You can download a copy of this thought piece here.
Customer journey reviews (CJRs) are an extremely valuable way for registered firms to explore how customers are being treated. Other assurance measures, such as quality assurance (QA) testing or second line reviews, can show where a process was not followed or a single step was inadequate. However, journey reviews provide a more holistic view of what occurred on the account. This gives firms a similar view as the customer – the customer does not think about the way a firm interacts with them as a series of individual processes. Instead, the customer forms their view based on the way they were treated throughout and the outcome that was achieved as a result.
Journey reviews can be useful when looking at any key stage of customer interaction. For example, looking at the various steps taken during the sales process can give firms confidence that both regulations and best practice standards are being upheld, with the right outcome reached. This piece will explain how bereavement is one such key stage that can greatly benefit from CJRs. Where firms already carry out such assurance measures, they should consider the frequency and accuracy of reviews along with the insight and actions gathered from them. By doing so, firms should be able to offer bereaved customers the very highest level of support and care.
Why bereavement?
It is vitally important that bereaved customers are treated empathetically and effectively. For some of these customers, they will be going through one of the most challenging periods of their lives. This means firms need advisers who are trained to support customers in such vulnerable situations and who understand the process requirements of the role. The firm also needs to ensure that the policies and processes underpinning how bereavement is handled are fit for purpose, regularly reviewed, and reflective of industry best practice.
The Standards of Lending Practice for personal and business customers do not directly reference bereaved customers. However, bereaved customers would fall within the expectations as set out in the vulnerability section of the personal and business Standards. This is because a bereaved customer may well be someone who at that moment is ‘especially susceptible to harm.’[1] This view is also highlighted within the Information for Practitioners[2] [3] and should be considered by firms when reviewing their approach to bereavement.
Structure and case studies
Within this piece, we look at different elements that need to be captured during a CJR and provide considerations for firms in terms of best practice. We also include case studies. These are based on situations where bereavement journeys have gone wrong and are taken from upheld Financial Ombudsman Service complaints. The names are pseudonyms. The purpose of these examples is to illustrate how things can go awry in the bereavement journey and how firms’ oversight, including CJRs, should aim to mitigate the risk of bad outcomes.
It is important to note that CJRs should not be completed solely on complaints but rather a wide range of accounts. These should include accounts where nothing exceptional was noted, to those where a breach was identified. It is worth including accounts that do not show any particular markers or events of note, to identify if anything is being missed on such accounts or if there could be areas for improvement to the ‘standard’ customer journey.
Considerations for firms
CJRs should show how the customer was treated, through what channels, the timeliness of service, and the outcome. This is done by piecing together the steps the customer took and the interactions they had, before mapping those interactions in a clear and documented manner. By looking at how the customer has been treated in this way, it may be possible to identify areas to improve customer outcomes either through better service or more effective policies or processes. Below we provide considerations for firms in relation to delivering CJRs, with a focus on the bereavement journey.
Production and presentation
It should be clear within the firm which team is responsible for conducting CJRs and when reviews are going to take place. Which team completes CJRs is a matter for individual firms to decide, as it could fall into the first line who have ownership for a particular area (for example, the bereavement team completing a CJR on their process), the second line (such as the compliance function), or the third line (such as auditors). It may be that multiple teams and functions complete CJRs at some point in their role. If so, communication is key to minimise the risk of unwanted duplication.
The responsibility and frequency of CJRs may be recorded in a compliance monitoring plan or similar document. There should be discussion and consideration around which areas are suitable for CJRs to be completed. Firms can target their CJRs by taking a risk based approach and considering which parts of the journey or which segment of customers may face a higher risk of bad outcomes. For example, within this piece we have linked bereavement and CJRs because of the potential level of vulnerability facing those during the bereavement process. However, CJRs can be of great value for any stage of the customer journey, from application, through to account management, financial difficulties, or account closure.
Firms should consider how they present CJRs internally and ensure they are delivered in the most impactful way. The Lending Standards Board (LSB) has seen great examples that use a landscape format and track across a timeline, briefly detailing every interaction with links to the relevant call, contact note, letter etc. Underneath the steps taken along the customer journey, firms can highlight areas of compliance, good practice, or breaches of policy or process. By taking the time to consider how CJRs are presented, firms can ensure that they are clearly understood by colleagues around the firm. This way they can be shared and the insight utilised, without relying on all readers understanding the minutiae of the process or technical requirements.
