Complaints Policy and Treating Customers Fairly
The Minted App Ltd
It is vitally important to our Company, The Minted App Ltd, its Senior Management and its employees don’t just follow the standards and rules as set out by our Regulator, the Financial Conduct Authority, but that we maintain standards that our customers would expect.
At The Minted App Ltd, we are constantly striving to ensure that we can do better, and how we can improve – from investing into the relevant systems to ensure that our customers receive the service that they expect from their bank as well our people, who will be able to give good service, day in day out.
Getting it right doesn’t happen automatically. It requires good governance and speaking with our customers and our people. We are keen to ensure that we have the appropriate policies and procedures in place to not only deliver the service that the FCA expect from us, but also best to support our customer’s business – thereby serving our business better, too.
Complaints and dispute resolution remains a constant focus of us here at The Minted App. We are determined to ensure that we deliver on our promises and obligations to our customers and our regulator.
CEO – The Minted App Ltd
This document has been written in line with the Financial Conduct Authority (“FCA”) Handbook (Dispute Resolution: Complaints (“DISP”)) to provide a clear understanding as to the rules and the guidance provided by the FCA on how to deal with complaints and disputes both fairly and promptly.
As an entity that is Authorised and Regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority (“FCA”), The Minted App Ltd are required to have appropriate systems, controls and processes in place to ensure that complaints are dealt with and responded to in line with the DISP rules. Therefore, the purpose of this document is to ensure that the Company, its management and its employees are aware as to their obligations regarding disputes and their resolution.
The provision of this document aims to reduce the potential for complaints levied towards The Minted App Ltd, and where complaints are raised, to ensure that they are dealt with as our clients would expect, and as the FCA obliges us to do so.
This document is owned and maintained by the Head of Compliance, who is responsible for the ongoing compliance with all applicable laws, regulations and regulatory obligations posed to The Minted App Ltd.
The Head of Compliance is authorised to act independently, and is responsible for ensuring that the contents of this manual are reviewed and updated as and when required.
Mohammed Siddiq is the Head of Compliance for The Minted App Ltd, and is responsible for compliance with the Complaints Policy.
This document will be reviewed annually, to ensure that its effectiveness is assessed on an ongoing basis. Where there are material changes to the structure of The Minted App Ltd, its services or the legislation/regulation that the Company is bound to comply with, the document will be reviewed to ensure that it remains accurate and up-to-date, and is in line with those material changes.
There are a number of legislations and regulations that The Minted App Ltd is obligated to comply with. The relevant regulations are as follows:
The Payment Services Regulations 2017
The Electronic Money Regulations 2017
FCA Handbook, Dispute Resolutions (DISP) Sourcebook
The payment services and e-money regulatory regime implemented the Payment Services Regulations 2017 and the Electronic Money Regulations 2017, both of which are closely interlinked. The Minted App Ltd will be obligated to follow both Regulations given that we are carrying on payment services in addition to issuing e-money, and we will therefore need to be familiar with both.
The relevant regulations are explained in further detail below:
The Payment Services Regulations 2017 came into force on 13th August 2017 and replace the Payment Services Regulations 2009. The Regulations implement in the UK the requirements of the European Union’s Directive (EU) 2015/2366 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2015 on payment services in the internal market, amending Directives 2002/65/EC, 2009/110/EC and 2013/36/EU and Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010, and repealing Directive 2007/64/EC (“PSD2”).
PSD2 replaces the first Payment Services Directive and updates the regulatory regime to reflect changes in the market and remove barriers to market entry. PSD2’s aims include:
contributing to a more integrated and efficient European payments market
levelling the playing field for Payment Service Providers (PSPs)
promoting the development and use of innovative online and mobile payments
making payments safer and more secure
encouraging lower prices for payments
The Payment Services Regulations 2017 (“PSRs”) and parts of the FCA Handbook implement PSD2 in the UK. The PSRs make the following changes to the regulatory regime:
Amend the authorisation and prudential regime for PSPs and e-money issuers that are not banks or building societies. Such businesses are known as Authorised Payment Institutions (Authorised PIs) and Authorised E-Money Institutions (authorised EMIs).
Continue to allow PSPs and e-money issuers operating beneath certain thresholds to be registered instead of obtaining authorisation (i.e. Small Electronic E-Money Institutions (“SEMIs”).
Continue to exempt certain PSPs (e.g. banks) from PSD2 authorisation and registration requirements.
Apply requirements to PIs regarding changes in qualifying holdings.
Make changes to the appointment of agents.
