EBA欧洲银行-BSG-response-to-EBA-CP-2017-01-Draft-GLs-on-procedures-for-complaints-under-PSD2_4页_206kb

报告摘要

EBA Banking Stakeholder Group Consultation Summary on EBA/CP/2017/01

Core Content

The EBA Banking Stakeholder Group (BSG) has provided detailed feedback on the Consultation Paper EBA/CP/2017/01, which outlines Draft Guidelines on Procedures for Complaints of Alleged Infringements of the Payment Services Directive 2 (PSD2). The BSG’s comments focus on improving the accessibility, effectiveness, and consistency of complaint procedures across the European Union (EU).

Main Views and Key Points

Question 1: Complaint Submission Channels

The BSG supports the proposal to allow complainants to submit complaints through at least two different channels.
They recommend that these channels should include email and a web-form on the competent authority's (CA) website, along with an additional channel.
Ease of use is emphasized, particularly for vulnerable consumers such as those who are digitally excluded.
The BSG encourages CAs to consider harmonization of complaint channels across the EU and to ensure that complainants can retain durable proof of their complaints.
They also suggest that CAs should respond promptly and outline the review process from the start, while encouraging complainants to first address their claims with the relevant Payment Service Provider (PSP) where possible.

Question 2: Information Requested from Complainants

The BSG believes that PSPs should be able to file complaints in any Member State to avoid fragmentation of complaint practices and ensure a level playing field.
They highlight a gap in the current framework for situations where the service provider is not authorized or registered, which may prevent complainants from providing the necessary identity information or identifying the correct Competent Authority.

Question 3: Reply to Complainants

The BSG agrees with the proposal and emphasizes the importance of timely responses from CAs.
They stress that the review process and timelines should be clearly communicated to complainants to ensure transparency and encourage participation.
The BSG also recommends that the EBA should include provisions for appeals and inform complainants about possible mechanisms, similar to the UK Complaints Commissioner model.

Question 4: Aggregate Analysis of Complaints

The BSG supports the proposal for aggregate analysis of complaints.
They believe that analyzing the nature, frequency, and trends of complaints can help national authorities identify and address systemic issues before they cause further harm.
The BSG suggests that CAs should notify all EU national authorities and the EBA of the most common and significant infringements identified through the analysis.
They also recommend that the EBA should publish the aggregated data on its website to ensure transparency and accessibility for all stakeholders.

Question 5: Internal Written Rules on Complaints Procedures

The BSG agrees with the proposal and supports the establishment of internal written rules for handling complaints.
This is seen as a necessary step to ensure consistency and clarity in the complaint process across different CAs.

Question 6: Public Information to Complainants

The BSG supports the proposal and highlights the importance of clear communication regarding the forwarding of complaints to the appropriate CA.
They recommend that the EBA should ensure that complainants are informed about how complaints involving service providers from other EU countries will be handled, as outlined in Guideline 3.

Key Recommendations

Harmonize complaint channels across the EU to ensure accessibility and usability for all complainants, including vulnerable groups.
Ensure that all PSPs can file complaints in any Member State to prevent fragmentation and maintain a level playing field.
Provide clear and timely communication about the complaint process, including initial assessments and appeal mechanisms.
Conduct aggregate analysis of complaints to identify trends and systemic issues, and share this information with the EBA and other national authorities.
Publish aggregated analysis on the EBA website to promote transparency and stakeholder engagement.
Develop internal written rules for complaints procedures to ensure consistency and clarity.