Skip to content
English - United Kingdom
Contact us
  • There are no suggestions because the search field is empty.

Weekly Live Session - October 21, 2026

This Weekly Live session was a free-ranging Q&A, with questions covering the new Offices feature in testing, understanding prospect form analytics, how the Adfin direct debit mandate fits into the proposal journey, keeping prospect forms up to date on your website, exporting client data, and documenting internal processes.

Key Takeaways

  • A new Offices feature is in testing and due within the next week or two: in Settings, firms with multiple offices under one limited company will be able to add offices and assign clients and users to them, with new filtering columns appearing on the client board and jobs board once turned on. It is aimed at firms with several offices under one brand, not firms running several separate limited companies or brands, which still need a separate Engager account per brand; permissions restricting which office(s) a user can see are not yet built, only filtering.
  • Prospect form analytics (Deals > Reports > Prospect Form Reports) show how many times a form has been viewed, started and submitted, and, for an abandoned attempt, which section of the form the person reached before leaving (though not who they were). This data can be used to spot high drop-off sections, such as a services/pricing question that was causing a 70% abandonment rate, and refine the form to reduce friction.
  • A prospect form only captures information; it does not pre-populate the services and pricing page of a proposal. Pricing and the letter of engagement still need to be built out manually using the information the form captured.
  • Updating a prospect form (for example to re-brand it or remove a question) and pressing Save and Publish updates the live form instantly everywhere it is embedded, including on your website and any social media links, with no need to re-add a link or republish elsewhere.
  • The Adfin direct debit mandate can be built directly into the proposal and letter of engagement flow: by making the bank details mandatory on the letter of engagement, the client fills in their direct debit mandate within the same signing journey (accept proposal, accept letter of engagement, mandate, marketing preferences, portal signup) without anything extra needing to be added to the proposal itself.
  • There is no way to link one service's due date to automatically depend on another service's completion; this is on the ideas list with no timeline.
  • Client and service data, including enabled services and custom fields, can be exported from Clients > Data > Export, letting you choose exactly which fields to include and save recurring report configurations to revisit later; the same export can help identify which custom fields no longer hold useful data and can be retired.
  • Job phases do not automatically move forward when a client-submitted form is completed, by design, so that the firm can review the form's answers for accuracy before manually marking the phase as done and moving the job on.
  • There is no dedicated tool for documenting internal processes beyond attaching a URL to a job card; firms are advised to keep using whatever already works for them (Loom videos, Google Docs, Word documents, or nothing at all for experienced teams), rather than creating process documentation purely because the option to link one exists.
  • Placeholders in message templates are tied to custom fields; a custom field with no live data anywhere can be deleted to remove the associated placeholder, but built-in fields cannot be deleted. Exporting all custom fields helps identify which ones are empty or redundant across the client base.

Full Transcript

The session opened with greetings before introducing a new Offices feature that had just started testing that day and was expected to roll out within the next week or two. Once live, Settings will include a new "Offices" option allowing numerous offices to be added, with clients and users assigned to them; a new filtering column then appears on the client board and jobs board. This is intended for a firm that has multiple offices but is a single limited company (for example a London, Edinburgh and Belfast office under one brand); a firm running several genuinely separate limited companies or brands still needs a separate Engager account per brand, since this feature does not merge those. The feature is off by default and must be deliberately turned on; office fields will not appear on user, client or job records until it is enabled. This was described as phase one of a larger multi-office project.

Sarah asked about a prospect form submission that did not include an option to prepare a proposal when the prospect was added. A prospect form is only a form: it captures an initial enquiry, but it does not pre-populate the services and pricing page. That page still has to be built out manually using the information the form captured, and the letter of engagement generated afterwards. On keeping forms short: the fewer questions a prospect form asks, the more completed submissions tend to come through. Going to Deals > Reports > Prospect Form Reports for a given form shows how many times it has been viewed, started, and submitted, and, crucially, which section of the form people reached before abandoning it (though not who abandoned it). An example given was a firm whose services/pricing question caused a 70% drop-off rate; removing that question increased completed submissions. This analytics view is recommended whenever a form's completion rate seems lower than expected, as a way of refining it rather than just leaving it as is.

Jazz asked whether each office (under the new feature) can have its own email address. Not with this initial release, which only splits clients, jobs and staff into offices; a larger email project (multiple shared inboxes, among other improvements) is planned for later this year into next, and is still being designed.

