\n| Negative reviews<\/td>\n | The customer is sent from seller to installer to manufacturer.<\/td>\n | No one owns the case through to a decision.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n For a business with revenue of PLN 10\u2013100 million<\/strong>, the source estimates that a disorganized process can produce hidden annual losses of hundreds of thousands of zlotys. It states that an integrated system can reduce costs by approximately 30%<\/strong>, shorten handling times by approximately 40%<\/strong>, and increase net promoter score (NPS<\/strong>) by 25 points<\/strong>.<\/p>\nThe 14-Day Deadline Needs an Owner and an Alert<\/h2>\nArticle 7a of the Consumer Rights Act<\/strong> gives a seller 14 calendar days to respond to a consumer complaint. The approved source describes a missed deadline as causing the complaint to be deemed accepted by operation of law. It also identifies decisions that bear on how that consequence is treated:<\/p>\n\n- Supreme Court resolution III CZP 113\/17, June 13, 2018:<\/strong> missing the 14-day deadline creates at least a rebuttable presumption<\/strong> that the complaint was accepted. The business then bears the burden of showing that the complaint was unfounded.<\/li>\n
- Supreme Court judgment IV CSK 75\/12:<\/strong> confirmed the concept of deemed acceptance where there is no timely response.<\/li>\n
- Regional Court in \u0141\u00f3d\u017a judgment III Ca 2311\/19:<\/strong> treated the failure to respond on time as a declaration of intent<\/strong> by the business that interrupts the limitation period for the consumer\u2019s claim under Article 123 \u00a71 point 2 of the Civil Code.<\/li>\n
- District Court judgment I C 619\/19:<\/strong> stated that, where inspection is required, the 14-day period starts when the goods are delivered to the seller<\/strong>, rather than when the complaint is first reported.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
Do not leave deadline calculation to memory or assume that acknowledging receipt is the substantive response. Even a complaint your team considers clearly unfounded can become costly to contest after a missed deadline.<\/p>\n At minimum, configure an alert three days before the applicable deadline<\/strong> and give someone authority to escalate an unresolved case. If inspection or a technical opinion is needed, make the timing and responsibility visible in the case record.<\/p>\nUOKiK Risk Extends Beyond the Complaints Form<\/h2>\nIn 2024<\/strong>, UOKiK issued more than 750 decisions<\/strong> and imposed penalties totaling more than PLN 937 million<\/strong>, according to the figures in the source. Almost PLN 263 million<\/strong> related to infringements of collective consumer interests and unfair terms. The source also reports 41 proceedings initiated<\/strong>, 70 decisions issued<\/strong>, and more than 14,500 inspections<\/strong> by the Trade Inspection Authority.<\/p>\nThe cited matters illustrate different risks; they should not all be read as decisions about the same type of complaint clause.<\/p>\n \n\n\n| Matter<\/th>\n | Conduct identified in the source<\/th>\n | Stated consequence<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n | \n\nEpaka.pl (RLU 6\/2023)<\/strong><\/td>\n| Terms shifted responsibility for damaged or lost parcels from an intermediary to carriers.<\/td>\n | The clauses were found unfair and unenforceable by operation of law.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \nBank Pekao (DOZIK-5\/2025)<\/strong><\/td>\n| Repeated failure to meet complaint response deadlines in 2019\u20132023.<\/td>\n | A PLN 100 million<\/strong> provision for redress; PLN 300\u20132,500<\/strong> per customer depending on the delay.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\nAllegro Smart!<\/strong><\/td>\n| A clause allowed unilateral changes to platform terms.<\/td>\n | The clause was found to be an unfair term.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \nAmazon<\/strong><\/td>\n| Potentially misleading product-availability information and a reservation of the right to cancel orders.<\/td>\n | The source states that a penalty of up to 10% of turnover<\/strong> was at issue.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\nBooking.com<\/strong><\/td>\n| Unclear information about a host\u2019s status and the allocation of complaint responsibilities.<\/td>\n | A commitment decision requiring clearer information and redress.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \nZalando, Booking, Travelist<\/strong><\/td>\n| Alleged breaches of information duties under the Omnibus Directive.<\/td>\n | Allegations concerning collective consumer interests.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n Terms and practices to check include:<\/p>\n \n- Excluding or limiting seller liability for defects, delays, or damage in transit.<\/li>\n
- Allowing unilateral changes to terms without a valid reason.<\/li>\n
- Altering statutory deadlines or imposing extra formalities, such as requiring a damage report completed with a courier.<\/li>\n
- Referring customers to a third party without explaining the seller\u2019s own responsibility.<\/li>\n
