As Parliament debates reforms to the Financial Services and Markets Act (FSMA), much of the discussion has focused on economic growth, regulatory efficiency and reducing unnecessary burdens on business.
Those are legitimate objectives.
But there is another question that deserves equal attention.
When financial regulation fails an individual, how does that individual obtain justice?
For thousands of victims of financial exploitation, that question remains surprisingly difficult to answer.
A Different Perspective
Much public debate understandably focuses on whether banks, insurers or advisers have behaved badly.
Yet many people who have spent years pursuing complaints describe a different problem.
Their experience is not simply that institutions make mistakes.
It is that the system itself often struggles to determine whether those mistakes have occurred.
Claims become fragmented across multiple organisations.
Each body operates within its own statutory remit.
Responsibility becomes dispersed.
The individual moves from one organisation to another, yet no single body ever considers the whole picture.
Whether or not one agrees with every criticism made of the current system, this is an important constitutional question.
Justice depends not only on having good regulators.
It depends on ensuring there is a coherent route by which individuals can have complex disputes properly examined.
Parliament Is Already Asking Similar Questions
Recent House of Lords debates on the Financial Services and Markets Bill have raised concerns about accountability.
Several peers have questioned whether proposed changes—particularly around Clause 17—could reduce Parliament’s ability to scrutinise how regulators apply the statutory principles contained within FSMA. Others argue the reforms will allow regulators to operate more strategically and proportionately.
This is an important constitutional discussion.
It is not simply about regulation.
It is about accountability.
Where Victims Can Become Lost
People affected by financial exploitation often encounter multiple organisations during their search for justice.
These may include:
- the financial firm itself;
- the Financial Ombudsman Service;
- the Financial Conduct Authority;
- the courts;
- insolvency processes;
- the Land Registry;
- professional indemnity insurers; and
- various public authorities.
Each organisation performs an important role.
However, no organisation is necessarily responsible for understanding how those individual processes interact.
As a result, some victims feel they are navigating a maze rather than a justice system.
The Constitutional Gap
One observation emerging from campaigners, legal researchers and affected consumers is that many disputes become procedural long before the underlying facts are fully examined.
Questions about jurisdiction, limitation periods, regulatory remit, procedural rules or previous decisions can dominate proceedings.
These safeguards are essential for an efficient legal system.
But where they prevent the substantive issues ever being considered, confidence in the system inevitably suffers.
The challenge is not necessarily that any one organisation has acted incorrectly.
It may be that no organisation has responsibility for considering the whole system.
Five Ideas Parliament Could Consider
Rather than creating additional regulators, Parliament could strengthen confidence through several relatively modest reforms.
1. A Right to a Joined-Up Review
Where complaints span multiple regulators or legal processes, individuals should have access to a mechanism that considers the interaction between those systems rather than examining each issue in isolation.
2. Stronger Parliamentary Oversight
If more regulatory detail is delegated to the FCA and PRA, Parliament should retain meaningful oversight of how statutory principles are being applied in practice, not merely through high-level strategy documents.
3. Independent Systemic Investigations
When repeated patterns emerge across apparently unrelated cases, there should be a mechanism for investigating systemic issues rather than treating every complaint as an isolated incident.
4. Measuring Outcomes, Not Activity
Success should be judged not only by how many complaints are processed or cases closed, but whether consumers believe the system reached a fair and understandable outcome.
5. AI-Assisted Navigation
Artificial intelligence presents an opportunity to help individuals organise complex evidence, understand regulatory pathways and identify relevant questions before approaching professional advisers or public bodies.
Used responsibly, AI could reduce confusion without replacing legal advice or judicial decision-making.
Restoring Agency
At the Academy of Life Planning, we believe regulation should do more than protect markets.
It should strengthen human agency.
People should understand where they stand.
They should know which organisation is responsible for what.
And when something goes wrong, they should have a realistic pathway towards having the substance of their concerns properly examined.
Justice should not depend upon an individual’s ability to navigate one of the most complex regulatory systems in the world.
The Bigger Opportunity
The current parliamentary debate provides an opportunity to think beyond regulatory efficiency alone.
Growth matters.
Competitiveness matters.
But trust is itself an economic asset.
A financial system that ordinary people believe is fair attracts participation, investment and confidence.
One that appears procedurally impenetrable gradually loses all three.
Perhaps the next evolution of financial regulation should ask not only:
“How do we regulate markets more efficiently?”
But also:
“How do we ensure that every citizen can realistically obtain justice when those markets fail them?”
Academy of Life Planning 