🧱 Wall of Shame: How the Financial Ombudsman Failed Our Client – The Case of Investigator Ananiah Egele

The Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) is meant to be the final line of defence for consumers wronged by financial institutions.

But in the case of our client—who was burdened with an unaffordable motor finance agreement—FOS investigator Ananiah Egele attempted to deliver a decision that highlights a systemic and deeply troubling failure in both transparency and diligence.

This case lays bare the growing pattern of injustice disguised as investigation, where consumer protection is sacrificed at the altar of process, and scrutiny is side-stepped in favour of convenience.

🚫 A False Justification: The Withheld Credit File

One of the earliest red flags in this case came when we requested to review a copy of our client’s credit file—a core piece of evidence that FOS stated had been relied upon in reaching it decision.

Despite our client’s clear and valid Letter of Authority, authorising full access to and disclosure of all information relating to the complaint, Ananiah attempted to deny access to this credit file by Ms. Egele.

Her reasoning? That it contained “commercially sensitive information.”

This claim was legally and categorically false, and, in our opinion, clearly provided in an attempt to protect the position of the finance provider.

A credit file is not commercial data, despite the suggestion of Ananiah,—it is personal data under Article 4(1) of the UK GDPR and is entirely the property of the data subject (our client).

After re-educating Ananiah and escalating our objection, citing the relevant legal provisions, FOS relented and disclosed the credit file—as it should have done at the outset.

📉 A Flawed Analysis of Affordability

The core of our complaint was simple: the motor finance provided to our client was clearly unaffordable. Ananiah Egele incorrectly claimed the finance provider was justified in granting the loan, based on:

• An accepted monthly income of around £2,300, and
• A purported review of the client’s bank statements.

But when we reviewed the credit file, it became clear that key information had been ignored or never considered, despite the FOS’ suggestion that it had “reviewed the available evidence.”

Here’s what the credit file actually showed:

• An additional secured debt, completely unaccounted for in the FOS analysis.
• Multiple active personal loans with significant monthly repayments.
• Over £2,000 in utility arrears—a critical indicator of financial vulnerability.
• Total outgoings that far exceeded what was referenced in FOS’ affordability calculation.

These discrepancies were not marginal—they were material, glaring, and deeply relevant to whether the lending was fair or responsible. Yet they were seemingly swept aside, or worse, never looked at.

⚠️ What This Tells Us About the FOS

Unfortunately, this case is not unique. The approach taken by Ms. Egele is emblematic of a system that routinely prioritises administrative closure over justice, and protects lenders from accountability even when consumers clearly meet the threshold for redress.

Increasing rumours suggest that FOS employees are incentivised to reject complaints. While these rumours are not yet substantiated, decisions like this only serve to support the ongoing serious concerns with the so called independent adjudicator.

In any event, this failure seems not down to individual error, but part of a wider culture within the Financial Ombudsman Service—one that appears more interested in managing volumes than delivering fairness.

When key evidence is withheld, when investigators repeat procedural lines rather than engaging with material facts, and when clearly unaffordable lending is waved through with hollow reasoning, confidence in the system collapses.

🧱 Conclusion: Holding the System to Account

The case involving Ananiah Egele is now part of a growing “wall of shame”—not to target individuals maliciously, but to shine a light on the human failures that are eroding trust in one of the UK’s most vital public services.

We will continue to call out these systemic weaknesses, challenge unfair decisions, and expose the barriers being placed in front of vulnerable consumers. The public deserves better than regulatory theatre. It deserves a Financial Ombudsman Service that lives up to its name.

YOUR MONEY CLAIM