ASM Plus’s Insurance Services

Paul Sandford

Team Convener and ASM Plus director

Reasons why insurance companies will benefit from using ASM Plus’s services

  1. ASM Plus’s very modest fee structure ensures that very real savings will be made. These savings will be reflected in companies’ budgetary improvements and increased levels of efficiency.
  2. The true cost of a case that goes to the insurance ombudsman, who can be seen as faceless and remote and whose turnover rate is relatively slow, could at the very least run into many hundreds of pounds. Early stage mediation or a facilitated meeting mean that aggrieved people get to speak face-to-face with someone from their insurance company, something that goes a long way to helping to get matters resolved early.
  3. Similarly, the true cost of the case that goes to court and takes months or years to resolve could easily run to a substantial four figure sum.
  4. ASM Plus’s Mediations and facilitated meetings have a 90% success rate. Not ALL cases resolve but the vasy majority do. In practical terms this amounts to significantsavings of time and money
  5. Particularly in complex cases, ASM Plus convened mediations and facilitated meetings will save hours of professional time, legal fees and incidental costs. Our charges are very competitive. Our focus is on responding promptly, addressing issues at the first available opportunity and giving the best possible advice to ensure early, cost-effective and time-saving resolution of individual complaints and disputes.
  6. Our mediators and facilitators are strictly neutral. Rather than tell people what to do or what to think, they guide and help the channels of communication to remain open. People get to both listen and be listened to, something that helps to ensure that long lasting, viable settlements are achieved. Because ASM Plus’s mediations and facilitated meetings are conducted on a confidential, without prejudice basis, there is ample opportunity for those attending to be frank and open about matters and to voice concerns about dishonesty or lack of competence.
  7. The time and money saved through ASM Plus’s input can be put to good use in tasks such as maintaining administrative procedures, generating new business and improving profitability.
  8. We offer a personalised service. In each case we offer the option of an initial free, without obligation telephone discussion so that the best possible option can be considered.
  9. The “third eye” approach that ASM Plus’s critical thinking (CT) service offers can help to identify operational and other issues before they become problematic. The better system of working that CT engenders means that conflicts and disputes are less likely to arise in the first place and because lessons will be learned there is much less chance of history repeating itself.
  10. We at ASM Plus are not in the process of making work for ourselves. In our experience, in the majority of cases, insurance-related concerns and complaints can and should be dealt with internally. We consider that companies should not be too quick to activate complaints procedures, particularly in circumstances where a simple explanation/apology is all that is required. Internal complaints officers may not always be seen as truly independent, but they often have a lot of know-how both about their individual companies and the insurance industry as a whole and can quite easily access tape recordings and other records.
  11. ASM Plus’s associates are very well placed to assist with the whole variety of issues and difficulties that beset insurance companies on a daily basis. Our UK and internationally-focused associates have backgrounds in law, chartered surveying, accountancy, engineering, teaching, internal auditing, business consultancy, training/coaching, counselling and marketing.


Case Studies

Case Study 1. An overview of a case that shows how an insurance company can get the very best out of the expert services provided by ASM Plus

The solicitors’ invoice below was prepared following advice given under the terms of a legal insurance policy. The sum of money in question was approximately £1500.00 and there were no complex points of law to be considered. Even without VAT the solicitor’s bill which was paid in full by an insurance company was £3197.50. By today’s standards this is not an extortionate sum but nonetheless it is a lot of money. A large proportion of the solicitor’s bill was attributable to a lengthy report to the insurance company rather than getting the job done.

This sum takes no account of the hidden costs that the insurance company will have occurred in terms of such things as speaking to the client, liaising with the firm of solicitors, monitoring the progress of the case and physically paying the bill.

This is not an untypical case and this scenario is doubtless being repeated on a regular basis up and down the UK. It does not represent good value for money either for insurance companies or their customers who are asked to pay higher premiums. Cases such as this should be referred for either mediation or facilitated meeting at the first available opportunity. ASM Plus takes the view that an outlay in excess of £3000 to recover £1500 does not amount to good value for money. Twenty cases such as this one equates to £60,000 being paid out to recover £30,000.

In a case such as this one, a half day online mediation would have cost £250 plus VAT. Early resolution by this means would have saved the company in question around £2750 plus VAT.

