01254 82288001254 822880
July 17, 2025 
Daniel Lee
The Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) is supposed to be the final, impartial authority for resolving financial disputes fairly.
But in yet another disturbing case—this time involving FOS investigator Paola Ivanova and lender RCI Financial Services (trading as Mobilize)—the system has once again failed the very people it was designed to protect.
Our complaint focused on what we strongly believe to be irresponsible lending by RCI, who issued a motor finance agreement to our client despite clear indicators of financial distress.
FOS rightly requested that RCI evidence the affordability checks it claims were carried out before approving the finance.
RCI’s response?
They either refused or failed to provide any evidence whatsoever to FOS to support that a proper affordability assessment was conducted.
Our client operates two personal bank accounts:
These indicators are textbook warning signs of unaffordability, yet both RCI and the Ombudsman have chosen to disregard them.
Despite:
FOS investigator Paola Ivanova still chose to reject the complaint.
This decision sends a dangerous message: that lenders can ignore evidence requests, refuse to cooperate, and still win.
“A firm must undertake an assessment of the creditworthiness of the customer… including the customer’s ability to make repayments in a sustainable manner.”
“The firm must retain a record of the assessment… to demonstrate that it complied with its obligations.”
“We expect firms to show that they carried out proportionate checks and responded appropriately to any indications that the borrowing might be unsustainable.”
RCI has done none of this. The evidence is absent. And the Ombudsman’s ruling contradicts both its own published standards and the FCA’s regulatory expectations.
This isn’t just a single misjudged case—it’s a pattern of systemic failure:
We are calling for:
Until changes are made, vulnerable consumers will continue to be let down, and lenders will remain shielded from accountability.
Needless to say, the complaint has been appealed in detail.
YOUR MONEY CLAIM
July 17, 2025 Daniel Lee
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.
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.
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.
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:
“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.
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:
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.
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.
We once again repeat our call upon the FOS to:
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
July 17, 2025 Daniel Lee
The Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) is meant to be the final line of defence for consumers wronged by financial institutions.
But in the case of our client—who was burdened with an unaffordable motor finance agreement—FOS investigator Ananiah Egele attempted to deliver a decision that highlights a systemic and deeply troubling failure in both transparency and diligence.
This case lays bare the growing pattern of injustice disguised as investigation, where consumer protection is sacrificed at the altar of process, and scrutiny is side-stepped in favour of convenience.
One of the earliest red flags in this case came when we requested to review a copy of our client’s credit file—a core piece of evidence that FOS stated had been relied upon in reaching it decision.
Despite our client’s clear and valid Letter of Authority, authorising full access to and disclosure of all information relating to the complaint, Ananiah attempted to deny access to this credit file by Ms. Egele.
Her reasoning? That it contained “commercially sensitive information.”
This claim was legally and categorically false, and, in our opinion, clearly provided in an attempt to protect the position of the finance provider.
A credit file is not commercial data, despite the suggestion of Ananiah,—it is personal data under Article 4(1) of the UK GDPR and is entirely the property of the data subject (our client).
After re-educating Ananiah and escalating our objection, citing the relevant legal provisions, FOS relented and disclosed the credit file—as it should have done at the outset.
The core of our complaint was simple: the motor finance provided to our client was clearly unaffordable. Ananiah Egele incorrectly claimed the finance provider was justified in granting the loan, based on:
But when we reviewed the credit file, it became clear that key information had been ignored or never considered, despite the FOS’ suggestion that it had “reviewed the available evidence.”
Here’s what the credit file actually showed:
These discrepancies were not marginal—they were material, glaring, and deeply relevant to whether the lending was fair or responsible. Yet they were seemingly swept aside, or worse, never looked at.
Unfortunately, this case is not unique. The approach taken by Ms. Egele is emblematic of a system that routinely prioritises administrative closure over justice, and protects lenders from accountability even when consumers clearly meet the threshold for redress.
Increasing rumours suggest that FOS employees are incentivised to reject complaints. While these rumours are not yet substantiated, decisions like this only serve to support the ongoing serious concerns with the so called independent adjudicator.
In any event, this failure seems not down to individual error, but part of a wider culture within the Financial Ombudsman Service—one that appears more interested in managing volumes than delivering fairness.
When key evidence is withheld, when investigators repeat procedural lines rather than engaging with material facts, and when clearly unaffordable lending is waved through with hollow reasoning, confidence in the system collapses.
The case involving Ananiah Egele is now part of a growing “wall of shame”—not to target individuals maliciously, but to shine a light on the human failures that are eroding trust in one of the UK’s most vital public services.
