Financial ombudsman rebuked by MPs over handling of ex-chief's ‘dismissal'
The peer and chairwoman had been asked by MPs to explain why Ms Thomas had stepped down from her role as chief executive of the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) and whether any severance package was agreed.
She declined to do so, saying only that the move had been a 'mutual agreement' and citing her 'duties to safeguard the wellbeing of our employees' and 'protect the interests' of the ombudsman service.
In a letter to the committee on February 19, Baroness Manzoor claimed that 'as a member of the House of Lords, I cannot be required either to attend before the committee, or or to answer its questions,' the report says.
In Monday's report, MPs said that 'although this argument was strictly true' because Commons committees have no power to compel the Lords, 'it was unnecessary and disrespectful'.
Following Baroness Manzoor's letter, the committee ordered the FOS to submit details of any severance deal or financial package and any confidentiality or non-disclosure agreement negotiated between the service and Ms Thomas.
Although the FOS complied with the order, the committee has not published the details, claiming its decision not to do so reflects 'our awareness of the need to balance transparency against fairness to individuals.'
In its report, the committee sums up the reason for Ms Thomas' dismissal as a 'collapse in confidence' driven by 'fundamental disagreements' over strategy and operations between the board and the former chief executive.
'This collapse in confidence covered a broad range of issues and was not driven by a single event or topic,' it says.
'The mutual collapse in confidence led the FOS Board to dismiss Abby Thomas.'
Treasury Committee chairwoman Dame Meg Hillier said the service's failure to block Commons scrutiny should send a 'clear message' to others seeking to frustrate the process.
'I'm afraid that the handling of this situation by the senior leadership of the Financial Ombudsman Service has been deeply disappointing,' she said.
'The attempt to frustrate a House of Commons Committee from scrutinising the actions of a publicly accountable organisation ultimately proved unsuccessful.
'I hope this sends a clear message to any organisation considering similar action in future that Members of the House of Commons will have answers to the questions they ask on behalf of the British public, whether senior officials attempt to block them or not.'
Baroness Manzoor said: 'I highly value the Treasury Select Committee and the important role it plays in holding the financial sector to account.
'I am committed to providing open and transparent evidence to the committee, but there are rare instances when that can be difficult – particularly when it relates to employment matters.
'I have always treated the committee with the utmost seriousness and respect, and I know the Financial Ombudsman Service will continue to work closely with them in the future.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
31 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
QUENTIN LETTS: This timid, blinky burbler's eyes darted around. She would make a terrible shoplifter
The votes-at-16 announcement was entrusted to Rushanara Ali, a D-lister from Angela Rayner 's department. Ms Ali is 'minister for homelessness and democracy'. There are few parliamentary performers more blinky. She is a timid burbler, a reader-of-precooked-answers whose eyes dart from side to side. Would make a terrible shoplifter. Put her in front of a class of 16-year-olds and they'd reduce her to a gibbering puddle. When politicians go campaigning at the next general election the youngsters will bait them relentlessly. Imagine the mockery when Sir Edward Davey tries asking sixth-formers for their votes. It's going to be a massacre. The Government tried to slip out its policy via a parliamentary written statement but a Tory urgent question meant Ms Ali was despatched to the Commons. No other minister attended. Anxious Ali, quite alone, smiled queasily. It was important, she gulped, 'to strengthen our precious democracy'. Votes at 16 would be introduced along with laxer rules on voter identification at polling stations and new restrictions to stop rich foreigners funding the Tory party. Labour MPs were delighted. When the last government brought in ID checks for voting, the Left complained that it was unfair on upstanding citizens who wished to cast ballots for their numerous wives and dead aunties. Ms Ali, snout buried in her ministerial file, said she wished to 'future-proof our democracy' and 'support young people in their leadership journeys'. When my son was 16 his 'leadership journey' was more about reading Nuts magazine and compiling