FOS has said the more "pragmatic, commonsense" approach of the new regulator will fill the need to re-balance past industry issues like the extensive PPI mis-selling.
Natalie Ceeney, chief executive and chief ombudsman at the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS), said: "It's true that no regulator can deliver a zero-failure regime. But like everyone else, they can learn from experience.
"It's now widely acknowledged that many of the problems we have seen in financial services were caused partly by light-touch regulation in the past. And it's also widely agreed that the extent of PPI mis-selling was exacerbated by the regulator failing to act quickly and decisively when the problems first came to light."
She said the new regulatory framework for financial services was "explicitly designed" to address these challenges and fitted well with FOS' approach to resolving problems.
"Unlike a regulator, we don't fine or discipline financial businesses. And unlike a regulator, our role is to resolve individual disputes - as a quicker and more informal alternative to the courts," Ceeney said.
"Although our roles are distinct, our interests are aligned. By sharing what we see in the enquiries and complaints we receive, we can help prevent future problems - and that means we need to work closely with the regulator."
She said the change was a welcome shift and a timely reminder of the need to balance legitimate business interest with fairness and good customer service.
And ultimately, regulation will be increasingly effective if it takes account of how things are playing out in real life, Ceeney added.
Charles de Lastic, managing director at advice firm Bluebond Group, said he had broadly positive expectations of the new City watchdog because it had been more effectively split into two specific areas of regulation (the PRA and FCA).
He said of its new approach: "We know the principles we have to abide by and we know the rules and there is enough compliance guidance given. Not to have to answer too many issues on our regulatory returns is better."
De Lastic added however that FOS' approach was not always completely fair and believed clients who lost a dispute against an adviser should pay a fee to deter future unfounded complaints.
