This note explains the "six-month time limit" for referring complaints to us. It sets out our approach when applying the rule and gives examples of cases where we have considered whether the consumer's failure to comply with the six-month time limit was as a result of "exceptional circumstances".
We do not have a free hand to investigate any complaint that is referred to us. The complaints-handling rules we follow are set out in the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA)'s handbook of rules and guidance.
Financial businesses responding to complaints (called "respondents" in the rules) are required to issue a written final response when they have completed an investigation of a complaint.
The final response must tell the consumer that they can refer the complaint to us - and they have six months to do so. If the consumer fails to refer the complaint to us within six months, it is unlikely that we will be able to consider the merits of their complaint.
The rules (DISP 2.8.2R(1))say that we cannot consider a complaint referred to us more than six months after the date on which the financial business sent the consumer its final response.
But there are exceptions. We can consider the complaint if in our view the consumer's failure to comply with the six-month time limit was "as a result of exceptional circumstances", or if the business agrees.
Yes. We came into operation in 2001, but the provision allowing a financial business not to object to our considering a complaint outside the six-month time limit was first introduced on 1 February 2003. Before then, the rules required us to apply the time limits whether the financial business objected or not. And from 9 July 2015, a new rule means a business needs to give its consent for us to look into a complaint brought to us outside the time limits.
There was also a change to the rule on 1 September 2003. Since then, the rules have allowed six months from the date the final response was sent - usually the date of the letter. Before then, from 1 December 2001 to 31 August 2003, the rules allowed six months from the date the consumers were "advised" by the financial business of their right to refer the complaint to us - usually the date the consumers received the final response letter.
We apply the version of the rule in force at the time the complaint was referred to us.
A business's final response should tell the consumer that they have the right to refer their complaint to the ombudsman within six months of the final response. It should also indicate whether the business would consent to the ombudsman looking into the complaint if it's referred to us out of time. If a business consents, they can’t change their mind later on.
DISP 1 Annex 3 sets out the wording that businesses should use
For any complaint a business receives after 9 July, it will have to say in its final response letter whether it will (or won’t) consent to us looking into a complaint that’s referred to us outside our time limits. If it doesn’t mention the six-month time limit, then the final response isn’t valid and the time limit doesn’t apply.
For a while, we’ll continue to receive complaints where the business gave its final response before 9 July – or didn’t respond to a complaint made before 9 July until after 9 July. These final responses won’t say whether or not the business consents.
If it looks like the complaint might be late, we’ll check whether the business does consent. And if necessary, we’ll need to consider whether we’re able to look into the complaint under our rules before we go any further.
The FCA's handbook says that a "month" means a "calendar month". So we apply the ordinary legal meaning of a calendar month. This means that ordinarily a calendar month finishes on the corresponding date of the following month. But if the calendar month starts at the end of a month which contains more days than the following month, then it finishes at the end of the following month. And so:
On 28 May 2010 the FSA introduced a temporary rule, to give some consumers with complaints relating to the sale of PPI policies more than six months to refer their complaints to us – while it considered its wider response to the fair handling of PPI complaints by financial businesses.
The temporary rule only affects consumers with complaints about the sale of PPI policies who were sent a final response letter between 28 November 2009 and 28 April 2010 inclusive.
For those consumers the six-month time period was treated as not running between 28 May 2010 and 27 October 2010. This means that, ordinarily, those consumers had 11 months to refer their complaint to us. And so:
The position for consumers who were sent a final response on or before 27 November 2009 or from 29 April 2010 was not affected – and the usual six month-time limit rule applied. Complaints about other matters (including those about PPI claims) are unaffected.
A complaint can be "referred" to us after the financial business has issued its final response - or, in the absence of a final response letter, if we receive the complaint more than eight weeks after the consumer first complained to the financial business. Earlier contact between the consumer and us does not constitute a "referral" for the purposes of the six-month time limit.
To "refer"' a complaint, it is not necessary for the consumer to provide us with all the details of their complaint - nor must we have received a completed complaint form (although we will ask the consumers to complete a complaint form before we start our investigation).
It is only necessary for the consumer to tell us that they intend to pursue the complaint with us. A "referral" can be made in writing (by letter, fax or email) or by phone.
We'll look into what's happened and decide if we think the complaint is out of time. We may still look into a complaint referred to us late if there are exceptional circumstances – even if the business hasn’t given their consent. Whatever we decide we'll let both sides know how things stand.
We will expect to see evidence that the consumer was affected by circumstances that were exceptional - and that those circumstances caused the delay. The guidance to the rules says that an example might be where the consumer was incapacitated by illness.
Whether or not we accept the consumer's argument is likely to depend on the following (among other things):
In these cases we decided that the consumer's failure to comply with the six-month time limit was as a result of exceptional circumstances.
case study 1
Mr A, who was diagnosed with stomach cancer three months after the financial business issued its final response, referred his complaint to us four weeks late. He told us that he had been concentrating on his illness, was depressed, and that the chemotherapy had made him unwell. His GP confirmed this.
case study 2
Mr and Mrs B, who referred their complaint six weeks late, provided evidence to show that Mrs B had been diagnosed with colon cancer and undergone an operation shortly before the financial business issued its final response letter. She had received chemotherapy and attended hospital for treatment throughout the six-month period.
case study 3
Mr and Mrs C, who had until 8 October to refer their complaint to us, wrote to the financial business after receiving its final response and disputed its findings. When the financial business replied, it reminded the couple that they could refer the complaint to us and said, in error, that they had until 15 December to do so. The couple referred their complaint to us on 26 October. They told us they thought they had until 15 December. We did not think this was unreasonable.
case study 4
Ms D, who referred her complaint two months late, told us that she was unexpectedly abroad (caring for a sick relative) throughout the six-month period. She did not have sight of her post during that time. She returned to the UK shortly before the end of the six-month period and that was when she first saw the business's final response. She was unwell herself on her return, requiring hospital treatment.
case study 5
Mrs E, who complained two weeks late, told us her mother had died shortly before the six-month time period had expired - and this meant she ended up referring her complaint shortly after the deadline.
In these cases we sympathised with the consumer's personal circumstances, but did not think they would have prevented the consumer from referring their complaint in time.
case study 6
Mr and Mrs F, who referred their complaint three-months late, told us they had found the financial business' response intimidating and had initially thought it pointless to continue. But they had later had a change of heart. We did not think the tone of the financial business' letter was inappropriate.
case study 7
Mr and Mrs G, who referred their complaint two and a half years late, told us that they did not initially refer their complaint to us as they thought it had little prospect of success. They were later prompted to resurrect matters by encouraging media reports about similar complaints.
case study 8
Mr H, who referred his complaint five months late, told us that he had been suffering from depression following the breakdown of his marriage. He had, however, continued to write to the financial business about his complaint during the six-month period.
case study 9
Mr I who referred his complaint 12 months late, told us that he had been made redundant shortly after receiving the final response letter - and had not been able to give the matter his full attention until after he had returned to work.
case study 10
Mrs J, who referred her complaint several months late, told us that the demands of running her own business had prevented her from progressing her complaint