A Complaints System That Cannot Keep Up With Your Business. How to Organise the Process Before It Starts Causing Losses.

How many complaints in your company were handled last month according to a clear procedure—and how many based on improvisation and the goodwill of a particular employee?

If the answer is “I don’t know” or “most of them get sorted out somehow”—that is a sign that your complaints management system is not keeping pace with your business. And it is generating costs that do not appear in any report.

The estimated cost of a single return in Polish e-commerce is approximately PLN 42.96. With 276 returns per month, this amounts to nearly PLN 12,000 in monthly operating costs—excluding managers’ time, escalations, disputes, and lost customers. Implementing a structured complaints management system can reduce these costs by approximately 30% and shorten handling times by approximately 40%.

The problem is not a lack of procedures. The problem is that the existing rules are inconsistent, too general, or poorly aligned with how your company actually sells. The result? Every complaint is handled from scratch. An overburdened team. Slow decisions. Inconsistent responses. Frustration on both sides.

In this article, I will show you how to design a complaints handling process that works—before it starts causing financial, reputational, and legal losses.

Key concepts you need to know

Before we move on to the specifics, let us clarify the terminology. Your customer service team must be able to distinguish between these concepts from the very first minute of contact with a customer.

This distinction has a direct impact on your company’s obligations, the deadlines you must meet, and the risks you face if a complaint is classified incorrectly.

What the Sale of Goods Directive changed and why your forms may be out of date

Since 1 January 2023, the Act of 4 November 2022 (Journal of Laws of 2022, item 2337), which implemented the EU Sale of Goods Directive 2019/771, has been in force. The changes are fundamental—and many companies still have not reflected them in their terms and conditions.

What changed in consumer relations

1. A new concept replacing the statutory warranty. In B2C relations, the Civil Code provisions on statutory warranty no longer apply. Instead of a “physical defect,” the applicable concept is non-conformity of goods with the contract (Articles 43a–43g of the Consumer Rights Act). This is a broader standard—it covers not only product defects but also installation, instructions, stated characteristics, and durability.
2. Presumption extended to 2 years. Previously, the presumption that the lack of conformity existed when the goods were delivered applied for 6 months. It now applies for a full 2 years. The burden of proof rests with the seller.
3. Response deadline shortened to 14 days. Previously, the seller had 30 days. The seller now has 14 calendar days from receipt of the complaint. Exceeding this deadline = automatic acceptance of the complaint by operation of law.
4. Hierarchy of consumer remedies. The consumer first requests repair or replacement. Only if the seller refuses, fails to act within a reasonable time, or the lack of conformity persists despite attempts to remedy it may the consumer request a price reduction or withdraw from the contract. Exception: in the event of a material lack of conformity, the consumer may immediately request a price reduction or withdraw from the contract.
5. Obligation to provide updates for goods with digital elements. The seller must provide updates (including security updates) for at least 2 years after the goods are delivered. Failure to provide updates = potential non-conformity with the contract.
6. The consumer bears none of the complaint-related costs. Transport, labour, materials—all costs are borne by the seller. This also applies to removal and reinstallation.

Transitional provisions—what to look out for

Goods purchased before 1 January 2023 are subject to the old Civil Code provisions on statutory warranty. Goods purchased from 1 January 2023 are subject to the new regime governing non-conformity of goods with the contract. If your company handles complaints concerning both periods, your team must know which regime to apply.

What this means for your terms and conditions

If your complaints policy still refers to the “statutory warranty” in the context of consumer sales, specifies a 30-day response deadline, or fails to reflect the hierarchy of remedies, it may contain unfair terms. And that exposes you to the risk of enforcement action by UOKiK.

How much complaints chaos costs—and why you cannot see it

The costs of a disorganised complaints handling process are dispersed. They do not appear under a single budget item. But they are real.

Direct operating costs

Industry estimates put the cost of a single return at approximately PLN 42.96—including customer service, transport both ways, receipt of the goods, storage, and preparing them for resale. With 276 returns per month, that amounts to nearly PLN 142,000 per year. In the fashion and footwear category, return rates reach 30–40%.

Research shows that 70% of Poles shopping online used the option to return goods in the past year, while 46% did so multiple times. One in two Poles files a complaint an average of 5 times a year—primarily concerning electronics (43%) and clothing and footwear (~40%).

