Contact center
(from Russia)
ext 00020 (from abroad)
Monday - Friday from 8:00 to 20:00 (Moscow time), except public holidays, free call from regions of Russia
29 march 2023, 08:32
The Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) has revealed unfair practices of financial institutions in relation to their clients. Companies use chatbots due to which the procedure of settlement of a dispute on MTPL with such an organization through the Financial Ombudsman may be delayed, Olga Kraynova, head of the Ombudsman for financial services consumers support Service (OFSC), has reported.
In accordance with the Law on the Financial Ombudsman, before sending an appeal to the Financial Ombudsman, the consumer must apply to the financial institution with which they have a dispute, with a separate application (claim), reminded the head of the OFSC.
A number of insurers have placed information on their official websites about the possibility of submitting such a claim for disagreement with the settlement of a loss under a CMTPL insurance contract by means of chatbots. They provide the same information on the hotline as well as in the chatbot.
The consumer, after sending such a claim to the chatbot, seems to receive an automatically generated message that their documents have been accepted and will be processed within a certain time frame. Ultimately, consumers, having received no response, turn to the Financial Ombudsman to protect their rights.
“In response to the Financial Ombudsman’s request, sent in connection with the receipt of such a consumer, the insurer argues that they have not received a claim, which means that the consumer has not complied with the mandatory claims procedure, preceding the appeal to the Financial Ombudsman,” added the head of the OFSC.
At the same time, the rules of CMTPL insurance provide for only three ways for the consumer to send a claim: by handing it in for signature to the insurer, by registered post to the insurer’s address, or by sending it electronically to the insurer’s email address, the address of which can be found on the insurer’s official website.
This allows the insurer to argue that, because the consumer has chosen a channel for submitting a claim that is not provided for in the CMTPL insurance rules, all the evidence provided by the consumer of sending the necessary documents to the insurer (usually screenshots of chat-bot correspondence) does not prove that the consumer has followed the complaints procedure.
At the same time, according to the Service, this approach is not only unfair but also contrary to the provisions of the Russian Civil Code (Article 1, paragraphs 3 and 4), Olga Kraynova added. In particular, participants in civil legal relations must act in good faith in establishing, exercising and protecting civil rights and in performing civil duties. No one shall be entitled to benefit from their unlawful or dishonest conduct.
In fact, as in the described case, the insurer, which certainly has the right to expand the list of ways of sending documents by the consumer, establishes an additional channel for filing a claim, and then on formal grounds invokes the illegality of the client who used such a channel, said the head of the OFSC.
“When considering appeals containing such circumstances, the Financial Ombudsman concluded that in this situation the insurer has no right to refer to the consumer’s failure to comply with the mandatory claims procedure and the consideration of such appeals by the Financial Ombudsman should not be stopped for this reason,” Olga Kraynova concluded.
