Financial Ombudsman failed to engage with submission made by applicants in refusing extension of time

High Court – judicial review – banking law – Financial Services and Pensions Ombudsman – Financial Services and Pensions Ombudsman Act 2017 - applicants sought order of certiorari quashing the respondent’s decision declining to investigate applicants’ complaint as to misconduct by a bank on the basis that the complaint was out of time – allegations of mis-selling in the provision of a mortgage loan to the applicants – Ombudsman determined that she did not have jurisdiction to investigate the complaint on the grounds that the complaint had not been made with the time limits provided in statute – applicant contended that the decision was irrational, unreasonable and failed to properly consider the relevant provisions under the legislation – legal principles – the assessment of whether a complaint to the Ombudsman is time-barred in a mixed question of law and fact – authorities established that Ombudsman is not entitled to any deference when it comes to a pure question of law such that the Court can intervene by way of judicial review – the decision-maker understood the complaint being made – no issue with summary of complaint by Ombudsman – no error to warrant the Court intervening by way of judicial review – no evidence of a failure to have regard to relevant or any error of law under part of the statute – decision under other part of statute that there was no evidence of reasonable grounds such that it would be just and equitable to extend time was unlawful in failing altogether to demonstrate any engagement with the case made under the subsection – Ombudsman’s decision under one subsection was lawfully arrived at but decision under other subsection was not lawfully arrived at.