Bereavement case study
Ms Hurd was one of two Administrators for her late mother’s bank account. She was unhappy because of a number of perceived service failures. These included the time it took to get an account balance and a statement of interest, the bank’s reluctance to discuss the account with her, and delays and errors in providing a balance cheque and statements. Ms Hurd felt that the various issues caused stress, took excess time, and resulted in delays in her making submissions to HMRC on her mother’s estate.
Customer journey considerations
The journey review has the advantage of setting out the timescales and detailing the various interactions between the firm and customer. In this instance, a CJR should show whether the customer was treated as expected or if there were service failures. For example, were there unacceptable delays providing the key documents or were there issues over accuracy? It could then be established whether any errors were down to individual mistakes or a failure of the policy and process that needs to be addressed.
Communications
During a CJR, communications should be reviewed across every channel that the customer used to interact with the firm. In relation to bereavement, this should include the first instance that the customer informs the firm, going through until the account is closed and all other queries are resolved. Only by looking across all channels, including calls, emails, letters, LiveChat etc., can firms understand what the customer has been told, whether it was accurate, and if the firm did what it said it would.
Call reviews will play an important part when considering the service the customer received. These reviews should consider the level of empathy displayed by the adviser, whether all the information was gathered that was needed to resolve the customer’s needs, and whether correct information was provided. When collating the CJR, it is useful to make the call as easily accessible as possible, for example, with links within the review document itself. This means that other colleagues or those reviewing it can easily access the source material and hear for themselves the support provided or any issues raised.
Bereavement case study
Mr Kohli ran a business along with his wife and their business partner. He had a joint business account with the partner, who passed away. Mr Kohli informed his bank of the death. He was given information about the next steps he needed to make on the account. A ‘stop marker’ was then placed on the account, so Mr Kohli could not access or view the account. He was not told this was going to happen.
Mr Kohli visited his bank in branch to get his wife added to the mandate and to resolve the issue. He was told they needed to set up a new bank account and that this would take five to seven days to be set up. Mr Kohli complained about the contradictory advice and the time taken to resolve the issue.
Customer journey considerations
The journey review should identify whether the information given to the customer was correct and consistent. It should also check whether any required actions were followed up. For example, were any documents promised to Mr Kohli and were they sent out to him? The review should also check if the process followed, such as the placing of the ‘stop marker’ and the timings for this, followed the firm’s policy and agreed approach.
Accuracy
It is always important that customers are given accurate information, whether it be about account servicing, digital banking, or any other matter. But the importance of accuracy increases with bereavement, chiefly because of the potential stress and anxiety involved, and because of the customer’s desire to get the administration side of the bereavement dealt with. Firms’ assurance measures for bereavement should focus not just on whether the right process was conducted but also on whether the information provided to the customer was accurate.
For example, a single quality assurance check on a letter sent out to a customer may show that the correct letter was sent, as per the process, and there was nothing incorrect with its content. However, it is only by looking at the wider journey and previous customer interactions that the firm can be sure the service was working as intended. For example, was the customer spoken to before the letter was posted and told that something else would be sent out? Alternatively, perhaps the customer was told on the phone that a letter would be sent out soon after the call, only for it to be sent weeks later. By checking all of the contact points, CJRs can see how the customer was treated throughout.
When looking at documentation, journey reviews need to make sure that there is a consistent and accurate approach to customer details. This includes making sure that basic details, such as names, titles, contact number details etc. are correct and properly used. In relation to bereavement, administration errors can be extremely hurtful or upsetting for the customer. These could include, for example, situations where the customer representing the estate receives letters addressed to the deceased customer or where contact numbers for deceased customers are used in error rather than calling the estate’s representative. Such process mistakes have the potential to be extremely upsetting for a bereaved customer.
Case study
Following the death of her cousin (Mr. Law), Mrs Marlowe went into her cousin’s bank to inform the staff. She provided the death certificate and informed them that there was no will, nor surviving spouse or civil partner, no family disputes, and Letters of Administration were not required. Mrs Marlowe also provided the firm with a bill from a firm of funeral directors for the cost of Mr Law’s funeral. The firm paid this from Mr Law’s account and then paid the remaining balance to Mrs Marlowe. The executors for Mr Law’s estate then contacted the bank and complained that the account balance had been paid to the wrong person.
Customer journey considerations
When completing CJRs on particular parts of the journey, firms should pay careful consideration to where they start and end the review. In this example, the customer is the estate (as represented by the executors) and it would be sensible for the journey to begin with the interaction from Mrs Marlowe. This is because this effects the end outcome for the executors, due to them having to make the complaint. If a quality assurance check looked in isolation at a particular part of the later journey, it may not understand the entire context of what happened in this scenario.