As regards individual disputes that internal staff cannot resolve promptly, the key to an insurance company deriving the best possible use from ASM Plus’s expertise and promptness is to strongly advise those involved in disputes, big and small, to try and resolve matters informally.

Customers who for whatever reason cannot resolve matters informally should be strongly recommended to contact ASM Plus with a view to a promptly convened mediation or facilitated meeting. In some instances, the terms of a policy may well sanction or facilitate such a recommendation.

Insurance companies do have the option of including a “compulsory” mediation clause in their policies.

Case Study 2 A classic example of how mediation in the context of a medical negligence dispute can save insurance companies and public authorities thousands of pounds and at the same time deliver a much more satisfactory outcome for all concerned.

This case study demonstrates just how flawed, unaccountable and unnecessarily expensive the litigation process can be, particularly for insurance companies. It also demonstrates how a proactive insurance company can not only save considerable sums of money but can also help to deliver fair outcomes that are acceptable to all those involved.

Having undergone routine cataract surgery at his local Bromswich Eye Hospital, Bernard notices some funny looking things in his right eye and a consultant ophthalmologist, Dr. Popeye, diagnoses a detached retina. Bernard undergoes an immediate operation which in the short term proves to be successful. However, his ophthalmic aftercare leaves something to be desired. Bernard is not properly advised by a senior surgical member of Popeye’s team who fails to warn him about the risk of postoperative complications. This particular surgeon also very ill-advisedly confirms that it is “quite okay” for him to go away on holiday only a fortnight or so after the operation. Bernard is repeatedly assured that following his operation he has 6:6 vision and that “there is nothing to worry about”.

A few days later whilst Bernard is visiting the town of Witherington, a few hundred miles away, the retina detaches again. Thinking that there is something wrong but not really knowing what, and not for one minute suspecting another detached retina, he goes to the casualty department at the Witherington General Hospital where he is given what his subsequently appointed medical expert, Dr Slick, subsequently identifies as “palpably bad and grossly negligent treatment and advice”. The net effect is that the further operation that Bernard needs is deferred for some days.

The second operation that is ultimately carried out by one of Dr. Popeye’s consultant colleagues back in Bromswich is successful. A sequence of tests gives consistent visual acuities of 6:9 which confirmed that fortunately, his vision has only deteriorated a little.

Understanding full well that at best, he has only a modest claim, Bernard consults a highly recommended solicitor, Mr. Jones of Failsafe and Co who markets himself as being solid and dependable, “a safe pair of hands”. When they first meet Jones assures Bernard that he is an accomplished and realistic professional, that he will act appropriately at all times and that he will not make any unwarranted or unfounded claims. A no-win no-fee agreement which is underwritten by a legal insurance policy is signed and Bernard is advised, correctly as it turns out, that win or lose he will not be expected to pay anything towards his legal costs. When Bernard asks what his claim might be worth, Jones is reticent and says that he cannot advise until he has had sight of an expert’s report. Jones does, however, assure Bernard that he has taken “careful note” of his request and that as part of any settlement, both Dr. Popeye and the two health authorities concerned will give him full written apologies. When Bernard tells him that he wants justice and that there is a principle at stake Jones coos sympathetically.

Jones’ subsequent lengthy periodic reports to the insurance company are in one sense optimistic but he over emphasises Dr Slick’s advice and when advising on the value of Bernard’s claim he is circumspect. He rather vaguely uses wording such as “strongly arguable”, “unclear prognosis” and “too early to tell. Because Jones is an experienced lawyer, his reports are not scrutinised as closely as they might otherwise have been and considerable sums of money are committed to funding Bernard’s litigation by insurance company employees who in truth have been given to understand that the claims was worth more than it actually is.

Bernard’s medical notes and records are obtained quite quickly. He is sent to see Dr. Slick who writes a favourable but balanced report stressing that his loss of visual acuity is significant but nonetheless modest. Bernard subsequently discusses the report with Jones. He tells Jones that he has just heard about this wonderful thing called mediation and also mentions that he has been “advised” by a lawyer friend that his claim is worth something in the region of £20,000.

On the subject of compensation, Jones remains reticent. It subsequently transpires that just after Bernard instructed him, he formed the view that the claim was worth no more than £10,000. However, instead of at least advising both Bernard and the insurance company that broadly speaking a settlement in the region £20,000figure was unrealistic, Jones simply advises that “settlement figure wise it is too early to tell.” Also, in this and in a number of subsequent conversations, whenever Bernard mentions mediation Jones either changes the subject or falls silent and he certainly makes no reference to this option in any of his communications with the insurance company.