Make changes to the conduct of business requirements.
Make changes to the requirements regarding safeguarding.
Make changes to the rules governing the access to payment account services that credit institutions provide to other PSPs. The rules state that access should be proportionate, objective and non-discriminatory (“POND”).
Introduce two new payment services and set out requirements and rights around when and how payment accounts can be accessed
Make changes to the rules governing access to payment systems, in line with the POND rules.
The Electronic Money Regulations 2017 (“EMRs”) were originally transposed into UK law in April 2011. The PSRs 2017 contain some consequential amendments to the EMRs and, hence, the regulations were amended and came into force in December 2017.
The EMRs set out the following:
The definition of e-money and the persons that must be authorised or registered under the EMRs when they issue e-money
Standards that must be met by EMIs for authorisation or registration to be granted
Capital requirements and safeguarding requirements for EMIs
Rules on issuing and redeeming e-money for all e-money issuers
The powers and functions of the FCA in relation to supervision and enforcement in this area
The Financial Conduct Authority (“FCA”) is the financial regulatory body in the UK, and operates independently of the UK government. The FCA authorises and regulates financial firms to operate in the UK, providing services to consumers, and maintains the integrity of the financial markets in the UK. The FCA has the authority to regulate conduct relating to the marketing of financial products; specify minimum standards and therefore place requirements on products; investigate organisations and individuals; instruct firms to retract/modify promotions; freeze assets of individuals and/or organisations; and, conduct supervision of organisations to ensure that customers are treated fairly.
As part of the FCAs activities, it has also published the FCA Handbook which contains the complete record of FCA Legal Instruments and presents changes made in a single, consolidated view.
As part of the updates of the PSRs and EMRs, the Handbook sets out:
The requirements for certain PSPs, including e-money issuers, to submit returns and certain notifications
Complaints handling procedures that PSPs and e-money issuers must have in place
The right of certain customers to complain to the Financial Ombudsman Service
FCA policy and procedures for taking decisions relating to enforcement action and when setting penalties
Levies for the Financial Ombudsman Service and the Money Advice Service
With regards to this policy document, the relevant section of the FCA Handbook is the Dispute Resolutions: Complaints (DISP) Sourcebook which sets out the following:
How complaints are to be dealt with by firms and the Financial Ombudsman Service
Coordinate rules and legislative provisions to ensure that they are identical, where possible
Rules and guidance on how firms should deal with complaints promptly and fairly, including complaints referred to the Financial Ombudsman Service
How the Financial Ombudsman Service should consider unresolved complaints, and the procedures for consideration and determination of complaints
The Minted App Ltd is required to treat all of our customers fairly through our Regulation and Authorisation with the Financial Conduct Authority (“FCA”). However, this is a minimum standard, and our aim is to go above and beyond them.
The FCA Handbook makes is explicit that customers must be treated fairly under the Principles (PRIN) Sourcebook. Principle 6, specifically, states that:
“A firm must pay due regard to the interests of its customers and treat them fairly”
In our view, treating customers fairly is a mixture of things:
Customers should be confident that in dealing with The Minted App Ltd, they are dealing with a Company where fair treatment of its customers is central to our Corporate Culture
The products and services marketed and sold by the Company are designed to meet the needs and requirements of our identified target customers, and targeted accordingly
Customers should be provided with clear information, and be kept appropriately information before, during and after the customer’s relationship with the Company
Where customers receive advice, that advice must be suitable and should take into account their requirements and circumstances
Customers are provided with products that perform as we have led them to expect, and the associated service is of an acceptable standard, as they have been led to expect
Customers will not face unreasonable barriers imposed by us to change product, submit a claim or make a complaint
In it’s infancy, The Minted App Ltd believes that obtaining customer feedback is central to our strive to provide customers with the service that they expect, and assist in identification of areas where we are treating our customers fairly, and where improvements may be required. It is important to note that customers who may be satisfied may not necessarily be being treated fairly.
The process of obtaining customer feedback may be undertaken through sampled survey on an ongoing basis; through creating customer forums where they are able to discuss with us what they believe we are doing correct, or indeed incorrectly; or through directly approaching disgruntled or unhappy customers for their opinions and/or reasons for their complaints.
The questions that we ask customers will be considered to establish areas where we may be lacking in customer service or potentially not treating them fairly, and will ask to assist in the identification of these areas.
Whilst all complaints from all of our customers will be reviewed and responded to throughout our normal course of business, according to the FCA there are certain criteria which need to be met by the complainant and complaint to be considered ‘eligible’ under the FCA rules and potentially escalated to the Financial Ombudsman Service (“FOS”).
