Question follow-through · 62253
Financial Ombudsman Service: Reviews
To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, what steps her Department is taking to preserve the protections afforded to victims of fraud through the Financial Ombudsman Service's fair and reasonable remit during the current review into that service.
About this written question
A written question asks a government minister for information in writing. Parliament publishes the question and any answer.
- Answering body
- Treasury
- Tabled
- 24 Jun 2025
- Target answer date
- 21 Jul 2025
- Answer
- 21 Jul 2025 · 27 calendar days after tabling
Elapsed calendar days describe the record timeline, not whether Parliament considers an answer on time.
Votes on this topic
- Draft Code of Practice on Electronic and Workplace Ballots for Statutory Trade Union Ballots · 15 Jul 2026
- Draft Trade Unions (Permissible Means of Voting) and Employment Rights (Unfair Dismissal) (Amendment) Order 2026 · 15 Jul 2026
- Taxation (Energy and Vehicles) Bill Committee: New Clause 5 · 1 Jul 2026
These Commons divisions share a topic label. The question did not necessarily lead to a vote.
Recorded timeline
24 Jun 2025
Question tabled
To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, what steps her Department is taking to preserve the protections afforded to victims of fraud through the Financial Ombudsman Service's fair and reasonable remit during the current review into that service.
21 Jul 2025
Target answer date
Date supplied by the official written-questions record.
21 Jul 2025
Answer published
On 15 July the government set out the conclusions and next steps of the Economic Secretary’s review of the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS), which can be found here: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/fs-sector-strategy-review-of-the-financial-o...
Official data retrieved 28 Sept 2026.
Later records
Possible follow-up questions
Strong links require the same MP, department and exact heading. Other same-department questions are shown as unreviewed candidates, not as confirmed follow-ups. No debate link is asserted unless a stable source relationship exists.
No later same-department questions indexed.
This is an absence in covered public data, not evidence that no follow-up occurred elsewhere.