General problem resolution strategies

Thirty-three per cent of respondents reported a civil justice problem over the three-and-a-half year survey reference period. However, these respondents adopted very different ways of addressing their problems, with some strategies indicating knowledge, confidence and/or skills gaps. While the majority of those with problems obtained advice (52 per cent), a substantial proportion did nothing to resolve their problem (11 per cent), tried but failed to obtain advice (2 per cent), or tried and failed to obtain advice and then went on to handle the problem alone (5 per cent). Respondents reporting the remaining 31 per cent of problems chose to handle them alone from the outset. In handling problems alone, most respondents simply talked or wrote to ‘the other side’ and attempted to negotiate a solution.

Table 2 shows multilevel multinomial logistic regression model output, modelling general problem resolution strategy on the basis of a range of social and demographic predictors and problem types. Table 3 shows the household-level covariance matrix, with the positive on-diagonal elements indicating the persistence of strategies within households. This is explored further below.

TABLE 3.

Household level covariance matrix of the model in Table 2 (standard errors in brackets)

Doing nothing

There were some social and demographic differences in tendency to do nothing rather than obtain advice, as well as marked differences across problem types. Referring to the multivariate model in Table 2, those with use of motorised transport were significantly less likely to do nothing than those without (when compared to obtaining advice), as were those in receipt of benefits and those with academic qualifications. There was also evidence of age having a significant impact, with 18–24 year olds most likely and 45–59 year olds least likely to do nothing rather than obtain advice.

In percentage terms, those with the use of motorised transport did nothing 9 per cent of the time compared with 53 per cent obtaining advice. This contrasted with, in the case of those without transport, just under 15 per cent doing nothing and 42 per cent obtaining advice. Those in receipt of benefits had a low rate of inaction and a high percentage seeking advice (9 per cent and 58 per cent respectively) compared to those not receiving benefits (11 per cent and 48 per cent). Youngest and oldest respondents had the highest rates of inaction, as well as a low percentage obtaining advice (18–24 year olds: 15 per cent doing nothing and 42 per cent obtaining advice; over 75 year olds: 18 per cent doing nothing and 39 per cent obtaining advice). While those with and those without academic qualifications had comparable rates of obtaining advice (52 and 51 per cent respectively), those without qualifications did nothing more often (14 per cent versus 10 per cent). If we expand academic qualifications, we find highest levels of inaction among those without any qualifications (14 per cent) and more handling alone among those with higher degrees (42 per cent).

Respondents experiencing different types of civil justice problems chose different ways of dealing with them (see Figure 1). There were highly significant differences in rates of inaction, compared to obtaining advice, between problem types (see Table 2). Those faced with problems relating to discrimination (28 per cent doing nothing), clinical negligence (28 per cent), unfair police treatment (24 per cent), homelessness (23 per cent), personal injury (22 per cent) and anti-social neighbours (15 per cent) were most likely to do nothing when faced with the problem. Arguably, ‘doing nothing’ about a problem was therefore most common for problems associated with a substantial imbalance of knowledge or power, and inter-personal conflict.

Figure 1.

General problem resolution strategy by problem type.

Respondents were asked why they did nothing about a problem. The most common reason was that people thought it would make no difference (22 per cent). Uncertainty as to rights (7 per cent) and what to do or where to get help (8 per cent) were also mentioned.

Breaking results down further to show variation between different demographic groups and their reasoning behind doing nothing, there was some indication that black and minority ethnic respondents were more likely than white respondents to think nothing could be done to help them (37 per cent versus 21 per cent; χ²₂ = 3.97, p = 0.046). Not knowing what to do or who to go to was a particularly common reason for inaction among cohabitees (17 per cent and more than double the percentage elsewhere), among those renting publicly (14 per cent), among 35–44 year olds (16 per cent) and among those with personal or household income of less than £10,000 (15 per cent). No 18–24 year old gave ‘did not know where to go/who to go to’ as a reason, and only 3 per cent of those with income over £50,000 did so. Cohabitees without children were most likely to express uncertainty over rights as a reason for doing nothing about their civil justice problem (17 per cent), as were publicly renting respondents (12 per cent).

Reasons for inaction also varied significantly by problem type. Respondents most often said they did not act because they thought nothing could be done to resolve employment, discrimination, money/debt and mental health problems. They least often thought nothing could be done to resolve consumer and personal injury problems. A relatively high 36 per cent of respondents who did nothing about their money/debt problems reported not knowing what they could have done. They also reported relatively frequently being unaware of their rights. A high 44 per cent of respondents with employment problems they had done nothing about reported that this was because they were unaware of their rights.

