Friends Life client letter raises adviser fears
Share
An adviser has raised concerns about a Friends Life mailing to Axa Sun Life customers asking for confirmation of the status of their relationship with their IFA.
Friends has been writing to Axa Sun Life customers since it rebranded in March, marking the integration of Friends Provident and Axa’s UK life business under parent company Resolution.
The letter notifies clients of the name change and says: “With these changes in mind, we wanted to make sure that your records with us accurately reflect your relationship with your financial adviser.”
It states the name of the adviser held on file and says if clients are happy to keep their existing adviser, they do not need to do anything.
The letter says clients can contact Friends Life to be put in touch with their existing adviser, appoint a new adviser or ask for the adviser to be removed from its records.
Woodcocks financial services manager Brian Ollerton says he had to reassure two of his clients that he still acts on their behalf after they were sent the letter and got a follow-up phone call from Friends Life. He says his clients understood the letter to mean they should contact Friends Life about their policy.
Friends marketing director Jo Cann says: “We just want to make sure the customer knows who the adviser is and to let us know if that is not the case.”
Cann says the mailing will be broadened out to Friends Provident customers at a later date.
Ollerton has questioned why his clients were written to as the business was placed with Axa within the last 12 months. He says: “This is far too aggressive for my liking.”
If you enjoyed this article, sign up here to receive daily email updates from Money Marketing and Follow @_moneymarketing
View results 10 per page | 20 per page
Readers' comments (18)
Anonymous | 16 Sep 2011 12:30 pm
I can't find much that is unreasonable with the content of the letter. If they are happy with the adviser's details they don't need to do ANYTHING.
It could hardly be called aggressive.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 16 Sep 2011 12:44 pm
Interesting, I accept the this was a 're-branding' but to be fair perhaps they should have written to the adviser in first instances?
Agree with Anonymous (12:30 pm) is not aggressive, although more thought by including the adviser firms might of helped.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 16 Sep 2011 12:45 pm
I agree with the previous comment however if you are in a situation whereby your client bank has been segregated and the income generated doesn't warrant a 'service' level then any trail commisison could be lost.
It would be more appropriate if Friends Life wrote to the IFA asking for clarification as we made the initial recommendation. Any chance we get (ASSUMING IT IS CLIENTS INTEREST)we will now take clients away from Friends as we did Co Funds.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Paul | 16 Sep 2011 12:49 pm
re anonymous at 12:30pm. Do you work for Friends Life by any chance?
I've not seen the mailing, but given that the business referred to in the article was written less than 12 months ago it would be unusual if the clients didn't know who the adviser was. Also, if the clients didn't have to do anything why the follow up call?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Stephen Ng | 16 Sep 2011 12:54 pm
Not wanting to appear too defensive but why do they feel the need to conatct the client? We are the agent unles otherwise advised. In a world where costs for all are rising, what is the motivation for Friends to be doing this? Is there an alterior motive?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 16 Sep 2011 12:59 pm
Where the client replaces the "adviser" with a new adviser OR FL itself, that is fine provided the new "adviser accepts responsibility/liability for suitablity of keeping the policy on force. Any errors in the original set up to date of change of agency complained about should remain the responsibility/liability of the original adviser, but any increased loss after that date, should be the new adviser....
Many of us are segementing clients and whilst not pushing them away, if they do not want to pay for an ongoing level of service are happy for them to change agency and have trail go elsewhere, but why should we continue to store a file infinately (as there is no longstop) if the costs of storage is no longer covered as the trail has been stopped....
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 16 Sep 2011 1:05 pm
Cannot agree with the above the approach is intrusive.
After all the relationship between the adviser and the client is exclusive.
A provider eg friends Life should ahve no interest in the client adviser relationship.
An IFA would most likely and correctly be acting on behalf of the client with a numbver of providers.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
pp | 16 Sep 2011 1:07 pm
Small squall in a teacup.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 16 Sep 2011 1:16 pm
Is Ivan Massow the IFA they would put the client in touch with ....? :-)
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 16 Sep 2011 1:17 pm
re comment at 12:45
Any chance we get (ASSUMING IT IS CLIENTS INTEREST)we will now take clients away from Friends as we did Co Funds.
Using 'in the clients interest' as a cover to move business, which is simply a trick to convince those who trust they are given appropriate advice that change is needed, no wonder change in this industry is required.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment