⚠️ FOS Investigator Denies Mortgage Liability—Another Alarming Decision

The Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) continues to show an alarming pattern of questionable decisions that raise the issue of whether we’re dealing with repeated incompetence — or something even more troubling: systemic corruption.

In the latest example, FOS investigator Natalie Bradbury has delivered a decision so fundamentally flawed that it warrants serious scrutiny of both her personal competence and the wider FOS approach to complaint handling.

🧾 The Complaint: Affordability Concerns Supported by Evidence

We represented a consumer who expressed serious concern over the affordability of her motor finance agreement.

Our own thorough assessment confirmed her position — the agreement was clearly unaffordable when all of her financial obligations were properly considered.

Among the core obligations was a mortgage, held in joint names, making our client contractually and legally responsible for the monthly payments.

❌ The FOS Decision: Denial of Basic Legal Responsibility

Despite this clear contractual obligation, FOS investigator Natalie Bradbury made the extraordinary decision that:

Our client was not liable for, nor contributed to the mortgage payments — despite being named on the mortgage and therefore legally bound to them.

Even more astonishingly, Natalie extended this logic to claim that:

Because the client wasn’t liable for the mortgage, she also must not be contributing to the utility bills.

Let that sink in. An investigator at the Financial Ombudsman Service suggested that an adult — living in a mortgaged property that she’s jointly liable for — does not contribute to the mortgage or bills, and therefore those financial commitments should not be factored into affordability.

This is not only a misinterpretation of financial reality, but also a complete failure of regulatory logic and legal understanding.

🧠 Why This Reasoning Is Fundamentally Flawed

Let’s be clear:

• A joint mortgage is a legal agreement. Each party is liable for the full monthly obligation. Suggesting otherwise is a factual and legal error.
• Utility contributions are a shared cost of living. To disregard them is to ignore basic household economics.
• Ignoring these obligations falsely inflates a consumer’s disposable income — thereby making unaffordable finance appear “affordable” on paper.

This type of flawed reasoning leads to systemic injustice, and denies victims of mis-selling the redress they are entitled to.

📣 Serious Questions Must Be Asked

This isn’t just a mistake — it raises serious concerns:

• Has FOS training collapsed to the point where legal responsibilities are misunderstood?
• Is there an internal culture that prioritises reducing findings against lenders?
• Are the rumours true that Investigators are financially incentivised to reject complaints?
• Or is this another case of protecting the interests of finance providers at the expense of consumers?

In any case, the outcome is the same: consumers are being failed by the very organisations that are meant to protect them.

🔁 The Decision Has Been Appealed

Unsurprisingly, this decision has been formally appealed.

We believe this decision to be not just wrong — but dangerous.

It sets a precedent where clear financial obligations can be casually dismissed by an investigator with no proper basis for doing so.

This is not what fair resolution looks like.

🔚 Conclusion: A Regulator & FOS on the Brink of Collapse?

Natalie Bradbury’s decision is just one example in a growing trend of poor, misinformed, and biased complaint resolutions.

When investigators overlook mortgage liabilities and basic cost-of-living expenses, the integrity of the system is shattered.

We remain committed to challenging these flawed decisions, and to exposing the truth about the failings of the Financial Ombudsman Service.

If the FOS is unwilling to fix itself, then it’s time for regulatory reform from the outside.

YOUR MONEY CLAIM