MAS asks financial institutions to review complaint handling after inspections of banks and life insurers

Implications for lenders

Lenders supervised by MAS may need to log every expression of dissatisfaction, including collection-related complaints resolved on the first call, and link them to root causes such as disclosure or repayment-scheduling problems. Complaints from vulnerable borrowers may need their own escalation path to the board and senior management, and those from scam-affected borrowers may warrant special attention.

Implications

Facts

The Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) published an Information Paper on Complaints Management Practices on 20 October 2026. It sets out observations from thematic inspections of selected banks and life insurers carried out in 2025 and 2026, under five headings: board and senior management oversight, complaint assessment, data capture and analytics, training and communication, and the use of artificial intelligence in complaints management.

Definition: institutions generally defined complaints by reference to customer dissatisfaction, but some applied the definition inconsistently or did not separate complaints from feedback and appeals, and a few excluded cases resolved at first contact. MAS expects a clear, standardised organisation-wide definition applied across all touchpoints.

Root causes: most institutions had pre-defined root-cause categories, but MAS said assigning a category is "only the starting point". Some did not monitor whether remediation was completed and effective; MAS expects clear ownership and target completion dates.

Oversight: boards generally received complaint volumes, categories, turnaround times and ageing. Stronger institutions also reported root-cause analysis and FIDReC cases resolved in customers' favour. MAS said escalation criteria should go beyond financial loss, media attention and staff misconduct, to include repeated complaints, significant customer detriment and concerns involving vulnerable customers; the paper also calls for special attention where customers are affected by scams. Turnaround times should be measured from the date a complaint is first received.

Systems: some institutions relied on emails and spreadsheets to track complaints; MAS has asked them to implement clear, time-bound upgrade plans and will monitor remediation through to completion. All financial institutions are expected to review their practices against the paper in a risk-proportionate manner.

Analysis

The paper follows MAS's 16 October 2026 proposal to require all licensed major and standard payment institutions to join FIDReC. Under the narrower e-wallet requirement that applies today, FIDReC received 416 claims against e-wallet providers up to 30 June 2026. Taken together, the two documents widen both the set of firms whose customers can escalate disputes externally and the standard expected inside firms before a dispute gets there: a complaint that ends at FIDReC in the customer's favour is meant to feed back into root-cause analysis and board reporting.

The paper is addressed to banks and insurers but MAS asks all financial institutions to review their practices. Lending businesses outside MAS's direct remit, such as licensed moneylenders regulated by the Ministry of Law, are not covered by the paper.

Counterpoints and uncertainties

An information paper sets out observations and good practices, not binding requirements, and MAS has not published how many institutions it inspected or any figures on complaint outcomes. How strictly the expectations are applied to firms outside banking and insurance will depend on supervisory follow-up.