Oversight · 3 minute read
A Consumer Duty review: from a number to a decision
An illustrative small-firm review that connects customer feedback, a decision, an owner and a follow-up check.
The useful bit
A dashboard is the start of a conversation. Keep the evidence of what you investigated, decided, changed and checked afterwards.
Who this is for: Owners and people responsible for oversight in mortgage firms. AR firms should agree how this feeds into their principal's arrangements.
Start with a real task
A fictional brokerage samples 20 completed document requests and asks whether clients understood what to provide. Four required clarification. The firm reads the underlying conversations, including any support needs, before deciding what the result means. The small sample cannot establish a market benchmark or prove the firm meets Consumer Duty.
A routine you can adapt
-
Review lead
Define the question and sample
Ask whether clients understood a specific request. Record the period, selection method, denominator and gaps in the evidence. Include different advisers and channels where feasible; inspect cases involving support needs without publishing sensitive details.
Keep: A sampling note and a traceable, access-controlled list of cases.
-
Adviser and review lead
Investigate the signal
Read the four conversations needing clarification. In this example, three requests did not name the statement period; one client needed help with uploading. Confirm the cause rather than assuming all four failures had the same explanation.
Keep: The observed issue, supporting record and any uncertainty.
-
Business owner
Make and own a decision
Name the statement period in the template and add a clear offer of help. Assign Sam to update the wording by Friday and Alex to brief the team. Record whether a client needs immediate support, separately from the general process change.
Keep: A decision log, named owners, deadlines and client remediation where appropriate.
-
Review lead
Check whether the change helped
Review the next 20 comparable requests. In this fictional follow-up, two needed clarification. Check the reasons and channel mix before attributing improvement to the new wording. Keep monitoring; a smaller count is not proof that every customer understood.
Keep: Follow-up results, limitations and the next review decision.
Filled example · fictional data
Illustrative management information and action log
| Measure / definition | Example result | Review trigger | Decision / owner | Follow-up |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Requests needing clarification / sampled requests | 4 / 20 = 20% | Inspect each unclear request; no FCA threshold implied | Name the period in the template / Sam | 2 / 20 in next sample; inspect reasons |
| Promised updates missed / updates due in sample | 3 / 20 = 15% | Review every missed commitment | Check workload and reassign cover / Jo | Check the next week's promises |
| Requests for access support left unresolved | 1 case | Review promptly for potential customer harm | Agree suitable assistance / Alex | Confirm with client whether help worked |
Keep proportions alongside counts and sample size. A team with more complex cases may need more contact. Look at explanations, customer feedback and outcomes together, and distinguish an internal review trigger from a regulatory requirement.
Free tools · no sign-up
Take it into your next review
Start with the completed example, or use the blank version with your firm's own information. CSV files open in Excel and other spreadsheet apps. Store any live case data in your firm's approved location.
One next step
Put it to work
Choose one question about customer understanding. Define the evidence and sample before collecting a number, then schedule the decision and follow-up review.
Explore the case records behind a reviewThe product walkthrough illustrates the workflow. Your firm remains responsible for its advice, controls and decisions.