DB fully supports the European Commission’s objective to ensure that consumers who purchase property or take out loan secured against their home are adequately informed and protected against the connected risks – eventually to protect them against defaults and foreclosures.
The JC guidelines were developed in order to provide a consistent approach across different parts of the financial services sector. They were drafted to be comprehensive and so to ensure that consumers could rely on an effective complaints handling approach regardless of the type of product they purchased. In our view this approach has worked well and has helped to build consumer trust as well as providing a clear framework for firms.
In the interest of consumer protection and with a view to standardising frameworks across all market participants we therefore strongly agree that the JC guidelines should now be applied to credit intermediaries and non-credit institution creditors as defined under MCD.
Yes, we agree that the JC Guidelines should be applicable to all PISPs under PSD2. PISPs will be subject to a variety of payment related complaints – thus, solid complaints-handling procedures should be in place. Initiating payments, general access to accounts and the data connected therewith are very sensitive topics and require the establishment of conscientious operating models.
In this regard it is important to recognize that the risks associated with those services are identical, irrespective of the entity providing such services.
Given that solid complaints-handling procedures can help identify underlying failures, for instance when complaints are focusing on few aspects, sufficient procedures and documentation are key to establishing adequate frameworks and will increase consumer’s trust and confidence in the payment eco system and data security.
Yes, we agree. In the interest of consumer protection sufficient complaints-handling processes should generally be a requirement for all market participant offering PSD2 related services. Even though RAISPs do not initiate payments, they still have access to payment accounts and the sensitive information contained therein.
We believe that the same rules should apply to same services in order to mitigate same risks. As stated above, consumers might not be aware of the entity offering a specific service and should therefore be able to rely on the same level of standards.
Due to the nature of services offered by RAISPs, limiting the application of the JC Guidelines for RAISPs to security-related complaints is highly reasonable in our view.
Yes, we agree. In the interest of consumer protection sufficient complaints-handling procedures should be a requirement for any market participant offering MCD and PSD2 related services.
We believe that same services should be subject to the same rules. To ensure efficient protection of consumers, any supervisory requirements should focus on the risks of the products and services offered, irrespective of the type of entity offering them.
Furthermore, consumers might not even be aware whether a particular service is offered by a natural person or a big institution and should therefore be able to expect the same level of standards.
We believe that the objective of consumer protection should be of utmost importance to all market participants. It is therefore important that any proportionate application of the guidelines does not dilute that consumer protection.
On that basis we do not believe that it would be useful to provide for specific proportionality requirements for a subset of market actors. To ensure efficient protection of consumers, supervisory requirements should focus on the risks associated with products and services offered, irrespective of the type of entity offering them. As such, any “proportionality considerations” that would lead to lighter regulation simply based on for instance the size of a service provider would put consumers at risk and undermine their trust.
The proportionality that is already embedded within the guidelines should be sufficient.