For advice firms and wealth managers
AI for financial advisors
The annual review you cannot evidence is, as far as the regulator is concerned, a service you did not provide.
Book a CallAdvice firms carry an obligation most professions do not: proving on an ongoing basis that clients paying for a continuing service are actually receiving one. Consumer Duty raised the standard of evidence considerably, and the Financial Conduct Authority has taken a close interest in whether ongoing advice charges correspond to ongoing advice delivered. For a firm with several hundred clients across a handful of advisers, the constraint is rarely willingness — it is the administrative reality of scheduling, preparing, conducting, and recording that volume of reviews every year.
The second pressure sits at the other end of the relationship. Prospective clients researching an adviser are making a decision about trust with very little to go on, and they are doing it against a backdrop of scam awareness campaigns that have made everyone appropriately suspicious. Both problems — evidencing the back book and converting the front end — respond well to the same underlying work.
The two ends of the problem
Review scheduling consumes the year
Booking, rescheduling, and chasing annual reviews across a whole client bank is a continuous administrative load that grows directly with assets under advice. It is also the activity most likely to slip when an adviser is busy, which is precisely when slipping matters most for the file.
Fact-find preparation duplicates known information
Much of what a review meeting establishes is already held somewhere in the firm. Collecting changes rather than re-collecting everything shortens preparation substantially and makes the meeting itself about advice rather than data entry.
Evidencing ongoing service is manual and inconsistent
The record of what was offered, when, and how the client responded is often spread across calendars, inboxes, and adviser memory. Consolidating it into a consistent trail is unglamorous work that becomes very valuable the moment a file is reviewed.
New enquiries need qualifying before adviser time
Investable assets, pension arrangements, whether the enquirer already has an adviser, and what has prompted the search all determine whether an initial meeting is worth holding. Establishing them beforehand protects the diary and improves the meetings that do happen.
What we implement
A site that answers the trust question first
Firm reference number displayed and verifiable, named advisers with their qualifications, a plain explanation of how you are paid, and what a first meeting involves. Prospective clients are assessing legitimacy before they assess suitability, and most advice-firm websites answer the second question while ignoring the first.
Review cycles that run without prompting
Automated scheduling driven by each client's review date, with escalating reminders and self-service rebooking. Non-responses are logged as clearly as acceptances, which turns the process into an audit trail rather than just a diary.
Pre-meeting data collection
Secure forms that present what the firm already holds and ask only what may have changed — circumstances, objectives, capacity for loss, and anything bearing on vulnerability. The adviser arrives at the meeting with current information already in the file.
Enquiry qualification aligned to your minimum
Screening against the criteria your firm actually applies, so enquiries below your threshold are handled courteously and redirected rather than occupying an adviser's diary. Those who fit are booked directly.
Connects to your back office
We integrate with the back-office and platform systems the firm already operates rather than proposing replacement. Client data in an advice firm is subject to record-keeping obligations that make casual migration a genuinely bad idea.
What automation must not touch
Advice is a regulated activity, and nothing we build gives it. The systems collect information, arrange meetings, and issue communications drawn from material the firm has already approved. They do not recommend products, comment on the suitability of an arrangement, or project outcomes. That line is not a matter of caution — crossing it would place the firm in breach.
Financial promotions carry their own constraints. Anything published that invites or induces someone into investment activity must be fair, clear, and not misleading, and must be approved through the firm's own process. We build the website and the automated communications to route through that approval rather than around it, and we will not include performance figures or outcome claims that the firm cannot evidence.
Consumer Duty also raises the standard on comprehension, not merely accuracy. Communications need to be understandable by the client actually receiving them, including those with characteristics of vulnerability. We write to that standard rather than to a legal-defensiveness standard, because they are not the same thing and only one of them is what the rules ask for.
Common questions
Can any of this be construed as giving advice?
No, and the constraint is designed in rather than assumed. Automated communications draw only on material your firm has already approved, and the systems are built to decline anything that would require a judgement about a client's circumstances. Where a question needs an adviser, it routes to one. We test this deliberately before launch, including with questions engineered to elicit a recommendation.
How does this help with Consumer Duty specifically?
Principally through evidencing. Consumer Duty expects firms to demonstrate that clients receive the ongoing service they pay for, and the weak point is usually the record rather than the service. Consistent scheduling, logged offers, logged responses, and logged non-responses produce a trail that shows what was provided and when — which is the thing that is difficult to reconstruct afterwards.
Our clients are older and not especially digital. Does this alienate them?
It should not, and this is worth designing around explicitly rather than assuming. Automated scheduling can offer a telephone call as readily as a video meeting, and reminders can go by post-adjacent channels where that suits the client. The aim is removing administrative friction for the firm, not forcing a channel change on clients who did not ask for one.
What about vulnerable clients?
Vulnerability indicators need a person, not a rule. What automation can do is flag signals for adviser attention — a missed review cycle, a change in circumstances disclosed in a form, a bereavement mentioned in correspondence — and make sure those route to a human quickly rather than being processed as routine. It should widen the net that catches these cases, never narrow it.
Will our compliance function accept this?
That is the right question to ask early, and we would expect to involve them before build rather than presenting them with something finished. In practice the discussions concern approval routes for automated communications, where records are held, and what the escalation rules are. Firms that involve compliance at the design stage tend to launch faster than those treating it as a sign-off at the end.
We design your homepage first.
You only pay if you love it.
No cost and no obligation to start. Tell us about your firm and we will show you what your new site could look like, before a single invoice.
Start the conversation