| 關 鍵 詞： |
金融消費爭議解決機制；金融業；金融消費者保護法；金融服務；英國法 |
| 中文摘要： |
隨著金融市場的自由化，銀行、證券及保險業相互介入其他金融業務之情形日益普遍，導致銀行、證券及保險業務的分野逐漸模糊，且其所販售之許多金融商品與服務亦普遍具備跨業特性。雖然金融業所提供的金融商品日益多樣化，可以提供消費者更多的選擇及投資管道，但金融商品之性質畢竟不同於一般商品，一般消費者未必能夠了解其所接觸的金融商品或服務之特性及其所面臨之風險。再加上金融業者時常未能充分告知商品資訊或風險的情況下，使得消費糾紛時有所聞。目前我國對於金融業的消費糾紛處理機制，因金融機構之業別而有所不同。在金融商品多樣化及金融服務整合的趨勢下，當消費者遇到金融消費爭議時，可能因本身資訊不足或其案件本身難以判斷歸屬於何種金融服務類型而引發應向誰申訴或尋求救濟之疑慮。為避免各金融爭端解決機構間互踢皮球之情況發生，或因處理程序與內容不一致而有保障不一致的情形，並避免重複審理申訴案件所造成的資源浪費，我國於 2011 年 6 月制定金融消費者保護法，創設金融消費爭議處理機構，以整合現行金融消費爭議處理機制，並強化對金融消費者之保護。
在金融消費爭議解決機制之整合方面，英國自早期依各金融產業別擁有各自的爭議解決機制到今日整合各金融產業之爭議解決機制，建構一個單一的金融消費爭議解決機構，提供金融消費者一個單一窗口之爭議解決機制，以具體落實對金融消費者之保護，其制度發展至今無論在法規架構、機構組織、實務運作方面均可謂完備。由於我國近年來在金融監理機關之整合與金融消費者保護法之制定均參酌英國法，且英國是各國中在金融服務整合領域上最為成功之典範。因此，本文將以英國法與我國法為主軸，檢視我國現行金融消費爭議解決機制面臨之問題，並針對英國金融消費爭議解決機制之整合歷程、現行制度之相關法律規範及實行成效進行探討，同時分析我國金融消費者保護法所創設的金融消費爭議處理機制，並針對新法中不足之處，提出個人淺見，以供我國未來改進之參考。
|
| 英文關鍵詞： |
dispute resolution mechanism of financial services；financialindustry；Financial Consumer Protection Act；financial services；British Law |
| 英文摘要： |
With the liberalization of financial markets, financial institutions move forward to the trend of cross mode of business and provide multiple services. This situation results in the blurring distinctions between the various classes of financial institutions. Although the diversification of financial products may provide financial consumers more choices, general customers may not understand the financial product’s characteristic and the risks they face because financial products differ from ordinary products in nature. In addition, the financial industry may not fully inform financial customers about the information of financial products and the risks they face sometimes. These situations always result in the financial disputes between financial consumers and financial institutions. Under the current dispute resolution mechanism of financial services in Taiwan, each class of financial institutions has its separate dispute resolution mechanism. When financial customers face financial service disputes, they may find difficult to classify the type of financial services because of the amalgamation of a confusing array of separate schemes with differing powers and jurisdictions. In order to resolve this problem and to further protect financial customers, Taiwan enacted the Financial Consumer Protection Act in June 2011 to unify the dispute resolution mechanisms of financial services.
In the field of unifying dispute resolution mechanism of financial services, the UK creates the Financial Ombudsman Service which replaces eight previous dispute resolution services operating across the financial services sector. The single dispute resolution mechanism of financial services, the Financial Ombudsman Service, provides the financial customers with a unified dispute resolution channel which can further protect the financial customers. Because the Taiwan’s Financial Supervisory Commission and the Financial Consumer Protection Act choose to emulate the British model and because the U.K. dispute resolution mechanism of financial services is wellestablished, this article will try to analyze the dispute resolution mechanism of financial services through a comparative study between Taiwan and the United Kingdom. First, it will examine the current dispute resolution mechanism of financial services in Taiwan and, then, discuss the counterpart in the U.K. including its background, regulatory structure and practice. Further, this article will analyze the unified dispute resolution mechanism of financial services created by Taiwan’s Financial Consumer Protection Act and offer suggestions for improving Taiwan’s dispute resolution mechanism of financial services.
|
| 目 次： |
壹、前言
貳、我國現行金融消費爭議解決機制及其缺失
一、我國現行機制
二、現行機制之缺失
參、英國金融消費爭議解決機制
一、英國金融消費爭議解決機制之整合
二、現行機制及實務運作
三、小結
肆、我國金融消費者保護法通過後之新局
一、金融消費者保護法之規定
二、本文建議
伍、結論
|
| 相關法條： |
 |
| 相關判解： |
|
| 相關函釋： |
|
| 相關論著： |
|