Days after the unceremonious departure of the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) CEO, Abby Thomas—who dared to resist the government's unchecked growth-at-any-cost dogma—the chair, Baroness Manzoor, has dutifully fallen on her sword. This dual exodus marks a grim milestone in the ongoing subjugation of consumer protection to the unbridled interests of the banking elite.
Two key developments illustrate this state-sponsored capitulation. First, the government, under pressure from the ever-looming City lobbyists, has decreed that the most vulnerable complainants—those embroiled in labyrinthine financial disputes necessitating professional representation—will now be expected to pay for the privilege of seeking justice. Second, it appears that the cardinal sin of ruling in favour of consumers without first consulting the likely fiscal implications for the banking sector will no longer be tolerated. After all, allowing compensation claims to snowball into systemic accountability could threaten the very fabric of Britain’s financial dystopia.
City lobbyists, those ever-diligent custodians of corporate impunity, have deemed free case resolution an intolerable burden on the banks’ pristine balance sheets. Their rallying cry is simple: Banks—and more importantly, bankers—must be safeguarded at all costs if the UK is to retain its lustre as a playground for high finance. If that means ensuring that consumers are left stranded without recourse, so be it. A small price to pay for keeping the gears of the financial sector well-greased.
A Convenient Exodus
Manzoor’s resignation, following closely on the heels of Thomas’s departure, is conveniently timed against the backdrop of whispers—nay, roars—of regulatory ‘modernisation.’ That is to say, a wholesale dismantling of consumer protections in favour of streamlined, frictionless profiteering. The Chancellor, Rachel Reeves, ever the dutiful herald of deregulation, has signalled her enthusiasm for slashing financial services red tape—a euphemism, one assumes, for neutering oversight in the name of expedience.
Baroness Manzoor, reflecting on her tenure, trumpets her achievements in ‘streamlining’ the Financial Ombudsman Service, a phrase that here appears to mean ‘reducing its effectiveness in holding financial institutions to account.’ Her legacy includes the milestone introduction of case fees for Claims Management Companies (CMCs) and other professional representatives—a move ostensibly designed to curb frivolous claims but one that conveniently deters the very individuals most in need of representation.
Yet, she assures us, ‘there is still more to do.’ One shudders to think what further erosions of consumer protection she might have envisaged had she remained in post. Her valedictory remarks highlight a ‘joint Call for Input’—a masterstroke of bureaucratic obfuscation—purporting to refresh dispute resolution rules while, in all likelihood, dismantling them brick by brick.
The City's Triumph
The replacement of the FOS leadership will no doubt bring a new, more compliant order to the institution. The message to consumers is clear: the government’s allegiance is to the City, and the notion of fair financial redress must be tempered with pragmatic deference to institutional survival. The banks, we are told, are too big to fail. The consumers, however, are expendable.
Ashley Alder, chair of the Financial Conduct Authority, offers a sycophantic eulogy, commending Manzoor’s ‘determination and boundless energy’ in spearheading an ‘ambitious programme of improvement.’ One wonders whether this boundless energy extended to the tireless advocacy of those financially wronged or was merely reserved for the careful placation of banking interests.
As we brace for the next chapter in this ongoing saga, one can only marvel at the brazen efficiency with which the government continues to erode what little remains of independent consumer advocacy. The City has spoken, the government has obeyed, and the Financial Ombudsman Service is now poised to become yet another regulatory husk—existing in name, but devoid of purpose.
Let the consumer beware.
MPs Probe ‘Mutual Agreement’ That Nobody Will Explain
In yet another display of institutional opacity, MPs have demanded clarity on the abrupt departure of Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) chief Abby Thomas, who exited with all the grace of a rug being pulled from underfoot.
Despite persistent questioning from the Treasury Committee, Baroness Manzoor, chair of the FOS, remained resolutely tight-lipped, parroting the phrase “mutual agreement” as though repetition might imbue it with meaning. Pressed on whether there was a non-disclosure agreement, she denied the existence of a “gagging order,” though the absence of explicit muzzling does not, of course, equate to transparency.
Manzoor’s own impending departure in August has only fuelled concerns of a rudderless institution. Though she insists there…