The Jurisdictional Shield: Enforcing DISP 2.8 Time Limits Against Stale Claims

The complaint that skips the clock

Claims-management companies regularly send complaints about transactions carried out eight or ten years earlier. The letter is written as if the only question were whether the advice was suitable. Firms that answer on the merits, and never raise time, give away the jurisdictional point.

DISP 2.8.2R is the prior question. The Ombudsman cannot consider a complaint referred more than six years after the event complained of. If the complainant did not know, and could not reasonably have known, that they had cause to complain, the second limb is three years from the date they knew or ought reasonably to have known.

What “ought reasonably to have known” looks like on a file

Constructive knowledge is not a feeling. It is a date that can be taken from the record the client actually received.

• Periodic valuations that showed the loss, or the feature now complained about.
• Tax statements that made the consequence visible.
• Contact logs: review meetings, letters, and portal messages in which the issue was, or plainly could have been, seen.

If that material was sent, and a reasonable client would have understood they had cause to complain, the three-year limb runs from then. A complaint referred after both limbs have expired is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction, unless an exception in DISP 2.8 keeps it in.

Summary

A time-bar is not a tactic bolted on at the end. It is the first page of the response. An objection built from valuations, tax papers and the contact log asks the Ombudsman to dismiss the complaint before the advice is re-litigated.