by Benn Bathgate
That's the view of Financial Disputes Resolution (DRS) chief Stuart Ayres.
"There's a fundamental flaw in it really as we can't measure systematic issues and we can't measure consumer satisfaction - therefore consumer confidence - which is the underpinning thing in all this," he said.
Ayres said he had made a submission to the Ministry of Consumer Affairs (MCA) but has yet to receive a reply.
"I think it's a good idea to have a central clearing area, to what extent they'll [the MCA] do it, put in place a system where they can record and monitor, is to be seen. I'm not sure they want to go that far just yet but I would strongly recommend they do, so we can record systematic issues and gauge customer satisfaction."
Ayres also acknowledged that to work, such a clearing system would require cooperation from the other disputes resolution schemes.
He also said the lack of a complaints culture in New Zealand was reflected in the attitude of companies across the board.
"We don't have a complaints type culture in New Zealand, not just in finance but any organisation, you'll find they will not promote and make customers aware they have a complaints process."
He also argued businesses could actually benefit from a more open and transparent complaints system.
"Put it on your website and all advertising material, promote it to your customers and invite feedback, ultimately this will benefit you, having your customers telling you what you can do better."
Benn Bathgate is a business reporter for ASSET and Good Returns, email story ideas to benn@goodreturns.co.nz
« News Round Up: September 19 | KiwiSaver mismatch a 'huge challenge' for advisers » |
Special Offers
© Copyright 1997-2024 Tarawera Publishing Ltd. All Rights Reserved
The same situation existed in Australia until a central call centre was established. The call centre had a single toll free telephone number widely publicised to consumers. It covered all 10 or so dispute resolution schemes including the Government Superannuation Complaints Service (SCT). It was ‘manned’ so that when a consumer called a person answered the call, asked which financial organisation was involved and then transferred the call to the relevant dispute resolution scheme. It worked very well both from the consumer’s point of view and the dispute resolution scheme’s.
As the operator of the Financial Service Providers Register the Companies Office is in an ideal position to run such a service.
In relation to the challenge of monitoring potential systemic issues (which is part of the role of dispute resolution schemes) this could be overcome, as Stuart suggests, by all the schemes cooperating and sharing information. FSCL would certainly support such a cooperative approach to this issue.