Letters of authority (LoAs) are a dependency point in most advice firms.

Without them, suitability reports stall. Onboarding slows. Cases sit in limbo.

Providers operate on their own timelines. Service level agreements vary. Provider response times are rarely predictable.

That’s why chasing LoAs is necessary.

But without structure, it becomes operational drag.

The real issue is not whether to chase. It’s how to build a chasing workflow that balances communication channels, follow up cadence, escalation, and automation.

This blog outlines the best practices for chasing LoAs so that your LoA process remains controlled, accountable, and scalable.

Best Practices for Chasing LoAs at a Glance

The best practices for chasing LoAs follow a structured model. Before delving into a detailed breakdown of the practices, here’s a quick snapshot at some of the best practices for chasing LoAs:

1. Prepare thoroughly before submission.

2. Use email and phone as core communication channels.

3. Define a clear LoA follow up strategy.

4. Implement email automation for LoA chasing.

5. Apply call escalation when thresholds are reached.

6. Monitor provider response times consistently.

Bottom line: Structure reduces provider response latency, whereas inconsistency increases it.

Detailed Breakdown of the Best Practice for Chasing LoAs

Preparation: The Step That Prevents Most Delays

Preparation reduces unnecessary escalation.

Before sending any letter of authority, confirm:

• Accurate policy numbers

• Correct provider department

• Updated provider contact details

• Signature requirements (wet vs scanned)

• Required attachments

• Submission date logged

Strong preparation supports:

• Better expectation management

• Reduced provider service delays

• Cleaner response monitoring

• Clear process accountability

Point to be noted: The cleanest LoAs are chased the least!

When to Email: The Baseline Channel

Email should be your structured default.

It provides a documented audit trail and supports scalable communication channels, alongside gathering key information in writing.

Email should be the starting point in any structured LoA follow up strategy. It creates a documented audit trail, supports consistent communication, and allows you to manage provider response times without immediate escalation. For most cases, email forms the backbone of the chasing workflow.

Use Email For:

• Initial LoA submission (Day 0)

• First reminder (Day 3–5)

• Second reminder (Day 7–10)

• Clarification or resubmission

This forms the backbone of your LoA follow up strategy.

Best Practices

• Use clear subject lines: “Follow-Up: LOA – Policy [Number]”

• Include all references and attachments

• State response expectations clearly

• Define follow up cadence in advance

• Log all communications centrally

• Track provider response times

Email works best when it follows defined follow up thresholds.

Pros and Cons of Using Email for LoA Chasing

Pros

• Documented

• Trackable

• Scalable

• Low time investment

Cons

• Can be ignored if generic

• Response times can be varied

• Requires disciplined follow up cadence

When to Call: Escalation and Urgency

Calling is not the default. It is part of a defined LoA escalation process. 

When provider response latency crosses your follow up thresholds or urgency increases, a call helps resolve delays quickly and clarify issues that email cannot.

Use Call For

• When SLA window has passed (5–7 business days)

• After 2–3 unanswered emails

• High-value or urgent cases

• Complex clarifications

• Bounced or undelivered emails

This answers a common operational question: when to call providers for LoA matters.

Good to keep in mind that call escalation should be triggered by follow up thresholds, not frustration.

Best Practices

• Call during quieter hours (e.g. early mornings)

• Have all policy references ready

• Log outcomes automatically

• Follow up with confirmation email

• Limit excessive repeat attempts

Calls strengthen rapport and reduce ambiguity.

Pros and Cons of Using Call for LoA Chasing

Pros

• Faster clarity

• Personal

• Effective in urgent cases

Cons

• Time-intensive

• Harder to scale

Call escalation is most effective when integrated into a structured chasing workflow.

When to Automate: Removing Repetition

Automation supports the predictable parts of LoA chasing. 

When reminders, acknowledgements, and status tracking follow a defined follow up cadence, automated reminders reduce manual effort while maintaining process accountability. 

Automation strengthens consistency without removing human oversight.

