Complaints are on the rise - here’s how to handle them
Ombudsman Susan Taylor says there’s been a deluge of complaints recently, and many could have been resolved quicker with better handling.
Tuesday, November 18th 2025, 6:10PM
10 Comments
by Ksenia Stepanova
Financial Services Complaints CEO and financial ombudsman Susan Taylor told the Financial Markets & Credit Law conference that she's "absolutely deluged" with cases against non-bank lenders, financial advisers, and fund managers.
Her service received 1,500 complaints last year - a 3% increase on last year, and double the number from five years ago.
Complaints have picked up further since June 2025. Taylor says there has been an "absolute flood" arriving daily, with no single product or provider dominating. The complaints spread across the entire financial sector.
She says a lot of this is down to ongoing economic pressures - but also, hopefully, a growing awareness of resolution services.
Complaint numbers and categories
Non-bank lenders received 38% of all complaints, though only 73 became formal disputes. Card providers like American Express and Wise ranked second, followed by payment services. Financial advisers received the fewest initial complaints.
However, of the 366 complaints that became disputes, financial advisers topped the list for the first time in 15 years.
Insurance advisers faced three main issues: inappropriate advice, lack of help at claim time, and poor communication between adviser, provider and client. The latter was prevalent across all areas of the industry, not just insurance advice.
Key steps to resolving complaints
Anything from defensiveness to lack of communication, or lack of follow-up can escalate a complaint further than it needs to go.
One issue is that most clients don't know where to complain. Taylor said that less than one-third of clients find Financial Services Complaints through their provider - the rest used Google, heard from friends, or learned from other providers.
"There is work to be done by the industry in improving that accessibility for clients, so that they know where to go," Taylor notes.
Another step is to actually use the word ‘complaint.’ Taylor says that she often sees the more neutral term “feedback”, but the process needs to be upfront, and able to be found within a few clicks.
Acknowledge complaints in a timely manner and follow them up. Poor communication is the root of many of the complaints seen by Taylor, and brushing it off or failing to understand it can easily make the situation worse.
“It’s also really important to show empathy,” Taylor says.
“Many of the complaints that come to us - when our staff read the response that they’ve had from an adviser or provider, it’s written in a very defensive or sometimes accusatory style. Obviously, that only inflames the situation and makes the client want to escalate the complaint to us.”
Then, apologise. That doesn’t have to mean you’re accepting liability, but a simple phrase like “I’m sorry that my service fell below your expectations on this occasion” can work well for de-escalation.
Ask questions, and find a swift solution. This shows you’re interested and are taking the complaint seriously.
Finally, follow up. That’s important from a risk and reputation point of view, as dropping communication too early can lead to the client escalating.
“If you’ve given the client your response and you don’t hear from them, don’t necessarily assume that they’re happy,” Taylor says.
“If you haven’t heard from them in two weeks, it’s a good idea to send a follow-up email or get them on the phone, just to make sure that they are happy with the response you sent.”
Broader trends in the complaints space
AI has left nothing untouched, and has also entered this area - both for better and for worse, according to Taylor.
She notes that there’s an increasing number of people using AI to make complaints, and also to write the submissions during the complaints process.
Taylor was recently at an international conference, where she heard from the industry this is becoming a wider-scale issue.
“Possibly, people who previously didn’t feel confident in writing a lengthy email or letter can now get AI to write the complaint for them,” she explains.
“Worse for us is that when we’re investigating, we sometimes get 100+ pages of AI-generated submissions. As you can imagine, that’s hugely time consuming for our case managers who have to use AI themselves to try and summarise it!
“And they contain hallucinations. Quite where that’s going to go I don’t know, but it doesn’t help when we’re already at historically high levels of complaints.”
As complaints are on the rise, so is challenging conduct. Taylor says there has been a real increase in that, and so it’s more important than ever to make sure your team is well trained and supported.
“I hope this isn’t going to become an increasing trend,” she said. “But looking ahead, unfortunately, I think we are going to see this high level of complaints continue.”
| « Banks’ profit on everyday accounts to come under scrutiny | Fin Advice NZ backs retirement report » |
Special Offers
Comments from our readers
Conversely, an adviser or a FAP, can respond in the same manner, utilising Ai to help construct a response and implementing a process that can help protect.
Heck, we're seeing it in appraisals of staff - they are suing Ai to help write their 1/2 or EOY comments.
Susan Taylor is the CEO of Financial Services Complaints Limited (FSCL) a dispute resolution scheme which after a protracted court battle has now been allowed to use the term ombudsman in its name.
FSCL’s website is now stating that they are “a financial ombudsman service” Susan Taylor in addition to being their CEO is also calling herself Financial Ombudsman. Just felt it was important to highlight the above when this article is all about people making instant judgements about others.
You've obviously got FSCLDS (analogous to TDS).
in 2022 after a long battle against the Chief ombudsman, the Court of Appeal {2022} NZCA 248 declared "that FSCL is entitled to the Chief Ombudsman's consent to use the ombudsman name in connection with its dispute resolution service.
So Suasn Taylor is perfectly entitled to be called ombudsman, and the use of the adjectival financial is to show she is not the Parliamentary ombudsman.
Let's us always play the game fairly.
FSCL's advice is good but what it has missed is the point that early resolution is the key and this needs a good process and some skills.
This requires advisers to include a complaints process in their risk mitigation plans.
All DRS provide complaint guides - or used to do so. We can also help at Complaints.org.nz.