Tied in as he is to the conditional fee agreement, Bernard who is a bit of a worrier and finds the process of litigation to be very stressful, feels that he has no choice but to proceed even though he is concerned that Jones is basically ignoring his requests for mediation. Bernard also notices that whenever he asks Jones about costs, he is told that there is nothing for him to worry about and that either “the insurers or the health authority will pay”. Ongoing delays are attributed to intransigence on the part of the health authority’s solicitors.

Two and a half years later Jones finally threatens to issue proceedings in the High Court whereupon the case settles for £10,000! As part of a final agreement, Bernard graciously accepts his £10,000 “in full and final settlement” but is surprised to learn that he is expected to adhere to a confidentiality clause and that there is “no admission as to liability”.

Bernard is pleased to receive this compensation but has some misgivings and raises these with Jones. He is told that mediation is “overrated”. Additionally, when pressed, Jones unashamedly tells him that the health authority has also agreed to pay “something” towards Bernard’s costs but there is a shortfall of around £2,000. The bulk of this is paid by the insurance company but Bernard unexpectedly finds that he is expected to make a small contribution as well. Jones quite readily, almost flippantly mentions to Bernard that the health authority’s solicitors have “probably” charged even more for their services. Dr Slick’s fee alone was in the region of £4000.

It would be fair to say that Bernard has rather mixed feelings about the outcome. Of course, he is relieved and of course he accepts that Dr. Slick’s fee was “money well spent”. Also, he entirely accepts that Jones very skilfully and successfully argued that legally speaking, his modest loss of visual acuity was a material loss.

At the same time Bernard feels that he has had to put up with almost three years’ worth of litigation stress and he cannot help wondering what the point of it all was. He is all too aware that ultimately between them, the NHS and his insurance company have paid out something in the region of £40,000.00 in respect of a claim worth only £10,000.00 and he is very angry that Jones effectively ignored his request for mediation. So much time has elapsed and Bernard’s hopes of pursuing a complaint against Dr. Popeye are dashed and he comes to realise that he will never receive the personal apology that Dr. Slick’s report so patently suggests that he is entitled to.

Bernard also realises that his scenario is being re-enacted across the UK on a regular basis. He could possibly complain to one or more of the relevant regulatory authorities. However, he is concerned that the complaints process he would be expected to pursue is not completely straightforward and that it is by no means certain that he would ultimately succeed. Like many, he is put off by the prospect of two more years of discord and arguing and decides to take no further action.

Although Jones should have warned Bernard at the outset in general terms that this claim was not with anything like £20,000.00 and should not have ignored the requests for mediation, the reality is that in very many respects both he and the health authority’s solicitors did what many legal insiders would regard as a perfectly good, professional job.

In many instances, solicitors will quite rightly pursue claims for compensation very vigorously and will secure much needed, sometimes very substantial amounts for clients who otherwise would be quite wrongly denied it. However, Bernard’s scenario is all too common and cases such as his are costing insurance companies and by implication their customers, considerable sums of money whilst at the same time not delivering fairness and justice. Individual insurance companies may not have the right to insist on mediation but given that in many instances they will be the holders of the purse strings their views will carry considerable weight.

Some legal and financial commentators, may argue that given recent authoritative guidance from the higher UK courts, there is now less likelihood of Bernard’s scenario being re-enacted. However, there are still quite a number of notable gaps in the UK Courts’ procedural rules. In any event, the courts have no jurisdiction over cases such as his that “settle” before proceedings are issued.

Case Study 3. Dave - an insurance-related account that amounts to a sequence of lost opportunities and which demonstrates the usefulness of a promptly convened facilitated meeting.

Dave was a self-employed painter and decorator who despite being a hard worker had a narrow customer base and little business acumen, hence only very modest earnings. Three years ago, he bought himself the most expensive second-hand van he could afford for £4000 which even then was not in very good condition. Subsequently, at a time when the van had depreciated in value and was only worth around £1000 Dave was involved in a road traffic accident. He was adjudged completely blameless by both the police and his motor insurance company. Dave’s insurers estimated that his vehicle would need £2500 worth of repairs hence it being treated as a “write off” and him being offered £1100 “in full and final settlement”.

