Part 9

Post‑Escalation Conduct by

The Financial Ombudsman Service Investigator

(June–July 2026)

Analysis of Post‑Escalation Conduct and Its Implications

for

Independence, Safeguarding, and Procedural Integrity

When Procedural Boundaries Shift

&

Safeguarding Concerns Extend Beyond the Bank

 

Following the June 2026 update, the case entered the escalation stage. Under normal Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) procedure, once a complainant rejects an investigator’s findings, the investigator’s role ends. Communication should then transfer to an Ombudsman or an Ombudsman’s case handler. The investigator should not continue contact, seek further discussion, or attempt to influence the complainant’s decision.

 

However, the events that followed did not align with standard FOS practice. This section documents the investigator’s conduct between 15 June and 21 July 2026, and explains why these actions raise concerns about procedural fairness, boundary management, and safeguarding at regulatory level.

 

9.1

 

   Timeline Overview: What Should Have Happened vs What Occurred

 

10 June 2026 — The Financial Ombudsman’s appointed investigator completed and issued his official investigation report, confirming that he did not uphold the complaint.

 

15 June 2026 — Complainant Rejects Findings and Requests Escalation 

 

The complainant submitted a structured, evidence‑based escalation request, citing:

  • DISP 3.6.1R (escalation procedure not followed)
  • FCA FG21/1 (vulnerability and safeguarding guidance not applied)
  • safeguarding failures
  • misinterpretation of vulnerability
  • factual inaccuracies
  • lack of evidence transparency

What should have happened: A simple confirmation:

 

“Thank you. I confirm escalation to an Ombudsman.”

 

Then there should have been no further contact from the investigator.

 

What actually happened: the investigator did not confirm escalation. Instead, he initiated a series of contacts that were:

  • irregular
  • boundary‑breaching
  • procedurally inconsistent
  • emotionally pressurising
  • discouraging of escalation

These actions materially affected the complainant’s sense of safety and trust in the process.

 

9.2

 

15 June  — “I will review what you’ve said and be in touch soon.”

 

The Financial Ombudsman’s appointed investigator’s response did not acknowledge the escalation request. Instead, the investigator replied:

 

“I will review what you’ve said and be in touch soon.”

 

From the complainant’s perspective, this response implied that:

  • the investigator was still handling the case rather than stepping back after escalation was requested
  • escalation had not been accepted or confirmed
  • the complainant was expected to wait
  • the investigator intended to revisit his own findings

This approach did not align with FOS procedure following rejection and escalation. To the complainant, it felt like a stalling tactic rather than a clear confirmation of escalation.

 

9.3

 

23 June — Request for an Unrecorded Telephone Call

 

Despite the complainant’s stated preference for email, the investigator wrote:

 

“I would like to call you to discuss what you’ve said.”

 

This:

  • overrides communication preferences
  • seeks an unrecorded conversation
  • creates an opportunity for emotional influence
  • contradicts transparency expectations
  • is inappropriate after escalation

The complainant declined and restated their clear preference for email.

 

9.4

 

25 June — Repeated Contact and Pressure to Engage

 

Within seven minutes, the investigator sent two further emails.

 

The first again sought discussion. The second finally acknowledged escalation — but still came from the investigator, not an Ombudsman or their case handler.

 

This resulted in:

  • pressure
  • confusion
  • emotional discomfort
  • a sense of being monitored
  • a sense of being discouraged from escalation

9.5   

 

2 July — Continued Contact Despite Escalation

 

The investigator wrote again:

 

“I have added the additional information you’ve provided to your case file for the ombudsman to review.”

 

This message should have come from an Ombudsman or their case handler. The investigator’s continued involvement blurred procedural boundaries and prolonged emotional discomfort.

 

9.6

 

20 July 2026 — “It was only my personal view.”

 

On 20 July, the investigator contacted the complainant again, stating:

 

“My initial findings reflect my personal opinion.”

 

This contact was highly irregular. Investigators do not:

  • reinterpret their own findings
  • soften their stance
  • defend their reasoning
  • attempt to influence perception after escalation
  • contact complainants during Ombudsman review

The investigator was not instructed by the Ombudsman to provide a personal opinion. His decision to reinterpret his own findings raises concerns about undisclosed role changes, lack of oversight, and whether the Ombudsman saw or reviewed the investigator’s irregular communications.

 

This message caused significant distress due to its defensive tone and timing. It appeared defensive, self‑protective, and suggested the investigator was attempting to manage the narrative of his own conduct rather than step back as required once escalation had been requested.

 

9.7

 

21 July 2026 — Delivery of the Ombudsman’s Final Decision

 

The investigator emailed the Ombudsman’s final decision directly to the complainant.

 

This is not standard procedure.

 

Ombudsman decisions should be issued:

  • directly by the Ombudsman, or
  • by an Ombudsman’s case handler

Delivery by the investigator:

  • blurs roles
  • undermines independence
  • raises governance concerns
  • intensifies emotional impact

This was the point at which the complainant felt both intimidated and unsafe.

 

Procedural harm

  • boundary breaches
  • escalation‑discouragement
  • irregular communication
  • inappropriate contact

Emotional harm

  • pressure
  • confusion
  • intimidation
  • distress

Safeguarding harm

 

The investigator’s conduct also created safeguarding concerns, including:

  • not respecting communication preferences
  • not recognising vulnerability
  • not maintaining professional boundaries
  • not ensuring transparency

These behaviours replicate the same safeguarding issues seen at branch level.

 

9.8

 

Summary

 

This section documents:

  • how escalation was mishandled
  • how boundaries were breached
  • how emotional pressure was applied
  • how safeguarding obligations were not met
  • how regulatory processes can replicate harm

These points form the basis for understanding the procedural and safeguarding concerns arising from the investigator’s conduct.

 

To understand how these irregularities shaped the fairness of the investigation, continue to:

 

Part 10 — Page 1

Procedural Failures in the Financial Ombudsman Process.

 

 

 

 

Design & Copyright Owner Maureen Booth-Martin (MBM) © All rights reserved

UA-54289644-1