← Back to the SOMAT website Illustrative mock-up: Harbourline Building Society is fictional and every figure is synthetic. All sector examples

Dashboard

Findings Vulnerable customers Control testing

Hello, Pia

Headlines · July to September, all contact centres

Calls observed

640

mortgages, savings and arrears

Vulnerability cues heard

212

in 196 calls

Cues recognised and acted on

71%

150 of 212

Controls tested with evidence

118 / 126

8 awaiting second-line sign-off

Vulnerable customers: cue and error cascade

Calls observed as sequences: a cue the customer gives, how the agent handled it, any error that followed and where the customer was left. The same method aviation uses to observe crews on the line.

  1. Vulnerability cues 212
  2. Cue missed 62 (29%)
  3. Agent errors that followed 48
  4. Customer left without a suitable outcome 31
  5. Complaint within 30 days 9

Cues most often missed

Bereavement or separation · 19 Mentions of health · 16 Confusion over terms · 14

Call C-2291 · Mortgage arrears · 14 min

Alarm

The observer's sequence, in the order the call went. Each element can only follow the ones the sequence type allows.

  1. 02:10 · Cue · mismanaged

    Customer mentions their partner died in the spring. Not acknowledged; the agent moves on to the arrears balance.

  2. 05:40 · Error · procedural

    Payment plan proposed without an income and expenditure check.

  3. 09:15 · Undesired customer state

    Customer agrees to a plan above what they said they could afford.

  4. Outcome · day 18

    Complaint received; plan broken in the first month.

Evaluator: "A trap was available: the vulnerability prompt on screen was showing. Raised for coaching and for the prompt's design."

Findings

Patterns found across the sessions submitted so far, each reviewed by an analyst before being shown here. A finding is withdrawn if later sessions stop bearing it out.

  • Call Observation · Consumer Duty Call Review Q3

    Cues that were recognised and acted on were followed by a complaint less often.

    Vulnerability cue Of the cues, followed by a complaint Sessions
    Recognised and acted on3 of 150 (2%)139
    Missed6 of 62 (10%)57
    • Found together, which does not show that one causes the other.
    • Complaints are few, so the difference rests on 9 complaints in all; it will firm up or fade as more calls are observed.
    • Complaints linked from the complaints system by account reference.

  • Call Observation · Consumer Duty Call Review Q3

    Cues heard by agents who had refresher training in the last six months were missed less often.

    Vulnerability refresher Of the cues, missed Sessions
    Within 6 months24 of 128 (19%)117
    Longer ago38 of 84 (45%)79
    • Found together, which does not show that one causes the other: newer agents are also the most recently trained.
    • Seen in both contact centres analysed separately.

    Analyst's note: Evidence for the Consumer Duty board report on the support outcome; recommend a six-monthly refresher cycle.

SOMAT · developed by Elan in partnership with Harlow Stewart · mock-up for discussion

← SOMAT website