Making a complaint about the JFSC

Statement of purpose

The Jersey Financial Services Commission (“the JFSC”) is committed to acting fairly and professionally at all times.

Complaints about flaws in our work or failings in the way we behave help us to critically review what we do and identify ways to improve.  Our complaints policy is designed in order to ensure any complaints about our acts or omissions are dealt with consistently and fairly.

This policy sets out how those we regulate can make a complaint.

This includes all firms that we regulate, including those we regulate only for anti-money laundering and similar purposes.  It includes people working in those firms, insofar as the JFSC has direct contact with them.

This policy does not deal with complaints by customers against regulated firms.  You may report to the JFSC what you believe are regulatory failings by a firm. These reports will go to the firm’s supervisor within the JFSC to consider. 

Alternatives to making a complaint

It is inevitable that, at times, issues will arise. Some issues may be caused by misunderstandings, some may be caused by errors on our part.

Very often, if not in most cases, a complaint is best dealt by way of “open communication”, usually by writing directly to the relevant case officer, i.e. the JFSC officer who you are dealing with.  This can avoid matters escalating into a complaint.  In our experience, many issues that become official complaints are matters that can be fixed reasonably easily.  There is no need for great formality. 

If matters cannot be resolved in the ordinary course of your dealings with the JFSC, then you can make a complaint.

Complaints process

The process for making a complaint is detailed in the appendix to this policy. This sets out the basic procedure for handling complaints. For example:

• What types of complaint can be dealt with in the process. This process is not appropriate for dealing with simple disagreements in respect of regulatory decisions.
• The timescale for responses.
• Appointment of investigators.
• What might be done by way of remedy when a complaint is upheld.

The policy may appear lengthy and complicated. However, some complaints are complex, and the policy needs to be able to set out a framework for dealing with them.

However, many complaints are more straightforward, and relate to errors that can be readily identified and put right. For this reason, many complaints will be referred back to the relevant Division. More complicated complaints, and those where you are unsatisfied by how the Division resolved your complaint(s), will be dealt with at a higher level. 

Making a complaint

Complaints should be made in writing or email, and sent either:

• as an attachment to an email to [email protected]. The email should have “Complaint” as the subject line; or
• by post to: Complaints, Commission Secretary, Jersey Financial Services Commission, 14-18 Castle Street, St Helier, Jersey, JE4 8TP

Normally a simple letter or email will suffice setting out:

• the reasons for the complaint;
• why you disagree with the actions or omissions of the JFSC;
• any relevant facts;
• such documents as you wish to submit;
• what outcome you want from the JFSC.

Reporting of complaints

Each division will make an annual report on summary complaints to the Commission Secretary, which will be incorporated into an overall report to the Commission Board on complaints received by the JFSC, their nature and how they were concluded.

Complaints Policy

What may be raised by way of a complaint

General principles

Subject matter

We will consider complaints regarding any aspect of how we operate. This covers any expression of dissatisfaction about the way we have carried out or failed to carry out our role and includes, but is not limited to, complaints alleging:

• a mistake or lack of care;
• unreasonable delay;
• unprofessional behaviour;
• bias; or
• lack of integrity.

We will prioritise complaints that allege unethical behaviour by a member of our staff.

Your involvement

The complaint must also be something in which you have direct involvement or interest.  For example, you are an officer of the regulated firm that is complaining, or a customer affected by the way in which that firm was regulated.

Clarification on what falls outside the scope of this policy

Having set out the general principles, it is important to be clear about those matters which will not be considered under this complaints policy. This is usually because there is another more appropriate route of communication, or because it is a disagreement with our approach to regulation.

Complaints such as the following will be inadmissible on a number of grounds:

a) We will not consider complaints from a regulated business or an individual where there is any type of ongoing regulatory or investigatory process, for example:

• Seeking authorisation or registration or other equivalent permission;
• Undergoing any supervisory process, such as an information request, an inspection visit or equivalent; and/or
• Where the business or individual is the subject of any investigation or enforcement.

