skip tocontent

annual review 2012/2013

1 April 2012 to 31 March 2013

how we dealt with the complaints

total number of cases we resolved

We continued to settle cases at record levels - resolving a total of 223,229 cases in the financial year 2012/2013. This is the highest number of complaints we have settled in any year since the ombudsman service was set up in the year 2000.

year ended
31 March
cases resolved
2013 223,229
2012 222,333
2011 164,899
2010 166,321
2009 113,949
2008 99,699
2007 111,673
2006 119,432
2005 90,908
2004 76,704

how we resolved the cases

The approach we take to resolving disputes is largely determined by the individual facts of each case - and by the level of formality required to settle matters appropriately.

Our aim is to resolve complaints as informally as possible - getting both sides to agree at an early stage to the views or informal settlements that our adjudicators suggest.

But more complex or sensitive disputes often require detailed investigations and lengthy reviews. This can include an appeal to one of our panel of 156 ombudsmen for a final decision - as the last stage of our process.

cases settled by our adjudicators

year ended
31 March
cases settled
2013 198,897
2012 201,793
2011 147,434
2010 155,591
2009 105,275
2008 91,739
2007 104,831

cases appealed to an ombudsman for a final decision

year ended
31 March
cases appealed
2013 24,332
2012 20,540
2011 17,465
2010 10,730
2009 8,674
2008 7,960
2007 6,842

During the year the number of cases requiring the direct involvement of an ombudsman - and a formal ombudsman decision - continued to rise. 20,540 cases had a final decision by an ombudsman in the financial year 2011/2012 - rising 18.5% to 24,332 cases in 2012/2013.

This means that 11% of cases we settled during the year required an ombudsman to make a final decision (9% in the previous year).

The proportion of cases appealed to an ombudsman has been slowly rising over recent years - from 6% in 2006/2007 to the current figure of 11%.

This reflects the continuing shift towards more entrenched disputes - with many businesses increasingly taking a harder-fought and legalistic approach, and consumers becoming more demanding and less willing to concede.

Of the final decisions made by ombudsmen during the year, 32% of requests were made by financial businesses and 68% by consumers (36% and 64% respectively in the previous year).

requests for an ombudsman decision by financial businesses 32
requests for an ombudsman decision by consumers 68

In 88% of final decisions, ombudsmen reached the same basic conclusions as the adjudicators who handled the cases in the earlier stages (86% in the previous year). Where they did not do so, it was usually a finely-balanced judgement or, more often, new facts came to light only at that very late stage.

The 24,332 final decisions made by ombudsmen during the year were spread across the different areas of complaint as follows.

ombudsman decisions by area of complaint %
banking 28.5
general insurance (excluding PPI) 20.5
payment protection insurance (PPI) 20
investments 13
mortgages 10
pensions 4
consumer credit 4

The proportion of cases that involved an appeal to an ombudsman for a final decision differed considerably from area to area.

For example, although 28.5% of all ombudsman decisions related to banking cases, only 13% of the banking complaints we resolved during the year needed a final decision by an ombudsman to settle them - as the table below shows. In the other 87% of banking cases, our adjudicators were able to settle the disputes more informally themselves.

% of cases that required an ombudsman decision %
pensions 28
other investments 22
mortgages 20
general insurance (excluding PPI) 16
banking 13
consumer credit 11
payment protection insurance (PPI) 5

Proportionately many more cases were referred to an ombudsman for a final decision where the dispute related to pensions and investments. This reflects the complexity of these disputes, the larger amount of money often at stake, and the socio-demographic background of many of the consumers involved.

Younger people remain statistically less likely to request a formal ombudsman's decision than consumers of other ages. In fact, the proportion of cases requiring an ombudsman's final decision increases by age group.

However, this probably reflects the types of financial products involved - with older people more likely to have more complex products such as investments and pensions.

"... men and women requested ombudsman decisions in broadly equal proportions"

The proportion of men and women who requested a final decision by an ombudsman remained broadly similar - as did the proportion of requests made by consumers from different faith and ethnic groups. There is more information about the diversity of our customers - and their experience of our service - later in this annual review.


As part of our work resolving individual complaints, our rules allow us to hold hearings (face-to-face meetings) either in public or private. We do this only where an ombudsman believes a case cannot be fairly decided on the basis of the factual material that the two sides have already provided.

If we are asked for a hearing by either a consumer or a business, we consider carefully what value it will add. We do not believe that hearings should be held just to allow either side to confront the other in person. And neither side is given a private meeting with the ombudsman deciding their case.

