Customer outcomes and accountable action
Complaints are operating data: what should management learn from them?
A complaints register records events. A defensible management system uses those records to identify patterns, communicate fairly, correct causes and test whether the response worked.
Executive summary
The complaints-control test in one page.
-
01
The General Code requires an adequate and effective complaints-management framework, not only a spreadsheet of cases.
-
02
Useful records connect the complaint, investigation, communication, decision, redress, cause and final closure evidence.
-
03
Management information should show trends, repeat issues and whether corrective action changed the customer outcome.
-
04
A complaint is not proof of misconduct; it is a signal that must be assessed fairly and consistently.
Priority control areas
From complaint received to accountable closure.
The legal-status label matters: the General Code is the current requirement. The FSCA review reports are supervisory evidence and useful comparators, not new rules for every institution.
Operate a framework that fits the business and treats complainants fairly.
The amended General Code requires a provider, excluding a representative, to establish, maintain and operate an adequate and effective complaints-management framework. It must be proportionate to the business and risks, support a fair investigation and avoid unreasonable barriers.
Use review findings as questions, not as invented obligations.
The FSCA's 2025 industry review examined effectiveness, timeliness and accessibility and sought to map complaints practices and customer experience across the reviewed institutions. It is a useful management benchmark, but it does not replace the instrument that applies to the relevant entity.
Make the route visible, then classify the issue consistently.
Complaints may arrive through people, platforms, call centres, social channels or service suppliers. If intake routes are not reconciled, the register may understate the problem. If categories change by team or product, trends and reporting can become unreliable.
Preserve the reasoning, not only the status field.
A defensible case file should show what was alleged, the information considered, who made the decision, what the complainant was told, any redress or undertaking, and why the matter was closed or referred. A final status without this trail may not support later review.
Close the control failure, not only the customer case.
Repeat complaints may indicate a process, product, communication, system, remuneration or supplier weakness. Root cause should be specific enough to change a control. The closure record should then show how the change was tested and whether the issue persisted.
Include complaints arising from delegated and supplied services.
The General Code's complaints provisions address processes for complaints relating to representatives and service suppliers where those complaints concern services connected to the provider's products, financial services or related services. Outsourcing the activity does not remove the evidence question.
Management information
What the board or governing body should be able to ask.
This dashboard is a practical internal implementation model. It is not presented as a prescribed FSCA return, and its measures should be adapted to the institution's size, products, customers and risks.
| Management view | Question to answer | Evidence to retain |
|---|---|---|
| Access | Are all intake routes visible, tested and reconciled? | Channel map, tests and reconciliation record. |
| Classification | Are similar matters categorised consistently? | Category rules, changes and quality-review sample. |
| Timeliness | Where do matters age or exceed internal targets? | Aging report, reasons, escalation and communication. |
| Outcome and redress | What was decided, communicated and fulfilled? | Decision, reasons, undertakings and fulfilment proof. |
| Root cause | Which themes repeat by product, channel, entity or supplier? | Trend analysis, impact assessment and decision. |
| Effectiveness | Did corrective action prevent or reduce the failure? | Post-change sample, result, residual risk and closure. |
Source-led follow-through
Turn complaint handling into an accountable improvement loop.
Connect each case to a fair process, each material trend to an owned decision, and each corrective action to evidence showing whether the customer outcome improved.
This publication provides general regulatory information and practical compliance guidance. It does not constitute legal advice on a particular complaint, institution or licence. A complaint does not by itself establish misconduct. Applicable rules, timeframes, records and escalation routes depend on the relevant entity, product, service, complainant and official instrument. The banking-sector report is used only as a labelled comparator and is not represented as automatically applicable to non-bank FSPs.