Where complaint handling is strong, and where it is not

Scorecard average 2.8 out of 5

• Acknowledgement13 of 15 acknowledged promptly and said what happens next.
• Investigation depthIn 9 of 15 cases the notes show no check of the customer’s own account of events.
• Reply clarityReplies are polite but 6 of 15 leave one of the customer’s points unanswered.
• Timeliness4 of 15 passed the firm’s own target; no holding reply was sent in any of them.
• Root cause recordedOnly 2 of 15 records say why it happened. Nothing links cases together.
• Fair outcomeRedress offered was consistent for similar cases.

Top five improvements, in priority order

1. Record a root cause on every closed caseWithout it, repeat problems cannot be seen. Cost: one extra field.Evidence: Only 2 of 15 records give a cause. · Effort: Low · Suggested owner: Complaints lead
2. Answer every point the customer raisedUnanswered points are the commonest reason a customer writes back.Evidence: 6 of 15 replies skipped a point. A checklist before sending fixes most of this. · Effort: Low · Suggested owner: All handlers
3. Send a holding reply when a case will run lateA short update stops silence turning into a second complaint.Evidence: 4 cases passed target; none had a holding reply. · Effort: Low · Suggested owner: Complaints lead
4. Check the customer’s account before decidingDecisions made on the firm’s records alone look one-sided and are easier to challenge.Evidence: 9 of 15 investigations show no such check. · Effort: Medium · Suggested owner: Team managers
5. Review the complaints letter templatesSeveral replies repeat the same stock paragraph even where it does not fit.Evidence: The same paragraph appears in 7 of 15 replies. · Effort: Medium · Suggested owner: Compliance / operations

What I would not conclude from 15 cases

A sample this size shows patterns worth acting on. It does not prove how often each problem happens across the whole firm, and it is not a legal or regulatory opinion.