13. There are difficulties in the way of my going back in time. Those difficulties include trying to trace people and have them recollect what the motivations were for past actions and also giving effect to any findings which may emerge, bearing in mind that in the intervening period various decisions will have been taken and various payments made. I have a discretion, both as to whether to accept that there has been a reasonable delay in presenting a complaint to me and more generally in determining whether to accept any complaint for investigation. In exercising those discretions I have decided not to investigate or issue a determination about any actions of the Respondents prior to the Definitive Trust Deed of 1995. That is not to say that I am not having regard to events before 1995 so far as they are relevant to the issues which I am investigating. But it does mean that I have not sought to investigate Dr Marks' claim that he was misled in 1991 as to the policy about discretionary increases at the time when he retired and made his choice about commutation.

Note the illogic in "In exercising those discretions I have decided not to investigate or issue a determination about any actions of the Respondents prior to the Definitive Trust Deed of 1995.".

The discretions referred to are discretions to accept or not accept complaints.  They are not discretions that relieve the Ombudsman of his duties in investigating those complaints that he does accept.

Note the nuanced wording of

"That is not to say that I am not having regard to events before 1995 so far as they are relevant to the issues which I am investigating."

The Ombudsman does not say he is not having regard, and he does not say he is having regard.  It would be perverse if he did the latter, since the complaints described above have relevant events prior to 1995 and they are disregarded in the determination.

This paragraph 13 is where the Ombudsman chooses not to uphold many of the complaints by not investigating them.