{"id":4420,"date":"2026-10-28T08:51:06","date_gmt":"2026-10-28T08:51:06","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/sawaryn.com\/?p=4420"},"modified":"2026-10-28T09:54:28","modified_gmt":"2026-10-28T09:54:28","slug":"organise-complaints-handling-process-poland","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/sawaryn.com\/en\/publikacje\/organise-complaints-handling-process-poland\/","title":{"rendered":"A Complaints System That Cannot Keep Up With Your Business. How to Organise the Process Before It Starts Causing Losses."},"content":{"rendered":"

How many complaints in your company were handled last month according to a clear procedure\u2014and how many based on improvisation and the goodwill of a particular employee?<\/p>\n

If the answer is \u201cI don\u2019t know” or \u201cmost of them get sorted out somehow”\u2014that is a sign that your complaints management system<\/strong> is not keeping pace with your business. And it is generating costs that do not appear in any report.<\/p>\n

The estimated cost of a single return in Polish e-commerce is approximately PLN 42.96<\/strong>. With 276 returns per month, this amounts to nearly PLN 12,000 in monthly operating costs\u2014excluding managers\u2019 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%.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

In this article, I will show you how to design a complaints handling process<\/strong> that works\u2014before it starts causing financial, reputational, and legal losses.<\/p>\n

Key concepts you need to know<\/h2>\n

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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Concept<\/th>\nWhat it means<\/th>\nWho it applies to<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n
Non-conformity of goods with the contract<\/strong><\/td>\nThe new legal regime applicable to consumers since 1.01.2023\u2014the goods do not meet the criteria agreed in the contract or objective standards (durability, safety, functionality)<\/td>\nB2C\u2014consumers<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Statutory warranty<\/strong><\/td>\nThe seller\u2019s liability for physical and legal defects in goods\u2014governed by the Civil Code (Articles 556\u2013576 of the Civil Code)<\/td>\nB2B\u2014businesses (since 1.01.2023, it no longer applies to B2C)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Commercial guarantee<\/strong><\/td>\nA voluntary commitment by the guarantor (manufacturer, distributor)\u2014the guarantor determines its scope and terms<\/td>\nB2C and B2B\u2014depending on the terms of the guarantee<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
14-day deadline<\/strong><\/td>\nThe maximum time allowed to respond to a consumer complaint\u2014exceeding it means the complaint is deemed accepted by operation of law (Article 7a of the Consumer Rights Act)<\/td>\nB2C<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Entrepreneur with consumer rights<\/strong><\/td>\nA natural person conducting business who enters into a contract that is not directly related to the professional nature of their business activity\u2014and is therefore covered by consumer protection<\/td>\nA specific B2B category treated like B2C<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

This distinction has a direct impact on your company\u2019s obligations, the deadlines you must meet, and the risks you face if a complaint is classified incorrectly.<\/p>\n

What the Sale of Goods Directive changed and why your forms may be out of date<\/h2>\n

Since 1 January 2023<\/strong>, the Act of 4 November 2022 (Journal of Laws of 2022, item 2337), which implemented the EU Sale of Goods Directive 2019\/771<\/a>, has been in force. The changes are fundamental\u2014and many companies still have not reflected them in their terms and conditions.<\/p>\n

What changed in consumer relations<\/h3>\n
    \n
  1. A new concept replacing the statutory warranty.<\/strong> In B2C relations, the Civil Code provisions on statutory warranty no longer apply. Instead of a \u201cphysical defect,” the applicable concept is non-conformity of goods with the contract<\/strong> (Articles 43a\u201343g of the Consumer Rights Act). This is a broader standard\u2014it covers not only product defects but also installation, instructions, stated characteristics, and durability.<\/li>\n
  2. Presumption extended to 2 years.<\/strong> 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<\/strong>. The burden of proof rests with the seller.<\/li>\n
  3. Response deadline shortened to 14 days.<\/strong> Previously, the seller had 30 days. The seller now has 14 calendar days<\/strong> from receipt of the complaint. Exceeding this deadline = automatic acceptance of the complaint by operation of law.<\/li>\n
  4. Hierarchy of consumer remedies.<\/strong> 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.<\/li>\n
  5. Obligation to provide updates for goods with digital elements<\/a>.<\/strong> 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.<\/li>\n
  6. The consumer bears none of the complaint-related costs.<\/strong> Transport, labour, materials\u2014all costs are borne by the seller. This also applies to removal and reinstallation.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    Transitional provisions\u2014what to look out for<\/h3>\n

