Response to consultation on Guidelines on procedures for complaints of alleged infringements of the PSD2
Go back
As such, we believe that the inclusion of a recommendation for payment service users to address their claims first to PSPs (as described in article 101 of PSD2), where possible, would reduce the number of claims to be handled by Competent Authorities, resulting in a reduction in handling times and improving overall outcomes for payment service users.
Additionally, for future user reference, the channels available for complainants should always provide the payment users with the option of keeping durable proof of their complaints.
Finally, it should be clearly stated that reference to Directive (EU) 2015/2366 also comprises technical standards and guidelines, for which development has been delegated to EBA.
Taking the above into account, we propose that Guideline 1 is amended as follows:
“Competent authorities should ensure that at least two different channels are available for complainants to submit their complaints of alleged infringement of Directive (EU) 2015/2366 and/or related technical standards and guidelines developed by EBA. that tThese channels are must be easily accessible for all types of complainants and allow the complainant to keep a copy of their claim on paper or on another durable medium.
Before submitting a complaint on the infringement of PSD2, complainants should, where possible, address their complaints to the payment service provider following the dispute resolution procedures required by article 101 of PSD2, provided that the infringing payment service provider can be identified and a contact point for complaint is available in the State of residence of the complainant.”
Therefore, we propose the amendment of paragraph 6 in section “subject matter, scope and definitions” as follows:
“These Guidelines apply to complaints submitted to the competent authorities with regard to payment service providers’ alleged infringements of Directive (EU) 2015/2366, which are to be taken into consideration by competent authorities to ensure and monitor effective compliance with Directive (EU) 2015/2366, as referred to in 100(6) of Directive (EU) 2015/2366. These complaints may be submitted by payment service users, payment service providers and other interested parties, including consumer associations (here and after referred to as ‘complainants’), as laid down in Article 99 (1) of Directive (EU) 2015/2366, irrespective of whether or not the complainant is affected by the alleged infringement.”
Additionally bullet c of article 2.1 should be amended as follows:
“2.c An indication whether or not the complainant is a payment service user or a payment service provider”
Additionally, this Guideline does not address those situations where the infringement is related to a company (or a PSP) offering services that it is not authorized to provide.
Where the company offering the service is not an authorised or registered PSP, the complainant may not be able to provide the identity of the firm, or even be able to identify the appropriate Competent Authority to contact.
Furthermore, where firms are operating outside of their home country and are not authorized to provide the service (either because they are a PSP that has not obtained the authorization to operate that particular service, or because they have no authorization at all) it is not clear which Competent Authority a payment user should complain to: the Competent Authority of the country where the service is being offered; the Competent Authority where the payment user is resident; or the Competent Authority believed to be in the infringing firm’s home country.
As such, we ask that Guideline 2 is amended to take into account these kind of situations, setting the Competent Authority of the home country of the complainant as the Competent Authority to be contacted. We believe that adding a new paragraph to Guideline 2 would cater for this purpose:
“2.3 In case the complainant is not able to identify the payment service provider(s) that has/have given rise to the complaint of an alleged infringement of Directive (EU) 2015/2366; the complainant must provide any available information on the infringement to the Competent Authority of the country where the complainant is resident”
Finally, it must be mentioned the importance of a certain degree of harmonization in the requirements and procedures of the different Authorities, in order to enable a level playing field among Member States and to ensure that all service complaints are analysed, found liable and/or replied in a consistent way."
However, to maximize the utility of this aggregated information, a new paragraph should be added to Guideline 4 to ensure that this information is publicly available:
“4.3 The competent authority should publish the results of the aggregate analysis on an annual basis”
Question 1: Do you agree with the proposed Guideline 1 on the channels through which complainants should be able to submit their complaints of alleged infringements of PSD2? If not, please provide your reasoning.
It is paramount that Competent Authorities offer complaints mechanisms that help ensure the protection of payment service users. However, if payment service users divert all claims related to payment services through these mechanisms, it could delay the overall handling of complaints dealing with infringements of PSD2, to the detriment of payment service users.As such, we believe that the inclusion of a recommendation for payment service users to address their claims first to PSPs (as described in article 101 of PSD2), where possible, would reduce the number of claims to be handled by Competent Authorities, resulting in a reduction in handling times and improving overall outcomes for payment service users.
