Barriers to complaints will be treated as violations of consumer rights
En toda relación entre una institución financiera y sus clientes late un pacto implícito: que quien confía su dinero y su crédito a otro tendrá, al menos, la posibilidad de ser escuchado cuando algo falla. Indecopi, el organismo peruano de protección al consumidor, ha sancionado a Banco Falabella con más de 336,000 soles por haber erigido barreras —tanto en sucursales físicas como en canales digitales— que impedían a los usuarios registrar sus quejas. El caso recuerda que el derecho a reclamar no es un trámite burocrático, sino el fundamento mismo de la confianza en el sistema.
- Indecopi detectó que seis sucursales de Banco Falabella exigían condiciones ilegales para aceptar quejas: ser cliente activo o no tener reclamos previos pendientes.
- El canal de WhatsApp del banco rechazaba automáticamente las solicitudes cuando el sistema no podía validar el DNI del usuario, dejando a consumidores sin ninguna vía de acceso.
- La multa de 61.18 UIT —aproximadamente S/ 336,490— representa la primera resolución administrativa de instancia contra el banco por estas prácticas sistemáticas de bloqueo.
- Indecopi subrayó que el Código de Protección al Consumidor prohíbe expresamente imponer requisitos adicionales para el registro de quejas y obliga a las empresas a mantener mecanismos efectivos.
- El banco deberá reformar sus procedimientos de atención; aunque la resolución puede ser apelada, la señal regulatoria al sector financiero peruano ya está emitida.
El organismo peruano de protección al consumidor, Indecopi, ha sancionado a Banco Falabella con una multa equivalente a 61.18 UIT —cerca de 336,490 soles— tras comprobar que la entidad bloqueaba sistemáticamente el registro de quejas tanto en sus oficinas físicas como en sus plataformas digitales. La resolución, emitida en primera instancia por la Comisión de Protección al Consumidor N.° 3, es el resultado de una investigación iniciada por la propia división de fiscalización del organismo.
Los inspectores visitaron seis sucursales y revisaron los canales digitales del banco. En las oficinas, encontraron que se exigía a los usuarios demostrar que eran clientes de Falabella o que no tenían reclamos previos en trámite —condiciones que la ley no contempla y que, en la práctica, dejaban sin acceso a quienes más necesitaban presentar una queja. En el canal de WhatsApp, el sistema rechazaba automáticamente las solicitudes cuando no lograba validar el número de DNI del usuario, bloqueando al menos dos casos documentados.
El banco argumentó que estas medidas garantizaban la correcta identificación de los usuarios y el orden en el registro. Indecopi no lo aceptó: el Código de Protección al Consumidor prohíbe expresamente que los proveedores impongan requisitos adicionales para el registro de quejas y les exige mantener mecanismos accesibles y funcionales.
La resolución refuerza un principio que el organismo consideró central: en el sector bancario, donde las instituciones administran el dinero y el crédito de las personas, la posibilidad de presentar un reclamo formal no es una concesión, sino una garantía básica. Banco Falabella deberá pagar la multa y reformar sus procedimientos. Aunque la decisión puede ser apelada, el mensaje para el sector financiero peruano es claro: obstaculizar el acceso a los mecanismos de queja tiene un costo regulatorio concreto.
Peru's consumer protection agency has levied a substantial penalty against Banco Falabella for systematically blocking customers from filing complaints. The fine, announced by Indecopi's Consumer Protection Commission No. 3, totals 61.18 UIT—approximately 336,490 soles—and represents the agency's first-instance administrative judgment against the bank for erecting barriers that prevented complaints through both physical branches and digital channels.
The investigation that led to the penalty was initiated by Indecopi's own enforcement division, which conducted a methodical review of how the bank handled customer service procedures. Inspectors visited six branch offices and examined the bank's digital platforms. What they found was a pattern of gatekeeping: the bank had imposed conditions on complaint registration that the law does not permit. Customers were required to prove they held an account at Falabella, or they were turned away if they already had complaints pending. These prerequisites effectively locked out people who wanted to lodge grievances—precisely the opposite of what consumer protection law demands.
The digital channels presented their own obstacles. When customers tried to file complaints through WhatsApp, the system rejected their submissions if it could not validate their national identification number. In at least two documented instances, this technical barrier prevented complaints from being registered at all. The bank's position was that these requirements ensured proper record-keeping and verified customer identity. Indecopi disagreed. The agency determined that such conditions constitute improper restrictions, since the consumer protection code explicitly prohibits providers from imposing additional requirements for complaint filing and mandates that companies establish effective registration mechanisms.
The ruling underscores a principle that Indecopi emphasized in its decision: the right to file a complaint is foundational to consumer relations, and nowhere is this more critical than in banking. Financial institutions hold customers' money and manage their credit. When disputes arise—over fees, service failures, unauthorized transactions—the ability to lodge a formal complaint is not a courtesy; it is a safeguard. By requiring customers to jump through hoops before their complaint could even be recorded, Banco Falabella was undermining that safeguard.
The bank now faces the fine and the obligation to reform its complaint procedures. Indecopi has made clear that financial companies operating in Peru must maintain accessible, functioning mechanisms for customer grievances. This case, decided in first instance, may be appealed, but the message is already sent: barriers to complaints will be treated as violations of consumer rights, and the cost of erecting them will be measured in substantial penalties.
Notable Quotes
The right to present complaints constitutes a central element in consumer relations, especially in the financial sector, where companies are obligated to maintain accessible and operational mechanisms for customer service.— Indecopi, Consumer Protection Commission No. 3
The Hearth Conversation Another angle on the story
Why would a bank make it harder for people to complain? That seems counterintuitive—wouldn't they want to know what's wrong?
You'd think so. But there's a logic to it, even if it's the wrong one. If you make complaining difficult enough, fewer people do it. Fewer complaints on the record means fewer problems you have to acknowledge and fix.
So it's about hiding the problem rather than solving it.
Exactly. And in banking, where trust is everything, that's particularly dangerous. A customer who can't file a complaint becomes a customer who just leaves and tells others to avoid the bank.
The WhatsApp barrier is interesting—the system rejected complaints when it couldn't validate the ID. Was that a technical failure or intentional design?
The bank would probably call it a security measure. But Indecopi's point is that security can't be an excuse to block legitimate complaints. If your system can't validate someone, you find another way to take their complaint, not refuse it.
What happens now? Does the bank have to pay and move on?
They pay the fine, yes. But more importantly, they have to redesign how they handle complaints. They can't require customers to have an account. They can't reject complaints because someone has one pending. And their digital systems have to actually work. This is enforceable, and if they don't comply, there will be more penalties.