By Steve Conley
One might have presumed that the Financial Ombudsman Service, long regarded as a sanctuary of stability in an otherwise turbulent financial landscape, would stand immune to the caprices of modern management. Alas, recent events suggest otherwise. In a move that might be described as less ‘reorganisation’ and more ‘the vanishing act,’ CEO and Chief Ombudsman Abby Thomas has departed unexpectedly, leaving a void that is proving as unsettling as it is inconvenient.
Barely had the dust settled on this abrupt exit when Baroness Manzoor, the stalwart chair of the FOS, announced her intention to step down come summer – a decision rendered all the more dramatic by the fact that it follows the completion of two full terms. One cannot help but speculate whether this tandem exit is merely coincidental or the calculated result of deeper discord within the institution’s hallowed halls.
It appears that the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), entrusted with the solemn duty of appointing the FOS board of directors, may find itself under an uncomfortably bright spotlight. Treasury Committee members, with Treasury Committee chair Dame Meg Hillier leading the charge, are demanding clarity on the FCA’s role in these departures. A letter has been dispatched to FCA chair Ashley Alder, with an unequivocal deadline attached, signalling that the institution must soon account for its actions – or lack thereof.
Adding further spice to this unfolding drama are media reports of internal disputes at the FOS concerning its decision to charge consumer money claims (CMCs) and professional representatives for the submission of cases. One is left to wonder whether these disagreements have precipitated the current exodus of senior figures, or if they are but a prelude to an impending, broader reorganisation of the entire redress and complaints system.
With the FOS slated to review up to 250,000 cases in the coming year, and the Financial Services Compensation Scheme also grappling with a plethora of claims – largely pertaining to insolvent or faltering firms – it is hardly surprising that a review of the whole apparatus is on the horizon. The government, whilst understandably loath to alienate consumers by undermining protection, is undoubtedly eyeing efficiencies and a fairer allocation of costs within this labyrinthine system.
In summary, while the forthcoming response from the FCA might yet illuminate the murky circumstances surrounding these departures, one thing is certain: change is afoot.
Whether this shake-up will engender a more equitable system, or simply usher in a new era of bureaucratic bluster, remains to be seen. For now, the FOS stands at the precipice of what could be a dramatic reimagining of financial redress in the UK – and one can only watch with a mixture of scepticism and resigned amusement.
Comments