Additionally, for future user reference, the channels available for complainants should always provide the payment users with the option of keeping durable proof of their complaints.
Finally, it should be clearly stated that reference to Directive (EU) 2015/2366 also comprises technical standards and guidelines, for which development has been delegated to EBA.
Taking the above into account, we propose that Guideline 1 is amended as follows:
“Competent authorities should ensure that at least two different channels are available for complainants to submit their complaints of alleged infringement of Directive (EU) 2015/2366 and/or related technical standards and guidelines developed by EBA. that tThese channels are must be easily accessible for all types of complainants and allow the complainant to keep a copy of their claim on paper or on another durable medium.
Before submitting a complaint on the infringement of PSD2, complainants should, where possible, address their complaints to the payment service provider following the dispute resolution procedures required by article 101 of PSD2, provided that the infringing payment service provider can be identified and a contact point for complaint is available in the State of residence of the complainant.”
Question 2: Do you agree with the proposed Guideline 2 on the information to be requested from the complainant when the complaint is submitted, and to be recorded by competent authorities, as and when provided? If not, please provide your reasoning.
We do not agree that Competent Authorities of each Member State should decide whether PSPs can be considered other interested parties" or not. On the contrary, we believe PSPs should always be able to file complaints on PSD2 infringements in any Member State. This stance would avoid the fragmentation of practices among countries, as well as ensure a level playing field on infringement complaints procedures.Therefore, we propose the amendment of paragraph 6 in section “subject matter, scope and definitions” as follows:
“These Guidelines apply to complaints submitted to the competent authorities with regard to payment service providers’ alleged infringements of Directive (EU) 2015/2366, which are to be taken into consideration by competent authorities to ensure and monitor effective compliance with Directive (EU) 2015/2366, as referred to in 100(6) of Directive (EU) 2015/2366. These complaints may be submitted by payment service users, payment service providers and other interested parties, including consumer associations (here and after referred to as ‘complainants’), as laid down in Article 99 (1) of Directive (EU) 2015/2366, irrespective of whether or not the complainant is affected by the alleged infringement.”
Additionally bullet c of article 2.1 should be amended as follows:
“2.c An indication whether or not the complainant is a payment service user or a payment service provider”
Additionally, this Guideline does not address those situations where the infringement is related to a company (or a PSP) offering services that it is not authorized to provide.
Where the company offering the service is not an authorised or registered PSP, the complainant may not be able to provide the identity of the firm, or even be able to identify the appropriate Competent Authority to contact.
Furthermore, where firms are operating outside of their home country and are not authorized to provide the service (either because they are a PSP that has not obtained the authorization to operate that particular service, or because they have no authorization at all) it is not clear which Competent Authority a payment user should complain to: the Competent Authority of the country where the service is being offered; the Competent Authority where the payment user is resident; or the Competent Authority believed to be in the infringing firm’s home country.
As such, we ask that Guideline 2 is amended to take into account these kind of situations, setting the Competent Authority of the home country of the complainant as the Competent Authority to be contacted. We believe that adding a new paragraph to Guideline 2 would cater for this purpose:
“2.3 In case the complainant is not able to identify the payment service provider(s) that has/have given rise to the complaint of an alleged infringement of Directive (EU) 2015/2366; the complainant must provide any available information on the infringement to the Competent Authority of the country where the complainant is resident”
Finally, it must be mentioned the importance of a certain degree of harmonization in the requirements and procedures of the different Authorities, in order to enable a level playing field among Member States and to ensure that all service complaints are analysed, found liable and/or replied in a consistent way."
Question 3: Do you agree with the proposed Guideline 3 on reply to complainants? If not, please provide your reasoning.
Yes. Although the content of this Guideline is not explicitly referred to in article 100 (6), we consider that its content is reasonable and some degree of harmonization on replies is desirable.Question 4: o you agree with the proposed Guideline 4 on aggregate analysis of complaints of alleged infringements of PSD2? If not, please provide your reasoning.
Yes. Although the content of this Guideline is not explicitly referred to in article 100 (6), aggregated information on complaints would be useful to identify areas for improvement.However, to maximize the utility of this aggregated information, a new paragraph should be added to Guideline 4 to ensure that this information is publicly available:
“4.3 The competent authority should publish the results of the aggregate analysis on an annual basis”