Step 02 / Explore the pack

See the outcomes. Know what to ask.

A visual view of what is inside the Insurance and mortgage intermediaries edition, before you open Excel or Word. Choose a tab to explore the illustrative worked example.

Choose sector
Preview
Download

Insurance and mortgage intermediaries

Consumer Duty board report pack · illustrative example firm: Wrenfield Cove Intermediaries Limited

Change firm type

03
Areas rated Red: 03
Areas rated Amber: 35 of 35
Measures rated: 6
Actions in the log

consumer-duty-board-report-insurance-mortgage-mi-workbook-worked-example.xlsxIllustrative data

Every measure with its thresholds, latest and previous result. Thresholds shown are illustrative: your own workbook leaves them blank for you and your board to set.

Products and services Red

Measure	Latest	Previous	Green at	Red at	Rating
Products and services past their review date	0	1	0	3	Green↑ Better
Sales outside the identified target market	1.2%	1.2%	2%	5%	Green→ Same
Product reviews that considered customers with characteristics of vulnerabilityProduct reviews for two of the add-on cover products did not consider customers with characteristics of vulnerability. They are being redone.	87.5%	91%	95%	80%	Amber↓ Worse
New products and significant changes tested before launch	100%	96%	100%	90%	Green↑ Better
Complaints saying the product did not meet their needsComplaints that a policy did not meet needs came mainly from one add-on product. It is under review with the insurer.	3.5	3.6	2	5	Amber↑ Better

Products and services past their review dateGreen
Latest
0
Previous
1
Green at
0
Red at
3
Sales outside the identified target marketGreen
Latest
1.2%
Previous
1.2%
Green at
2%
Red at
5%
Product reviews that considered customers with characteristics of vulnerabilityAmber
Latest
87.5%
Previous
91%
Green at
95%
Red at
80%
Product reviews for two of the add-on cover products did not consider customers with characteristics of vulnerability. They are being redone.
New products and significant changes tested before launchGreen
Latest
100%
Previous
96%
Green at
100%
Red at
90%
Complaints saying the product did not meet their needsAmber
Latest
3.5
Previous
3.6
Green at
2
Red at
5
Complaints that a policy did not meet needs came mainly from one add-on product. It is under review with the insurer.

Price and value Red

Measure	Latest	Previous	Green at	Red at	Rating
Products with a value assessment in date	98.8%	94.8%	98%	90%	Green↑ Better
Products judged not to give fair value with action still open	0	1	0	2	Green↑ Better
Distribution arrangements reviewed for the effect of remuneration on value	97%	93.1%	95%	80%	Green↑ Better
Contingent fees and charges as a share of total customer cost	3%	3.1%	5%	10%	Green↑ Better
Complaints about fees and charges	0.6	0.6	1	3	Green→ Same
Non-investment insurance products with a PROD 4 value review in dateTwo of the ten insurance products have a PROD 4 value review that is out of date. Insurers have been asked for current data.	80%	80%	100%	90%	Red→ Same
Cases where commission or procuration fee was above the firm's review threshold	1.8%	1.7%	3%	8%	Green↓ Worse

Products with a value assessment in dateGreen
Latest
98.8%
Previous
94.8%
Green at
98%
Red at
90%
Products judged not to give fair value with action still openGreen
Latest
0
Previous
1
Green at
0
Red at
2
Distribution arrangements reviewed for the effect of remuneration on valueGreen
Latest
97%
Previous
93.1%
Green at
95%
Red at
80%
Contingent fees and charges as a share of total customer costGreen
Latest
3%
Previous
3.1%
Green at
5%
Red at
10%
Complaints about fees and chargesGreen
Latest
0.6
Previous
0.6
Green at
1
Red at
3
Non-investment insurance products with a PROD 4 value review in dateRed
Latest
80%
Previous
80%
Green at
100%
Red at
90%
Two of the ten insurance products have a PROD 4 value review that is out of date. Insurers have been asked for current data.
Cases where commission or procuration fee was above the firm's review thresholdGreen
Latest
1.8%
Previous
1.7%
Green at
3%
Red at
8%

Consumer understanding Amber

Measure	Latest	Previous	Green at	Red at	Rating
Customer communications tested before issue	97%	100%	95%	80%	Green↓ Worse
Customers who understood the key pointsOnly 78% of surveyed customers understood the excess on legal expenses cover. The explanation has been rewritten and will be retested.	78%	74%	85%	70%	Amber↑ Better
Complaints where unclear information was a cause	3%	3.1%	5%	12%	Green↑ Better
Sampled customer calls where understanding was checked	94%	90.2%	90%	75%	Green↑ Better
Accessible-format requests met within target	97%	100%	95%	85%	Green↓ Worse
Customers given key information before they bought	100%	100%	100%	95%	Green→ Same

Customer communications tested before issueGreen
Latest
97%
Previous
100%
Green at
95%
Red at
80%
Customers who understood the key pointsAmber
Latest
78%
Previous
74%
Green at
85%
Red at
70%
Only 78% of surveyed customers understood the excess on legal expenses cover. The explanation has been rewritten and will be retested.
Complaints where unclear information was a causeGreen
Latest
3%
Previous
3.1%
Green at
5%
Red at
12%
Sampled customer calls where understanding was checkedGreen
Latest
94%
Previous
90.2%
Green at
90%
Red at
75%
Accessible-format requests met within targetGreen
Latest
97%
Previous
100%
Green at
95%
Red at
85%
Customers given key information before they boughtGreen
Latest
100%
Previous
100%
Green at
100%
Red at
95%

