The Ministry of Defence has made the Armed Forces Commissioner (Service Complaints Investigations) Regulations 2026. Made on 8 January 2026, laid on 15 January 2026 and commencing on 1 April 2026, the instrument sets the procedure for investigations by the Armed Forces Commissioner-created by the Armed Forces Commissioner Act 2025-into service complaints and related maladministration under Part 14A of the Armed Forces Act 2006. ([legislation.gov.uk](https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2025/23/enacted?utm_source=openai))
In policy terms, the Regulations carry forward the investigative regime previously operated by the Service Complaints Ombudsman and align it with the 2025 Act’s transfer of functions to the Commissioner. They mirror the structure of the 2015 Ombudsman Investigations Regulations, as updated by the 2022 changes to appeals and time‑limit rules, so processes and deadlines will be familiar to caseworkers. ([legislation.gov.uk](https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2015/1956?utm_source=openai))
Who may apply and on what basis is grounded in section 340H of the 2006 Act. Applications may seek: a merits investigation after a complaint is finally determined; an investigation into maladministration (including undue delay) in handling a complaint; or an investigation into undue delay in an ongoing complaint or in the handling of a relevant service matter. For relevant service matters, the person who raised the issue is treated as the complainant for these purposes. ([legislation.gov.uk](https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/52/section/340H?utm_source=openai))
The application requirements are prescriptive. Where challenging a final decision, the complainant must identify the parts of the decision they disagree with, set out reasons, and state the redress sought. Where alleging maladministration or delay, the complainant must set out the alleged failing, any injustice suffered or risked, and the facts relied on. Copies of relevant decisions must be attached. The application must be dated, must explain any lateness, and is treated as made on the day it is posted or sent electronically. ([legislation.gov.uk](https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2015/1956?utm_source=openai))
Time limits are unchanged in substance: there is a six‑week window to apply for merits or maladministration investigations, running from the ‘relevant date’. That date will be the appeal determination where an appeal was pursued; where an appeal was rejected solely because it was not on a valid ground, the clock runs from the final invalidity decision; and where no appeal right exists on known grounds, from notification of the original decision. Late applications may still be accepted if it is just and equitable. Notifications are deemed received on the second day after posting or electronic sending. ([legislation.gov.uk](https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2022/496/made?utm_source=openai))
On receipt, the Commissioner must decide whether to begin an investigation and notify both the complainant and the Defence Council with reasons. If starting an investigation after the time limit, the decision must explain why late acceptance is just and equitable. A copy of the application must be sent to the Defence Council. If further maladministration becomes apparent during a case, the Commissioner may extend the scope and must give reasons for doing so. ([legislation.gov.uk](https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2015/1956?utm_source=openai))
A complainant may withdraw at any point before completion. The Commissioner must share the withdrawal notice with the Defence Council and then decide whether to begin, continue or discontinue the investigation, giving reasons to both parties. ([legislation.gov.uk](https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2015/1956?utm_source=openai))
Information‑gathering powers reflect section 340J of the 2006 Act. The Commissioner may require documents or information within a reasonable period and specify the form for provision; if materials are not provided, the Commissioner may still complete the investigation and report. These powers mirror those exercisable by the High Court or Court of Session for compelling evidence and documents. ([legislation.gov.uk](https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/52/section/340J?utm_source=openai))
Procedural fairness protections are set out explicitly. The Defence Council, any person alleged to have been responsible for maladministration, any person who is the subject of the complaint, and any person likely to be criticised in the report must be given an opportunity to comment. Any oral hearing is private unless the Commissioner decides that all or part should be public, with attendance or reporting restrictions as considered reasonable. Representation, including by a legally‑qualified person, may be permitted where necessary for fairness or to protect rights, and witnesses may receive expenses and allowances for time lost. ([legislation.gov.uk](https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2015/1956?utm_source=openai))
Reporting follows a draft‑and‑final model. The Commissioner may share a draft report with the complainant and specified persons for comment and may respond to those comments in the final report. Clerical slips may be corrected by certificate. Final reports must be sent to the subject of the complaint and any person criticised in relation to character or professional reputation, in addition to the statutory recipients under the Act. The Commissioner may impose confidentiality obligations on recipients, including where disclosure would be against national security interests or could jeopardise safety. ([legislation.gov.uk](https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2015/1956?utm_source=openai))
The Regulations also preserve the route for subsequent applications after a reconsideration ordered by the Defence Council following a report. A further application to the Commissioner is permitted-limited to the reconsideration-within six weeks of the reconsideration decision, with the same ‘just and equitable’ discretion and the same deemed‑receipt rule for notifications. This sits alongside the statutory reconsideration framework in section 340M. ([legislation.gov.uk](https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2015/1956?utm_source=openai))
Transitional and savings provisions ensure continuity at the 1 April 2026 cut‑over. Acts and omissions of, and rights or obligations owed to or by, the Service Complaints Ombudsman in ongoing matters are treated as those of or with the Commissioner, including any confidentiality obligations. Periods already running under the previous instruments continue to run, and dates previously deemed made or received are preserved. The provisions also update earlier transitional regulations from 2015 so references align with the new office. The transfer of functions is rooted in the Armed Forces Commissioner Act 2025 and underpinned by existing transitional rules for the service complaints system. ([legislation.gov.uk](https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2025/23/enacted?utm_source=openai))
For practitioners, the practical effect is a re‑badged but familiar process. Complaints teams should continue to apply the six‑week application window, record reasons for any late case accepted on a just‑and‑equitable basis, ensure decision letters are reasoned and dated to anchor time limits, and maintain document trails given the Commissioner’s power to require information. Individuals named or likely to be criticised should be offered a chance to comment, and confidentiality directions should be observed, particularly where security or safety is engaged. From 1 April 2026, live Ombudsman cases continue without interruption under the Commissioner’s authority. ([legislation.gov.uk](https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2015/1956?utm_source=openai))