| Financial firm | Membership status | Primary business | Business size | Complaints received | Complaints resolved at registration and referral | Referral resolution rate | Non-responses at registration | Non-response rate % | Complaints progressed to Case Management | Complaints closed | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Examples | H | Yes | Bank | Very large | 1000 | 700 | 84% | 25 | 7% | 350 | 850 |
| Z | Yes | Insurer | Very Large | 750 | 150 | 23% | 160 | 65% | 300 | 900 | |
| C | Yes | Insurer | Very Small | 60 | 42 | 65% | 4 | 8% | 50 | 82 |
What we can learn about C
- There were fewer complaints brought to AFCA by C’s customers, in comparison to H and Z. This could be expected as C is significantly smaller in business size than the other financial firms.
- C had a referral resolution rate of 65%. This means that a lower percentage of C’s complaints were being resolved directly with their customers than H at the Registration and Referral stage. However, C was resolving a significantly larger percentage of issues directly with their customers than Z.
- On 4 complaints, C did not respond to AFCA and the complainant during the Registration and Referral stage by the due date, so AFCA automatically progressed the complaint to the next stage. This figure is similar to the non-response rate of H, and significantly better than the non-response rate of Z. It is expected that larger sized financial firms would have lower non-response rates, as larger financial firms should be better resourced in internal dispute resolution. As C’s non-response rate is on par with, or better than much larger financial firms, this indicates that C is adequately resourced in dispute resolution.
- 82 complaints against C were closed by AFCA during the comparative reporting period. This includes complaints that were brought to AFCA about C before the current reporting period.
What we can learn about H
- H had a high number of complaints against them during the reporting period in comparison to financial firms C and Z, however this was expected as H’s business size is ‘Very Large’. The higher number of complaints against H than Z, a similar sized financial firm, indicates that H’s customers were more likely to bring a complaint to AFCA. This may be because either
- more of H’s customers are dissatisfied with a service/product they are receiving, or
- more of H’s customers know about AFCA, or
- for a variety of other reasons.
- When consumers or small businesses brought a complaint about H to AFCA, H was more likely than other similar sized and smaller financial firms to resolve the issues directly with the complainant, with a referral resolution rate of 84%. It is often expected that small sized financial firms have lower referral resolution rates, as generally larger financial firms are better resourced in internal dispute resolution. However, as H’s referral resolution rate is significantly higher than Z’s, this indicates that H is comparatively better at resolving issues directly with complainants than Z.
- H had a lower non-response rate than all other sized financial firms, this indicates that they were more likely to respond to AFCA about complaints, and indicates that their dispute resolution teams are more adequately resourced to deal with complaints.
What we can learn about Z
- A lower number of Z’s customers were bringing complaints to AFCA in comparison to H, a similar sized financial firm. This may be because either
- a higher number of Z’s customers are satisfied with the service/product they are receiving, or
- fewer of Z’s customers know about AFCA, or
- for a number of other reasons.
- The low referral resolution rate of 23% indicates that Z was far less likely than similar sized, and even smaller sized, financial firms to resolve the issues directly with the complainant.
- On 160 complaints, Z did not respond to AFCA and the complainant at the Registration and Referral stage by the due date, so AFCA automatically progressed the complaint to the next stage. This figure is significantly higher than similar sized and smaller financial firms. It is expected that larger sized financial firms would have lower non-response rates, as larger financial firms should be better resourced in internal dispute resolution. As Z’s non-response rate is significantly higher than smaller financial firms, this indicates that Z is not adequately resourced in dispute resolution or that they may be unable to respond to AFCA for other reasons.
- 900 complaints against Z were closed by AFCA during the comparative reporting period. This includes complaints that were brought to AFCA about Z before the current reporting period.