01254 82288001254 822880
March 11, 2025 
Daniel Lee The Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) has long been a vital avenue for consumers seeking justice against financial wrongdoing. However, the recent decision to impose charges on professional representatives who bring cases on behalf of consumers threatens to undermine access to fair redress—particularly for the most vulnerable in society. Put simply the Financial Ombudsman Service charges affect vulnerable consumers.
From April 2025, the FOS will introduce a £250 fee for claims management companies (CMCs) and other professional representatives bringing complaints on behalf of consumers. While the charge is reduced to £75 if the complaint is upheld, this financial burden will inevitably lead professional representation only being available for high value claims. This move, though framed as a way to prevent excessive or weak claims, will instead have serious consequences for the very people the FOS was designed to protect.
This drastic policy shift comes in the wake of the motor finance mis-selling scandal, one of the most significant financial mis-selling cases in recent history. Millions of consumers may have been affected by unfair commission structures and hidden costs tied to motor finance agreements. The introduction of these FOS charges appears to be a direct deterrent to the complaints arising from this latest scandal. Rather than facilitating justice for those impacted, regulators and the government seem intent on discouraging claims by making it more difficuly for vulnerable consumers to access professional representation.
By introducing financial barriers to representation, there is a real concern that this is yet another attempt to sweep the motor finance mis-selling scandal under the carpet. Regulators and financial institutions have been under increasing pressure to address widespread misconduct in the motor finance sector, but rather than prioritising consumer redress, they appear to be putting obstacles in place to protect financial firms from accountability.
Many consumers—especially those who are elderly, financially inexperienced, or suffering from mental health challenges—rely on professional representatives to navigate the often complex complaints process. Financial institutions do not make it easy for customers to challenge unfair treatment, and have a proven history of rejecting millions of valid complaints. Without the knowledge, confidence, or persistence required to bring and escalate a complaint, many consumers simply give up when faced with resistance from lenders.
A large proportion of individuals who attempt to complain directly to their financial provider do not take their case any further if their initial complaint is rejected. This is often due to a lack of understanding about their rights, fear of bureaucracy, or the emotional toll of fighting financial institutions alone. Many valid claims go unchallenged, allowing lenders to avoid accountability. This reality will only be exacerbated if access to professional help is restricted by punitive FOS charges.
Professional representatives exist for a reason. They level the playing field against well-resourced financial institutions that have legal teams dedicated to minimising payouts. Here’s why using a professional representative remains a vital option for consumers:
The FOS charge for representatives is not just a cost to businesses—it is a direct attack on consumer access to justice. By discouraging professional assistance, the policy will lead to valid complaints not being pursued and more consumers being left out of pocket, with financial institutions facing even less scrutiny for their actions. Vulnerable consumers will be the biggest losers in this misguided policy change.
Instead of penalising professional representation, the FOS should recognise the vital role that representatives play in securing fair outcomes. Without them, millions of consumers who rightfully deserve compensation may never receive it. The financial industry is complex, and justice should not be reserved only for those who can navigate it alone.
YOUR MONEY CLAIM
March 31, 2025 Daniel Lee The recent resignation of Abby Thomas, the Chief Executive and Chief Ombudsman of the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS), raises serious concerns about political influence and the integrity of consumer redress in the UK.
At a time when the FOS is set to play a critical role in handling motor finance commission complaints, her sudden departure must be scrutinised—particularly in light of the actions of Chancellor Rachel Reeves.
Reeves has already faced accusations of attempting to interfere in the Supreme Court’s upcoming motor finance commission case, with a clear view to obstruct justice to millions of UK consumers.
Now, with the departure of Thomas, further questions must be asked: has the Chancellor applied undue pressure on the Ombudsman to take a softer stance on motor finance providers? If so, this is nothing short of a blatant attempt to protect the financial institutions that have, according to the Court of Appeal, acted unlawfully by failing to disclose bribes offered and paid to motor dealerships.
The FOS has been receiving tens of thousands of complaints against motor finance providers, with cases currently on pause pending the outcome of the Supreme Court case.
If Thomas has resigned due to external influence or pressure to influence the FOS’s approach to consumer protection, this is a clear sign that the government is working to shield financial firms rather than ensuring consumers receive fair outcomes.
Motor finance firms and their lobbyists have pushed the narrative that upholding these complaints will harm the industry, lead to increased borrowing costs, and cause lenders to exit the market.
However, this has already been debunked by industry insiders, who have confirmed that full disclosure of commission has not deterred customers from purchasing vehicles.
The only real impact will be that lenders will no longer be able to exploit consumers by charging inflated interest rates to fund secret commissions paid to dealerships.
Rachel Reeves must now answer for her actions. If she has sought to interfere with the Ombudsman’s independent decision-making or placed pressure on financial regulators to protect lenders rather than consumers, she is no longer fit for office, if indeed she ever was.
Any attempt to obstruct justice in favour of powerful financial institutions is a direct betrayal of the millions of consumers who have been misled and overcharged.
Her actions suggest a government that is more concerned with protecting the interests of the financial industry than with ensuring fairness and accountability. If there is even the slightest truth to these allegations, Reeves must resign immediately.
The British public deserves a government that stands up for them—not one that bows to corporate pressure at the expense of justice.
YOUR MONEY CLAIM
