Financial Ombudsman Service Grade III Adjudicator Reviews

Updated 28 Jan 2018

To filter reviews, or .
1.4
5%
Recommend to a Friend
0%
Approve of CEO
Financial Ombudsman Service Chief Executive and Chief Ombudsman  Caroline Wayman  (no image)
Caroline Wayman
18 Ratings
  1. Helpful (11)

    "Honesty please"

    5.0
    • Work/Life Balance
    • Culture & Values
    • Career Opportunities
    • Compensation and Benefits
    • Senior Management
    Former Employee - Grade III Adjudicator in London, England
    Doesn't Recommend
    Negative Outlook
    Disapproves of CEO

    I worked at Financial Ombudsman Service full-time for more than 3 years

    Pros

    You do make a positive impact to society when you help people with their problems. Many good people who are impartial, talented and live the values of the organisation work here.

    Cons

    Other reviews have captured these perfectly. I don't like to sling mud so I'll stay quiet here.

    Continue reading
  2. Helpful (5)

    "Great development opportunity"

    4.0
    • Work/Life Balance
    • Culture & Values
    • Career Opportunities
    • Compensation and Benefits
    • Senior Management
    Former Employee - Adjudicator - Grade III in London, England
    Recommends
    Positive Outlook
    No Opinion of CEO

    I worked at Financial Ombudsman Service full-time for more than 3 years

    Pros

    Great culture and a place to learn how to work. Opportunity to progress is there, but it's something you need to advance outside of your 9-5. If you're employed as a case worked .... they're gonna want you to process cases. If you wana develop other qualities there is support available but only if you're achieving your primary goal first.

    Cons

    Became very political and badly managed. Things because too much of a check box exercise. But this could just be my manager. Quality of middle management was generally poor from experiences shared by others.

    Continue reading

  3. Helpful (71)

    "Toxic and Dangerous"

    1.0
    • Work/Life Balance
    • Culture & Values
    • Career Opportunities
    • Compensation and Benefits
    • Senior Management
    Former Employee - Adjudicator Grade III in London, England
    Doesn't Recommend
    Negative Outlook
    Disapproves of CEO

    I worked at Financial Ombudsman Service full-time for more than 8 years

    Pros

    I was an adjudicator at the Financial Ombudsman Service for nearly a decade and I have recently left. I loved the people I worked with and I enjoyed the feeling of making a difference. For me, making a difference was not about how many cases I upheld and how much compensation was paid. It was about balancing out the power difference between consumers and big financial businesses. Even where I did not uphold someone's complaint I could still help them navigate what are often confusing issues and products.

