[ad_1]
This publication comes from the website of theACPR.
Over the past two years, the Control and Resolution Authority (ACPR) has carried out several types of work to assess the effects of Recommendation 2022-R-01 of May 9, 2022 on the processing of complaints (hereinafter “the Recommendation”). A questionnaire survey was conducted in 2024 among thirteen credit institutions and seventeen organizations.
The ACPR completed its work in 2025 with bilateral exchanges with the stakeholders concerned and with an analysis of the websites of the main banking and insurance establishments in order to assess the quality of the information offered on the complaints systems. This work highlighted two main findings. Firstly, the complaints processing systems have been simplified and responses to complaints are generally provided within less than two months. Secondly, efforts remain to be made on the clarity of the information provided to claimants and the quality of the annual summaries intended for governance bodies.
Recommendation 2022-R-01 repealed and replaced Recommendation 2016-R-02 and has since been replaced by Recommendation 2024-R-02 of July 2, 2024 modifying its scope of application, without impact on the results of the investigation.
Simplified treatment devices
The revision of the Recommendation relating to the processing of complaints aimed in particular to simplify the process for complainants so that they obtain a reasoned and quality response within a maximum of two months. Indeed, the initial complaints (1st level) were often poorly identified leading to a lack of response and clear information on the process to follow to have your complaint examined by the 2nd level of processing, often obligatory to be able to access Mediation. The entry into force of this new recommendation has led banking and insurance players to review their complaints processing systems.
With the exception of three banking establishments, all the entities surveyed have put in place a complaints processing system allowing the complainant to access mediation from the first response received. After discussions with the ACPR, three banking establishments which required the expiration of a two-month period to contact the mediator have readjusted their system in order to allow referral to the mediator as soon as the first level responds.(1). Most professionals who have waived the “mandatory” second level still allow the complainant, in the event of persistent dissatisfaction after the response obtained, to continue the exchange with the service initially contacted or another service. Finally, in banking groups, complex complaints now tend to be handled by a dedicated service.
(1) Cf. report of the Financial Sector Advisory Committee of July 1, 2021, page 44: “the Committee adopted the text below: When a consumer has a dispute with a professional, he may contact the mediator at the end of the complaints handling process defined by each establishment and in any event, two months after his first written complaint to the professional, whether or not he has received a response from the professional (…)”.
Processing times apparently less than two months
The Recommendation provides that a response must be provided “within the deadline to which the professional has committed and, in any case, within two months from the sending of the first written expression of dissatisfaction, unless there are more restrictive legislative or regulatory provisions”.
The vast majority of stakeholders surveyed respond to at least 70% of complaints within thirty days. This can be explained by the setting by many stakeholders of internal objectives that are more ambitious than the recommended best practices. In insurance, claims processed within a period of more than two months concern only a few organizations.
However, the deadlines declared by the organizations questioned need to be qualified.. On the one hand, some players include oral complaints in the accounting of their deadlines, which are processed immediately unlike written complaints and therefore considerably reduce average deadlines. On the other hand, banking establishments having chosen to maintain an organization in two mandatory levels count two deadlines, one for the level 1 response and another deadline for the level 2 response, thus skewing the overall processing times of a single complaint.
The legislation (Article L133-45 of the Monetary and Financial Code) provides that complaints relating to payment services must be processed within 15 days, excluding a waiting letter extending this period to 35 days for complex complaints. The survey showed that only 37% of these complaints are processed within 15 days and 57% are processed between 15 and 35 days. Furthermore, certain establishments have declared that they allow referral to the mediator after a period of thirty-five days regardless of the degree of complexity of the complaint, while other establishments have declared that they have the right to mediation only at the end of the two-month period mentioned by the Recommendation. These practices must be corrected in order to comply with the law.
Imperfect information from claimants
Information in clear and understandable language on the complaints processing system put in place and on access to mediation must be provided to the complainant both on the websites and in the various letters sent to them.
