Moonstone: More on Hippo Comparative Services
Our article on Monday was based on the contents of an FSB media release. We were unable to verify the facts against the actual Enforcement Committee order as the FSB website was unavailable for most of the day. We have since studied the formal document, a
We commented on the fact that, under the mitigating circumstances, it was found that “…There is no evidence of any prejudice resulting from the contraventions…”A further mitigating factor, listed in the actual order, states: “With reference to the contravention of section 3A(1)(b)(i) of the General Code of Conduct, all the quotations were available to the clients on request.”
We find this very strange. Our understanding is that the whole purpose of disclosure is to enable the client to make an informed decision. By not making all the facts available to the client at the point of sale, you are not enabling him or her to do so, are you? It is difficult to see how this can be regarded as a mitigating factor.
To take this point further: when does the client discover the salient facts relating to his contract? When he receives his contract, and hopefully reads and understands it, or when a claim arises? Surely this obligation lies with the person providing the advice?
How is a call centre operator equipped to advise a client on the difference between the products from various companies, given the brief training they receive? Hippo, according to its website, provides clients with quotes from 17 different product providers. Many advisors, with years of experience, battle to fully understand the products of one or two companies to the extent that they can clearly convey the pros and cons to their clients.
Another question that arises...
Please click here to read the rest of the article, and add your comments online.
