Prior to being dissolved, in 2016 the FOS had approximately 5,500 licensed member organisations that included banks, insurers, credit providers, financial advisers and planners, debt collection agencies and other businesses that provide financial products and services; together with an additional 8,000 authorised credit representatives.

[citation needed] Thereafter the Ombudsman was reported by media as having confirmed "the decision to refer the matter to a court given the complexity of the dispute, the inability of the FOS to cross examine all relevant witnesses and compel the production of information from third parties, as well as the need to engage experts",[3] even though in recordings of the conversations the same Ombudsman said the only reason to dismiss the complaint was lack of staff, that the complaint had merit and that if the FOS had staff they would have ruled the dispute inside jurisdiction.

ASIC appeared before the Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services on 16 March 2015, where it stated that the Court dealt with the issue of the misleading file notes.

[8] The statement did not address allegations in the submission about misleading file notes presented in the discovery phase of a trial.

[2] In November 2016, the FOS attempted to explain limitations to its capability to enforce its rulings when financial services providers would not or were unable to pay compensation in cases decided in a consumer's favour.

[12] The FOS has proposed an industry funded 'compensation scheme of last resort' be established to help pay consumers their awarded compensation if left stranded by insolvent or belligerent providers.

[15] In December 2016 an Australian Treasury appointed panel agreed that the FOS needs an added accountability mechanism in the form of an independent auditor.

[19] The company was approved by the Australian Securities & Investments Commission (ASIC) at that time in accordance with Regulatory Guide 139.