The High Court has ruled that the Financial Ombudsman Service’s (FOS) jurisdiction is limited to addressing complaints concerning events that occurred within six years prior to the filing of a complaint and does not extend to the entire credit relationship between a debtor and creditor. This decision was handed down on June 24, 2026, following a judicial review sought by four major banks: Barclays Bank UK plc, NatWest Bank plc, Vanquis Bank Ltd, and Santander UK plc.

The case arose from complaints made by four customers who alleged that the banks had extended unaffordable credit facilities, such as overdrafts or credit cards, under the framework of section 140A of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. Most of these complaints were made more than six years after the initial credit agreements were provided. The banks contended that under the limitation rules outlined in the Financial Conduct Authority’s (FCA) Handbook (DISP 2.8.2R), these complaints were time-barred and that the FOS lacked jurisdiction to consider the claims.

Conversely, the FOS argued that it had jurisdiction over the entirety of the credit relationship, positing that ongoing unfairness resulting from the banks’ failure to correct certain conduct constituted a continuing “event complained of.” This interpretation was largely based on precedents set in the Supreme Court cases Smith v Royal Bank of Scotland plc (2023) and Plevin v Paragon Personal Finance Ltd (2014), which had introduced the notion of a creditor’s “corrective responsibility” to address unfairness in creditor-debtor relationships. The FOS maintained that this corrective duty meant that the six-year time limit did not bar its consideration of the entire credit relationship.

The FCA intervened on behalf of the banks, arguing that the FOS’s interpretation of its jurisdiction conflicted with the statutory time limits legislated under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, of which the FCA is the statutory regulator.

Presiding over the case in the King’s Bench Division, Mr Justice Dexter Dias concluded that the FOS had erred in expanding its jurisdiction beyond the six-year limitation period. The judgment clarified that jurisdiction refers strictly to the power to investigate and grant redress for complaints. While the ombudsman could consider the full credit relationship when assessing whether a complaint was justified and what remedy, if any, to apply, it could not exercise jurisdiction over acts or omissions that fell outside the six-year window.

The ruling further emphasized the distinction between classifying a credit relationship as unfair (the classificatory stage) and deciding on the appropriate remedial order (the remedial stage), as set out in the Smith case. Although courts may hold creditors responsible for omissions that render a credit relationship unfair, this responsibility does not automatically translate into a continuing breach justifying separate complaints beyond the limitation period.

In particular, the judgment rejected the FOS’s view that an ongoing failure to remedy unfairness could be treated as a succession of discrete “events” resetting the limitation clock. Instead, the court held that the term “event” contemplated identifiable occurrences rather than protracted or continuous conduct.

Therefore, while the history of the credit relationship may inform the context and fairness of newer complaints, any acts or omissions occurring more than six years before a complaint cannot themselves serve as grounds for new remedies. As a result, the High Court allowed the banks’ challenge and held that the FOS lacked jurisdiction to investigate the time-barred complaints relating to credit facilities extended over six years prior.