Trying and failing to get advice

There were two different groups of respondents who tried but failed to obtain advice. One group did not make any other attempt to handle the problem. Compared to obtaining advice, young (18–24 years old) and older respondents (over 75 years old) were most likely to try and fail to obtain advice and take no other action. As can be seen in Table 2, 35–44 year olds and 45–59 year olds were both significantly less likely than 18–24 year olds to do so. In percentage terms, 18–24 year olds tried and failed for over 3 per cent of problems and obtained advice for 42 per cent, while those over 75 years old did so for just fewer than 8 per cent of problems while obtaining advice for only 39 per cent. Lone parents and single respondents without children were also more likely to try and fail rather than obtain advice and take no other action, although differences, when compared to married couples with children, did not reach significant levels (see Table 2).

Trying but failing to get advice and taking no other action were uncommon in a number of problem categories. In only one of 545 consumer and one of 146 rented housing problems did respondents do so (see Table 2). There were also no instances for immigration, divorce or children problems. In contrast, the (small number of) homelessness problems (n = 62) were associated with trying and failing to get advice and taking no other action (8 per cent), as were problems with anti-social neighbours (6 per cent).

A second group of respondents tried and failed to obtain advice and then went on to handle problems alone. There were few strong socio-demographic predictors of trying, failing and handling alone rather than obtaining advice, although those with use of motorised transport did tend to do so more often than those without (see Table 2). There were also age differences, which were broadly comparable to the differences observed for trying and failing without handling alone (see above). Young respondents (18–24 year olds) were most likely to try, fail and then handle alone. In percentage terms, 9 per cent of 18–24 year olds tried, failed and handled alone with 42 per cent obtaining advice, compared to just over 4 per cent and 53 per cent for other respondents.

For problem type, neighbours problems had relatively high rates of respondents trying and failing to get advice and then handling alone (7 per cent). The same was also true of owned and rented housing problems (10 per cent and 8 per cent respectively), and problems with unfair police treatment (15 per cent). In contrast, there were no respondents with divorce or immigration problems who tried, failed and handled alone (although, in the case of immigration, this is based on only 15 problems).

Handling problems alone

Respondents renting privately or rent-free were most likely to handle problems alone from the outset rather than obtain advice, and significantly more likely than those who owned their homes (see Table 2). In contrast, publicly renting respondents were the least likely to handle alone rather than obtain advice. In percentage terms, those renting privately or living rent-free handled alone 39 per cent of the time and obtained advice 41 per cent of the time. This compared to 21 per cent handling alone and 59 per cent obtaining advice for publicly renting respondents. There was some evidence of those in receipt of benefits being less likely to handle alone, although this fell just short of statistical significance. In terms of educational qualifications, while the binary predictor in Table 2 was non-significant, for expanded qualifications the highest rates of handling a problem alone from the outset were found among those with higher degrees (42 per cent). As with other strategies above, there was evidence of age having an impact, with 18–24 year olds more likely to handle alone rather than obtain advice, particularly when compared to 45–59 year olds (see Table 2). This significant difference was predominantly a result of a low percentage of 18–24 year olds obtaining advice (42 per cent versus 53 per cent of other respondents), with absolute percentage handling alone comparable between young respondents and those aged 25 or over (31 per cent in both cases).

For problem type, consumer problems had a high rate of respondents handling alone (59 per cent), no doubt reflecting their relative lack of severity compared to other problem types. High percentages were also recorded for money/debt (47 per cent) and welfare benefits problems (45 per cent). Not surprisingly, divorce problems had the lowest percentage of respondents handling them alone. Respondents with homelessness problems and personal injury problems also tended not to handle these problems alone (11 per cent and 12 per cent respectively).

Getting lost in the advice maze?

The majority of respondents (52 per cent) did obtain advice for their civil justice problem. However, this does not necessarily mean they went to the adviser most suited to deal with their problem, or that they received all the information and advice they hoped for.

Figure 2 shows the type of adviser respondents went to. For some civil justice problems, the paths to advice are relatively clear. For divorce and relationship breakdown problems, most respondents went to a solicitor for advice, as did those with problems related to unfair treatment by the police. For other problem types, the adviser types approached were far more heterogeneous. For example, for problems relating to discrimination, employment, mental health or children, respondents went to a wide range of advisers. This indicates there might be knowledge and awareness gaps, with people seeking out advice from a variety of advisers, some of whom might not be the most appropriate advice source.

Figure 2.

Percentage of successful advice received by problem type and adviser type.

