Contents
Why handling cases is not enough
Most complaints departments are organised to close files: a customer complains, an adviser responds, the file is closed. This work is essential, but it does nothing to prevent the next identical complaint. If a hundred customers complain about the same incorrectly configured direct debit, a hundred individual replies leave the configuration as it is.
A complaint is free information about a defect that the customer has taken the trouble to report. Fornell and Wernerfelt (1987, Journal of Marketing Research) formalised the idea that encouraging and handling complaints in order to retain dissatisfied customers can cost less than winning new ones. The next step is to turn those complaints into a learning system for the organisation, connected to the customer experience strategy rather than isolated in one department.
Capturing every complaint, including the ones you do not see
The recorded volume is never the real volume. Some dissatisfied customers do not complain, and some of those who do complain use a channel that does not feed the system. The work carried out by TARP for the US government (Goodman et al., 1979) was the first to document this phenomenon; the ratios often attributed to it cannot be verified at source and should not be repeated as they stand.
To shrink the blind spot:
- Log verbal complaints received in branches, by phone or by a sales representative, even when resolved on the spot.
- Bring in unsolicited channels: social media, online reviews, messaging apps, letters addressed to management.
- Collect complaints passed on by third parties: the mediator, the regulator, consumer associations, lawyers.
- Link survey verbatims that describe a specific problem, particularly those from customers who have never complained.
In a bank, these "external" complaints carry particular weight: those that arrive through the Moroccan Centre for Banking Mediation or through Bank Al-Maghrib signal a failure of internal handling.
A stable taxonomy for classification
Without reliable classification, no analysis is possible. A useful taxonomy rests on three independent axes:
| Axis | Question | Example values |
|---|---|---|
| Subject | What is the customer complaining about? | Fees, delay, transaction error, information, behaviour, product |
| Journey stage | At which stage? | Sign-up, use, incident, closure |
| Presumed cause | Where does the problem come from? | Process, system, internal rule, third party, training, communication |
Three ground rules: a short list (around twenty categories per axis at most), written definitions with examples, and infrequent revision, so that the series remain comparable from one quarter to the next. The presumed cause entered by the adviser will be confirmed or corrected by the analysis.
Three root cause analysis methods
The Pareto chart is for choosing. Categories are sorted by volume (or by cost, or by severity), and usually a small number of reasons account for a large share of complaints. That is where the analysis begins.
The 5 Whys are for digging into a reason. You start from the symptom ("the customer was debited twice") and ask why, then why again, until you reach a cause the organisation can act on ("there is no duplicate check between the two payment systems"). The number five is indicative: you stop when the answer points to a decision or process that can be corrected.
The Ishikawa diagram (or fishbone diagram) is for problems with multiple causes. Possible causes are grouped into families, for example methods, tools, people, information, environment and partners, and each is then checked against data.
These methods do not replace listening: reading a few files in full, or listening back to calls, often shows what the categories hide. Customer journey mapping helps locate the breaking point.
Owners and a closed loop
An identified cause is only valuable if it is corrected. The loop closes in five steps:
- The complaints unit presents the main causes to the relevant committee, with volumes and examples.
- Each cause is given an owner (the process owner) and a deadline.
- The owner decides on a correction, or documents why none will be made.
- After the correction, the volume of complaints for the same reason is tracked for several months.
- Customer-facing teams, and where possible the customers concerned, are told what has changed.
For credit institutions, Circular No. 10/W/16 already provides for a committee responsible for customer relations, which reviews the complaints set-up twice a year. It is the natural forum for this review. This cross-functional way of working is as much a matter of customer culture as of procedure.
Putting things right without overestimating the effect
Customer recovery remains essential: a quick response, a clear explanation, proportionate redress. But the idea of a "service recovery paradox", whereby a customer who has been well compensated becomes more loyal than one who never had a problem, needs to be qualified. The meta-analysis by de Matos, Henrique and Rossi (2007, Journal of Service Research) finds a positive effect on satisfaction, but not on repurchase intention, word of mouth or the company's image. Prevention remains more profitable than redress.
