FOS appoints Natalie Ceeney as chief ombudsman
Share
The Financial Ombudsman Service has today announced the appointment of Natalie Ceeney (pictured) as chief ombudsman and chief executive.
Ceeney succeeds Walter Merricks who stepped down in October after ten years in the post.
She will join as chief ombudsman on March 22, 2010 from the National Archives, where she is chief executive and keeper of the public records.
She was formerly director of operations and services at the British Library and previously led strategic consultancy projects across a range of industries at McKinsey & Company.
Until Ceeney formally takes up the position David Thomas will continue to carry out the responsibilities of the post on an interim basis.
FOS chairman Christopher Kelly says: “Natalie Ceeney takes up the position of chief ombudsman at a turning point for the ombudsman service. Set up ten years ago to deal with 30,000 complaints annually, we are now gearing up for an annual workload of 200,000 cases.
“The challenges and demands now facing us are ones that Natalie will be ideally positioned to meet with her extensive experience in strategic change management and engagement with a range of government departments and stakeholders. She is an outstanding individual and my board and I look forward to working with her.”
Ceeney adds: “The exceptional demand placed on the ombudsman service in recent times clearly reflects public regard for the ombudsman as the independent, impartial and accessible provider of justice.
“I look forward to working with colleagues at the ombudsman service as well as with all the ombudsman’s customers and stakeholders to ensure we build on existing successes in providing access to redress and helping to underpin confidence in financial services.”
If you enjoyed this article, sign up here to receive daily email updates from Money Marketing and Follow @_moneymarketing
View results 10 per page | 20 per page | 50 per page
Readers' comments (22)
Julian Stevens | 11 Jan 2010 1:03 pm
Plenty of relevant financial services experience on her CV then.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Evan Owen | 11 Jan 2010 1:17 pm
Any legal and/or financial services experience?
Any qualifications?
Oh, of course none are required for regulators.
As a keeper of historical records we hope that she doesn't succumb to the temptation of using retrospection which it what has undermined adviser confidence in the service.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Alan Lakey | 11 Jan 2010 1:21 pm
Whilst at the National Archives Natalie Ceeney was on a crusade to change the way that civil servants treat information and knowledge.
This is certainly an agreeable target for the FOS which, under Walter Merricks, kept certain comlaint information on post-it notes rather than progress them online where they could be seen.
New face, new opportunity. Let's hope that her year end review saysmore than "could do better".
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Evan Owen | 11 Jan 2010 1:26 pm
Having read what Alan lakey posted on our blog I must say that although she is yet another McKinsey man, sorry, woman this is an interesting appointment, I have some hope that we can work out our differences. Hope is all we have when the odds are stacked against us in retirement.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 11 Jan 2010 1:30 pm
never worked in our industry? sounds ideal candidate
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 11 Jan 2010 1:38 pm
Sad to see genuine experts with decades of relevant experience overlooked in favour of an ex-management consultant. Happens too often in UK industry and FS.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
John Whipple | 11 Jan 2010 1:58 pm
On the positive side she is not from a Bank.
On the downside she is not from as Bank.
On the positive side she has no experience nor industry qualifications.
On the downside she has no experience or industry qualifications.
On the positive side she will do just as the FSA tell her.
On the downside she will do just as the FSA tell her.
So there we are could have been better could have been worse.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 11 Jan 2010 2:06 pm
I don't suppose the decisions will get any more fair or equitable but we might at least get the quicker and more orgainised.
If they get rid of the FSA that would mean getting rid of FOS. Now there's a thought.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 11 Jan 2010 2:14 pm
Can't get any worse...get rid of low grade bodyshopped contract staff and actually train staff to understand products please!.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
paolo standerwick | 11 Jan 2010 2:50 pm
Lets see if she can exceed the incompetency levels of FOS of the past? I'm sure she could.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment