You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘Grievance Redressal’ tag.

> Posted by Jeffrey Riecke, Senior Specialist, CFI

Last week, Mick Mulvaney, interim director of the U.S. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) said in reference to the CFPB’s consumer complaints database, “I don’t see anything in [the Dodd-Frank Act] that says I have to run a Yelp for financial services sponsored by the federal government. I don’t see anything in here that says that I have to make all of those [complaints] public.”

Mulvaney’s comments refer to the complaints database CFPB has been running for several years, which allows anyone to view, sort, and filter complaints submitted by customers regarding their treatment by their financial service provider. Since the database was created, roughly 1.5 million complaints have been logged. This database has functioned as a tremendous resource for prospective customers who want to check out financial institutions, for analysts of consumer risks in the U.S. financial system, and for financial institutions who want to see how they stack up against others. Its publication may also induce financial service providers to be more vigilant in avoiding bad practices and handling customer complaints well.

Read the rest of this entry »

> Posted by Deepak Saxena, George Cheriyan and Amol Kulkarni, CUTS International, India

The Consumer Care Center managed by CUTS International in Jaipur, Rajasthan

When a business makes a mistake, does that influence your decision to keep using its product or service? How about if that mistake costs you money and you can’t get the business to correct the mistake?

To date, the importance of efficient and effective grievance redress as a building block for consumer trust has unfortunately remained understated. Across sectors, focus remains predominantly on enabling access to goods and services, with limited thought on post-sale customer engagement and grievance redressal.

This holds true for the financial inclusion sector as well. The success of financial inclusion efforts have mostly been calculated in terms of number of accounts opened or the amount of credit disbursed. Limited thinking goes into putting in place timely and effective recourse processes capable of dealing with fraud and related consumer protection issues. In many countries, state capacity in managing consumer grievances has also remained limited. This is a huge missed opportunity. In the inclusive finance sector, more than in many other industries, establishing trust among first-time users of services is essential.

Consumer Care Centers in India

Read the rest of this entry »

> Posted by MFIN

In 2013, the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) announced a significant policy move in the form of Self Regulatory Organization (SRO) guidelines for the microfinance industry. An SRO is an organization that has been authorized by a regulator to exercise control and regulation on its behalf over certain aspects of an industry. In the case of Indian microfinance, an SRO supports the RBI in ensuring compliance with statutory regulations and the Industry Code of Conduct, while also taking up research, training, data analytics, and capacity building of the sector. The SRO architecture has dramatically altered the landscape of the Indian industry, providing stability to the industry, with more robust market discipline and customer protection.

MFIN, whose membership consists of 52 NBFC-MFIs which account for over 90 percent of India’s microfinance business, was recognized as an SRO by the RBI in June, 2014. Since then, MFIN has worked towards putting in place an effective SRO framework, with borrower protection as the focal point. One of the important obligations of the SRO in line with the RBI guidelines is to have an independent redressal mechanism for addressing the grievances of microfinance clients. In order to standardize the grievance redressal mechanism and to ensure a common minimum benchmark, MFIN drew on the existing grievance redressal mechanisms (GRMs) of 45 MFIs and worked in partnership with the Smart Campaign to cull out the good practice from these models. The idea was to put in place a three tier mechanism based on the capacity of the MFI concerned, and the Smart Campaign was asked to work on such a model whose aim was to standardize and ultimately strengthen the practices of the member institutions.

Read the rest of this entry »

> Posted by Micol Pistelli, Social Performance Director, MIX

Customer retention is a key objective for any business, and microfinance institutions (MFIs) are no exception. Whether you are a shareholder, board member, CEO, or head of operations at a microfinance institution, your strategy must rely on retaining most of your clients that still need financial services. But what happens when many of your clients stop using your services? How do you determine whether they left because they no longer need financial services or because they prefer a competitor? How do you know whether they were dissatisfied with your customer service?

Answering these questions can be difficult. Some organizations conduct exit surveys over the phone or in-person through their customer service departments. However, due to the expense and time required to conduct such research, many MFIs are only able to reach a small number of clients, which may not be representative of the whole. Additionally, the quality of the data collected can be lacking due to inaccuracies because clients may not feel comfortable being candid with representatives of the MFI they are leaving.

Of the thousand-plus institutions reporting consumer protection data to MIX, 65 percent of them have set-up complaint mechanisms that offer some form of redress for clients, such as hotlines, call centers, or customer service representatives. However these feedback tools are functional only when clients proactively use them and when MFIs manage to gather data and solve issues in a timely fashion. What often happens is that MFIs are left with questions about their clients’ satisfaction and can only guess at the root causes for their drop-out.

Read the rest of this entry »

> Posted by Joshua Goldstein aka Mr. Provocative

In the seventh Client Protection Principle, the Smart Campaign lays out the way that financial services providers should handle complaints: 1) Effective client feedback mechanisms are in place; 2) Clients are aware of how to submit complaints and do so as needed; and, 3) Complaints are handled promptly and adequately.

Seems easy and straightforward enough. But making this process truly client friendly is truly a daunting challenge. On the “demand side,” poor customers may feel ill-equipped to pose questions to company representatives who come from a different class, caste, or ethnicity. The Smart Campaign’s Client Voice research found as much in both Asian and African markets. It may be psychologically next to impossible—even in the most client friendly institution.

And if the psychological issue is not an obstacle, the technical and procedural challenges may be opaque enough to lead to failure anyway.

Even educated and savvy consumers can get lost in the complex maze of call center options delivered by that hideously cheerful computer voice – you know the one. “Lower touch” often means “no touch.” And even if a well-meaning customer service representative finally answers the phone and tries to help, he or she may be just a cog in a far flung system – unable to get the needed answers.

Read the rest of this entry »

> Posted by Juan Blanco, Associate, Financial Inclusion 2020, CFI

Embed from Getty Images

In the client protection section of the FI2020 Roadmap to Financial Inclusion, a specific recommendation was made for financial providers to embrace consumer protection as part of their professional identity, and applying a “financial consumer bill of rights” was identified as a key action point.

Looking into the state of this industry area for our upcoming FI2020 Progress Report on Financial Inclusion, I came to realize that the subject of consumers’ bills of rights is not as straightforward as it seems. Although the recommendation from the roadmap was aimed specifically at providers, the truth is that this is an area where a diversity of players is getting involved. I found a range of approaches: codes of conduct, codes of ethics, charters of rights, and bills of rights, coming from a wide spread of stakeholders, from MFIs to global associations to governments. At the heart of each of these initiatives was the same objective: for service providers to operate ethically and responsibly.

Read the rest of this entry »

Enter your email

Join 2,369 other followers

Visit the CFI Website

Twitter Updates

Archives

Founding Sponsor


Credit Suisse is a founding sponsor of the Center for Financial Inclusion. The Credit Suisse Group Foundation looks to its philanthropic partners to foster research, innovation and constructive dialogue in order to spread best practices and develop new solutions for financial inclusion.

Note

The views and opinions expressed on this blog, except where otherwise noted, are those of the authors and guest bloggers and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Center for Financial Inclusion or its affiliates.