Vulnerability – It’s Complicated

A Q&A with Ollie Wright, Head of FI Team at Estatesearch and Helen Pettifer, Founder of Helen Pettifer Training.

My role here at Estatesearch is very much about collaboration, working with the financial industry to ensure that vulnerability is a consideration throughout the customer’s whole life journey and beyond, championing best practice to educate the sector that a vulnerability classification shouldn’t end when a customer passes away.

I recently wrote an article for Financial Regulation International which looked at why we need to talk about data rights in death https://www.estatesearch.co.uk/new-industry-insights/why-we-need-to-talk-about-data-rights-in-death/

---

OW: Thanks for your time today Helen. As you know, I am a staunch believer that the approach to vulnerability in the financial services industry needs to be standardised to protect the best interests of customers. Consumer Duty has helped but there’s still some way to go.  It’s a complex subject but we are beginning to see some firms take steps to address the issue. I talk to financial institutions day in and day out and it’s great to see that some are introducing ‘vulnerability champions’ to take the lead in changing how they identify and support their vulnerable customers. Vulnerability has such a large spectrum, but it’s my opinion that deceased subjects are being overlooked. Do you agree?

HP:  Yes, absolutely.  As soon as someone passes away it can be as if they stop being human.  They become a number, a statistic or a metric.  This makes me feel incredibly sorry for the family members left behind.   

One of the big issues is how the ‘deceased’ is described – often not by name.  The language used when firms communicate with families often reflects their relative has ceased to exist as a person and that is scary.

A word I have heard used often is ‘irrelevant’ when referring to a process.  For example: “That’s irrelevant now…”  This terminology can be upsetting as it makes bereaved families believe their loved one’s life meant nothing.  More care needs to be taken with vocabulary when communicating with families left vulnerable by grief.

OW: Bereavement covers two types of vulnerability; there is the bereaved next of kin and then the deceased customer themselves. How can we highlight the need for more to be done around the vulnerability of deceased customers themselves, as deceased customers have lost their voice entirely.

HP: I think it starts with awareness. Starting conversations, very much like what you’re doing here. Getting people to think about a different perspective of bereavement and Customer Service.

As this is a topic that hasn’t been discussed much, a lot of groundwork needs to take place before we see any change.

Hearing next of kin lived experiences is valuable to gain insights into how they felt their loved ones were treated through the process too.

OW: So how do we tackle this issue? Do you think that the regulators need to do more?

HP: Currently regulation doesn’t identify bereavement as a specific area for attention.  For example with the recently introduced Consumer Duty Principle, bereavement is categorised – although not specifically – with other vulnerabilities and this means that it can get missed along the way. 

I believe more consideration should be given to the four key drives of vulnerability: Health, Life events, Resilience and Capability and where bereavement fits.  However, improvements to regulation are not the only answer, it’s far more complicated than that. 

Q: We’re fortunate enough to have GDPR and also the FCA’s Principles to guide firms on how to act with their customers. GDPR is not subject to the deceased and the FCA’s Principle Consumer Duty is applicable to the deceased when there is a legal representative in place. Have you seen any cases where firms have implemented Consumer Duty for their deceased customers? Or opportunities for firms to act in a manner that improves the service to the deceased customer?

HP: I’ve not personally seen or heard of any examples of firms implementing Consumer Duty for their deceased customers. In fact, from conversations I’ve had with many individuals and firms I understand that bereavement in its fullest is not a priority for organisations.

I’ve heard more recently that the FCA is picking this up as a focus point and is instructing some firms to review their bereavement process more closely. It will be interesting to see what comes of this.

OW: What are your thoughts on deceased subjects having ‘rights’?

HP:Deceased people do have rights.  For example, until a bank account has been closed and the funds dispersed to the rightful beneficiaries according to a Will or intestacy rules, the deceased is still the customer.  The challenge comes with inconsistencies in the way different firms deal with deceased customers.   For example, I have worked with families who say ‘I will never use xx firm again’ after the way they death with the passing away of a loved one. 

Similarly, there is often a challenge for families to prove a relative has passed away.  I understand firms could check and verify details on the Disclosure of Death Register (DDI) which could help with some of those difficult conversations.

Often the way families are treated is product and firm dependent.  Firms need to look after deceased customers and their families better. 

OW: I passionately feel that deceased subjects are also vulnerable subjects, particularly if no Will was written, decisions can be made outside of your wishes. In my previous article, I explored a notion that deceased subjects would benefit in having ‘rights’ for a period of time (like a grace period), after death. This could be financially, digitally or even socially. What are your thoughts on something like that?

HP: This is an interesting point.  The idea is good but the challenge is that every death is different.  To set a specific timeframe would be difficult.  Some of my work is about conversations where someone has died due to suicide for example.  In these cases, a coroner’s inquest could take between 6-12 months and so a longer grace period would be needed.

I’d love to see a standardised process for bereavement across the financial industry. I see so many differing processes with customers needing to provide different documents and proof of deaths to firms. It can be confusing, emotive and overwhelming for the loved ones dealing with this.

But I do worry that relying on a regulatory stipulation also means a situation is only black or white and there is no grey area.  This can cloud good judgement and common sense can go out of the window.  We all need to be asking ‘what’s morally and humanly the right thing to do in this case?’  A set of guiding principles may be helpful and we have spent considerable time developing a guide for business which discusses how firms can respect and empathetically support the bereaved. 

OW: I agree that a ‘one size fits all’ solution is perhaps not the best way forward, and a more holistic view is beneficial. I’m interested in what you have seen when delivering your training to firms?

HP:  We are focused on helping firms provide the best outcomes for all customers depends on understanding and responding to their needs.  Through our training, consultancy and resources we support continuous improvement in customer service excellence.  It means teams are better equipped to manage vulnerable customer conversations.

OW:  We both work closely with financial institutions, albeit in a different way. In my experience there’s a massive disconnect in the way firms approach this subject. Some are embracing positive change, and are open to conversation about how we can support their processes, but some are more reluctant to do so. Is your experience similar?

HP: It’s complicated!  The good news is that many firms now have vulnerability champions and highlighting best practice has to be positive.  I know you work with the big six financial firms and you have said their approach to working with bereaved families is very good.  Those other firms that have a more ‘traditional’ approach will need to change with the times.

OW: Absolutely. There are definitely positive steps being taken to address these issues and it’s encouraging to see the big banks embracing what we do here at Estatesearch. But, there’s still work to do to bring consistency across the industry. How do you think we can move forward?

HP: Improvements to regulation may become a small part of the puzzle.  Improved policies and training will help too.  We don’t have all the answers but open discussion about a subject which is not talked about often enough will be beneficial to ensure vulnerable customers are treated better.

---

To join our Vulnerability discussion or to find out more about how Estatesearch can help your firm meet Consumer Duty and provide the very best outcomes for deceased customers and their families please email Ollie Wright on [email protected] or connect on Linkedin.