Respondents who either obtained all or some of the advice or information they needed from their adviser were asked what made them consider obtaining advice from that adviser. Around three quarters simply claimed it was obvious to do so. Respondents who obtained advice but then said they received none of the advice or information needed and suggested that they ‘could have done with more’ advice, were asked a follow-up question about why they were not intending to get more advice/information. Out of 266 respondents, the two most frequent reasons given were that seeking more advice/information would not make any difference to the outcome (25 per cent) and that they did not know where to go (24 per cent).

Awareness of mainstream local advice provision

There was a mismatch between respondents’ perceptions of local advice provision and actual provision. Survey respondents were asked which of a list of advisers were within two miles of their homes. Around 46 per cent of those with a Citizens Advice Bureau within two miles of their home were unaware of it. At least 43 per cent of respondents were unaware that a solicitor was within two miles. Eighty-three per cent of those with a Law Centre within two miles were unaware of it. Although differences in strategy by overall awareness did not reach significance (χ²₈ = 10.99, p = 0.20), those lacking awareness did have relatively high Pearson residualsFootnote ⁵ for doing nothing about their problem (1.9) and handling alone (−1.6). Those lacking awareness did nothing around 13 per cent of the time and handled alone 24 per cent of the time, compared to around 8 per cent doing nothing and 30 per cent handling alone for those correctly identifying advisers. Even among those with a lack of awareness of local advisers, not knowing what to do or where to go remained a relatively rare reported reason for inaction (less than 12 per cent). Far more common was feeling that advice would make little difference to the outcome, accounting for a third of responses.

Entrenched behaviour patterns

Problem-solving strategies were persistent. This tendency, which was identified for households in the covariance matrix in Table 3, is illustrated for individuals in Table 4. The percentage of those adopting particular strategies for subsequent problems is shown, in relation to earlier problems (not necessarily of the same type). Of those who did nothing for an initial civil justice problem, 24 per cent did nothing again for a problem experienced at a later date, a far higher percentage of inaction than among other groups. This trend of persistent strategies can be seen for all problem-solving strategies.

TABLE 4.

Strategy reported by respondents by subsequent strategy for later problems

Regrets

Out of 361 respondents who had not sought advice, 23 per cent said they wished they had obtained advice or information for their civil justice problem. These 81 respondents were asked why this was. Forty-one per cent said they would have got a better outcome, 32 per cent said the problem was more serious than initially thought, 32 per cent felt their problem would have been resolved sooner, 27 per cent thought the other side would have taken them more seriously, 23 per cent reported the situation would have been less stressful and 12 per cent said they could not handle the problem alone.

Of 116 respondents who tried and failed to get advice for their problem, a relatively high percentage (18 per cent) responded they did not know whether they now wished they had obtained help or advice. Forty-one respondents said they wished they had obtained it. Of these, 16 thought they would have got a better outcome with advice, 14 believed they could not handle their problem alone, 11 said their problem would not go away, ten said the problem was more serious than previously thought, and eight respondents said the other side would have taken them more seriously. However, when asked where they wished they had got advice or help from, the most common answer was ‘don't know’ (12 of 41 respondents).

For all concluded survey problems discussed in the follow-up interview, respondents were asked whether there was anything about the way in which they handled the situation that they now wished they had done differently. Of 679 respondents, 29 per cent said there was indeed something they wished they had done differently. The most common regret was not obtaining advice or more advice or advice elsewhere (26 per cent). This was followed by 17 per cent of respondents wishing they had acted sooner. Seven per cent specifically wished they had got advice sooner. Indicating the importance of confidence and determination, 12 per cent regretted they had not tried harder, been more resolved or more assertive. Five per cent wished they had used a formal process or had used it sooner. Only 2 per cent wished they had done nothing and only 4 per cent wished they had handled their problem alone. Three per cent regretted they had not got information or more information, indicating that respondents did not perceive a lack of general information to be greatly significant.

Some regrets may be linked to respondents having unrealistic and wrong expectations of the problem resolution process. Problems with welfare benefits (50 per cent), rented housing (46 per cent) and money/debt (42 per cent) had the highest rates of respondents subsequently saying they ‘took much longer than expected’.

Additional analysis confirms that respondents are justified in regretting not doing anything about their problem, as those who obtained advice generally fared much better in terms of attaining their objectives. Of those who obtained advice, 46 per cent attained their objectives, compared to only 11 per cent of those who tried in vain to obtain advice. Interestingly, of those who handled their civil justice problems alone, 42 per cent attained their objective. This illustrates that a significant number of those who feel confident, skilled and empowered enough to handle their problems alone are able to meet their objectives without seeking advice. However, as shown above, these tended to be respondents with higher educational qualifications and those with higher incomes. Importantly, some of the problems that were handled alone are likely to have been less serious problems and as a result objectives will have been easier to achieve.