In most cases ombudsmen are unlikely to consider that a hearing would add anything to their understanding of a complaint - and they agree to only around 10% of requests to hold hearings.

how we record the outcome of cases we resolve

We record the outcome of a consumer's complaint as "upheld" in cases where:

  • The financial business told the consumer in its final response that it had done nothing wrong - but after the complaint was referred to us, we decided (or the business belatedly accepted) that it had done something wrong after all.
  • The financial business's final response offered the consumer inadequate compensation - but after the complaint was referred to us, we required the business (or it belatedly agreed) to increase its offer to an appropriate level.

We record the outcome of a complaint as "not upheld" in cases where:

  • The financial business had done nothing wrong.
  • The financial business had done something wrong, but had already offered the consumer appropriate redress (before the complaint was referred to us).

% of complaints where the outcome changed as a result of our involvement ("we upheld the complaint")

insurance complaints

insurance complaints 2011 2012 2013
payment protection insurance (PPI) 66% 82% 65%
motor insurance 45% 49% 47%
buildings insurance 42% 50% 48%
contents insurance 41% 52% 40%
travel insurance 42% 52% 48%
health insurance 43% 40% 29%

banking and credit complaints

banking and credit complaints 2011 2012 2013
current accounts 28% 31% 34%
credit cards 61% 54% 33%
mortgages 37% 28% 26%
unsecured loans 43% 37% 34%
consumer credit 47% 51% 50%
savings accounts 42% 44% 42%
other banking services 43% 41% 42%

investment complaints

investment complaints 2011 2012 2013
mortgage endowments 31% 28% 25%
whole-of-life policies and savings endowments 32% 30% 23%
investment bonds 60% 51% 36%
pensions 38% 38% 34%
stockbroking and portfolio management 66% 57% 49%

year ended 31 March

In total we upheld 49% of the complaints we settled in the financial year 2012/2013 - compared with 64% of cases in the previous year (and 51% in the year before that).

This figure varied across complaints involving different financial products. For example, during the year we upheld in favour of the consumer:

  • 65% of PPI cases - where some financial businesses are still not following the well-established approach to handling complaints and putting things right.
  • 25% of complaints about mortgage endowments - where we found that most consumers had been warned in the mid 2000s about a possible shortfall and had left it too late to complain.

complaints data about named businesses

Since September 2009 we have been publishing complaints data on our website every six months about named individual businesses. The data shows the number of new complaints - and the proportion of complaints we upheld in favour of consumers - for businesses that have 30 or more new cases (and 30 or more resolved cases) in each six-month period. The complaints data shows that:

  • Just under 200 businesses (out of more than 100,000 covered by the ombudsman service) together generate around 90% of our complaints workload.
  • The number of complaints relating to each individual business ranges from 30 to over 45,000.
  • The proportion of cases we uphold in favour of the consumer varies substantially from business to business - between 3% and 100%.

putting things right

Where we uphold a complaint in favour of a consumer, there are a number of ways in which we can put matters right - depending on the individual circumstances of the case. These include:

  • Telling the business to pay redress - to put the consumer in the position they would now be in if the business hadn't got it wrong in the first place.
  • Telling the business to compensate the consumer for distress and inconvenience - following our long-standing approach set out on our website. We did this in 21,787 cases during the year - 22% of the cases we upheld. In these cases the amounts of compensation for distress and inconvenience were generally between £150 and £500.
  • Directing the business to do something (or not do something) to put right what's gone wrong. This can range from correcting credit references to paying a previously-rejected insurance claim.
  • Telling the business to apologise.

Where we do not uphold a complaint in favour of a consumer, our aim is to give a clear explanation - from an entirely impartial standpoint - of why we believe the financial business has done nothing wrong (or has already offered appropriate redress).

what redress do ombudsmen tell businesses to pay in individual cases?

year ended 31 March %
telling the business to take actions to put things right that don't have a direct cash value (for example, correcting a credit reference) 29
redress up to £1,000 21
£1,001 to £25,000 22.5
£25,001 to £75,000 2.5
£75,001 to £150,000 * 1.5
more than £150,000 * 0.5
telling the business the basis or formula on which they must pay compensation (for example, where specialist calculations need to be carried out) 23

* The ombudsman can tell a business to pay compensation of up to £150,000 (£100,000 for complaints we received before 1 January 2012) - and can recommend that the business pay compensation in excess of this amount.

The figures in this table do not include any additional amounts that we might tell a business to pay - to compensate a consumer for distress and inconvenience.