Dave categorically rejected this offer. He maintained that in reality, he had lost a van that would cost £4000 plus to replace and he should be compensated accordingly. It was pointed out to him that the offer made by his insurance company was legitimate and consistent with his insurance policy. However, he declined to change his mind and continued to press for a pay out of £4000.

Matters were further complicated because of Dave’s misconceived view of his entitlement to compensation. Because of this the driver of the other vehicle involved in his RTA denied liability. Perhaps not unreasonably, Dave did not see that he should claim on his own policy and because he had a separate legal insurance policy, court proceedings were issued in the County Court in which he claimed compensation of £4000. Shortly after these court proceedings were issued, the driver of the other vehicle and his insurers decided to accept liability and offered £1000 in full and final settlement together with a small contribution towards Dave’s legal costs. This offer was also rejected by Dave and matters reached an impasse with him becoming ever more entrenched.

Eventually matters were resolved and Dave was paid £1100 in full and final settlement of his claim by the other driver’s insurance but by that stage the two insurance companies involved and at least one firm of solicitors had expended considerable amounts of time and money. Dave’s insurers had to deal with seemingly endless telephone calls and letters. The solicitors who had been instructed to issue the County Court proceedings did what seemed like only minimal work but in the process of so doing ran up a bill of £2500 plus VAT. Two and half years passed before Dave received any money during which time his earnings reduced quite considerably. As time passed, Dave became even more angry and disillusioned and, although matters did ultimately resolve, channels of communication broke down and all concerned were very chastened by the experience. His insurers put the case down to “experience” and rather nonchalantly shrugged their shoulders.

Inasmuch as Dave had repeatedly declined to accept perfectly good advice given to him by solicitors, his insurance company and informally by two knowledgeable friends, it could be said that he was “to blame”. However, neither of the insurance companies who were involved really got to grips with things. The correct procedures were followed but nonetheless the outcome for all concerned was both costly and highly unsatisfactory.

Dave’s case was tailor made for a facilitated meeting. For a fee of £500 plus VAT all the interested parties could have participated in a promptly convened half-day online facilitated meeting. This would have not only have given Dave the opportunity to openly express his views directly to the other interested parties but for them to clarify their positions. They would also have had the opportunity to demonstrate that they had acted quite properly and that Dave’s valuation of his claim was both economically and legally unrealistic. Without in any way telling Dave and others what to do or how to conduct themselves, an ASM Plus facilitator could very simply have led the discussion, ensuring that all parties had their say and that they will listen to and that the realities of the situation were explained as an early point i.e. before things got out of hand. To this day, Dave bears a grudge and considers he was “sold on the river” even though, in reality he was not.

The true extent of the costs incurred by the two insurance companies involved in Dave’s case were probably never quantified. However, assuming a nominal hourly rate of £50 for each of the insurance companies and the huge amount of work that was undertaken, we suspect that including the solicitors’ charges these costs probably exceeded £10,000 plus VAT. All of this for a case with a realistic value of around £1000.

Case Study 4 An Unfair Dismissal Case that belatedly went to mediation. It was resolved because an employer took the opportunity it afforded to “think outside the box” but it could have been resolved much earlier

For some years Abraham, Martin and John worked in the accounts department of a medium-sized public authority that had been subject to quite severe financial constraints. Barring Abraham whose last annual appraisal was inexplicably favourable, over the years, their standard of work was at best considered to have been barely adequate. They were the subject of repeated written warnings, had poor attendance records and were considered by many of their colleagues to be disruptive influences.

On top of any previous concerns the three co-workers were discovered to have been downloading wholly inappropriate material from their work-based PCs during office hours hence them being summarily dismissed for what their dismissal letters termed “gross misconduct”. On the face of it appeared that the authority had acted quite correctly and it was thought that the possibility of unfair dismissal proceedings was remote. However, the investigative process that was implemented was in some respects deficient. Also, on at least two occasions prior to their dismissals, a senior manager spoke very inappropriately to Martin and John.

Unbeknown to the authority, all three of the dismissed co-workers had previously taken out legal insurance policies with different companies and were therefore able to instruct solicitors to issue unfair dismissal proceedings in the Employment Tribunal. In their statement of claim, as well as mentioning the senior manager’s conduct and the defects in the investigative process, they claimed that their alleged gross misconduct was consequent on the authority’s very lax managerial procedures which purportedly encouraged a culture in which their otherwise unacceptable behaviour was allowed to flourish. They also contended that they were being scapegoated and Abraham highlighted his recent appraisal.