The FOS is the UK’s official expert in resolving issues and disputes related to financial services provided by banks, building societies, payment service institutions and insurance companies, to name but a few. It was set up by Parliament and given statutory powers under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 to provide an unbiased and impartial answers about the issues raised, taking into consideration as to what it believes is fair and reasonable in the particular circumstances of each case. Overall, the FOS has the authority to request or require a company to offer financial compensation or offer an apology as a means of dispute resolution.
As per DISP 2.7 – Is the complainant eligible?, an eligible complainant (i.e. one that can be referred to the FOS) must be either:
A micro-enterprise which employs less than 10 people, and has an annual turnover of below €2m
A charity which has an annual income of less than £6.5m
A trustee of a trust which has a net asset value of less than £5m
A small business which has an annual turnover of less than £6.5m, and employees less than 50 people, and has a balance sheet of less than £5m
They have been identified as a Politically Exposed Person (“PEP”), a family member of a PEP or a known close associate of a PEP and their complaint is that such identification is incorrect; or, their complaint relates to an act or omission by the company in consequence of such identification.
Whilst steps can be taken to verify whether a complainant is eligible (i.e. through verifying shareholding or reviewing audited accounts and/or VAT returns), as a matter of course The Minted App Ltd will treat all complaints, regardless of the type of complainant, as if they were eligible complainants. This is to ensure that, across our entire customer spectrum, all complaints are dealt with at the absolute minimum standards as required by our regulator, the FCA.
For a complaint to be eligible under the FCA rules, and therefore subject to review by the FOS, there are certain criteria which need to be met, as the below list will outline.
With that being said however, and for the avoidance of doubt, as per Section 5.1 Eligible Complainants and as a matter of course, The Minted App Ltd will treat all complaints, regardless of the type of complaint, as if they were eligible complaints.
The complainant is (or was) a customer, payment service user or electronic money holder of the company
The complainant is (or was) a potential customer, payment service user or electronic money holder of the company
the complainant is (or was) a payer in a payment transaction in relation to which the company is (or was) the payee’s payment service provider
the complainant is a person that has transferred funds as a result of an alleged authorised push payment fraud and both:
the company is (or was) involved in the transfer of the funds; and,
ii) the complaint is not a Payment Services Directive complaint
the complainant is a beneficiary under a trust or estate of which the respondent is trustee or personal representative;
The rules for handling eligible complaints from eligible complainants differ depending on whether the complaint is a Payment Services or Electronic Money complaint, or not.
Generally, and as per the business activities of The Minted App Ltd, all eligible complaints will fall under the remit of the Electronic Money Regulations 2011, derived from the EU Electronic Money Directive (“EMD”). However, the rules for handling complaints from non-eligible complainants are set out in Regulation 101 of the Payment Services Regulations 2017, derived from the EU Payment Services Directive (“PSD”).
The following decision tree will assist in the identification as to the process of complaint handling, depending on the circumstances of the complaint received:
As you can see from the decision tree, where a complaint is a non-EMD complaint from a non-eligible complainant, neither DISP nor the PSRs will apply. Therefore, the company will have no regulatory obligations for dealing with the complaint. However, and as previously stated, The Minted App Ltd will treat all complaints, regardless of the type of complainant / complaint, as if they were eligible complainants / complaints. This is in line with the stricter DISP / PSD complaint handling rules, rather than having two sets of procedures which may cause confusion for staff and customers, thereby providing a more standardised and higher quality approach to dispute resolution.
As part of our obligations for complaint handling, we must ensure that effective and transparent procedures for the reasonable and prompt handling of complaints are established. In that regard, clients are able to raise complaints via the following methods which includes, but is not limited to:
Over the telephone at 08000662571
Over email at [email protected]
On our website via the online web-form at www.savingsmint.com
Via letter to: 13 Washwood Heath Road, Birmingham, B8 1SH
Any other reasonable format (i.e. in person, if appropriate)
On all occasions, it would be preferable that complaints are received in a written format to ensure an appropriate, accessible and chronological audit trail, however complaints will not be disregarded or discounted should they be received verbally.