Hidden costs that grow with your business

For a company with revenue of PLN 10–100 million, a disorganised complaints management system can generate hidden losses running into hundreds of thousands of zlotys per year. Implementing an integrated system can reduce costs by approximately 30%, shorten handling times by approximately 40%, and increase NPS by 25 points.

14 days that could cost your company a fortune

Article 7a of the Consumer Rights Act gives the seller 14 calendar days to respond to a consumer complaint. If this deadline is exceeded, the complaint is deemed accepted by operation of law.

How the courts interpret this deadline

The case law is clear—and strict.

1. Supreme Court, resolution III CZP 113/17 of 13 June 2018—held that exceeding the 14-day deadline creates at least a rebuttable presumption that the complaint has been accepted. The burden of proving that the complaint is unfounded shifts to the business. This reverses the standard logic of court proceedings.
2. Supreme Court, judgment IV CSK 75/12—confirmed the concept of “deemed acceptance” of a complaint where no timely response is provided.
3. Regional Court in Łódź, judgment III Ca 2311/19—went further, holding that failure to respond within the deadline constitutes a declaration of intent by the business that interrupts the limitation period for the consumer’s claim (Article 123 §1 point 2 of the Civil Code).
4. District Court, judgment I C 619/19—clarified that the 14-day period begins when the goods are delivered to the seller (if the complaint requires an inspection), rather than when the complaint itself is submitted.

What this means for your company

Even if a complaint is clearly unfounded, failure to respond within 14 days may result in an obligation to accept it. Reversing that outcome in court then requires proof that the complaint was unfounded—which is costly and time-consuming.

If your team does not monitor the 14-day deadline in a CRM or ticketing system, set alerts at least 3 days before the deadline. This one change can protect your company from numerous complaints being accepted automatically.

Contact us

UOKiK scrutinises terms and conditions—and imposes penalties

In 2024, UOKiK issued more than 750 decisions and imposed penalties totalling more than PLN 937 million. Of this, almost PLN 263 million concerned infringements of collective consumer interests and unfair terms. It initiated 41 proceedings, issued 70 decisions, and carried out more than 14,500 inspections through the Trade Inspection Authority.

Specific cases worth knowing

Most frequently challenged clauses and practices

1. Excluding or limiting the seller’s liability for defects, delays, or damage in transit
2. Modification clauses—unilateral changes to terms and conditions without a valid reason
3. Changing statutory deadlines or adding formal requirements (e.g. requiring a damage report completed with the courier)
4. Shifting liability to third parties without explaining the scope of the seller’s responsibility
5. Unclear seller status on marketplaces
6. Dark patterns that make it difficult to submit a complaint—UOKiK examined 642 websites; more than 75% used at least one dark pattern
7. Requiring a receipt as the sole proof of purchase—UOKiK states that proof may also include a bank statement, card payment confirmation, or an order confirmation email

The penalty for infringing collective consumer interests can be as high as 10% of the previous year’s turnover. The penalty for management personnel can be up to PLN 2 million.

Complaints on marketplaces—who is responsible for what

Selling through Allegro, Amazon, or other marketplaces creates a specific legal structure that often causes confusion.

Allocation of responsibility

A marketplace transaction creates at least two separate contracts:

1. Sales contract—between the consumer and the seller. The seller is responsible for any non-conformity of the goods with the contract, regardless of the fact that the sale took place through a platform.
2. Contract for the provision of electronic services—between the consumer and the platform. The platform is responsible for its own intermediary services.

Exception: where the platform itself is the seller (labelled “sold by: Amazon” or “sold by: Allegro”)—the complaint should then be addressed to the platform.

Platform obligations under the DSA and Omnibus Directive

The Digital Services Act (DSA), applicable since 17 February 2024, imposes additional obligations on marketplace platforms:

1. Ensuring the traceability of traders (seller verification)
2. Informing consumers when they have purchased an illegal product
3. Prohibiting the use of dark patterns in interfaces
4. An internal complaint-handling system that is easily accessible, free of charge, timely, and supervised by qualified staff (Article 20 DSA)

The Omnibus Directive requires a clear indication of whether the seller is a business or a private individual—because this determines the scope of consumer protection (right of withdrawal, complaints based on non-conformity of goods with the contract).