    Cons

    The first thing to say is that this is a long post for which I make no apologies. So much has happened and I need to express it not only so I can move on but so people understand exactly what has happened to this organisation that I was at one time, proud to work for. The crux of the problem at the service comes from one simple issue. That is that knowledge and skill have somehow been downgraded so that they are now equal to ignorance (a lack of knowledge and skill). In an environment where those things are equal what tends to happen is that those with little or no knowledge and skill for the job of dealing with complaints (either at adjudicator or ombudsman level) tend to get promoted more often that those who do their jobs holding themselves and those around them to the highest standards. This problem is not unique to FOS but it is so much worse in an organisation that makes decisions that can affect peoples financial and even personal well being. I am afraid that for a good couple of years, the hard work of adjudicators ombudsman and other staff has been ignored. This has truly turned into a deeply damaging place to be with many people being made to feel that nothing they do is good enough. Many at the FOS are chronically underpaid and in return their targets are increased. If they do not meet these often unrealistic goals, they are bullied out. The way people were measured has changed year on year along with the goalposts. This still persists to this day. The appraisal system is operated behind closed doors and there is no accountability either to staff or for the poor excuse they have for a union (which is little more than a mouth piece for the executive). Essentially people are marked up or down on a scale depending on how the managers in a department feel that day for often nonsensical and spurious reasons. This then influences what pay rise and/or bonus an individual receives. The percentages have been low for years, so much so that people can hop across to the FCA and go from the early £30,000's to somewhere near the early £40,000's. Bearing in mind that these are usually equivalent jobs and that the FOS has chosen to locate itself in Canary Wharf (as does the FCA). There have lately been instances where staff have had to get together and go to an external union to protect what are basic employment rights that the executive thought they could trample over. Experienced people have left and are leaving. As with many people my reason for leaving was self preservation. The environment created by the Chief and Senior staff became so toxic that my physical and mental health began to suffer significantly. I am still recovering having left months ago for a job paying a lot less at which I am much happier. Not because it is easier, but because I am now in an environment where people are valued not only by their immediate manager but also the board who are all approachable and accessible. I make no secret of the fact that I am bitter, but that does not mean that what I have to say is not worth anything. I am bitter because I gave this employer nearly a decade of my life, I worked really hard and I was committed to doing my bit to make the place a success and help build their reputation. A lot of people do this for their employer and are then made redundant. Not great but they get a pay off. My role as an adjudicator went, but there was no pay off for me because the FOS does not value its staff. There is no doubt that FOS needed to change, but the way this was managed has been brutal, unnecessary and dangerous. It was not necessary at all to create new roles or to get rid of specialists. Having ombudsman run teams is actually a really good idea. Why? Because an experienced ombudsman running a team of specialist adjudicators is an incredibly effective way of making sure that the right outcome is quickly reached in the cases they deal with. All of the various areas (banking, PPI, Consumer Credit, Investments etc.) have their own complexities that only someone who works on those complaints all the time will know about. What has happened here is that senior people have taken a look at the easier stuff and decided that anyone can do it. You will always find easy cases in all areas, but a lot of the cases coming through the door require some level of specialism for the right outcome to be reached. What we have now is teams of investigators dealing with all case types led by ombudsman managers who are in the same boat as their team. They will know cases they dealt with in their previous roles but that will be about it. The demographic of the people in those roles is mostly younger relatively inexperienced adjudicators/ombudsman or former support staff with no casework experience a brilliant general knowledge but little in depth knowledge. Most experienced ombudsman and adjudicator simply refused to apply for the new roles and not enough of this experience remains to mitigate the effects of this shift. The result is a situation that can only damage the reputation of the service by making it more likely that decisions made by staff will be wrong. Not because they are bad at their job, but because they will be made to deal with cases outside of their knowledge. When I was there we had links to the new investigation teams to support them in the background and there was a database put together to help them. However, trying to explain a complex issue to someone with no experience in your area is not easy. Also, the database fell victim to the different objectives of those working on it. Some wanted a tone friendly, snappy and formulaic tool whilst others were more focussed on making guidance notes that assumed no knowledge and guided the person through a particular type of case step by step. The result was a series of guidance notes that is mostly worthless if the objective was to help people deal with their cases. The project managers who were simply concerned with 'on-boarding' (what ever that is in plain English) were I suspect, the main beneficiaries of this piece of