FCA Consumer Duty: What the Regulator's Board Report Findings Actually Show

The FCA's Consumer Duty is now well past its initial implementation deadlines and firmly into its "embedding" phase — which, based on the regulator's own published observations on board reports, is turning out to be harder for many firms to evidence than the original rollout was to plan.

For the fundamentals — the four consumer outcomes, who it applies to, and key implementation dates — see our companion guide to what the Consumer Duty actually requires.

Consumer Duty, briefly

Consumer Duty sets a higher standard of care that financial services firms owe retail customers, organised around four outcomes: products and services, price and value, consumer understanding, and consumer support. Rather than a single rulebook of prescriptive requirements, it's an outcomes-based standard — firms have to show customers actually get good outcomes, not just that a compliant process exists on paper.

That outcomes focus is exactly what makes the "embedding" phase harder than the initial go-live: ticking off an implementation project plan is one thing; continuously monitoring and evidencing real customer outcomes, year after year, is another.

In the Handbook, the Duty sits in PRIN 2A. It combines the Consumer Principle, three cross-cutting rules (act in good faith, avoid causing foreseeable harm, and enable and support customers to pursue their financial objectives) and the four outcomes. It has applied to open products and services since 31 July 2023 and to closed products and services since 31 July 2024. Under the governance rules, a firm must prepare a report for its governing body on its consumer outcomes monitoring, and at least annually the governing body must review and approve it, confirm the firm is meeting the Duty and agree any actions needed.

What the FCA's board report observations reveal

The FCA has been publishing good and poor practice examples drawn from firms' Consumer Duty board reports, and a consistent pattern emerges: firms that treat the board report as an annual compliance document — largely descriptive, backward-looking, produced to satisfy a governance requirement — score poorly against firms that use it as a genuine management tool, with clear metrics, identified outcomes gaps, and evidenced remediation action.

Common weaknesses the regulator has flagged include board reports that describe processes without evidencing outcomes, insufficient use of management information to actually test whether customers are getting good outcomes, and, as the FCA's April 2026 review of year-two reports put it, some firms presented extensive data without explaining how it showed good or poor outcomes, monitored outcomes weakly across distribution chains, and approved reports without documenting the challenge the board provided.

What finance and compliance teams should take from this

• Treat the board report as a live management tool, not an annual filing exercise. The FCA's stated preference is for evidence-led reporting that shows what was actually monitored and found, not a narrative account of policies in place.
• Build outcomes monitoring into ongoing MI, not a once-a-year data pull. Firms doing this well tend to have Consumer Duty metrics embedded in regular management information rather than assembled specially for the board report.
• Price and value assessments need genuine analysis, not assertion. Simply stating that pricing is fair is not the same as evidencing a fair value assessment against a defined methodology — this is one of the areas the FCA has specifically called out as weak in practice.
• Smaller firms shouldn't assume "proportionate" means "minimal." In February 2026 the FCA also published additional insight aimed at smaller firms, including the idea of a "critical friend" and use of Financial Ombudsman Service data.

Why this belongs on the finance function's radar, not just compliance's

Fair value assessments in particular sit close to finance and pricing teams — evidencing that a product's price is reasonable relative to the benefits it delivers requires real cost, margin and benefit analysis, not just a compliance sign-off. Finance professionals supporting product and pricing decisions are increasingly being asked to contribute directly to Consumer Duty evidence, which makes a working understanding of what "good" looks like here directly relevant CPD, not a compliance-only topic.

The practical takeaway

If your organisation's Consumer Duty board report reads more like a description of what was done than an evidenced account of what was found and fixed, it's worth revisiting against the FCA's own published good-practice examples before the next reporting cycle — the regulator has been unusually specific about what it wants to see, which makes this one of the more answerable compliance gaps to close.

What may change next

On 29 June 2026 the FCA opened a consultation (CP26/23) on a targeted package of changes to the scope and proportionality of the Consumer Duty. The consultation closed on 18 September 2026 and the FCA expects to publish a policy statement and make any new rules in the first quarter of 2027. These are proposals, not rules in force, so until final rules are published firms should keep working to the current requirements.

What a genuine fair value assessment looks like

A weak fair value assessment states a conclusion: "we consider this product offers fair value." A strong one shows the working — what the product costs to provide, what it delivers to the customer, how that compares to similar products in the market, and what data was used to reach that comparison. The FCA's published observations consistently favour firms that can show their workings over firms that simply assert an outcome, which mirrors exactly the standard finance professionals are used to applying to any other analytical conclusion: a number without supporting analysis isn't evidence, it's an assertion.

A practical distinction worth remembering

Good practice, per the FCA's own examples, tends to name specific metrics tracked (complaint themes, cancellation rates, product usage patterns) and specific actions taken as a result. Poor practice tends to describe the existence of monitoring processes in general terms without showing what was actually found or changed. For any team drafting or reviewing a board report, that's a simple and useful test to apply line by line: does this sentence describe a process, or does it evidence an outcome? The Duty is explicitly about the latter.

Consumer understanding and support are easy to under-evidence

The FCA's April 2026 review found that some board reports focused more on products, services and value than on consumer understanding and support, which the FCA treats as core outcomes. That is partly because understanding is genuinely harder to measure — a firm can show a customer received a document, but showing that document actually helped them understand a product is a different and harder standard. Firms doing this well are increasingly testing comprehension directly, through customer surveys or call monitoring, rather than assuming that clear-looking documentation automatically produces understanding. That distinction between "we sent clear information" and "customers demonstrably understood it" is exactly the kind of gap the FCA's board report observations keep surfacing.

For background on the FCA's role and remit more broadly, see our guide to the Financial Conduct Authority. Firms building out Consumer Duty evidence alongside other conduct obligations should also keep an eye on our coverage of the CPD courses available for finance professionals working across regulated sectors.

If you need the basics first, start with our explainer on what Consumer Duty means for finance professionals.

This article is general information for education and CPD purposes only and is not legal, regulatory or financial advice. Regulatory requirements and FCA proposals change, so check the current FCA Handbook and publications, or take professional advice, before relying on it.