The final response that forgot the Ombudsman

Two separate clocks: the subject matter is in time, but the referral is technically late - and the firm probably cannot rely on that.

1. The 6-year / 3-year limits (DISP 2.8.2). The act complained of is the February 2019 advice, so the six-year backstop ran until February 2025; she complained on 12 March 2024 - comfortably in time. The alternative limb runs three years from when she knew or ought reasonably to have known, i.e. January 2024, so to January 2027. On either basis the substance is in time and Halden cannot dismiss the complaint as time-barred.
2. The 6-month referral limit (DISP 2.8.1). Six months run from the date of the final response: 20 March 2024 → 20 September 2024. Her Ombudsman referral on 4 November 2024 falls outside that window.
3. But the clock only starts with a valid final response. DISP 1.6.2 requires the final response to tell the customer that if they remain dissatisfied they may refer to the Financial Ombudsman Service, that they must do so within six months, and to include the Ombudsman's leaflet and contact details. Halden's letter contained none of this. On these facts the six-month period is unlikely ever to have started, and the Ombudsman can be expected to accept the referral.
4. Practical point. The firm should not write to Mrs Yardley asserting a time bar. It should assume jurisdiction exists, reconstruct the file, and prepare the suitability evidence - the time-bar argument will fail and asserting it will make the handling complaint worse.

Timing was fine; substance and content were not.

• The 8-week limit (DISP 1.6.1). The complaint was received on 12 March 2024, so a final response was due by 7 May 2024. Halden replied within eight days, which is compliant on timing but telling on quality - there is no sign of a genuine investigation of a nine-figure-scale allegation about a misdescribed risk rating.
• Mandatory content (DISP 1.6.2). The letter should have:
  1. accepted or rejected the complaint, with reasons;
  2. told her that if she remained dissatisfied she could refer the complaint to the Financial Ombudsman Service;
  3. stated that any referral must be made within six months of the final response;
  4. enclosed the Ombudsman's leaflet with contact details.
• 'Full and final settlement'. A firm cannot contract out of a customer's right to go to the Ombudsman. Presenting £500 as though it closed the matter was misleading.
• The unanswered 14 June letter. DISP 1.4 requires complaints to be investigated diligently by an appropriate person. Silence creates a second, freestanding complaint about handling, and will likely increase any distress and inconvenience award.
• The file behind the process. The suitability report is alleged to have misdescribed the fund's risk rating. That engages COBS 9 (suitability), the record-keeping rules and PROD. Reopen the file: what was the risk rating at the time, what was Mrs Yardley's stated attitude to risk and capacity for loss, why was 100% of her savings placed in one fund, and - critically - was the same template description used for other clients?
• Halden should also check its complaints register, root-cause analysis, board reporting and DISP 1.10A complaints return, because a single mishandled letter usually indicates a wider system failure.

What the Ombudsman can do

• Decide on the basis of what is fair and reasonable in all the circumstances (DISP 3.6.4), not simply what a court would decide. A technically defensible sale can still be upheld if the overall treatment was unfair.
• Money award for financial loss. Put her back in the position she would have been in: on a £120,000 investment down 32%, roughly £38,000, plus interest. That is well within the £430,000 limit for complaints referred on or after 1 April 2024.
• Distress and inconvenience. Modest sums - typically low hundreds of pounds, sometimes more where handling has been poor. Halden's failure to answer the June letter is a genuine aggravating factor.
• Directions. The Ombudsman can direct the firm to take specified steps, for example issuing a corrected suitability report or applying the award to a suitable alternative without charge, and can award costs.
• Limits. The Ombudsman cannot fine the firm, award punitive damages, or order it to change its procedures (only recommend it).

How Halden should respond

1. Consider settling before the final decision; a provisional decision is a warning, not a formality.
2. Pay within the period specified (usually 28 days) if the award is accepted. If she accepts in full and final settlement she cannot then sue on the same matter; if she rejects it, she keeps that right.
3. Notify the professional indemnity insurer.
4. Treat it as a root-cause event: if the risk description was wrong for her, it was probably wrong for others. Check the template and consider a proactive review and redress exercise rather than waiting for individual complaints.
5. Record the outcome, update the complaints register and consider whether the matter is reportable under SUP 15.