When Proof Is Not Enough for FOS

There are two phrases the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) seems to adore… “on the balance of probability”, and “more likely than not”.

In theory, that sounds reasonable enough. In practice, it has become a convenient hiding place. A slogan. A shield. A way of dodging hard evidence in favour of whatever tortured explanation best protects the financial firm on the other side of the complaint.

And that is exactly what we have seen again in our latest response.

• The finance agreement is dated 10th January 2018;
• The dealership invoice is dated 10th January 2018;
• The disbursement form is dated 10th January 2018;
• The demands & needs statement is dated 15th January 2018;

In this case, the evidence is not vague. It is not incomplete. It is not evenly balanced. It is not a matter of guesswork, probability or speculation. It is proven and documented.

We have shown that the GAP insurance was invoiced and paid for five days before the Demands and Needs statement was even completed, and that the two-day cooling-off period was not adhered to.

This conclusion is reached by simply reviewing the documentation provided by the dealership itself.

That should be the end of it, but this is FOS.

It is not a close call. It is not a nuanced debate. It is not one of those cases where FOS can shrug its shoulders and reach for its favourite phrase. The paperwork proves what happened. The timeline is there in black and white.

And yet, in the face of that evidence, FOS has had the audacity to suggest that the dates on the paperwork may have been an administrative error.

Of course they may have. Anything may have happened if imagination is allowed to outrank evidence.

To add to this, FOS has stated that there is no evidence that the motor finance agreement had commenced, again contrary to the actual motor finance agreement and statement of account.

Maybe the paperwork wrote itself. Maybe the clock was wrong. Maybe the dates aligned by cosmic accident. Maybe reality itself simply became inconvenient.

This is the absurdity of what consumers and their representatives are up against. When the evidence supports the lender or dealership, it is treated as solid. When the evidence exposes the sale, suddenly we are invited into a fantasy world where documents become unreliable, timelines become flexible and obvious failings become “possible admin errors”.

It is beyond parody.

When Proof Exists, Why Is FOS Still Guessing?

FOS loves to speak about deciding cases on the balance of probabilities, but what happens when the probabilities are no longer relevant because the facts are already proven? What happens when the documentary evidence is so clear that the only way to avoid the obvious conclusion is to invent an alternative explanation for the business being complained about?

Apparently, what happens is that FOS bends over backwards to find another reason based upon fantasy.

That is why we say, repeatedly and without apology, that we are required to educate FOS on an almost daily basis. Not because the issues are especially complicated. Not because the rules are impossible to follow. But because even straightforward evidence is too often met with resistance, excuse-making and institutional reluctance to hold lenders and brokers properly to account.

This is not impartial scrutiny. It is not robust adjudication. It is certainly not consumer protection.

It is damage control, and it is institutional collusion.

The Pattern Is Impossible to Ignore

No matter how clear the evidence, there seems to be a route by which the firm can attempt to be rescued. A missing document becomes unimportant. A contradiction becomes harmless. A clear breach becomes an “administrative error”. A proven failure becomes something FOS can wave away with a speculative alternative that just so happens to favour the financial business.

Consumers are entitled to ask a very simple question, if proof is not enough, what exactly is?

Because if an invoice and payment date showing GAP was put through before the Demands and Needs statement was completed does not prove the process was broken, then the process is not merely flawed. It is rigged in favour of the industry.

You might as well hire the largest shredder you can find, and get rid of all of your documentation.

And yes, we are now calling it what it increasingly looks like.

When an organisation charged with deciding complaints fairly stretches itself to explain away clear evidence whenever that evidence is inconvenient to lenders and dealerships, people will naturally begin to ask whether this is mere incompetence, or something worse. Whether it is bias, capture, or collusion by culture rather than confession, the end result is the same… the consumer loses, the lender / dealership is protected, and common sense is shown the door.

That is why this complaint has now been escalated to an Ombudsman, trusting once again that one of the very few people remaining within the service with a modicum of common sense will reach a fair conclusion.

It should never have been necessary. But here we are again, climbing another rung of the ladder because the first response could not bring itself to accept what the evidence plainly showed.

The Wall Around the FCA and FOS Is Starting to Crack

This is also why the latest criticism from Parliament matters. The All-Party Parliamentary Group report into the FCA adds to a growing sense that confidence in the regulatory and redress system is collapsing. More and more people can see what consumers and representatives have been saying for years, that these bodies do not look like fearless protectors of the public. Too often, they look like protectors of the banking sector first, and reluctant servants of justice a distant second.

The façade is weakening.

For years, the FCA and FOS have benefited from institutional deference. They were treated as referees. Neutral adults in the room. Bodies whose conclusions should be respected because they were presumed to be independent, balanced and expert.

But that deference is collapsing under the weight of lived experience.

When evidence is ignored, when obvious failings are excused, when consumers are forced to fight every inch of the way, and when even clear documentary proof is met with “maybe it was an admin error”, respect turns into suspicion.

And suspicion turns into something even more dangerous for these institutions.

Recognition that the system is not malfunctioning by accident. Recognition that it is operating exactly as entrenched, self-protective systems tend to operate. Recognition that when push comes to shove, the benefit of the doubt too often flows in one direction only.

Call It What It Is

So let us be absolutely clear.

If GAP was invoiced and paid for five days before the Demands and Needs was completed, that is not a paperwork quirk. It is not a harmless inconsistency. It is not an administrative mystery. It is evidence of a process that was fundamentally wrong.

And if FOS cannot say so plainly, then FOS is part of the problem.

But the bigger point remains, a redress system that has to be dragged back toward reality every single day is not fit for purpose. And the more these cases pile up, the harder it becomes for the FCA and FOS to maintain the fiction that they are acting as independent guardians of fairness rather than institutional defenders of the firms they are supposed to police.

The wall is trembling.

And when it finally comes down, it will expose both organisations for what far too many consumers already believe them to be, protectors of banks, not champions of justice.

We will call it out, and we will defeat injustice.