Mystery Shopper: Greater London

Address: 286 Euston Road, London NW1 3AT

Speed of response: 9.55am. One ring and put directly through to the adviser. 5/5

Telephone manner: Helpful and confident. 5/5

Relevant qualifications: Regulated diploma in financial planning. 5/5

Payment method: The adviser said there would be no fee. It was only when she asked if he would be paid a commission did he say that would be the case.  3/5

Guidance: The adviser explained how income protection works and that cover would equal 50 to 60 per cent, and that there is a chance she could be over-insured. The adviser also detailed how other statutory benefits should impact the product and cover choice, and spoke about protection in a holistic view of the shopper’s circumstance. 5/5

Knowledge: The adviser was very knowledgeable and was able to talk about how incorporating state benefits could add to the amount she would get from the insurer.  5/5


Email: 5/5

Verdict: Shopper's choice. The shopper felt that the adviser spoke in a lot of detail about her options and got her to think about other her situation in the round; for example, taking into account state benefits.



Adviser: Westminster Wealth Management (independent)

Address: Chronicle House, 72-78 Fleet Street, London EC4Y 1HY

Speed of response: 10.22am. Kept on hold for about a minute before being put through one of the staff. 3/5

Telephone manner: Friendly. 4/5

Relevant qualifications: Not a qualified adviser. He said he would take her details and get one of the chartered advisers to call her.  2/5 

Payment method: The employee told the shopper that there was a tiered fee, depending on how much time was spent on her case and the options available.  3/5

Guidance: He was not able to give much advice. He took down the shopper’s personal details and said he would get an adviser to call her back.  2/5

Knowledge: The respondent did not give the shopper much information, as his role was to take down her details then get the most appropriate adviser to call her back.  2/5


Email: 5/5

Verdict: The shopper was not even able to get any basic information about income protection from the person she spoke to and would have to wait for an adviser to call her back.