ASK MAT: Who Can Complain? Is there a Common Blind Spot in Jersey TCB Complaints Handling

ASK MAT: Who Can Complain? Is there a Common Blind Spot in Jersey TCB Complaints Handling

MAT SAYS:

• Thank you for the question. It is a timely one in 2026, given the JFSC's ongoing supervisory focus on complaints handling through its thematic work [see appendix 1] and the inclusion of complaints data in the annual Supervisory Risk Data Collection (SRDC) requests [see appendix 2].

MAT's thoughts on this are as follows:

A trust arrangement is never really a two-party relationship.

• Around every trust a JFSC-regulated "Trust Company Service Business" administers (TCB - TCSP) sits a constellation of people and arrangements: a settlor, one or more trustees, sometimes a protector, a class of beneficiaries or objects of a power, and, increasingly common in modern deeds, other individuals holding reserved powers that amount to ultimate effective control.

Dangers and wrong questions

• Under the AML/CFT framework, we're required to identify, verify and risk-assess most of this population as a matter of course. It's a familiar list.
• When a complaint arrives from someone on that list who isn't our customer, the instinct is to reach for the same list and ask, "is this person someone we owe a service to?"
• That's the wrong question.

Who is complaining

• The population of customers and the population who can bring an eligible complaint under the JFSC Codes of Practice are not:-
• The same,
• Drawn from the same test, or
• Answerable by the same logic.
• The Code's definition is deliberately broad and open-textured; the regulator has not left a gap so much as declined to draw a bright line.
• The gap that actually causes problems lies one level down, in firms' internal triage procedures,  
• The problem is that firms' own internal decision-making processes (the triage stage) are often still built around the old "is this our client?" test instead of the actual five-limb test in the Code.
• That is where valid complaints are slipping through the net.
• This is why this blog below recommends replacing the client-list check with a disciplined assessment of all the limbs (especially Limb 4 and Limb 5) against the actual words used in the complaint and documenting that reasoning.

The test has nothing to do with who we serve

• The Trust Company Business Code of Practice defines a complaint as:
• Any oral or written expression of dissatisfaction, whether justified or not, from, or on behalf of, a person about the provision of, or failure to provide, a service that relates to trust company business carried on by the registered person, which alleges that the complainant has suffered (or may suffer) financial loss, material distress or material inconvenience.

Break that into its five working parts [LIMBS] and notice what's absent:

1. Any oral or written expression of dissatisfaction
2. Justified or not
3. From, or on behalf of, a person not "a customer," not "a person to whom we provide a service"
4. About the provision of, or failure to provide, a service that relates to TCB carried on by the registered person; the service is ours; nothing requires it to have been rendered to the complainant
5. Which alleges the complainant has suffered, or may suffer, financial loss, material distress, or material inconvenience

There is no customer gateway.

• Limb 4 asks whether the complaint concerns the trusteeship itself, our administration of the arrangement, not whether the complainant is on our customer list.
• Limb 5 is the only limb that actually screens people out, and it does so on a completely different axis: not "who are you to us" but "what harm are you personally alleging."
• This matters because it means the right question
• Is never "do we serve the protector/settlor/object of a power."
• It's: does what this person is saying satisfy limbs 4 and 5, on these facts, and that has to be assessed party by party, complaint by complaint, because the beneficial-ownership label tells you almost nothing about it.

A quick working framework

Two questions, applied to the actual words used, not the complainant's formal role:

• Limb 4: Does the substance of the complaint relate to the TCB's administration of, or failure to administer, TCB services in respect of this trust or arrangement? (The complainant does not need to have been the direct recipient of the service.)
• Limb 5: What specific financial loss, material distress, or material inconvenience does this individual allege they have suffered or may suffer? Distinguish personal harm to the complainant from dissatisfaction they're expressing on behalf of someone else, or from a bare disagreement voiced in an abstract oversight capacity with no harm attached to anyone.

Record the answer to both against the actual wording of the complaint.

• That record is what you'll want if the JFSC or CIFO ever asks why something was, or wasn't, logged.

Hypothetical worked example.

IN SCOPE

• A protector emails the trustee,
• Objecting to a proposed distribution and says the trustee has ignored two of his requests for information, forcing him to instruct his own lawyer at his own expense to obtain a response.
• Limb 4: yes, this concerns the trustee's administration of the trust, specifically its responsiveness to the protector in exercising his oversight role.
• Limb 5: yes, he's alleging a personal cost (legal fees) and, arguably, material inconvenience from being obstructed in exercising his function.
• This is a complaint under the Code, notwithstanding that the protector is not a customer.

NOT IN SCOPE

• Contrast that with a protector who emails to say
• He disagrees with a distribution decision on its merits, with no cost, delay, or personal impact mentioned; that communication may fail limb 5 entirely, and the file note should say why.