    Goods purchased before 1 January 2023<\/strong> are subject to the old Civil Code provisions on statutory warranty. Goods purchased from 1 January 2023<\/strong> 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.<\/p>\n

    What this means for your terms and conditions<\/h3>\n

    If your complaints policy<\/a> still refers to the \u201cstatutory 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<\/strong>. And that exposes you to the risk of enforcement action by UOKiK.<\/p>\n

    How much complaints chaos costs\u2014and why you cannot see it<\/h2>\n

    The costs of a disorganised complaints handling process are dispersed. They do not appear under a single budget item. But they are real.<\/p>\n

    Direct operating costs<\/h3>\n

    Industry estimates put the cost of a single return at approximately PLN 42.96<\/strong>\u2014including 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<\/strong>. In the fashion and footwear category, return rates reach 30\u201340%.<\/p>\n

    Research shows that 70% of Poles<\/strong> shopping online used the option to return goods in the past year, while 46%<\/strong> did so multiple times. One in two Poles files a complaint an average of 5 times a year\u2014primarily concerning electronics (43%) and clothing and footwear (~40%).<\/p>\n

    Hidden costs that grow with your business<\/h3>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
    Cost category<\/th>\nWhere it comes from<\/th>\nWhy it grows<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n
    Managers\u2019 time<\/td>\nEvery unusual complaint is escalated \u201cup the chain”<\/td>\nNo decision-making matrix\u2014the team does not know who handles what<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    Automatically accepted complaints<\/td>\nFailure to meet the 14-day response deadline<\/td>\nNo deadline monitoring in the CRM\/ticketing system<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    Lost customers<\/td>\nInconsistent responses across sales channels<\/td>\nDifferent rules for the online store, marketplace, and B2B sales<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    Dispute costs<\/td>\nIncorrect classification (statutory warranty instead of non-conformity, commercial guarantee instead of statutory warranty)<\/td>\nThe team does not distinguish between legal regimes<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    Internal conflicts<\/td>\nA complaint concerning transport\/installation is passed between departments<\/td>\nNo clearly defined responsibility within the supply chain<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    Negative reviews<\/td>\nThe customer is sent from the seller to the installer, then from the installer to the manufacturer<\/td>\nNo one \u201cowns” the case<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

    For a company with revenue of PLN 10\u2013100 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.<\/p>\n

    14 days that could cost your company a fortune<\/h2>\n

    Article 7a of the Consumer Rights Act<\/strong> 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.<\/p>\n

    How the courts interpret this deadline<\/h3>\n

    The case law is clear\u2014and strict.<\/p>\n

      \n
    1. Supreme Court, resolution III CZP 113\/17 of 13 June 2018<\/strong>\u2014held that exceeding the 14-day deadline creates at least a rebuttable presumption<\/strong> 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.<\/li>\n
    2. Supreme Court, judgment IV CSK 75\/12<\/strong>\u2014confirmed the concept of \u201cdeemed acceptance” of a complaint where no timely response is provided.<\/li>\n
    3. Regional Court in \u0141\u00f3d\u017a, judgment III Ca 2311\/19<\/strong>\u2014went further, holding that failure to respond within the deadline constitutes a declaration of intent<\/strong> by the business that interrupts the limitation period for the consumer\u2019s claim (Article 123 \u00a71 point 2 of the Civil Code).<\/li>\n
    4. District Court, judgment I C 619\/19<\/strong>\u2014clarified that the 14-day period begins when the goods are delivered<\/strong> to the seller (if the complaint requires an inspection), rather than when the complaint itself is submitted.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

      What this means for your company<\/h3>\n

      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\u2014which is costly and time-consuming.<\/p>\n

      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<\/strong>. This one change can protect your company from numerous complaints being accepted automatically.<\/p>\n

      Contact us<\/a><\/p>\n

      UOKiK scrutinises terms and conditions\u2014and imposes penalties<\/h2>\n

      In 2024<\/strong>, UOKiK issued more than 750 decisions and imposed penalties totalling more than PLN 937 million<\/strong>. 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.<\/p>\n

