Collections is where operational processes, customer vulnerability, affordability, communication quality and commercial decision making all come together. It is also where poor outcomes can arise quickly if firms focus too heavily on whether a process step was completed, rather than whether the customer received the right support, at the right time, based on their individual circumstances. It is one of the core customer journeys we have built within Assure 4, Square 4’s AI-powered outcomes testing solution.
Over the past six months, Assure 4 has reviewed hundreds of collections journeys across multiple firms, applying consistent outcomes testing criteria at a scale that would be difficult to achieve through traditional manual review. By assessing customer outcomes consistently across large volumes of cases, Assure 4 has helped firms identify recurring risks, uncover root causes, recognise examples of good practice and redirect skilled assurance resource away from file-by-file review towards thematic analysis, remediation and continuous improvement.
The findings have been encouraging in many areas. Firms are often identifying missed payments promptly, issuing timely communications, providing accessible contact routes and using a range of channels to encourage engagement. However, Assure 4 has also identified several recurring themes where the link between process, judgement and customer outcome could be strengthened.
Early Identification Is Generally Working, But It Is Only The Start
Across the collections journeys reviewed, the point of entry into collections activity was usually identified quickly. Failed direct debits, missed minimum payments, high utilisation and repeated late payments were generally recognised as warning signs. In many examples, automated prompts were issued within one or two business days, and accounts were suspended or routed into collections activity in line with policy.
This is positive. It demonstrates that many firms have the infrastructure to recognise potential financial difficulty at an early stage. However, identification alone does not deliver a good customer outcome. The key question is what happens next.
Where customers did not engage, Assure 4 recognised that firms had often taken reasonable steps by sending clear communications, explaining repayment options and making proportionate follow up attempts. Where customers did engage, the standard expected was higher. At that point, firms needed to move beyond notification and into meaningful assessment, understanding the root cause of difficulty, the customer’s wider circumstances, affordability position and any vulnerability or additional support needs.
Multi-Channel Contact Is A Strength, Provided It Remains Proportionate
A strong theme across the journeys reviewed was the use of multiple communication channels, including SMS, email, letters, telephone, WhatsApp and digital portals. In many cases this worked well. Customers were provided with different ways to engage, and firms could demonstrate that they had made reasonable efforts to establish contact.
For non-engaging customers, outcomes testing recognised that firms cannot be expected to complete a full fact-find or tailor forbearance arrangements where the customer does not participate. The key test is whether the firm created a fair opportunity for engagement. In most cases, the evidence showed communication that was timely, clear and proportionate.
However, proportionality remains critical. Contact should not become a mechanical sequence of reminders. Where a customer has disclosed distress, vulnerability or a specific communication need, firms should consider whether standard automated activity remains appropriate. A pause, alternative communication channel, specialist handling or adjustment in tone may be necessary to avoid creating additional pressure at precisely the point where support is needed most.
Early Signposting Remains A Common Improvement Area
One of the most consistent themes identified by Assure 4 was the timing and prominence of signposting to independent debt advice. In several cases, firms provided internal support information promptly but did not include external signposting until later in the journey, or did not make it sufficiently visible within early communications. In many of these cases, the customer ultimately did not engage, meaning there was limited evidence that earlier signposting would have changed the outcome.
However, the key consideration is not simply whether the customer acted on the information. It is whether the firm created the conditions for an informed customer decision. Early arrears communications represent a critical moment in the customer journey. Including clear, simple and consistent signposting at that stage can strengthen customer understanding, improve access to support and reduce reliance on later-stage remediation.
Vulnerability Handling Is Where Judgement Matters Most
The most significant poor outcomes identified arose where customers disclosed vulnerability and the response did not fully follow through.
Assure 4 identified examples where customers clearly described health conditions, mobility restrictions, mental health concerns or wider personal challenges. In some instances, colleagues responded empathetically but did not complete the required next steps, such as specialist referral, vulnerability assessment, sensitive note recording, tailored questioning or appropriate signposting.
This distinction is important. A warm and empathetic response is not the same as an effective vulnerable customer strategy. Outcomes testing should assess whether the disclosure changed the journey.
