The Problem
The FCA requires firms to evidence good outcomes with data. Most retail financial services firms responded by assembling management information packs that report activity — complaint volumes, call handling times, application turnaround, claims ratios, retention rates — and presenting them to the board annually. The problem is that activity metrics can look healthy while customers are being systematically harmed. A bank can report excellent service levels while its inert savers earn materially less than its active ones. A wealth manager can report a high suitability review completion rate while many of those reviews never actually happen. An insurer can report low complaint volumes while dissatisfied customers simply lapse. The FCA's Year 2 Board Reports review found that many firms continue to present activity metrics dressed up as outcome evidence — and that the gap is what regulators now look for.
The Pattern
The structural move is to distinguish rigorously between what the firm did and what happened to the customer — and to organise the board's attention around the second question:
Indicators It's Working
In Practice
A retail bank rebuilt its Consumer Duty board pack after the FCA's Cash Savings Market Review. The original pack reported aggregate easy-access savings rates and showed the firm broadly in line with peers. The new outcome view segmented the book by tenure and engagement: long-tenured, inert savers were earning materially less than recently acquired customers on equivalent products. The same data also surfaced that customers who had moved into financial difficulty were still being targeted by the credit acquisition engine. The board, presented with two segmented charts rather than forty pages of aggregate MI, took two decisions in a single meeting: a tenure-based rate uplift programme, and a suppression rule linking financial difficulty status to marketing eligibility. The activity metric had shown no problem. The segmented outcome metric revealed two.
A wealth manager, prompted by the FCA's ongoing advice review, redesigned its board MI to separate delivery from outcome. The previous pack reported a 96% "review completion" rate; the new pack reported review delivery (was the review actually held with the client?), review impact (did anything change as a result?), and charge transparency (could clients articulate what they were paying and why?). Sampling against records found that around a fifth of recorded reviews had no evidence of client contact in the period, and that for clients in long-term drawdown the review rarely produced a documented change despite ongoing fees being charged. The board commissioned a remediation review and tied a portion of adviser variable pay to evidenced review impact rather than completion volumes. The activity number had been comfortable. The outcome data was not.
Watch-Outs
The primary failure mode is building the dashboard to satisfy a regulatory requirement rather than to inform decisions. If the board receives it, notes it, and moves on, the dashboard is compliance theatre. A second is data without narrative — presenting charts without explaining what they mean or what the firm should do about them. A third is measuring only what is easy to measure: volumes, turnaround times, and complaint counts are readily available; comprehension quality, value delivery, and outcome adequacy require effort to capture but are what the FCA actually cares about. A fourth is treating internal audit as a tick-box on the dashboard's existence rather than a challenge function on whether the MI is decision-useful — the Chartered IIA's Consumer Duty guidance makes this distinction explicit.
Evidence & AI Lens
- E1The FCA has stated that firms must put data at the heart of their response to the Consumer Duty
- E2The FCA's Board Report Review (December 2024) found that leading firms presented segmented outcome data — by vulnerability, channel, tenure, and cohort — while laggards relied on aggregate activity metrics that masked poor outcomes for specific segments
- E3The FCA's multi-firm work emphasised monitoring comparative outcomes of different customer groups, specifically whether vulnerable and inert customer cohorts receive equivalent outcomes to engaged ones
- E4The FCA has made clear that firms unable to evidence good outcomes through data should expect searching questions at best and enforcement at worst
Machine learning can identify non-obvious correlations that surface outcome risks — connecting early cancellation, lapse, or withdrawal patterns with specific channels, segments, or demographics to flag potential mis-selling or value erosion before complaint volumes rise. Automated anomaly detection can monitor metrics continuously, alerting governance teams when indicators cross thresholds rather than waiting for the next quarterly review. Natural language processing applied to complaint free-text, call transcripts, and adviser file notes can surface emerging themes — comprehension failure, value concerns, undelivered service — long before they show up in structured complaint categories.