      Specific cases worth knowing<\/h3>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
      Case<\/th>\nWhat was challenged<\/th>\nConsequences<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n
      Epaka.pl<\/strong> (RLU 6\/2023)<\/td>\nClauses excluding the intermediary\u2019s liability for damaged\/lost parcels\u2014shifting liability to carriers<\/td>\nClauses found to be unfair and unenforceable by operation of law<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
      Bank Pekao<\/strong> (DOZIK-5\/2025)<\/td>\nSystematic failure to meet complaint response deadlines (2019\u20132023)<\/td>\nA PLN 100 million<\/strong> provision for compensation; PLN 300\u20132,500 per customer depending on the delay<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
      Allegro Smart!<\/strong><\/td>\nA modification clause giving the platform the right to change the terms unilaterally<\/td>\nClause found to be an unfair contract term<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
      Amazon<\/strong><\/td>\nPotentially misleading product availability information; reservation of the right to cancel an order<\/td>\nA penalty of up to 10% of turnover<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
      Booking.com<\/strong><\/td>\nNo clear information about the host\u2019s status; unclear allocation of complaint-handling responsibilities<\/td>\nCommitment decision\u2014transparent information + compensation<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
      Zalando, Booking, Travelist<\/strong><\/td>\nBreaches of information obligations under the Omnibus Directive<\/td>\nAllegations of infringing collective consumer interests<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

      Most frequently challenged clauses and practices<\/h3>\n
        \n
      1. Excluding or limiting the seller\u2019s liability for defects, delays, or damage in transit<\/li>\n
      2. Modification clauses\u2014unilateral changes to terms and conditions without a valid reason<\/li>\n
      3. Changing statutory deadlines or adding formal requirements (e.g. requiring a damage report completed with the courier)<\/li>\n
      4. Shifting liability to third parties without explaining the scope of the seller\u2019s responsibility<\/li>\n
      5. Unclear seller status on marketplaces<\/li>\n
      6. Dark patterns that make it difficult to submit a complaint\u2014UOKiK examined 642 websites; more than 75%<\/strong> used at least one dark pattern<\/li>\n
      7. Requiring a receipt as the sole proof of purchase\u2014UOKiK states that proof may also include a bank statement, card payment confirmation, or an order confirmation email<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

        The penalty for infringing collective consumer interests can be as high as 10% of the previous year\u2019s turnover<\/strong>. The penalty for management personnel can be up to PLN 2 million<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

        Complaints on marketplaces\u2014who is responsible for what<\/h2>\n

        Selling through Allegro, Amazon, or other marketplaces creates a specific legal structure that often causes confusion.<\/p>\n

        Allocation of responsibility<\/h3>\n

        A marketplace transaction creates at least two separate contracts:<\/p>\n

          \n
        1. Sales contract<\/strong>\u2014between 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.<\/li>\n
        2. Contract for the provision of electronic services<\/strong>\u2014between the consumer and the platform. The platform is responsible for its own intermediary services.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

          Exception: where the platform itself is the seller (labelled \u201csold by: Amazon” or \u201csold by: Allegro”)\u2014the complaint should then be addressed to the platform.<\/p>\n

          Platform obligations under the DSA and Omnibus Directive<\/h3>\n

          The Digital Services Act (DSA), applicable since 17 February 2024<\/strong>, imposes additional obligations on marketplace platforms:<\/p>\n

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

            The Omnibus Directive requires a clear indication of whether the seller is a business or a private individual<\/strong>\u2014because this determines the scope of consumer protection (right of withdrawal, complaints based on non-conformity of goods with the contract).<\/p>\n

            What this means for you as a marketplace seller<\/h3>\n

            Even if you sell through Allegro or Amazon, you<\/strong> 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\u2019s terms and conditions.<\/p>\n

            How to design a complaints management system that works<\/h2>\n

            Below you will find specific steps\u2014starting with those you need to implement immediately and ending with those worth planning for the coming quarter.<\/p>\n

            Step 1: Audit the current process<\/h3>\n

            Map the actual complaints handling process in each sales channel\u2014e-commerce, direct B2B, marketplace, distributor. Compare it with the applicable documentation. Identify discrepancies between what is written down and what the team actually does.<\/p>\n

            Check:<\/p>\n

              \n
            1. Whether the team knows which legal regime to apply from the very first minute of contact with the customer<\/li>\n
            2. Whether the complaints policy has been updated to reflect the law in force after 1.01.2023<\/li>\n
            3. Whether forms refer to the \u201cstatutory warranty” in a B2C context (an error)<\/li>\n
            4. Whether you monitor the 14-day response deadline in the ticketing system<\/li>\n
            5. Whether responsibility for each stage of the complaint process is assigned to specific people\/departments<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