- Failing to make clear who the seller is on a marketplace.<\/li>\n
- Using dark patterns<\/strong>\u2014interface designs that make submitting a complaint difficult. The source states that UOKiK examined 642 websites<\/strong> and found at least one dark pattern on more than 75%<\/strong> of them.<\/li>\n
- Requiring a receipt as the only<\/em> proof of purchase. UOKiK indicates that a bank statement, card-payment confirmation, or order-confirmation email may also serve as proof.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
A penalty for infringing collective consumer interests can reach 10% of the previous year\u2019s turnover<\/strong>. The source also identifies a potential penalty of up to PLN 2 million<\/strong> for management personnel.<\/p>\nMarketplace Sales: Separate the Seller\u2019s Duty From the Platform\u2019s<\/h2>\nA sale through Allegro, Amazon, or another marketplace involves at least two relationships:<\/p>\n \n- The sales contract<\/strong> is between the customer and the seller. That seller is responsible for non-conformity of the goods, even though the transaction took place on a platform.<\/li>\n
- The electronic-services contract<\/strong> is between the customer and the platform. The platform is responsible for its own intermediary services.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
If the platform is itself identified as the seller\u2014for example, \u201csold by Amazon\u201d or \u201csold by Allegro\u201d\u2014the goods complaint is addressed to the platform in that seller capacity.<\/p>\n The Digital Services Act (DSA)<\/strong>, applicable since February 17, 2024<\/strong>, adds marketplace-platform obligations identified in the source: trader traceability and seller verification, informing consumers about purchases of illegal products, restrictions on dark patterns, and an easily accessible, free, timely internal complaint-handling system supervised by qualified staff under Article 20 DSA<\/strong>.<\/p>\nThe Omnibus Directive<\/strong> requires clear information about whether a marketplace seller is a business or a private individual<\/strong>. That status affects the scope of consumer protection, including withdrawal rights and claims based on non-conformity of goods with the contract.<\/p>\nIf your business is the marketplace seller, the platform\u2019s procedures do not replace your own process for complaints about the goods. Your staff still need to identify and answer those claims under the applicable Polish rules.<\/p>\n Build the Process in Seven Steps<\/h2>\nThe sequence below starts with immediate controls and moves toward documentation, ownership, and training.<\/p>\n 1. Audit What Actually Happens<\/h3>\nMap how a complaint travels through every channel you use: your online store, direct B2B sales, marketplaces, and distributors. Compare practice with your written terms and internal instructions.<\/p>\n Check whether:<\/p>\n \n- Staff can identify the customer category and applicable legal regime at intake.<\/li>\n
- The complaints policy reflects the post-January 1, 2023 rules.<\/li>\n
- B2C forms incorrectly refer to r\u0119kojmia<\/em>.<\/li>\n
- Your ticketing system tracks the 14-day response deadline.<\/li>\n
- Each stage has a named person or department responsible for it.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
2. Separate Consumer and B2B Routes<\/h3>\nThe distinction belongs in forms, workflows, response templates, and training\u2014not only in a legal memo.<\/p>\n \n\n\n| Issue<\/th>\n | B2C consumer route<\/th>\n | B2B business route<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n | \n\n| Legal framework<\/td>\n | Consumer Rights Act: non-conformity of goods with the contract<\/td>\n | Civil Code: r\u0119kojmia<\/em>, Articles 556\u2013576<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\n| Response deadline<\/td>\n | 14 days; missing it means deemed acceptance under the source\u2019s account<\/td>\n | No statutory response deadline stated in the source, unless the contract provides one<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| Contractual limitation<\/td>\n | Cannot be reduced below the statutory consumer minimum<\/td>\n | R\u0119kojmia<\/em> may be contractually limited or excluded<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\n| Liability period<\/td>\n | Two years from delivery<\/td>\n | Two years, subject to contractual shortening<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| Complaint costs<\/td>\n | Borne by the seller<\/td>\n | Depends on the contract<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \n| Remedies<\/td>\n | Repair or replacement, then price reduction or withdrawal, subject to the stated exception<\/td>\n | No rigid sequence stated in the source<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n Build a separate intake check for an entrepreneur with consumer rights<\/strong>. A customer\u2019s business status alone should not end the classification exercise.<\/p>\n3. Update the Documents Staff Use<\/h3>\nReview:<\/p>\n \n- Website terms and the complaints policy for the consumer non-conformity regime.<\/li>\n
