- 21 Jun 2019
Date received: 24 May 2019
Date responded: 18 Jun 2019
You asked for “the no. of complaints received by the AiB from April 2010 – April 2019; categorized or in some way identifiable by topic/subject of complaint; & no. of complaints which were upheld in the same period, again with information relating to the subject of the complaint.”.
1. I enclose a copy of most of the information you requested.
2. The answer to your question is contained in the following supporting information and Tables 1 to 3 below.
3. The types of complaint that AiB receives relate to:
a) AiB’s, or one of our contracted providers:
- failure to provide a service
- inadequate standard of service
- dissatisfaction with AiB’s policy
- treatment by or attitude of a member of staff
- disagreement with a decision where the complainant cannot use another procedure (for example an appeal) to resolve the matter
- failure to follow the appropriate administrative process.
b) an action or decision by the Accountant, or a provider, when acting as trustee
c) an action of a trustee, commissioner or money advisor, with regard to a bankruptcy, PTD or a DAS DPP, that they are administering or dealing with.
The above list is not exhaustive.
4. The majority of complaints AiB receive are on the insolvency process rather than staff behaviour or failure to adequately perform administrative duties. As such, there are statutory and legislative recourses to the customers’ issues raised. Although these do not fit under the definition of complaints in our complaints policy, they are included in the figures below for the sake of completeness.
5. Where complaints about AiB were upheld, the reasons recorded were:
- information published on the Register of Insolvencies
- staff behaviour towards customers
- rejection of application for bankruptcy
- failure to meet standards of service for correspondence time
- administrative error
6. Where complaints about providers working on behalf of AiB were upheld, the main reasons were:
- failure to respond to customers within accepted timescales
- not properly adhering to the bankruptcy process
- data protection issue
- undue stress placed on customer.
7. Where complaints about the Debt Administration Scheme (DAS) were upheld, the reasons were:
- failures to respond timeously to correspondence
- errors by the payments distributer
- failure to inform money adviser of outcome from DPP variation application
- administrative error.
8. The one complaint upheld regarding a protected trust deed was where the customer complained they had been mis-sold the product as their only income was derived from benefits, for which it is not competent to seek a contribution.
9. One complaint upheld with regards to a private trustee was around the lack of customer service.
Table 1 – Number of complaints received about AiB actions - 1 April 2010 to 31 March 2019
|Year (1 April
to 31 March)
Table 2 - Number of complaints received about others involved in the insolvency process - 1 April 2010 to 31 March 2019
|Year (1 April
to 31 March)
Table 3 – Number of complaints upheld between April 2010 and March 2019
|Year (1 April to 31 March)||Upheld complaint about:||Total Upheld|
The Scottish Government is committed to publishing all information released in response to Freedom of Information requests. View all FOI responses at http://www.gov.scot/foi-responses.
Please quote the FOI reference
Central Enquiry Unit
Phone: 0300 244 4000
The Scottish Government
St Andrews House