The Credit Ombudsman Service has amended its rules to provide new exemptions from the controversial requirement that, once a complaint has been recorded by COSL and for as long as COSL is dealing with the complaint, a financial service provider must not commence or continue with enforcement action, sell a debt or list a default on a consumer's credit file.COSL may permit the financial service provider to initiate or continue enforcement action if the issues raised by the complainant are not relevant to the enforcement action. Another circumstance would be where another mortgagee would proceed to sell the secured property held by the financial service provider as security.These changes are included in an updated set of rules covering the extension of COSL's service to cover privacy-related complaints and clarifying a number of issues, such as the time limits for complaints, awarding of interest and compensation for damages.Another significant change relates to financial hardship. COSL can require a financial service provider to vary the terms of a credit facility in cases of financial hardship. That rule has applied where the credit contract was regulated under the National Consumer Credit Protection Act. The updated rule permits such an order to be made in relation to unregulated credit contracts as well.Under recent amendments to the Privacy Act, a credit provider must be a member of an external dispute resolution scheme recognised by the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner if it intends to participate in the comprehensive credit reporting system. COSL is a recognised EDR scheme and can deal with privacy-related complaints.The new rules clarify that a complaint must be made within six years from the time that the complainant became aware (or should reasonably have been aware) that they suffered loss, or two years from when a final response was given by the financial institution's internal dispute resolution process.And COSL may order compensation for non-financial loss or damage if it satisfied that the financial service provider harrassed the complainant, unnecessarily delayed the time taken to resolve the situation or interfered with the complainant's privacy.