Once logged, the full set of obligations applies, not a customer-only subset.

• Its worth being precise about what follows once something clears limbs 4 and 5, because §3.6.1.2 of the Code (which explains how to complain) is easy to misread as implying the whole regime is customer-scoped. It isn't.
• Once a communication meets the five-limb definition, the substantive handling obligations in §3.6.1 apply regardless of the complainant's formal status: the five-business-day written acknowledgement, keeping the complainant informed of progress, written closure with reasons if not upheld, and inclusion in the central register.
• §3.6.1.2's reference to "customers" governs how you publicise your complaints process; it doesn't narrow who you owe the process to once a complaint has actually landed.
• A protector or reserved-powers holder whose communication meets the definition gets the same procedural treatment as a beneficiary or settlor would.

Running the CDD list against the actual test

• Settlor.
• Usually the easiest case, because a settlor typically had a direct relationship with the trustee at formation, and a complaint about how their wishes have been departed from or how they've been treated in ongoing dealings sits comfortably within limb 4.
• The harder edge case is the settlor of a long-established trust who has had no operational involvement for years.
• Does dissatisfaction with the current administration meet limb 5 for them personally, given they've typically divested all beneficial interest?
• Often the honest answer is: it depends whether they're complaining for themselves (weaker) or on behalf of beneficiaries (limb 3 covers this, and the harm then attaches to the people they're complaining for).
• Protector.
• No explicit JFSC or CIFO guidance exists for this specific category; the closest thing is CIFO's "sufficiently close relationship" guidance, which expressly names beneficiaries and says the list is non-exhaustive, but is silent on protectors.
• Protectors don't hold a beneficial interest, so limb 5 is the genuine pressure point: a bare disagreement with a discretionary decision, made in their oversight capacity with no personal harm alleged, may not meet the definition at all.
• A complaint alleging they've been obstructed in exercising their powers, or have incurred cost, time, or reputational exposure dealing with the TCB's conduct, is a different matter that's material inconvenience to them, not a proxy complaint about the trust's administration in the abstract.
• Beneficiaries and objects of a power.
• Beneficiaries have the most obvious hook of anyone on the list.
• This is supported by CIFO's 2020 decision on trust beneficiary eligibility, in which the Principal Ombudsman went further than the general guidance and directly addressed discretionary beneficiaries, holding that a beneficiary under a discretionary trust is an eligible complainant, against both the trustee and third-party providers, even though the discretionary nature of their interest can make individual financial loss difficult to quantify.
• The Ombudsman was explicit that the difficulty of quantification affects the remedy, not the standing to complain in the first place.
• That reasoning transfers reasonably well to "objects of a power" in the sense your CDD categorisation uses the term: someone who may become a beneficiary through the exercise of a discretion is in substantially the same position as the discretionary beneficiaries the decision addresses.
• Two caveats:
• That decision governs CIFO eligibility, which is a related but distinct test from the JFSC Code's internal complaint definition, and
• It was reached in the context of investment-related complaints against pension and other trusts, which is where CIFO's jurisdiction over "other trusts" is anchored.
• It's persuasive, not binding, on how a firm should apply the Code definition, but it's real authority, not just an inference from the wording.
• Persons exercising ultimate effective control via reserved powers.
• This is the category I'd flag as most likely to be under-analysed by firms, precisely because it's an AML/CFT construct rather than a trust-law role like protector or beneficiary, and it doesn't appear in any published complaints guidance at all.
• It's also, on the wording of limb 4, arguably the strongest case of the non-customer categories: someone holding a reserved power to direct investment or distribution decisions is actively directing the TCB's performance of the service itself, rather than merely supervising it from outside.
• A complaint from that person about the TCB's compliance (or non-compliance) with their directions goes to the core of what the TCB service is, which makes limb 4 easier to satisfy than it is for a protector's purely supervisory veto:
• Where the powers reserved to that person are binding a direction the TCB is obliged to follow, rather than a consent the TCB is merely required to seek, a complaint about non-compliance with that direction is, in substance, a complaint about the TCB's core performance of the service, not a collateral grievance about being kept informed.
• That's my reading of how the definition applies; it's not a position adopted in published guidance. Please treat it as analysis, not settled practice.

The recommendation isn't a rule; it's a discipline.

• There's no clean rule to hand an administrator / or compliance team ("protectors are in, settlors are out"), and
• Any guidance that pretends otherwise, this one included, is oversimplifying a definition the regulator has deliberately left open-textured.

