josie smith rated Financial Ombudsman Service 1 stars
4 months ago
I am writing to raise serious concerns regarding the conduct of Ombudsman “Susan Webb” ombudsman in relation to my complaint against Case Reference: PNX-5444610-H3B3. I do not believe that Susan Webb acted fairly, impartially, or professionally. Her handling of this case has left me with no confidence in the integrity of the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) as a whole.
This is not simply a matter of disagreeing with an outcome—I fully understand that not every decision will go in a complainant’s favour. The issue here is that the investigation was fundamentally flawed, and the decision-making process lacked both fairness and objectivity from the outset. Susan Webb, despite being an Ombudsman, repeatedly dismissed vital evidence, relied heavily on demonstrably inaccurate claims made by the financial firm, and made inappropriate assumptions that reveal a disturbing lack of understanding of the challenges faced by disabled and vulnerable consumers.
One of the most alarming aspects of her decision was the way she presumed, without medical expertise or access to clinical evidence, to assess my physical capabilities—implying I could travel significant distances despite well-documented mobility, mental health, and sensory limitations. This was not only grossly inappropriate but dehumanising, and it directly contradicts both FCA guidance on vulnerability (FG21/1) and FOS’s own stated commitments to fair treatment.
Susan Webb also failed to properly apply critical regulatory standards. Breaches of the Payment Services Regulations, FCA Principles 6 and 7, and DISP rules were either overlooked or minimised. Santander’s accessibility failures and repeated dismissals of prior complaints were ignored, while my attempts to provide supporting evidence were treated as secondary to the firm’s internal policies. It felt, throughout, that the outcome was predetermined in favour of the financial institution, with the ombudsman acting more as their defender than an impartial adjudicator.
This raises a much broader concern. If ombudsmen such as Susan Webb are allowed to act with bias, ignore evidence, and show disregard for vulnerable consumers, then the credibility of the entire ombudsman scheme is called into question. The FOS is supposed to be a safeguard for ordinary people—a check against the imbalance of power between consumers and large financial entities. When that safeguard fails, it undermines public trust in one of the last remaining mechanisms of accountability.
I have formally escalated this matter to the Independent Assessor, and I urge others who have experienced unfair treatment to do the same. An ombudsman service that does not uphold the principles of fairness, professionalism, and regulatory duty is not fit for purpose.
This is not just poor service—it is a systemic failure that demands urgent scrutiny.
