January 28, 2026
LOAs are rarely the focus of improvement conversations.
In most firms we work with, they sit in the background. They are sent, chased when needed, and only really noticed when something goes wrong. Over time, though, LOA handling becomes one of the biggest sources of friction inside an advice firm.
At Plus Group, we support advisers with LOA handling as part of the wider admin and case workflow. That includes preparing LOAs correctly, sending them consistently, chasing providers in a structured way, and making progress visible so advisers are not guessing. When this part of the process works well, everything else tends to feel calmer.
A “good” LOA process is not about speed or clever systems. It is about predictability, ownership, and removing uncertainty for both advisers and clients.
LOAs cause problems because they sit early in the advice journey but depend on external parties.
Providers work to different timelines. Some acknowledge quickly, others do not. Some accept electronic LOAs, others still rely on manual checks. That variability makes LOAs easy to underestimate.
What we see is that LOA issues rarely come from people not doing the work. They come from inconsistent sending, unclear chasing routines, and poor visibility once the LOA leaves the firm.
LOA friction usually appears quietly.
A common situation we see is an adviser telling a client that information has been requested and an update will follow. Internally, the LOA has been sent, but no acknowledgement has come back. Days pass without a clear trigger to chase again.
By the time the client asks for an update, the adviser has to go back and check whether the LOA was accepted, whether it was sent to the right place, or whether the provider needs something else. The delay feels sudden, but it actually started earlier.
This pattern is a big part of why advisers often say LOA chasing costs so much time without feeling like progress is being made.
When advisers talk about wanting a better LOA process, they are usually not asking for faster providers.
They want clarity. They want to know that when an LOA is sent, it is sent correctly. They want to know it will be chased consistently. They want to be able to see the status without interrupting someone else.
In most firms we work with, a good LOA process means advisers do not have to think about LOAs unless there is an exception.
The biggest difference between a messy LOA process and a good one is ownership.
In firms where LOAs cause friction, ownership is often shared in theory but unclear in practice. An adviser might generate the LOA. Admin might send it. Chasing might happen only if someone remembers.
In firms where LOAs work well, ownership is explicit. One role owns sending. One role owns chasing. There is no ambiguity about who follows up or when.
That clarity alone removes a lot of background stress.
LOA problems often start at the point of sending.
Different formats, missing information, or sending to the wrong provider contact can all delay acceptance. When sending is inconsistent, chasing becomes less effective because the issue is not always obvious.
A good LOA process uses a consistent format and checklist. The LOA is complete, accurate, and sent to the correct place every time. That reduces the number of avoidable rejections or queries.
Chasing is where many LOA processes fall apart.
In firms without a routine, chasing relies on memory. Someone remembers to follow up once, then assumes it is in progress. If nothing comes back, the LOA quietly stalls.
In firms with a good LOA process, chasing is scheduled. Follow-ups happen at agreed intervals until the LOA is acknowledged or resolved. There is no reliance on someone noticing that time has passed.
This is one reason LOA handling improves when it is part of a broader effort to simplify case management for financial advisers rather than treated as a standalone task.
Advisers often say they want LOAs to be faster.
What we see is that they usually want LOAs to be visible. Advisers feel far more confident when they can see that an LOA was sent on a certain date, chased on specific days, and is waiting on a provider response.
That visibility changes client conversations. Updates become factual rather than uncertain. Advisers stop promising to “check and come back” and start explaining what is happening.
This also helps prevent the kind of uncertainty that builds into admin backlogs that damage client relationships over time.
LOAs are rarely isolated.
When they are delayed, paraplanning cannot start properly. Provider information is missing. Suitability reports are pushed back. Meetings are rescheduled.
In many cases we see, advisers feel pressure later in the process without realising the root cause was an LOA that stalled early on. That is why improving LOA handling often has a wider impact than firms expect.
Most firms do not handle LOAs in one single way.
What we see most often is a hybrid approach. Advisers initiate the request. Admin or outsourced support manages sending and chasing. Advisers are kept informed without being involved in follow-ups.
This works well when LOA handling is clearly defined and integrated into the wider workflow. It works poorly when outsourced support is bolted on without visibility.
That is why it matters that outsourced support is used safely within an advice firm setup, with clear access, ownership, and escalation points.
In firms with a good LOA process, the difference is noticeable.
Advisers are not checking whether LOAs have been chased. Admin is not reacting to last-minute requests. Clients receive clearer updates earlier in the journey.
LOAs stop being a source of background frustration and become a predictable step that rarely needs attention.
A good LOA process removes uncertainty early in the advice journey.
When sending is consistent, chasing is routine, and progress is visible, advisers spend less time explaining delays and more time focusing on advice. Clients feel reassured because the process feels under control. Over time, that reliability sets the tone for the entire client relationship.
Why do LOAs so often become the first sticking point in a case?
Because they rely on external providers and are easy to assume are “in progress”. In many firms, LOAs are sent once and not actively tracked, so delays only become visible when something else needs to happen.
What usually causes LOAs to stall without anyone noticing?
Inconsistent chasing and poor visibility. If there is no clear routine or place to see the current status, LOAs can sit unanswered without triggering a follow-up.
How do advisers usually realise there is an LOA problem?
Often when a client asks for an update or when paraplanning cannot move forward. By that point, the delay feels sudden even though it started earlier.
Is the issue mainly provider speed or internal process?
In most cases we see, it is internal process. Provider timelines vary, but firms with clear sending and chasing routines experience far fewer surprises.
How does a good LOA process change client conversations?
Advisers can explain exactly what has happened and what is being chased, rather than saying they need to check. That clarity reassures clients even when providers are slow.
When does it make sense to outsource LOA handling?
When advisers are regularly stepping in to chase progress or explain delays. Outsourcing works best when advisers retain visibility but are removed from day-to-day follow-ups.
When you’re ready, say Next and we’ll move on to the next blog in the list.
Whether you need one-off expertise or tailored, ongoing support - we’re here to help you get it right.
Book a call
Back office support for financial advisers, firms and networks