Upon receiving a complaint, the complaint will be assigned a unique reference number, which is the next consecutive number assigned as per the complaints recording log. Within this log, the following information will be captured:
Unique reference number
Client account reference number
Complaint received date
Category of complaint and to what it refers (or most appropriate category if the complaint falls into more than one)
The deadline for response to the complaint
The complaint actual response date
Total number of working days that the complaint was closed within
Whether the complaint was upheld, or not upheld/rejected
Any remedial activities performed, and the value of any redress (i.e. compensation, with amounts)
A summary of the complaint
Whether the complaint relates to alleged authorised push payment fraud
This relevant information pertaining to the relevant complaint will be kept for a minimum of three years. For further information, see Section 6.6.
Additionally, each complaint will be assigned its own file on our internal systems and all correspondence pertaining to that complaint will be recorded in this folder in an accessible format. It is recommended that documentation is recorded in PDF format, where possible.
The recording of complaints received, and complainants, is vital to ensure that, where relevant, adequate training and feedback can be provided to employees to ensure that lessons learned are effectively applied in future, and to ensure that appropriate management controls and steps are taken to ensure that, in handling complaints, any systemic issues and/or root causes are identified. Further information can be found at Section 6.6.
The complainant will be contacted to acknowledge that their complaint has been received, and will be responded to as soon as practicable – which will provide confirmation of their unique reference number, by which date a response will be received by, and to provide reassurance that the complaint is currently being investigated – in writing. The complainant must also be kept up-to-date and informed of the progress as to their complaint and any resolution.
Upon receiving a complaint, The Minted App must:
Investigate the complaint competently, diligently and impartially, obtaining additional information as necessary. Should this additional information be required to be obtained from separate areas of the business, or through the access of separate systems, the Complaint Handler must not be restricted in their access to this information.
Assess fairly, consistently and promptly:
the subject matter of the complaint, and the reason for the original complaint;
whether the complaint should be upheld, taking into account what is considered to be fair and reasonable;
what remedial action or redress (or both) may be appropriate;
if appropriate, whether The Minted App has reasonable grounds to be satisfied that another entity may be solely or jointly responsible for the matter alleged in the complaint;
And taking into account all relevant factors, The Minted App must;
Offer redress or remedial action when it decides this is appropriate, whether that be, for example: financial compensation, reasonable service enhancements in the client’s future relationship with us or to correct an issue so that the client is in a position that would have been the case prior to the raising of the complaint;
Explain to the complainant promptly and, in a way that is fair, clear and not misleading, its assessment of the complaint, its decision on it, and any offer of remedial action or redress; and,
Comply promptly with any offer of remedial action or redress accepted by the complainant (i.e. payment of financial compensation)
Upon conclusion of the complaint – be that either by providing the complainant with mutually appropriate remedial actions and/or redress, whether the complaint has been accepted or not; or, where the complaint is rejected with sufficient reasons for doing so – a final response must be provided to the complainant.
This final response must include the following:
A clear confirmation of whether the complaint is upheld or rejected (along with the appropriate redress, if deemed appropriate), with clear reasons outlining why this decision has been taken
A copy of the Financial Ombudsman Service’s standard explanatory leaflet must be included in the response, which also provides the website address of the Financial Ombudsman Service; and,
Confirmation that, if the complainant remains dissatisfied with our response, he may now refer his complaint to the Financial Ombudsman Service.
Refer to Section 7 regarding the appropriate wording to be included as part of our final response to the complainant.
Where a complaint is an EMD/PSD complaint (see Section 5 and the decision tree to determine whether this is the case), The Minted App must ensure that a final response is sent to the complainant within 15 business days after the day on which the complaint was initially received1.
Where a complaint is not an EMD/PSD complaint, or the complainant is not an eligible complainant, The Minted App must ensure that a final response is sent to the complainant within eight weeks after the day on which the complaint was initially received.
A complaint is resolved where the complainant has indicated acceptance of a response from the company. This acceptance is required to be provided in writing. Where the complainant does not accept the final response issued by The Minted App, refer to Section 7 of this document which details the process of referring the clients complaint to the Financial Ombudsman Service.
For the avoidance of doubt, and to ensure streamlining and simplicity within the complaint handling process within The Minted App, all complaints will be aimed to be responded to within 15 working days, as if they were EMD/PSD complaints.
On certain occasions, there may be instances where a complaint will not need to follow the time limit rules as outlined by the FCA, and nor the requirements outlined above – this is the case where The Minted App resolves the complaint with the complainant within three business days of having received the complaint.