- The commercial guarantee policy, keeping it distinct from statutory complaints.<\/li>\n
- Separate B2C and B2B complaint forms.<\/li>\n
- At least 8\u201310 response scenarios<\/strong>, including acceptance, refusal, repair or replacement, price reduction, and referral to a guarantor, with B2C and B2B versions where needed.<\/li>\n
- General Terms of Sale (GTS)<\/strong> for B2B customers, especially r\u0119kojmia<\/em> and guarantee provisions.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
A voluntary guarantee must not become the team\u2019s default answer to a claim the customer has made against the seller under the non-conformity rules.<\/p>\n 4. Give the Team a One-Page Decision Matrix<\/h3>\nThe matrix should answer six questions:<\/p>\n \n- Who is the customer?<\/strong> Consumer, business, or entrepreneur with consumer rights?<\/li>\n
- Where was the sale made?<\/strong> Online store, marketplace, direct B2B channel, or distributor?<\/li>\n
- What is complained about?<\/strong> The product, transport, installation, or instructions?<\/li>\n
- Who decides?<\/strong> Customer service, quality, logistics, or legal?<\/li>\n
- When is the response due?<\/strong> The consumer deadline or the applicable B2B contractual deadline?<\/li>\n
- Which outcomes are available?<\/strong> Repair, replacement, price reduction, refusal, or an appropriate referral?<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
An approach familiar from IT service-level agreements can help: categorize cases and specify who responds and who resolves them. Acknowledgment time<\/strong>\u2014confirming that a complaint has arrived\u2014is not the same as decision time<\/strong>. Document both without confusing an internal service target with the legal response deadline.<\/p>\n5. Monitor Every Deadline<\/h3>\nConfigure your CRM or ticketing system to provide:<\/p>\n \n- Automatic acknowledgment showing the receipt date and case number.<\/li>\n
- An alert on day 11<\/strong> after receipt of a B2C complaint\u2014three days before the stated deadline.<\/li>\n
- Escalation to a manager on day 13<\/strong> if the case remains undecided.<\/li>\n
- A weekly report of open complaints and their status.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
Make the case owner responsible for checking whether the facts of a particular complaint affect the deadline, including the inspection issue described in the cited District Court judgment.<\/p>\n 6. Define Responsibility Across the Supply Chain<\/h3>\nWhere carriers, distributors, installers, or service subcontractors are involved, customers should not have to navigate your internal allocation of responsibility. The source\u2019s position is that the seller answers to the consumer<\/strong>, including where transport or installation was performed by another party.<\/p>\nInternally, establish:<\/p>\n \n- A clear division of work between customer service, logistics, sales, and service teams.<\/li>\n
- Recourse clauses in partner contracts<\/a> so you can seek to recover complaint costs caused by a partner.<\/li>\n
- A named case owner<\/strong> at each stage.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
A staged escalation route can keep routine disputes at the operational level, move harder ones to management, and involve legal counsel after the internal route has been used. Clear ownership also reduces the number of cases that reach senior management unnecessarily.<\/p>\n 7. Train With Cases, Not Just Legal Definitions<\/h3>\nUse short workshops built around situations employees will face:<\/p>\n \n- A customer reports faulty installation: who owns the response, what should the customer be told, and who investigates?<\/li>\n
- An employee says, \u201cThe commercial guarantee does not cover this,\u201d although the customer is asserting non-conformity against the seller. How should the response change?<\/li>\n
- A B2B customer complains: which contract terms apply, and on what basis could the claim be refused?<\/li>\n
- Day 14 is approaching and the team is waiting for a technical opinion: who must act, and what response can be sent on time?<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
How We Can Help<\/h2>\nComplaints handling sits where Polish consumer law, contracts, and daily sales operations meet. We help e-commerce businesses, manufacturers, and distributors connect their written rules to the way their teams actually work.<\/p>\n Our work can include a consistency audit<\/strong> of documents and practice; updated terms, forms, response templates, and B2B GTS; a decision matrix and escalation route; deadline controls; review of recourse provisions with carriers, distributors, and installers; and scenario-based team training.<\/p>\nA workable process is more than a compliant document. It gives staff a basis for decisions, gives customers a consistent answer, and shows management where risks and costs arise.<\/p>\n Put the System in Place Before Growth Exposes the Gaps<\/h2>\nA process that worked informally at a smaller scale can begin to produce missed deadlines, inconsistent answers, avoidable escalations, and UOKiK risk as volumes rise. The practical starting point is to audit the current route, update the documents, assign decisions and deadlines, and train the people using them.<\/p>\n If you are unsure whether your Polish complaints process still fits your sales model, contact us<\/a>. We can help identify the gaps and prioritize what to change first.<\/p>\nFrequently Asked Questions<\/h2>\nWe have a complaints policy on our website. Is that enough?<\/strong>
