The Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) is the UK’s free, statutory escalation route after a regulated financial firm refuses a PSR, chargeback, Section 75 or other consumer claim. FOS rulings are binding on the firm. In 2024 FOS upheld around 78% of APP fraud complaints. Here’s exactly how to file, what evidence wins, and what FOS can order.
Last reviewed: 13 May 2026 · ScamSupport research
FOS in one paragraph
The Financial Ombudsman Service is the UK’s statutory dispute-resolution body for complaints against FCA-regulated financial firms. It is free for consumers, binding on the firm (consumers can reject the decision and pursue civil action, but the firm cannot), and operates under FCA DISP rules. Eligible complainants include individuals, micro-enterprises (turnover <£2m, <10 employees), small charities, and small trustees. FOS can order monetary awards up to £430,000 per complaint for relevant acts since 1 April 2024 (lower caps apply to older acts). The most common consumer route into FOS is after a bank refuses a PSR Mandatory Reimbursement claim, refuses a chargeback, refuses a Section 75 claim, or otherwise mishandles a scam-related dispute.
When you can file with FOS
You can file a FOS complaint when ANY of these apply:
The firm has issued a final response letter rejecting your complaint, regardless of how long it took them. File with FOS within 6 months of the date of the final response.
8 weeks have passed since you formally complained to the firm and they haven’t issued a final response. You can file with FOS immediately at the 8-week mark, regardless of what the firm says.
The firm has refused to engage with your complaint at all, or persistently delayed or stonewalled. Document the attempts and file after 8 weeks.
You generally cannot file FOS without first formally complaining to the firm. The 8-week internal-complaints process is a statutory pre-condition. If you haven’t formally complained yet, do that first (clearly labelling the email or letter as a “complaint” and asking for a final response).
The 6-month deadline matters
Once a firm issues a final response letter, you have 6 months from the date of the letter to file with FOS. Miss this and you generally lose the FOS route. There’s also a broader 6-year limit (or 3 years from when you reasonably became aware of the issue) under DISP 2.8.
Who FOS covers and who it doesn’t
Covered firms: every FCA-regulated firm. All major UK banks, building societies, credit-card issuers, payment service providers, insurance companies, financial advisers, investment platforms, pension providers, fintechs with UK FCA permissions.
Not covered: unauthorised firms (FCA Warning List entries), pure crypto exchanges without UK FCA registration, foreign-only firms with no UK regulatory permission, non-financial services (e.g. you bought goods from a non-financial retailer and want a refund).
If your loss involved an unauthorised firm, FOS may still have jurisdiction over the bank that processed your payment (e.g. your bank failed to apply Confirmation of Payee warnings; your bank failed to recognise scam-pattern signals). The complaint shifts from “recover from the unauthorised firm” to “hold the bank to its statutory and regulatory obligations”.
Provide a clear complaint summary: what the firm did or failed to do; how you tried to resolve directly; what response you got; what you want FOS to order.
Attach the firm’s final response letter (or, if the 8 weeks have lapsed, evidence of your complaint to the firm and any partial responses).
Attach the full evidence pack: see below.
You can also file by phone on 0800 023 4567 (Monday-Friday 8am-5pm, Saturday 9am-1pm) or by post. Online is fastest.
FOS allocates a case handler — typically within 4-8 weeks of filing.
The case handler reviews and may issue an initial assessment. Both parties (you and the firm) get to respond.
If you accept the assessment, the firm is bound by it. If you reject it, the case proceeds to an ombudsman’s final decision.
Ombudsman issues final decision. Both parties get to make final representations. The decision is binding on the firm. If you reject it, you retain the right to pursue civil action (the firm doesn’t).
What evidence wins a FOS complaint
The firm’s final response letter, plus any earlier correspondence in which they framed their position.
The full original complaint to the firm: what you asked for, what the firm responded with.
All transaction evidence: bank statements, card statements, transfer confirmations, receipts.
All communications with the scammer or the disputed merchant: chronological, with dates and platforms.
Report Fraud crime reference number if applicable.
FCA Warning List entry screenshot if relevant.
Supporting documents: contracts, terms of service, marketing materials, expert reports.
Witnesses or supporting statements: e.g. family-member statement confirming the call you received, or a friend’s contemporaneous note of what the scammer said.