We continue to see many entrenched disputes that could have been avoided if there had been better communication between the financial business and the customer. Too many problems stem from simple misunderstandings that should have been cleared up at the outset.

our aim is to give a clear explanation - from an entirely impartial standpoint

We know that some consumers express their problems in an unfocused way that may make them seem unreasonable to the business they complain to. But we also see some businesses responding to customer concerns unhelpfully and defensively - aggravating problems that a clear, helpful and sympathetic explanation might have resolved.

Just because we do not uphold a complaint on its merits does not mean that the consumer may not genuinely feel upset and let down by the way the business treated them. Similarly, a consumer's failure to present a reasoned argument does not automatically mean that a case has no merit - or that the complaint should be categorised as "frivolous and vexatious".

Of the 223,229 complaints we settled during the financial year 2012/2013, we concluded that 6,992 cases (3% of the total) could be categorised as "frivolous and vexatious" (2.5% in the previous year).

We do not charge a case fee to the business complained about where we decide that a complaint is frivolous and vexatious.


the time it took us to resolve cases

year ended 31 March resolved within 3 months resolved within 6 months resolved within 9 months resolved within 12 months
excluding PPI complaints
43% 73% 84% 89%
all cases
30% 58% 72% 81%
2012 28% 66% 82% 86%
2011 41% 70% 81% 87%

The table above shows the time it took us to settle the complaints that were referred to us.

The proportion of cases we settled within three months was higher than in the previous year - but we were unable to resolve as many cases as we wanted within our other timeliness targets, largely because of the unprecedented volumes of PPI complaints.

Following public consultation at the start of 2012 on our workload for the year ahead, we scaled up our operations significantly, increasing our casehandling capacity to take on a record 165,000 new PPI cases during the year - in addition to 120,000 cases other than PPI complaints.

However, these projected estimates of substantially increased volumes of cases proved too conservative. In the event, we actually received 378,699 new PPI cases - more than double the estimated number we had planned for.

The number of cases other than PPI complaints was also higher than anticipated - with banking and insurance complaints rising by 20% and investment disputes increasing by a third.

We recruited around 1,000 new employees during the year to help with this workload. But many of the additional casehandlers we took on to resolve PPI cases had to focus initially on processing the unprecedented volumes of new cases arriving with us - rather than on assessing the merits of existing cases.

This means that many consumers and businesses are having to wait much longer for us to be able to assess their case - affecting the level of service we provide.

Regrettably, given the continued high volume of cases being referred to us, this challenge seems likely to remain with us for some time - indeed, probably for several years.

PPI cases awaiting resolution at 31 March 2012 %
waiting less than six months 65
waiting between six months and a year 20
waiting between a year and two years 14
waiting over two years 1

Wherever possible, however, we have tried to ensure that the delays caused by the volumes of PPI cases do not adversely affect our handling of cases involving other financial products.

Across banking-related cases, for example, we have been able to settle 53% of cases within three months and 78% within six months.

% of cases resolved within three months %
credit cards 70
current accounts 53
consumer credit 50
mortgages 42
motor insurance 36
investments and pensions 30
PPI 15

Reducing the time it has taken to resolve banking cases has been helped by some innovative casework projects we ran during the year including:

  • an initiative to resolve e-money complaints in days rather than months; and
  • our work to prioritise complaints from consumers who found themselves unable to use their bank accounts normally following computer problems across the RBS group .

While some forward-looking businesses have been pleased to work with us on projects to make complaints resolution a key part of their customer experience, others continue to take an overly legalistic approach to handling complaints.

In most areas of our work, we continue to see disputes involving hard-fought arguments and entrenched attitudes - on both sides - as businesses become less willing to concede and consumers become more demanding.

This resulted in a 18.5% increase during the year in the number of cases where an ombudsman issued a final decision as the last stage of our process.

We continue to prioritise cases where consumers might be disadvantaged by having to wait longer - for example, through severe financial difficulty or for medical reasons.

During the year we identified and prioritised around 10,000 cases where financial difficulty was a significant issue - a similar figure to the previous year. Over half of these cases related to overdrafts, loans and current accounts - and a third involved mortgages.

Of course, prioritising cases like these inevitably means that other complaints cannot be progressed as quickly as we would otherwise like.

knowledge and expertise

Professionalism is central to our approach. Our adjudicators and ombudsmen need the right knowledge and expertise to do their work to the highest standards.