football statistics. At 18, he was a blazing Corbynista. A year later, he was even more Right-wing than me. Not so much a journey as a game of pinball. On Ms Ali ploughed, woodenly arguing that 'our democracy is central to who we are as a country – we can take pride in its evolution and in how it continues to inspire'. Talking of inspiration, Sarah Coombes (Lab, West Bromwich) informed us that turnout in her constituency last year was 49 per cent. That was because 'the Conservative government did everything it could to destroy trust in politics'. Some 49 per cent is indeed low but imagine how much worse it would have been had Sir Keir Starmer not so galvanised the nation with his charisma and flamboyance. As for the virtuous Coombes, she was previously 'head of policy and communications' for Tom Watson, who smeared the good names of Leon Brittan and Dwin Bramall. Lord Watson, as he now is, has never done anything to 'destroy trust in politics', has he? Up popped Joe Morris (Lab, Hexham), who as usual could have been talking through a games sock. Only the most gifted linguists can understand him. Hand in pocket, shoulders hunched, the Hexham Mumbler possibly said something tremendously statesmanlike but I am afraid I couldn't catch a word of it. The parliamentary correspondent of the Hexham Courant must be a miracle worker to file any copy concerning the town's Hon Member. Nick Timothy (Con, W Suffolk) asked if more foreigners would be given the vote. Ms Ali did not quite deny that possibility. The Lib Dems were terribly excited, not only about votes at 16 but also about the possibility of more proportional representation. Richard Tice (Ref, Boston) was sceptical about postal voting and claimed to have seen people turn up at polling stations with 'bags' of postal votes. Labour MPs were incensed by this claim. Christine Jardine (Lib Dem, Edinburgh W) wanted potential teenage voters to be given information before the next general election. As a sometime journalist, she possibly envisaged 12-year-olds subscribing to The Economist. And why not? They may find it no more baffling than the rest of us. Ms Ali also denounced those who seek to intimidate elected Members. We must hope that a copy of her speech is sent to that tartar Sir Alan Campbell, Government Chief Whip, who just sacked four Labour MPs. He may now have to sack himself for being so out of line with Government policy.
Rhyl Journal
44 minutes ago
- Rhyl Journal
Fine witnesses who mislead select committees, MP urges
Mark Pritchard warned that witnesses 'get away with it' if they provide inaccurate evidence and statements. According Parliament's rulebook Erskine May, the Commons has not imposed a fine in 359 years, since 1666, the year the Great Fire of London broke out. 'Of course, there is the ministerial code, there are the Nolan Principles, and there is the contempt of Parliament procedures, but there hasn't been a fine since that time,' Mr Pritchard told the Commons. 'And for members and non-members alike, what is the deterrent? What is the incentive, even, for telling the truth to this place? 'Ministers of course can be brought back to the House, correct the record, but people giving evidence to select committees? There really is a gap at the moment. 'Isn't it time we put fines on a statutory basis for members and non-members alike so that we can always be assured that people are incentivised to tell the truth, and have a deterrent should they be tempted not to tell the truth?' Commons Leader Lucy Powell said Mr Pritchard had raised a 'very, very serious issue'. She added that there are 'many, many ways for members to hold ministers account', including by raising points of order, asking questions, and making complaints through a standards procedure. Conservative MP Mr Pritchard later told the PA news agency: 'The current sanctions for ministers and MPs work quite well, but for non-member witnesses giving evidence to Parliament, the sanctions are weak to non-existent. 'Fines for contempt before a select committee, for example, need to be put on a statutory footing. 'This will act as both a deterrent and incentive for all public officials and external witnesses who might be tempted, on the rarest of occasions, to mislead Parliament whilst giving evidence before any of Parliament's committees.' The Wrekin MP added: 'Currently, anyone apart from members and ministers can lie to Parliament, if they were so tempted, and get away with it. 'That is a significant gap in Parliament's powers to scrutinise. 'Other Parliaments have considerably more powers than Westminster to sanction anyone who lies to the legislature.' New Zealand's House of Representatives is one such Parliament, where its members can agree to fine people up to 1,000 US dollars for contempt.