- Was the customer routed appropriately?
- Were communication needs considered?
- Was affordability assessed in the context of the vulnerability?
- Were available support options tailored?
- Was foreseeable harm appropriately mitigated?
Where the answer was no, poor outcomes often followed. These included missed support opportunities, avoidable distress, failed payment arrangements, continued collections activity and decisions made without a reliable understanding of the customer’s circumstances.
Forbearance Needs To Be Evidenced, Not Assumed
Another recurring theme was the need for stronger evidence supporting repayment solutions.
Some arrangements appeared successful in practice, with customers maintaining agreed payments. However, testing identified examples where affordability assessments were based primarily on verbal estimates rather than a full income and expenditure review or supporting information, particularly where policy required a more robust assessment.
This matters because sustainability cannot be inferred from short term payment compliance alone. A customer may maintain payments for a period while experiencing financial pressure elsewhere. Good outcomes require firms to evidence why a solution is suitable, affordable and sustainable based on the customer’s overall financial position.
Similarly, where customers disclosed temporary difficulty or requested support, firms needed to consider the full range of available options. In some poor outcome cases, tools such as payment day changes, breathing space arrangements, temporary payment pauses or communication adjustments were not explored. As a result, customers were not always fully equipped to make informed decisions.
Moving From Process Assurance To Outcome Insight
Traditionally, assurance teams spend significant time reviewing individual files to determine whether controls were followed. While important, this approach can limit the volume of journeys reviewed and delay the identification of emerging themes.
Assure 4 changes that model.
By reviewing large volumes of customer journeys quickly, accurately and consistently, Assure 4 identifies the patterns, behaviours and root causes that drive customer outcomes. By applying the same assessment criteria across every case, it reduces reviewer variability and provides firms with a more reliable view of customer experience and customer outcomes.
This allows assurance specialists to spend less time finding issues and more time understanding why they occur, prioritising remediation and driving meaningful improvements.
The overall message from the data is encouraging but clear. Many core collections controls are working effectively. Early identification, customer access, communication strategies and information provision are often strong. The greatest opportunities for improvement tend to arise in the moments requiring colleague judgement and tailored customer support.
This is where Assure 4 adds real value. It looks beyond whether a process step happened and assesses whether that step was sufficient for that customer, in that situation, at that point in their journey. It enables firms to test real customer journeys at scale, identify thematic drivers of good and poor outcomes and convert case-level evidence into practical actions for policy, process, training and controls.
For collections leaders, the thematic actions are clear:
- Strengthen early debt-advice signposting.
- Review automated communication templates.
- Reinforce vulnerability identification and escalation processes.
- Improve evidence supporting affordability decisions.
- Monitor communication intensity and customer engagement strategies.
- Use journey-level insight to drive better decision-making and customer outcomes.
Assure 4 In Action
Assure 4 is Square 4’s AI-powered outcomes testing solution, designed to help firms assess real customer journeys at scale and transform complex case evidence into clear, actionable insight.
Compared with traditional manual outcomes testing, Assure 4 delivers more than 50% improvement in cost and time efficiency while making testing more effective, consistent and scalable. Rather than manually reviewing small samples of cases, firms can review substantially larger populations, identify themes faster and focus specialist resource where human judgement adds the greatest value.
Benefits Experienced To Date
- Hundreds of customer journeys reviewed in a fraction of the time required for manual testing.
- Consistent assessment of customer outcomes across large populations.
- Faster identification of recurring weaknesses, emerging risks and root causes.
- Greater confidence in vulnerability, affordability and collections controls.
- Assurance teams spending more time on analysis, remediation and continuous improvement.
- Stronger evidence to support Consumer Duty monitoring and outcomes assessment.
Assure 4 is helping firms move from reviewing individual cases to understanding the systemic drivers of customer outcomes. By reviewing customer journeys quickly, consistently and at scale, firms can identify risks earlier, evidence good customer outcomes more effectively and focus expert resource on improving customer experiences rather than simply finding issues.
To arrange a demonstration of Assure 4 and learn more about how it can support your outcomes testing programme, contact Matthew Drage and the Square 4 team.