... knowledge and expertise are at the heart of everything we do

To put professionalism and quality at the heart of everything we do, we have:

  • Increased the number of ombudsmen by 40%, giving us greater capacity to involve ombudsmen in mentoring and developing our casehandling staff - and in the professional leadership of our service more widely.
  • Supported 500 adjudicators through our accredited training programme that we run in partnership with Queen Margaret University, Edinburgh. The programme, set at Masters degree level, has been specially designed to build and maintain the professional skills of our casehandling staff.
  • Developed the blogs and forums on our intranet to encourage proactive knowledge sharing and collaborative working.
  • Strengthened our professional career structure - to help the growth and development of our casehandling staff, from the advisers on our consumer helpline through to our most senior ombudsmen.
  • Enhanced the induction which all newly-recruited adjudicators go through when they join us. This involves an intensive 12-week programme combining skills development with individual mentoring.
  • Extended our development programme for our 300 managers - with each having an average of 12 days of training during the year. We have also launched our managers' mela - a collaborative resource and online network for mutual support and knowledge sharing across our manager community.
  • Introduced a "continuous improvement" framework to co-ordinate the wide range of ideas and suggestions put forward by employees - aimed at delivering improvements for our customers.
  • Launched a "tone of voice" programme to help our adjudicators and ombudsmen write in a way that is meaningful to our customers.
  • Invested in our internal communications - from workshops to interactive notice boards, from team "huddles" to executive question times. Our accreditation during the year as a "Top 100" best employer reflects the substantial work we have done this year to make our people feel involved and engaged as we face new challenges and change.
  • Produced another series of videos for our customer service training. These latest six videos involve financial services practitioners talking about their interactions with the ombudsman service from the perspective of smaller businesses - who generally have much less direct contact with us. These videos followed some we made in the previous year featuring consumers talking about how it felt to bring a complaint to the ombudsman.
  • Provided our people with the skills to deal confidently and sensitively with an increasingly diverse range of customers, including training on disability issues.


Quality is what matters most to our customers and stakeholders - and delivering a high-quality service is of fundamental importance to us. "Quality" means that in every case we should be able to show we have:

  • Made the decision in the right way - getting to the heart of the issue and applying the approach we take consistently in similar cases.
  • Treated customers well - so that in each case the consumer and the business are satisfied with the level of service we have provided.
  • Got the basics right - for example, responding appropriately to different communication needs.

... quality means getting the basics right, treating customers well, and making decisions in the right way

During the year we built on the framework we put in place in the previous year for measuring and reporting on quality and consistency issues. This included:

  • Involving ombudsmen far more proactively in reviewing and giving constructive feedback on the technical accuracy and consistency of adjudicators' work.
  • Ensuring that any case-specific feedback from customers is reported direct to the individual casehandler who worked on the complaint in question - and to their manager.
  • Running refresher training for managers on our approach to checking the quality of the customer experience - focusing on aspects such as reliability and "being listened to", which customers consistently tell us are crucial to their general satisfaction with our service.
  • Reviewing the way in which our board of non-executive directors maintain strategic oversight of quality and customer service issues.
  • Involving our entire senior management team and board members in an exercise to assess and discuss a cross-section of randomly selected cases.

stakeholder research

We carry out a programme of stakeholder and customer research - to help give us a closer understanding of what our customers think and feel, how they rate the service we provide, and where we could do things better. During the year this programme included:

  • Running monthly online surveys and six-monthly postal surveys to record and measure how consumers, whose complaints we have handled, rate aspects of the service we provided.
  • Introducing an automated feedback option at the end of phone calls - enabling consumers to give instant ratings on various aspects of the quality of our service.
  • Carrying out research to monitor the views of the businesses we cover - smaller businesses and larger ones alike - using both online and postal surveys.
  • Commissioning in-depth interviews with practitioners from smaller businesses - about complaints handling and the ombudsman.
  • Commissioning research among MPs to get their views on our work in relation to their constituents.
  • Monitoring general consumer awareness of the ombudsman service to help with our work on accessibility - ensuring that everyone who needs to contact us knows how to find us.
  • Running a survey for our website users to find out more about who they are and what they are looking for on our website.

... we want a closer understanding of what our customers think and feel

Results and feedback from our research are shown in more detail in the chapters who complained to us and who the complaints were about.

handling complaints about us

Recognising where we have made mistakes - and learning from any shortcomings - is an important part of our customer service.

This is why - just like the businesses whose complaints we handle - we have our own formal complaints procedure for people who are unhappy with the level of service we have provided.

