.png)
This is not the opening line to a joke: it is about a pocket-dial that had very serious repercussions.
After finishing a call with a client, the adviser turned to his colleagues to tell them about the call.
It is something that people do every day, especially after a difficult conversation.
But the adviser then had a real pop at his client – but did not realise that he had accidentally re-dialled the client who could hear every word said.
The insulting words, phrases and laughter were unpleasant for the client to hear.
He complained to the adviser’s company – Lifesearch – and, unsatisfied with the response, took his case to the Financial Ombudsman Service.
In this case, the adviser treated the client with contempt; laughing at their situation and making light of their distress.It ruled in his favour, which is hardly surprising when you read the damning words from ombudsman Simon Pugh.
He said: “The content of the conversation [the client] overhead was, in my view, shocking, offensive and utterly appalling. [The adviser] swore repeatedly, violently and extremely strongly, about [the client]. He insulted him. He mocked his medical history.
“He even expressed the view that [the client] ought to have committed suicide in the context of what he’d learned about [the client’s] medical history. It was inexcusable.”
It is not just inexcusable – it is a shocking betrayal of trust.
It is understandable to feel the need to vent after an upsetting conversation; I have done it several times over the years with colleagues when editors have made what I thought were unreasonable demands, and, I can tell you now, that my words can be very choice when I am angry or upset.
But, and it is a big but, I would not normally say anything that I would not be prepared to say to an editor’s face.
In truth, I have often expressed my anger in the office in the hope that someone does pass on my views to the editor.
In doing so that has led to some uncomfortable conversations over the years, but has also led to clearing the air (as well as clearing my desk on one fraught occasion on a national newspaper).
So why was the Lifesearch adviser’s behaviour more reprehensible?
Because of the trust that there must be between an adviser and a client.
The latter shares a lot of personal, detailed and confidential information with their adviser and should know that the adviser is respectful of that, not sharing it and laughing about it with others.
But an adviser should also do exactly what their title suggests – advise, not take it upon themselves to judge a client.
In this case, the adviser treated the client with contempt; laughing at their situation and making light of their distress. It is no wonder the client felt so offended.
There are lessons for all advisers in the case. For starters it is a stark reminder of the responsibilities that advisers have when dealing with clients.
Trust in financial services has been hit by a series of mis-selling scandals and bad behaviour by dodgy salespeople.
So it is crucial to ensure that everyone behaves in a professional manner.
For the people involved in this story it meant instant sackings for four staff at Lifesearch when their behaviour was uncovered.
That was right. I had a long conversation with the company’s founder Tom Baigrie last year about improving the culture at financial service firms.
He spoke passionately then about ensuring his firm serves customers well and goes far beyond just flogging them a life policy.
To then learn about such disgusting behaviour from workers at his firm was a huge surprise.
He acknowledged that. “We do fail sometimes, in this instance in a horrible way.”
He shared a letter he wrote to the client, in which he said: “I’m appalled at what our advisers said and laughed at. What happened to you makes an absolute mockery of the culture we have developed since I founded the business.”
Mr Baigrie said he took the incident as a personal fault and has strived since to ensure that it will never be repeated at the firm.
He added: “We’ve had nothing like it ever before or since and overall have a tiny at-fault complaint ratio of 0.004 per customer.”
But Lifesearch came in for criticism by the ombudsman who said: “It only offered compensation of £250 at first, which I don’t think comes close to recognising the upset [the client] experienced. It did increase that offer – but only after [the client] got his solicitors involved, and only on condition he agreed to sign a non-disclosure agreement.
“This suggests to me that its focus was as much on the protection of its reputation as it was on putting things right for its customer.”
However, it is telling that he set the compensation amount at £2,000, just £500 more than that offered by Lifesearch and considerably less than the £25,000 that the client demanded.
Simon Read is a freelance journalist
