CH-2024-000293 - [2025] EWHC 2980 (Ch)

Fecha: 14-Nov-2025

Mr S – the appellants’ challenge considered

47.

The appellants criticise the Ombudsman’s conclusions in relation to Mr S on the following grounds:

Mr S admitted that he was a “getting a bit dubious” in 2015. The Ombudsman should have concluded that this meant he ought reasonably to have known of the acts and omissions that were the subject of his complaint in 2015.

ii)

The Ombudsman impermissibly concluded that only the outcome of the Ombudsman’s own lengthy investigations provided Mr S with the necessary knowledge or means of knowledge of the relevant acts or omissions. That involved the Ombudsman failing to have regard to the “straightforward” nature of the test as explained in Arjo Wiggins. Rather than looking at the outcome of a complex enquiry which Mr S could not know about since it had yet to take place, the Ombudsman should have focused on the matters of which Mr S was aware. Those included the fact that he was not receiving statements for years on end. The Ombudsman should therefore have concluded that Mr S had everything he needed to bring his complaint in 2015.

48.

Both of these challenges also strike me as attempts to challenge factual conclusions. Given what I have said about the approach to very similar challenges involving Ms Y, I can deal with them briefly.

49.

The Ombudsman explained, clearly and cogently at [20] why the mere fact that Mr S was “getting a bit dubious” in 2015 did not mean he should have known of the acts or omissions that formed the subject of his complaint. Mr S’s complaint was that he was being “scammed”. People perpetrating scams necessarily seek to hide the fact. As the Ombudsman said, a reasonable person might suspect something was wrong before they know that they have been scammed. The Ombudsman’s conclusion at [20] was a common-sense conclusion that was available to him.

50.

The complaint summarised in paragraph 47.ii) seeks to challenge a conclusion that the Ombudsman did not reach. The Ombudsman’s conclusion was that Mr S ought reasonably to have known in 2021 that he was the victim of a scam. The Ombudsman stated expressly that he was not concluding that Mr S only had the necessary knowledge or means of knowledge after the Ombudsman’s own investigation was complete.

51.

I reject the challenge to the Ombudsman’s conclusions in relation to Mr S’s case and, having done so, dismiss the appeal on Ground 1.