Skip to main content
Polar Insight

Basic bank accounts: the FCA turns inclusion into a conduct test

The FCA has secured commitments from the nine largest UK banks and building societies to overhaul how they offer basic bank accounts, after mystery shopping found a third of interactions were poor or very poor. For senior leaders, financial inclusion has moved from CSR narrative to supervised conduct outcome, with named firms now carrying individual improvement plans.

The FCA has put the nine banks legally required to offer basic bank accounts on a public improvement footing, after a mystery shopping exercise found a third of interactions rated poor or very poor (FCA). Barclays UK, The Co-operative Bank, HSBC UK, Lloyds Banking Group, Nationwide, NatWest, Santander UK, TSB and Virgin Money UK have each agreed individual plans, alongside a collective commitment brokered through UK Finance (FCA). This is not a thematic review parked in a policy statement. It is a named-firm intervention with follow-through.

The substance of the finding is uncomfortable for retail bank boards. The FCA's exercise covered 298 interactions across branches and telephone, testing two scenarios: a customer in financial hardship with non-standard ID, and someone post-bankruptcy with standard ID (FCA). Frontline staff often failed to mention basic bank accounts at all, and pushed vulnerable customers toward online journeys ill-suited to their circumstances (FCA). That is a Consumer Duty problem dressed as an access problem. The regulator is signalling that outcomes for customers in vulnerable circumstances will be tested through observed behaviour, not policy documents or product governance decks.

Emad Aladhal, director of retail banking at the FCA, framed the message plainly: 'the biggest banks have now committed to improving how they are offered, and we'll be holding them to account to make sure change happens' (FCA). The subtext for boards is that the FCA now has a baseline it can re-shop against. Any second-round mystery exercise that shows limited movement will read as a governance failure, not a training gap. Peter Tyler of UK Finance pointed to the expanded Breaking the Cycle initiative as the industry vehicle for customers without a fixed address (FCA), which gives firms a collective shield but also a collective standard against which laggards will be visible.

The stakeholder implications run wider than retail banking. Charities, local authorities and debt advice bodies now have a named list of firms with public commitments, and a regulator inviting escalation. Internally, the intervention cuts across three functions that rarely align cleanly: branch and telephony operations, financial crime and onboarding, and vulnerability policy. The FCA is asking firms to spot vulnerability early and offer accessible alternatives to online-only journeys (FCA), which means ID and address verification controls have to bend without breaking. That is a design question for the COO and MLRO jointly, not a script change for the contact centre. Boards that treat this as a communications exercise will find themselves managing a supervisory case within a year.

The wider read-across is that the FCA is comfortable using named-firm accountability as a supervisory tool in areas where 97% market coverage might once have suggested the job was done (FCA). Inclusion, like closed-book pensions and wholesale conduct, is being pulled into the outcomes framework. Senior leaders should assume that mystery shopping, once a niche tool, is now part of the standard supervisory kit, and that public commitments made through trade bodies will be treated as enforceable expectations.

Sources

What this reveals

The FCA's mystery shopping exercise exposes a familiar divergence: policies, product governance decks and training records said one thing, while observed frontline behaviour said another. Boards had likely been assured that basic bank account access was a solved compliance question, when in fact it was an untested operational assumption sitting across three functions that rarely reconcile, branch and telephony, financial crime and onboarding, and vulnerability policy. Other leadership teams should not assume this is a basic-bank-account story; it is a template for how the FCA now tests Consumer Duty outcomes, through observed conduct rather than documentary evidence, and any firm relying on policy attestation as proof of outcome carries the same exposure. The reputational asymmetry matters too: named-firm interventions with public improvement plans hand charities, advice bodies and journalists a ready-made scorecard.

Questions accountable leaders should ask

  • 01When did we last test whether our frontline behaviour on vulnerable customer journeys matches what our policies, training materials and board reports claim it does?
  • 02If the FCA mystery-shopped our branches and call centres tomorrow on a Consumer Duty-adjacent scenario, would the results confirm or contradict the assurance our board has already received?
  • 03Where in our organisation do vulnerability policy, financial crime onboarding, and channel operations meet, and who is accountable when they produce a poor customer outcome between them?
  • 04Are we relying on digital-first journeys as an efficiency answer to problems that regulators now expect us to solve through accessible human channels?
  • 05If we were named in a public improvement plan tomorrow, which external stakeholders, charities, local authorities, advice bodies, would already have evidence against us, and do we know what they are seeing?

What accountable leaders should do now

  1. 1Commission an independent observed-behaviour test, not another policy review, of the customer journeys most exposed to Consumer Duty scrutiny, covering both branch and telephony channels and scenarios involving vulnerability, non-standard ID, and post-hardship recovery.
  2. 2Map where accountability sits across branch and telephony operations, financial crime and onboarding, and vulnerability policy for the specific outcomes the FCA is testing, and identify the single named executive who owns the joined-up outcome.
  3. 3Pressure-test the assumptions in the most recent Consumer Duty board report against what observed behaviour would actually show, and brief the board on the gap before a regulator or third party surfaces it.
  4. 4Establish a listening channel with the charities, advice bodies and local authorities who now hold de facto scorecards on named firms, so escalations reach you before they reach the FCA.
  5. 5Set a re-test date, internal or independent, before the FCA does, so any second-round supervisory exercise finds movement that can be evidenced rather than claimed.

Explore the practical guide

A practical guide to building Consumer Duty evidence that withstands board challenge and FCA scrutiny. After reading, you will know what good evidence looks like, where most firms fall short, and how to structure your annual board report so it earns trust rather than questions.

Read the guide

Where internal confidence may exceed external evidence

Polar Insight helps leadership teams test critical assumptions against stakeholder, market, regulatory, and operational reality before risk compounds.

Explore Stakeholder Proximity

Related insights

Consumer Duty enters its evidence phase: outcomes monitoring becomes the board test

The FCA has published its review of how firms are approaching outcomes monitoring under the Consumer Duty, signalling that data collection alone will no longer satisfy supervisors. For senior leaders, the bar has shifted from having a framework to proving it changes decisions and prevents harm.

Motor finance claims: the FCA turns its fire on the intermediaries

The FCA and its taskforce partners have removed or amended 1,200 misleading car finance claims adverts since January 2024, tightening the screws on claims management companies and law firms feeding off the redress scheme. For lenders, insurers and their boards, the intervention reshapes who bears reputational and operational risk as the motor finance saga moves into its payout phase.

Consumer Duty product governance: the FCA raises the bar on design discipline

The FCA's July review of product governance under the Consumer Duty finds encouraging progress but persistent inconsistency in how firms design, monitor and distribute products. For boards, the message is that Duty compliance is shifting from policy documents to demonstrable design discipline, with vulnerable customers as the reference case.

Stakeholder Signals

Consequential developments in financial services and other regulated markets, with one implication for accountable leaders.