work. What about training I hear you ask? Well, having viewed these training materials for myself and spoken to investigators who received it, I can say that it is generalised and wishy-washy. It is designed to make a person more likely to be good at displaying empathy and persuasiveness rather than reaching the right outcome. That is not to say empathy and persuasiveness are not qualities a good adjudicator/investigator should display but these must been informed by having the right knowledge for the cases being dealt with. This knowledge is I am afraid conspicuous by its absence within the new training materials. There were actually sets of training materials available from all or most areas put together by senior adjudicators and ombudsman for new starters and for those needing to refresh. Hours and Hours of good effective training designed by caseworkers to help other caseworkers. None of this was used. Instead it was condensed and summarised so much that its value was lost. It is a virtual impossibility that someone dealing with all case types can build the required knowledge to address a lot of those cases. What is more likely to happen is that they will be good at the ones they see quite often and out of their depth on the rest. With a dwindling supply of support as experienced people leave and not enough experienced people within their own teams, I really do not see how this can work. They have also closed the Consumer Contact Division. These were the people who answered the phone for new complaints and set them up to be passed to an adjudicator. They were very good at what they did and I cannot stress enough how valuable (and underpaid) they were as part of the service. Now, your call is answered by an Investigator who is also dealing with a caseload of complaints. So in other words, they have limited time for your call and limited time to look at complaints properly in terms of giving each case the time and consideration it deserves The FOS will release trite statements in the press about how successful all of this has been and how satisfied consumers are with the service. They will also say that times are challenging as they change to meet the evolving needs of consumers and businesses. This is a selective view of the truth at best. There are some posts on here from investigators and ombudsman managers and there are some who I know who are stressed out of their minds. What is also true is that the FOS only uses the positive data. Why? Because having spent about £13m on getting PWC in to design this disaster in a time when they had an annual operating deficit of about £40m per annum – they need this to work. The reality is that before PWC came in, we were already making small changes and getting complaints handled in weeks rather than months in a lot of areas. Our consumer and business satisfaction scores were getting very good because it had been realised (perhaps a little belatedly) that getting on the phone and talking to people, showing you are interested in their side of things was the right thing to do for for both businesses and consumers. So what I am saying is that a root and branch restructure was completely unnecessary for the FOS to move forward (rather like the one done in the NHS we are all familiar with). Some smaller and more strategic changes along with getting rid of non jobs for the clique and more accountable spending would have made the place much more effective both in terms of overheads and productivity. Another issue was the case fee. A senior member of staff actually said that we could not justify charging more than the £550 case fee because of the climate with the public sector. Firstly, the FOS is very loosely an agency of the treasury. It is definitely not public sector in the same way as the NHS. Secondly, its case fees are paid by the banks and financial institutions with there being allowances for very small organisations. So what difference would it make to a big bank to pay slightly more per case? Very little other than slightly less profit I expect. However, the executive are frightened of the bigger banks and would rather preside over a situation where the bigger banks have under staffed complaints departments and take the cheaper route of using the FOS as an external complaints handling arm. Whilst all financial business complaints stats are published on the FOS website, nothing was done to stop the practice of bigger financial businesses spreading those complaints over different companies in its group making these companies look better individually. You would be forgiven for thinking that as the adjudicator and other roles were affectively abolished, there were redundancies. There were very few. The rest of us were moved to PPI which is now Mass Claims and also handles packaged bank accounts complaints. There was and still is I understand very little actual work for us there as most of the PPI complaints were already completed but just awaiting a court/FCA decision and our other work from our former jobs was slowly siphoned into the new structure. However, they have such little respect for us as people and employees that they effectively put us all on the scrap heap no doubt expecting us to leave and eventually when the bill is almost nothing they will fling a bit of money at the stragglers to get rid of them. I think the FOS is in such a state that it has completely lost its way. It is now displaying a severely impaired ability to do the job it was created for. That was to objectively adjudicate financial services complaints ensuring a fair and reasonable outcome. I do not think that the decisions coming out of this organisation can be trusted whilst it insists on ignoring the obvious pitfalls created by this 'new way of working'. My advice to my former colleagues is to leave. Nothing is worth what this place is doing to you. To new starters, under no circumstances take a job at this place. To consumers and businesses, I would try to sort the complaint out amicably between yourselves. If you have got this far, thank you for reading!

