EAF
The first serious complaint
"A client claims the product did not fit their profile. It is our first complaint with real legs and we want to answer it without creating a bigger problem with the CNMV."
CNMV Complaints for Firms and Investors: How the Process Works
From the firm’s customer service department to the CNMV’s final report: we explain each stage, the real value of those non-binding reports and how to build a file that wins the complaint, whether you are filing it or receiving it.
Complaint under way? Tell us about it
Whether you are a firm that has to respond or an investor who wants to complain, tell us what stage you are at and we will point you in the right direction.
- 50+ firms advised
- Reply within 24 h
- No commitment
Services
Complaints: how we work each side of the board
We defend firms that receive complaints and guide investors who file them. In both cases, the file is what counts.
Firms
Complaint handling for firms
We build the complete system: customer service procedures, reasoned templates that do not read like templates, case files with evidence, and submissions to the CNMV consistent with what was said before. The goal: every complaint closes without opening a supervisory front.
Learn more →
SACCase filesSubmissionsEvidence
Investors
Financial customer protection
If you are an investor and something was mis-sold (an unsuitable product, opaque costs, biased information), we help you complain methodically: the prior complaint to the firm, a written complaint to the CNMV, and use of the final report as negotiating leverage or evidence.
Learn more →
Retail investorsMiFID IIReportEvidence
MiFID II
Suitability test
The piece that decides most complaints about advice: if the test fails, everything else wobbles.
Learn more →
SuitabilityArt. 25
Costs
Costs and charges disclosure
Poorly disclosed ex ante and ex post costs feed chains of complaints. Review your process before someone else does.
Learn more →
Ex anteEx post
Risk
From complaint to sanction
Patterns of poorly handled complaints end up in supervision and, sometimes, in sanctioning proceedings. Break the chain early.
Learn more →
PatternsSupervision
Contracts
Advisory agreement
A clear agreement defines the service provided and takes away half of the complainant’s arguments. Or half of the firm’s.
Learn more →
ScopeEvidence
Profiles
Who comes to us about complaints
Four common situations at our firm: two from the firm’s side, two from the side of the person complaining.
Firm
Complaints in series
"We are getting almost identical complaints about the costs of the same product. If the pattern reaches the supervisor before we have corrected anything, the problem stops being an individual one."
Investor
The product nobody understood
"I signed what was put in front of me, but nobody explained the real risk to me. I want to know whether my case has grounds and how to complain without getting lost along the way."
SAC
The head of customer service
"I handle dozens of complaints a month with inherited templates. I need procedures and criteria I can defend, because every answer I give may end up on the CNMV’s desk."
Glaring mistakes
What ruins complaints (on one side and the other)
The complaints process rewards the file and punishes improvisation. These three mistakes decide more cases than the merits do.
Answering with a template and no file: a generic reply from the customer service department, with no analysis of the case and no evidence cited, is exposed when the CNMV asks for the complete file and there is nothing behind it.
Neglecting the prior complaint stage: an investor who goes straight to the CNMV without first going through the firm’s customer service department, or without keeping acknowledgments of receipt and documents, loses time and strength. The order of the stages is not optional.
Ignoring the pattern: for the firm, repeated complaints about the same issue are a supervisory alarm; for the investor, earlier CNMV reports on similar cases are ammunition. Nobody should complain or respond without looking at the series.
| Stage | What it involves | Practical tip |
|---|---|---|
| With the firm (SAC) | The client first complains to the firm’s customer service department (SAC) or customer ombudsman, which must issue a reasoned decision within the time limits set by the rules. | Firm: open a complete file from day one. Investor: complain in writing, keep the acknowledgment of receipt and all the product documentation. |
| Before the CNMV | If the prior complaint goes unanswered or is rejected, the complaint is filed with the CNMV, which forwards it to the firm for its submissions and documents. | Firm: full consistency with what the SAC answered; every contradiction counts. Investor: a chronological, specific account backed by documents, without adjectives. |
| Final report | The CNMV issues a reasoned, non-binding report, which may or may not favor the complainant; the firm then states whether it will rectify in line with it. | Firm: consider rectifying and fix the root cause of the problem. Investor: a favorable report gives you leverage to negotiate and weighty evidence if you end up in court. |
A well-played complaint is decided in the file
If you are a firm, we review your customer service process and answer sensitive complaints with you. If you are an investor, we assess your case and file it methodically. First consultation free of charge and a reply within 24h.
