"Signposting itself fails to support those with multiple issues or where the consumer is expected to proactively make contact."
- Andrew Gething, managing director of MorganAsh
Signposting a vulnerable client to a different organisation for help is not enough to avoid potential harm and to meet Consumer Duty requirements, a vulnerability expert has warned.
Signposting is a practice used by many firms when a vulnerable consumer is identified. It can take many forms, from a partnership approach, to simply providing contact information for a popular national charity such as Age UK or Macmillan. In many cases, organisations can signpost without any liaison with the charity and services can be reactive or require the client to progress.
Managing director of MorganAsh, Andrew Gething, argues that simple signposting has a poor chance of success, particularly for those suffering from a combination of issues. He also believes it doesn’t go far enough to support those in severe distress.
He said: “From our work with ill and vulnerable consumers, we have identified that many will often state one issue to hide an underlying one, while signposting itself fails to support those with multiple issues or where the consumer is expected to proactively make contact. As a result, it has a poor chance of success and the potential to increase harm for the consumer.
“Consumer Duty requires firms to demonstrate at least annually that the vulnerable are experiencing no worse outcomes than the resilient. We know from recent surveys that vulnerable consumers do experience worse outcomes, so the emphasis is on firms to prove this is not the case, or more likely, to identify these vulnerable cohorts and have a plan in place to rectify this. While signposting has found favour as a zero cost option – especially if firms can digitise this approach – it may not be effective and could result in more harm. That’s especially true if it turns out that the signposted organisation is not suitable or is inaccessible to the client.”
