View more on these topics

Independent view

It is a fact of life that people make mistakes. Given that it is almost impossible to be infallible, it is perhaps of greater importance and a better measure of a company to consider how it rectifies mistakes and complaints.

Some business “experts” believe companies should welcome complaints as they provide an ideal opportunity to restore and strengthen the relationship with the consumer.

In reality, none of us likes to be confronted with dissatisfaction. I have no doubt that, on occasion, the procedures that this industry is required to follow for customer complaints must sometimes appear to be designed to compound frustrations and annoyance rather than ease them.

The structured procedure for IFAs and product providers to follow when dealing with complaints from consumers recognises that errors will occur and that it is right that redress is provided.

It is also important that in the first instance, the company against whom a complaint is made can investigate the merits of the criticism before seeking to reach amicable settlement or refuting the basis of the complaint.

It is vital, though, that a backstop is in place in the form of the Financial Ombudsman Service for consumers to refer to in the event that they are dissatisfied with the decision made by the company. Without this, the company against whom the complaint is made is afforded the multiple role of judge, jury, appeal court and executioner.

This is in stark contrast to the role that IFAs find themselves in when they feel that a product provider has made errors, provided incorrect information or made any form of decision which the IFA disputes. In effect, the provider does find itself in the position of being able to make a definitive “ruling” unless the IFA is prepared to pursue the matter further through the courts.

This huge imbalance in power on this issue between two parties with a high degree of interdependence has unwelcome effects. A culture of avoiding responsibility and failing to acknowledge errors is not something that we should be proud of. This cuts both ways and I would not want anyone reading this to think that I do not fully appreciate and recognise that providers can also often be frustrated by IFA mistakes.

However, for an IFA, the effect of continually issuing incorrect documentation or information to a client that is subsequently reneged on is obvious. That client will not be a client for very long.

Unfortunately, the IFA is not in such a strong position when on the receiving end of mistakes by providers. Recently, we wrote to a provider pointing out multiple errors it had made on a group scheme. Some three months later, the provider replied that the people who made the errors were inexperienced and most were no longer with the company.

The company said it was confident the errors would not occur again but could not be certain because it did not have the training or access to check that what was being sent out was correct. This is unacceptable but is a fantastic example of a situation whereby that provider should meet the costs that their incompetence has caused rather than either ourselves or our client.

Such incompetence has cost and profit implications for the provider in terms of time spent on original errors, subsequent errors, investigating the errors, correcting the err-ors, the postage and stationery costs incurred and compensation to ourselves.

Surely the aim of the FOS is to reduce the errors made by financial services companies. Should such a system be introduced for disputes between IFAs and providers?

Many providers already seek to ensure that complaints by IFAs are dealt with swiftly in the same manner as complaints from consumers, endeavouring to find a resolution to everyone&#39s satisfaction. It is regrettable that in some circumstances, though, when resolution cannot be found, one has to either accept mistakes without apology or recompense or, alternatively, embark on a legal process with all that entails for both parties.

To my mind, a low-cost, independent adjudicator to turn to for a ruling on disputes would be to the industry&#39s benefit as a whole.

Tom Warwick is a consultant with Warwick Butchart Associates

Recommended

Strike up the bond

In last week&#39s article, I considered the importance of reinvested income to investment returns. The importance that the market places on the dividend yield from shares has always been evident but now more than ever. If evidence of that was needed, the market response to even a hint that dividends from a leading insurer may […]

Thinktank says scrap private pensions for &#39people&#39s fund&#39

The financial services industry and stockmarkets are no longer appropriate for pension investments and should be replaced by a “people&#39s pension”, according to thinktank New Economics Foundation.In its report, People&#39s Pensions: New Thinking for the 21st Century, it proposes scrapping private pensions in favour of a series of people&#39s pension funds which invest in new […]

MLP fined £100k for pension and endowment sales failings

German IFA giant MLP&#39s foray into the UK market suffered a setback last week when its London subsidiary was fined £100,000 for regulatory failings.The FSA slapped the fine on MLP Private Finance, citing weaknesses in the training, monitoring and supervision of its investment staff which led to inappropriate sales of mortgage endowments and pensions between […]

Life offices say waiver would let them buy equities again

Norwich Union and Standard Life are claiming that applications for solvency waivers from the FSA would give them the flexibility to start buying equities again.There is speculation that the regulator is concerned about the drag of life companies on the stockmarkets and it believes that relaxing the rules will help a recovery in the markets […]

Newsletter

News and expert analysis straight to your inbox

Sign up

Comments

    Leave a comment

    Close

    Why register with Money Marketing ?

    Providing trusted insight for professional advisers.  Since 1985 Money Marketing has helped promote and analyse the financial adviser community in the UK and continues to be the trusted industry brand for independent insight and advice.

    News & analysis delivered directly to your inbox
    Register today to receive our range of news alerts including daily and weekly briefings

    Money Marketing Events
    Be the first to hear about our industry leading conferences, awards, roundtables and more.

    Research and insight
    Take part in and see the results of Money Marketing's flagship investigations into industry trends.

    Have your say
    Only registered users can post comments. As the voice of the adviser community, our content generates robust debate. Sign up today and make your voice heard.

    Register now

    Having problems?

    Contact us on +44 (0)20 7292 3712

    Lines are open Monday to Friday 9:00am -5.00pm

    Email: customerservices@moneymarketing.com