We were set up by Parliament to resolve individual complaints between financial businesses and their customers. We can look into problems involving most types of money matters - from payday loans to pensions, pet insurance to PPI. If we decide someone's been treated unfairly, we have legal powers to put things right.
GBGBThese guys will do everything they can to fob you off and avoid giving you a case. I was in a difficult situation with solid evidence and a lawyer behind me, yet they still did not acknowledge my evidence. It is disgusting how they treat people, and anyone who works there should be ashamed of themselves.
GBGBConsumers should not rely on the FOS to review their cases impartially or with any consideration of legal or regulatory requirements of the firms you complain about. FOS would not share information I requested about the Prudential’s responses to their questions that I prompted them to ask. The FOS DO NOT resolve disputes based on what is fair and reasonable at all, never mind in all circumstances of the case as they should.I complained to FOS about the Prudential Assurance Company because they incorrectly surrendered an investment plan – using the wrong form and without appropriate authorisation.In my family’s case, a PruFund Investment Plan valued at approximately £105,000 was surrendered to a third party connected to the wider Philips Trust Corporation / Family Trust Corporation scandal. The surrender was processed using documentation which, in our view, should not have been accepted for this product and included signatures that we believe were not properly authorised under the trust arrangements.Of particular concern was that the form used contained wording stating that it should not be used for the type of investment plan it was ultimately used to surrender.The Financial Ombudsman Service rejected our complaint, concluding that Prudential acted in “good faith” (this was the FOS investigators second reason for rejecting the complaint after the first technical reason for rejecting the complaint was challenged and proved incorrect). However, we remain concerned that the wider regulatory and procedural issues were not properly examined in a fair and transparent manner.This is not an isolated issue. Evidence presented to the FCA suggests that hundreds of trust-held investments across multiple regulated firms may have been surrendered under similar circumstances, involving tens of millions of pounds affecting elderly and vulnerable consumers, however, the FCA has stated “…complaints about the actions or decisions of the Ombudsman Service fall outside the scope of the FCA Complaints Scheme.”.The matter has now been escalated to the Financial Regulators Complaints Commissioner for independent review. I did also complain to the FOS Independent Assessor, but that complaint has been ignored since December 2025 - so do not expect any action or sympathy from her.
I do not rely on the Financial Ombudsman Service or on Ms Leerna Fox as an investigator, as her handling of my case has been disappointing and unfair. From the beginning, Ms Leerna Fox failed to demonstrate independence, objectivity, or a genuine commitment to assessing my complaint properly. The approach taken by Ms Leerna Fox shows a clear lack of impartiality and professionalism. After this, my evidence was not reviewed in a balanced or transparent way. Instead, the bank’s position was accepted without sufficient challenge, while my documented proof was largely ignored. I provided complete and relevant materials, yet my complaint was dismissed with vague reasoning and no detailed explanation. I was told that the investigator was “not satisfied,” without any clear justification. Why should I be required to meet a subjective standard, rather than objective and fair criteria? My evidence directly addressed the issues raised and should have been considered on its merits. The role of the Financial Ombudsman Service is to protect consumers and ensure fairness. However, in my case, the process lacked transparency, accountability, and genuine independence. This has undermined my trust in the system and raised serious concerns about its effectiveness.
I contacted James Dipple-Johnson about specific corruption concerns but I received a reply informing that no action was being taken and I was subsequently banned from using the service. I expected the FOS to at least refute the allegations but no, they decided to brazen it out.