Consumer support Amber

Measure	Latest	Previous	Green at	Red at	Rating
Contacts answered within target time	94%	90.2%	90%	80%	Green↑ Better
Average days to complete a cancellation, switch or transfer	3	3.1	5	10	Green↑ Better
Complaints per 1,000 customers	3	2.9	5	10	Green↓ Worse
Complaints upheldUpheld complaints rose because of delays in passing claims information to insurers.	37.5%	39%	30%	45%	Amber↑ Better
Sampled cases where customers with characteristics of vulnerability reached a good outcome	94%	90.2%	90%	75%	Green↑ Better
Support for people acting for a customer matched the customer's	97%	100%	95%	85%	Green↓ Worse
Claims help given within target time	97%	93.1%	95%	85%	Green↑ Better
Average days to handle a cancellation or mortgage product switchMortgage product switches took longer when lenders required paper forms.	7.5	7.8	5	10	Amber↑ Better

Contacts answered within target timeGreen
Latest
94%
Previous
90.2%
Green at
90%
Red at
80%
Average days to complete a cancellation, switch or transferGreen
Latest
3
Previous
3.1
Green at
5
Red at
10
Complaints per 1,000 customersGreen
Latest
3
Previous
2.9
Green at
5
Red at
10
Complaints upheldAmber
Latest
37.5%
Previous
39%
Green at
30%
Red at
45%
Upheld complaints rose because of delays in passing claims information to insurers.
Sampled cases where customers with characteristics of vulnerability reached a good outcomeGreen
Latest
94%
Previous
90.2%
Green at
90%
Red at
75%
Support for people acting for a customer matched the customer'sGreen
Latest
97%
Previous
100%
Green at
95%
Red at
85%
Claims help given within target timeGreen
Latest
97%
Previous
93.1%
Green at
95%
Red at
85%
Average days to handle a cancellation or mortgage product switchAmber
Latest
7.5
Previous
7.8
Green at
5
Red at
10
Mortgage product switches took longer when lenders required paper forms.

Cross-cutting rules Red

Measure	Latest	Previous	Green at	Red at	Rating
Foreseeable-harm incidents not yet put right	0	1	0	3	Green↑ Better
Average days from identifying harm to offering redressIt took us an average of 74 days to offer redress after identifying harm. Case owners and a 30-day target are now set.	74	52	30	60	Red↓ Worse
Outcome gap between the worst-served customer group and all customers	0.66	0.63	1.10	1.30	Green↓ Worse
Incentive and performance schemes reviewed against the Duty	100%	100%	100%	70%	Green→ Same
Customer journeys reviewed for unreasonable barriers or pressure	94%	90.2%	90%	70%	Green↑ Better

Foreseeable-harm incidents not yet put rightGreen
Latest
0
Previous
1
Green at
0
Red at
3
Average days from identifying harm to offering redressRed
Latest
74
Previous
52
Green at
30
Red at
60
It took us an average of 74 days to offer redress after identifying harm. Case owners and a 30-day target are now set.
Outcome gap between the worst-served customer group and all customersGreen
Latest
0.66
Previous
0.63
Green at
1.10
Red at
1.30
Incentive and performance schemes reviewed against the DutyGreen
Latest
100%
Previous
100%
Green at
100%
Red at
70%
Customer journeys reviewed for unreasonable barriers or pressureGreen
Latest
94%
Previous
90.2%
Green at
90%
Red at
70%

Governance and monitoring Amber

Measure	Latest	Previous	Green at	Red at	Rating
Outcome failures with a completed root-cause analysis	97%	100%	95%	80%	Green↓ Worse
Board or committee meetings that discussed Consumer Duty outcomes	6	6	4	2	Green→ Same
Duty outcome reviews by risk or internal audit completed against planThe planned audit of mortgage advice outcomes slipped to next quarter.	87.5%	91%	100%	75%	Amber↓ Worse
In-scope products with outcome MI reported this period	100%	96%	100%	85%	Green↑ Better

Outcome failures with a completed root-cause analysisGreen
Latest
97%
Previous
100%
Green at
95%
Red at
80%
Board or committee meetings that discussed Consumer Duty outcomesGreen
Latest
6
Previous
6
Green at
4
Red at
2
Duty outcome reviews by risk or internal audit completed against planAmber
Latest
87.5%
Previous
91%
Green at
100%
Red at
75%
The planned audit of mortgage advice outcomes slipped to next quarter.
In-scope products with outcome MI reported this periodGreen
Latest
100%
Previous
96%
Green at
100%
Red at
85%

See the actual workbook · real Excel sheets, rendered from the example file

Insurance and mortgage intermediaries: Ratings dashboard for the four outcomes, the cross-cutting rules and governance (illustrative example)

Outcomes dashboard · opens full size

Insurance and mortgage intermediaries: MI library with thresholds, results and ratings (illustrative example)

MI library · opens full size

Insurance and mortgage intermediaries: Board challenge questions with answers recorded (illustrative example)

Board challenge · opens full size

Insurance and mortgage intermediaries: Action log with owners, dates and board agreement (illustrative example)

Action log · opens full size

Built from the same data and formulas as the worked-example workbook, for an invented firm. All figures and thresholds are illustrative, not benchmarks.

About the Insurance and mortgage intermediaries edition

Insurance and mortgage intermediaries, including protection advisers. PRIN 2A.4 does not apply to "a firm which manufactures or distributes a non-investment insurance product or a legacy non-investment insurance product" (PRIN 2A.4.32R(1)(a)), and PROD 4 applies instead. Mortgage distribution is otherwise within PRIN 2A.3 and 2A.4. If you do both, check whether PRIN 2A.4 still applies to your mortgage business. The cross-cutting, understanding and support outcomes apply to both.

The FCA does not set a template for the board report. This pack is a practical structure built on the rules in PRIN 2A.8 and 2A.9. Read the Consumer Duty outcomes monitoring guide and the board pack explainer, or try the Consumer Duty outcomes checker.