“You can choose your friends but you sho’ can’t choose your family, an’ they’re still kin to you no matter whether you acknowledge ‘em or not…”
This is a quote from To Kill A Mockingbird by Harper Lee and I’ve often thought that all later life advisers should have a copy of this on the wall. At the very least it might provide them with a little context for what is a major financial decision which, invariably, is of interest to many people within one family not just the client who is taking out the product.
It would be a talking point when discussion inevitably turns to family involvement in these affairs because, quite simply, all advisers need to have this conversation with the client, due to the potential for what might come over the horizon when the money is sitting safely in the client accounts.
We all know decisions around equity release and/or later life lending are unique to each individual client. Advisers have to tread carefully because families are complex organisms with much going on behind the scenes that you are not going to be privy to.
For instance, for every client who wants their family involved in every step of the later life lending process, there will be one that is absolutely adamant that not only do they not want them involved, they don’t even want to tell them they are even having these conversations.
Handled incorrectly and the potential for future complaints against the adviser is heightened. You only need look at the complaints data and information that comes out from FOS regularly regarding equity release and later life lending to see that many of them don’t come from the client themselves but members of their immediate family. Even distant family members can complain – aggrieved that money they thought was ear-marked for them has been taken out of the client’s property.
As mentioned however, this can be like walking on egg-shells for advisers. At a recent ‘Breakfast with Stuart’ meeting this very situation was raised and the question was asked how advisers can handle this part of the advice process and, quite frankly, how they can protect themselves?
A somewhat nuanced approach is required. For a start, you don’t want to treat an older client like a child. This can happen as people get older and it’s one of my major bugbears when dealing with ‘older customers’ – patronising and condescending is also a huge no-no.
Secondly, it’s always good to remember who the actual client is. It is the person(s) sat in front of you, not their wider family, and if they are insistent they do not want to involve anyone else, you of course have to respect this.
In that regard, provide as much detail in your case notes about why the client(s) feels like this. Do not simply put a template answer of ‘The client didn’t want the family involved’ and expect this to hold water should a complaint come from that source. Instead, record the reasoning in great detail; use their own words about why this is the case, and even get it on ‘tape’ so there can be no doubting this was their choice.
However, what advisers can also do is counsel clients. Are they really sure about this? Involving family doesn’t have to be a hindrance to the process, it could be beneficial to hear a different viewpoint; they might be surprised at the reaction or they could outline to their family why they want to go ahead, involve them in the process so they can be fully aware of where this is coming from, what the money will be used for, and why now?
But, of course, if that client is adamant, then this is the way it has to be. Advisers just have to make sure they are very clear the case file tells this story. The Ombudsman are not going to uphold a complaint from a family member because they were not involved, but they might if this is not documented properly and in a way that is personal to the client.
Clients can’t choose their family, but their choice of adviser will always be vitally important. Make sure they’ve made the right one.
Stuart Wilson is CEO at Air Group