 

b) If someone is dissatisfied with the JFSC’s general policies, codes or guidance that is not of itself a ground for complaint. Particularly in the case of codes and guidance, these matters are typically reached after a process of consultation.  The JFSC is always open to suggestions for improvement, but dealing with such suggestions in this regard is not an appropriate use of the complaints   Changes to general policies, codes or guidance requires wider debate, and feedback will often start such a discussion. Contact us — Jersey Financial Services Commission (jerseyfsc.org)  

c) The complaint is frivolous or vexatious. For instance:

• A complaint which is, or is substantially, a repeat of an earlier complaint.
• An attempt to repackage an inadmissible complaint as something different. For example, Mr Smith has a grievance dating back to 2021, but did not make an official complaint and is outside the 12-month deadline.  Instead, he complains that the JFSC has in 2023 shown a bad attitude towards the events to 2021 by not accepting that they were wrong at that time.

d) The complaint is about any matter in respect of which the complainant has or had a right of appeal under any enactment.

e) The complaint is about any matter:

• relating to a JFSC employee’s contract of employment (past or present); or
• arising from the complainant’s employment relationship with the JFSC (past or present).

f) The complaint is in respect of a contractual or commercial dispute involving the JFSC which is not directly related to the exercise of its regulatory functions, or involves a contractual or commercial dispute between two regulated entities or individuals where the complaint is aimed to have an impact on this dispute.

g) The complaint is one about which the complainant has commenced legal proceedings.

h) The complaint concerns ongoing matters that are under the Data Protection (Jersey) Law 2018 and are under the care and management of the Data Protection Officer, in particular, decisions in respect of applications made in respect of data subject rights.

i) The complaint relates to the substance of a decision by the Data Protection Officer in respect of a data subject’s rights under the Data Protection (Jersey) Law 2018, and such complaint could be or could have been made to the Jersey Office of the Information Commissioner under the Data Protection Authority (Jersey) Law 2018.

j) An equivalent complaint has already been made to the Jersey Office of the Information Commissioner, and is either:

• ongoing;
• determined, or
• withdrawn in circumstances which suggest that the complaint would have been unsuccessful.

k) The complaint is in relation to the performance of the JFSC’s functions in respect of the Jersey Resolution Authority.

It is important to stress that, if you are a regulated business and you are not happy with your supervisory engagement, discuss it with your supervisor and, if necessary, escalate the matter to their manager.  It is not possible, as can be seen from the first point above, for the JFSC to start a second line of discussion through the complaints process.  Further, should the process result in a statutory decision being made in respect of a firm or individual, then any challenge must be by way of appeal or (where possible) judicial review. 

The JFSC also reserves the right to cease any complaints procedure where the complainant has demonstrated unacceptable and/or unreasonable behaviour, such as aggressive or abusive behaviour. The complainant may continue to seek other courses of redress.

Deadline for bringing complaints

The complaint must be made within 12 months of the date on which the complainant became aware of the event which is the subject of the complaint. The JFSC may consider a complaint if there are exceptional circumstances justifying the delay, such as illness or extenuating personal circumstances.

How to make a complaint

A complaint must:

• be in writing;
• give the reasons for the complaint;
• state why the complainant disagrees with the actions or omissions of the JFSC;
• state any relevant facts;
• include such documents as you wish to submit;
• what outcome you want from the JFSC;
• be received by the JFSC within the deadline (normally 12 months, see above section on “Deadline for bringing complaints”).

Sending your complaint

When you have completed your complaint form/letter or email, you should either:

• send it as an attachment to an email to [email protected]. The email should have “Complaint” as the subject line.
• send it by post to: Complaints, Commission Secretary, Jersey Financial Services Commission, 14-18 Castle Street, St Helier, Jersey, JE4 8TP. This will help ensure that your complaint is not mistaken for other correspondence. 

It is important to note that having a conversation with a member of our staff in any setting is not an appropriate way to make a complaint, in the sense of making an official complaint, as opposed to simply raising an issue in the ordinary course of discussions with the JFSC.