We will continue to call out these systemic weaknesses, challenge unfair decisions, and expose the barriers being placed in front of vulnerable consumers. The public deserves better than regulatory theatre. It deserves a Financial Ombudsman Service that lives up to its name.
YOUR MONEY CLAIM
July 17, 2025 Daniel Lee
The Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) has reported a significant increase in complaints in the year to 31st March 2025, a spike that many experts believe is directly tied to the controversial reforms due to take effect from 1st April 2025—chief among them, the introduction of fees charged to representative firms for escalating consumer complaints.
This development is not only raising eyebrows across the claims and financial advice sectors, but it is also provoking deep concern about access to justice for vulnerable consumers. Beneath the surface of this reform lies a troubling strategy: to stifle redress for motor finance mis-selling by limiting who can afford to fight on behalf of consumers.
From 1st April 2025, representative firms—such as claims management companies and legal representatives—will be charged a case fee by the Financial Ombudsman Service for each complaint they bring on behalf of a consumer.
While FOS insists the measure is aimed at discouraging ‘meritless’ claims, in reality it places a barrier in front of vulnerable and financially distressed consumers, who overwhelmingly rely on professional representation to navigate the often opaque and complex complaints process.
It is accepted that FOS needs to recoup costs for investigating escalated complaints, but the most sensible approach to encourage fair outcomes would be to charge the losing party, whether that be the representative firm or the lender.
For many people impacted by motor finance mis-selling, they rely upon representation by a trusted firm with legal or financial expertise. Charging these firms per case discourages escalation, particularly for relatively lower-value claims that will inevitably disproportionately affect those already struggling with debt or financial exclusion.
This new fee is not happening in isolation. It is part of a wider pattern of systemic changes that appear designed to suppress the rising tide of motor finance mis-selling complaints. Other concerning developments include:
The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) has floated proposals to cut the 8% compensatory interest typically awarded in redress cases. This would reduce the final compensation paid to consumers—most of whom have waited years for justice—ultimately saving lenders money at the expense of fairness.
Perhaps most concerning of all is the FCA’s position in the Supreme Court, where it has aligned itself with lenders, arguing that disclosure of commission was not required, contrary to its own existing rules. This stance is seen by many as a betrayal of its core mission: to protect consumers from financial harm.
By backing the argument that lenders owed no duty of care, and that dealership incentives did not need to be disclosed, the FCA is weakening the very consumer protections that the Ombudsman is designed to uphold.
The surge in complaints up to March 31st, 2025 should not be seen as a statistical anomaly—it is a pre-emptive rush by representative firms to submit legitimate complaints before the fees take effect.
From April 2025 onwards, there will be a sharp drop in complaints being escalated to the Ombudsman. This will not reflect a resolution of wrongdoing or a drop in mis-selling.
Instead, it will prove—beyond doubt—that the introduction of fees is suppressing access to justice, protecting banks and lenders, and discouraging legitimate complaints by shielding the motor finance sector from public accountability.
The question we must ask is simple: Who benefits from these changes?
The only winners here are the lenders and banks who have the most to lose from mass redress—and it appears they are now being shielded by a combination of regulatory, judicial, and procedural changes.
As these developments unfold, it’s crucial that consumers, journalists, and campaigners continue to hold the system to account. Silence may be what the industry hopes for next—but justice demands otherwise.
YOUR MONEY CLAIM
July 17, 2025 Daniel Lee
The Supreme Court case has laid bare an uncomfortable truth about the motor finance industry: lenders acted in their own interests, with disregard for consumer fairness, and in doing so have effectively admitted to breaching the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA)’s rules.
What’s even more troubling is the FCA’s own position in court—aligned with the lenders—appears to sidestep or even contradict the very rules it is tasked with upholding.
In front of the UK Supreme Court, lenders have argued that:
This stance strikes at the heart of the regulatory rules that are designed to protect consumers from financial harm.
The FCA rules specifically state that a credit broker (the dealership) must disclose the existence and nature of commission arrangements if the commission could affect the broker’s impartiality.
The rule could not be more clear.
Oxford Dictionary definition: “Equal treatment of all rivals or disputants; fairness.”
In the context of motor finance, dealerships were incentivised, by way of commission, to propose more expensive finance agreements to consumers.
Therefore, the mere existence of a commission affects the impartiality of the dealership—and thus, per FCA rules, should have been disclosed.
Rather than standing up for its own rulebook, the FCA has inexplicably chosen to side with lenders in this Supreme Court battle. By suggesting that:
The position of the FCA undermines its own consumer protection framework and clearly contradicts its own rulebook.
