Keep the outstanding list in step with what clients have actually sent. Start with your existing tools, then look at the gaps between requests, receipt and review.
Start with the outstanding list
A useful document-collection workflow gives the broker team one current view of what was requested, what arrived and what still needs review. Check your CRM’s existing features first. Custom automation is worth considering when the inbox, portal and case record keep disagreeing.
A client uploads a file on Tuesday. On Wednesday, they receive another reminder for it. The office then has to find the upload, work out which request it answers and apologise for the extra message. Sending reminders faster would not have fixed the problem.
This guide describes a proposed administrative workflow for Australian mortgage-broker teams. The examples use fictional records. They show how to scope collection and handover; the broker’s requirements and review determine whether documents are suitable for a particular application.
Check what your current CRM can do
Before adding a tool, trace one case through your existing CRM and portal. Can the team see outstanding requests? Does a received file update the right item? Can reminders stop when the client replies or the request changes? Is there a clear owner for anything uncertain?
Salestrekker’s automation documentation, for example, describes deal and checklist triggers, required-document actions, task creation and email or SMS notifications. Those capabilities are a starting point to assess, not a reason to rebuild the same features elsewhere.
| What you find | A sensible next step |
|---|---|
| The current software supports the process, but nobody has configured it | Improve its checklist, ownership and reminder settings, then test them |
| Staff cannot agree which document is required or who accepts it | Clarify that decision before automating the request |
| Files and replies arrive outside the portal and need repeated matching | Investigate a supported connection and a review queue for uncertain matches |
| Volume is low and the manual process is reliable | Compare the full build and running cost with the time actually spent |
Keep “received” separate from “reviewed”
A filename is weak evidence. A file called “latest statement” might cover the wrong period, belong to a different person or be unreadable. Record receipt without silently treating it as accepted.
A simple set of states is requested → received → needs review → accepted, with separate outcomes for a replacement request, withdrawal or pause. The responsible reviewer determines acceptance. The checklist should record the case, applicant, request version, original file and current owner.
Where a file cannot confidently be matched, keep it out of the wrong case and send it to review. A best guess can create more work—and expose information to someone who should not see it.
A worked example: one upload, two different next steps
Fictional case · B-104
The current request
Request R3 asks for an account statement covering a period specified by the broker. The office has recorded the applicant and the approved upload location. The document is outstanding.
A file arrives
The upload is linked to case B-104 and request R3. Record the original file, receipt time and source. Change the item to “received — awaiting review” and stop reminders that say nothing has arrived.
The reviewer checks it
If it meets the request, the reviewer accepts the item. If the period is wrong, the reviewer records the reason and approves a replacement request. The next message explains what is missing instead of repeating the original reminder.
If the match is uncertain
Leave the case unchanged, hold any reminder that could now be wrong and assign the upload for review. Do not attach it to an applicant based only on a similar name.
This example illustrates the intended behaviour. It does not connect to a CRM, process a real document or establish that an application is ready for submission.
Connect collection to a useful next action
- Use an approved requestThe broker team decides what is needed. Record the request version, recipient, delivery channel and responsible person.
- Record and match receiptConnect the upload or reply to its case and request where the match is reliable. Keep the source available to the reviewer.
- Update the outstanding listSeparate missing items from received items awaiting review. Check current status again before each reminder is sent.
- Route questions and exceptionsA request to pause, a disputed item or an ambiguous attachment goes to its owner. The relevant sequence waits for a decision.
- Prepare the broker handoverShow accepted items, unresolved questions and the next action. The authorised person decides when the case can progress.
AI may help suggest a document type or prepare a summary of a reply. Use it as an aid to review, with the source visible. Known case identifiers, permissions, send rules and approval status should not depend on a model guessing correctly.
Test the cases that cause extra chasing
| Try this | Look for this result |
|---|---|
| The same file arrives twice | One received item; no second task or repeated client message |
| The file belongs to another applicant | No disclosure into the wrong case; an assigned review task |
| The broker changes the request after a reminder is prepared | The old reminder is cancelled or held and the current request is used |
| The client asks to pause | Further automated chasing stops while the owner reviews the request |
| The file is saved but the CRM update fails | The failure is visible; a retry resumes without duplicating the file or task |
| A file is unreadable or covers the wrong period | Receipt is recorded, acceptance waits for review, and any replacement request explains the issue |
Agree where client records can go
List the systems receiving files, who can access them, how long copies remain and how access is removed. Check your business’s professional, contractual and privacy requirements before choosing a connection. Use fictional records when testing the design.
The OAIC’s guidance on commercial AI products covers suitability, oversight and personal-information handling. A proposed automation needs that assessment alongside its technical checks.
Measure the whole task, including review
Compare staff minutes per case, time waiting on the client versus the team, unnecessary reminders, corrections and time to a review-ready handover. Count review and exception handling as work. Faster extraction has little value if someone spends longer fixing the result.
Record a baseline from comparable cases before the pilot. Use the free mortgage workflow worksheet to capture the process, checks and results without putting client documents into the worksheet. The implementation cost guide helps compare that improvement with setup and ongoing costs.
Bring one difficult handover to the discussion
AppliedAgents builds mortgage-broker enquiry and admin workflows around existing tools. Tell us where the process stalls, which software you use and who owns the next step. Describe the problem rather than sending financial records through our enquiry form.
Our Emoney project shows delivered website, assistant and enquiry-handover work. The document-collection design in this guide is a separate example to assess against your team’s process and integration access.
Practical thinking on AI, automation and the work behind a business.