Frequently asked questions
CNMV complaints: frequently asked questions
Do I have to complain to the firm first?
Yes. The process requires you to exhaust the prior complaint stage: file the complaint with the firm’s own customer service department (or customer ombudsman) and wait for its answer within the time limits set by the rules.
Only if the answer does not arrive in time or does not satisfy you does the door to the CNMV complaints service open. Skipping the order only delays the outcome.
How do you file a complaint with the CNMV?
Through the channels the CNMV itself provides, including its e-office (sede electrónica), enclosing the prior complaint to the firm, its answer (if there was one) and the case documents: contract, orders, statements, communications.
A complaint succeeds when it is chronological, specific and documented: what was contracted, what information was given, what was expected and what happened. Generic grievances do not move reports; documents do.
Is the CNMV report binding?
No: the final report of the complaints service is not binding on the firm and does not replace a judge. But it would be a mistake to treat it as a worthless piece of paper: it is a technical, reasoned opinion of the supervisor on whether the firm complied with the conduct rules.
In practice, it has great evidentiary value in negotiations and lawsuits, and clear supervisory value: it tells the CNMV how each firm behaves.
What does an investor gain from a favorable report?
Three things: negotiating leverage (many firms rectify so as not to pile up unfavorable reports), weighty technical evidence if they decide to go to court, and a record that the supervisor knows about their case.
The report does not order the firm to return money; it opens the way to getting it back. How to use it depends on the strategy: we cover this in financial consumer protection.
What should a firm do when the CNMV forwards a complaint to it?
Three things, in this order: rebuild the client’s complete file (contract, tests, cost information, orders, recordings), check the answer the SAC gave against that evidence, and file submissions that are consistent with everything above.
The fatal mistake is contradicting yourself: saying now the opposite of what the SAC answered, or alleging facts with no documentary support. The CNMV reads both versions together.
Can complaints lead to sanctions?
The report itself does not impose sanctions. But the complaints service is a first-rate source of supervisory information: patterns (many complaints about the same product, the same practice or the same sales network) steer requests for information, reviews and, where appropriate, sanctioning proceedings.
That is why each complaint should be treated as an early warning. We explain the step into the sanctioning regime in CNMV sanctions.
What is the Financial Customer Protection Authority?
It is the body planned to unify the resolution of financial complaints, and its creation is still going through the legislative process. Until it exists, the process that applies is the current one: the prior complaint to the firm and the complaints service of the CNMV (or of whichever supervisor is competent for the subject matter).
It is worth following its progress without anticipating rules that have not yet been approved: designing procedures today around a text still in the pipeline is building on sand.
Which documents decide a MiFID complaint?
The usual ones, in this order of impact: the suitability test or appropriateness test, ex ante and ex post cost information, the contract and its annexes, orders, and recordings of communications.
Whoever has that complete, consistent package (firm or investor) starts with a decisive advantage.
Practical guide
Handling complaints methodically: the complete route
Designed for firms that want a defensible process, with useful pointers for investors at every stage. No heroics: file, deadlines and consistency.
The prior complaint stage, properly set up
A customer service department with real procedures: an intake log, a single file per complaint, an honest analysis of the merits and a reasoned answer on time. This is where almost all complaints are won, or lost.
The CNMV referral
Submissions built on the file, not on memory: every statement backed by its document and no contradiction with what the SAC answered. Consistency is the argument that carries the most weight.
The report and its consequences
With an unfavorable report, decide with a cool head: rectifying (and reporting it) usually costs less than piling up precedents. With a favorable report, document the reasoning and use it to improve the procedure.
The complaints process in 10 practical steps
- Logging and acknowledgment: every complaint comes in through a single channel, with a dated log entry and an acknowledgment to the client; what is not logged cannot be defended.
- Single file: from day one, gather the contract, tests, cost information, orders, recordings and communications for the case.
- Analysis of the merits: examine the case the way the CNMV will, looking at the applicable conduct rules and the available evidence, not sales impressions.
- Reasoned SAC answer: reply on time, cite the specific evidence and avoid the generic template, because that answer will travel to the supervisor.
- Pattern detection: cross-check each complaint against earlier ones; the same product, the same practice or the same network calls for a system-level response.
- Submissions to the CNMV: if the case escalates, answer the referral with the complete file and without contradicting what was said at the prior complaint stage.
