We are often told that the only certainties in life are death and taxes. While that may be true, you cannot easily discern that truth from the policies and actions of many product providers.

If you assume that every single client they have will eventually die, you would think there would be some robust processes in place.

Let me refine this: Processes in place that at least acknowledge that death creates stress and grief and – to quote the FCA – creates vulnerability for the family and friends left behind.

So we need processes in place that respect that.

Processes which acknowledges that hitting families with barriers, charges and paperwork at such a time is at best unhelpful, and, for some families, downright cruel.

So imagine my surprise when I found a platform we have been using for many years suddenly decided to cut off all access to a recently-deceased client's holdings.

No warning, discussion, or agreement. Just a ‘we have shut this down – phone for a valuation’. This is a very recent change in process by the way.

This client herself had been vulnerable – she had a long battle with dementia. So we had spent years working with the children – her attorneys under her LPA.

So when the children were asking questions, we can no longer look things up when they are on the phone, we cannot sell to cash to create liquidity ahead of the estate being wound up.

This is not about fees. All platforms shut down fees, despite our client agreement mandating they continue until the executors say otherwise.

(An argument for a different day, But the platform fees continue – they are clearly the most important people in this relationship…)

It's about assuming that on death, our role as advisers ceases, but their role – as administrators – grows in importance. This assumes that the money is the client's, not the recently-departed mother, not her grieving children.

So we are back to vulnerability and the duty of care that we all have to those that are vulnerable – even for a short period of time.

Faced with this moral and FCA-imposed duty, it is disappointing that providers choose to cut whole families off from advice and support (or at least make it more difficult) at a time of stress. Who do they think is telling the families where the assets are? What gifts have been made? What they need to do to identify and recover assets?

This is just one unfortunate case and the platform in question has since switched our access back on. Which rather proves that there was no point or thought in the original action anyway.

I’m very sure every planner reading this has a list of other similar examples.

In the light of the FCA publishing its findings into the failures of providers to deal with a simple term insurance policy, is it time to have a proper conversation about why many, not all, providers are so very bad at dealing with death? And can we agree protocols and systems to minimise stress at a time of vulnerability, instead of simply making it worse?

And – just a thought – would improvements in this area go some way to restoring trust in our sector?

Phil Billingham FPFS CFP Chartered Financial Planner, Chartered Fellow (Financial Planning) is a Financial Planner and a director of Perceptive Planning, a Chartered Financial Planning firm based in London and Essex. https://www.perceptiveplanning.co.uk/

Biography: Phil joined the profession in 1982 and is a past director of the Institute of Financial Planning (IFP) which merged with the CISI in 2015. He is a past member of the Financial Planning Standards Board (FPSB) Regulatory Advisory Panel. He is a specialist in helping advisers cope with regulatory change and has worked with advisers, planners and regulators in the UK, Europe, USA, Canada, South Africa and Australia. He writes this column most months for Financial Planning Today.