What this means for you as a marketplace seller

Even if you sell through Allegro or Amazon, you are responsible for complaints concerning the goods. The platform does not assume this responsibility. You must have your own complaints handling process that complies with the Consumer Rights Act, independently of the platform’s terms and conditions.

How to design a complaints management system that works

Below you will find specific steps—starting with those you need to implement immediately and ending with those worth planning for the coming quarter.

Step 1: Audit the current process

Map the actual complaints handling process in each sales channel—e-commerce, direct B2B, marketplace, distributor. Compare it with the applicable documentation. Identify discrepancies between what is written down and what the team actually does.

Check:

1. Whether the team knows which legal regime to apply from the very first minute of contact with the customer
2. Whether the complaints policy has been updated to reflect the law in force after 1.01.2023
3. Whether forms refer to the “statutory warranty” in a B2C context (an error)
4. Whether you monitor the 14-day response deadline in the ticketing system
5. Whether responsibility for each stage of the complaint process is assigned to specific people/departments

Step 2: Separate B2C and B2B pathways

This change must be made formally—in your documentation, processes, and training. From the first minute of contact, the team must know which legal regime to apply.

Step 3: Update your documentation

Review and update:

1. The complaints policy on your website—adapt it to the new regime governing non-conformity of goods with the contract
2. The commercial guarantee policy—make sure it is separate from the complaints procedure
3. Complaint forms—separate forms for B2C and B2B
4. Response templates—at least 8–10 scenarios: acceptance, rejection, proposal for repair/replacement, price reduction, referral to the guarantor, separately for B2C and B2B
5. GTS (General Terms of Sale) for B2B customers—review the clauses concerning statutory warranties and commercial guarantees

Step 4: Build a decision-making matrix

A one-page flowchart for the customer service team that answers the following questions:

1. Who is the customer—a consumer, a business, or an entrepreneur with consumer rights?
2. Which sales channel—online store, marketplace, direct B2B, or distributor?
3. What does the complaint concern—the product, transport, installation, or instructions?
4. Who handles it—customer service, quality department, logistics, or a lawyer?
5. What is the deadline—14 days (B2C) or the contractual deadline (B2B)?
6. What response options are available—repair, replacement, price reduction, rejection, or referral?

The approach used in IT contracts—where SLAs precisely categorise reports as outages, errors, and faults, each with different response and resolution times—can be directly applied to a complaints management system. An important distinction: response time (confirming receipt of a complaint) is not the same as resolution time (the actual decision). Defining both timeframes precisely eliminates misunderstandings with customers and keeps the team disciplined.

Step 5: Implement deadline monitoring

Configure the following in your CRM or ticketing system:

1. Automatic confirmation of receipt of the complaint (with the date and case number)
2. An alert on day 11 after receipt of a B2C complaint—3 days before the deadline
3. Escalation to a manager on day 13—if the case has not been resolved
4. A weekly report showing the number of open complaints and their status

Step 6: Define responsibility within the supply chain

If your company sells products whose transport, installation, or servicing is carried out by subcontractors, you must clearly define who is responsible for each stage. The seller is always responsible to the consumer. Internally, however, you need:

1. A clear allocation of responsibility between departments (customer service, logistics, sales, service)
2. Recourse clauses in contracts with distributors, carriers, and installation subcontractors—so that you can recover complaint-related costs caused by a partner
3. A designated “case owner” at every stage—so the complaint is not passed back and forth between departments

A proven model from IT contracts—a multi-level escalation procedure in which a dispute is first resolved at the operational level, then at the management level, and referred to a lawyer only after the internal process has been exhausted—works extremely well in the complaints context. The mere existence of a clearly defined escalation path reduces the number of cases that reach the management board.

Step 7: Train the team

Training cannot simply be a lecture on legal provisions. It should take the form of a workshop based on specific scenarios:

1. A customer calls with a complaint about installation—who is responsible, what do you say, and where do you direct them?
2. A customer service employee writes, “the commercial guarantee does not cover this case”—but the customer is complaining on the grounds of non-conformity of goods with the contract. How can you avoid this error?
3. A B2B complaint—can you reject it? On what grounds?
4. Day 14 is approaching, but the case requires a technical opinion—what do you do?

