Jurisdiction is the gatekeeping question, can this scheme legally or contractually consider this complaint at all?
Before an ombudsman considers who is right, it normally checks whether the respondent is covered, the complainant is eligible, the subject matter falls within scope, the organisation has had a chance to respond and the complaint was referred in time.
A jurisdiction decision should be tested against the scheme’s actual rules, not assumptions. If a scheme says an issue is excluded, identify the precise provision and whether it applies to the facts.
Key points
- Check respondent, complainant, subject matter, prior complaint steps and time limits separately.
- A complaint can be partly in jurisdiction and partly outside it.
- The existence of court proceedings, another scheme or a statutory appeal can affect jurisdiction.
- If jurisdiction is disputed, ask for the rule relied upon and the factual basis for applying it.
Five common questions about which route can deal with the issue
| Who? | Is the business/public body/professional covered by the scheme? |
|---|---|
| Who can complain? | Are you a customer, resident, client, representative or otherwise eligible? |
| About what? | Does the complaint concern a service/product/action the scheme can investigate? |
| Have you complained first? | Has the organisation had the required opportunity to resolve it? |
| When? | Are you within the referral and event/knowledge time limits? |
Partial jurisdiction
Do not assume the whole case fails because one issue is excluded. A scheme may be able to investigate complaint handling or service quality even if it cannot determine a separate legal question. Ask whether the complaint can be severed into in-scope and out-of-scope issues.
Jurisdiction should be reasoned
If an adjudicator says “this is outside our remit”, a useful response identifies the scheme rule, the relevant facts and why those facts satisfy or fail the rule. Unsupported labels make it difficult to understand or challenge the decision.
In practice
- Save the scheme rules/terms in force when you refer the complaint.
- Calculate referral deadlines independently.
- If the organisation disputes eligibility, answer the exact jurisdiction point rather than rearguing the merits.
What to do
A practical next-step plan
- Identify the scheme.
- Read the eligibility and exclusions sections.
- Map each complaint issue to the relevant rule.
- Record dates for internal complaint and external referral.
- Challenge any adverse jurisdiction view with the exact rule and evidence.
Common traps
Things that often confuse the issue
- Waiting until the merits stage to discover a time-limit problem.
- Assuming a company name proves the correct legal respondent.
- Treating regulator jurisdiction and ombudsman jurisdiction as identical.
Evidence worth keeping
Where to go next
Where the scheme provides a review or final decision on jurisdiction, use that route promptly and keep the challenge focused on the jurisdiction test.
Challenge a jurisdiction refusal with the rule, not indignation.
Useful wording.
“Please identify the specific jurisdiction provision relied upon, the fact you say engages it, and any review mechanism. My understanding is [rule] because [evidence]. If you maintain the refusal, please confirm whether it is based on respondent status, complainant eligibility, subject matter, time, prior proceedings or another exclusion.”
That creates an auditable decision and makes it much easier to distinguish a true jurisdiction bar from an avoidable administrative misunderstanding.
Time limits often have more than one limb.
A scheme can have an event/knowledge limit, an internal complaint waiting period and a separate deadline after final response. FOS, for example, normally combines six-year/three-year complaint timing with a six-month final-response referral deadline; telecom ADR has a separate six-week gateway for new complaints from 8 April 2026. Never reduce “time limit” to one date without checking the scheme.
Check the respondent before researching the merits.
Membership-based ADR schemes can reject a strong complaint simply because the trader is not a member. Public ombudsmen have statutory lists and exclusions. Financial and professional schemes can depend on authorisation, activity and complainant status. Record the evidence of coverage: membership lookup, regulator entry, landlord status or scheme terms: in the file.
Jurisdiction is a checklist, not a feeling that the body “ought” to help.
| Gate | Question to answer |
|---|---|
| Respondent | Is this exact business/public body/professional covered? |
| Complainant | Are you an eligible consumer, resident, client, passenger or other qualifying person? |
| Subject matter | Does the scheme cover this type of act, product, service or decision? |
| Internal process | Must you complain to the organisation first, and for how long? |
| Time | What event/knowledge/final-response deadline applies? |
| Alternative remedy | Does a court, tribunal or statutory appeal bar or affect the complaint? |
| Remedy | Can the body order/recommend what you actually want? |
Official sources
Check the rules behind this guide
- How to complain - Financial Ombudsman Service
- Telecom ADR schemes - Ofcom
- What to expect - Communications Ombudsman
- Energy Ombudsman dispute process
- Local Government & Social Care Ombudsman
- Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman
These are official or primary sources for this topic. Rules, scheme terms and deadlines can change, so check the live source before relying on a formal time limit or procedure.