Banks Can No Longer Get Away with a “Minor Error”
Uzbekistan is further strengthening procedures for protecting the rights of bank customers. Under the new requirements, a bank may no longer limit itself to resolving the problem of one customer who has filed a complaint—it must also eliminate the cause of the violation so that the same breach is not repeated with other customers.
The latest, 12th amendments to the rules for working with consumers of banking services open the way for recurring shortcomings to be assessed as systemic problems rather than ordinary technical errors. The responsibility of bank management and internal audit services for such cases will also be increased.
Returning one customer’s money will no longer be enough
In practice, a bank may improperly deduct a commission from a customer’s account, calculate a payment incorrectly, or fail to process a transaction because of a malfunction in its mobile application.
Previously, a bank could consider the matter closed after reviewing a specific complaint and returning the funds or correcting the error. Under the new approach, however, the key questions will be different: what caused the shortcoming, and what has been changed to ensure that it is not repeated with other customers?
Therefore, the bank will have to:
identify the software or internal process that caused the error;
analyze the activities of the responsible departments;
review the contract, tariff, or procedure for providing information;
identify other customers who may have faced a similar situation.
Compensating the customer for the damage eliminates the consequence of the problem. The new requirement calls for reaching its root cause.
A recurring shortcoming will no longer be considered an “accident”
One of the most important aspects of the amendments is the introduction of “failure to take measures” criteria.
If complaints with the same substance are received repeatedly, a bank will no longer be able to present them as isolated incidents or minor mistakes by an employee. Recurring complaints may indicate that the problem lies within the bank’s internal system.
For example, if customers from different regions submit similar complaints about:
hidden or incorrectly explained commissions;
incorrect calculation of loan payments;
unjustified deductions from a card;
an official response to a complaint that does not resolve the problem;
failure to fully explain the terms of a service to the customer
the bank will not be able to close each case separately. It will be required to identify the common cause of the shortcoming and take action across the entire system.
Management and internal audit will also be held accountable
Handling complaints will no longer be solely the responsibility of the call center, branch, or customer service department.
The new procedure increases the accountability of bank management. Management must be provided with information on which problems are recurring most often, what decisions have been made to eliminate them, and whether those decisions have produced results.
The internal audit service, meanwhile, will assess not only whether a complaint was reviewed on time, but also whether the bank has genuinely eliminated the cause of the shortcoming.
Under the Central Bank’s previous requirements, banks were already tasked with registering complaints electronically, classifying them, analyzing recurring problems, and developing action plans to address them. The internal audit function was also assigned responsibility for overseeing complaint handling.
At the new stage, what will matter is not the existence of an action plan, but the results it produces in practice.
What could change for customers?
If the new requirements work properly, customers will not have to repeatedly contact the bank about the same problem.
For example, if a loan payment is incorrectly reflected in the bank’s system, it will not be enough to correct the information for just one customer. The bank must identify the software-related cause of the error and check the accounts of other borrowers who may have encountered the same situation.
Likewise, if an unjustified commission has been deducted from a card, the matter will not end with returning the money to the customer who filed the complaint. It may become necessary to review all transactions to which the incorrect tariff was applied.
This approach clearly demonstrates the difference between “closing” a complaint and resolving the problem.
How should a complaint be filed with a bank?
A customer may first contact the bank that provided the service in writing or electronically. It is important to specify the date of the transaction, the amount, contract or card details, and provide documents confirming the problem.
If the bank’s response is unsatisfactory or the complaint is not reviewed in accordance with the established procedure, the customer may contact the Central Bank. A separate service for protecting the rights of consumers of banking services operates under the regulator.
The mandatory minimum requirements for banks are established by Regulation No. 3030, which covers customers’ rights, contracts, the provision of information, and procedures for handling complaints.
The new principle may also extend to other sectors
The principle of eliminating systemic problems that cause violations of consumer rights is planned to be applied outside the banking sector in the future.
These include:
electricity and gas supply;
housing and коммунal services;
the construction sector;
air transport;
railway services
as well as other sectors that work with large numbers of consumers.
However, requirements for these areas are currently being mentioned only as plans. They will become mandatory rules only after separate regulatory documents are adopted.
The main indicator is no longer the number of complaints
A low number of complaints at a bank does not always mean that customers have no problems. Sometimes people do not know where to complain or do not believe that it will lead to results.
For this reason, the key indicator under the new system will not be how quickly a complaint was closed, but whether the shortcoming that caused it has been repeated.
If a bank returns money to one customer but repeats the same error the next day with one hundred other people, the problem cannot be considered resolved. That is the central meaning of the new requirements: not to conceal the consequence, but to eliminate the cause. Leave your opinion in the comments and share the article with your acquaintances on Telegram or other social networks!
Comments 0
…