FCA Handbook - DISP 3.3 Dismissal without consideration of the merits

You are viewing DISP 3.3 Dismissal without consideration of the merits as of . DISP 3.3 Dismissal without consideration of the merits was last updated on 01/10/2026.

Rules

Guidance

Deleted

Related resources

DISP 3.3 Dismissal without consideration of the merits

Where the Ombudsman considers that the complaint may be one which should be dismissed without consideration of the merits, he will give the complainant an opportunity to make representations before he decides.

Where the Ombudsman then decides that the complaint should be dismissed without consideration of the merits, he will give reasons to the complainant for that decision and inform the respondent.

Under the Ombudsman Transitional Order and the Mortgage and General Insurance Complaints Transitional Order and the Claims Management Order, where the Ombudsman is dealing with a relevant complaint, he must take into account whether an equivalent complaint would have been dismissed without consideration of its merits under the former scheme in question, as it had effect immediately before the relevant order came into effect.

Under the Claims Management Order the Ombudsman may dismiss a relevant claims management complaint, if he considers that the complaint would have been dismissed under the rules of the former scheme or should be dismissed under the grounds for dismissal in DISP 3.3.4R or DISP 3.3.4AR. Where the Ombudsman is dealing with a relevant new claims management complaint the rules of the former scheme must be read as if they were subject to paragraph 13 of Schedule 3 of the ADR Regulations.

Grounds for dismissal

The Ombudsman may dismiss a complaint referred to the Financial Ombudsman Service without considering its merits if the complaint was referred to the Financial Ombudsman Service on or after 9 July 2015 but before 1 October 2026 and the Ombudsman considers that:

(1)
the complaint is frivolous or vexatious; or
(2)
the subject matter of the complaint has been dealt with, or is being dealt with, by a comparable ADR entity; or
(3)
the subject matter of the complaint has been the subject of court proceedings where there has been a decision on the merits; or
(4)
the subject matter of the complaint is the subject of current court proceedings, unless proceedings are stayed or sisted (by agreement of all parties, or order of the court) so that the matter may be considered by the Financial Ombudsman Service; or
(5)
dealing with such a type of complaint would otherwise seriously impair the effective operation of the Financial Ombudsman Service.

Examples of a type of complaint that would otherwise seriously impair the effective operation of the Financial Ombudsman Service for the purposes of DISP 3.3.4AR(5) may include:

(1)
where it would be more suitable for the complaint to be dealt with by a court or a comparable ADR entity; or
(2)
where the subject matter of the complaint has already been dealt with by a comparable dispute resolution scheme; or
(3)
where the subject matter of the complaint has previously been considered or excluded under the Financial Ombudsman Service (unless material new evidence which the Ombudsman considers likely to affect the outcome has subsequently become available to the complainant); or
(4)
it is a complaint which:
1. (a)
  involves (or might involve) more than one eligible complainant; and
2. (b)
  has been referred without the consent of the other eligible complainant or complainants,
and the Ombudsman considers that it would be inappropriate to deal with the complaint without that consent.

The Ombudsman may dismiss a complaint referred to the Financial Ombudsman Service on or after 1 October 2026 without considering its merits if the Ombudsman considers that:

(1) the complaint is frivolous or vexatious; or
(2) the complainant has acted vexatiously, abusively or otherwise unreasonably in engaging with the Financial Ombudsman Service; or
(3) the respondent has reviewed the subject matter of the complaint in accordance with:
1. (a) the regulatory standards for the review of such transactions prevailing at the time of the review; or
2. (b) any formal regulatory requirement, standard or guidance published by the FCA or other regulator in respect of that type of complaint;
3. (including, if appropriate, making an offer of redress to the complainant), unless the Ombudsman considers that the respondent did not address the particular circumstances of the case; or
(4) the respondent has reviewed the subject matter of the complaint and issued a redress determination in accordance with the terms of a consumer redress scheme; or
(5) the subject matter of the complaint has previously been considered or excluded under the Financial Ombudsman Service (unless the Ombudsman considers that material factual new evidence which is likely to affect the outcome has subsequently become available to the complainant); or
(6) issues relevant to the subject matter of the complaint have been dealt with, or are being dealt with, by a comparable complaints scheme, regulatory or law enforcement body or dispute-resolution process; or
(7) the subject matter of the complaint:
1. (a) has been the subject of court proceedings such that it would be inappropriate for the Financial Ombudsman Service to consider the merits of the complaint; or
2. (b) is the subject of current court proceedings, unless proceedings are stayed or sisted (by agreement of all parties, or order of the court) so that the matter may be considered by the Financial Ombudsman Service; or
3. (c) would be more suitable to be dealt with by a court, arbitration or another complaints scheme or dispute resolution process; or
4. (d) is about employment matters from an employee or employees of a respondent; or
5. (e) is about investment performance; or
6. (f) is about:
  1. (i) a respondent’s decision when exercising a discretion under a will or private trust; or
  2. (ii) a respondent’s failure to consult beneficiaries before exercising a discretion under a will or private trust, where there is no legal obligation to consult; or
(8) it is a complaint which:
1. (a) involves (or might involve) more than one eligible complainant; and
2. (b) has been referred without the consent of the other complainant or complainants; and
3. (c) the Ombudsman considers that it would be inappropriate to deal with the complaint without that consent; or
(9) there are other compelling reasons why it is inappropriate for the complaint to be dealt with under the Financial Ombudsman Service.

Examples of other compelling reasons why it would be inappropriate for the complaint to be dealt with under the Financial Ombudsman Service may include (but are not limited to):

(1) the complainant has not suffered (or is unlikely to suffer) financial loss, material distress or material inconvenience; or
(2) the complaint clearly does not have any reasonable prospect of success; or
(3) the respondent has already made an offer of compensation (or a goodwill payment) which is:
1. (a) fair and reasonable in relation to the circumstances alleged by the complainant; and
2. (b) still open for acceptance; or
(4) with knowledge of the right to refer a complaint to the Financial Ombudsman Service, the complainant has already concluded a full and final settlement with the respondent regarding the subject matter of the complaint; or
(5) the Ombudsman considers that the complaint is about the legitimate exercise of a respondent’s commercial judgment; or
(6) the compensation sought under the complaint would significantly exceed the award limit in DISP 3.7.4R.