Respectfully there is no confusion with the public. One is a for-profit commercial business and the other is a government body created by an Act of Parliament.FSCL were just looking to cash in on the name ombudsman because their DRS scheme was not perceived by advisers (and consumers) as been as prestigious as the Insurance & Financial Services Ombudsman Scheme (IFSO)
FSCL claimed in court that some consumers were wary of them because they didn’t have the ombudsman name yet there is nowhere in the rules of FSCL that says that part of what they do should be to get the name ombudsman. It is not a part of their role; their role is simply to resolve complaints.
I struggle to see why the name needed to be changed at all, and why FSCL members financed the legal battle fought with members never having being consulted about this. Susan Taylor at the time simply said that members were not consulted saying “It’s not up to our members, it is a board decision”.
DRS schemes are supposed to be “not-for-profit “organisations but clearly the above was done for monetary reasons. Yes, let’s play the game fairly in terms of transparency.
If you had taken the time to check, you would not have suggested FSCL is a for profit.
The company has one shareholder, who is the Chair of the Board for the time being.
The Company is not permitted to pay a dividend except on winding up. So there should be no suggestion of undue enrichment for shareholders.
And there is no different incentive for managers to boost their pay packets than there is in the case of the Banking and Insurance Ombudsmen.
Government in its infinite wisdom decided that there could be multiple DRS under FAA and FMCA.
The company spent its own money in pursuing Ombudsman status. Nobody forces any adviser to join FSCL.
So what's driving your "beef"?
PS when I was registered my DRS was FSCL but I have not been a member of any DRS since I voluntarily deregistered and escaped the overburden of regulation facing advisers.
Curious that a “not for profit” organisation like FSCL pursued use of the term “ombudsman” in its name so zealously. FSCL said at the time that it’s continued efforts to use the title of Ombudsman were to do with “improving consumers’ access to justice.” Can we please drop the pretext that this was ever about the consumer.
Murray, I don’t have a “beef” with FSCL but what I do have an issue with is the language been used over the years to describe the number of complaints against financial advisers. Just have a look at all the old Good Returns articles showing online. Phrases like "absolutely deluged" & "absolute flood" are not an accurate description of the number complaints that DRS schemes currently receive against financial advisers. This is just untrue sorry and simply not borne out by FSCL’s own reporting stats which it publishes annually.
The total number of complaints (not inclusive to those received against financial advisers) that FSCL decided to investigate in 2023-2024 was 364 cases. In this latest reporting year 2024-2025 this increased by 2 to 366 cases. Hardly an avalanche.
I would actually argue Murray that having to belong to a DRS is one of the few positive things to come out of the regulatory requirements now placed on all advisers, I would just prefer that FSCL didn’t overstate the type of complaints they are actually receiving in respect to the adviser community. I’m sure I’m not the only adviser who doesn’t appreciate our industry been constantly “rundown” when most complaints to DRS schemes are clearly directed towards providers i.e. lenders and finance companies not financial advisers.
Each one - FSCL, Banking Ombudsman and Insurance and Financial Services Ombudsman are all NOT FOR PROFIT. FDRS which is part of the Fairway Group is technically for profit.
Each scheme is created under the same legislation.
The Banking Ombudsman and the Insurance and Financial Services Ombudsman (formerly the Insurance and Savings Ombudsman) were created before the new financial services legislation of 2008 and were voluntary schemes. FSCL was the first DRS approved under the new 2008 legislation and Fairway was given the contract to run the Reserve Scheme (for FSPs who didn't nominate a DRS.
The Reserve Scheme became FDRS some years later.
Murray is correct the Government at that time thought it would be good to create multiple schemes. The original idea was based on a belief that industry associations (eg PAA, IBANZ etc) would create their own DRS. However, it was clear the legislative requirements were too onerous for them to do so.
There were discussion in the press some many months ago of FSCL and IFSO joining forces to create one non-bank DRS thus making it more accessible for consumers.
With hindsight creating one DRS may have been better. However, this would have likely been a Government run body and nobody wanted that at the time.
Thanks very much for that insider knowledge, Trevor. Good to know all this history.
Respectfully I don’t buy the line that FSCL and IFSO merging would make one single DRS more accessible for consumers now. This is another thing that Susan Taylor from FSCL has repeatedly tried to tar the industry with i.e. that financial advisers are not making their clients aware of them been able to complain to a DRS.
Frankly, I think a lot of advisers that have elected to leave FSCL and go join either IFSO or FDRS have been resentful of her comments. If advisers are required to belong to a DRS (which I 100 percent support) most of us don’t really fancy paying money to an organisation that’s making disparaging remarks about our industry.
If FSCL can prove to us categorically that consumers are not being made aware of DRS schemes by financial advisers on a regular basis then they should front up, otherwise the very small number of complaints been received annually against financial advisers can only be a good thing for NZ consumers and proof that regulation has (mostly) benefited people when they need to access financial advice.
Sign In to add your comment
| Printable version | Email to a friend |


Not only was it an absolute joke of a document that was actually funny to read, it was extraordinarily difficult to write a serious response to it because it:
- cited irrelevant legislation (example it went on a lengthy tirade about how "declining" a claim that had not yet been lodged, the client had been "discriminated against" - a breach of the Human Rights Act (LOL)
- cited legislation that doesn't exist and has been repealed/replaced
- accused me of being responsible for insurance-provider decisions regarding a claim
- referenced events that never happened
If clients are going to use AI to write complaints then this is what we're going to see. Because it's crap.