Clarify selection of Trusted Adviser in the CX Guidelines about standards-maintenance HOT 9 OPEN

How does the CX Guideline also then comply with 1.10C(4)(b), when the only good or service that is requested by the CDR consumer is for CDR data to be collected from a data holder and provided to a trusted adviser (per 1.10C(5)), noting that 1.10C(4)(b) still applies in this instance but 1.10(4)(a) and 1.10(4)(c) do not apply?

from standards-maintenance.

To our reading, 1.10C(4)(b) prevents an accredited person forcing a consumer to nominate a TA where the provision of the goods or service requested does not require such a nomination. Therefore not excluded by 1.10C(5).

Our understanding of 1.10C(5) on 1.10C(4)(a) and (b) is that an accredited person can make nomination of a TA a condition to accept a TA disclosure consent where it is the only service provided.

We are seeking clarification on the impact on an ADR when more then TA disclosure is provided. 1.10C(1) implies that it is a accredited persons choice to 'invite' TA nomination. This implies, by an ADR choosing not to 'invite' nomination, they are unable to accept a TA disclosure consent.

We are also seeking clarification if an ADR must accept the nominated TA or could the ADR limit who can be nominated at their discretion. We interpret the Rules that if an invite is made the ADR must accept the nominated party. This is through the lens of a consumer as if an ADR has discretionary power to limit who can be ‘nominated’ then it is the ADR’s trusted adviser, not the consumers.

from standards-maintenance.

We are also seeking clarification if an ADR must accept the nominated TA or could the ADR limit who can be nominated at their discretion. We interpret the Rules that if an invite is made the ADR must accept the nominated party. This is through the lens of a consumer as if an ADR has discretionary power to limit who can be ‘nominated’ then it is the ADR’s trusted adviser, not the consumers.

In reality, for an ADR to provide CDR data to a TA the ADR will require a contract with the TA. The ADR is required to do checks on the TA to validate their status. Also the ADR will likely need to validate the system that it is disclosing the CDR data to, to ensure that the CDR data is being disclosed to the TA and not to another party.

from standards-maintenance.

We would like to add the scenario of a TA who has already been vetted, approved, and added to the ADR's platform.

The TA is inviting a consumer to share their data, so in this case, the consumer accepts the invitation to consent to their bank and then shares data with the TA that invited them (this means their TA is available to select and is promoted to 'top of the list' —BUT it does not prevent the consumer from selecting another TA or adding extra TAs).

The current CX assumes the consumer initiates everything. However, there is a strong business case for TAs to encourage their clients to share. Clearly, consumers are in full control of their sharing, but it just starts with an invite from the TA - imagine receiving a email from your Accountant (an email you know and trust) that asks you to share data with them)

from standards-maintenance.

We agree with the removal of the About Trusted adviser section, as we believe consumers should be

1. finding and selecting their already known TA or
2. inviting their TA to join/be vetted for the ADR's platform. (allowing an ADR to perform their requirements)

We do not believe an ADR should be offering a 'marketplace' for a consumer to find a new TA.

from standards-maintenance.

When it comes to the Trusted Adviser directory, we believe that ADRs should be allowed to provide a list of Trusted Advisers and a function to find them on this directory using criteria such as email address, personal name, location, or practice name.

Additionally, ADRs should be allowed to have the ability for a consumer to request the addition of their Trusted Adviser to the directory.

In summary we are happy with the current Directory CX - changing the title does make sense though.

from standards-maintenance.

If I understand the above scenario's correctly, such a directory is trusted advisers that have entered into some form of contract with an ADR to be available to any consumer using the ADR's platform.
So, to the second scenario above, I understand the Rules already allow an ADR to invite a consumer to nominate their Trusted Adviser and subsequently provide a TA disclosure consent. That is, to facilitate the disclosure of information held by a third party (ADR) through a specific channel (CDR) so a service can be provided as part of a one to one relationship between a consumer and their Trusted Adviser.
Such a nomination and TA disclosure consent does not mean that the nominated Trusted Adviser will want to be available in a directory accessible to other consumers on an ADR's platform.
For example, I nominate my accountant and provide a TA disclosure consent as I wish them to have access to my data, noting it is no longer CDR data on disclosure to a Trusted Adviser. It does not mean that my accountant wishes to be on a list that another consumer can access and request their services.
In this scenario, I would suggest there would need to be an opt in option for the Trusted Adviser to join such a directory.
Though, to our understanding, promoting a Trusted Adviser's services is not a function of the CDR regime.
As with the earlier comment 'We do not believe an ADR should be offering a 'marketplace' for a consumer to find a new TA.', equally, the CDR regime is not intended to provide a a marketplace for Trusted Advisers to find new clients.

from standards-maintenance.

To the scenario that a Trusted Adviser 'invites' a consumer to share data through the CDR channel. I am not certain if the use of the word 'invite' here is related to the ability of an ADR to 'invite' a consumer to nominate their Trusted Adviser.
Where a consumer engages a Trusted Adviser to provide a service, the consumer will most likely need to provide information. The CDR being one possible channel to provide that information, in theory, whether or not the Trusted Adviser is vetted, approved and already on an ADR's platform.
So a Trusted Adviser can alert their client to the CDR regime and discuss if the consumer wishes to use this channel to provide the information needed for the Trusted Adviser to deliver the agreed service.
As we understand the Rules, it would then be for the consumer to see if the party holding their data is an ADR and if that ADR allows them to nominate, or already has on their platform, their Trusted Adviser. If yes, the ADR can then 'invite' the consumer to nominate their Trusted Adviser and then provide a TA disclosure consent.
I think this is the point of difference, we do not understand that the Rules require an ADR to 'vet' and 'approve' a Trusted Adviser. The Rules do require an ADR to confirm a person is in one of the classes of Trusted Adviser and provides that CDR data disclosed to a Trusted Adviser is no longer CDR data, just data.
The key question, I think, is where does the liability for data security rest during the conversion of CDR data to data when disclosed by and ADR through a TA disclosure consent?

from standards-maintenance.