What firms can control is the discipline of the assessment:

• Stop using "is this person our customer" as the triage question. It answers the wrong test.
• Assess limb 4 and limb 5 against the actual words used in the complaint, not against the complainant's formal role in the trust.
• Document that reasoning at the point of triage, particularly for limb 5, since that's where genuinely ambiguous cases will turn.
• Build category coverage for reserved-powers holders specifically; they're the population least likely to be caught by an off-the-shelf complaint procedure built around settlor/trustee/beneficiary/protector labels.
• Where it's genuinely finely balanced, logging the complaint is the lower-risk error. In-the-claim firms are making mistakes in both directions with equal frequency. I don't have evidence that over-inclusion is a live problem.
• The JFSC's published feedback and CIFO's own decisions consistently point in the opposite direction.
• The cost of under-inclusion shows up at the three-month CIFO escalation point or in a regulatory finding; the cost of over-inclusion is administrative.

The JFSC has signalled it is paying closer attention to complaints data.

• The 2023 consultation on categorisation and subsequent SRDC reporting cycles both point toward more scrutiny of how firms classify this population, not less.
• As that data collection matures, triage practices that were never tested against anything harder than "is this person our customer" will become more visible, not less.
• A definition this open, applied to a population this varied, is exactly the kind of area where "we've never had a query on this" is not evidence of a correct policy; it may just be evidence that no one has tested it yet.

END

Appendix 1

1. Complaints Handling is a New 2026 Thematic Examination Theme

The JFSC has announced a cross-sector thematic examination on customer complaints for 2026. The purpose is to assess how firms identify, manage, and resolve customer complaints, and whether they treat customers fairly.

The JFSC has stated that its examination will focus on:

• Complaints policies, procedures, systems and controls.
• Staff training on complaint handling.
• Complaints registers and complaint files.
• Monitoring and reporting of complaints data.
• Governance, oversight and management actions arising from complaints.

2. What the JFSC Expects Firms to Have

The examination programme explains that, under Principle 3 of the relevant Codes of Practice, firms should have effective complaint-handling systems and controls, including:

• A complaints register.
• Policies and procedures for complaint management.
• Customer communication arrangements, including providing updates on complaint progress.
• Transparent, competent, diligent and impartial complaint investigations.
• Trend analysis and the use of complaint data to improve customer outcomes.
• Arrangements for notifying the JFSC where complaints reveal significant issues, recurring patterns, unresolved matters or professional indemnity insurance claims.

The JFSC considers effective complaint handling to be an important component of a firm's wider risk management and governance framework.

3. Has the JFSC Published Examination Feedback Yet?

At present, no dedicated complaint-handling examination feedback paper appears to have been published by the JFSC.

The JFSC's examination findings library contains thematic feedback on a wide range of topics, including:

• Compliance monitoring.
• Conflicts of interest.
• Suspicious activity reporting.
• Politically exposed persons.
• Money laundering reporting officers.
• Outsourcing.
• Customer risk assessments.
• Financial crime training.

However, there is currently no published feedback paper specifically addressing complaint-handling examinations.

This is unsurprising, as customer complaints have only recently been introduced as a thematic examination topic for 2026. Any industry-wide findings and regulatory observations will likely be published following completion of the examination programme.

4. Practical Takeaways for Trust Company Businesses

Based on the published examination scope, Trust Company Businesses should expect the JFSC to scrutinise:

• Whether the firm's definition of a complaint is sufficiently broad and captures all relevant expressions of dissatisfaction.
• Board and senior management oversight of complaints.
• The quality, completeness and accuracy of the complaints register.
• Root-cause analysis and identification of recurring issues.
• Timeliness of complaint investigation and resolution.
• Escalation procedures, including referral to the Channel Islands Financial Ombudsman where appropriate.
• Regulatory notification triggers and reporting obligations.
• Evidence that complaints data and trends are used within risk management, conduct monitoring and business improvement processes.
• Staff awareness and training regarding complaint handling responsibilities.
• The effectiveness of management information provided to boards and senior management.

For Trust Company Businesses, the thematic examination is likely to be closely aligned with Principle 3 of the Trust Company Business Code of Practice (Organisation and Control), focusing on whether firms have adequate systems and controls to identify, manage, monitor and resolve complaints in a fair, transparent and effective manner.

More broadly, the examination appears consistent with the JFSC's increasing focus on conduct risk, customer outcomes, governance effectiveness and organisational culture, rather than treating complaints simply as an administrative or record-keeping exercise.

Appendix 2

Inclusion of Complaints Data in the JFSC's Supervisory Risk Data Collection (SRDC)

The inclusion of complaints data within the JFSC's Supervisory Risk Data Collection (SRDC) is a significant regulatory development. It demonstrates an increasing supervisory focus on conduct risk, customer outcomes and governance.

What Was Introduced?

As part of the updates to the 2024 SRDC (submitted during 2025), the JFSC introduced an additional conduct-related data request requiring firms to report the number of complaints recorded during the reporting period.

The complaints are categorised into the following areas:

• Poor administration, including customer service.
• Customer due diligence process.
• Fees.
• Mis-selling or unsuitable advice.
• Withdrawal or refusal of services.
• Fraud.
• Non-payment of claim.
• Transaction error.