              Step 2: Separate B2C and B2B pathways<\/h3>\n

              This change must be made formally\u2014in your documentation, processes, and training. From the first minute of contact, the team must know which legal regime to apply.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
              Parameter<\/th>\nB2C (consumer)<\/th>\nB2B (business)<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n
              Legal basis<\/td>\nConsumer Rights Act (non-conformity with the contract)<\/td>\nCivil Code (statutory warranty, Articles 556\u2013576)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
              Response deadline<\/td>\n14 days\u2014exceeding the deadline = acceptance by operation of law<\/td>\nNo statutory deadline (unless the contract provides otherwise)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
              Possibility of limitation<\/td>\nNo\u2014it cannot be limited below the statutory minimum<\/td>\nYes\u2014the statutory warranty may be contractually limited or excluded<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
              Liability period<\/td>\n2 years from delivery of the goods<\/td>\n2 years (but it may be contractually shortened)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
              Complaint-related costs<\/td>\nThe seller bears all costs<\/td>\nDepends on the contract<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
              Hierarchy of remedies<\/td>\nRepair\/replacement \u2192 price reduction\/withdrawal<\/td>\nNo rigid hierarchy<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

              Step 3: Update your documentation<\/h3>\n

              Review and update:<\/p>\n

                \n
              1. The complaints policy on your website\u2014adapt it to the new regime governing non-conformity of goods with the contract<\/li>\n
              2. The commercial guarantee policy\u2014make sure it is separate from the complaints procedure<\/li>\n
              3. Complaint forms\u2014separate forms for B2C and B2B<\/li>\n
              4. Response templates\u2014at least 8\u201310 scenarios: acceptance, rejection, proposal for repair\/replacement, price reduction, referral to the guarantor, separately for B2C and B2B<\/li>\n
              5. GTS (General Terms of Sale) for B2B customers\u2014review the clauses concerning statutory warranties and commercial guarantees<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                Step 4: Build a decision-making matrix<\/h3>\n

                A one-page flowchart for the customer service team that answers the following questions:<\/p>\n

                  \n
                1. Who<\/strong> is the customer\u2014a consumer, a business, or an entrepreneur with consumer rights?<\/li>\n
                2. Which<\/strong> sales channel\u2014online store, marketplace, direct B2B, or distributor?<\/li>\n
                3. What<\/strong> does the complaint concern\u2014the product, transport, installation, or instructions?<\/li>\n
                4. Who<\/strong> handles it\u2014customer service, quality department, logistics, or a lawyer?<\/li>\n
                5. What is the deadline<\/strong>\u201414 days (B2C) or the contractual deadline (B2B)?<\/li>\n
                6. What<\/strong> response options are available\u2014repair, replacement, price reduction, rejection, or referral?<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                  The approach used in IT contracts\u2014where SLAs precisely categorise reports as outages, errors, and faults, each with different response and resolution times\u2014can be directly applied to a complaints management system. An important distinction: response time<\/strong> (confirming receipt of a complaint) is not the same as resolution time<\/strong> (the actual decision). Defining both timeframes precisely eliminates misunderstandings with customers and keeps the team disciplined.<\/p>\n

                  Step 5: Implement deadline monitoring<\/h3>\n

                  Configure the following in your CRM or ticketing system:<\/p>\n

                    \n
                  1. Automatic confirmation of receipt of the complaint (with the date and case number)<\/li>\n
                  2. An alert on day 11<\/strong> after receipt of a B2C complaint\u20143 days before the deadline<\/li>\n
                  3. Escalation to a manager on day 13<\/strong>\u2014if the case has not been resolved<\/li>\n
                  4. A weekly report showing the number of open complaints and their status<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                    Step 6: Define responsibility within the supply chain<\/h3>\n

                    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:<\/p>\n

                      \n
                    1. A clear allocation of responsibility between departments (customer service, logistics, sales, service)<\/li>\n
                    2. Recourse clauses in contracts<\/a> with distributors, carriers, and installation subcontractors\u2014so that you can recover complaint-related costs caused by a partner<\/li>\n
                    3. A designated \u201ccase owner” at every stage\u2014so the complaint is not passed back and forth between departments<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                      A proven model from IT contracts\u2014a 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\u2014works 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.<\/p>\n

                      Step 7: Train the team<\/h3>\n

                      Training cannot simply be a lecture on legal provisions. It should take the form of a workshop based on specific scenarios:<\/p>\n

