AI is changing how people bank, save, borrow and ask for help. It could make finance faster, cheaper – and even more personal. But if customers cannot understand decisions, challenge mistakes or reach a human when things go wrong, “smart” finance may simply become a more efficient way to frustrate people.
In the UK, a review by the Financial Conduct Authority pointed out that AI is not new to financial services. Banks have used it for years behind the scenes in algorithmic trading, underwriting, credit decisions and fraud detection. What has changed is visibility. Publicly available generative AI tools have brought AI into everyday consumer life, with millions of people now using them to navigate financial decisions.
The UK has an important advantage here. The government and regulators have committed to keeping the country at the forefront of open banking – a position that gives it a head start in digital finance and AI-driven services.
The UK was one of the pioneers in building open banking – where customers can share their bank account data with authorised providers, instead of leaving that data locked inside one bank. Research from the Cambridge Centre for Alternative Finance describes the UK’s approach as regulation-driven, helping to standardise how banks share customer-permissioned data.
AI has long been discussed as a threat to jobs and livelihoods. But what’s the reality? In this series, we explore the impact it is already having on different occupations – and how people really feel about their AI assistants.
A 2025 consumer report highlighted that almost one in three UK adults uses AI on a weekly basis to manage their money. Starling Bank’s Spending Intelligence uses AI to find key words to help customers understand their spending habits. Lloyds Banking Group has reported rising use of AI tools for managing money. And NatWest says the generative AI version of its Cora+ assistant improved customer satisfaction, while reducing the need for a staff member to step in.
These examples matter because one of the biggest problems in retail finance is not simply lack of products, but lack of customer capacity to process complex choices. One of us (David) explained why many customers do not actively switch or search for better financial products – they often have limited time, attention and expertise. They may also find switching costly or inconvenient, compare only a small number of factors, and remain with poor-value options because alternatives feel too complex.
AI could help by translating jargon, comparing prices, flagging risks and making it easier to switch – or to ask the right questions.
But this is only half the story. The same benefits can quickly become risks when AI or automated banking systems make decisions without clear explanations. A 2024 survey by the Bank of England and FCA found that 46% of financial firms had only a “partial understanding” of the AI technologies they use. If banks themselves only partly understand these systems, customers are even less likely to know why a payment has been blocked, why an account application has been rejected or why a chatbot refuses to help.
In 2024, it emerged that Starling blocked a legitimate €15,000 (£13,000) transfer by a customer after suspecting it might be an AI-enabled scam. The bank then froze the customer’s account when he resisted handing over private correspondence and other evidence. Starling later accepted it had gone too far and apologised.
In January 2025, Virgin Money apologised after its chatbot appeared to take exception to the word “virgin” in a question about ISAs. When AI is clumsy, customers do not experience it as innovation. They experience it as bad service.
Ascannio/Shutterstock
That is why the real test is accountability. An answer that arrives faster but is biased, opaque or impossible to challenge is not better service. This is also where the regulatory challenge begins.
The UK has chosen not to introduce AI-specific regulation for financial services. Instead, the FCA says its approach to AI is grounded in its principles-based and outcomes-focused regulatory framework, including the Consumer Duty and Senior Management Regime.
This means firms remain responsible for AI-related consumer harm. As such, senior managers are accountable where they fail to take reasonable steps to oversee AI risks within their area of responsibility.
This approach has clear strengths. It is flexible, it supports innovation and it avoids locking the sector into rigid rules too early. But it also leaves room for uncertainty. The more the system depends on broad principles rather than detailed rules, the more it relies on interpretation, supervisory judgement and firms doing the right thing in practice.
So will AI make UK financial services better for customers? Only if speed comes with fairness, clarity and accountability. When things go wrong, customers should not be trapped in an automated loop. They need a clear explanation, access to the right human team and a fair way to put things right.
The UK’s open banking system gives AI a strong foundation because these tools work better when they can use reliable, well-organised data to help people understand spending, compare options and manage money. Used well, AI could become a genuine public good. But if it delivers instant decisions without explanation, automated responses without human support, or efficiency without accountability, it will not make finance better. It will simply make poor service faster.