The FCA’s own rulebook requires disclosure where impartiality is affected.
The lenders’ argument in the Supreme Court case relies on the position that they were acting in their own interests, and not impartially.
There is either a fundamental misunderstanding by the FCA of its own rules, or a calculated retreat in favour of those it regulates.
This case exposes a deep failure of industry governance. It confirms:
The Supreme Court case is not just about consumer refunds—it’s about systemic misconduct, regulatory weakness, and the fundamental question of who the financial system is designed to protect.
If lenders can argue they owe consumers no duty of care—and if the regulator tasked with enforcing fairness supports that argument—then the motor finance industry is more broken than anyone feared.
This is not just a case about past failings. It’s a live test of whether fairness and transparency have any meaning left in UK financial regulation.
YOUR MONEY CLAIM
July 17, 2025 Daniel Lee In what can only be described as an increasingly shameless betrayal of public trust, the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) — backed, it appears, by elements within government — is taking a series of calculated steps to shield the motor finance industry from its legal and financial obligations to UK consumers.
The UK public has witnessed scandal after scandal where financial institutions have misled, mis-sold, and manipulated the public. But what we are now seeing is something even more disturbing: a coordinated campaign to minimise rightful compensation owed to consumers following the systemic non-disclosure of motor finance commissions — a practice tantamount to bribery and deception.
This collusion is not theoretical. It is unfolding now, through a four-pronged strategy designed to insulate the guilty and obstruct justice.
When the issue of hidden motor finance commissions reached the UK Supreme Court, the FCA had a choice: defend consumer rights or defend industry profits. It chose the latter.
In its submission to the court, the FCA took the side of the finance providers — the very firms that enabled a system where car dealerships were incentivised with undisclosed commissions, to steer consumers into more expensive finance deals. The FCA’s argument? That a consumer victory would risk “significant financial harm” to the motor finance industry.
Let’s be clear: this was not a neutral submission. This was an attempt to influence the highest court in the land in favour of financial firms who had, for all intents and purposes, bribed salespeople to mis-sell motor finance agreements.
Even the UK Government attempted to intervene in the case — but was excluded. The FCA, however, was heard. And it chose the wrong side.
The Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) — historically a last line of defence for ordinary people — has now implemented a new policy: charging fees to representatives who escalate claims.
This is a direct attack on those most in need of support — vulnerable consumers who depend on professional firms to navigate a complex system that has failed them at every turn.
Why introduce this now? Because firms have been wrongly rejecting complaints for years, historically during the PPI scandal, and now on motor finance commission cases. And instead of fixing the problem at the source, the FOS is making it harder and more expensive for victims to pursue justice.
This chilling effect on representation plays right into the hands of the same firms that created this mess — and ensures that fewer consumers will have the help they need to make successful claims.
The FCA is now consulting on reducing the statutory interest rate applied to consumer compensation awards, which currently stands at 8% per annum.
This is the only meaningful financial penalty that most misbehaving firms ever face. It recognises that consumers have been deprived of the use of their money and should act as a deterrent against the unfair conduct of firms.
To reduce this now — when consumers may shortly begin to receive compensation for motor finance commission failings — is to blatantly help firms limit their liabilities. It’s not just misguided regulation. It’s collusion.
The final and most brazen move? The FCA has launched a consultation to “modernise” the unfair relationships provisions under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 — the very law that has enabled claims for hidden commissions in motor finance.
This provision — Section 140A — is the legal backbone that consumers and their representatives rely upon to expose wrongdoing and recover compensation.
So why would the FCA seek to “reform” it now?
Because the current law is working too well. It’s forcing firms to face up to past misconduct and redress wrongs the FCA failed to prevent. Rather than own up to years of inaction and ineffective supervision, the regulator is looking to change the rules mid-game.
This is not a coincidence. This is damage control — a thinly veiled effort to protect corporate interests and bury regulatory failures.
Let’s connect the dots:
This is not “modernisation.” This is a coordinated retreat from accountability.
We believe the FCA and government should be facing intense scrutiny, not allowed to quietly rewrite the rules in favour of the finance industry.
The public has been misled, overcharged, and denied the truth for decades. This latest scandal is bigger than PPI, and the attempts to limit redress reveal a regulator that is not just ineffective — but complicit.
If you’re wondering why you’re not hearing more about this from the regulators themselves — it’s because they don’t want you to. But we will not be silent.
If you’ve had motor finance between 2007 and 2024, your rights are real — and the fight for justice is far from over.
YOUR MONEY CLAIM
