A document written at the end, from memory
The policy is placed. The client is happy. The handler now has to produce the demands and needs statement and, for advised business, the suitability reasoning. They open the template, delete last client's name, and write a few lines about what the client wanted. Some handlers write a paragraph. Some write a page. Some copy the previous client's wording and adjust it.
Then the file review comes round, whether internal or from your network or compliance consultant, and it finds the same things: statements that do not mention the cover the client specifically asked about, reasons that are generic, and no record of why the second insurer was not chosen.
The gap between the conversation and the file
The information needed for the statement was gathered earlier, in the fact find, the phone call and the quote comparison. But it was gathered in notes, emails and memory, not in a structure the statement can be built from. So the statement becomes a separate writing task at the end of the process, when the handler has already moved on to the next case.
What your firm's rules require in the statement is for your compliance function to decide. The operational problem is simply that the information exists and is not reaching the document.
Why it matters beyond the file review
- Inconsistent records make it harder to show that each client's cover was considered properly.
- Handlers spend time writing prose at the end of each sale.
- Remedial work after a file review takes experienced people away from clients.
- If a claim is declined on a gap in cover, the file is the first thing anyone looks at.
- New handlers learn the job from whatever the last file looked like.
Building the statement from the fact find
- We turn your fact find into a structured form for each class, capturing the client's stated needs, the cover they asked about, what they declined and why.
- The form is used during the call or meeting, or sent to the client to complete, so the answers are captured at the time rather than recalled later.
- The quotes considered and the reason each was or was not chosen are captured from the comparison stage.
- A draft demands and needs statement is assembled from those facts using your approved template and wording blocks.
- Where a client declined a cover, such as business interruption or legal expenses, the statement records it in the wording your compliance team approved.
- The handler reviews and edits the draft, and approval is logged with their name and the date.
- The final statement goes to the client and is filed in your broking system against the policy.
Wording blocks are written and signed off by your compliance people, not by us. We make sure the right block appears when the facts call for it.
What a file looks like afterwards
| File element | Handwritten today | Built from the fact find |
|---|---|---|
| Client's stated needs | Summarised from memory | Taken from answers given at the time |
| Covers declined | Sometimes mentioned | Recorded whenever declined in the fact find |
| Options considered | Rarely listed | Pulled from the quote comparison |
| Consistency across handlers | Varies by person | Same structure, handler's own commentary |
| Approval | Implied | Named and dated |
Handlers still write the parts that need thought, such as why a particular recommendation fits the client. They stop writing the parts that simply restate facts already captured.
Is this your situation?
- File reviews keep finding thin or generic demands and needs statements.
- Statements are written after the policy is placed.
- Declined covers are not consistently recorded.
- Each handler has their own version of the template.
- You could not quickly pull every statement where a client declined a particular cover.