Carly asked how the Adfin direct debit mandate link works, and whether something needs to be added to a proposal for the client to sign up for a direct debit once they accept. Nothing needs to be added to the proposal itself. When sending a letter of engagement linked to a client already connected to Adfin, making the bank details section mandatory means the client is taken through the proposal, then the letter of engagement, then prompted to fill out the Adfin direct debit mandate within the same flow, followed by marketing preferences and portal signup, all without leaving the page or being redirected elsewhere.

Jane asked whether the link needs to be updated each time a prospect form on a website or social media is changed. It does not: editing a form (for example to remove a question) and pressing Save and Publish updates the live, already-embedded form instantly wherever it exists, including on the website and any social media links, without needing to touch the embed code again. This was likened to continually refining any other process, such as data reconciliation, rather than treating a form as a one-off, set-and-forget asset.

Luke asked whether an office could be used to restrict a group of subcontractors to only seeing certain clients. This was flagged as a current limitation: assigning a primary office to a user is possible, but permissions restricting what a user can see based on office are not yet built, since the feature had only gone live internally that morning; this was noted as the intended direction for a later phase, not available at launch.

Two separate reports of a form submission notification not arriving, or a submitted record not being highlighted as recent, were attributed to a glitch around the first weekend of October caused by a related data change, since fixed; anyone affected was advised to email support with details so the team can try to retrieve the missing data.

Andrew asked whether a client list with client name and the services each is signed up for can be exported. Yes, via Clients > Data > Export, which allows building a custom export (for example client name, enabled services, and service total where a value has been set against each service) similarly to a data-mining exercise; any client data field can be exported this way, and reports can be saved to revisit regularly.

Carly asked whether there is a way to see what the client sign-up experience looks like, since some clients had said they could not find where to enter their UTR or other codes in the portal. There is no separate way to preview this directly; the recommended approach is to add a client-facing form (built in Settings) into the client portal to collect that information, and, more generally, to set yourself up as a test client contact within Engager (as a sole trader or similar) and invite yourself, so you can walk through the exact onboarding and portal experience a client has when they ring in confused about where to go.

A clarification was given that the support email address is support@engager.app.

Andrew asked for confirmation that a prospect form can be built in Engager and then published and pushed to the website. Confirmed, noting there are two distinct types of form: prospect forms (used for lead generation on a website or social media, introduced in August) and client details forms, which are a separate type used inside the secure client portal once someone is already a client.

A question was asked about linking one service's due date so that it depends on another service being completed. This is not currently possible; it remains on the ideas list with no timeline.

A question was asked about documenting internal processes, following an update allowing a link to a process manual to be attached within job phases. There is no dedicated built-in tool for this beyond the ability to save a URL against a job card; firms were encouraged to keep using whatever already works for them, whether that is Loom videos, Google Docs or Word documents with the link pasted into the job, a browser extension that auto-generates a step-by-step PDF guide, or, for experienced, well-trained teams, no formal documentation at all. The advice was not to create process documentation purely because the capability to link one now exists, since excessive, unnecessary checklists for competent, experienced staff can feel belittling, while genuinely less experienced or trainee staff may still benefit from them.

Chris asked whether there is a way to find redundant placeholders in order to remove them. There is no dedicated tool for this; a placeholder is tied to a custom field, and only custom fields (not built-in fields) can be deleted. The suggested approach was to add all custom fields as columns on the Clients list, or export all custom field data via Clients > Data > Export, to see which fields hold no data or data that is no longer relevant, and then delete or archive those that are genuinely redundant.

A client-linking error ("client primary contact needs to be defined when client is linked to Zama") was explained: this occurs when a prospect or client has been linked to Xama but no related individual has been marked as the primary contact (for example because an existing primary was changed to secondary without a new primary being set). The fix is to go to the client's related individuals and mark one of them as the primary contact, then save.

Ashley asked whether a job's status can move forward automatically once a client-submitted form is completed. It cannot, and this is by design: a job's status only changes when something is manually marked as done, because clients frequently submit forms with missing or incorrect information, and the firm needs the chance to review a completed form, correct or re-send it if necessary, and only then mark that phase as complete and move the job on manually, as a built-in approval step.

Chris asked how to add placeholders to the AML section so that answers update automatically when a client completes an annual or onboarding form. This uses the same custom fields mechanism as any other section: create a new custom fields section in Settings, choose to attach it to the manual AML check, add the relevant questions, and once that section is also built into a client-facing form, the client's answers populate those fields automatically when the form is authorised and saved. A caution was added around AML specifically: clients can safely answer factual questions (for example, a declared conviction, yes or no), but judgement calls such as whether a client is high or low risk remain the firm's own responsibility rather than something to delegate to the client via a form.

The session closed with thanks to everyone who asked questions and a reminder that the next Engager Live would run at the same time the following week.