In a consultation published last year as part of a drive for more transparency under the new regulatory architecture, the Ombudsman said it would redact the names and details of consumers when publishing decisions but, in most cases, reveal the firms involved.

This led to an outcry from many businesses, with the Association of British Insurers arguing it could present the public with a “misleading” view of financial services.

The FOS said in its original consultation it did not think it “practical” to redact firms’ names.

And today, it said: “Having considered the responses we received on this and on the other main points in the discussion paper, our current view is that the overall way forward that we proposed is broadly in the right direction – subject to any operational and practical questions being resolved.

“However, there remain issues that we will want to discuss with businesses and consumer groups, before finalising how we will implement publication.”

Sponsored

£2.5m paid to help broker clients benefit from greener homes

Sponsored by Halifax Intermediaries

Another concern raised was that naming other businesses involved in a complaint – for example a product provider relating to a complaint against an IFA – could lead to reputational damage by association.

Meanwhile, several businesses said it was important that individual advisers are not named as “they were not themselves regulated entities and were subject to the training and competency requirements that applied to the businesses they worked for”.

The Ombudsman will finalise its policy on publishing decisions once politicians have “formed a clear view” on it, as the Financial Services Bill makes its way through Parliament.