We can usually sort out problems straightaway - as soon as someone tells us that they are unhappy with the standard of service they have received.

The prompt involvement of the relevant manager - with an immediate phone call to apologise or explain - means we can resolve many issues without the problem escalating into a formal complaint.

But if we are not able to sort out matters at this stage to the satisfaction of the customer, one of our senior managers will look into the problem.

This applies to complaints both from consumers and businesses. The process is entirely separate from the usual process that applies if a consumer or business disagrees with our views on the merits of their case - and wants us to re-consider facts and arguments.

During the year we handled 2,397 complaints about our service - a similar number to the previous year when we received 2,382 complaints. We were able to resolve 63% of these complaints directly within the teams where the problem arose - and 37% of the complaints were settled with the involvement of a senior manager.

Complaints about our service related to 0.5% of our total caseload (0.9% in the previous year). 3% of the complaints were made by businesses (5% in the previous year) and the others were all from consumers or their representatives.

We agreed that the level of service we had provided was unsatisfactory in 32% of these cases (37% in the previous year). Where this involved paying compensation - in recognition of the inconvenience caused by delays or administrative errors on our part - the average payment was around £100.

Where we are unable to resolve a complaint about our service, it can be referred to the independent assessor - for a formal independent review of the level of service we have provided. Each year the independent assessor produces an annual report for our board, setting out findings and recommendations made over the year. We publish the independent assessor's report in full on our website.

improving the way we work

We know there is always room for improvement in what we do. That is why we run a wide range of projects and initiatives aimed at improving the quality, consistency and efficiency of our service.

We have a "continuous improvement" framework in place to support this work. We have also been running a "change programme" since 2010 - to modernise our operations in response to the rapid and unpredictable growth in demand for our service.

Making sure we can respond effectively to the unprecedented volumes of PPI cases now being referred to us has also given us the opportunity to prioritise a range of significant operational and service improvements. This has included:

  • Exchanging case information electronically with key major users, to help cut costly and cumbersome "bulk mail" processes.
  • Putting document scanning and electronic-file management at the heart of the design of our PPI casework operations - to minimise reliance on paper files.
  • Strengthening our operational planning capability - to help us forecast future workload and to run our "demand and capacity" function more efficiently - in line with recommendations made by the National Audit Office (NAO) in its report into our efficiency published in January 2012.
  • Developing an intuitive system that gives our PPI casehandlers access to "live" guidance to help them navigate their way through cases (in line with the approach our ombudsmen take to cases) - and publishing the same information about our usual approach on our website.
  • Working with experts in customer service from outside financial services
    - to learn from the best in customer experience and to see how we can improve the "customer journey" for people using our service.

... we need to adapt our processes to reflect both business and consumer needs

an innovative approach

During the year we ran an experimental casework project to test out different ways of handling complaints involving e-money and money transfer.

Our tried-and-tested approach to casework may work well for the more established ways of using financial services. But we wanted to make sure we could meet people's changing expectations, which can be very different if they have used electronic payment systems.

If someone has dealt with their e-money provider entirely over the internet - or was attracted to a type of money transfer that offered "instant" service - then it may seem strange for that consumer to have to adapt to a more formal, paper-based service if things go wrong.

So our e-money casework project involved:

  • Removing our traditional division between "frontline enquiries" and "complaints" - helping us to challenge our conventional assumptions about "casework".
  • Giving our casehandlers licence to engage with the parties and just "sort it" - without the usual complaint form, signatures, questionnaires and acceptance forms.
  • Rethinking timescales - to be able to engage with both sides in as near to "real time" as possible.

Running this casework project showed that:

  • Consumers particularly appreciated having just one person dealing with their problem - who had both expert knowledge and a real interest in what had happened and how they could help.
  • Nine out of ten consumers highly rated this approach to sorting their problem - whether or not we upheld their case.
  • Consumers assumed that having their complaints sorted in hours or days - rather than weeks or months - was entirely normal.
  • Total commitment from the businesses involved was vital. These were businesses who recognised that handling customer problems well is not just about "compliance" with the rules - it is the very heart of good customer service.

We are now planning a similar project for dealing with certain payday loan complaints. The aim is to settle people's problems as quickly and easily as possible - without necessarily using the more formal aspects of dispute resolution.

This reflects how society, business and technology are evolving and transforming. We need to scrutinise our processes on an ongoing basis to see how they could be adapted and updated to reflect both business and consumer needs.

However, technology does not always work to the benefit of consumers - especially when it goes wrong.