Your timeline of events: a structured chronological account from first contact to the loss to the bank’s refusal. Make it readable; case handlers process hundreds of cases.
Bank’s policy documents: where you can find them, the bank’s own published policies on scam handling, Confirmation of Payee, PSR claims processing. The bank’s deviation from its own policy is strong material.
Citation of FCA / FOS / PSR rules: where relevant, point to specific provisions. Examples: PSR Mandatory Reimbursement Scheme, DISP rules on complaints handling, FCA Consumer Duty (PRIN 12 / FG22/5), DISP 2.5 (jurisdiction), DISP 3.3 (fairness test).
What FOS considers when deciding
FOS doesn’t apply a pure strict-legal test — it applies the “fair and reasonable” test under DISP 3.6. This means FOS looks at:
Industry codes and good practice: even where a code isn’t legally binding, FOS gives weight to it.
Relevant law: but not in a strictly formalistic way.
What you and the firm reasonably should have done in the circumstances.
The behaviour of both parties: did the bank issue clear warnings; did you ignore reasonable warnings; was the bank’s conduct in handling the complaint reasonable.
FCA Consumer Duty: increasingly material since the Duty came into force in July 2023. Banks must support customer outcomes; that obligation extends to scam handling.
What FOS can order
A direct monetary award — up to £430,000 per complaint for acts/omissions since 1 April 2024 (lower caps apply to older incidents).
Refund of the loss: usually the most important part of a scam-related complaint.
8% interest on the refund from the date the firm should have refunded (often the date of the original loss or the date the firm refused).
Distress and inconvenience compensation: typically £100–£1,500 in scam-related cases, depending on the firm’s conduct. Higher awards have been recorded where the firm’s handling was particularly poor.
Recommendations beyond the cap: FOS can recommend (not order) higher amounts where its statutory cap doesn’t cover the full loss. Firms typically follow recommendations to preserve their relationship with FOS.
Action by the firm: amending credit-file entries, sending an apology letter, removing fraud markers, restoring an account, etc.
FOS APP fraud uphold rates — the published numbers
The Financial Ombudsman publishes quarterly statistics on complaint outcomes by category. The headline numbers for fraud-and-scam complaints in 2024:
APP fraud complaints uphold rate: around 78% — meaning roughly 4 in 5 consumers who took their bank to FOS over an APP fraud claim got at least partial relief.
Chargeback complaints uphold rate: substantially lower than APP fraud, around 30-40% in some published categories. Chargeback success often depends on the underlying scheme rules; FOS doesn’t override those rules but can find the bank acted unfairly in how it handled the dispute.
Section 75 complaints uphold rate: meaningfully higher than chargeback because of the statutory framing.
Investment-loss complaints: vary widely by sub-category. Misrepresentation cases against unregulated platforms have high uphold rates; complaints about regulated firms’ investment-risk warnings have lower uphold rates.
Timeline and what to expect
Initial allocation: typically 4-8 weeks from filing.
Case-handler assessment: typically 3-6 months. Complex cases longer.
Ombudsman final decision (if rejected at assessment): further 3-9 months.
Total typical end-to-end: 6-12 months. Genuinely complex cases can run 18-24 months. The FOS website publishes wait-time estimates.
Communicating with FOS: the case handler will email when there’s an update or request additional evidence. They typically don’t respond to ad-hoc queries; expect a relatively slow back-and-forth.
Acceleration routes: limited. FOS does flag “urgent” cases (where consumer is in financial distress or has a vulnerability) and prioritise them. Mention vulnerability in your filing if relevant.
Common bank defences and how FOS handles them
“The customer was warned and ignored the warning.”
FOS examines the specific warning. Generic warnings (e.g. boilerplate “check your payee details” banner) rarely defeat consumer claims. Specific warnings (e.g. Confirmation of Payee mismatch flag with explicit fraud framing) are more material. FOS’s position has evolved with the PSR scheme — the “gross negligence” test is narrow, not catch-all.
“The customer authorised the payment.”
Authorisation is what makes it APP fraud rather than unauthorised fraud. Authorisation alone doesn’t bar the claim. The PSR scheme exists precisely to refund authorised payments where the customer was deceived.
“The transaction wasn’t flagged by our fraud systems — we acted in good faith.”
