What To Do If You Believe the Financial Ombudsman Has Treated You Unfairly

A practical guide for people seeking justice after financial harm

When you bring a complaint to the Financial Ombudsman Service, you expect fairness, independence, and careful review of evidence. The system was designed to help ordinary people resolve disputes without needing lawyers or courts.

But some people feel their case was not handled properly — for example, when they believe the investigator relied too heavily on the firm’s explanation, dismissed key evidence, or reached conclusions that don’t match the documents.

If that happens, you still have options. This guide explains what to do calmly, clearly, and effectively.

First — Pause and Stabilise

If you feel shocked, angry, or disbelieved, that reaction is normal. Financial harm is stressful. Feeling dismissed can make it worse.

Before taking action:

• take a breath

• step away from emails for a few hours

• gather your thoughts

Clear thinking is your strongest asset from here on.

Understand the Most Important Principle

Once a final decision is issued, arguing the facts again rarely changes anything.

What does change outcomes is showing that the process itself was flawed.

Oversight bodies take procedural failures seriously because they indicate risk to the whole system, not just one case.

So your strategy shifts from:

“They got it wrong.”

to

“Here is evidence the decision process was unfair or defective.”

That distinction is powerful.

Step 1 — Secure Your Evidence Immediately

Download and save everything connected to your case:

• emails

• attachments

• investigator messages

• decision notices

• timelines

Create a simple timeline document listing (we recomment using Notion):

• date

• event

• document reference

Why this matters: once you escalate, you may need to show exactly what was provided and when.

Step 2 — Request the Full Case File

Ask for all internal material relating to your case, including:

• investigator notes

• evidence logs

• communications with the firm

• internal reasoning

You can request this informally or via a data access request.

You are looking for signs such as:

• evidence you submitted not listed

• contradictions not addressed

• conclusions without explanation

• assumptions stated as fact

You are not trying to argue yet. You are examining the process.

Step 3 — Identify Procedural Issues

Examples of process concerns that matter:

Failure to consider evidence

Documents provided but not referenced in reasoning.

Selective weighting

Firm statements accepted without verification while consumer evidence is dismissed.

Unexplained conclusions

Decision jumps from facts to outcome without showing reasoning.

Predetermined narrative

Language suggesting the conclusion was assumed before analysis.

Write these as short factual statements, for example:

Document B was provided on 12 May but is not mentioned in the decision.

Keep it factual. Avoid opinions or accusations.

Step 4 — Use the Independent Assessor Route

The Ombudsman scheme has an Independent Assessor who reviews complaints about service quality.

They cannot change the decision outcome, but they can investigate:

• procedural fairness

• staff conduct

• failure to consider evidence

• delay or administrative error

This matters because:

Service findings create official records of process failure.Those records can support later escalation.

When writing:

• focus only on process

• avoid arguing the case merits

• use document references

Step 5 — Consider Legal Review

Some decisions may be challengeable through court review if there is evidence of:

• irrational reasoning

• ignoring material evidence

• unfair procedure

• legal misinterpretation

This is called judicial review. It is about legality, not whether the decision was right.

Important:

• time limits are strict (usually 3 months)

• early legal advice is essential

Not every case qualifies. But where a process defect exists, this route can carry weight.

Step 6 — Escalate Systemically if the Issue Is Pattern-Based

If you see the same problem happening repeatedly across multiple cases, the issue may be structural rather than individual.

In those situations, you can submit evidence to oversight bodies such as:

• your MP

• parliamentary committees

• the Financial Conduct Authority

• or directly raise concerns affecting the scheme’s operation with UK Parliament

Public authorities respond more strongly to patterns than to single complaints.

How To Write Effectively (This Changes Everything)

People often lose credibility unintentionally because stress affects how they write.

Strong submissions share three traits:

1. Calm tone

No accusations, no sarcasm, no emotional conclusions.

2. Short statements

One point per sentence.

3. Evidence references

Every claim linked to a document.

Example structure:

The decision states X.Document C shows Y.The decision does not explain this contradiction.

That format is persuasive because it is clear and verifiable.

Common Mistakes To Avoid

These weaken your position:

• repeating the whole story again

• criticising individuals personally

• sending long emotional emails

• making allegations without evidence

• writing when upset

Oversight bodies look for structured reasoning, not volume of words.

What Success Actually Looks Like

Success does not always mean the decision changes.

Success can also mean:

• official recognition of procedural failure

• compensation for poor handling

• systemic review

• regulatory attention

• precedent for future cases

These outcomes can still deliver accountability.

A Grounded Perspective

Many people assume the Ombudsman is like a court. It is not.

It is an administrative dispute scheme designed to be:

• informal

• accessible

• quick

Because of that design, outcomes depend heavily on:

• how evidence is presented

• how clearly contradictions are shown

• how well procedural issues are documented

In other words: structure often matters more than volume.

The Get SAFE Approach

When someone feels wronged by a financial decision, they often feel powerless. That feeling is understandable — but it is not the end of the road.

The strongest position is calm, organised, evidence-based advocacy.

That is why we encourage people to build a simple dossier that shows:

1. What happened

2. What evidence exists

3. What was overlooked

4. Where reasoning failed

Clear structure creates credibility.Credibility creates leverage.

Final Thought

If you believe your complaint was not handled fairly, you are not alone — and you are not without options.

You do not need to shout louder. You need to document better.

That shift — from reaction to structure — is where real influence begins.