🚨 Another FOS Failure: Mortgage Ignored in Affordability Decision

The Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) has again demonstrated that its processes are either plagued by gross incompetence or systemic bias.

In yet another deeply troubling case, an investigator has rejected a legitimate complaint from a consumer who was sold a car finance agreement they could not afford — by choosing to ignore a fundamental piece of financial evidence: a mortgage.

🧾 The Complaint: Clear Indicators of Irresponsible Lending

We acted on behalf of a consumer who raised serious concerns that a motor finance agreement had been mis-sold on the basis that it was simply unaffordable. Our own affordability checks confirmed these concerns.

The consumer’s financial situation included:

• A modest monthly income
• Existing credit commitments
• A contractually binding mortgage, which was clearly visible on the client’s credit file

Despite this, FOS investigator Ann Vaz saw fit to reject the complaint.

Needless to say, the rejection has been appealed.

❌ The Investigator’s Response: A Mortgage Doesn’t Count?

Ms. Vaz dismissed the complaint on the basis that, although the client’s credit file showed an active mortgage, she did not see the mortgage repayments reflected in the few bank statements she had reviewed.

As such, she refused to factor the mortgage into the affordability calculation.

Let that sink in:

A legally binding mortgage, recorded on the credit file and known to exist, was simply disregarded because the investigator hadn’t seen it on the limited number of statements provided.

Had the mortgage been included — as it should have been — it would have clearly rendered the motor finance agreement unaffordable.

The consumer was obliged to make those payments, and their budget did not support the addition of a motor finance contract.

⚖️ Scandalous Conduct and Breach of Duty

The Financial Ombudsman Service is bound by clear duties when handling complaints. These include:

• Considering all relevant information
• Making fair and reasonable decisions based on the facts
• Acting impartially and in the interests of justice

In this case, the investigator failed on all counts.

By refusing to consider a credit commitment as significant as a mortgage — especially one documented on a credit file — the FOS has failed both in duty and in logic.

A mortgage does not stop being a financial obligation simply because it’s missing from a few bank statements.

🔁 A Pattern of Failure — Not a One-Off

This isn’t an isolated mistake. It is one of many similar cases in which the FOS has rejected well-evidenced affordability complaints based on flawed logic, partial reviews of documentation, and an apparent desire to minimise findings against lenders.

Every time the FOS ignores key financial evidence, it sends a clear message:

Consumers cannot rely on the Ombudsman to protect them — especially in motor finance cases.

📣 Our Call for Change

The time has come for real reform of the FOS. Consumers deserve better — especially when dealing with mis-selling and unaffordable lending.

We are calling for:

• A full investigation into the way affordability complaints are assessed by lenders and the Ombudsman.
• Mandatory accountability for investigators who ignore contractual obligations like mortgages.
• Independent review of rejected decisions where key financial evidence was dismissed without proper basis.
• Published data showing the percentages of complaints upheld and rejected by each Financial Ombudsman Service employee.

If you or someone you know has had a similar experience with the FOS, speak up. The more pressure placed on this system, the harder it becomes to ignore the truth:

The Financial Ombudsman Service is no longer a reliable defender of consumer rights.

YOUR MONEY CLAIM