FOS, Freedom of Information, and the Fine Art of “Next Week, Promise”

There’s a special kind of irony reserved for organisations that sit in judgement of everyone else’s standards while repeatedly failing their own.

The Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) routinely expects firms to meet deadlines, communicate clearly, and treat consumers fairly. Yet when it is asked to do something basic, such as providing information it holds, its culture is called into question once again.

This isn’t about a complex, sprawling request that would require a team of archivists, a warehouse search, and a séance. This was a very straightforward Freedom of Information request.

The timeline – three deadlines, three misses

A Freedom of Information request was submitted to FOS on 20th November 2025.

• 17th December 2025 — FOS said disclosure would be provided by this date. It wasn’t.
• 21st January 2026 — FOS emailed to apologise and said disclosure would be provided by 30th January 2026. It wasn’t.
• 30th January 2026 — FOS said disclosure would be provided by 6th February 2026. Again, it wasn’t.

As of 10th February 2026, that’s 82 calendar days since the request was made, and still no sign of disclosure.

Now here’s the part that really sticks… FOS publicly states it will respond to FOI requests “as soon as we can, or within 20 working days… If we need more time, we’ll let you know and tell you why.”
(financial-ombudsman.org.uk)

Three missed dates. No disclosure. And no meaningful explanation that justifies the repeated failure to do what it says, in black and white, it will do.

“Information rights” doesn’t mean “information eventually”

FOS also makes an important distinction, if you want your personal data, you use a subject access request (SAR), which is governed by data protection law rather than FOI.
(financial-ombudsman.org.uk)

And the ICO’s public guidance is clear, organisations should respond to data protection rights requests as quickly as possible, and no later than one calendar month, with limited scope to extend for complexity.
(ico.org.uk)

So let’s be blunt, whether we’re talking FOI duties or UK GDPR culture, the principle is the same. Information rights come with time limits for a reason. They’re not optional. They’re not “best endeavours”. They’re not “whenever we get a free afternoon”.

They exist because delay is power. Delay controls the narrative. Delay frustrates scrutiny. And delay very conveniently kicks difficult questions into the long grass.

What was the request about?

Our FOI request centred on incentives and targets set for FOS employees.

In other words, do the people deciding complaints operate under performance metrics that might influence behaviour? Closure rates? Uphold rates? Productivity measures?

You know, exactly the sort of thing that matters if you’re an organisation whose entire legitimacy rests on the perception of independence, fairness, and careful consideration.

So why the delay?

Let’s be fair (because someone should be).

There are benign explanations:

• Under-resourcing and backlog
• Poor internal case management
• Dysfunctional handoffs between teams
• Fear of accidentally disclosing personal data requiring redaction

All possible.

But here’s the problem… FOS has had ample opportunity to simply say that, clearly supported by reasons, and to provide a revised, credible timetable.

Instead, we got the worst of both worlds. Repeated firm deadlines, confidently stated, then quietly ignored.

At some point, “oops” stops being an accident and starts looking like a habit.

When the watchdog normalises non-compliance

This is the deeper point, FOS is not just any organisation. It’s a public-facing adjudicator with enormous influence over consumers and firms. Its culture sets the tone.

FOS being sloppy with deadlines isn’t a minor admin hiccup. It’s symptomatic of a service operating in chaos.

Because if an ordinary business behaved like this FOS would not call it “an unfortunate oversight”. It would call it what it usually is:

• poor service
• inadequate communication
• failure to treat the customer properly

And yet here we are.

The uncomfortable question, is the truth embarrassing?

Which brings us to the question FOS has created through its own conduct, are these delays happening because the disclosure will cause reputational damage if the truth is revealed?

We can’t state that as fact. We don’t need to, because the pattern does the talking.

When a body misses three self-imposed disclosure deadlines on a request about staff incentives and targets, it is entirely reasonable to ask whether FOS is:

• trying to soften the ground before releasing something awkward, or
• hoping the requester gives up, or
• quietly negotiating internally about what can be released without public fallout.

In transparency work, delay is rarely neutral. Delay is often a strategy, whether deliberate or culturally embedded.

“Be respectful to our staff”… sure. Be respectful to the public, too.

FOS’s FOI page includes a reminder to the public to be respectful when communicating with staff. Fine, no issue with that.
(financial-ombudsman.org.uk)

But respect is reciprocal.

It is not respectful to:

• commit to dates and ignore them,
• offer apologies that change nothing,
• and treat lawful information requests as if they’re optional.

What should happen now?

FOS itself sets out the escalation route, if you’re unhappy with the response, request a review, and if still unhappy, go to the ICO.
(financial-ombudsman.org.uk)

That route exists for a reason, and it is a route we have taken (although the ICO has a backlog of 40 weeks!).

But zooming out, there’s a broader fix FOS should implement immediately:

• Publish staff incentive structures and targets proactively (anonymised where necessary). If it’s defensible, transparency helps FOS. If it’s not defensible, that’s not a reason to hide it.
• Stop issuing deadlines it can’t meet. If more time is needed, explain why, once, properly, with a date that means something.
• Adopt the standards it preaches. It cannot credibly lecture the market on good conduct while normalising its own failure to comply with basic information rights expectations.

Final thought. The delay is the story

FOS was brought under FOI because it performs public functions and the public deserves openness and accountability.
(gov.uk)

So when FOS repeatedly fails to provide a simple disclosure, on a topic as sensitive as internal targets and incentives, the obvious conclusion is not “how unlucky”.

It’s “what are they trying not to show?”

Because if the answer was harmless, we’d have had it by now.