How Far Back Can I Claim?
There is no fixed cut-off for unaffordable lending claims. The right answer to “how far back can I claim?” depends on which route you are using — Financial Ombudsman or court — and on when you became aware that you had cause to complain. In practice, claims about lending up to 10–15 years old are routinely upheld, and older claims sometimes succeed too. This page sets out the rules and how they work.
Check your agreements on Recoup, our claim partner’s site
The FOS time limits — DISP 2.8.2R
The Financial Ombudsman can normally only consider a complaint that is brought within:
- Six years of the event being complained about — for unaffordable lending, this generally means six years from the date the credit was given, or from the date a credit limit was unfairly increased.
- Or, if later, three years from when the consumer became aware (or ought reasonably to have become aware) that they had cause to complain — there is no long-stop on this branch, so it can extend the practical window well beyond six years from the lending event itself.
- Six months of the lender’s final response — once the lender has issued a final response and told you about your right to refer to FOS, you have six months from that date.
These are set out in DISP 2.8.2R of the FCA Handbook. Different specific products have additional rules in DISP 2.8.5R onwards, but for ordinary consumer credit, the six-and-three-year rule is the one that matters.
The “awareness” branch in practice
The three-year branch is what allows complaints about older lending to proceed. FOS has accepted in many published decisions that, for a typical borrower:
- Awareness was not triggered just because the credit was difficult to repay at the time. Most borrowers in financial difficulty assume the difficulty is their own fault, not a possible failing by the lender.
- Awareness usually came when the borrower learned that lenders had a duty to assess affordability, often through press coverage of payday loan refunds (from around 2018 onwards), through advice from a debt charity, or through seeing advertising for claims.
- Awareness is judged on what was reasonable, not what was theoretically possible. Just because information was available somewhere on the internet does not mean a particular borrower ought reasonably to have known about it.
In practice, this often means the three-year clock did not start ticking until 2018 or later for many older complaints, even where the original lending was 10 or 15 years old.
Exceptional circumstances
DISP 2.8.4R allows FOS to hear a complaint outside the time limits if the failure to comply with them was the result of exceptional circumstances. This is interpreted narrowly — illness, disability, or other genuine barrier to bringing the complaint earlier. It is a backstop, not a routine extension.
The Limitation Act 1980 — court route
In court, a Section 140A unfair relationship claim under the Consumer Credit Act is generally subject to the Limitation Act’s six-year limit, running from the date the cause of action accrues. The Supreme Court’s decision in Plevin v Paragon Personal Finance is important here, holding that for an ongoing credit agreement, the relationship continues until the agreement ends, which can extend the practical window.
Section 140A and the unfair relationship test.
The practical position by product
These are not hard rules — every case turns on its facts — but they reflect typical FOS practice:
- Credit cards — claims on cards opened or significantly increased in the last 10–15 years are routinely upheld where the facts support them. Credit limit increases are treated as separate events for time-limit purposes.
- Personal loans — claims on loans taken out in the last 10–15 years are commonly upheld, provided the awareness branch covers the gap.
- Overdrafts — overdrafts are often treated as ongoing facilities, with the duty to monitor running across the whole period of repeat use, which can effectively extend the relevant window.
- Payday loans — FOS has been particularly receptive to the awareness argument here, given the press coverage from 2018 onwards. Loans up to around 2010-2012 have been considered.
- Catalogue credit — accounts open for many years, with limit increases over time, are commonly looked at across the full period.
- Doorstep and guarantor — where the lender is still operating, the same approach. Where the lender has collapsed (Provident, Morses, Amigo, TFS), the route runs through the relevant scheme rather than FOS.
Older lending: don’t rule yourself out
Borrowers sometimes assume they cannot claim because their lending is “too old”. That is often wrong — the awareness branch routinely allows complaints about lending from 2010 onwards, sometimes earlier. The right test is when you reasonably became aware, not when the lending was given. If you only learned in the last three years that you might have a complaint, that is the date that matters for FOS.
Related guides
- How the Financial Ombudsman handles unaffordable lending complaints
- Section 140A and the unfair relationship test
- Do I have an unaffordable lending claim?
- How a claim works step by step
- What evidence do I need?
Check If You Could Be Owed Compensation
You may be eligible to complain if a lender gave you credit you couldn’t afford. Start a free check in minutes — no paperwork needed. No win, no fee if you choose to proceed.
