Not all bad
01 April 2009
I write in response to Jessica Pothering's article, 'Brokers warned of telecoms firms mis-selling call recording devices' (Insurance Age, March, p52) about telecoms providers misrepresenting the new Financial Services Authority (FSA) rules on call recording and would like to remind your readers that we are not all like that!
Liquid Voice has been providing an advisory service to financial services clients for over a year now on the benefits and uses of call recording for their particular businesses. All my resellers are taught about FSA requirements, when call recording is compulsory and that, for general insurance broking firms and financial advisers, it is usually a voluntary option.
Call recording can have many advantages to this industry though, particularly in regard to being required to prove that a firm is treating its customers fairly and complying with the FSA's Conduct of Business rules. I would not like firms to close their minds to the benefits just because systems are not compulsory.
As a measure of our commitment to helping the industry, we retain the services of an FSA compliance consultant and undertake training on financial services regulatory matters.
Using Liquid Voice quality assurance program in conjunction with a recording system can easily measure compliance with the Distance Marketing Directive, demonstrate staff adherence to procedures and produce management information that proves that Treating Customers Fairly outcomes are being met.
Call recording is a risk management tool that can help save firms from costly fire fighting exercises, compliance failures and marketing errors.
I would urge readers not to discount the use of systems such as ours in order to further business goals and facilitate potential audits in an industry where everything must be recorded for the regulator to be sure that businesses are adhering to its rules.
Chris Berry, Director, business development, Liquid Voice.
* Source: Insurance Age