Indicative timeline for the processing of complaints

We aim to achieve the following:

• Acknowledge your complaint within five working days of receipt. This written confirmation will be sent by the same means as your letter or email, and to the same address. Please advise the Commission Secretary at [email protected] if you have not received our acknowledgement within this period.
• To investigate your complaint promptly and to conclude our investigations and give our response within 20 working days of receipt of the complaint.
• Where it is not possible to conclude the investigation with 20 working days, we will write to explain the delay and its reasons, and aim to complete the process within a further 20 working days.

Initial response to complaint

The Commission Secretary will carry out an initial review of your complaint. This is to determine:

• whether it falls within the scope of this policy.
• whether the complaint should be dealt with at the level of the Division concerned.

If the complaint falls outside this policy, the Commission Secretary will write to the complainant advising them accordingly, otherwise it will be sent to the Executive Director responsible for the subject matter of the complaint.

Complaints capable of being dealt with by the Division concerned

Many complaints will be dealt with at the Divisional level, this will be the case if:

• It relates only to that Division.
• The Complaint is not about the conduct of the Executive Director or else it concerns so many members of the Division that it needs to be heard at a higher level.

For these complaints, a shortened process will be appropriate, and this is set out in Annex 1 to this Policy.

Complaints process for all other complaints

The following process will apply to:

• Initial complaints that were not considered appropriate to be considered at the level of the Division concerned; and
• Appeals against the outcome of complaints considered by the relevant Division.

Initial steps in the process

The Commission Secretary will arrange for the appointment of an investigator. The Commission Secretary will ensure that the investigator receives:

• A copy of the complaint and documents submitted with it.
• Such correspondence or background material as appears useful for the investigator to read into the complaint.
• Such comments on inadmissibility that the Commission Secretary believes will assist.

The investigator will be a senior member of staff, who is not directly involved in the matter you have complained about.  The seniority will be appropriate to the subject matter of the complaint.  In exceptional cases, it may be appropriate to appoint a Commissioner to undertake the investigation. The Commission Secretary’s determination as to the appointment of the investigator is final.

Role of the investigator, including process

The investigator may determine that the complaint is inadmissible.

The investigator will carry out such investigations as appear appropriate and proportionate to determine if, and how far, the complaint is justified. To this end, the Investigator may:

• Request that the person bringing the complaint provides additional information. This may include information and documents supporting the complaint or clarifying its nature and scope.  
• Ask the person bringing the complaint to a meeting so that the investigator can better understand the complaint and its background.
• Require the JFSC to provide any information and documents that the investigator may reasonably require.
• Request that any officer of the JFSC should answer questions relevant to the investigation.

The investigator must respect, and cannot share with the complainant, any confidential information.

Where the investigator asks questions of any individual, a note will be taken by the investigator, but the questions and responses will not otherwise be recorded.

Report

The investigator will prepare a written response to any complaint it has investigated which:

• summarises the nature and substance of the complaint.
• describes the investigation carried out.
• summarises the conclusions.

Remedies

If the complaint is upheld, the investigator will set out recommended steps, which may be one or more of the following:

• Apology
• Explanation
• Corrective remedial action, which may include amending future policies and procedures

The remedies will not include making any financial award or any formal admission of liability.

The investigator’s report will be communicated, as appropriate, to the Director General (or the Board of Commissioners) who will decide whether to accept any recommendation and notify the complainant accordingly, providing a copy of the report.  The acceptance, or otherwise, of the recommendations will be recorded.

Where recommendations require changes in processes for the future, it may be that those parts of the recommendations will require further consideration as a matter of JFSC policy.

What will not happen

An investigator will not be able to recommend the following, nor will the report involve the following:

• Reimbursement: We do not have the statutory power to reimburse you or make a business reimburse you.
• Sharing of confidential information: We can't disclose confidential matters about regulated businesses which means we may not be able to give you all the details of our decision.
• Admission of liability: Everything we say in the outcome of our review is ‘without the admission of legal liability’. Agreeing that a process should be improved is not the same as accepting legal liability.