                        \n
                      1. A customer calls with a complaint about installation\u2014who is responsible, what do you say, and where do you direct them?<\/li>\n
                      2. A customer service employee writes, \u201cthe commercial guarantee does not cover this case”\u2014but the customer is complaining on the grounds of non-conformity of goods with the contract. How can you avoid this error?<\/li>\n
                      3. A B2B complaint\u2014can you reject it? On what grounds?<\/li>\n
                      4. Day 14 is approaching, but the case requires a technical opinion\u2014what do you do?<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                        How we can help you<\/h2>\n

                        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.<\/p>\n

                        We help e-commerce companies, manufacturers, and distributors bring structure to this area. Our approach:<\/p>\n

                          \n
                        1. Consistency audit<\/strong>\u2014we compare what your terms and conditions say with what the team actually does. We identify discrepancies and legal risks.<\/li>\n
                        2. Documentation update<\/strong>\u2014terms and conditions, forms, response templates, GTS\u2014adapted to the legal framework following implementation of the Sale of Goods Directive and to your sales model.<\/li>\n
                        3. Process design<\/strong>\u2014decision-making matrix, allocation of responsibility, escalation path, and deadline monitoring.<\/li>\n
                        4. Review of partner contracts<\/strong>\u2014recourse clauses in contracts with distributors, carriers, and installation subcontractors.<\/li>\n
                        5. Team training<\/strong>\u2014workshops based on specific scenarios, not lectures on legal provisions.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                          We treat contract law as an operational part of sales\u2014not as a one-off document to be signed and filed away in a drawer. We design rules where risk or value actually arises.<\/p>\n

                          Bring structure to complaints before they start slowing your business down<\/h2>\n

                          A complaints management system that emerged by accident\u2014because \u201cit somehow worked on a smaller scale”\u2014starts generating losses as the company grows. Automatically accepted complaints, inconsistent responses, escalations to the management board, and the risk of UOKiK enforcement action.<\/p>\n

                          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\u2014in a logical sequence and according to a clear schedule.<\/p>\n

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

                          Frequently asked questions<\/h2>\n

                          We have a complaints policy on our website\u2014is that enough to comply with the law?<\/strong>
                          \nNot always. The policy is only one component\u2014but 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.<\/p>\n

                          What happens if we do not respond to a consumer complaint within 14 days?<\/strong>
                          \nThe 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\u2014the burden of proving that the complaint is unfounded shifts to the business. The Regional Court in \u0141\u00f3d\u017a (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.<\/p>\n

                          Can I apply the same complaints policy to business customers (B2B) and consumers?<\/strong>
                          \nNo. 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\u2014you either make commitments that go beyond legal requirements or reject complaints in a way that infringes consumer rights.<\/p>\n

                          Who is responsible for a complaint concerning goods purchased on a marketplace (Allegro, Amazon)?<\/strong>
                          \nThe seller is always responsible for any non-conformity of goods with the contract\u2014regardless 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 \u201csold by: Amazon”). As a marketplace seller, you must have your own complaints handling process that complies with the Consumer Rights Act.<\/p>\n

                          How should complaints concerning transport or installation be handled\u2014who is responsible for what?<\/strong>
                          \nThe seller is responsible to the consumer\u2014even 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\u2014so that you can recover complaint-related costs caused by them.<\/p>\n

                          Can I limit or exclude the statutory warranty for B2B customers?<\/strong>
                          \nYes\u2014the 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).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

                          Learn how to separate B2C and B2B complaints in Poland, update your policies, track response deadlines and assign responsibility across sales channels.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":13,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":"","sip_alt_url":"","sip_en_pl_url":"","sip_pair_uuid":"dc936a06-e9ee-4da6-a18e-8c43f1f6cbe9","sip_pair_state":"verified"},"categories":[1583],"tags":[1643,1552,1551,1540,1590],"specialization":[1210],"practice_area":[],"class_list":["post-4420","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-digital-law","tag-digital-law-en","tag-dsa-en","tag-e-commerce-en","tag-internal-procedure","tag-online-store-terms-and-conditions","specialization-digital-law"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/sawaryn.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4420","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/sawaryn.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/sawaryn.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sawaryn.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/13"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sawaryn.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4420"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/sawaryn.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4420\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":4447,"href":"https:\/\/sawaryn.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4420\/revisions\/4447"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/sawaryn.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4420"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sawaryn.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4420"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sawaryn.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4420"},{"taxonomy":"specialization","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sawaryn.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/specialization?post=4420"},{"taxonomy":"practice_area","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sawaryn.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/practice_area?post=4420"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}