How we can help you

The complaints handling process is where contract law, consumer law, and business operations intersect every day. Poorly drafted terms and conditions create a risk of UOKiK penalties. The absence of a decision-making matrix burdens the management board. Inconsistent responses across sales channels undermine customer trust.

We help e-commerce companies, manufacturers, and distributors bring structure to this area. Our approach:

1. Consistency audit—we compare what your terms and conditions say with what the team actually does. We identify discrepancies and legal risks.
2. Documentation update—terms and conditions, forms, response templates, GTS—adapted to the legal framework following implementation of the Sale of Goods Directive and to your sales model.
3. Process design—decision-making matrix, allocation of responsibility, escalation path, and deadline monitoring.
4. Review of partner contracts—recourse clauses in contracts with distributors, carriers, and installation subcontractors.
5. Team training—workshops based on specific scenarios, not lectures on legal provisions.

We treat contract law as an operational part of sales—not as a one-off document to be signed and filed away in a drawer. We design rules where risk or value actually arises.

Bring structure to complaints before they start slowing your business down

A complaints management system that emerged by accident—because “it somehow worked on a smaller scale”—starts generating losses as the company grows. Automatically accepted complaints, inconsistent responses, escalations to the management board, and the risk of UOKiK enforcement action.

Bringing structure to this area is not a quarter-long project. It involves an audit, document updates, implementation of a decision-making matrix, and team training—in a logical sequence and according to a clear schedule.

If you do not know whether your complaints management system is keeping pace with your business, contact us. We will show you where the gaps are and what should be changed first.

Frequently asked questions

We have a complaints policy on our website—is that enough to comply with the law?
Not always. The policy is only one component—but if it has not been updated since 1 January 2023 (implementation of the Sale of Goods Directive), it may contain outdated deadlines, references to the statutory warranty instead of non-conformity of goods with the contract, or clauses that UOKiK may classify as unfair. Check whether the policy reflects your current sales model and whether it is consistent with what the team actually does.

What happens if we do not respond to a consumer complaint within 14 days?
The complaint is deemed accepted by operation of law. The Supreme Court (resolution III CZP 113/17) confirmed that exceeding the deadline creates at least a rebuttable presumption that the complaint has been accepted—the burden of proving that the complaint is unfounded shifts to the business. The Regional Court in Łódź (III Ca 2311/19) additionally held that this constitutes a declaration of intent interrupting the limitation period. Reversing this outcome in court is costly and time-consuming.

Can I apply the same complaints policy to business customers (B2B) and consumers?
No. Since 1 January 2023, two separate legal regimes have applied. Consumers are covered by the Consumer Rights Act (non-conformity of goods with the contract, a 14-day response deadline, a hierarchy of remedies, and no possibility of limitation). Businesses are covered by the Civil Code statutory warranty, which may be contractually limited or excluded. Mixing these regimes leads to incorrect responses—you either make commitments that go beyond legal requirements or reject complaints in a way that infringes consumer rights.

Who is responsible for a complaint concerning goods purchased on a marketplace (Allegro, Amazon)?
The seller is always responsible for any non-conformity of goods with the contract—regardless of the fact that the sale took place through a platform. The platform is responsible for its own intermediary services and obligations under the DSA (seller traceability, an internal complaint-handling system). Exception: where the platform itself is the seller (labelled “sold by: Amazon”). As a marketplace seller, you must have your own complaints handling process that complies with the Consumer Rights Act.

How should complaints concerning transport or installation be handled—who is responsible for what?
The seller is responsible to the consumer—even if transport was provided by a carrier and installation was performed by a subcontractor. The new regime governing non-conformity of goods with the contract also covers installation, instructions, and stated characteristics. Internally, you need a clear allocation of responsibility between departments and recourse clauses in contracts with partners—so that you can recover complaint-related costs caused by them.

Can I limit or exclude the statutory warranty for B2B customers?
Yes—the Civil Code statutory warranty in B2B relations may be contractually limited or excluded. The condition is that such a provision must be included in the contract or GTS accepted by the other party. Check whether your GTS contain the appropriate clauses and whether they have been effectively incorporated into the contract (a simple reference on a website may not be sufficient).