Many – perhaps quite rightly – believe the whole system favours the consumer and that too much weight is given to the complainant. As a result, this means we get too many spurious complaints, which costs money to deal with, and little responsibility upon the complainant to actually prove their complaint.
I have some sympathy with this argument, however, we have the system we have and generally, it works well – although like anything can be subject to abuse. That said, it’s only right and proper that consumers have an avenue to pursue a complaint with an independent adjudicator when it can’t be resolved with the individual or firm concerned.
Negative headlines, positive experiences
When it comes to the later life – and particularly equity release space – there tends to be a misconception about the level of complaints issued and the culpability of advisers who are complained against.
High-profile accusations often hit the headlines, but the facts (and results) of the matter tend to be very different to perceptions. For instance, just recently the Equity Release Council analysed the latest equity release complaint data from FOS.
During Q2 2022, 115 complaints published mentioned ‘equity release’ but as we tend to know the majority don’t tend to be about equity release at all.
Indeed, just 30 per cent of these were actually about equity release and – in keeping with historic stats – only five per cent of these were upheld.
Now, some might argue this is five per cent too many but I tend to disagree because the information and insight generated by these complaints, their contents, how they were handled by all parties and the FOS is absolutely invaluable for all later life advice firms.
Key takeaways and what we can learn
As a starter, I would look at every single equity release complaint published, and I would also point you in the direction of a recent webinar held by the Council with representatives from the Ombudsman. It can be found on the members’ section of the Council’s website.
This was interesting for any number of reasons but particularly if you have any set views about the Ombudsman, the people who work there and any perceived allegiances you might think they have.
Before this session, I was guilty of thinking FOS were simply in the business of protecting the consumer at all costs; of being so determined to be pro-consumer that advisers had no chance in the complaints process.
That is clearly not the case.
The FOS representatives came across as really wanting to help, and completely engaged with the Council but also the sector as a whole. Indeed, the FOS have started referencing the Council’s standards in letters to both the adviser and the complainant, and the webinar revealed how approachable they are and how they want to help.
In that sense, it really was a pivotal presentation for me, and I suspect many others. On top of this, Air will be running its own webinar looking at the Council’s analysis of these complaints and seeking to tease out the patterns from them, and how advisory firms can mitigate the risk.
Needless to say, there is a huge focus on record-keeping, and this should never be forgotten.
Even if you’re a firm that has never received a complaint, there is much to learn here. Indeed, a good understanding of where complaints come from and the reasons behind them, might stand you in very good stead and mean you don’t receive any like these in the future.