On these occasions, the complaint and acceptance from the complainant is not required to be in writing. For example, where the complaint is dealt with over the telephone. However, further to resolution of the complaint, written correspondence must be sent to the complainant outlining the following:
Confirms that a complaint has been made, and informs the complainant that we now consider the complaint to be resolved;
Informs the complainant that if they subsequently decide that they are dissatisfied with the resolution of the complaint, they may be able to refer it to the Financial Ombudsman Service; and,
Provides the website of – and clarification that further information is available on this website – the Financial Ombudsman Service
On occasion and upon receiving a complaint, The Minted App may have sufficient and reasonable grounds to consider that the complaint, or part of a complaint, may be as a result of services provided by a third-party entity (for example, a banking or payment service provider) and that they may be solely or jointly responsible for the causes of the complaint. In these instances, complaints may be forwarded to that third party entity for their response, at which point, they will become bound by the taking, handing and time limits of dealing with complaints requirements as outlined in this document.
The following must be adhered by, however, to ensure that we remain compliant with our obligations surrounding complaints:
The complaint must be forwarded to the third party entity promptly, and as soon as is practicable;
If the third party entity is solely responsible, the complainant must be advised promptly, and as soon as practicable, in a final response of the reasons for why the complaint has been forwarded to another third party which must include the third party entity’s contact details; and,
If the third party is partly and jointly responsible with The Minted App:
the complainant must be advised promptly, and as soon as practicable, in a final response of the reasons for why the complaint has partly been forwarded to another third party which must include the third party entity’s contact details; and,
The Minted App must comply with its own obligations outlined in this document, and as per our regulation with the FCA, in respect of the part of the complaint that has not been forwarded to a third party entity.
Similar to situations where we may forward a complaint to another entity for resolution, there may be occasions where a separate entity considers that we are solely or jointly responsible for a complaint received by them.
Where such a complaint is received, the complaint is considered under regulation by the FCA to have been made directly to The Minted App and, as such, the complaint should be treated under the same guidelines outlined in this document. The date of receiving the complaint will be considered to be the date that we received it from the separate entity, and the relevant time limits for response will apply from that date.
There may be occasions where we may reject a complaint, without considering its merits, given that the period of time that has elapsed since the complained about issue occurred is excessive and is therefore outside of the remit of the Financial Ombudsman Service’s obligations under the DISP obligations placed upon it by the FCA.
These time limits are as follows:
More than six months have elapsed after the date on which we provided our final response to the complainant, and the correct terminology has been used as part of that response (see Section 7).
More than six years have elapsed after the event has complained of has occurred.
More than three years have elapsed since the complainant became aware, or ought reasonably to have become aware, that they had cause for complaint.
A final response must be sent to the complainant outlining the reasons that the complaint has been rejected without considering its merits. This final response must be in written format as per the obligations under our regulation and as outlined in this document. See Sections 6.2.1 and 7 for further information.
It is important to note that the above does not apply, and there is therefore no time barring exclusion, where the complainant has previously received written or other reasonable correspondence from either The Minted App or the Financial Ombudsman Service that a complaint has been received. Additionally, there may be exceptional circumstances where the complainant was unable to raise their complaint (i.e. due to their incapacitation).
Furthermore, there is an allowance that states that where the complaint is time barred as per the above, The Minted App may willingly and optionally consent to considering the complaint, or by allowing the Financial Ombudsman Service to consider it. As a matter of course, The Minted App will not provide this consent, unless it is adjudged that it is in the best interests of both the company, and in consideration of ensuring that customers are treated fairly, to provide this consent. The Head of Compliance must be contacted, and their approval obtained, in advance of providing this consent.
The Minted App will keep a record of each complaint received and the measures taken for its resolution – with the information in line with and including that outlined in Section 6.1 – for a minimum of three years from the date of which that the complaint was received.
The recording of complaints received, and complainants, is vital to ensure that, where relevant, adequate training and feedback can be provided to employees to ensure that lessons learned are effectively applied in future, and to ensure that appropriate management controls and steps are taken to ensure that, in handling complaints, any systemic issues and/or root causes are identified.
Where a complaint is referred to the Financial Ombudsman Service (“FOS”), we are obligated both naturally and as part of our regulation with the FCA to cooperate with them in providing any information that they require in order to discharge their duties, and also to comply with any settlements and / or awards made by it.
There may be occasions where the complainant raises a complaint directly with the FOS without having received a final response from, or even having liaised previously with, The Minted App. In these instances, the FOS will notify The Minted App of having received a complaint, and this complaint will need to be dealt with as per the time scales outlined in Section 6.3 of this document, with a final response being provided to the complainant before the FOS will consider looking into it.
