Consumer Voice has criticised Rachel Reeves’ proposed financial services reforms, warning they could weaken compensation protections and reduce the number of complaints reaching the Financial Ombudsman Service.

But fewer complaints do not automatically mean weaker consumer protection.

For too long, Britain’s compensation culture has been driven by claims firms, litigation funders and campaign groups that measure success by the volume of cases rather than the quality of outcomes. A system flooded with technical complaints and procedural disputes benefits lawyers and claims companies far more than ordinary consumers.

The Government argues the reforms will remove outdated requirements while maintaining protections for genuine consumer harm. That should be welcomed. Consumers deserve fair compensation when they suffer real losses—not a never-ending complaints industry designed to generate fees for third parties.

Consumer Voice claims fewer Ombudsman cases are a problem. In reality, the goal should be fewer disputes, faster resolutions and clearer rules. A reduction in complaints may simply indicate a system that is working more efficiently.

The real question is not how many complaints are filed, but whether consumers receive fair treatment when things go wrong. If these reforms deliver that while reducing unnecessary litigation, consumers—and the wider economy—will be better off.