The ACPR’s work has revealed that websites often suggest that the complainant can only contact the mediator after having contacted the second level, even when the system deployed by the establishment provides that the response from the first level is sufficient to open the way to mediation. Additionally, some information may be missing. For example, certain deadlines were not indicated and, when a telephone number was offered to make a complaint, it was not always specified that in the absence of an immediate solution, the complainant must formalize his complaint in writing. Professionals have remedied most of the difficulties identified by the ACPR, even if certain modifications are still being deployed.
Acknowledgments of receipt are most of the time pre-written and contain the information provided for by the Recommendation. However, for complaints related to payment services, acknowledgments of receipt often include inappropriate information, particularly regarding the specific response time. Furthermore, when acknowledgments of receipt are written partially or entirely by the manager, certain essential information may be missing, such as the time limit for processing complaints or the procedures for referring the matter to the mediator.
The competent mediator for the situation concerned is not always clearly identified, with some professionals choosing to include in their letters the list of all mediators likely to intervene depending on the nature of the complaint. Furthermore, when the complainant raises several points, the explanations allowing him to identify the competent mediator according to the type of grievance are too summary or even incomplete. Finally, when the second level is optional, the letters sometimes lack clarity regarding the avenues of appeal open after the response provided by the first level.
Overall, professionals must regularly ensure the consistency of the information mentioned on their websites with the complaints processing system adopted and strengthen quality controls on acknowledgments of receipt and responses in order to ensure the systematic mention of expected information and the presence of appropriate supporting arguments.
Annual summaries to enrich
Players in the banking and insurance sectors must present to their governance bodies an annual summary presenting an analysis:
- the quality of the complaints processing system put in place,
- the quality of the responses provided to complainants
- malfunctions, regulatory breaches or poor commercial practices identified through complaints, specifying the corrective measures envisaged or implemented.
Almost all of the stakeholders interviewed presented an annual summary to their governance bodies. However, in most cases, complaints are analyzed only through an overall volume, without distinction between oral and written complaints, without taking into account the product concerned, and without detailed analysis of processing times (the two-month period can be used as the sole reference point for monitoring deadlines). Under these conditions, governance bodies cannot have a precise vision of the effectiveness of the complaints processing system put in place and the difficulties encountered by complainants.
After discussions with the ACPR, a certain number of entities have already added indicators to their summary (analysis of complaints received and processed by management delegates, breakdown by products and guarantees, mention of control actions carried out during the year, etc.). Furthermore, the majority of stakeholders concerned indicated that they were working to improve the quality of the summaries produced, which most often requires IT developments.
Special case of insurance: The processing of complaints by management delegates must be more supervised and monitored
When the processing of complaints is delegated and the complaint falls within the delegatee’s field of competence, it is up to the latter to register the dissatisfaction and respond to it. Very often, insurance organizations lack visibility into the way in which management delegates organize the processing of claims. Furthermore, insurers must ensure the consistency of the information indicated on their site and on the websites of delegates concerning the processing of claims. The ACPR interacted directly with management delegates and insurance intermediaries. They were reminded of the need to show for each insurer the corresponding complaints processing system as well as the competent mediator(s).
Finally, if organizations are aware of the need to better monitor complaints received and processed by their delegatees, delegatees provide information to insurers with a frequency and a level of granularity that varies greatly and is frequently insufficient. In addition, insurers do not all impose the same reporting format on all of their delegatees, so that in the absence of identical indicators, it is complicated for them to obtain an overview of delegated claims.
The ACPR will continue to pay the greatest attention to the continuous improvement of the systems put in place for processing complaints and to the clarity of the information provided to customers in this regard. The ACPR will verify that players in the banking and insurance sectors continue to upgrade their systems in order to guarantee, over time, a level of customer protection corresponding to the expectations expressed in Recommendation No. 2022-R-01.
[ad_2]
Source link
