View more on these topics

CII’s gap-fill tool does not cover all the bases

The Chartered Insurance Institute’s gap-fill tool does not take into account certain learning outcomes such as risk management covered by CII exams.

Bryden Johnson IFA director Richard Bryant took the AF5 financial planning process exam last year. Using the CII’s gap-fill tool, Bryant found he had several gaps on risk management.

He says: “I wrote to the CII identifying several of the supposed gaps, which, in my opinion, had been covered by recent exams I took. There was a huge section on risk where seven out of the eight learning outcomes were gaps and all the supposed gaps were covered in AF5 in great detail. The problem is the AF5 does not have a study manual or a syllabus as such but it does go into a lot of detail on the application of risk. I thought that was quite worrying that it was not picked up.”

A CII spokeswoman says advisers who have passed holistic planning exams such as H25, AF5, FP3, CF5 and J08 may have gone further in their studies than the tool maps out.

She says: “The tool has been created to be interactive. We launched it with the minimum level of syllabus coverage as we did not want to overestimate how far individual advisers have gone with their studies.”

If previous study matches the gaps, this can be added using the add gap-fill evidence tool.

Newsletter

News and expert analysis straight to your inbox

Sign up

Comments

There are 7 comments at the moment, we would love to hear your opinion too.

  1. So let me get this straight – the CII are admitting that their gap fill tool doesnt reflect the areas covered in their own exams???? Ludicrous.

  2. “We did not want to overestimate… So they underestimate and we all go off and spend thousands more filling in the gaps!

  3. What is the point in a tool that does not work in all circumstances! Can they not for once admit their mistake and change the tool, they have the funds available to produce a tool works by taking into account ALL the CII exams that have been passed.

    As a minimum they should be flagging it up that the tool does not accurately reflect the exam taken and list the circumstances where it is not correct.

    It would also not be too much to expect them to fix the errors ASAP.

  4. More ludicrous than that is that the so called ‘no regrets’ policy promised by the CII. If I have got this right anyone starting their studies under the J route can now only access the gap filing tool if they pay the CII a membership fee – How can thisa be NO REGRETS – I have alot at the moment ps it’s funny that the CII dont publish a complaint’s procedure!

  5. How are adviser meant to have any confidence in a tool that can lead to additional work.

    Am I being unreasonable to expecting the tool to reflect the syllabus points that I have been examined on.

    Surely the tool should have been built on the syllabus points of the exams and NOT the minimum as stated “We launched it with the minimum level of syllabus coverage as we did….

  6. I completed the AFPC in the 90’s and took further exams since then under the ‘No Regrets Policy’. Despite being qualified beyond diploma level I still have around 45 learning outcomes to fulfull. To make it worse the CII/PFS are offering gap-filling lectures but they can not tell us which learning outcomes the lectures fill. The process is a shambles.

  7. Well I suppose that is one way of making the point that you must be clear fair and not misleading.

Leave a comment