Ombud Council AR 2026

PART B: PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

iii. Despite debt counselling activity falling outside the jurisdiction of the financial ombud system, by virtue of it being excluded from the definition of “financial service” in the FSR Act, the ombud system receives a high volume of complaints about these providers. This presented an opportunity for the Ombud Council to facilitate the NFO’s support to the NCR, by leveraging the NFO’s relationships with its participant financial institutions, where resolution of a debt counselling related complaint by the NCR requires cooperation and input from banks or non-bank credit providers. The above initiatives were well received by the regulators as being supportive of their own objectives of enabling timely, evidence-based supervisory, enforcement and policy responses to emerging conduct risks. • Supporting and facilitating ombud system reform The Council continued proactive work on the implementation of the reforms proposed in the National Treasury’s policy paper, “A Simpler, Stronger Financial Sector Ombud System” (February 2024). In support of the development of draft legislation to implement the reforms in the policy paper, the Council collaborated closely with the National Treasury, the World Bank and the FSCA. This included the drafting of a Financial Ombud System Amendment Bill. Targeted informal engagements on the draft Bill took place with the ombud schemes and the FSCA. The Council worked with the National Treasury to establish a framework for broader stakeholder engagement on the draft Bill. Engagements with the identified stakeholders commenced and further consultations are planned for the 2026/27 financial year. • Monitoring performance of ombud schemes The Council is responsible for monitoring the performance of all the ombud schemes it oversees, including industry and statutory schemes. Since the establishment of the NFO in March 2024, the Council oversees two industry ombud schemes, the NFO and the JSE Ombud Scheme, and two statutory ombud schemes, the FAIS Ombud and the Pension Funds Adjudicator. From time to time, the Council receives complaints from the public relating to: i. Cases where complainants incorrectly assumed that the Council handles complaints. ii. Complainants dissatisfied with the outcome of their complaint to an ombud scheme and where the complainant incorrectly was under the impression that the outcome could be escalated to the Council.

iii. Complaints about the conduct and manner in which the scheme handled a complaint or the service levels of the scheme. Only the third of these bulleted complaint categories falls within the Council’s mandate. During the reporting period, the Council recorded 302 enquiries and complaints from financial customers. Where appropriate, these were referred to the relevant ombud scheme or other dispute resolution forum. Approximately 22% of the complaints were allegations regarding the quality of schemes’ complaints handling processes or service levels and thus ostensibly within the Council’s remit. However, on further analysis, these complaints typically arose from dissatisfaction with the ombud scheme’s decision to dismiss a complaint. The Council used this as an opportunity to inform complainants and create awareness that the Council itself does not handle customer complaints against financial institutions, does not intervene in the substantive merits of complaints handled by the ombud schemes, nor reconsiders, replaces or overturns decisions of ombud schemes. It was highlighted that this would conflict with the Council’s statutory responsibility to protect the independence of ombuds (section 177(1)(c) of the FSR Act). The Council has noted increasing sophistication in compiling complaints, both to schemes and the Council, particularly those citing specific contraventions of scheme rules or the Council’s statutory oversight mandate. Although consumers’ increased awareness of their rights is a welcome development, a concerning trend is an increase in complaints from consumers using Artificial Intelligence tools in formulating excessively lengthy complaints, often supported by spurious AI-generated references. This unduly absorbs ombud scheme time and resources, and the Council is working with schemes to mitigate this risk and provide guidance to complainants on more appropriate use of AI tools. The Council carefully considered all complaints alleging that an ombud scheme had not complied with applicable financial sector laws, its own governing rules, or Council Rules, or had followed materially inappropriate processes. There has been no identified need for enforcement action against an ombud scheme or other regulatory interventions. In a few cases, administrative and process improvements were recommended.

Ombud Council 2025/26 Annual Report

17