FOS looks at whether the bank’s fraud-prevention systems were reasonable. Increasing weight is given to whether scam-pattern signals (high-value payment to new payee, unusual hour, unusual destination geography, unusual customer behaviour) were flagged or should have been.
“The customer should have done more checks.”
FOS’s position is that consumers aren’t expected to perform forensic due diligence on every transaction. The Consumer Duty has reinforced this — banks must support good outcomes, not blame customers for sophisticated deception.
“This isn’t really a scam — it’s a buyer-seller dispute.”
FOS examines the substance: was the consumer deceived about who they were paying or what they were paying for. If yes, it’s fraud. If the dispute is purely about quality after a legitimate transaction, it’s a different category.
If FOS rules against you
You don’t have to accept the ombudsman’s final decision. If you reject it:
Civil litigation remains available. The FOS decision is admissible evidence but not binding on a court. For substantial losses (typically £25,000+) civil action via an SRA-regulated solicitor may be cost-effective. Many firms operate on no-win-no-fee for clearly meritorious cases.
If the firm has acted criminally (rather than just refused to refund), the criminal route remains separate — Report Fraud, NCA, regulator complaint.
FCA complaint about the firm: if the FOS decision exposes systemic firm misconduct, you can also complain to the FCA. The FCA doesn’t resolve individual disputes but can take supervisory action against firms.
Common scenarios where FOS escalation is the right move
Bank refused PSR Mandatory Reimbursement claim
The single most common FOS escalation. Bank invokes gross negligence; you push back via PSR Claim Wizard letter; bank refuses; you go to FOS. Uphold rates are high. Pair with the PSR explainer and the PSR Claim Wizard.
Bank refused chargeback claim
Common where the bank refuses to file the chargeback at all (rather than losing at representment). FOS treats this as a complaint about the bank’s handling and frequently orders the bank to refund.
Credit-card issuer refused Section 75 claim
FOS escalations on Section 75 are common when the issuer invokes the three-party rule or below-£100 thresholds. FOS examines the statute carefully and frequently orders refunds.
Bank delayed or stonewalled the claim
Even without a final response, after 8 weeks of no resolution you can file with FOS. Delay alone is a complaint ground; FOS can order interest plus distress compensation.
Bank closed your account or fraud-flagged you wrongly
Banks sometimes apply CIFAS markers to accounts of fraud victims (treating them as money mules). FOS can order removal of the marker plus compensation.
Frequently asked questions
What is the UK Financial Ombudsman Service?
The Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) is the UK's statutory dispute-resolution body for complaints against FCA-regulated financial firms. It's free for consumers, binding on the firm, and operates under FCA DISP rules. FOS can order monetary awards up to £430,000 per complaint for acts or omissions since 1 April 2024 (lower caps apply to older incidents).
When can I file a Financial Ombudsman complaint?
You can file when the firm has issued a final response letter rejecting your complaint (within 6 months of that letter), OR when 8 weeks have passed since your formal complaint to the firm without resolution. You must formally complain to the firm first — that 8-week internal-complaints process is a statutory pre-condition.
Is the Financial Ombudsman Service free?
Yes, completely free for consumers. The firm pays a case fee. You retain the right to reject the ombudsman's final decision and pursue civil action; the firm cannot reject it once accepted.
How long does a Financial Ombudsman complaint take?
Typical timeline is 6-12 months end-to-end. Initial case-handler allocation takes 4-8 weeks; case assessment 3-6 months; if rejected and escalated to an ombudsman final decision, add a further 3-9 months. Genuinely complex cases can run 18-24 months. FOS prioritises hardship cases — flag any vulnerability in your filing if relevant.
What can the Financial Ombudsman order in a scam complaint?
Refund of the lost amount (up to £430,000), 8% interest from the date the firm should have refunded, distress and inconvenience compensation (typically £100-£1,500 for scam-related cases), removal of wrongful CIFAS markers, account reinstatement, and other firm actions. FOS can also recommend awards above the cap for higher losses, which firms typically follow.
How often does FOS rule for the consumer on APP fraud cases?
Around 78% of APP fraud complaints in 2024 were upheld in the consumer's favour — roughly 4 in 5. Chargeback complaints have lower uphold rates (around 30-40% in some categories) because chargeback success depends on underlying scheme rules. Section 75 complaints generally have higher uphold rates due to the statutory framing.