Where a response has not been provided to a complainant within the required timeframes (see Section 6.3 – 15 working days for a final response, or 35 working days for a holding response), the complainant may refer directly to the FOS in the absence of any final response.
Where a final response has been provided to a complaint, and it has subsequently been referred to the FOS, they will initially make contact with the relevant firm (i.e. The Minted App) and request certain information in order to fully understand the complaint, and whether the final response provided by The Minted App mitigates or provides a valid rationale with regards to the complaint. This information may include, but is not limited to, the following:
All correspondence between The Minted App and the complainant, including written (post and electronic), telephone calls or visit logs
Any details of redress suggested and/or already made as part of the complaint
Documentation related to the complaint (i.e. Account Statements)
Documentation related to the final response (i.e. Account Screenshots)
Any other documentation that may be necessary to fully understand the complaint raised
As per the obligations outlined in this document, where The Minted App submit a final response to a complainant regarding a complaint that they have raised, there are certain stipulations that must be followed.
As such, it is recommended that the following wording is used as part of any final response made as part of complaints which are not upheld and/or rejected:
As a result of the above, we would like to inform you that on this occasion, we unfortunately cannot uphold your complaint and can confirm that this is our final response.
We understand that the above may not be what you were hoping to hear. If you are not satisfied with our final response, you can refer the matter to the Financial Ombudsman Service which provides an independent review service for unresolved complaints. They can be contacted in the following ways:
Write: Financial Ombudsman Service, Exchange Tower, Harbour Exchange, London, E14 9SR
Telephone: 0800 023 4567
Email: [email protected]
You have the right to refer your complaint to the Financial Ombudsman Service, free of charge – but you must do so within six months of the date of this letter.
If you do not refer your complaint in time, the Ombudsman will not have our permission to consider your complaint and so will only be able to do so in very limited circumstances. For example, if the Ombudsman believes that the delay was as a result of exceptional circumstances.
Note: A copy of the Financial Ombudsman Service’s standard explanatory leaflet must be included in the response, which also provides the website address of the Financial Ombudsman Service.
Having reviewed your complaint, I would like to advise you that on this occasion, we are unable to consider it given that we believe that the complaint is ‘time barred’.
You have the right to refer your complaint to the Financial Ombudsman Service, free of charge. They can be contacted in the following ways:
Write: Financial Ombudsman Service, Exchange Tower, Harbour Exchange, London, E14 9SR
Telephone: 0800 023 4567
Email: [email protected]
The Ombudsman might not be able to consider your complaint if:
what you’re complaining about happened more than six years ago, and
you’re complaining more than three years after you realised (or should have realised) that there was a problem.
We think that your complaint was made outside of these time limits but this is a matter for the Ombudsman to decide. If the Ombudsman agrees with us, they will not have our permission to consider your complaint and so will only be able to do so in very limited circumstances (see below).
If you do decide to refer your complaint to the Ombudsman you must do so within six months of the date of this letter.
If you do not refer your complaint to the Ombudsman within six months of the date of this letter, the Ombudsman will not have our permission to consider your complaint and so will only be able to do so in very limited circumstances.
The very limited circumstances referred to above include, where the Ombudsman believes that the delay was as a result of exceptional circumstances.
As part of our obligations under regulation by the FCA and compliance with the DISP sourcebook, The Minted App are required to report all complaints received by them to the FCA at least once a year. This will be reported to through the Gabriel on an annual basis. As at the date of this document, the current format for reporting is as follows, which can be found in the DISP 1 Sourcebook Annex 1AD given that it is subject to change:
It is important to note that there is no distinction between eligible / ineligible complaints and complainants within this reporting data requirement, hence the distinction made in section 5 which confirms that, as a matter of course, The Minted App will treat all complaints / complainants, regardless of the type of complaint, as if they were eligible complaints / complainants. This is to ensure that, across our entire customer spectrum, all complaints are dealt with at the absolute minimum standards as required by our regulator, the FCA, and to ensure streamlined processes at the time of reporting to the FCA.
Complaints that have been forwarded to a third party entity in their entirety (as per Section 6.4.1(2)) are not required to be included as part of these reporting statistics. Complaints that have been forwarded in part to a third party entity (as per Section 6.4.1(3)) are required to be included in these statistics.
1 Where there are exceptional circumstances (i.e. critical system failure) and a response cannot be provided within the required 15 business days, there is scope to send a ‘holding response’ to the complainant within the 15 business days clearly indicating the reasons for the delay, which specifies a deadline for a response which must be within 35 business days from the date of which the complaint was initially received.