    Continue reading
  4. Helpful (24)

    "Writing was on the wall!"

    2.0
    • Work/Life Balance
    • Culture & Values
    • Career Opportunities
    • Compensation and Benefits
    • Senior Management
    Adjudicator Grade III in London, England
    Doesn't Recommend
    Negative Outlook
    Disapproves of CEO

    I worked at Financial Ombudsman Service

    Pros

    Colleagues and work life balance

    Cons

    Culture (who you know not what you know), Management and the CEO

    Continue reading
  5. Helpful (46)

    "Oppressive dictatorship where money now talks louder than fairness, integrity and values"

    1.0
    • Work/Life Balance
    • Culture & Values
    • Career Opportunities
    • Compensation and Benefits
    • Senior Management
    Former Employee - Adjudicator Grade III 
    Doesn't Recommend
    Negative Outlook
    Disapproves of CEO

    I worked at Financial Ombudsman Service full-time for more than 5 years

    Pros

    Free gym and good reasonably priced cafe on site. But that's not enough to make anyone stay!

    Cons

    Out of touch leader who's (IMO) lost control of the place and the values (but I guess that's what happens when you promote someone internally with no experience on that scale). Simply pay other people to tell them what to do and create mass job losses to pay for that advice! There's a lack of faith in the "leader". Merging of roles means staff are now jack of all trades and masters of nothing, It was heartbreaking to see the technical experts (who would go above and beyond and who would bleed ombudsman blood, including myself once) be reduced to re-applying for their job, except the new role was even more junior sounding (not to mention the awful american-esque pledges and micro-managing it entailed). It began to feel like you couldn't go to the toilet without a pass, treating experienced staff like kids is so incredibly insulting but I guess (and hope) those people won't be there in several years time. Basically, the place is filled now with 22 year old post grads who do a year or so for their cv then go elsewhere or people waiting it out until retirement. As a place that used to pride itself on doing the right thing and fairness, it's now all about money and there are no technical experts or specialists anymore, only drones. Anyone worth their salt is getting out and going to organisations who really appreciate their expertise and value them as people. Career progression came to halt and mostly those in the "inner circle" who were chummy with managers etc got the latest promotions. I know this because some application rejections were given the reason of not enough x,y and z when those individuals had done nothing but x,y and z and some of those who got promoted had little to no experience whatsoever in those areas. The role merging meant you were now competing against your own managers for the jobs which meant some staff were given little to no management support and it became clear that staff's thoughts on the changes were not important. It's such a shame as 6 years ago, I'd have told you it was the best place to work ever. There's nothing to make you feel valued (no budget for team rewards or exercises, unless you like the insult of a free coffee for your troubles or a quiz night in the small cafe that no-one really wants!) and it's so galling and insulting to have the leader going round the building doing "roadshows" (after dropping the bombshell of making everyone unemployed unless they reapply or go to PPI!) like she's Donald Trump where sycophants cosy up and the rest stand at the back wishing they were anywhere else. Talks a load of irritating nonsense about bringing your "whole self" to work then basically makes you an oppressed robot. No investment in people at all. Feels like the place is going down like a sinking ship and I wonder how long it will be until the place goes back to the old way of working, but by which time it will take years to get it to anything like it was before. Such a shame to lose all that experience, faith and integrity. And I chose to leave to go to a new job in case anyone feels this is embittered review and I'm genuinely sad for what has been lost. I'm a firm believer that you've got to love and live the values of your place of work. Sadly, this place feels like it now has none and it's the consumers as well as the staff who will suffer. There are a few experienced colleagues left who are still flying the flag, but I fear without these it would be even worse. So very, very sad.

    Continue reading
  6. Helpful (40)

    "Now it's in the public domain"

    1.0
    • Work/Life Balance
    • Culture & Values
    • Career Opportunities
    • Compensation and Benefits
    • Senior Management
    Adjudicator Grade III in London, England
    Doesn't Recommend
    Negative Outlook
    Disapproves of CEO

    I have been working at Financial Ombudsman Service

    Pros

    All been said before - great subsidised cafe, gym, flexible working, nice offices and very good people. Lots of decent, knowledgeable, reasonable staff but the number of them is steadily dwindling over the last year or so.

    Cons

    The reason why I have given one star is because of the shambolic way the restructure has been implemented. To work here for the last year or so has been awful. The communication around the whole restructure has been wholly amateur and reflect very poorly on Caroline Wayman and her phalanx of incompetents. The point here is that most staff were not against some sort of restructure / cost cutting - perfectly reasonable. It's just the way it's been carried out and the sheer stupidity of the 'vision' to treat all cases in the same dumbed down way which is utterly confounding. To employ pwc and fail to engage with staff about the restructure was criminal. It shows a lack of strong leadership and the fact is that since Natalie Ceeney left the organisation as CEO the organisation has been in a steady decline ( much more repaid in the last year). The way that management has so aggressively sidelined the role of technical expertise and knowledge is baffling. I can only assume this is on the advice of pwc as a cost cutting measure but the future of the organisation looks very worrying as a result. There has to be an acceptance that theee is a role for specialism in the new structure and that only certain types of complaints can be dealt with by master of no trades investigators.

    Continue reading
  7. Helpful (23)

    "Started off great and gradually declined until I couldn't take it anymore."

    2.0
    • Work/Life Balance
    • Culture & Values
    • Career Opportunities
    • Compensation and Benefits
    • Senior Management
    Former Employee - Adjudicator Grade III in London, England
    Doesn't Recommend
    Negative Outlook
    Disapproves of CEO

    I worked at Financial Ombudsman Service full-time for more than 5 years

    Pros

    Had good benefits such as Bupa and colleagues were nice.Offices were ok but I was based in one of the old buildings.

    Cons

    Stuck at same level of adjudicator with no real progression route from there.Wrong people being given promotions.Unrealistic targets due to volume of cases you were dealing with at the same time.Lack of specialist training for new starters.It took me a good few years to build up knowledge in my area and most of that was down to myself and reading guidance, regulations etc.

    Continue reading
  8. Helpful (19)

    "Doesn't do what they say they will"

    1.0
    • Work/Life Balance
    • Culture & Values
    • Career Opportunities
    • Compensation and Benefits
    • Senior Management
    Former Employee - Adjudicator Grade III in London, England
    Doesn't Recommend
    Negative Outlook
    No Opinion of CEO

    I worked at Financial Ombudsman Service full-time for more than 3 years

    Pros

    Great benefits package and a secure job. Fairly good career progression available in the adjudicator role but progression beyond that is limited and down to whether you're liked or not.