In the course of reporting to the insurance companies that now found themselves underwriting the three co-workers’ tribunal proceedings, the firm of solicitors that had issued the Employment Tribunal proceedings advised that even though their clients were by no means totally innocent, the authority’s procedures were deficient and that “a substantial award of compensation” could reasonably be expected.

At the outset, the authority had indicated that it would contest the unfair dismissal claims brought against it. Although its senior management was mindful that it could ill afford costly legal proceedings, it was concerned that any indication of willingness to compromise on its part will be construed as weakness. Equally, the authority was all too well aware that any form of settlement might encourage others to disingenuously take proceedings against cash strapped public authorities in the hope of extracting settlements.

As matters progressed, the correspondence between the parties’ solicitors became more and more confrontational. Even though it had been appropriately advised by its solicitors, the authority ignored any possible concerns about its own failings. Equally Abraham and his co-claimants focused on these issues and some might say rather conveniently put to one side any considerations about their past conduct.

Some months after the tribunal proceedings were issued, a mediation was convened. It was facilitated by an Employment Tribunal judge and because of this, matters were resolved. During the mediation one of the authority’s senior managers stated that he would “lay his cards on the table”. He accepted that there were deficiencies in the authority’s procedures and confirmed that whatever else, there was no justification for Martin and John to have been addressed in an inappropriate manner. However, during a mediation session in which all interested parties were present, this manager also made it abundantly clear that irrespective of any failings on the part of his colleagues, Abraham, Martin and John had behaved very badly indeed and that technical deficiencies aside, their dismissals were entirely warranted. He also emphasised that if the matter went to a public tribunal hearing, the full extent of their wrongdoing would be made public and that they would never ever be able to obtain any form of meaningful employment.

A full and final £750 per claimant, “take it or leave it” offer was put to the three co-workers. Because the manager was able to speak to them in a direct and forthright manner, they finally grasped that their former employers meant business and perhaps very sensibly accepted what was on offer. As one might expect, the judge who had facilitated the mediation maintained her neutrality but subsequently, in the course of assisting the parties’ solicitors to draw up terms of settlement she politely but firmly suggested that the modest nature of the settlement was wholly disproportionate to the huge amounts of time and money that had been expended and question why the case had been allowed to drag on for so long.

In the course of acting for the authority, its solicitors rendered a number of large bills. On top of this the authority’s senior management devoted considerable amounts of time to the case that could have been better used and because they were material witnesses, a number of its employees had to instruct their work in order to give statements to the solicitors. At a later date the authority was very heavily criticised by its auditors. At least two of its managers rather ruefully reflected that their subsequent annual reviews included very strongly worded criticisms.

The insurance companies who funded the employment tribunal proceedings on behalf of Abraham, Martin and John were also presented with a by no means insignificant legal bill. On top of this, a good deal of their managerial and clerical time was taken up in keeping abreast of matters, liaising with solicitors and ensuring that the requisite procedures were implemented and followed.

It could be said that what transpired was attributable to “the vagaries of litigation” or that because “even wrongdoers have rights” and “the law must take its course” that any perceived failures part of either managerial or insurance staff could be excused. However even a cursory analysis of what transpired clearly demonstrates that a number of interested parties including Abraham, Martin and John’s legal insurers could have “taken the bull by the horns” much sooner and used the very flexible medium of mediation to resolve matters, possibly even before the unfair dismissal proceedings were issued.

ASM Plus associates are committed to helping its clients resolve matters at the earliest available opportunity. They have the expertise and the acumen to help facilitate early resolution and in so doing save our clients thousands of pounds and hours of professional time that could be better used.

ASM Plus’s insurance-related services – online and face to face Mediation and Facilitated Meetings with the special ingredient of critical thinking.

ASM offers two core services which will assist in the resolution of insurance-related disputes – mediation and facilitated meetings with the added special ingredient of Critical Thinking.

Mediation is very effective in cases where the parties are a long way apart, where one party has an overinflated view of the value of a claim or where there is a perception that a settlement offer that has been made is too low.

