Almost every complaint that looks time barred at first reading is not, because the person asking has measured from the wrong date.
The date the clock starts
The cause of action is the point at which the deficiency became actionable, which is very often long after the money changed hands. Work out which of these fits your facts, because it usually moves the date forward by months or years.
| Situation | Cause of action generally arises on |
|---|---|
| Insurance claim | The date of repudiation, not the date of the loss or the policy |
| Builder delay | Each day possession is withheld, so the wrong continues |
| Defective goods | The date the defect appeared or the last failed repair |
| Service never rendered | The date of final refusal, not the date of booking |
| Repeated representations | The date the opposite party finally said no in writing |
The continuing wrong
Where the deficiency has not stopped, the cause of action renews. A builder who has not handed over possession is in breach today, not merely on the date the agreement said he should have completed. The same logic applies to a service that is still being denied and to charges that are still being levied. This is why a delayed-possession complaint filed six years after the agreed date can still be heard, and it is worth pleading the continuing character of the wrong expressly rather than leaving the commission to find it.
If you really are out of time
Section 69(2) is a real remedy and not a formality, but it is not generous. File the complaint together with a separate, specific application for condonation, and support it with material rather than adjectives.
- A day-by-day account of the delay, not a general statement that you were unwell or unaware
- Medical records, hospital discharge summaries or a death certificate where illness or bereavement is the cause
- Correspondence showing you were pursuing the opposite party in the meantime
- Proof of any wrong forum you approached first, since bona fide prosecution elsewhere is a recognised explanation
A bare plea that you were pursuing settlement talks is weak on its own. The same plea with an email trail showing the other side kept promising to revert is a different application altogether. Ignorance of the remedy is almost never accepted.