⚖️ A Double Standard: How the Financial Ombudsman Service Treats Consumers with Less Compassion Than Lenders

The Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) was created to offer a fair, impartial, and accessible dispute resolution service—particularly for individuals facing financial distress.

But recent experiences, including one involving FOS investigator Bakshinder Mann, raise serious concerns about whether this principle of fairness is truly being upheld in practice.

In a case we are currently supporting, the Ombudsman’s treatment of our client has demonstrated a troubling lack of empathy, unequal treatment, and disregard for the spirit of consumer protection law.

🧾 Ignoring a Family Health Crisis: A Cruel Deadline

Our client recently informed the FOS—via communication with us—that her husband has been diagnosed with cancer, and as a result, she required additional time to gather documentation to support her motor finance complaint.

Rather than affording her a reasonable extension, FOS investigator Bakshinder Mann effectively ignored this distressing and materially relevant update.

Instead, Bakshinder sought to reject the complaint, on the basis of a lack of evidence, despite being told of the exceptional personal circumstances.

There was no acknowledgement of the health crisis, no compassion shown, and no reference to how such a situation might impede her ability to respond within a standard timeframe.

⏱️ One Rule for Consumers, Another for Lenders

Contrast this with the approach FOS routinely takes when dealing with lenders.

In one recent complaint, the FOS repeatedly chased a motor finance provider for documentation over a period of five months.

The firm simply chose not to provide a single piece of evidence requested—and yet the Ombudsman still did not rule against the lender for its failure to engage or comply.

This disparity is not only deeply unfair—it contradicts the principles that the FOS is meant to be built upon.

Indeed, these situations only fuel the growing rumours that FOS employees are incentivised to reject consumer complaints.

📜 The FOS Must Follow FCA Principles and Consumer Duty

It is often forgotten that the FOS, as a statutory dispute resolution body created under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, is itself expected to operate in line with key regulatory standards—namely:

✅ FCA Principle 6 – Treating Customers Fairly

“A firm must pay due regard to the interests of its customers and treat them fairly.”

The FOS is not exempt from this obligation in spirit. Refusing to make reasonable adjustments or extensions in the face of serious life events, while giving extensive leeway to firms, is the very definition of unfair treatment.

✅ FCA Consumer Duty (PRIN 2A)

Introduced in 2023, the Consumer Duty sets a higher standard. Under PRIN 2A.1.2R, firms (and by extension, services like FOS) are expected to:

• Act in good faith,
• Avoid foreseeable harm, and
• Support customers in achieving good outcomes.

It is entirely foreseeable that denying additional time to a cancer-stricken family could result in harm, confusion, and injustice. FOS’s actions fall short of this standard.

❗ Why This Matters

The FOS is often the last line of defence for consumers wronged by powerful financial institutions.

When the Ombudsman itself begins to exhibit bias, disproportionate pressure, and cold proceduralism—while simultaneously affording financial firms unlimited indulgence—it betrays the very purpose it was created to serve.

Inconsistency in process undermines public trust, and failing to show basic compassion toward those in vulnerable circumstances is not just a policy failing—it is a moral one.

🧱 What Needs to Change

We once again repeat our call upon the FOS to:

• Acknowledge and accommodate the impact of serious health and personal crises in the complaint process;
• Apply the same urgency and deadlines to lenders as they do to consumers;
• Adhere to the principles of treating customers fairly and the FCA’s Consumer Duty.

Consumers deserve better than a regulator that demands precision from the vulnerable while tolerating non-compliance from the powerful.

Needless to say, this barbaric and incompetent approach has been escalated and reported.

YOUR MONEY CLAIM