\nNot necessarily. Check whether it reflects the rules applying from January 1, 2023, uses the correct consumer-sales terminology and deadline, and matches your current channels and actual staff practice. Outdated or unfair terms can create UOKiK risk.<\/p>\nWhat if we do not respond to a consumer complaint within 14 days?<\/strong>
\nUnder the rule described in the source, the complaint is deemed accepted by operation of law. Supreme Court resolution III CZP 113\/17<\/strong> describes at least a rebuttable presumption of acceptance, shifting the burden of showing that the claim was unfounded to the business. The source also cites Regional Court in \u0141\u00f3d\u017a judgment III Ca 2311\/19<\/strong> on interruption of the limitation period. Contesting the result can take time and money.<\/p>\nCan we apply one complaints policy to consumers and business customers?<\/strong>
\nThey require distinct legal routes. The Consumer Rights Act non-conformity regime governs the consumer route described here; Civil Code r\u0119kojmia<\/em> governs the B2B route and can be limited or excluded by contract. Also check whether an individual business customer qualifies as an entrepreneur with consumer rights.<\/p>\nWho handles a complaint about goods purchased through a marketplace?<\/strong>
\nThe seller of the goods<\/strong> handles a non-conformity claim. The platform handles its own intermediary-service responsibilities. If the platform itself is identified as the seller, the goods complaint is directed to it.<\/p>\nWhat if the complaint concerns transport or installation by a subcontractor?<\/strong>
\nThe source\u2019s position is that the seller remains responsible to the consumer. Assign one team to manage the customer\u2019s case, investigate internally, and review partner contracts for a route to recover costs caused by the carrier or installer.<\/p>\nCan we limit or exclude r\u0119kojmia<\/em> for B2B customers?<\/strong>
\nYes, the source states that Civil Code r\u0119kojmia<\/em> may be contractually limited or excluded in B2B dealings. Put the provision in the contract or effectively incorporated GTS accepted by the other party; a reference on a website alone may not be enough.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"Build a Polish customer complaints process that separates consumer and B2B claims, tracks response deadlines and assigns ownership across sales channels.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":14,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":"","sip_alt_url":"https:\/\/sawaryn.com\/publikacje\/system-reklamacji-firmie\/","sip_en_pl_url":"https:\/\/sawaryn.com\/en\/publikacje\/organise-complaints-handling-process-poland\/","sip_pair_uuid":"dc936a06-e9ee-4da6-a18e-8c43f1f6cbe9","sip_pair_state":"verified"},"categories":[1150,1257,1258],"tags":[1236,158,177,1243,1248],"specialization":[1133],"practice_area":[],"class_list":["post-3108","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-contracts","category-digital-regulation","category-market-entry","tag-b2b-agreement","tag-dsa","tag-e-commerce","tag-internal-procedure","tag-omnibus-directive","specialization-digital-regulation"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/sawaryn.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3108","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/sawaryn.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/sawaryn.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sawaryn.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/14"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sawaryn.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3108"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/sawaryn.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3108\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3109,"href":"https:\/\/sawaryn.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3108\/revisions\/3109"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/sawaryn.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3108"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sawaryn.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3108"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sawaryn.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3108"},{"taxonomy":"specialization","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sawaryn.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/specialization?post=3108"},{"taxonomy":"practice_area","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sawaryn.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/practice_area?post=3108"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}} | | | | | | | | | | | | |