- Full delivery of evidence: providing incomplete or late documents weakens your position and leaves the report to decide without your best evidence.
- Decision after the report: assess rectification with economic and supervisory judgment, weighing what giving in costs against what piling up unfavorable reports costs.
- Root cause: fix the source (product, sales script, documentation) and keep evidence of the fix; it is your best future defense.
- Dashboard: report volume, reasons, outcomes and measures to senior management and the management body; complaints are a risk indicator, not a nuisance.
If you want us to audit your complaints process or handle a specific case, start with our legal advisory services; if you are complaining as an investor, see financial consumer protection.
Free resource · PDF
Download the MiFID II Checklist
The 10 conduct controls the CNMV expects to see working at an EAF or investment firm, with the typical evidence for each one. Ideal as a quarterly self-assessment with your team.
- The 10 essential conduct controls
- The evidence expected for each control
- 5 signs that a control exists only on paper
- Professional PDF · 5 pages · 11 KB
No spam. Your email is only used to send you this checklist and, occasionally, relevant regulatory updates.
Your download has started
The checklist is downloading now. If it does not start automatically, click here.
Need help implementing any of the steps after reading it? Write to us directly:
Working glossary
A short glossary of financial complaints
The nine concepts that come up in every complaint procedure. Mastering them saves you wasted stages and useless filings.
SACPrior stage
Customer service department
The firm’s unit that resolves grievances and complaints at first instance. Its reasoned answer is a requirement of the process.
Its answers end up before the supervisor: write them accordingly.
Customer ombudsmanPrior stage
The independent figure
An external body that some firms appoint to resolve complaints, as an alternative to the SAC or as a second layer after it.
Its decisions in the client’s favor are usually accepted.
Prior complaint stageRequirement
The order of the stages
The obligation to complain to the firm before going to the CNMV. Until it is exhausted, the complaint does not move forward.
Keep the acknowledgment of receipt: it is your proof that you complied.
ReferralProcedural step
The firm, called to explain itself
The notice by which the CNMV sends the complaint to the firm so that it can make submissions and provide its documents.
The moment for consistency, not creativity.
Final reportOutcome
The supervisor’s opinion
A reasoned conclusion on whether the firm complied with the conduct rules. It is not binding, but it carries weight: in negotiation, in court and in supervision.
Favorable or not, it leaves a mark on both sides.
RectificationClosure
Giving in, wisely
The firm’s decision to accept the reasoning of the report and compensate the client, informing the CNMV.
Sometimes it is the cheap move; calculate it rather than suffer it.
Evidentiary valueEffect
What the paper is worth
The weight of the report as technical evidence in later negotiations and court proceedings, even though it is not binding.
Courts read it carefully; so should you.
Root causeImprovement
The why behind the case
The real origin of the complaint: a poorly targeted product, an aggressive sales script, confusing documentation.
If you do not fix it, the complaint will come back under another name.
Financial Customer Protection AuthorityFuture
The body still in the pipeline
A project to unify the resolution of financial complaints. Until it is approved, the current CNMV process applies.
Follow it; do not design processes around a draft.
Case file playbook
The five pieces that decide a MiFID complaint
Contract and pre-contractual documents
Which service was agreed, on which instruments and with which warnings: the boundary of what can be required of the firm.
Generic contracts that do not reflect the service actually provided, or key annexes left unsigned and undated.
Suitability or appropriateness test
That the recommendation or the sale matched the client’s profile, knowledge and objectives.
Tests filled in in bulk, answers inconsistent with the client’s actual trading, or profiles corrected after the contract was signed.
Cost information
That the client knew ex ante what they would pay and received the annual ex post breakdown showing the effect on returns.
Delivery that cannot be proven, simulations that do not match what was charged, or total silence on inducements.
Orders and recordings
What the client was really told and what instructions they gave: the audio version of the file.
Recordings that cannot be found or are incomplete, precisely for the conversations that decided the case.
SAC answers
That the firm analyzed the case seriously at the prior complaint stage and kept a consistent position.
Identical templates for different cases, or changes of story between the SAC and the submissions to the CNMV.
Signs that your complaints process is leaking
If this sounds familiar, the next unfavorable report will not be bad luck: it will be statistics.
- The SAC answers complaints on completely different issues with the same template.
- Nobody reconciles what the client was told during the sale with what is in the systems and recordings.
