DISP 2.3 To which activities does the Compulsory Jurisdiction apply?

For the purposes of DISP 2.3.1AR, the Ombudsman can consider a complaint about an act carried out by a MiFID investment firm that is preparatory to the provision of an investment service or ancillary service which is an integral part of such a service. This includes, for example, generic advice given by a MiFID investment firm to a client prior to, or in the course of, the provision of investment advice or another investment service or ancillary service.

The Ombudsman can also consider under the Compulsory Jurisdiction:

1. (1)

   as a result of the Ombudsman Transitional Order, a relevant existing complaint or a relevant new complaint that relates to an act or omission by a firm or an unauthorised person which was subject to a former scheme immediately before commencement;

2. (2)

   as a result of the Mortgages and General Insurance Complaints Transitional Order, a relevant transitional complaint that relates to an act or omission by a firm (or an unauthorised person that ceased to be a firm after the relevant commencement date) which was subject to a former scheme at the time of the act or omission; or

3. (2A)

   as a result of the Claims Management Order, a relevant claims management complaint that relates to an act or omission by a firm or an unauthorised person which was subject to a former scheme at the time of the act or omission;

1. (2B)

   as a result of the Funeral Plans Order, a relevant transitional funeral plan complaint that relates to an act or omission by a firm or unauthorised person which was subject to a former scheme at the time of the act or omission.

The Ombudsman may only consider a type of complaint referred to in (1) to (2B) if:

1. (3)

   the act or omission occurred in the carrying on by that firm or unauthorised person of an activity to which that former scheme applied; and

2. (4)

   the complainant is eligible and wishes to have the complaint dealt with by the Ombudsman.

In accordance with article 11 of the Regulated Activities Amendment Order, the Ombudsman can also consider under the Compulsory Jurisdiction:

1. (1)

   a relevant existing credit-related complaint referred to the Financial Ombudsman Service before 1 April 2014 which was formerly being dealt with under the Consumer Credit Jurisdiction; and

2. (2)

   a relevant new credit-related complaint referred to the Financial Ombudsman Service on or after 1 April 2014 which relates to an act or omission which took place before 1 April 2014;

   provided that:

   1. (a)

      the complaint could have been dealt with under the Consumer Credit Jurisdiction (disregarding whether the complainant would have been eligible under rules made for the purposes of the Consumer Credit Jurisdiction and whether the complaint would have fallen within a description specified in those rules) but for the repeal of section 226A of the Act; and

   2. (b)

      the complainant is eligible and wishes to have the complaint dealt with under the Financial Ombudsman Service.

As a result of section 404B(11) of the Act, the Ombudsman can also consider under the Compulsory Jurisdiction a complaint from a complainant who:

1. (1)

   is not satisfied with a redress determination made by a respondent under a consumer redress scheme; or

2. (2)

   considers that a respondent has failed to make a redress determination in accordance with a consumer redress scheme.

Complaints about acts or omissions include those in respect of activities for which the firm, payment service provider, electronic money issuer, CBTL firm, designated credit reference agency or designated finance platform is responsible (including business of any appointed representative or agent for which the firm, payment institution, electronic money institution, designated credit reference agency or designated finance platform has accepted responsibility).

The Compulsory Jurisdiction includes complaints about the UK end of 'one leg' payment services transactions, i.e. services provided from UK establishments that also involve a payment service provider located outside the EEA. The Compulsory Jurisdiction also includes complaints about payment services irrespective of the currency of the transaction.

Schedule 6A to the Act sets out a procedure to enable the FCA to cancel or vary the Part 4A permission of a person who, it appears to the FCA, is not carrying on the regulated activity to which the Part 4A permission relates. In some cases, this may result in the person no longer being a respondent following cancellation of all their Part 4A permissions. Paragraph 5 of Schedule 6A to the Act sets out a procedure for the subsequent annulment of the decision to cancel or vary the person’s Part 4A permission in specified circumstances where the FCA is satisfied that it is just and reasonable to do so. Where the FCA grants an application for annulment, either with conditions or unconditionally, paragraph 6 of Schedule 6A to the Act sets out its effect, which includes that the cancellation or variation of the Part 4A permission is treated as if it had never taken place. As a result of the effect of the annulment, the person may therefore be a respondent for the purposes of any complaints which arise during the period in which the person’s Part 4A permission was cancelled or varied.