Handling of customer complaints is more of an art than a science. While fact findings are critical, many other human and political factors have to be taken into account.
Typically in a mis-selling case the compliance officer should conduct an independent investigation and ensure the final response is timely given to the customer. The staff subject to complaint should not be allowed to get in touch with the customer further. I had seen cases where the staff took the initiative to settle the issue privately with the customer but eventually made things worse.
The difficult decision made by the management is whether a compensation should be paid. Sometimes even no fault was found in the selling process the bank may still pay in order to save time and maintain the customer relationship, esp. when the amount involved is small. In that situation, the bank would issue a letter which admits no liability but comforts the customer by making a courtesy payment, and requests the customer to shut up.
But when the complainant has already escalated the case to regulators or media, then the condition would become more confrontational. Courtesy payment may no longer be an option. The bank must thoroughly find out if the complaint is valid. It should ascertain whether there are internal control weaknesses, insufficent trainings, or simply an isolated case of staff misconduct. Sometimes a mis-selling case may be associated with an unregistered staff, then the regulatory risk would be much higher.
If the complaint case is lodged with HKMA, then what would happen? Unless the case involved an obvious breach of regulations, most probably HKMA will ask the bank to settle with the customer. It will not play an arbitration role but always ask for detailed reporting from the bank.
No comments:
Post a Comment