3
min read
The FCA’s latest review puts the emphasis on a traceable line from customer-outcome data to decisions, action and tested improvement. Smaller advice firms can meet that standard proportionately, provided they know what evidence to keep.
A Consumer Duty dashboard can look immaculate and still miss the most important question: what did the firm change?
That is the practical message in the FCA’s outcomes-monitoring review published on 27 July 2026. The regulator found that stronger firms did more than collect management information. They defined what a good outcome looked like, used evidence to identify risk, recorded the decisions they made, acted on what they found and checked whether the intervention worked.
For a smaller advice firm, this is useful clarification. It does not point inevitably to more systems, more metrics or a larger compliance team. The FCA specifically noted proportionate examples from smaller firms that focused on a limited number of points where customers were more likely to experience harm. The standard is clarity and follow-through, not volume.
What changed in the FCA’s message
Consumer Duty has always required firms to monitor the outcomes retail customers receive. The July review sharpens the distinction between monitoring activity and evidencing an outcome.
The weaker approaches described by the FCA relied on high-level or reactive indicators, poorly defined thresholds and incomplete audit trails. Some firms could not explain why a metric had been chosen, how it related to possible harm or whether the action taken had reduced that harm.
Third-party and distribution-chain information was another pressure point. Customers experience the service as a whole, even when several firms are involved in delivering it.
The stronger approaches created a visible line through the process. Boards and senior managers could see the issue, the evidence behind it, the challenge applied, the decision reached and the result after the change.
This is the FCA’s cross-sector account of good and poor practice, not a prescriptive template for advice firms. Our interpretation is that a smaller set of well-owned measures is likely to be more defensible than a crowded dashboard that cannot show what happened next.
Complaint data suggests where to look first
The Financial Ombudsman Service’s current 2025/26 adviser data gives firms a sensible starting point for risk-based monitoring.
It records 1,351 new complaints about financial advisers. Among resolved cases:
55% of 387 suitability complaints were upheld.
45% of 373 administration or customer-service complaints were upheld.
70% of 62 pension-delay complaints were upheld.
Charges, fees and commission accounted for 244 resolved cases, with a 37% uphold rate.
Those figures do not predict the experience of any individual firm, and complaint volumes alone do not prove poor outcomes. They do show where operational weakness can become expensive and reputationally damaging: suitability, service delivery, charging and pensions administration.
A proportionate monitoring framework should connect these risk areas to the firm’s own proposition and customer journeys.
A retirement specialist may need deeper measures around review completion, income changes, transfer delays and vulnerable-customer support. A mortgage or protection firm will need a different mix. Measures should be chosen because they test a defined risk, not because they happen to be easy to extract.
The five-link evidence chain
A useful test is whether the firm can produce five connected pieces of evidence for each material customer outcome.
1. Define the outcome
State what good looks like for a specific customer journey or client group.
“Reviews completed” is an activity measure. A timely review that addresses material changes and produces an appropriate next step is closer to a customer outcome.
2. Set the indicator and trigger
Use a mix of leading and lagging measures, and explain why the threshold matters.
These might include overdue reviews, unimplemented recommendations, repeated service contacts, complaint themes, vulnerable-customer adjustments or transfer delays.
3. Record the decision
Keep a concise audit trail showing who reviewed the evidence, what challenge was applied, what root cause was considered and why the chosen response was proportionate.
4. Take action with an owner and deadline
Correct the individual client issue where necessary, then address the underlying process, training, capacity or third-party cause.
A red rating without a named action is only a warning light.
5. Retest the outcome
Decide in advance how and when the firm will judge whether the intervention worked. If the result does not improve, escalate the issue or change course.
This evidence chain can sit behind a Consumer Duty board report, an AR oversight visit, a complaints review or an acquisition integration plan. The information may come from different systems, but the logic should remain intact.
Where smaller firms most often lose the thread
The failure is rarely the complete absence of information. More often, the pieces are disconnected.
A review-completion figure is reported, but nobody separates genuinely deferred reviews from clients the firm has failed to reach.
Complaint numbers are low, but informal dissatisfaction, repeated calls and abandoned processes are not considered.
Vulnerability is recorded, but the firm cannot show whether the adjustment improved the customer’s experience.
A third-party service-level breach is noted, but there is no evidence of challenge, remediation or follow-up.
An action is marked complete when the process changed, rather than when the customer outcome improved.
Technology helps when it closes those gaps. A connected workflow should make ownership, timestamps, decisions and follow-up easier to see. It should not turn every judgement into a metric or encourage firms to collect personal data without a clear purpose.
Why this matters beyond the annual board report
The commercial value of an evidence trail is easy to underestimate.
A self-employed adviser considering a new operating home wants confidence that compliance support is responsive and proportionate. An AR wants to know how the principal identifies problems and helps put them right. A firm owner preparing for succession wants a buyer to see a controlled client book, not a future remediation project.
The same evidence chain supports all three conversations. It gives Fintuity a way to show how compliance, technology and infrastructure work together in practice.
For acquisition teams, it can also improve due diligence. Recurring revenue and client demographics matter, but so do service backlogs, complaint root causes, third-party dependencies and the quality of action tracking.
This is an interpretation of the market evidence, not a claim that the FCA has prescribed a particular acquisition or recruitment standard. It is nevertheless commercially useful. Firms that can demonstrate controlled outcomes are easier to support, supervise and integrate.
A proportionate 90-day response
A smaller firm can improve its evidence without launching a transformation programme.
Days 1–15: Choose three to five material customer outcomes. Start with journeys where harm would be serious or the current evidence is weakest.
Days 16–30: Map the information already available, remove duplicate measures and define a trigger, owner and review frequency for each outcome.
Days 31–60: Test the framework against one live issue. Record the evidence, challenge, decision, action and retest date.
Days 61–90: Review whether the intervention worked, document what changed and take the result to the board or governing body.
The output should be readable by somebody who did not attend the meeting. If the evidence only makes sense when the person who built the spreadsheet explains it, the audit trail is not yet strong enough.
Fintuity’s perspective
Good outcomes monitoring should feel like part of running the firm, not an annual reconstruction exercise.
The aim is a short, credible line from customer experience to management action. That requires clear accountability, connected information and enough compliance judgement to distinguish a genuine risk from background noise.
For smaller firms, the advantage is focus. They can often identify the moments that matter without the governance layers found in a large institution. The discipline is to preserve that understanding as the firm recruits, changes principal, acquires a client book or brings in new technology.
The question to take to the next meeting
Pick one important customer outcome and ask:
Can we show what we monitored, why the trigger mattered, what we decided, what we changed and whether the result improved?
If one of those links is missing, that is the next piece of work.
Sources
FCA: Outcomes monitoring — why understanding the consumer experience matters
Financial Ombudsman Service: complaints about financial advisers
Editorial note: This article is intended for a professional UK audience and provides general information rather than personalised financial or regulatory advice. FCA and FOS data should be checked again immediately before publication.
Can your firm prove its value?
Start a confidential conversation with Fintuity about valuation, client continuity and the evidence a buyer may review during due diligence.
Andrew Lumley-Holmes
Head of Growth at Fintuity
Unsubscribe at any time.