- Files are put together in a rush only when the CNMV asks for the documents.
- Complaints never reach compliance or the management body: they are resolved and forgotten.
- You have lost several almost identical complaints and the product, the script and the documentation remain unchanged.
The file matters
The MiFID obligations behind every complaint
Almost every investment complaint is resolved by comparing the firm’s conduct with four specific MiFID II obligations. Reviewing them thoroughly (before complaining or responding) is the best investment of time in the whole procedure.
Advice
Suitability test
The assessment required before any personalized recommendation: the document most cited in CNMV reports.
See the obligation →
ProfileRecommendation
Distribution
Appropriateness test
For non-advised services on complex products: what must be assessed and which warnings apply.
See the obligation →
Complex productsWarnings
Transparency
Costs and charges
Ex ante and ex post information, aggregated and showing the effect on returns: the area that generates the most complaints.
See the obligation →
Ex anteEx post
Records
Recording of communications
Recorded conversations confirm or contradict the written file. Their absence also speaks.
See the obligation →
OrdersArchive
Is the complaint already on the table? For firms: legal advisory services and a review of your process against the risk of CNMV sanctions. For investors: financial consumer protection and an analysis of the MiFID client classification applied to your case.
Contact
Book a call
Briefly describe the complaint (product, service, stage of the procedure) and we will tell you how to frame the answer or the filing with the best chance of success.
The CNMV complaints service: prior complaint, handling and reports
The CNMV complaints service is the administrative mechanism investors can turn to when they believe a firm has breached the securities market conduct rules: unsuitable advice, deficient cost information, sale of products that did not fit their profile. Its defining feature is that it ends with a reasoned, non-binding report which, without binding the firm, carries considerable evidentiary and supervisory weight. For firms, every complaint is an early test of their file; for investors, a free way to assert their rights before (or as well as) going to court.
The prior complaint stage: the customer service department
The process always starts at the firm’s door: the complaint is filed with its customer service department or its customer ombudsman, which must resolve it with a reasoned decision within the time limits set by the applicable rules. This stage is not a bureaucratic toll: the SAC’s answer will later travel to the supervisor and be checked against the file. For the firm, it is the moment to analyze the case with the evidence in front of it and decide with sound judgment; for the investor, the moment to complain in writing, keep the acknowledgment of receipt and gather the contract, statements and communications. What is done well here saves months; what is done badly will be paid for, on the record.
The complaint to the CNMV and the referral to the firm
Once the prior complaint stage is exhausted (because the answer was unsatisfactory or none arrived in time), the investor can file a complaint with the CNMV through the available channels, including its e-office (sede electrónica). The supervisor forwards it to the firm, which makes submissions and provides its documents. This is where the game is decided: the CNMV reads the SAC’s answer and the submissions together and checks them against suitability tests, cost information, orders and recordings. Consistency across all the pieces is the most persuasive argument there is; contradiction is the most damaging.
The final report: non-binding, but decisive
The procedure ends with a reasoned report stating whether the firm’s conduct complied with the rules. It is not binding and orders nothing; its strength lies elsewhere. For the firm, it works as a precedent and as a supervisory signal: repeated unfavorable reports form patterns that steer supervision and may precede sanctioning proceedings of the kind we cover in CNMV sanctions. For the investor, it is a technical document of great evidentiary value in negotiations and lawsuits. After the report, the firm states whether it rectifies: a decision best made with a calculator, not with pride.
What is coming: the Financial Customer Protection Authority
The creation of a Financial Customer Protection Authority (Autoridad de Defensa del Cliente Financiero), meant to unify the resolution of complaints in the sector, is still going through the legislative process. Until it is approved and up and running, the working framework is the one described above: the prior complaint to the firm and the CNMV complaints service. Our recommendation is twofold: follow the legislative process to anticipate major changes (especially on costs and on the effects of its decisions) and, meanwhile, invest where there is already a guaranteed return: complete files, reasoned answers and fixing root causes. The process may change its name; the advantage of whoever arrives with evidence will not.
For firms
The file that decides
Official sources
Key legislation, linked to the official text:
- Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/565 of April 25, 2016 supplementing Directive 2014/65/EU as regards organizational requirements and operating conditions for investment firmsEUR-Lex · Official Journal of the EU
- Law 6/2023 of March 17 on Securities Markets and Investment ServicesBOE · consolidated text
Legislation and links reviewed in .