On 6 November, ESMA and EBA launched a consultation on guidelines for complaints handling in the securities and banking sectors. The objective was to provide EU consumers with a single set of complaints handling arrangements, irrespective of the type of product or service, or of the location.
ALFI
ALFI is of the view that this guideline is already widely complied with in the fund industry. Every management company in Luxembourg must promote an internal culture of control and of risk aiming to ensure that all members of staff actively take part on the detection, declaration and control of risks incurred by the establishment. This includes risks related to complaints from investors. For clarification reasons, ALFI proposes to add that the reporting to the competent authorities should be given upon request and not on a permanent reporting basis as the latter gives no added value.
ALFI believes the proposed guidelines should not represent additional compliance costs for most of the fund industry’s players who are already broadly in line with the suggested rules. The guidelines should ensure a harmonisation of complaints-handling practices across the EU financial sector to the benefit of investors.
Full response paper
EACB
EACB would like to point out that cooperative banks take their complaints-handling process very seriously; both as a way to continuously improve their level of services, as well as a manner to best serve their clients, who are often also members and thus take a direct stake in the bank.
Indeed, as a showcase of their commitment on the subject, it should be noted that cooperative banks in many cases developed alternative dispute resolution mechanisms (and processes for complaints-handling that precede the ADR-stage) before it became a topic of regulatory debate. This being the case, the members of the EACB look upon the proposed guidelines from a positive perspective. Having said that, the EACB does want to underline that it is not convinced that there is a strong documented need for supervisory convergence on this point. In addition, there are few elements of the proposed guidelines on which the EACB wishes to put forward its considerations.
Full EACB-position
EBA
The BSG is in general agreement with the recommendations in the Consultation Paper, though would strengthen it further in some parts. The Group believes further supervisory convergence is necessary to ensure consistency between sectors, improved standards of complaints handling, adequate conduct risk provisions, as well as the prevention of widespread consumer detriment. As an example, BSG describes the UK experience, where transparency of complaints data has been shown to increase senior management focus on complaints handling and a greater focus on reducing the reported number of complaints.
Full EBA-position
EFAMA
EFAMA points at a missing a distinction between client categories, such as retail clients and other clients. Without a clear distinction, the Association warns, the guidelines would go beyond the relevant Directives and their implementing national legislation. EFAMA also recommends that the ESAs should focus on reporting to competent authorities upon request rather than implementing permanent reporting obligations to competent authorities which have no legal basis in European law, e.g. the UCITS Directive or the AIFM Directive. Without regard to legal concerns, EFAMA considers permanent reporting obligations as no additional benefit for consumers and not effective to enhance their relationship to financial service providers.
Full EFAMA-position
EFBS
The European Federation of Building Societies (EFBS) represents the views of building societies, so called Bausparkassen. To handle complaints correctly, these Bausparkassen have already established specialised departments and procedures. The proceedings of complaints-handling are in compliance with the provisions of the Alternative Dispute Resolution Directive which entered into force in spring 2013. In this context, EFBS would strongly suggest that EBA and ESMA should wait for the lapse of the implementation period of the ADR within the Member States and for the evaluation of its effectiveness and only then probably consider if common guidelines are necessary.
Full EFBS-position
Eurofinas
As a comment to the eligibility of a complaint as defined by the draft guidelines currently, Eurofinas raises attention to the fact that a complaint would include any statement of dissatisfaction addressed to a firm. Eurofinas believes that procedural rules that allow rejecting frivolous or vexatious complaints should be permitted in order to avoid unjustified costs and administrative burden. Sharing of best practices amongst market players on this topic should therefore be encouraged.
Full Eurofinas position
Original consultation
Key
Hover over the blue highlighted
text to view the acronym meaning
Hover
over these icons for more information
Comments:
No Comments for this Article