    Cons

    Everything except the benefits and security. Management here is terrible. I worked in PPI where they employed bank managers who can't manage people effectively and care about numbers rather than quality. Quality was mainly marked by managers with no skill with no further QA system until 2015 when they chose individuals to try and make things more consistent. They have values which members of staff are meant to show. This was never shown in what I saw in the senior management. They would speak poorly at their desks about other members of staff. Overall it is a very toxic environment and unless you are either happy to nod and smile or stay in the lower grades this job is not for you.

    Continue reading
  9. Helpful (44)

    "Run into the ground by ignorance!"

    1.0
    • Work/Life Balance
    • Culture & Values
    • Career Opportunities
    • Compensation and Benefits
    • Senior Management
    Former Employee - Adjudicator Grade III in London, England
    Doesn't Recommend
    Negative Outlook
    Disapproves of CEO

    I worked at Financial Ombudsman Service full-time for more than 5 years

    Pros

    Flexible working hours Good work/life balance Decent benefits and facilities (PMI, gym, subsidised cafes etc)

    Cons

    - Pathetic salary for the level of responsibility - Few career development opportunities - Numerous examples of nepotism (friends with someone whose Dad is on the exec? Have a promotion. Play football with the right people? Now you're a manager). - The basis of promotion to managerial roles is entirely wrong and encourages bullying, micro-management, disrespect and arrogance. - After 5 years I'm still unsure what work managers actually do. They appear to occasionally do some quality checking, deal with complaints about their staff's behaviour and spend the rest of their time having meeting about meetings. - Numerous layers of pointless bureaucracy. The organisation could half the number of managers and heads of department overnight and it would have little impact on the work. - Recent changes have lead to a total disregard for technical specialism and knowledge. Senior management seem to think that any Grade 1 adjudicator (now called an investigator) with a years experience can take on any case about any product. This is hopelessly naive and will lead to numerous incorrect outcomes, more claims management companies referring spurious claims to the service, increasing the workload and prevent the people who actually need the service's help from getting it effectively. - They've spent millions employing an external consultancy firm who have added nothing beyond 'stand around a white board every morning and discuss the work before pledging how much you will get done this week'. This has increased micro-management in an organisation already prone to it. - When applying for new management roles one of the questions was 'Tell us how our changes will make the organisation better' (they won't!). It's Orwellian in its propagandist manipulation. - No oversight of managers. A bad manager will be allowed to carry on despite numerous members of their team going off sick or leaving with mental health issues, due to their behaviour. The manager will never face sanction and anyone raising a grievance will be seen as a 'trouble maker'. - Anyone who raises any of the above issues will be unable to get promoted to any new role. Only total agreement is valued. - HR policies seem to be deliberately vindictive and unhelpful The main problem is the current changes which they have put in place. These were 'trialled' but even before the trials were over it was decided that they'd roll this out across the organisation. Simply put, they expect investigators (usually former adjudicators) and Ombudsman Managers (either former managers or former ombudsman) to be able to take on any case, about any product and reach the correct conclusion. This is a fantasy as the complexity of many of these products means you have to have a baseline of knowledge before you can even attempt them. The new approach works for very basic admin errors and problems with current accounts but when it comes to jurisdictional questions regarding consumer credit agreements, complex mortgage issues and pensions/investments complaints, you need the knowledge or you WILL get the answer wrong. This has been ignored. In addition managers who have never been ombudsman before are expected to write legally binding decisions and be the technical guiding force of their teams when they often have less knowledge than the investigators they are managing. Similarly ombudsman who have never been managers before suddenly have to manage investigators and many of them lack any of the skills necessary to be an effective manager. In the five years I worked there, I saw the organisation go from a strongly lead, vibrant, exciting place to work, where the people were engaged and cared about the work, to a shambolic parody of its former self, run by an exec completely disconnected from the reality of the situation they're in and peopled by a demoralised, disengaged and thoroughly fed up staff. Many people like me who saw no benefit in becoming an investigator (why would we want to do a job which involves taking incoming cold calls from the public, working on Saturdays and requires us to do more work with less training when there was no associated pay rise?) are leaving. The brain drain of the Ombudsman's brightest and best has been continuing in earnest for some time and shows no sign of slowing down.