The CJR should show if the process followed in relation to the release of the funds was correct, what information was recorded in branch about the interaction with Mrs Marlowe, and whether there were any learnings for the firm for the future.
Information requests
Regardless of the stage of the journey, firms should always be interested in what information is being asked of customers. At the LSB, we have seen situations where customers have been asked to provide information that is not actually needed in order to complete the task they want or need. For example, this can include during the onboarding stage when customers are asked to provide unnecessary documentation or when providing forbearance options to a customer and asking for medical documentation that does not relate to the financial difficulty. In these situations, this is often down to adviser error but can be due to a failure within the process which needs to be identified and addressed by the firm.
Considering what is asked of the customer will play an important part of the CJR. This includes checking that the information is actually required, that it hasn’t been previously supplied by the customer, and that any information received is recorded and used. Bereaved customers will often be speaking to many different suppliers or service providers relating to the estate and the process should not be delayed by unnecessary or incorrect requests. Any written information (for example, on firm websites or internal guidance for advisers) should also be providing clear and accurate information on what is needed during the bereavement process.
Expected timescales
Firms should consider how long the bereavement process should take for the customer. These timescales may be split depending on the task required, for example, from notification of a death until account closure or a transfer of funds. This is not to say that there should be hard and fast rules such as, within this time frame is acceptable and beyond is not. There will be situations where accounts take longer to deal with than expected and this may be beyond the control of the firm. This could include if a customer notifies the firm but then does not provide required information for some time, or if there is a dispute over who is the executor of the estate. However, firms should be able to analyse how long bereavement cases take, what a good service timescale is, and monitor progress against this.
CJRs should capture the length of time the journey took, whether it was within the timescales expected by the firm, and what impacted the timescales. If the customer’s actions impacted the length of time taken with the account, this should be noted. However, the CJR may indicate that the process has unnecessary steps or delays that should be addressed by the firm. As discussed previously, having the CJR laid out in a clear timeline format can help identify where delays have occurred that fall outside of the expected approach. This could show, for example, when an action has taken place following the receival of key documentation and whether that action was completed in a timely and effective manner. Where it wasn’t, the CJR should establish the reason for it and work with the process or journey owner to implement corrective actions, if required.
Actions
CJRs will occasionally identify examples of individual adviser error, for example, where a mistake has been made on an account which affects the end outcome. In these situations, feedback and coaching should be provided to the adviser, in the same way as if an error or service failure was identified from a QA check. Because the CJR is looking at the process as a whole, it is possible that it will identify areas where the policy, process, design, or delivery of the journey is not providing good outcomes. In these situations, it is vital that the right steps are taken to mitigate any risks and continually develop the journey based on any learnings from the CJR.
It can be beneficial for whoever is completing the CJR to speak to the team or department involved for the section of the journey they are reviewing. For example, before looking at the bereavement journey, reviewers would want to ensure that the process and policy owners for bereavement knew what the CJR included and the timescales for delivery. This means that feedback can be delivered on the progress of the review and there is a buy-in from the first line owners from the outset.
There may be situations where serious breaches are discovered as a result of a CJR. Where this is the case, the standard breach management policy should be followed. This could include, for example, having to report the breach through to the firm’s LSB Compliance Manager. Finally, a CJR may discover that a bad outcome was achieved either through individual error or a process failure. In this case, management within the firm must consider the need to contact the customer’s representatives in order to rectify any mistakes and put things right.
By thinking about how they use CJRs, registered firms can improve not only the effectiveness of the reviews themselves but also customer outcomes. This is because the CJR can be one of the most useful tools in diagnosing problems or potential areas for improvement in both the journey and product. When targeted at areas that have the greatest potential for customer harm, such as bereavement, CJRs can mitigate risk and give firms confidence in their approach. It is the dual aspect of the CJR that is most valuable; it is an assurance method used to test how firms are delivering on the first line, whilst also being a way to continually develop the approach.
If you have any questions about completing journey reviews, the bereavement process, or anything else, please contact us at insight@lstdb.org.uk or using the details below.
Contact details
Anna Roughley – Head of Insight
annaroughley@lstdb.org.uk – 07392 867 176
Harry Hughes – Senior Insight Manager
harryhughes@lstdb.org.uk – 07387 108 498
[1] LSB, The Standards of Lending Practice – Consumer vulnerability