Requesting a review of the complaint decision

Where a complainant remains dissatisfied, they may request within 14 days of receipt of the decision that the decision be reviewed. The request for review must:

• be in writing;
• state why the complainant disagrees with the result of the complaint;
• state any relevant facts;
• include such documents as you wish to submit.

The request for review should be sent to the Commission Secretary in the same manner as the original complaint.

Process for review

Investigator to review own decision

As is often the case where appeals are submitted in respect of decisions in the judicial field, a review starts by the original decision-maker reviewing their decision in the light of the grounds for “appeal”.

The investigator of the earlier decision will consider the request for a review and whether any matter justifies reopening the complaint. 

In considering whether reopening the matter is justified, the investigator may look to see if there are any material differences between the findings in any summary complaints process and that of the decision now being reviewed.

The investigator may:

• Revise the decision under review, including following further investigations.
• Request that the Commission Secretary progresses the review.

However, where the investigator is a Commissioner, the investigator’s own review of their decision will be final.

Review of the decision

Where the Commission Secretary is requested to progress the review, it will proceed under the process for formal complaints, saving that:

• The senior member of staff appointed to carry out the new investigation will be of at least the same grade as the original investigator.
• The review may repeat or conduct further investigations insofar is it appears appropriate.
• The review may be conducted on the basis of the record of the original investigator’s investigations insofar as it appears appropriate.
• The person carrying out the review may appoint another officer of the JFSC to assist.
• In exceptional cases, such as where a complaint is against the Director General, a Commissioner may be appointed to carry out the review.

Subject to the following, the above sections on “Report”, “Remedies” and “What will not happen” will apply in respect of the findings.

The member of staff carrying out the review shall not issue a final report until the complainant has had an opportunity to comment on the draft report. The complainant shall have at least seven days following receipt of the draft report in which to make any comments.  

The complainant may make an appeal in respect of the decision. If the complainant is dissatisfied with the outcome of the appeal, the complainant may seek other forms of redress.

Reports to the Board

A complaints report is presented to the Board of Commissioners on an annual basis.  This is compiled by the Commission Secretary, and will incorporate reports of summary complaints processed by each Division.

The report, as approved by the Board, will then be published.

Annex 1: Process for summary complaints

Process for summary complaints

The following is the process for handling JFSC summary complaints.  Attention is drawn to the following:

Relationship between summary and formal complaints

• The difference between the handling of a summary complaint and a formal complaint is that a summary complaint will be handled within the Division to which the complaint relates.
• There are certain matters in the formal complaints policy which apply equally to summary complaints:

1. The rules for whether a complaint is admissible or not.
2. The remedies that might be recommended.
3. The need for the investigator to make a report.
4. The timescale for acknowledging receipt of a complaint (five days after receipt, and acknowledgment by the Commission Secretary).
5. The timescale for its completion (within 20 days of receipt).

Decision as to which complaint route is appropriate

• Where a summary complaint has been made, and the Commission Secretary agrees that this is an appropriate route to proceed; or
• A formal complaint has been made, and the Commission Secretary concludes that the summary complaint route is more appropriate;

The Commission Secretary will refer to the matter to the Executive Director of the relevant Division for the complaint to proceed summarily.  The Commission Secretary will notify the complainant that the matter has been referred to the summary process under this Annex.

Steps to be taken in handling the complaint

• The Executive Director will appoint an investigator within the Division, but may decide that the matter should proceed as a formal complaint, in which case they will return the matter promptly to the Commission Secretary.
• The investigator may take any step that might be taken in the course of a formal complaint.

Determination of the complaint

• Following the completion of the investigation, the investigator will report to the Executive Director whether they believe the complaint is well-founded and make recommendations.
• The Executive Director will make the determination as to whether to uphold the complaint, and arrange for what action should be taken, if any.
• The Executive Director will advise the complainant, the Commission Secretary, and the JFSC officers relevant to the complaint of its outcome.

Right to appeal

• Where a person is dissatisfied with the outcome of a summary complaint, they may appeal.
• An appeal must be made within 28 days of notification of the result of the initial complaint.
• It is made in the same way as making a complaint, except that the written complaint should explain the decision being appealed.