What regulators expect of banks in Morocco
Bank Al-Maghrib Circular No. 10/W/16 requires credit institutions to have a central complaints-handling unit, with procedures and a tracking information system. The customer receives an immediate acknowledgement; the bank has 10 working days to declare a complaint inadmissible, giving reasons, and 40 working days to respond on the substance. It sends Bank Al-Maghrib a quarterly complaints report and informs its customers of the available means of redress, including mediation. The details and recent figures are in our guide to banking complaints. For insurance, see the ACAPS framework, and for the compliance framework as a whole, GRC in the financial sector.
The indicators to track
| Indicator | Definition | What it reveals |
|---|---|---|
| Complaint rate | Complaints per 1,000 customers or transactions | The real trend, adjusted for business growth |
| Time to acknowledge | Time between receipt and acknowledgement | Whether the first promise is kept |
| On-time response rate | Share of substantive responses within the set deadline | Handling capacity |
| Upheld complaint rate | Share of cases decided in the customer's favour | The seriousness of internal defects |
| Repeat complaint rate | Customers coming back on the same issue | Responses that resolve nothing |
| External escalation rate | Cases taken to the mediator or the regulator | Failure of internal handling |
| Cause coverage | Share of major reasons with an identified cause and an owner | The maturity of learning |
| Effect of corrections | Volume for the reason before and after correction | The real value of the set-up |
The first four measure how cases are handled; the last four, how causes are fixed. A dashboard containing only the first four describes a department, not a system. Behavioural signals complete the picture.
A six-step action plan
- List every channel through which a complaint can arrive, including verbal and external ones.
- Set a three-axis taxonomy, with definitions and examples.
- Train customer-facing teams to log complaints, including those resolved immediately.
- Run a quarterly Pareto analysis and investigate the top three reasons in depth.
- Appoint an owner and a deadline for each cause selected, and track the effect of corrections.
- Put safeguards around any tool that automates triage, starting with our guide to AI and complaints.
Further reading
- 5 min read
- 7 min read
- 7 min read
Frequently asked questions
What is the difference between handling a complaint and fixing its cause?
Handling a complaint means answering the customer and putting right the harm suffered. Fixing the cause means identifying what, in a process, product, tool or internal rule, produced the problem, and correcting it so that other customers do not run into it. A mature set-up does both, and measures the fall in recurring complaints.
Should complaints made verbally in a branch or by phone be recorded?
Yes, it is good practice. A verbal complaint that is not logged disappears from the statistics and from root cause analysis, even though it often reveals the same failure as a written complaint. The key is to set a simple logging rule, so that the adviser records the complaint even when they resolve it on the spot.
Does a customer whose complaint is handled well become more loyal than before?
Not necessarily. The meta-analysis by de Matos et al. (2007) shows that a good recovery can lift satisfaction above its initial level, but not repurchase intention, word of mouth or the company's image. It is therefore better to prevent the problem than to rely on putting it right.
What deadlines must a Moroccan bank meet when responding to a complaint?
Under Bank Al-Maghrib Circular No. 10/W/16 and the guide published by the central bank, a complaint must be acknowledged immediately. The bank has 10 working days to declare it inadmissible, giving reasons, and 40 working days to respond on the substance, informing the customer if this deadline cannot be met.
Who should own root cause analysis?
The complaints unit leads the analysis, but the correction belongs to the owner of the process concerned: product, operations, IT, branch network. Without a named owner and a deadline, an identified cause remains an observation. Periodic review by a management committee provides the arbitration needed.
General information, not legal advice.
Report an errorReferences (5)
- Bank Al-Maghrib, « Relations banques/client : traitement des réclamations », "Infos utiles" guide, May 2021. (opens in a new tab)
- APSF, regulatory timeline: Circulars No. 9/W/16 and No. 10/W/16 of 10 June 2016. (opens in a new tab)
- Le Matin, « L'arrêté approuvant la circulaire de BAM enfin publié », 2017. (opens in a new tab)
- Le360, « Traitement des réclamations : Bank Al-Maghrib sévit », 26 June 2016. (opens in a new tab)
- Goodman, Grainer and Megna, Consumer Complaint Handling in America: Final Report, TARP for the US Office of Consumer Affairs, 1979 (NTIS record). (opens in a new tab)