In June 2012 computer problems across the RBS group led to a surge of complaints from consumers who found themselves unable to use their bank accounts normally. These problems were particularly acute in Northern Ireland - for customers of RBS's Ulster Bank.

Working closely with the senior management at RBS, we quickly agreed a new, streamlined approach to handling problems that consumers brought to the ombudsman service about this issue.

This involved prioritising cases where there was financial difficulty. We also clarified at the outset what our approach would be to compensating consumers for their losses - and for the trouble and inconvenience they had been put to.

our budget and funding

We are funded by an annual levy paid by the businesses we cover - and by case fees that we charge businesses for settling individual disputes referred to us about them.

In the financial year 2012/2013 - for the third year running - we froze both the £500 case fee and the amount paid under the levy by the financial services sector.

We also continued to charge businesses case fees only for the fourth (and any subsequent) complaint during the year - so that three quarters of businesses that had complaints referred to us paid no case fees. There is more information later on in this annual review about how many businesses paid case fees.

To help fund the increased resources needed to handle the unprecedented volumes of PPI complaints, we introduced a supplementary case fee of £350 from April 2012 for complaints about mis-sold PPI. But this supplementary fee is chargeable only when businesses have more than 25 of these cases a year, reflecting where the costs are actually incurred in sorting out PPI mis-selling on this scale.

Our budget is calculated on the basis of workload forecasts that we consult on publicly each year in January and February - before the start of the new financial year.

Following public consultation in January and February 2012, the boards of the FSA and the Financial Ombudsman Service approved a budget for the ombudsman service - for the financial year 2012/2013 - that assumed income of £191.1 million and expenditure of £197.5 million, with a unit cost of £760.

Our unit cost is calculated by dividing our total costs (before financing charges and any bad debt charge) by the number of cases we complete.

our unit cost

year ended
31 March
our unit cost (£)
2013 720
2012 484
2011 639
2010 555
2009 508
2008 529

The actual final figures for the year showed total income of £150 million, expenditure of £160.8 million, and a unit cost of £720. These were significantly different from the figures that had been anticipated at the start of the year because of the operational volatilities we experienced during the year.

For example, following public consultation we had scaled up our operations to be able to take on 285,000 new cases in 2012/2013 - which would have involved a annual increase in our workload of 25%. But instead, the number of new cases rose to 508,881 - largely as a result of a 140% upsurge in the number of PPI complaints.

To help deal with these volumes of incoming cases, we had to take on over 1,000 additional employees during the year - incurring increased expenditure in recruitment, training, payroll and accommodation. New staff are less productive in their first months - and they also require intensive training and mentoring which reduces the productivity of experienced staff.

Because of the larger than expected volumes of new cases, we also had to deploy more staff onto frontline activities - receiving and processing new cases as we received them - which meant less resource focused on resolving existing cases.

This had an adverse impact on the way we measure our productivity - which takes into account only the number of cases actually settled and closed during the year.

Our ability to resolve cases as quickly and efficiently as we would like was also affected during the year by the increased number of entrenched disputes requiring greater investigation and analysis - as businesses and claims-management companies became noticeably less willing to settle cases at an early informal stage.

We are increasingly seeing that the way in which businesses handle their customer complaints - and the way in which both sides respond to our early involvement in a case - has significant impact on our complaint volumes and costs. 

These are trends we expect to continue into the future - and we have agreed changes to our charging structure for the financial year 2013/2014, to reflect the rising costs of dealing with our increasingly complex and challenging PPI caseload.

our income and expenditure

our income and expenditure (summary) actual
year ended
31 March
£ m
year ended
31 March
£ m
year ended
31 March
£ m
year ended
31 March
£ m
annual levy 20.8 19.7 23.6 20.9
special levy 0.0 0.0 25.0 0.0
case fees 102.6 119.6 102.8 77.1
supplementary case fees 27.1 52.4 0.0 0.0
other income 0.5 0.2 0.5 0.4
bad debt costs -1.0 -0.8 -0.4 -0.6
total income 150.0 191.1 151.5 97.8
staff-related costs 126.2 153.9 83.4 89.4
other costs 30.2 38.2 21.1 14.7
financing charges 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
depreciation 4.4 5.4 2.2 2.1
total expenditure 160.8 197.5 106.7 106.2
surplus/(deficit) -10.8 -6.4 44.8 -8.4

These figures are drawn from our unaudited management accounts. The directors' reports and audited financial statements are available separately on our website and as hard copy from July 2013.