AI in financial services: control, evidence and regulation
On 16 March 2026, the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) and the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS)
On 16 March 2026, the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) and the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) published Consultation Paper CP26/9, alongside finalised guidance FG26/2 on identifying and rectifying harm. This latest step suggests the most far-reaching overhaul of the UK’s consumer redress framework in a generation, and it has real, immediate consequences for how financial services firms manage complaints, identify emerging harm and report to the regulator. The consultation closes on 11 May 2026.
For firms and compliance leaders impacted, this consultation is not one to delegate and forget. The direction is set, with several elements already taking effect, and the regulator has made plain that it expects firms to be preparing now.
The current system has struggled under the weight of large-scale complaint events. The Payment Protection Insurance (PPI) scandal resulted in £38.3 billion paid to 34.4 million consumers; motor finance is now creating a similar strain. Complaint volumes overwhelm firms and the FOS alike, leading to inconsistent outcomes and prolonged uncertainty for consumers and firms. The regulator has been direct: this is not just a compliance problem – it is an economic one, with consequences for investment and UK competitiveness.
CP26/9 responds with three goals:
These goals are reinforced by the Consumer Duty, which already requires firms to identify and address foreseeable harm to retail customers. The modernised redress framework makes clear that the regulator will hold firms to that obligation.
Four areas will have the most direct impact on compliance teams and senior leaders.
Anchoring the FOS ‘fair and reasonable’ test
Where FCA rules are material to a complaint, demonstrating compliance with those rules, consistently with the regulator’s intent, will mean a firm has acted fairly and reasonably. This creates a clearer safe harbour but requires firms to evidence not just what they did, but why it aligned with the regulatory intent. Root cause analysis and complaints data must be tightly connected to the compliance framework.
A formal framework for mass redress events (MREs)
A six-criteria framework will define when an issue qualifies as an MRE. The FCA gains new powers to pause Dispute Resolution: Complaints (DISP) timescales, direct the FOS to refer cases back to firms, and apply a more proportionate test before triggering a Section 404 consumer redress scheme.
Clearer SUP 15 notification thresholds
Clarificatory guidance is being added to Supervision sourcebook 15.3.8G (SUP 15). Indicative notification triggers include:
Firms must notify even where thresholds are not formally met if they believe a reportable issue exists.
A new FOS complaints registration stage
Before a complaint reaches investigation, the FOS will assess whether a Final Response Letter (FRL) has been issued and whether minimum evidential standards are met. This filters out poorly evidenced complaints before case fees are incurred, yet it raises the quality bar on FRLs significantly.
A Policy Statement confirming final rules is expected later in 2026, but firms should not wait for it. Here is what firms should prioritise today.
These reforms sit within a broader regulatory shift. The FCA is moving towards a ‘show me, don’t tell me‘ approach to supervision, and redress governance is one of the clearest areas where that is being felt. Firms with strong complaints frameworks, joined-up Consumer Duty monitoring and genuinely proactive governance will be better placed – commercially as well as regulatorily. Boards and investors are increasingly attentive to conduct risk and redress exposure. Getting ahead of this is not just about compliance; it is about the predictability and resilience that good governance delivers.
At TCC, we help FCA-regulated firms across retail banking, consumer credit, wealth management and insurance build the governance, data and processes needed to meet regulatory expectations and deliver good customer outcomes. In the context of the redress reforms, we provide complaints framework gap analysis, SUP 15 notification process reviews, root cause analysis and MI improvement, Consumer Duty and redress governance alignment, and proactive redress exercise support from scoping through to execution.
If you would like to discuss what CP26/9 means for your firm, get in touch with our regulatory experts.
The financial services sector has been abuzz with a variety of pressing issues - from ongoing advice services, motor finance and Consumer Duty expectations, to the crucial role of technology for outcome evidencing.
