⚠️ Another Alarming Failure at the Financial Ombudsman Service: When Incompetence or Corruption Can No Longer Be Ignored

In what is becoming a disturbingly familiar pattern, the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) has once again demonstrated either a profound lack of competence—or something more serious.

This latest incident centres on a complaint raised on behalf of one of our clients, relating to irresponsible lending by Mallard Leasing. The facts are simple, the evidence is clear, and yet the outcome is as outrageous as it is unacceptable.

Needless to say, the decision of the investigator has been appealed.

💼 The Complaint: Affordability Ignored

Our client took out a motor finance agreement, having a modest monthly income of approximately £1,200. Based on standard affordability criteria, the lending itself raised immediate concerns.

However, Mallard Leasing attempted to justify its lending decision by claiming our client was in receipt of a further £2,500 per month in rental income. According to them, this income came from a company which our client supposedly owned or controlled.

🔍 The Reality: A Defunct Company, and a False Claim

Here’s what the FOS investigator, James Woodington, either missed—or ignored entirely:

• The company in question was not owned by our client.
• Our client was not a director, shareholder, or beneficial owner of the business.
• The company had been dissolved more than three years prior to the motor finance agreement being approved.

This is not a grey area. This is not a matter of interpretation. It is a matter of verifiable Companies House data and the most basic due diligence—something the FOS claims to pride itself on.

🧱 FOS Investigator Fails to Acknowledge Basic Facts

Despite our representations, Mr. Woodington attempted to accept the lender’s version of events, having clearly failed to carry out the checks that we subsequently did.

At no point did he appear to cross-reference the company status with Companies House records.

At no point did he address the fact that this “rental income” was linked to a dissolved company, and at no point did he question the credibility of the lender’s submission.

The result? A rejected complaint, and another consumer left without justice (for now!).

⚠️ Incompetence or Corruption?

This is not an isolated case. When an Ombudsman investigator fails to validate a fact as basic as the operational status of a company, one must ask: Is this merely incompetence, or is it systemic bias?

Either way, the effect is the same:

• Lenders are emboldened to provide misleading or inaccurate financial information.
• Consumers—especially those with limited resources—are dismissed.
• The credibility of the FOS is further eroded.

📣 It’s Time for Accountability

We believe the public has a right to expect more. Investigators working under the banner of fairness and justice must be held to a standard higher than “accept what the lender says and move on.”

Where is the Treating Customers Fairly (TCF) principle in this decision? Where is the Consumer Duty the FCA has imposed on all regulated firms and their affiliates?

More importantly, how many other decisions has Mr. Woodington made under similarly flawed logic?

🧾 Our Position

We will continue to hold the FOS to account—publicly and procedurally. This is not about one case or one client. It is about a culture that increasingly favours industry protectionism over individual fairness.

Consumers deserve a Financial Ombudsman Service that acts independently, impartially, and diligently—not one that rubber-stamps dubious lender narratives without scrutiny.

We will not stay silent. We encourage others with similar experiences to come forward and challenge the status quo. Because justice—especially in the financial sector—must not only be done, but be seen to be done.

YOUR MONEY CLAIM