How to Review Complaint Eligibility

Start by reviewing whether the issue appears to fit the stated purpose of the complaint channel. Readers can ask:

• Is the type of organisation covered by the stated scope?
• Does the issue concern a service or interaction that the channel says it may consider?
• Is a different complaint route identified for this type of concern?
• Are any exclusions relevant to the subject of the complaint?

Do not rely on a page heading alone. Compare the wording of each scope condition with the circumstances recorded in personal correspondence.

Readers should verify how the complainant is described in the eligibility guidance. Useful questions include:

• Is the complaint being made by the person directly involved?
• If someone is acting for another person, what authority or confirmation may be requested?
• Does the guidance distinguish between individual, joint, business, or representative complaints?
• Do the names used in the complaint match the names shown in the reader’s own records?

These checks can reveal points that need clarification before proceeding.

A reader can compare any previous communication with the preliminary steps described by the complaint channel. Check whether the concern should first be raised with the relevant organisation, whether a particular route is named, and whether any reference or response should be retained.

Create a private chronology that separates events, communications, and requested action. Use direct wording and avoid filling gaps with guesses. If an event is uncertain, mark it as uncertain rather than presenting it as confirmed.

Before sharing material, readers can verify what information, if any, the channel requests. Consider whether every item is relevant to the complaint and whether sensitive details can be limited or redacted under the applicable instructions. Check how the channel describes secure submission and avoid placing confidential information in an unsuitable field.

For a focused starting point, readers can consult the complaint eligibility guide and compare its headings with the current instructions from the relevant complaint body.

Before proceeding, readers can verify that:

• The named respondent matches the entity shown in their own correspondence.
• The issue is described with neutral, specific language.
• Confirmed facts are separated from opinions and assumptions.
• Any preliminary step is marked complete only when the reader can confirm it.
• The requested review or remedy is stated without predicting a result.
• All fields and declarations have been read carefully.
• A private copy of the final wording is retained.

If any eligibility point remains unclear, note the uncertainty and seek clarification through the complaint channel identified in the relevant guidance.