1Firms that are part of a group may submit a joint report to the FSA . The joint report must contain the information required from all firms concerned and clearly indicate the firms on whose behalf the report is submitted. The requirement to provide a report, and the responsibility for the report, remains with each firm in the group.
DISP 1 Annex 1 requires (for the relevant reporting period) information about:
- (1) 1
the total number of complaints:
the total amount of redress paid in respect of complaints during the reporting period.
Under DISP 1.10.2R (3)(a), a firm should report any complaint to which it has given a response 1which upholds the complaint, even if any redress offered is disputed by the complainant. For this purpose, 'response' includes a response under the complainant's written acceptance rule (DISP 1.6.4 R) and a final response .1 Where a complaint is upheld in part or where the firm does not have enough information to make a decision yet chooses to make a goodwill payment to the complainant1, a firm should treat the complaint as upheld for reporting purposes. However, where a firm rejects a complaint, yet chooses to make a goodwill payment to the complainant, the complaint should be recorded as 'rejected'.13151
If a firm reports on the amount of redress paid under DISP 1.10.2R (4), redress should be interpreted to include an amount paid, or cost borne, by the firm, where a cash value can be readily identified, and should include:
amounts paid for distress and inconvenience;
a free transfer out to another provider which transfer would normally be paid for;
goodwill payments and goodwill gestures;
interest on delayed settlements;
waiver of an excess on an insurance policy; and
payments to put the consumer back into the position the consumer should have been in had the act or omission not occurred.
If a firm reports on the amount of redress paid under DISP 1.10.2R (4), the redress should not, however, include repayments or refunds of premiums which had been taken in error (for example where a firm had been taking, by direct debit, twice the actual premium amount due under a policy). The refund of the overcharge would not count as redress.