Nine years of complaints to the Financial Ombudsman, without the sugar coating
- Area:
- Consumer
- Decision body:
- The Financial Ombudsman Service
- Decided:
- October 2026
On this page
The issue
The Financial Ombudsman Service settles complaints between people and financial firms, free of charge. The firm gets eight weeks to answer first. Then an investigator gives a view, and if either side disagrees, an ombudsman makes a final decision. A final decision binds the firm only if the customer accepts it.
This is one person's record with the Service over nine years. Between 2017 and 2026 he took complaints to it about two car finance lenders, six banks, a building society, a cryptocurrency exchange, a money management firm, his motor insurer, the insurer of a personal accident add-on, and the insurer of his legal expenses cover. Fourteen are told here. Several more are left out because they are before a court or about to be, and one because it was brought for someone else.
What was provided
- The complaint form for each, with the firm's final response where he had one.
- Evidence: dashcam footage, his motor insurer's engineer's report and an independent engineer's report, bank emails, and his chat history with a bank.
- Written reasons each time he disagreed with an investigator's view, and requests for an ombudsman.
- Complaints about how cases were handled: to a team manager, and to the Independent Assessor, who reviews the Service's own conduct.
How would you have decided?
Vote to see how other readers answered and what the decision body said.
Partly won
The outcome
None of the fourteen has ended with the ombudsman telling a firm to pay him. Four were still open on 30 September.
- Moneybarn, 2017. A car bought on finance had faults. The investigator asked for a mechanic's report by a deadline, and none was provided. The case had closed within two months. Car finance claims brought since then have raised matters this complaint did not address, and those are still awaiting outcomes.
- Barclays, 2019. Barclays had seized funds in his account. No letters were attached to the complaint form, so the Service asked for them. The complaint lapsed with no outcome from the Service, and the funds were returned in the end.
- Monzo, 2019 to 2020. Monzo froze and then closed his account. It took 322 days to give the case to an investigator, and the letter that did so named the wrong company. The view, at day 337, was not upheld. The investigator found the balance had already reached another of his accounts, and the proof was in his own bank's emails.
- N26, 2019 to 2021. N26 paid £369.68 in compensation. The Service closed the file once it was clear he had received it.
- Coinbase, 2020. His complaint was about cryptocurrency funds Coinbase had seized. The Service took 86 days to say the product was outside what it covers. Coinbase's own complaints process ran its course, and the funds were returned in the end.
- Lloyds and Nationwide, 2020. Both went straight back to the bank to answer first, because the banks had not yet had their chance.
- A bank the Service could not identify, 2020 to 2021. He had no final response to send, and the Service could not tell which bank it was. It lapsed.
- Think Money, 2022. A fraud-database marker was removed while the Service had the case, and he withdrew the complaint after 118 days.
- First Central Underwriting, 2026. After a motorway accident that was not his fault, he complained that the insurer had authorised repairs without his consent when the car should have been a total loss. The view, at day 82, was not upheld. The investigator then told him the Insurance Act 2015 applied only to business policies, and corrected that three days later. The ombudsman's final decision came at day 230, on 2 September: "I don't uphold this complaint". It found the insurer's £150 for its poor service fair, and it looked only at the position when the insurer sent its final responses in January and February 2026, not at what happened to the car afterwards; the car was settled as a total loss in September. He rejected the decision, so it does not bind him.
- Porsche Financial Services, 2026. After the accident he asked the lender for help with his payments while he was paying for a hire car, and it did not reply. Its own final response accepted it should have, and offered £200. The investigator's view, at day 69, agreed it should have responded to his requests for help, but found the £200 already fair and asked it to do nothing more. He has asked for an ombudsman, and for £750 in place of the £200.
- Astrenska Insurance, 2026. His complaint is that the insurer of his personal accident add-on declined his claim after the accident. The Service asked for his policy documents again after an upload failed, and said it would not take the complaint further until it had them. The request sat on his online dashboard, unseen, for 108 days. The documents then went in.
- Metro Bank, 2026. His complaint is about card payments he says he never authorised. Metro's final response did not uphold it. He took it to the Service in July, and on 30 September the Service was still waiting for Metro's file before it could start.
- Allianz, 2026. His complaint is about his legal expenses cover and his right to choose his own lawyer. The Service set the case up in April, wrote in July and again in August that it had not started, and on 30 September it was still waiting for an investigator.
What he got wrong
- Two false statements to the Independent Assessor. He said he had never received the insurer's £150 final response, and that he had never been sent the engineer's report. He had received both. He corrected them himself, with an apology.
- Complaints sent too early or without papers. Lloyds and Nationwide went back because the banks had not answered first. Barclays and the unidentified bank stalled because no letters went with the form.
- The money he was chasing had already arrived. On Monzo, his own bank's emails showed the balance had reached his other account a year before the view.
What it means if you are in the same position
- Get the firm's final response first, or wait out its eight weeks, check the date on it, and send it with your complaint. First Central's response carried the wrong year, and the Service asked for it to be corrected.
- Check the online dashboard as well as your email. A request can sit there unnoticed for months.
- A few strong documents beat a long file. On Moneybarn, everything turned on one mechanic's report.
- Expect to wait for an investigator. Monzo's case took 322 days to reach one, and the Allianz complaint, set up in April 2026, still had none at the end of September.
- A view is not the end. You can ask for an ombudsman, but the wait for one was about four months in 2026.
- The ombudsman judges the firm at its final response. First Central's decision looked only at the position when the insurer sent its final responses. Anything that happens after that is a new complaint, to the firm first.
- A firm can be wrong and its offer still fair. The investigator agreed Porsche Financial Services should have answered him, and found its £200 enough.
- Firms often settle while the Service has the case. N26 paid, and Think Money removed the marker.
- Check your own facts before you escalate. He had to withdraw two of his own statements to the Independent Assessor.
- Winning is not the same as being paid. The Service does not collect money for you. If a firm does not pay an award you have accepted, the route is the county court.
- The Independent Assessor usually looks at the Service's conduct only once your case has closed.
Where it went next
First Central: he asked the Independent Assessor to review how the Service handled the complaint, saying the decision does not deal with evidence the ombudsman had; the Assessor accepted the review in September and expects to report by late November. On the Service's dashboard on 30 September a separate complaint about the policy excess was waiting for an investigator. Porsche Financial Services was waiting for an ombudsman, Astrenska and Allianz for an investigator, and the Metro Bank complaint for Metro's file.
Docketory gives information only on complaints about financial firms. It is not authorised by the Financial Conduct Authority and does not take on complaints about banks, lenders, insurers or credit providers. This is one person's experience, not advice on your case.
Updates
- October 2026. Checked against the papers and emails in the matter. Lines were added on what the Barclays and Coinbase complaints were about and how they ended, what the Astrenska complaint is about, what he asked the Independent Assessor to review, and the £750 he asks of Porsche Financial Services. On Moneybarn, the piece had said the outcome was not in the emails; it now says no mechanic's report was provided.
- October 2026. Reworded so that the matter is told by the person's role, with nothing to say whose it was. No fact changed.
Comments
Comments are read before they appear.
This story is one matter, told from its papers. It is general information, not guidance on your situation, and one outcome says nothing about another. Docketory is not a firm of solicitors.
This story may change. It is told from the papers as they stood when it was written. If new evidence comes to light, or a court, an ombudsman or a regulator decides something new about the matter, the story is updated, or the part now before a court is taken out, and the change is noted at the end of the story with the month it was made. The poll's question and answers never change, so a vote cast before an update stands as it was cast.