Why Is This Significant?

Historically, the SRDC has focused primarily on:

• Business activities.
• Customer demographics.
• AML/CFT risk.
• Products and services.
• Prudential and supervisory information.

The addition of complaints data indicates that the JFSC now considers customer complaints to be an important regulatory risk indicator.

Complaints can provide insight into:

• Customer outcomes.
• Conduct risk.
• Governance effectiveness.
• Operational resilience.
• Emerging risks within a firm or sector.
• Cultural and control weaknesses.

In effect, complaint data enables the JFSC to identify trends and potential supervisory concerns before they develop into more significant regulatory issues.

How Might the JFSC Use the Data?

The collection of complaints data allows the JFSC to undertake a range of supervisory activities, including:

Risk Profiling

Firms reporting unusually high levels of complaints may attract increased supervisory scrutiny, particularly where complaint volumes appear inconsistent with their size, business model or peer group.

Trend Analysis

The JFSC can analyse complaints across sectors to identify recurring themes, such as:

• Issues with onboarding and customer due diligence.
• Service quality concerns.
• Disputes relating to fees.
• Concerns arising from de-risking or withdrawal of services.
• Operational processing errors.

Thematic Examination Selection

Complaints data can assist the JFSC in selecting firms and sectors for future thematic examinations and supervisory reviews.

Governance Assessment

The regulator can compare complaints information against:

• Complaints registers.
• Regulatory notifications.
• Professional indemnity insurance claims.
• Compliance monitoring findings.
• Other supervisory information.

This provides the JFSC with a more complete picture of how effectively firms identify, escalate and resolve customer issues.

Implications for Trust Company Businesses

For Trust Company Businesses (TCBs), complaints management should now be viewed as a regulatory issue rather than solely an operational matter.

Firms should ensure that they maintain:

• A clear and comprehensive definition of a complaint.
• Accurate complaint categorisation.
• A complete and up-to-date complaints register.
• Root-cause analysis procedures.
• Management information reporting.
• Board oversight and challenge.
• Evidence of remedial action arising from complaints.

Importantly, firms should expect consistency between:

• Internal complaints records.
• Board reporting.
• Regulatory notifications.
• SRDC submissions.

Where inconsistencies exist, these may attract regulatory attention.

Regulatory Direction of Travel

The introduction of complaints reporting within the SRDC, coupled with the JFSC's decision to make customer complaints a dedicated thematic examination topic for 2026, strongly suggests that complaints handling is becoming an increasingly important component of the JFSC's supervisory framework.

The direction of travel appears clear:

• Complaints are being recognised as a key conduct-risk indicator.
• Complaint trends are expected to inform governance and risk management.
• Complaints data is becoming part of firms' regulatory risk profiles.
• Boards and senior management are expected to demonstrate active oversight of customer outcomes.

For Jersey-regulated businesses, particularly TCBs, complaint management should now be considered a core element of organisational governance, conduct risk management, and regulatory compliance.

Supervisory-risk-data-collection Sources

1. https://www.jerseyfsc.org/news-and-events/updates-to-our-supervisory-risk-data-collection/
2. https://www.jerseyfsc.org/industry/guidance-and-policy/updates-to-our-2024-supervisory-risk-data-collection/
3. https://www.jerseyfsc.org/industry/examinations/examination-programme/
4. https://www.jerseyfsc.org/industry/guidance-and-policy/updates-to-our-2025-supervisory-risk-data-collection/

ASK MAT Sources

• JFSC, Code of Practice for Trust Company Business (effective 1 January 2008, last revised 1 January 2021), Glossary (complaint definition) and §3.6 (complaints handling): https://www.jerseyfsc.org/media/ek1hb0k3/cop-trust-company-business-code-of-practice.pdf (landing page: https://www.jerseyfsc.org/industry/codes-of-practice/trust-company-business-code-of-practice/)
• CIFO, Guidelines on Sufficiently Close Relationships (effective 16 November 2015), §6.3: https://www.ci-fo.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/151114-Guidelines-on-sufficiently-close-relationships.pdf
• CIFO Principal Ombudsman, Decision on the Close Relationship of Trust Beneficiaries to a Financial Services Provider to a Trust (12 August 2020): https://www.ci-fo.org/wp-content/uploads/210201-Close-relationship-of-Trust-beneficiaries-to-FSP-1.pdf
• JFSC, Additional Supervisory Risk Data Consultation Paper No. 9 (2023) and subsequent feedback paper, on complaints categorisation aligned to CIFO categories: https://www.jerseyfsc.org/industry/consultations/

This piece reflects industry interpretation of the JFSC Codes of Practice for Trust Company Business and CIFO's published guidance as at July 2026, and does not constitute legal advice. Firms should seek Jersey legal advice on the application of these provisions to specific facts.