The situation
Customer complaints and the current complaint process in two subsidiaries
Your insurance group has a non-life company in Malmö and a subsidiary in Cluj-Napoca. Complaints rose by a third after a claims-system change, the Swedish complaints log is a spreadsheet, and the Romanian unit answers by phone without recording outcomes. The board risk committee wants a gap note against what each regulator expects, before either regulator asks.
The legislation sets the frame. The detail is in the regulators’ own rules and guidance: who is responsible for complaints, what the written procedure must cover, how quickly to answer, what to record and report, and how customers are told about out-of-court routes. Collecting that for two countries is where the hours go.
What the research has to settle
The rules behind the answer
- Here the regulator material is the substance
- Finansinspektionen and Romania’s ASF have each issued rules on how the firms they supervise handle complaints. azta holds material from both, which is why this summary can go beyond the legislation in these two countries.
- A responsible function and a written procedure
- Expect requirements for a person or function responsible for complaints, a written procedure approved by management and complaint information available to customers. The research confirms the exact requirements for each sector.
- Records, analysis and reporting
- Complaints are recorded and analysed so that recurring problems are found and fixed. Some regulators also require periodic reporting of complaint data. The note should say which applies to each unit.
- Out-of-court routes must be explained
- Customers must be told how to take a complaint further, including to the dispute resolution body for the sector. In Sweden that includes the National Board for Consumer Disputes. In Romania, the research identifies the body for the non-bank financial sector.
How it runs in azta
From the question to the document
The question, as you would type it
Non-life insurer with units in Sweden and Romania. What do Finansinspektionen and ASF require for complaint handling: responsible person, written procedure, response times, records and reporting, and information on dispute resolution? Summarise each and cite the regulator material.
You start with
Customer complaints and the current complaint process in two subsidiaries
- 01
Ask what each regulator requires
Name the sector and the country. azta searches the Swedish and Romanian legislation and the Finansinspektionen and ASF material it holds.
Cited research· Free - 02
Upload the current procedures
Add the Swedish complaints policy and the Romanian call scripts. azta compares them with the requirements and refers back to the passage it relied on.
File upload· Pro - 03
Draft the gap note
Ask for a note per unit: requirement, source, current practice and the change needed. Edit it in Canvas.
Canvas · Ask azta· Pro - 04
Export for the risk committee
Export to Word for the board risk committee, with the cited regulator material in the file.
Word export· Pro You send
A summary of the regulators’ requirements and a gap note per unit
What you get
A summary of the regulators’ requirements and a gap note per unit
Gap note · draft
Complaint handling: Swedish and Romanian units against regulator expectations
Sweden. The company has a complaints policy, but the role responsible for complaints has been vacant since the reorganisation and the log does not record causes. The Finansinspektionen requirements cited in rows 1 to 3 are set out against each gap, with the change recommended.
Romania. Complaints received by phone are answered without a written record or a written reply. The ASF requirements on recording, response and customer information cited in rows 4 to 7 are not met by the current process. We recommend bringing phone complaints into the written procedure.
Both units. Customer replies should name the dispute resolution body for the sector. The analysis of complaint causes should go to the board risk committee each quarter, starting with the claims-system issue.
Outcomes on your numbers
What azta is worth on this task
Pro pays for itself after
17 minutes a month
At €100 an hour, that is all the time Pro (€27 a month) has to take off your desk to cover its price.
Example figures. Replace them with your own.
- Hours back a year
- 22
- Capacity at your rate
- €2,160
- More regulator guidance summaries a quarter
- 0.8
- Return on Pro
- 6.7×
- Research
- Drafting
- Your review
A scenario you set, not a promise. The hours that come back go to another client, or deeper into this one.
Want these numbers on your team’s real workload?
Book a demoSources azta searches here
- Riksdagen (SFS)
- Finansinspektionen
- legislatie.just.ro
- ASF
What stays with you
- The complaint data and how your processes actually run.
- Guidance from regulators in other countries, which azta does not hold.
- What you report to the board and to the regulators.
Frequently asked questions
- Does azta hold complaint rules for every country?
- No. Regulator material is held for only a few authorities, including Finansinspektionen and ASF. Elsewhere azta holds legislation and case law, which set the frame but not the regulators’ detail.
- Does it cover the EU-level complaints guidelines?
- Guidelines of the European supervisory authorities are not in the corpus. Check them directly where they apply to your sector.
- Can the note be translated for the Romanian team?
- Yes. Select the text in Canvas and ask for a Romanian version. The citations still open the sources in the original language.
