Redefining ongoing advice servicing oversight

What happened?

TCC and its technology partner Recordsure took part in a large remediation programme in Australia, delivered with KPMG as part of the Royal Commission into financial services. The programme required consistent oversight of servicing records at a scale beyond what manual review could achieve.

Recordsure’s AI-powered technology was used to automate case assessment and surface insights from a large volume of client data. TCC’s Chief Product and Commercial Officer, Garry Evans, discussed the outcome on stage at intelliflo’s Innovate 2025 event.

Why does it matter?

The programme achieved an 85% efficiency gain: a project originally projected to span six years was completed in under one, at less than half the original cost. This shows that servicing records can be assessed at scale without relying solely on manual review.

The “no-service” remediation issue addressed in Australia is similar to the ongoing advice servicing questions currently facing UK firms, where the ability to validate and reconstruct historic servicing activity has become both an operational need and a regulatory expectation.

Who is affected?

Firms that need to validate historic ongoing advice servicing, particularly where records date back to 2018 or earlier and align with the FCA’s recent guidance on ongoing advice reviews.

Key risks

• Manual review processes that cannot cope with the volume of historic servicing records requiring assessment.
• Limited visibility of gaps or risks in historic ongoing advice delivery.
• Difficulty evidencing regulatory adherence where documentation is incomplete or inconsistent.

Actions to take

1. Establish how far back historic servicing records need to be reviewed, taking account of FCA guidance.
2. Consider whether AI-assisted case assessment could reduce the time and cost of reviewing a large volume of records.
3. Combine automated analysis with specialist review to interpret findings, validate quality and provide regulatory assurance.
4. Build a clear view of historical ongoing advice delivery, including any gaps or risks that require remediation.

Wider implications

The Australian programme shows that combining automation with compliance expertise can materially change the pace and cost of a large-scale servicing review. For UK firms facing similar questions about historic ongoing advice, this points to an alternative to purely manual assessment.

Where full documentation exists, this approach can also go beyond basic checks to assess the quality of advice communications, not just their presence.

Recommendations

Firms considering a review of historic ongoing advice servicing should assess whether the scale of the exercise justifies a technology-assisted approach, and should ensure any automated findings are reviewed by specialists who can provide compliance context.

Firms should also build a dashboard, or equivalent view, that gives ongoing visibility of servicing delivery rather than treating the review as a one-off exercise.