    Continue reading
  10. Helpful (60)

    "Pick up your dignity on the way out"

    1.0
    • Work/Life Balance
    • Culture & Values
    • Career Opportunities
    • Compensation and Benefits
    • Senior Management
    Former Employee - Adjudicator Grade III in London, England
    Doesn't Recommend
    Negative Outlook
    Disapproves of CEO

    I worked at Financial Ombudsman Service full-time for more than 5 years

    Pros

    Trying really hard to think of something….. No, nothing springing to mind….. The café? But I suppose that’s because it’s not run by the Ombudsman…..

    Cons

    Oh, where to begin? I suspect that much of what I’ve written will simply be a reiteration of everything that’s gone before on Glassdoor. The debate has been raging for some time and is likely to continue. In truth, this is something of a cathartic experience for me, simply so I can put the whole sorry fiasco of my time at the Ombudsman – and the overuse of hyphens (house style) - behind me. If it helps others to make a more informed choice about applying for one of the new roles, though, then that’s a bonus. Warning – this review contains words of more than two syllables (despite what senior management may think I’m sure you and the general public are clever enough to understand them). The new way of working does not work. In a world that is increasingly specialised, and in the most complex financial centre in the world, it is not practical, feasible or safe to bypass specialism and technical knowledge in favour of an approach that says everyone can do everything. The banks don’t do it. The insurers don’t do it. The big asset managers don’t do it. The regulators don’t do it. Yet the management at the Ombudsman service seem to think they can circumvent the need for a coherent division of labour based on technical expertise. Is it arrogance or stupidity? Maybe it’s both. They can’t bypass it. It will end badly when some poor unfortunate investigator who’s just trying to hit their (impossible) target makes the sort of error that gathers traction until there’s an inquiry, a JR, a Parliamentary report uncovering “significant failings and systemic mismanagement”, an embarrassing Treasury Select Committee session for Ms Wayman (or her hapless replacement if she’s jumped ship by then), and a rebranding exercise similar to what the FCA went through in 2012/13. In the meantime, though, there are thousands of ordinary employees at the FOS no doubt tearing their hair out while being whipped (figuratively) from behind by some just-out-of-university-and-high-on-the-power manager. The atmosphere was toxic when I left, people were bolting out of the door every Friday in their droves, and the management just does not care. If you’re thinking of applying, I really wouldn’t. If you’re there and trying to ride it out, please don’t. You deserve better than to be treated with utter contempt by an employer that values your skills not one iota and doesn’t even have the courtesy to give you meaningful updates on what the next stage of its “plan” is (probably because there is no plan). Value yourself, leave if you can, and pick up your dignity on the way out. My other big bugbear with the FOS is the total lack of career opportunity and the way the organisation always seems to promote the wrong people. It’s quite an amazing skill in itself. With the possibility of one exception, every manager I have had the misfortune to encounter has been a massive disappointment – while relationships may start positively, they eventually show their true colours and it comes like a side-swipe from the blue. They are lazy, self-interested, unprincipled even to vindictiveness, incompetent, crawling and wholly lacking in any substance, intelligence or style. They ride on the back of other people’s hard work, take the credit, take delight in telling far more worthy people that they’re “not ready” for promotion, refuse to support those who deserve to progress – and then get promoted themselves as the final two-fingered salute. Some are now Ombudsman Managers – I pity the poor consumers who will have their complaints incorrectly rejected by them (or incorrectly upheld, which is just as bad because at some point there has to be an embarrassing backtrack), and then have no further recourse to someone who actually knows what they’re doing (except a judge – and who has the time or money?). I could go on forever but there is simply too much. If it were possible to give the FOS no stars at all then I would. Alas, you can’t have everything in life! So, I’ll end on a little note about the Board, which has been conspicuous by its silence throughout this interesting interlude. Perhaps if we ever went up to the fifteenth floor to visit its fabled haunt – the boardroom – we might find out whether it’s actually on the same planet as the rest of us. Because when all is said and done, how is it possible for (presumably) intelligent, qualified business “experts” to sign off on a plan that makes the entire organisation unfit for purpose in today’s financial world? Maybe the Exec gagged them for being slightly negative about the new way of working. For those still at the FOS and despairing, there is hope but it needs hard work. Apply, apply, apply for other jobs. Do financial exams – self fund if the FOS has now withdrawn sponsorship. Chase recruiters like your life depends on it – believe it or not they are still interested in the skills FOS employees can offer. It is the only way you will be able to leave, but hopefully when you do it will be for something less archaic, more stimulating and far more rewarding. Your confidence and self-worth will thank you for it.

    Continue reading
Found 23 reviews