The Complaint That Arrived by Text and Sat in a Voicemail
A firm's client service team receives complaints through several channels: a phone line, an email inbox, a web form, and advisors' direct lines. A supervisor reviewing a sample discovers that a client sent a text message to her advisor saying she was 'misled about the fees' on a fund purchase and wanted it fixed. The advisor replied by text, 'I'll look into it,' and never logged it. Separately, a voicemail on the general line from a different client alleging an unauthorized trade was transcribed by a temp, emailed to the branch manager, and deleted from the system after 30 days per the firm's voicemail retention schedule. Neither client received a written response. The firm's complaint policy defines a complaint as a written expression of dissatisfaction and routes complaints to a central log within five business days. The supervisor must decide how to treat both items and what to fix.
1. Are these complaints under the firm's policy and applicable expectations? What are the recordkeeping problems?
Read the worked answer
Both should be treated as complaints, and both have recordkeeping failures.
The text message:
- It is a written expression of dissatisfaction about fees and an allegation of being misled. That fits the policy definition and, more importantly, the substance of what a complaint is: an allegation of harm or misconduct that the firm must address.
- The advisor's 'I'll look into it' reply is an acknowledgment, not a resolution, and it was never logged. The five-day logging clock ran and expired.
- Text messages on a firm device or firm-approved channel are firm records. If the advisor used a personal phone, that is a separate books-and-records issue.
The voicemail:
- An allegation of an unauthorized trade is a serious complaint regardless of the channel. The policy's 'written' limitation cannot be used to exclude a voicemail that was in fact transcribed and emailed - the firm had a written record.
- Deleting the voicemail after 30 days under a generic retention schedule is a problem: complaint records generally must be retained for a defined period, and the deletion may destroy evidence relevant to a dispute.
- The temp's email may be the only surviving record; the firm should preserve it and reconstruct the complaint file.
Recordkeeping problems:
- No central logging of either item.
- No written response to either client.
- Deletion of a complaint record under a schedule not designed for complaints.
- Channel fragmentation - texts and voicemails fall outside the central process.
2. What should the supervisor do now, and what changes should be recommended to the complaint-handling framework?
Read the worked answer
Immediate actions:
- Open complaint files for both clients, dated to the original contact if possible, and note the delay.
- Contact both clients in writing - acknowledge, explain the process, and give a timeline. For the unauthorized-trade allegation, preserve all related records immediately and review the trade.
- Preserve evidence: the text thread (including the advisor's phone if firm-issued), the temp's email, and any voicemail backup. Issue a litigation-hold-style instruction for the unauthorized-trade matter.
- Review the advisor's text conduct: was the channel approved, was the client's message logged, was there any attempt to resolve?
- Remediate the fee complaint if the client was in fact misled - review the fee disclosure given at purchase.
Framework changes:
- Redefine a complaint by substance, not channel: any expression of dissatisfaction, however received, is captured.
- Add text and voicemail to the intake map; require advisors to forward or log client complaints within one business day.
- Separate complaint retention from generic voicemail retention; complaints are retained per the firm's complaint record schedule.
- Central log with aging reports; supervisor reviews open items weekly.
- Training for advisors and client service on what counts as a complaint and what to do with it.
- Testing: sample advisor texts and branch voicemails periodically to confirm capture.
Reporting: the supervisor should report the control failure upward and consider whether either matter requires regulatory notification.