Facilitated meetings can be used where there may be some level of agreement or for instance where an insurance company has not really been afforded an opportunity to provide a proper explanation. They can also be utilised very effectively where there is concern that a misinformed customer (who may have an overinflated view of matters) is not in full command of the facts or has unrealistic expectations.

The online facility that ASM Plus offers means that mediations and facilitated meetings can be convened at very short notice, including weekends, using software such as Skype. This option is particularly suited to cases where an individual claim is modest and it is in the interests of all parties to resolve matters before views become too entrenched. At the very least it ensures that considerable amounts of travel time and any incidental expense is avoided.

The half day online mediation/facilitated meeting service that we offer is an excellent vehicle for insurance companies to resolve a multitude of ongoing but modest disputes very promptly and to save thousands of pounds.

In return for regular or relatively regular online referrals, ASM Plus would be prepared to accept a reduced fee for providing mediations and facilitated meetings.

In the context of the current health emergency we offer our online service which provides a safe and secure means of resolving matters.

ASM Plus Testimonials: –

“The mediators without any doubt added very significant value and helped us avoid what would have been potentially very significant legal costs. Without their help I doubt we could have got a sensible conversation between us and the defendant”.

“Excellent Service from a dedicated and well-informed group of individuals! Certainly, recommend their services!”

“Expert practical advice from an approachable team of professionals with experience of responding to dispute resolution”

The ASM Plus Insurance Service is provided by:

Paul SandfordPaul Sandford – Director of ASM Plus, Mediator, Facilitator, Tribunal Judge and Solicitor
“Paul is a highly skilled professional mediator. He helped us resolve a really difficult issue with skill and humour. I can’t recommend him highly enough.”
David King – Mediator, Certified Accountant, Taxation Expert and Business Adviser
“A successful mediation aided very well by Mr King.”
Russell Shackleton – Mediator, Facilitator, Master of Business Administration (MBA) and Business Expert
“Russ has a very positive attitude and always applies himself fully to the task in hand.”

Critical Thinking

Critical Thinking (CT) offers insurance companies the option of using an independent “third eye” that will help them to analyse how their businesses might be enhanced. Alternatively, CT can help when something goes wrong either in an individual case or where there are concerns about possible deficiencies in a company’s procedure or an underlying systemic difficulty.

The head of Critical Thinking ASM Plus, Roy van den Brink Budgen, is a world-renowned expert in this field. He has an excellent track record in enhancing the overall performances of the businesses that he works with.

See also

ASM Plus does not offer a “classic” consultancy service that simply makes recommendations. Instead, the analysis and reasoning used in the critical thinking process ensures that matters are looked at from all angles and that those responsible for putting matters right, e.g. frontline staff, managers and directors are properly engaged and work together effectively. Critical thinking input can be provided promptly and because it tends to bring out the best in people, changes and improvements that may be identified and considered desirable can be implemented much more quickly than would otherwise be the case.

Clients can avail themselves of our online facility which means that in the context of the current health emergency, matters can be addressed on line

Testimonials: –

“The mediators without any doubt added very significant value and helped us avoid what would have been potentially very significant legal costs. Without their help I doubt we could have got a sensible conversation between us and the defendant”.

“Excellent Service from a dedicated and well-informed group of individuals! Certainly, recommend their services!”

“Expert practical advice from an approachable team of professionals with experience of responding to dispute resolution”

The ASM Plus Critical Thinking Service for Insurers is provided by:

Roy van den Brink Budgen – Highly accomplished Critical Thinker, Facilitator, Business Advisor and Educational Expert.

“The way in which the nature of critical thinking was clarified by Roy was shown to be of considerable value in the way in which we looked again at our decision-making process.”

“The importance of clear and productive thinking that using a critical thinking approach can deliver was very much highlighted in Roy’s work with us.”

Paul SandfordPaul Sandford – Director of ASM Plus, Mediator, Facilitator, Tribunal Judge and Solicitor.

The breadth of Paul’s expertise and knowledge is very impressive and ensures that he is able to quickly grasp the key issues, salient points and find the best way forward to achieve optimal solutions and results.”

Russell Shackleton – Facilitator, (IDC) Mediator, Master of Business Administration (MBA) And Business Expert

“His approach is to be an un-blocker using audit and compliance to enhance business, not restrict it. He is able to advise at all levels and works through building collaboration.”