The Sun
2 hours ago
- The Sun
Huge buy now, pay later update for millions as major rule change to kick in – what it means for shoppers
HUGE changes are coming to popular buy now, pay later (BNPL) schemes, with new rules set to kick in next summer. The government has now legislated to bring these interest-free payment plans, officially termed "Deferred Payment Credit" (DPC), under the financial watchdog's rule. 1 The shake-up, first revealed by The Sun in October 2024, will come into force on July 15, 2026 and will protect shoppers and enforce stricter rules. Under new rules proposed by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) today, lenders will have to check if borrowers can afford repayments and help them out if they run into financial trouble. Borrowers will also be able to file complaints with the Financial Ombudsman Service. BNPL products are a way for people to spread the costs of purchases without paying interest. But BNPL providers have operated largely outside strict financial rules, unlike traditional credit cards or loans. Concerns have been raised that some people could end up taking out loans that they cannot afford to pay back on time, incurring charges. According to the FCA's research, one in five UK adults – around 10.9million – had used BNPL at least once in the 12 months to May 2024, up from 17% in 2022. In May 2024, 2% of UK adults (1.1million) had £500 or more outstanding unregulated BNPL debt, while 11% (5.3million) had £50 or more outstanding, the regulator found. The FCA's consultation on BNPL rules, is now inviting feedback from lenders, consumer groups, and others until September 26, 2025. The final rules will be decided next year. Firms will have six months from the date the regime comes into force to apply for full authorisation. Sarah Pritchard, deputy chief executive at the FCA, said: "We have long called for BNPL products to be brought into our remit, so people can benefit from BNPL while being protected. "Our regulation will help consumers navigate their financial lives, with checks on whether they can afford to repay, support when things go wrong and access to the right information to make informed decisions." Debt charities and consumer rights groups have welcomed the news. Vikki Brownridge, chief executive of StepChange Debt Charity, said: 'It's incredibly reassuring to see the FCA's consultation on its proposed approach to regulating buy now, pay later. 'Whilst BNPL can be a useful budgeting tool, it can deepen debt problems, and it is important struggling consumers are afforded the same level of protection as for other forms of credit." Vix Leyton, a consumer expert at app ThinkMoney, added: "Proper affordability checks, in line with other credit products, are vital to stop people unintentionally kicking the financial can down the road, as is making sure that those in financially vulnerable positions understand the consequences of missed payments." Both Klarna and Clearpay support the measures. What will the new rules mean for shoppers? If a product or firm is regulated, it means that customers are covered by certain protections if they are treated unfairly or something goes wrong with their product or service. Firms will have to carry out strict affordability checks First and foremost, BNPL will be required to properly check if you can truly afford to repay a loan. This means no more easy credit for those who might struggle. The goal is to make sure BNPL lending is always affordable. BNPL providers aren't currently required to carry out such stringent checks, although some firms, like Klarna, have introduced them voluntarily. Customers will need to be properly informed This means you'll get much clearer information before you hit checkout. Before you commit to a BNPL agreement, companies will have to proactively give you essential details. This includes the 0% interest rate, the exact credit amount, the number and frequency of payments, and the cost of each payment. Crucially, they'll have to spell out the consequences of missed payments, including any charges and how it might impact your credit score. This will ensure you make an informed decision. If you hit a rough patch and miss a payment, the BNPL provider will also be required to act fast. They'll have to notify you as soon as possible, clearly stating any unpaid sums, including late fees. They also must provide information on how to avoid further problems and offer support. Firms are expected to treat customers in financial difficulty with "forbearance and due consideration". This includes guidance on managing your finances and access to free debt advice. Shoppers will be able to complain to the Financial Ombudsman Service Shoppers will soon be able to take complaints about BNPL firms to the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS). Currently, BNPL users can't escalate issues to the FOS, which helps resolve disputes between consumers and regulated financial firms. Under the new rules, if you're unhappy with how a BNPL company handles your complaint, you'll be able to take it to the independent FOS for a fair and impartial resolution. This gives shoppers a stronger way to settle disputes if things go wrong and fight for compensation if they've been wronged. Shoppers will be able to return items for a full refund if they are faulty or were mis-sold Proposed changes will also bring BNPL products under Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act, giving shoppers crucial protections. Currently, BNPL users may struggle to get refunds or replacements for faulty items, as these protections don't apply. Under Section 75, if you buy something costing £100 to £30,000 using BNPL credit and the goods are faulty, not delivered, or the retailer goes bust, the BNPL lender is equally responsible. This means shoppers can claim refunds, repairs, or compensation directly from the lender, even if the retailer is unavailable or out of business. How to get free debt help There are several groups which can help you with your problem debts for free. Citizens Advice - 0800 144 8848 (England) / 0800 702 2020 (Wales) StepChange - 0800138 1111 National Debtline - 0808 808 4000 Debt Advice Foundation - 0800 043 4050 You can also find information about Debt Management Plans (DMP) and Individual Voluntary Agreements (IVA) by visiting or Speak to one of these organisations - don't be tempted to use a claims management firm. They say they can write off lots of your debt in return for a large upfront fee. But there are other options where you don't need to pay.
