FT Logo

Copy article

FT Editor Banner

Govt confirms 10-year limit on Fos cases

Journalist: Tom Dunstan, FTAdviser

ended 16. March 2026

The government has confirmed a 10-year limit on cases sent to the Financial Ombudsman Service, with proposals to change the ‘fair and reasonable’ test to align it to the Financial Conduct Authority.

In response to the initial consultation which ran last year, the Treasury confirmed there will be a 10-year limit to bring complaints to the Fos, while giving the FCA the ability to make exceptions to this time limit.

The government will also adapt the ‘fair and reasonable’ test used by the Fos to determine cases, to align it more closely to the FCA’s rules.

What do you think about this announcement?

https://www.ftadviser.com/content/77fd37d1-3804-4dea-ae94-0405fcd0cdce

3 responses from the Newspage community

Copy all

Copy

Editor
Nouran Moustafa
Practice Principal & IFA at Roxton Wealth
My view is that a clearer time limit brings more certainty, and that is not a bad thing in itself, because firms cannot operate well if complaints can hang over them almost indefinitely. But the real test is whether this improves consistency without stripping away common sense. Aligning the Ombudsman more closely with the FCA may help reduce the feeling that firms are sometimes being judged by a moving target, which matters for confidence in the system. At the same time, I would be very cautious about any reform that becomes so rigid it stops the Ombudsman from recognising when something is plainly unfair in real life. Financial services are not always neat, and consumers do need protection where harm only becomes obvious later. So for me, the principle is sensible, but the balance matters. Certainty is important, but fairness still has to mean something in practice.The danger is creating a process that feels cleaner for firms on paper, but colder and less accessible for consumers.
Copy

Rohit Parmar-Mistry
Founder at Pattrn Data
A 10 year time bar will make the liability horizon clearer for firms, but it also bakes in a harsh truth: many bad outcomes only surface after a product has matured, or after people realise they were mis-sold. If the rule is simply '10 years from sale', you will lock out exactly the cases where harm is slow, technical, or hidden.

The detail that matters is the exception power. The FCA needs a bright line for when the clock starts, plus a defensible 'date of knowledge' test, otherwise you get postcode justice and a new cottage industry of appeals. And if the Fos 'fair and reasonable' test is pulled closer to the FCA Handbook, be honest about the trade off: it is more predictable, but it will reduce scope for equity in edge cases.

If Treasury wants trust, publish outcomes: how many complaints time out, who is affected, and what firms change as a result.

Source: https://www.ftadviser.com/content/77fd37d1-3804-4dea-ae94-0405fcd0cdce
Copy

Taryn Lee Johnston
Owner at The FCM Group
This is an interesting development, but it does raise an important question.

The government says the aim is to create greater certainty for firms by aligning the Financial Ombudsman Service more closely with FCA rules. On the surface, that sounds sensible.

However, I do worry about how “fair and reasonable” will be interpreted in practice.

If the new framework means that simply complying with FCA rules automatically counts as fair and reasonable, there is a risk that the nuance of individual cases could be lost. Regulation does not always capture the reality of how financial products are sold or understood by consumers.

The ombudsman has historically existed precisely because strict rule-based systems do not always deliver fair outcomes.

Clarity for businesses is important, but so is maintaining the flexibility to look at the real impact on consumers.

The balance between those two things will be critical.