • approximately 60 percent of people who navigate to the practice statement, navigate away from that page almost instantly
  • almost 40 per cent of amendment statement forms that we receive are invalid—and on average, are returned to clients three times
  • despite these findings, 87 per cent of applicants get the outcome they are seeking.

So although the majority aren’t reading our information on the amendment demand process, and those who do lodge an amendment statement form take several goes to complete the process, nearly 90 per cent eventually get the outcome they’re after. 

So how can we make the process easier?

We’ve identified three pain points:

  1. The process is hard to understand.
  2. It’s hard to get the form right.
  3. It takes too long to receive a decision (given that it can take several goes to submit a valid form).

We’ve used these insights to identify opportunities to make the amendment demand process simpler, clearer and faster to use.

We’ve already updated our web content to simplify the terminology, and developed an easy to Dispute a registration process guide.

We’ll also be creating templates and re-writing content, forms and notices into plain English.

Human-centered design isn’t a perfect science, and we are still learning, but there is immense value in putting ourselves in the users’ position and learning from that to deliver improved services and processes—and ultimately also supporting the quality of the data on the PPSR. 

Registrar

Personal Property Securities