Use Automation for Improving: 

• Process scalability

• Process accountability

• Response monitoring and tracking

• Service level agreement compliance

• Reducing turnaround times

Email automation for LoA chasing supports:

• Immediate acknowledgement after submission

• Scheduled automated reminders (Day 3, 7, 14)

• SLA breach alerts

• Escalation triggers

• Centralised status tracking

• Contact logging

Best Practices

• Define follow up cadence clearly

• Avoid excessive automated reminders

• Personalise templates

• Align automation with follow up thresholds

• Maintain human oversight

Pros and Cons of Using Automation for LoA Chasing

Pros

• Consistent

• Scalable

• Reduces manual workload

• Improves status tracking

Cons

• Requires setup

• Needs monitoring

Note: Automation reduces reliance on memory. It does not replace judgment.

Why Is LoA Chasing Necessary?

Providers manage thousands of requests across departments. Even with clear service level agreements, provider response times for LoAs fluctuate due to:

• Provider service delays

• Internal backlogs

• Incorrect documentation

• Misrouted emails

• Incomplete information

Without response monitoring and structured follow up, cases stall quietly.

LoA chasing is not a sign of failure.
It’s part of expectation management and process accountability.

Why LoA Chasing Becomes a Bottleneck?

Chasing becomes a bottleneck when it relies on memory instead of system.

Common issues causing LoA chasing to become a bottleneck may include:

• No defined follow up cadence

• No clear follow up thresholds

• Multiple team members chasing the same provider

• Poor contact logging

• Lack of status tracking

• No defined LoA escalation process

Instead of a structured persistence strategy, chasing becomes reactive.

At low volume, that works. But at scale, it creates operational friction.

What Does A Structured LoA Chasing Cadence Look Like?

A practical LoA follow up strategy may look like:

Day 0 – Send LoA + automated acknowledgement
Day 3–5 – First reminder
Day 7–10 – Second reminder
Day 10+ – Call escalation
Post-call – Log + confirmation email
Ongoing – Monitor provider response times

This structured persistence strategy ensures:

• Defined follow up thresholds

• Consistent communication channels

• Clear escalation path

• Controls provider response latency

Without cadence, chasing becomes random.
With cadence, it becomes measurable.

Quick Comparison Recap: Call vs Email vs Automation

Below is a quick recap of the best practices for chasing LoA which have been already discussed above: 

Each channel supports a different stage in the chasing workflow. The key is structured integration, not overuse of one channel.

Bringing It Together: From Reactive Chasing to Structured Control

Reactive chasing primarily relies on inbox memory, manual diary reminders, informal persistence, and inconsistent contact logging.

On the other hand, structured chasing relies on:

• Defined follow up cadence

• Automated reminders

• Response monitoring

• Clear LoA escalation process

• Centralised status tracking

• Process accountability

The difference is not effort.
It is structure.

How 4admin Supports Structured LoA Chasing

Structured chasing only works when it’s backed by visibility and automation. That’s exactly where 4admin comes in

4admin supports:

• Centralised LoA status tracking

• Automated reminders aligned with follow up cadence

• Escalation triggers based on SLA thresholds

• Response monitoring dashboards

• Consistent contact logging

• Clear provider response time visibility

This turns LoA chasing from a reactive task into an accountable workflow.

It does not remove the need to chase.
It removes the chaos around chasing.

Conclusion

The best practices for chasing LoAs aren’t about chasing more, they’re about chasing with structure.

That means defining a clear follow-up cadence, using the right communication channels, escalating calls at the right moment, automating emails, monitoring provider response times, and maintaining firm process accountability. 

When structure replaces memory, provider response latency becomes measurable and manageable. And 4admin helps you do just that.

If your LoA process still relies on manual inbox checks and reminders, it’s time for a smarter system, where chasing does not disappear. Rather, it becomes controlled.

FAQs

How long should you wait before chasing a letter of authority?

Typically 3-5 business days for the first reminder, with escalation after 7-10 days depending on service level agreements and urgency.

When should you call providers for LoA?

Call when SLA windows are breached, after 2-3 unanswered emails, or when urgency requires faster resolution.

What is the best LoA follow up strategy?

A structured follow up cadence combining email as baseline, call escalation at defined thresholds, and automated reminders for consistency.

Can email automation help with LoA chasing?

Yes. Email automation for LoA chasing ensures consistent reminders, better response monitoring, and reduced manual workload.

What is the best tool for automating the LoA process? 

The best tool for automating the LoA process is 4admin which equips advice firms with AI-driven data extraction with built-in compliance logging.

How can firms reduce provider response latency?

By preparing submissions properly, defining clear follow up thresholds, monitoring provider response times, and implementing structured escalation processes.